IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/jhimwp/287200.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Wirtschaftlichkeit der Alternativen zur betäubungslo-sen Ferkelkastration – Aktualisierung und Erweite-rung der betriebswirtschaftlichen Berechnungen

Author

Listed:
  • Verhaagh, Mandes
  • Deblitz, Claus

Abstract

The ban of piglet castration without anaesthesia should come into force on 01.01.2019. On 29 November 2019, the German Bundestag extended this deadline by two years because politicians and industry were unable to agree on one or more of the available alternatives. The change in the law means that pig-farms in Germany will have to change their present practices. The strategies discussed are fattening of entire males, vaccination against boar taint (so-called immunocastration), castration using various anaesthetic methods and local anaesthesia. Building on Working Paper 64 (Verhaagh & Deblitz, 2016), the aim of this study is to provide an updated analysis of the economic effects of these alternative methods and to compare their eco-nomic viability. The first step is to specify a reference situation (baseline) with the current practice of castrating male piglets without anaesthesia. Data from 11 typical pig farms in the most important regions of Germany with different numbers of animals and production methods (specialised piglet production or pig finishing, closed system) were used. Then the alternatives of the current practice and their effects on the performance data as well as the costs and revenues are defined. The baseline and the alternatives are evaluated in a total cost analysis because, in addition to direct costs, investments and overheads are also affected. Variation calculations for prices, performance data and application methods complete the analysis. The costs of boar finishing with vaccination (immunocastration) are compensated by the higher performance of the animals and a better feed conversion. Boar fattening – i.e. the abandonment of castration measures – is less profitable due to reduced payments by the German slaughter industry (boar price mask). There are also regional differences between the two methods. The effects of the surgical measure are more homogeneous between the farm types and regions in Germany: among the two measures of general anaesthesia, injection anaesthesia is the most expensive, followed by inhalation anaesthesia with isoflurane. Local anaesthesia, also known as the "fourth way" (anaesthesia of the testicles during castration), has significantly lower costs. An important reason for the higher costs of anaesthesia procedures is the fact that based on the present legislation they may only be performed by veterinarians. Variation calculations show that the costs for all measures decrease under the assumption that the farmers are allowed to carry them out themselves. A corresponding implementing regulation for isoflurane anaesthesia is in preparation.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:jhimwp:287200
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.287200
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/287200/files/dn060351.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.287200?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    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. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agribusiness; Farm Management;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ags:jhimwp:287200. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/imagvde.html .

    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.