Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T13:48:40.959Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of feed restriction on the performance and behaviour of pigs immunologically castrated with Improvac®*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 February 2012

N. Quiniou ,
M. Monziols ,
F. Colin ,
T. Goues  and
V. Courboulay
N. Quiniou*
Affiliation:
IFIP – Institut du Porc, BP 35104, F-35651 Le Rheu Cedex, France
M. Monziols
Affiliation:
IFIP – Institut du Porc, BP 35104, F-35651 Le Rheu Cedex, France
F. Colin
Affiliation:
PFIZER – Division santé animale, 23–25, avenue du Dr Lannelongue, F-75668 Paris Cedex 14, France
T. Goues
Affiliation:
IFIP – Institut du Porc, BP 35104, F-35651 Le Rheu Cedex, France
V. Courboulay
Affiliation:
IFIP – Institut du Porc, BP 35104, F-35651 Le Rheu Cedex, France
*
†E-mail: nathalie.quiniou@ifip.asso.fr
Get access

Abstract

For centuries, entire male pigs have been castrated to reduce the risk of boar taint. However, physical castration of pig is increasingly being questioned with regard to animal welfare considerations. Immunization against gonadotrophin releasing hormone (GnRH) provides an alternative to physical castration. Using the currently available commercial product (Improvac®; Pfizer Animal Health), a two-dose regimen of a GnRH vaccine is administered. After the second vaccination, a substantial increase in feed consumption has been reported, which may be associated with increased body fatness and decreased feed efficiency when compared with unvaccinated entire male pigs. The aim of the present study was to investigate the effect of a feed restriction on these traits and on the behaviour of 120 group-housed entire males (five pigs/pen) vaccinated against GnRH. The first vaccination was performed at 62 days of age and the second (V2) at 130 days of age. Pigs were slaughtered in two batches 4 to 5 weeks after V2. They were either offered feed ad libitum over the 22 to 114 kg BW range (AL treatment) or ad libitum up to a maximum of 2.50 (R2.50 treatment) or 2.75 kg/day per pig (R2.75 treatment). Behavioural observations and skin lesion scoring were conducted 1 week before V2, and 1 and 3 weeks after V2. At slaughter, the volumetric lean meat content was measured using an X-ray computed tomography scanner. Between V2 and slaughter, the average feed intakes for the R2.75 and R2.50 treatments were 15% and 22% lower than the average AL feed intake (3.20 kg/day), respectively. Feed restriction was associated with a reduced average daily gain after V2 (846, 932 and 1061 g/day in the R2.50, R2.75 and AL groups, P < 0.01) but had no effect on the feed conversion ratio (3.00 kg feed/kg BW gain on average, P = 0.62). No difference was observed in the lean meat content (71.8%, 70.7% and 70.4% in the R2.50, R2.75 and AL groups, P = 0.14), despite a reduced backfat thickness measured in restrictively fed pigs (12.0, 13.0 and 13.6 mm in the R2.50, R2.75 and AL groups, P < 0.01). Higher skin lesion scores were observed 3 weeks after V2 in R2.50 and R2.75 pigs than in the AL ones (scores 33.4, 27.7 and 25.5, respectively, P = 0.04). These results, combined with an unimproved feed efficiency and no marked change in carcass characteristics, suggest that immunologically castrated pigs should not be restrictively fed during the late finishing period.

Keywords

behaviourfeed intakeperformancevaccination against GnRHmale pig
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 6 , Issue 9 , September 2012 , pp. 1420 - 1426
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2012

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.)

Footnotes

*

A partial summary of these results was presented at the 62nd meeting of the European Association for Animal Production (Stavanger, Norway, 29 August–2 September 2011).

References

Batorek, N, Čandek-Potokar, M, Bonneau, M, Van Milgen, J 2012. Meta-analysis of the effect of immunocastration on production performance, reproductive organs and boar taint compounds in pigs. Animal, doi:10.1017/S1751731112000146.Google ScholarPubMed
Bauer, A, Lacorn, M, Claus, R 2009. Effects of two levels of feed allocation on IGF-I concentrations and metabolic parameters in GnRH-immunized boars. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 93, 744–753.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bikker, P 1994. Protein and lipid accretion in body components of growing pigs. Effects of body weight and nutrient intake. PhD, Wageningen Agricultural University.Google Scholar
Bonneau, M, Dufour, R, Chouvet, C, Roulet, C, Meadus, W, Squires, E 1994. The effects of immunization against luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone on performance, sexual development, and levels of boar taint-related compounds in intact male pigs. Journal of Animal Science 72, 14–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, RG, Taverner, MR 1988. Genotype and sex effects on the relationship between energy intake and protein deposition in growing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 66, 676–686.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Claus, R, Weiler, U 1994. Endocrine regulation of growth and metabolism in the pig: a review. Livestock Production Science 37, 245–260.CrossRefGoogle 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
Fàbrega, E, Velarde, A, Cros, J, Gispert, M, Suárez, P, Tibau, J, Soler, J 2010. Effect of vaccination against gonadotrophin-releasing hormone, using Improvac®, on growth performance, body composition, behaviour and acute phase proteins. Livestock Science 132, 53–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fredriksen, B, Font I Furnols, M, Lundström, K, Migdal, W, Prunier, A, Tuyttens, FMA, Bonneau, M 2009. Practice on castration of piglets in Europe. Animal 3, 1480–1487.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hémonic, A, Courboulay, V, Kuhn, G, McLaughlin, CL, Martin, VA, Brock, FC, Pearce, MC 2009. Evaluation of the safety, efficacy and production benefits of vaccination against boar taint in male pigs raised under commercial field conditions in France. Revue de Médecine Vétérinaire 160, 383–393.Google Scholar
Lealiifano, AK, Pluske, JR, Nicholls, RR, Dunshea, FR, Campbell, RG, Hennessy, DP, Miller, DW, Hansen, CF, Mullan, BP 2011. Reducing the length of time between slaughter and the secondary gonadotropin-releasing factor immunization improves growth performance and clears boar taint compounds in male finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 89, 2782–2792.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pauly, C, Spring, P, O′Doherty, JV, Ampuero Kragten, S, Bee, G 2009. Growth performance, carcass characteristics and meat quality of group-penned surgically castrated, immunocastrates (Improvac®) and entire male pigs and individually penned entire male pigs. Animal 3, 1057–1066.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quiniou, N, Dourmad, JY, Noblet, J 1996. Effect of energy intake on the performance of different types of pigs from 45 to 100 kg body weight: 1. Protein and lipid deposition. Animal Science 63, 277–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quiniou, N, Courboulay, V, Salaün, Y, Chevillon, P 2010. Impact of the non castration of male pigs on growth performance and behaviour – comparison with barrows and gilts. Conference at the 61st Annual Meeting of the European Association for Animal Production, Heraklion, Crete Island, Greece, 7pp.Google Scholar
Škrlep, M, Šegula, B, Zajec, M, Kastelic, M, Košorok, S, Fazarinc, G, Čandek Potokar, M 2010. Effect of immunocastration (Improvac) in fattening pigs. I: Growth performance, reproductive organs and malodorous compounds. Slovenian Veterinary Research 47, 57–64.Google Scholar
Walstra, P, Merkus, GSM 1996. Procedure for assessment of the lean meat percentage as a consequence of the new EU reference dissection method in pig carcass classification. Report 96.014, Research Institute for Animal Science and Health (ID – DLO), 22 pp.Google Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2009. Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for pigs. In Welfare Quality® Consortium (coord. HJ Blokhuis), 119pp. Lelystad, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Zamaratskaia, G, Andersson, HK, Chen, G, Andersson, K, Madej, A, Lundström, K 2008. Effect of a gonadotropin-releasing hormone vaccine (Improvac™) on steroid hormones, boar taint compounds and performance in entire male pigs. Reproduction in Domestic Animals 43, 351–359.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed