Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T05:42:07.087Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2009

K. de Roest ,
C. Montanari ,
T. Fowler  and
W. Baltussen
K. de Roest*
Affiliation:
Research Centre on Animal Production (CRPA), Reggio Emilia, Italy
C. Montanari
Affiliation:
Research Centre on Animal Production (CRPA), Reggio Emilia, Italy
T. Fowler
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, Milton Keynes, UK
W. Baltussen
Affiliation:
Agricultural Economics Research Institute, The Hague, Netherlands
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

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 €ct 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.

Keywords

castration with anaesthesiaimmunocastrationentire malespig production costs
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 3 , Issue 11 , November 2009 , pp. 1522 - 1531
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Animal Sciences Group (ASG) 2007. Verdoofd castreren in de varkenshouderij, rapport 73. Animal Sciences Group, Wageningen UR, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Baltussen, W, Backus, GBC, Hennen, WHGJ 2008. Economische effecten van het per direct stoppen met castratie van beerbiggen in Nederland, rapport 5.08.02. LEI, Den Haag, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Bonneau, M, Ouedraogo, A, Prunier, A, Courboulay, V, Fredriksen, B, Oliver, MA 2009. Castration des porcs mâles: pratique actuelles et opinions des porteurs d’enjeux en Europe. Journées de la Recherche Porcine en France 41, 225–230.Google Scholar
BPEX 2007. Pig cost of production in selected countries. British Pig Executive Ltd – AHDP Meat Services, Milton Keynes, UK.Google Scholar
Cronin, GM, Dunshea, FR, Butler, KL, McCauley, I, Barnett, JL, Hemsworth, PH 2003. The effects of immuno- and surgical-castration on the behaviour and consequently growth of group-housed, male finisher pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81, 111–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunshea, FR, Colantoni, C, Howard, K, McCauley, I, Jackson, P, Long, KA, Lopaticki, S, Nugent, EA, Simons, JA, Walker, J, Hennessy, DP 2001. Vaccination of boars with a GnRH vaccine (Improvac) eliminates boar taint and increases growth performance. Journal of Animal Science 79, 2524–2535.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eijck, I, van der Peet-Schwering, C, Kiezebrink, M, Vink, A 2007. Effect of castration of organic swine with anaesthesia on the veterinary costs and physical work load of pig farmer. Tijdschrift voor Diergeneeskunde 12, 476–479.Google Scholar
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) 2004. Welfare aspects of the castration of piglets. The EFSA Journal 91, 1–18.Google Scholar
Hennessy, D 2006. Global control of boar taint. Part 4. Immunological castration in action. Pig Progress 6, 14–16.Google Scholar
Jaros, P, Burgi, P, Stark, KDC, Claus, R, Hennessy, D, Thun, R 2005. Effect of active immunization against GnRH on androstenone concentration, growth performance and carcass quality in intact male pigs. Livestock Production Science 92, 31–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kluivers-Poodt, M, Gerritzen, MA, Hindle, V, Smolders, M, Kuijken, N 2008. Castratie van biggen met CO2/O2-verdoving. Animal Sciences Group, Lelystad, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Lahrmann, KH, Kmiec, M, Stecher, R 2006. Die Saugferkelkastration mit der Ketamin/Azaperon- Allgemein anaesthesie: tierschutzkonform, praktikabel, aber wirtschaftlich? Der Praktische Tierarzt 87, 802–809.Google Scholar
Oliver, WT, McCauley, I, Harrell, RJ, Suster, D, Kerton, DJ, Dunshea, FR 2003. A gonadotropin-releasing factor vaccine (Improvac) and porcine somatotropin have synergistic and additive effects on growth performance in group-housed boars and gilts. Journal of Animal Science 81, 1959–1966.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raaflaub, M, Genoni, M, Kampf, D 2008. Economical impacts of alternatives to the castration of piglets without pain relief. Schweizerische Hochschule fur Landwirtschaft (SHL), Zollikofen, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Turkstra, JA, Zeng, XY, van Diepen, JTM, Jongbloed, AW, Oonk, HB, van de Wiel, DFM, Meloen, RH 2002. Performance of male pigs immunised against GnRH is related to the time of onset of biological response. Journal of Animal Science 80, 2953–2959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, B, Jaggin, N, Doherr, M, Schatzmann, U 2004. Inhalation anaesthesia for castration of newborn piglets: experience with Isoflurane and Isoflurane/N2O. Journal of Veterinary Medicine 51, 150–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wenger, S, Jäggin, N, Doherr, M, Schatzmann, U 2002. Die Halothanästhesie zur Kastration des Saugferkels Machbarkeitsstudie und Kosten-Nutzen-Analyse. Tierärtzliche Praxis 30, 164–170.Google Scholar
Xue, JL, Dial, GD, Pettigrew, JE 1997. Performance, carcass and meat quality advantages of boars over barrows: a literature review. Swine Health and Production 5, 21–28.Google Scholar
Zeng, XY, Turkstra, JA, Jongbloed, AW, van Diepen, JTM, Meloen, RH, Oonk, HB, Guo, DZ, van de Wiel, DFM 2002. Performance and hormone levels of immunocastrated, surgically castrated and intact male pigs fed ad libitum high- and low-energy diets. Livestock Production Science 77, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar