Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T04:30:34.888Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Belgian consumers’ attitude towards surgical castration and immunocastration of piglets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

F Vanhonacker*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Ghent University, Coupure Links 653, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium
W Verbeke
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Ghent University, Coupure Links 653, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium
FAM Tuyttens
Affiliation:
Animal Sciences Unit, Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries (ILVO), Scheldeweg 68, B-9090 Melle, Belgium
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: Filiep.Vanhonacker@UGent.be
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In the vast majority of European countries, piglets are surgically castrated in order to eliminate the risk of boar taint, an odour or flavour that can be present when pork from entire males is cooked. However, surgical castration is the subject of much debate and criticism as a result of its negative implications for piglets’ welfare, integrity and health. At present, there is much ongoing research into potential alternatives, among them immunocastration. This practice involves the injection of a vaccine that inhibits the production of the hormones responsible for boar taint. Although satisfactory results are associated with immunocastration in terms of meat quality and production parameters, uncertainty concerning consumer acceptance is often put forward as a key element in the quest for a successful market introduction. This study focuses on consumer awareness of piglet castration and attitudes towards immunocastration by means of a web-based questionnaire among 225 Flemish consumers. We noted approximately 40% awareness of the routine practice of castrating piglets and this limited awareness is accompanied by a moderate level of concern regarding castration, especially in comparison to food safety and other pork production system-related animal welfare issues. Sixty percent of the sample had a general appreciation for the concept of immunocastration, as opposed to surgical castration. Informing consumers about the potential benefits and/or risks from immunocastration did not tend to have much effect in terms of altering their attitudes. Immunocastration did not emerge as a problem in terms of consumer acceptance: special attention should be paid to consumers’ perception of pricing, food safety and the taste of the meat from immunocastrated pigs.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 2009 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Cronin, GM, Dunshea, FR, Butler, KL, McCauley, I, Barnett, JL and Hemsworth, P 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(2): 111-126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Tavernier, J, Lips, D and Aerts, S 2005 Dier en Welzijn. Uitgeverij Terra-Lannoo nv: Tielt, Belgium. [Title translation: Animal and Welfare]Google Scholar
Dunshea, FR, Colantoni, C, Howard, K, McCauley, I, Jackson, P, Long, KA, Lopaticki, S, Nugent, EA, Simons, JA, Walker, J and Hennessy, D 2001 Vaccination of boars with a GnRH vaccine (Improvac) eliminates boar taint and increases growth performance. Journal of Animal Science 79(10): 25242535Google ScholarPubMed
EFSA 2004 Welfare aspects of the castration of piglets. Scientific Report of the Scientific Panel for Animal Health and Welfare on a Request from the Commission Related to Welfare Aspects of the Castration of Piglets. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/cs/BlobServer/Scientific_Opinion/report_ahaw03_ej91_pigcast_v2_en1,0.pdf. (Accessed 25/8/2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Federation of Veterinarians of Europe 2001 Pig Castration (FVE Position Paper FVE/01/83). FVE: Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
Font i Furnols, M, Gispert, M, Guerrero, L, Velarde, A, Tibau, J, Soler, J, Hortos, M, Garcia-Regueiro, JA, Pérez, J, Suarez, P and Oliver, MA 2008 Consumers’ sensory acceptability of pork from immunocastrated male pigs. Meat Science 80(4): 10131018CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frewer, LJ, Howard, C, Hedderley, D and Shepherd, R 1997 Consumer attitudes towards different food-processing technologies used in cheese production - The influence of consumer benefit. Food Quality and Preference 8: 271280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giffin, BJ, Allison, JRD, Martin, S, Ward, P and Tschopp, A 2008 Consumer acceptance of the use of vaccination to control boar taint. 20th International Pig Veterinary Society. 22-26 June 2008, Durban, South AfricaGoogle Scholar
Hair, J, Black, W, Babin, B, Anderson, R and Tatham, R 2006 Multivariate Data Analysis. Pearson Education Inc: Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USAGoogle Scholar
Harper, G and Henson, S 2001 Consumer Concerns About Animal Welfare and the Impact on Food Choice. EU FAIR CT98-3678 Final Report 38 pp. Available on http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/animal/welfare/eu_fair_project_en.pdf (Accessed 26/11/2008)Google Scholar
Hennessy, D and Newbold, R 2004 Consumer attitudes to a boar taint vaccine, Improvac®: a qualitative study. 18th International Pig Veterinary Society. 27 June-1 July 2004, Hamburg, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Huber-Eicher, B and Spring, P 2008 Attitudes of Swiss consumers towards meat from entire or immunocastrated boars: A representative survey. Research in Veterinary Science 85: 625627Google ScholarPubMed
Ingenbleek, P, Binnekamp, M and Van Trijp, H 2006 Betalen voor dierenwelzijn. Barrières en oplossingsrichtingen in consumenten, en business-to-business markten. Research report. Available on http://www.lei.dlo.nl/publicaties/PDF/2006/5_xxx/5_06_02.pdf (Accessed 26/11/2008). [Title translation: Paying for animal welfare; barriers and possible solutions in consumer and business-to-business markets]Google Scholar
Jaros, P, Burgi, E, Stark, KDC, Claus, R, Hennessy, D and 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(1): 3138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lagerkvist, C, Carlsson, F and Viske, D 2006 Swedish consumer preferences for animal welfare and biotech: a choice experiment. AgBioforum 9(1): 5158Google Scholar
Mittal, B and Lee, MS 1989 A causal model of consumer involvement. Journal of Economic Psychology 10(3): 363389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, RLS 1968 5alpha-androst-16-ene-3-1: compound responsible for taint in boar fat. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 19(1): 3137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PIGCAS 2008 Report on the Evaluation of Research and Other Information. Project No 043969, Attitudes Practices and State of the Art Regarding Piglet Castration in Europe, Deliverable 3.4. http://w3.rennes.inra.fr/pigcas/Public%20reports/D2%204%20Report%20practice.pdf (Accessed 25/8/2009)Google Scholar
Prunier, A and Bonneau, M 2006 Alternatives to piglet castration. Productions Animales 19(5): 347356Google Scholar
Prunier, A, Bonneau, M, von Borell, EH, Cinotti, S, Gunn, M, Fredriksen, B, Giersing, M, Morton, DB, Tuyttens, FAM and Velarde, A 2006 A review of the welfare consequences of surgical castration in piglets and the evaluation of non-surgical methods. Animal Welfare 15(3): 277289Google Scholar
Turkstra, JA, Zeng, XY, van Diepen, JTM, Jongbloed, AW, Oonk, HB, van de Wiel, DFM and 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: 29532959Google Scholar
Vanhonacker, F, Verbeke, W, Van Poucke, E and Tuyttens, FAM 2007 Segmentation based on consumers’ perceived importance and attitude toward farm animal welfare. International Journal of Sociology of Food and Agriculture 15(3): 91107Google Scholar
Vanhonacker, F, Verbeke, W, Van Poucke, E and Tuyttens, FAM 2008 Do citizens and farmers interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently? Livestock Science 116: 126136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Poucke, E, Vanhonacker, F, Nijs, G, Braeckman, J, Verbeke, W and Tuyttens, FAM 2006 Defining the concept of animal welfare: integrating the opinion of citizens and other stakeholders. 6th Congress of the European Society for Agriculture and Food Ethics. 22-24 June 2006, Oslo, NorwayGoogle Scholar
Velarde, A, Gispert, M, Oliver, MA, Soler, J, Tibau, J and Fàbrega, E 2008 The effect of immunocastration on the behaviour of pigs. EAAP-meeting Production and Utilisation of Meat from Entire Male Pigs. 26-27 March 2008, Gerona, SpainGoogle Scholar
Verbeke, W and Viaene, J 2000 Ethical challenges for livestock production: Meeting consumer concerns about meat safety and animal welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 12(2): 141151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verbeke, W and Vackier, I 2004 Profile and effects of consumer involvement in fresh meat. Meat Science 67(1): 159168CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Verbeke, W and Ward, RW 2001 A fresh meat almost ideal demand system incorporating negative TV press and advertising impact. Agricultural Economics 25(2-3): 359374Google Scholar
Verbeke, W 2005 Agriculture and the food industry in the information age. European Review of Agricultural Economics 32(3): 347368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vold, E 1970 Fleischproduktionseigenshaften bei Ebern und kastraten. IV: organoleptischeund gaschromatografische untersuchungen wasserdampfflüchtiger stoffe des rückenspeckes von ebern. Meldinger Nordlandbrukshoegskole 49: 125. [Title translation: Meat production characteristics of boars and castrates IV, organoleptic and gas-liquid chromatographic analyses of steam-volatile substances in the back-fat of boars]Google Scholar
von Borrell, E, Oliver, M, Frederiksen, B, Edwards, S and Bonneau, M 2008 Standpoints, practices and state of information for pig castration in Europe (PIGCAS): Project targets and first results. Journal of Consumer Protection and Food Safety 3(2): 216220Google Scholar
Walstra, P and Maarse, G 1970 Onderzoek geslachtsgeur van mannelijke mestvarkens. IVO-rapport c-147 en rapport n°2 Researchgroep voor Vlees en Vleeswaren TNO, Zeist, The Netherlands. [Title translation: Research for boar taint in male pigs]Google Scholar