Resource efficiency and economic implications of alternatives to surgical castration without anaesthesia

Abstract

This paper presents an analysis of the economic implications of alternative methods to surgical castration without anaesthesia. Detailed research results on the economic implications of four different alternatives are reported: castration with local anaesthesia, castration with general anaesthesia, immunocastration and raising entire males. The first three alternatives have been assessed for their impact on pig production costs in the most important pig-producing Member States of the EU. The findings on castration with anaesthesia show that cost differences among farms increase if the anaesthesia cannot be administered by farmers and when the veterinarian has to be called to perform it. The cost of veterinarian service largely affects the total average costs, making this solution economically less feasible in small-scale pig farms. In all other farms, the impact on production costs of local anaesthesia is however limited and does not exceed 1 hct per kg. General anaesthesia administered by inhalation or injection of Ketamin in combination with a sedative (Azaperone, Midazolan) is more expensive. These costs depend heavily on farm size, as the inhalation equipment has to be depreciated on the largest number of pigs possible. The overall costs of immunocastration -including the cost of the work load for the farmer -has to be evaluated against the potential benefits derived from higher daily weight gain and feed efficiency in comparison with surgical castrates. The economic feasibility of this practice will finally depend on the price of the vaccine and on consumer acceptance of immunocastration. The improvement in feed efficiency may compensate almost entirely for the cost of vaccination. The main advantages linked to raising entire males are due to the higher efficiency of feed conversion, to the better growth rate and to the higher leanness of carcass. A higher risk of boar taint on the slaughter line has to be accounted for. Raising entire males should not generate more than 2.5% of boar taint among slaughter pigs, in order to maintain the considerable economic benefits of better feed efficiency of entire males with respect to castrates.

A performance test for boar taint compounds in live boars

“…Finishing intact boars can be an economically advantageous alternative to surgical castration (de Roest et al, 2009;Lundströ m et al, 2009). Because of the high heritability of boar taint compounds, breeding is an excellent tool to reduce the number of tainted carcasses.…”

“…Other alternatives, such as sperm sexing methods to produce only female offspring, are not expected to be ready for implementation in the foreseeable future. Excellent reviews on welfare aspects (von Borell et al, 2009), meat quality considerations ) and economic implications (de Roest et al, 2009) of the various alternatives have been published. Although approved for use in over 60 countries worldwide, immunocastration is regarded sceptically by many retailers and consumers because of fear of residues in meat and unknown long-term effects on humans (Fredriksen et al, 2011).…”

Consumer response to the possible use of a vaccine method to control boar taint v. physical piglet castration with anaesthesia: a quantitative study in four European countries

“…Though this method can be very effective in eliminating boar taint, it is very much contested and subject to public concern because of its negative impact on the animal's welfare and integrity. As such, it is very unlikely to be tenable as a future practice within the European Union (EU; de Roest et al, 2009). For instance, Norway (since 2002), Switzerland (since 2010) and the organic farming sector in the Netherlands (since July 2007) have already banned physical castration without anaesthesia.…”

Efficiency of genomic prediction for boar taint reduction in Danish Landrace pigs

“…For example, immunocastration is one alternative, involving vaccination to inhibit testicular function, but problems arise due to cost (de Roest et al . 2009), the need for repeated vaccinations (Squires & Bonneau 2004) and variation in vaccine response (Bonneau et al . 1994; Turkstra et al .…”