Dutch research on stopping castration

dr.ir. Gé Backus

April 2013

Research

Interdisciplinaryconsumer behaviour, supply chain management, farm

management, economics, animal behaviour, genetics, feeding

Business - science cooperationgenetics, detection, feeding

International cooperation between science groupsEU BoarCheck: rapid detection methods

EU CAMPIG: consumer acceptance

Setting the stage

Non-castration: animal welfare

Less feed efficiency

● better economics

● better for environment

Boar taint: side effect of non castration that has to be prevented

‘No boar taint’ condition for market acceptance

Developments in castrating male pigs by country

0

20

40

60

80

100

Germany Spain France Poland Denmark Netherlands Italy Belgium UnitedKingdom

Austria Sw eden CzechRepublic

2006 2012

2006 data from PIGCAS project

Quality checkmore than 1.5 million boars tested in The Netherlands!

Boar taint: consumer research

Marcel Kornelis, Harriette Snoek, Gemma Tacken

Price and taste!!!!

Animal welfare and

the environment

Importance food quality attributes

Good for health

Affordable

Tasty

Safe

Convenient

Feel good with

Honestly produced

Animal friendly

Well known to me

Traditional

Environmental friendly

Looking good

Not important Important

2008: test with 196 consumers

0.00

1.002.00

3.00

4.00

5.006.00

7.00

Lekk

er

geur

aang

enaa

m

smaa

kaan

gena

am

geur

acce

ptab

el

afwijk

ende

geur

smaa

kacc

epta

bl

vette

smaa

k

afwijk

ends

maa

k

gelt

detectie -

detectie +

Tasty Pleasant Pleasant Acceptable Deviating Acceptable Fatty Deviating smell taste smell smell taste taste taste

Gilt

Detection –

Detection +

Meat from boars that passed quality check (detection-) matches meat from gilts

2010: Quality perception of boar meat with high levels of

androstenone and skatole in a home environment

Results• Boar meat with high levels of andronstenone and skatole lower quality than gilt meat• No evidence for adjustment effects after presenting boar-tainted boar chops for 2nd time• Also: Consumer sensitivity of And/Skatol related to quality scores of boar-tainted meat

Consumers having difficulty to smell boar taint

Lowest human nose score

Highest human nose score

2011: Survey of household consumption

Survey Sample size

Sample period Key characteristics

February 2011

202 5 days in 5 weeks Quality judgments of both the cook and one household member

October 2011

240 6 days in 6 weeks Different parts of the boar’s carcass Both Dutch and German consumers

October 2011

120 4 days in 4 weeks 4 types of sausages

January 2012

120 1 day in 1 week Differences in product information

Questions• Is there a difference in evaluation between cook and other family members?• Are some parts of the carcass more risky than others?• Does product information influence sensory evaluation?

Empirical results so far

Properly tested meat from boars evaluated as normal

Consumers smell boar tainted meat

Consumer sensitivity related to quality scores

No training effect over time

Consumer differences larger than between pigs

Androstenon important when preparing meat

Consumers can be influenced by product information

Taste much more important consumer attribute than smell

Upper bound

Baseline salesLower bound-2000

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52

3,6

3,7

3,7

3,8

3,8

3,9

3,9

4,0

4,0

4,1

Bacon Bacon corrected Residual variation Price bacon

In store experiments: Monitoring sales

Breeding against boar taint

Pramod Mathur & Egbert Knol

Androstenone, skatol and the human nose score are heritable

Searching regions on the chromosome having a relation

with boar taint: Breeding effectivity twice as high

SNP (single-nucleotide polymorphism) is a DNA sequence variation occurring when a single nucleotide in the genome (or other shared sequence) differs between members of a biological species or paired chromosomes in an animal

Response to selection

• Costs of selection to reduce boar taint are limited (combined with reproduction traits)• Selection to reduce boar taint is even cost-effective when using incentives

Results genetics and breeding research

• Breeding research has helped select terminal sires that can significantly reduce (40%) boar taint in commercial crosses

• Reducing boar taint (25%) from the dam side also necessary

• Costs of selection on boar taint limited (combine with other traits)

• Selection on boar taint cost-effective when using incentives price differentiation for farms with high-low boar taint levels

• Still a long way to go Estimates of genetic correlations and breeding simulations suggest possible negative effects on some reproduction traits

• Combined approach boar taint and production traits necessary

Economics of producing and marketing intact male pigs

Better on farm productivity

Daily gain (+ 25 gr), better feed efficiency (8-10%) + € 6,-

Higher Feed Price - € 2,-

Higher % Meat (+2%) + € 2,-

Net farm level result per male slaughter pig + € 6,-

Higher cost slaughter plant

Estimated testing cost - € 1½

Estimated average lower price detected carcasses - € ½

Estimated net result slaughter plant - € 2,-

Long term potential benefit per pig + € 4,-

Wrap up: main overall findings

Consumer studies•Properly tested meat from boars evaluated as normal•Consumers smell boar tainted meat, some better than others•No training effect over time•Consumer differences larger than between pigs•Taste much more important consumer attribute than smell

Breeding•Terminal sires are selected that can significantly reduce (40%) boar taint•Reducing boar taint (25%) from the dam side also necessary•Costs of selection on boar taint limited (combine with other traits)•Selection on boar taint cost-effective when using incentives •Still long way to go: Combined approach boar taint and production traits

Detection•Humane nose score highest agreement with score by the consumer•Agreement higher than with lab analysis of androstenone and skatole

Farm management•Mounting behaviour: a lot of variation between farms•Productivity: lower feed conversion, higher daily gain and higher % meat

Economics•Substantial long term potential benefit of up to 4 euro per pig

Thank you for your attention!