Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T17:26:26.959Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Consumer response to the possible use of a vaccine method to control boar taint v. physical piglet castration with anaesthesia: a quantitative study in four European countries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2011

F. Vanhonacker  and
W. Verbeke
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
*
†E-mail: wim.verbeke@UGent.be
Get access

Abstract

In most European countries, male piglets being reared for meat are physically castrated without anaesthesia in order to avoid boar taint and to safeguard sensory meat quality. This method is increasingly criticised for its violation of piglet welfare. Alternative methods are being researched and castration with anaesthesia or analgesia and vaccination (immunisation) against gonadotropin-releasing hormone (using Improvac®, Pfizer GmbH) have been proposed as possible solutions. In addition to efficacy, the successful introduction and adoption of the vaccine method by stakeholders in pig supply chains are expected to depend on a favourable reception by consumers. This large-scale quantitative cross-country study (n = 4031) involving representative samples of consumers in France, Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium does not support the reserved attitude of stakeholders who fear potential low market acceptance. The vaccine method was actually preferred by the majority of consumers surveyed (69.6% of the participants) and it was perceived as equally effective in terms of avoiding boar taint; 43.8% of the consumers reported an intention to seek out pork from pigs where the vaccine had been used to control boar taint, whereas 33.7% reported an intention to avoid pork from pigs physically castrated with anaesthesia. Consumers’ favourable dispositions to the vaccine method were independent of dominant ethical, health or price orientations when purchasing pork.

Keywords

acceptanceconsumer perceptionboar taintphysical castrationvaccine method
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 5 , Issue 7 , 31 May 2011 , pp. 1107 - 1118
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2011

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.)

References

Adams, TE 2005. Using gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) and GnRH analogs to modulate testis function and enhance the productivity of domestic animals. Animal Reproduction Science 88, 127–139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Allison, J 2010. An Improvac® update – understanding the immunized pig and managing for optimal results. IPVS, 21st International Pig Veterinary Society Congress, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
Allison, J, McKeith, F, Souza, C, Boler, D, Killefer, J, Hennessy, D 2009. Impact of using vaccination with Improvac® on the sensory perception of meat from finishing male pigs. ICOMST, 55th International Congress of Meat Science and Technology, Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, J, Laister, S, Koller, M, Pfützner, A, Grodzycki, M, Andrews, S, Schmoll, F 2010. The behaviour of male fattening pigs following either surgical castration or vaccination with a GnRF vaccine. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2010.01.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, L, Walker, J, Hennessy, D, Kreeger, J, Nappier, J, Crane, J 2008. Inherent food safety of a synthetic gonadotropin-releasing factor (GnRF) vaccine for the control of boar taint in entire male pigs. International Journal of Applied Research in Veterinary Medecine 6, 7–14.Google Scholar
de Roest, K, Montanari, C, Fowler, T, Baltussen, W 2009. Resource efficiency and economic implications of alternatives to surgical castration without anaesthesia. Animal 3, 1522–1531.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Tavernier, J, Lips, D, Aerts, S 2005. Dier en Welzijn (Animal and Welfare). Uitgeverij Terra-Lannoo, Tielt.Google Scholar
European Food Safety Authority (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 commision related to welfare aspects of the castration of piglets. EFSA – AHAW/04-087, Parma, Italy. Retrieved February 20, 2010, from http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/ScientificPanels/ahaw/efsa_locale1178620753812_Opinions5.htm.Google Scholar
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
Font i Furnols, M, Gispert, M, Guerrero, L, Velarde, A, Tibau, J, Soler, J, Hortos, M, Garcia-Regueiro, JA, Pérez, J, Suarez, P, Oliver, MA 2008. Consumers’ sensory acceptability of pork from immunocastrated male pigs. Meat Science 80, 1013–1018.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fredriksen, B, Sibeko Johnsen, AM, Skuterud, E 2010. Consumer attitudes towards castration of piglets and alternatives to surgical castration. Research in Veterinary Science (in press), doi:10.1016/j.rvsc.2010.06.018.Google Scholar
Fredriksen, B, Font i Furnols, M, Lundström, K, Migdal, W, Prunier, A, Tuyttens, FAM, Bonneau, M 2009. Practice on castration of piglets in Europe. Animal 3, 1480–1487.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frewer, L 1999. Risk perception, social trust, and public participation in strategic decision making: implications for emerging technologies. AMBIO 28, 569–574.Google Scholar
Giffin, BJ, Allison, JRD, Martin, S, Ward, P, Tschopp, A 2008. Consumer acceptance of the use of vaccination to control boar taint. 20th IPVS Congress, Durban, South Africa.Google Scholar
Grunert, KG, Bredahl, L, Brunsø, K 2004. Consumer perception of meat quality and implications for product development in the meat sector – a review. Meat Science 66, 259–272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harper, G, Henson, S 2001. Consumer concerns about animal welfare and the impact on food choice. EU FAIR CT98-3678, Final Report (Available on: http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/animal/welfare/eu_fair_project_en.pdf (last consulted 20/00/2010)).Google Scholar
Heid, A, Hamm, U 2009. Consumer acceptance of alternatives to piglet castration without anaesthesia. Fleischwirtschaft 89, 93–98.Google Scholar
Heinritzi, K, Ritzmann, M, Otten, W 2006. Alternatives of castration of suckling piglets, determination of catecholamines and woundhealing after castration of suckling piglets at different points of time. Deutsche Tierärztliche Wochentschrift 113, 94–97.Google Scholar
Hennessy, D, Newbold, R 2004. Consumer attitudes to a boar taint vaccine, Improvac® – a qualitative study. Proceedings of the 18th IPVS congress, Hamburg, Germany, 612p.Google Scholar
Huber-Eicher, B, Spring, P 2008. Attitudes of Swiss consumers towards meat from entire or immunocastrated boars: a representative survey. Research in Veterinary Science 85, 625–627.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ICC/ESOMAR (2008). ICC/ESOMAR International Code on Market and Social Research. Retrieved September 1, 2010, from http://www.esomar.orgGoogle Scholar
Jaros, P, Burgi, E, Stark, KDC, Claus, R, Hennessy, D, 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, 31–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krystallis, A, Dutra de Barcellos, M, Kügler, JO, Verbeke, W, Grunert, KG 2009. Attitudes of European citizens towards pig production systems. Livestock Science 126, 46–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lagerkvist, C, Carlsson, F, Viske, D 2006. Swedish consumer preferences for animal welfare and biotech: a choice experiment. AgBioforum 9, 51–58.Google Scholar
Liljenstolpe, C 2008. Evaluating animal welfare with choice experiments: an application to Swedish pig production. Agribusiness 24, 67–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackinnon, JD, Pearce, MC 2007. Improvac (Pfizer Animal Health): an immunological product for the control of boar taint in male pigs. Boar taint and its control and the mode of action, safety and efficiacy of Improvac. The Pig Journal 59, 29–67.Google Scholar
Prunier, A, Bonneau, M 2006. Alternatives to piglet castration. Productions Animales 19, 347–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prunier, A, Bonneau, M, von Borell, EH, Cinotti, S, Gunn, M, Fredriksen, B, Giersing, M, Morton, DB, Tuyttens, FAM, Velarde, A 2006. A review of the welfare consequences of surgical castration in piglets and the evaluation of non-surgical methods. Animal Welfare 15, 277–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spring, P, Kupper, T, Pauly, C 2009. ProSchwein: alternatives to the conventional castration of piglets. Agrarforschung 16, 16–21.Google Scholar
Turkstra, JA, Zeng, XY, van Diepen, JTM, Jongbloed, AW, Oonk, HB, van de Wiel, DFM, 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, 2953–2959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanhonacker, F, Verbeke, W 2009. Buying higher welfare poultry products? Profiling Flemish consumers who do and do not. Poultry Science 88, 2702–2711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanhonacker, F, Verbeke, W, Tuyttens, FAM 2009. Belgian consumers’ attitude towards surgical castration and immunocastration of piglets. Animal Welfare 18, 371–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanhonacker, F, Verbeke, W, Van Poucke, E, Tuyttens, FAM 2007. Do citizens and farmers interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently? Livestock Science 116, 126–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verbeke, W 2009. Stakeholder, citizen and consumer interests in farm animal welfare. Animal Welfare 18, 325–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verbeke, W, Viaene, J 1999. Beliefs, attitude and behaviour towards fresh meat consumption in Belgium: empirical evidence from a consumer survey. Food Quality and Preference 10, 437–445.Google Scholar
Verbeke, W, Ward, RW 2001. A fresh meat almost ideal demand system incorporating negative TV press and advertising impact. Agricultural Economics 25, 359–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verbeke, W, Viaene, J, Guiot, O 1999. Health communication and consumer behaviour on meat in Belgium: from BSE until dioxin. Journal of Health Communication 4, 345–357.Google ScholarPubMed
Verbeke, W, Ward, RW, Avermaete, T 2002. Evaluation of publicity measures relating to the EU beef labelling system in Belgium. Food Policy 27, 339–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verbeke, W, Frewer, LJ, Scholderer, J, De Brabander, HF 2007. Why consumers behave as they do with respect to food safety and risk information. Analytica Chimica Acta 586, 2–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
von Borell, EH, Oliver, M, Fredriksen, B, Edwards, S, 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, 216–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Borell, EH, Baumgartner, J, Giersing, M, Jaggin, N, Prunier, A, Tuyttens, FAM, Edwards, SA 2009. Animal welfare implications of surgical castration and its alternatives in pigs. Animal 3, 1488–1496.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zamaratskaia, G, Squires, EJ 2009. Biochemical, nutritional and genetic effects on boar taint in entire male pigs. Animal 3, 1508–1521.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zamaratskaia, G, Rydhmer, L, Andersson, HK, Chen, G, Lowagie, S, Andersson, K, Lundström, K 2008. Long-term effect of vaccination against gonadotropin-releasing hormone, using ImprovacTM, on hormonal profile and behaviour of male pigs. Animal Reproduction Science 108, 37–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed