IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i12p3335-d240374.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sustainability of Pork Production with Immunocastration in Europe

Author

Listed:
  • Kevin Kress

    (Department of Behavioral Physiology of Livestock, Institute of Animal Science, University of Hohenheim, Garbenstraße 17, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany)

  • Sam Millet

    (ILVO (Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food), Scheldeweg 68, 9090 Melle, Belgium)

  • Étienne Labussière

    (Department of Feeding and Nutrition—Physiology, Environment, and Genetics for the Animal and Livestock Systems, Institut national de la recherche agronomique, Agrocampus Quest, 35590 Saint-Gilles, France)

  • Ulrike Weiler

    (Department of Behavioral Physiology of Livestock, Institute of Animal Science, University of Hohenheim, Garbenstraße 17, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany)

  • Volker Stefanski

    (Department of Behavioral Physiology of Livestock, Institute of Animal Science, University of Hohenheim, Garbenstraße 17, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany)

Abstract

Immunocastration, a technique to replace surgical castration of piglets, consists of two consecutive vaccinations to induce antibodies which transiently suppress testicular functions and avoid boar taint. It is a method to ensure both a high product quality and a high level of animal welfare. The impact of immunocastration on the three pillars of sustainability has been studied extensively. While all aspects of sustainability have been studied separately, however, a contemporary global overview of different aspects is missing. In immunocastrates, performance results are better than in barrows, but worse than in boars. The environmental impact of pork production with immunocastrates is lower than with barrows, but higher than with boars. The level of aggression is considerably lower in immunocastrates compared to boars. Societal concerns are mainly related to food safety, and are not supported by scientific evidence. After second vaccination, immunocastrates switch from a boar- to a barrow-like status. Therefore, the timing of second vaccination is a fine-tuning tool to balance advantages of boars with environmental and economic benefits against increased risk of welfare problems and boar taint. Nevertheless, both synergic and conflicting relationships between the pillars of sustainability must be communicated along the value chain to produce tailored pork products.

Suggested Citation

  • Kevin Kress & Sam Millet & Étienne Labussière & Ulrike Weiler & Volker Stefanski, 2019. "Sustainability of Pork Production with Immunocastration in Europe," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-20, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:12:p:3335-:d:240374
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/12/3335/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/12/3335/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Verhaagh, Mandes & Deblitz, Claus, 2019. "Wirtschaftlichkeit der Alternativen zur betäubungslosen Ferkelkastration - Aktualisierung und Erweiterung der betriebswirtschaftlichen Berechnungen," Thünen Working Papers 110, Johann Heinrich von Thünen Institute, Federal Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries.
    2. Paulo J. U. De Moraes & Jim Allison & Joseph A. Robinson & Gian Luca Baldo & Fabrizio Boeri & Paola Borla, 2013. "Life Cycle Assessment (Lca) And Environmental Product Declaration (Epd) Of An Immunological Product For Boar Taint Control In Male Pigs," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(01), pages 1-26.
    3. Gerard T. Vondeling & Qi Cao & Maarten J. Postma & Mark H. Rozenbaum, 2018. "The Impact of Patent Expiry on Drug Prices: A Systematic Literature Review," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 16(5), pages 653-660, October.
    4. Van Loo, Ellen J. & Caputo, Vincenzina & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Verbeke, Wim, 2014. "Consumers’ valuation of sustainability labels on meat," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P1), pages 137-150.
    5. Ingenbleek, Paul T.M. & Immink, Victor M. & Spoolder, Hans A.M. & Bokma, Martien H. & Keeling, Linda J., 2012. "EU animal welfare policy: Developing a comprehensive policy framework," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 690-699.
    6. Verhaagh, Mandes & Deblitz, Claus, 2019. "Wirtschaftlichkeit der Alternativen zur betäubungslo-sen Ferkelkastration – Aktualisierung und Erweite-rung der betriebswirtschaftlichen Berechnungen," Thünen Working Paper 287200, Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut (vTI), Federal Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mandes Verhaagh, 2024. "Comparison of the Competitiveness for Danish, Dutch, and German Piglet Producers under Consideration of Country-Specific Methods of Piglet Castration with Anesthesia," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-12, October.
    2. Von Hardenberg, Louisa & Heise, Heinke, 2018. "German Pig Farmers’ Attitudes Towards Farm Animal Welfare And Their Willingness To Participate In Animal Welfare Programs: An Empirical Study," 2018 International European Forum (163rd EAAE Seminar), February 5-9, 2018, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 276867, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    3. Grunenberg, Michael & Henning, Christian H. C. A., 2019. "Communicational and lobbying power in German farm animal welfare politics," Working Papers of Agricultural Policy WP2019-01, University of Kiel, Department of Agricultural Economics, Chair of Agricultural Policy.
    4. Kevin Kress & Mandes Verhaagh, 2019. "The Economic Impact of German Pig Carcass Pricing Systems and Risk Scenarios for Boar Taint on the Profitability of Pork Production with Immunocastrates and Boars," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-11, September.
    5. Craig Chibanda & Katrin Agethen & Claus Deblitz & Yelto Zimmer & Mohamad. I. Almadani & Hildegard Garming & Christa Rohlmann & Johan Schütte & Petra Thobe & Mandes Verhaagh & Lena Behrendt & Daniel.T., 2020. "The Typical Farm Approach and Its Application by the Agri Benchmark Network," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-24, December.
    6. Sirkka Schukat & Louisa von Plettenberg & Heinke Heise, 2020. "Animal Welfare Programs in Germany—An Empirical Study on the Attitudes of Pig Farmers," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-17, December.
    7. von Hardenberg, Louisa & Heise, Heinke, 2018. "German Pig Farmers’ Attitudes towards Animal Welfare Programs and their Willingness to Participate in these Programs: An Empirical Study," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 9(3), June.
    8. Matthias Staudigel & Aleksej Trubnikov, 2022. "High price premiums as barriers to organic meat demand? A hedonic analysis considering species, cut and retail outlet," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 66(2), pages 309-334, April.
    9. Danilo Bertoni & Daniele Cavicchioli & Franco Donzelli & Giovanni Ferrazzi & Dario G. Frisio & Roberto Pretolani & Elena Claire Ricci & Vera Ventura, 2018. "Recent Contributions of Agricultural Economics Research in the Field of Sustainable Development," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-20, December.
    10. Yokessa, Maïmouna & Marette, Stéphan, 2019. "A Review of Eco-labels and their Economic Impact," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 13(1-2), pages 119-163, April.
    11. Yan, Zhen & Zhou, Jie-hong, 2015. "Measuring consumer heterogeneous preferences for pork traits under media reports: choice experiment in sixteen traceability pilot cities, China," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212609, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Chiara Mazzocchi & Guido Sali, 2022. "Supporting mountain agriculture through “mountain product” label: a choice experiment approach," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 701-723, January.
    13. Mattia Rapa & Laura Gobbi & Roberto Ruggieri, 2020. "Environmental and Economic Sustainability of Electric Vehicles: Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Costing Evaluation of Electricity Sources," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-16, November.
    14. Sylwia Żakowska-Biemans & Agnieszka Tekień, 2017. "Free Range, Organic? Polish Consumers Preferences Regarding Information on Farming System and Nutritional Enhancement of Eggs: A Discrete Choice Based Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-16, November.
    15. Bonnet, Céline & Bouamra-Mechemache, Zohra & Réquillart, Vincent & Treich, Nicolas, 2020. "Viewpoint: Regulating meat consumption to improve health, the environment and animal welfare," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    16. Richartz, P. Christoph & Abdulai, Awudu & Kornher, Lukas, 2020. "Attribute Non Attendance and Consumer Preferences for Online Food Products in Germany," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 69(1), March.
    17. Katherine Fuller & Carola Grebitus, 2023. "Consumers' preferences and willingness to pay for coffee sustainability labels," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(4), pages 1007-1025, October.
    18. Aaron J. Staples & Trey Malone & J. Robert Sirrine, 2021. "Hopping on the localness craze: What brewers want from state‐grown hops," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(2), pages 463-473, March.
    19. Elofsson, Katarina & Bengtsson, Niklas & Matsdotter, Elina & Arntyr, Johan, 2016. "The impact of climate information on milk demand: Evidence from a field experiment," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 14-23.
    20. Gumirakiza, Jean Dominique & VanZee, Sarah, 2018. "The Most Important Food Labels among Online Shoppers when Shopping for Fresh Produce," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266683, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:12:p:3335-:d:240374. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.