ad6dc944410f3944e3dd1e8d6caeea95bcde

chunk 0 · 117 tokens

ArticleExploratorySurveyonEuropeanConsumerandStakeholderAttitudestowardsAlternativesforSurgicalCastrationofPigletsMarijkeAluwé1,*,EvertHeyrman1 ,JoãoM.Almeida2 ,JakubBabol3,GianniBattacone4 ,JaroslavˇCítek5 ,MariaFontiFurnols6 ,AndriyGetya7 ,DanijelKarolyi8 ,ElizaKostyra9 ,KevinKress10,GoranKušec11 ,DanielMörlein12 ,AnastasiaSemenova13,MartinŠkrlep14 ,TodorStoyanchev15 ,IgorTomaševi´c16 ,LilianaTudoreanu17,MarenVanSon18,Sylwia˙Zakowska-Biemans9 ,GaliaZamaratskaia19

chunk 1 · 791 tokens

nastasiaSemenova13,MartinŠkrlep14 ,TodorStoyanchev15 ,IgorTomaševi´c16 ,LilianaTudoreanu17,MarenVanSon18,Sylwia˙Zakowska-Biemans9 ,GaliaZamaratskaia19 ,AliceVandenBroeke1andMacarenaEgea201FlandersResearchInstituteforAgriculture,FisheriesandFood(ILVO),AnimalSciencesUnit,9090Melle,Belgium;evert.heyrman@ilvo.vlaanderen.be(E.H.);alice.vandenbroeke@ilvo.vlaanderen.be(A.V.d.B.)2InstitutoNacionaldeInvestigaçãoAgráriaeVeterinária(INIAV),QuintadaFonteBoa,2005-048ValedeSantarém,Portugal;joaoalmeida@iniav.pt3DepartmentofBiomedicalScienceandVeterinaryPublicHealth,SwedishUniversityofAgriculturalSciences,Box7015,75007Uppsala,Sweden;jakub.babol@slu.se4DepartmentofAgriculture,UniversityofSassari,VialeItalia39,07100Sassari,Italy;battacon@uniss.it5DepartmentofAnimalScience,FacultyofAgrobiology,FoodandNaturalResources,CzechUniversityofLifeSciencesPrague(CZU),Kamycka129,16500Prague,CzechRepublic;citek@af.czu.cz6InstituteforFoodandAgricultureResearchandTechnology(IRTA),ProductQualityProgram,FincaCampsiArmet,17121Monells,Girona,Spain;maria.font@irta.cat7AnimalBreedingDepartment,NationalUniversityofLifeandEnvironmentalSciencesofUkraine(NULES),HeneralaRodimtseva19,03041Kyiv,Ukraine;getya@ukr.net8DepartmentofAnimalScience,FacultyofAgriculture(UNIZG),UniversityofZagreb,Svetosimunskacesta25,10000Zagreb,Croatia;dkarolyi@agr.hr9InstituteofHumanNutritionSciences,WarsawUniversityofLifeSciences(WULS-SGGW),ul.Nowoursynowska159c,02-787Warsaw,Poland;eliza_kostyra@sggw.edu.pl(E.K.);sylwia_zakowska_biemans@sggw.edu.pl(S.˙Z.-B.)10DepartmentofBehavioralPhysiologyofLivestock,InstituteofAnimalScience,UniversityofHohenheim,Garbenstraße17,70599Stuttgart,Germany;kress.kevin@uni-hohenheim.de11DepartmentofAnimalProductionandBiotechnology,FacultyofAgrobiotechnicalSciencesOsijek,UniversityofOsijek,VladimiraPreloga1,31000Osijek,Croatia;gkusec@fazos.hr12DepartmentofAnimalSciences,UniversityofGöttingen,Albrecht-Thaer-Weg3,37075Göttingen,Germany;daniel.moerlein@uni-goettingen.de13V.M.GorbatovFederalResearchCenterforFoodSystemsofRussianAcademyofSciences,26,Talalikhinastr.,109316Moscow,Russia;a.semenova@fncps.ru14AgriculturalInstituteofSlovenia,Hacquetovaulica17,SI-1000Ljubljana,Slovenia;martin.skrlep@kis.si15DepartmentofFoodsafetyandcontroloffoodstu sanimalorigin,FacultyofVeterinarymedicine,TrakiaUniversity,StudentsCampus6000,6000StaraZagora,Bulgaria;todor.stoyanchev@uni-sz.bg16DepartmentofAnimalSourceFoodTechnology,FacultyofAgriculture,UniversityofBelgrade,Nemanjina6,11080Belgrade,Serbia;tbigor@agrif.bg.ac.rs17InterdisciplinaryLaboratoryforResearchonHeavyMetalsAccumulationintheFoodChainandModeling,VeterinaryMedicine,FacultyofVeterinaryMedicineandUniversityofAgronomicSciences,011464Bucharest,Romania;liliana_tudoreanu223@hotmail.co.uk18NorsvinSA,Storhamargata44,2317Hamar,Norway;maren.van.son@norsvin.no19DepartmentofMolecularSciences,SwedishUniversityofAgriculturalSciences,Box7015,75007Uppsala,Sweden;Galia.zamaratskaia@slu.se20DepartmentofFoodScienceandTechnology,VeterinaryFaculty,UniversityofMurcia,30071EspinardoMurcia,Spain;macarena.egea@um.es*Correspondence:marijke.aluwe@ilvo.vlaanderen.beAnimals2020,10,1758;doi:10.3390/ani10101758www.mdpi.com/journal/animals

chunk 2 · 24 tokens

Animals2020,10,17582of25Received:14August2020;Accepted:16September2020;Published:28September2020

chunk 3 · 649 tokens

Animals2020,10,17582of25Received:14August2020;Accepted:16September2020;Published:28September2020 SimpleSummary:Inmanycountries,surgicalcastrationofpigletswithoutpainrelieforanaesthesiaisstillcommonpractice.Castrationisperformedtominimisetheincidenceofboartaint,abadtaste(urine/fecallike),typicallypresentinthemeatof5to10%ofuncastratedmalepigs.Italsohelpstoavoidaggressiveandsexualbehaviour.Foranimalwelfarereasons,alternativesarebeingconsidered,andinsomecountries,analternativeisalreadypracticed.Oneoptionistoperformsurgicalcastrationwithanaesthesiaandrelievepain.Asecondoptionistoproducemalepigswithoutcastration,whichrequiresdetectionoftaintedcarcassesintheslaughterhouse.Athirdoptionistoapplyimmunocastration:byatwo-foldinjectionofavaccine,thetestesfunctionisinhibited,whichreducesboar-likebehaviourandavoidsboartaint.Inthisstudy,weevaluatedtheacceptabilityofeachofthesemethodsin16countriesinEurope.Ofthe4presentedoptions,thepracticeofsurgicalcastrationwasleastaccepted(32%),whilsttherewasahighacceptanceofcastrationwithanaesthesia(85%),followedbyimmunocastration(71%)andproductionofboars(49%).Thedevelopedquestionnaireandinfographiccanbeusedinfuturestudiestofurthergaininsightsinconsumerandstakeholderattitudesonthistopic.Abstract:Surgicalcastrationofpigletswithoutpainreliefisstillcommonpracticeinmanycountries.Possiblealternativesforsurgicalcastrationareapplicationofpainrelieforanaesthesiaorproductionofboars(entiremales)andimmunocastrates.Eachofthesealternativesfacesadvantagesanddisadvantageswhichmayresultindi erentcitizenattitudesandconsumersacceptability.Understandingwhichpracticeisacceptabletowhomandwhymayfurtherstimulateimplementation.Consumer(n=3251)andstakeholder(n=1027)attitudestowardssurgicalcastrationwithoutpainrelief,surgicalcastrationwithanaesthesia,immunocastration,andproductionofboarsweresurveyedfromApriltoJune2020viaanonlinequestionnairein16countries(>175respondentspercountry).Surgicalcastrationwithoutpainreliefwasseparatedfromeachofthealternativesduetoanimalwelfareandshowedthelowestacceptability(32%).Withinthealternatives,afurtherpartitioningbetweenthealternativeswasbasedonperceivedqualityandfoodsafety,withanacceptanceof85%forapplyinganaesthesia,71%forimmunocastration,and49%forboarproduction.Di erencesdependingonprofessionalinvolvementandfamiliaritywithagriculturecouldbeobserved,mainlyfortheacceptanceofsurgicalcastrationwithoutanaesthesia,immunocastration,andboars.Castrationwithanaesthesiawashighlyacceptedbyalltypesofrespondents.Keywords:acceptability;boarproduction;immunocastration;anaesthesia;analgesia;onlinequestionnaire;clusteranalysis;infographic

chunk 4 · 234 tokens

edbyalltypesofrespondents.Keywords:acceptability;boarproduction;immunocastration;anaesthesia;analgesia;onlinequestionnaire;clusteranalysis;infographic 1.IntroductionSurgicalcastrationofmalepigletsisappliedtoeliminatetheriskofboartaintandtomanagetypicalboarbehaviour.Thisprocedureispainfulwhenappliedwithoutpainrelief(referredtoas“castration”below),whichisacommonpracticeinmanycountries.ThispracticehasbeenstronglycontestedbyanimalwelfareorganizationsinseveralEuropeancountries.CitizensandporkproductionchainaswellasothersocietalstakeholdershavedemandedabanonsurgicalcastrationwithoutpainreliefandtheEuropeanCommissionsetadeadlineof2018[1,2].Possiblealternativesaretheapplicationofpainrelieforanaesthesia,theuseofimmunocastration,orporkproductionwithboars(entiremalepigs).However,whilealternativesareappliedinanumberofcountries,othershavenotadheredtothisdeadline.Theproductionsystemofmalepigscurrentlydi ersbetweenandevenwithincountries.

chunk 5 · 174 tokens

Animals2020,10,17583of25Applicationofanalgesiaisdemandedbyseveralqualityassuranceprograms,e.g.,inBelgium,Germany,andFrance(Figure1).Somecountrieshavealongertraditionofusinganaesthesiaduringcastration,suchasNorway(bytheveterinarian),Sweden(bythefarmer),andSwitzerland(farmer/vet),whilethispracticewasrecentlyintroducedinDenmark(2020,bythefarmer)andwillbeintroducedinGermany(2021[3–6],farmer).InBulgaria,castrationwithanaesthesiaisappliedbythevetathigherweightsforhomegrownpigs.ProductionofboarsiscommoninSpain,Portugal,Ireland,andUnitedKingdom,andsince2010,introducedincountriesliketheNetherlands,Belgium,andFrance.Immunocastrationisappliedto5upto10%ofthemalepigletsinanumberofcountriesaswell[4,7].

chunk 6 · 553 tokens

ince2010,introducedincountriesliketheNetherlands,Belgium,andFrance.Immunocastrationisappliedto5upto10%ofthemalepigletsinanumberofcountriesaswell[4,7]. Figure1.Currentlyappliedproductionmethodsofmalepigsforthecountriesincludedinthissurvey.Backgroundcolourindicatesthemainmalepigproductionmethodandthedotindicatestheadditionallyappliedmethods,whilstastarindicatesthemethodasforeseenforimplementationasmainmethodin2021(source:basedon[4],updatedbytheEuropeanCooperationinScienceandTechnology(COST)consortium).Intherecentpast,surgicalcastrationwithapplicationofanalgesiaoranaesthesiahavebeenregardedaseitherashort-termsolutionoronlyapplicabletospecificporkproductionsystemssuchasartisanallyproduced,high-qualityporkproducts,ororganicpigproduction.Thispracticefaceschallenges,suchasthelegalauthorizationforapplyinganaesthesiabythevetorfarmeraftertraining,andcorrectimplementationinpractice.Alternativessuchasimmunocastrationorproductionofboarsarepracticedtosomeextentinanumberofcountries.However,thesepracticeshavenottakenrootinmanycountriesfordi erentreasons.Forboarproduction,disadvantagesaremainlyrelatedtoporkquality,withboartaintasmainissue.Boartaintisfoundin5–10%ofentiremales,butprevalencecouldalsobehigherdependingondetectionmethod,thresholdsusedandthepig’scharacteristics(e.g.,genetic,ageatslaughter),andenvironmental(e.g.,dietary,management)factors[8–10].Carcasseswithboartaintshouldthereforebedetectedattheslaughterline,butanobjective(instrumental)onlinedetectionmethodhaslongtimenotbeenavailable.Progressisbeingmade,particularlywiththeintroductionofanewmethodinDenmark[11,12].Thereareotherissues,however:boarsshowpoorerresultsforintramuscularfatandwater-holdingcapacity,whichmayalsoresultinlowersensoryquality[13–16].Immunocastrationcanbeapplied,sincethevaccineImprovac(Zoetis,Louvain-la-Neuve,Belgium)receivedEUmarketingauthorizationapprovalin2009.Applicationofimmunocastrationcansolveamajorpartofthequalityissuesrelatedtotheproductionofboarsasitpreventsboartaintandshiftsthemeatqualitymoretowardsthatofcastratedmalepigs[14,17–19].However,large-scaleimplementationofimmunocastrationisbeingheldbackmainlybecauseconsumeracceptanceofthispracticeisbeingquestionedbystakeholdersintheporkchain.Insightsinthelevel

chunk 7 · 979 tokens

Animals2020,10,17584of25ofacceptanceandabetterunderstandingofwhichalternativeisacceptabletowhomandwhymayincreaseinsightsandstimulateimplementationofthealternatives.Di erentmethodologiesareusedtoevaluateconsumeracceptability.Perceptionofpigletcastrationismeasuredviaqualitative(e.g.,focusgroupdiscussions)[20–22]andquantitativestudiessuchaschoiceexperiments[23],rankingoneormorealternativesforsurgicalcastration,andevaluatingtheacceptability[24,25]orassessingtheirwillingnesstopayformeatandmeatproducts[26,27]viaface-to-faceoronlinesurveys[28].Ineachofthemethodologies,thelackofknowledgeaboutpigproductionaswellasthetopicofsurgicalcastrationanditsalternativesisimportanttotakeintoaccountwhenstudyingconsumerattitudes[29].Withsomevariationbetweenstudies,40to50%oftheconsumersindicatedawarenessofcastrationofmalepigs[21,25,27,28],whileonly14to21%indicatedthattheywerewellawareofthispractice[25].Knowledgeonthistopicalsostronglydi ers(18to57%)dependingonfactorssuchasbackground(rural/urban)andage(youngerpeoplearealsolessaware)[21,28].Whileanimalbehaviourandmeatqualityarementionedasreasonsforcastration,onlyfewpeoplementiontheterm“boartaint”infocusgroups[21,29].Thisalsoimpliesthatinformationneedstobeprovidedwhenstudyingattitudesinthisfield.Theinformationprovidedclearlydi ersbetweenstudiesintermsofterminologyused,extensiveness,theprosandconsofthevariousalternatives,andtheformat,allofwhichmighta ecttheresults[21,22,30].Besidesthedissimilaritiesinstudyapproachandbackgroundinformation,consumercharacteristicsmayalsodi erbetweenstudiesofonlyonecountry,aswellasbetweenconsumers.Severalstudiesstipulatetheheterogeneityinconsumerattitudestowardcastrationandalternativesforcastration[25,31].Besidestheknowndi erencesbetweenconsumersinsensorysensitivityand/orpreferencetotheboartaintcompoundsandmostimportantlyandrostenone,consumercharacteristicsandtheimportanceofthedi erentattributesdi er.Attitudesandexpectationsaremainlyinfluencedbyinformationaboutprocesscharacteristics,beliefs,andfeelings,butthefinalconsumerdecision-makingalsoinvolvesthetasteofthemeat,whetheritishealthyornotandtheconvenienceofpurchaseandpreparation.Itisassumedthatconsumersconsideratrade-o betweenanimalwelfare,foodquality,andfoodsafetywhenpurchasingpork[23].ThestudyofHeidandHamm[22]indicatesthatforalternativeswithsurgicalcastration(anaesthesia,analgesia),animalwelfareaspectsplaythemainroleinwillingnesstopay,whileinthecaseofimmunocastration,foodsafetyismoreimportant.Forproductionofboars,tasteandtoalesserextentanimalwelfarewereconsidereddecisive.Di erencesincitizenattitudesandconsumeracceptabilityofthealternativesdependingontheindividualimportanceofanimalwelfare,taste,andfoodsafetycanbeexploredusingclusteranalysis[25].Overall,thenumberofstudiesthatevaluatedconsumeracceptanceofthedi erentalternativesinEuropeorcoveringmultiplecountriesislimitedandrecentstudiesarelacking[25].Itcanalsobeexpectedthatattitudesdi erbetweencountries[31].Therefore,themainaimsofthestudyweretwofold:(1)toevaluateconsumersattitudestowardsalternativesforsurgicalcastrationofpigletsinWesternandEasternEuropeancountrieswithafocusonperceptionofanimalwelfare,taste,andfoodsafetybasedonthebackgroundinformationprovidedtotheconsumers,and(2)toprofilerespondentsbasedonsocio-demographicsaswellastheirinvolvementandspecificroleinthepigproductionchain.2.MaterialsandMethods2.1.ResearchApproachandSamplingConsumerattitudestowardsalternativesforsurgicalcastrationofpigswerecollectedviaaninternetsurvey(LimeSurvey)fromApriltoJuly2020.Thequestionnairewasmadeavailablein20languages(Bulgarian,Catalan,Croatian,Czech,Dutch,French,German,Italian,Macedonian,Norwegian,Polish,Portuguese,Romanian,Serbian,Slovenian,Spanish,Swedish,andUkranian)andcovered23countriesi.e.,Belgium(BEL),Bulgaria(BGR),Czechia(CZE),Switzerland(CHE),Germany(DEU),Spain(ESP),France(FRA),Croatia(HRV),Italy(ITA),Netherlands(NLD),Norway(NOR),Poland(POL),Portugal(PRT),Romania(ROU),Russia(RUS),Serbia(SRB),Slovenia(SVN),

chunk 8 · 833 tokens

Animals2020,10,17585of25Sweden(SWE)andUkraine(UKR).ResponseswerecollectedbyconveniencesamplingviasocialmediaandmailbytheCOSTIPEMAnetworkmembersandtheirnetworksandfamilies.Participationinthesurveywasvoluntaryandcompletelyanonymous,anddatawashandledaccordingtoGDPRguidelines.Onlyrespondentsconsumingporkcouldparticipateinthesurvey.Finally,countrieswithmorethan175respondentswereincludedinthefinalmanuscript,representing16countries.Atotalof4278personsparticipatedinthesurvey.Averageansweringtimewasaround11min50s.Thequestionnaireconsistedof6parts,eachpresentedonaseparatepage.Part1consistedofgeneralquestionsregardingconsumptionofmeatandspecificallypork.Next,consumerswerequestionedabouttheirporkliking,purchasinghabitsanddrivers,followedbyquestionsontheirexperiencewithbadodoursandflavoursandabouttheir(potential)reactionwhenexperiencingabadodour/flavourwhilstpreparingmeat.Finally,theywereaskedabouttheirattitudetowardsvaccinationingeneral.Inpart2,respondentswereaskedabouttheirawarenessofpigletcastrationwithoutanaesthesiaasnormalpracticeinmanycountries.Inpart3,respondentswereaskediftheyknewhowmostmalepigswereproducedintheircountry.Inpart4,participantsreceivedbasicinformationabouteachpracticeandreasonofpigletcastrationfollowedbyanexplanationaboutthe4optionsofhowmalepigscanbeproduced.Wechosetopresentinformationinaninfographicinsteadofonlyviatexttoenhanceinformationcapturebytheconsumer(Figure2).Inpart5,attitudestowardsthe4optionswereassessedinthreeways.First,consumerswereaskedtoscoretheacceptabilityofeachoptionbasedonthestudyofFredriksenetal.[21].Possibleansweroptionswere:“totallyacceptable”,“possiblyacceptable”,“notacceptable”,and“Idon’tknow”.Second,consumersscoredtheiragreement(score1:totallydisagreeto7:totallyagree)towards5statements:“Ifthecastrationmethodwasclearlylabelled,Iwouldsurelybuy:::”(WTB),“Ithinkthatitistotallysafetoeatmeatfrom:::”(SAFE),“WhenIthinkaboutthefollowingproductionmethod,itseemslogicaltomethatanimalwelfareisbestfor:::”(WELFARE),“IfIconsiderthetastinessofmeat,Iprefermeatfrom:::”(TASTE),and”Iamcompletelyconvincedthatthisisthebestoption:::”(“BESTPRACTICE”).Third,respondentswereaskedtocheckalltermsthatapply(CATA)toidealpork(production)andthe4options.Termswerebasedon7positiveattributes(goodquality,natural,safetoeat,freeofpain,welfarefriendly,cheap,practicallyfeasible)and7negativeattributes(badtaste,residues,hormones,stressful,cruelpractice,expensive,di culttounderstand).Inpart6,respondentswereaskedtofillinsocio-demographicinformation(country,agecategory,gender,livingarea,educationlevel).Additionally,theirprofessionalandpersonalinvolvementinanimalproductionwassurveyedtoenableanalysisofstakeholderattitudes.Thequestionnairewasfirstdevelopedbasedonaliteraturereviewandexistingquestionnaires,andthenfurtheroptimizedindiscussionwithexpertsoftheCOSTIPEMAnetwork,takingthetrade-o betweenanimalwelfare,foodquality,andfoodsafetyintoaccount.Afterafirstonlinepretestwith30respondents(Belgium,Spain),somefirstchangesweremadetoimprovephrasing.Afterasecondpretest(45questions,16min)with152respondents(Belgium,Spain),furtherimprovementsweremaderelatedtophrasingandsimplificationofthequestions,reductionofthenumberofquestionandstatements,andareductioninthenumberofCATAterms.Inafinalstep,thequestionnairewastestedanddiscussedinafocusgroup(Belgium,10participants),primarilytooptimizethedescriptionoftheCATAterms.

chunk 9 · 414 tokens

Animals2020,10,17586of25 Figure2.Infographicwithinformationwasprovidedbeforequestioningtheacceptanceandattitudetowardsthedi erentoptions.2.2.StatisticalAnalysisAlldataanalysiswasdoneinR[32].FortheCATAtermsacorrespondenceanalysiswasperformedusingHellingerdistances,allalternativeswerecomparedtotheidealproduct,andCochran’sQ-testwasusedtofindsignificantdi erencesbetweenalternativeswithincountries(p<0.05)[33].Forthestatementvariables,ahierarchicalclusteranalysiswasperformedacrosscountriesusingtheWardmethodandEuclidiandistance.Thenumberofclusterstoretainwasbasedonthepercentageofwithin-clustervariancedropafteraddinganadditionalcluster.Thesesamevariableswerealsoanalyzedinafirstanalysisofvariancewithgender,age,education,area,andprofessionalandnon-professionalinvolvementasfixede ects.Asecondandthirdanalysisofvarianceusedcountryandclusterasfixede ect,respectively.Statementvariableswerefurtheranalyzedusinganalysisofvarianceusingcountryandalternativeasfixede ectsanditsinteractiontofindsignificantdi erencesbetweenalternativeswithincountries.Acceptancevariablesweresummarizedforeachalternativeoverthedi erentcountries[4].3.Results3.1.DemographicProfileandPorkConsumptionCharacteristicsIntotal,4278respondentsfrom16countriesparticipatedinthetrial,with177to506participantspercountry(Table1).Womenwereoverrepresented,especiallyforBGR,FRA,NOR,POL,PRT,ROU(>60%)andSWE(>70%).Allagecategorieswererepresented,with18%beingyoungerthan25,34%between25and39,41%between40and64,and7%olderthan64yearsofage.Mainly,respondentsofPOL(>60%),ROUandUKR(>30%)wereyoungerthan25,whilstthegroupof>64yearoldrespondentswashighestforDEU(21%).Regardinglivingarea,35%indicatedlivinginabigcity,29%

chunk 10 · 845 tokens

Animals2020,10,17587of25inamedium-sizedtownorcity,and36%inaruralareaorsmalltown.TherespondentsfromBGRandRUSweremainlysituatedinabigcity,thosefromESPandPRTinamedium–sizedcity,andthosefromBELandITAinaruralareaorsmalltown.Themajorityoftherespondentshadauniversitydegree(Master’sdegreeequivalent)astheirhighestdiploma(66%),especiallyforrespondentsofBGR,ESP,PRT,andSWE(>80%).Sixteenpercenthadahigher,non-universitydegree(Bachelor’sdegreeequivalent)(>30%forBEL)and18%hadaprimaryorsecondaryschooldiploma(>40%forDEU).Professionalinvolvementwas24%andwascloselylinkedtopigproduction(71%),with37%workingasaresearcher,24%veterinarian,18%farmer,14%processingsector,12%supplychain,and7%butcherorretail.ProfessionalinvolvementwashighestforHRV,CZE,ESP,FRA,andPRT(>30%).Familiaritywithpigproduction(i.e.,non-professionalinvolvement)washighestforBEL,BGR,andROU(>30%)“regularcontactwithanimalproduction”,andforUKR“grewuponafarm”(>30%).RespondentsofDEU,POL,andRUSwereleastfamiliarwithpigproduction.3.2.PorkConsumptionCharacteristics,BackgroundKnowledge,andExperienceOverall,mostrespondentsindicatedthattheyconsumepork1to2timesperweek(36%)or3to4timesperweek(29%),whilst18%consumeporklessthanonceperweek,and17%morethan4timesperweek(Table2).Likingofporkchopsaswellasmincedmeatproductswasoverall5.6and5.5,correspondingwithslighttomoderateliking.Porkismainlyboughtinthesupermarket(66%)andatthebutcher(44%),withstrikinglylessbutcherpurchasinginNOR(2%)andSWE(8%).Goodtaste(86%)andguaranteedfoodsafety(84%)wereconsideredasmostimportantattributesatpurchase;thiswasconsistentforallcountries.Secondmostimportantwerehightenderness(60%),producedlocally(59%)andbetteranimalwelfare(55%),buttheimportanceoftheseattributesvariedgreatlybetweencountries.Lowestprice(24%)wasleastfrequentlyconsideredasmostimportantattribute.Overall,72%oftherespondentswereconfidentthatthemeattheyeatissafe.ThehighestlevelwasfoundforBEL,ESP,PRT,andNOR(>80%),whilstthislevelwaslessthan60%forBGR,ITA,RUS,andUKR.Twentypercentoftherespondentshadanegativeattitudetowardstheuseofvaccinesingeneral.RespondentsofESP,PRT,SWE,andNORwereingeneralmorepositivetowardstheuseofvaccines(negativeattitude<10%),whilstrespondentsfromCZE,RUS,andSRBweremorenegative(negativeattitude>30%).Overall,59%oftherespondentsindicatedtobeawareofversus41%unawareofthepracticeofpigletcastration.Whenaskedabouthowmalepigsaremainlyproduced,56%oftherespondentsindicatedthattheydidnotknow.Thissegmentwashighest(>65%)forITA,POL,ROU,RUS,andSRB.InCZE,FRA,andSWE,mostoftherespondentswereabletoindicatethecorrectalternative.Theapplicationofanaesthesiaoranalgesiaaswellastheapplicationofimmunocastrationweregenerallyoverratedasmainproductionmethod.Around30%oftherespondentsindicatedtohaveexperiencedabadsmellortastewhenconsumingpork.Whenrespondentswereaskedtoindicatewhattheywoulddoiftheyexperienceabadodourortasteinapieceofmeat,mostofthemindicatedthattheywouldcomplaintotheshop,inperson(32%)orviaemail(8%),orthattheywouldnolongerbuyporkinthatspecificshop(33%).Another20%oftherespondentwouldjustgiveitanotherchance.Aminorityindicatedtostopeatingthattypeofpork(4%)orpostnegativecommentsinsocialmedia(2%).Inordertoevaluatethedi erentoptions,backgroundinformationwasprovidedtotherespondentsbymeansofaninfographic.Overall,77%oftherespondentsindicatedthattheprovidedinformationwassu cient,and56%indicatedthattheywouldliketolearnmore(independentofwhethertheyfoundtheinformationtobesu cient).

chunk 11 · 363 tokens

Animals2020,10,17588of25Table1.Demographicprofileoftherespondentsbycountryandoverall. CountryBELBGRHRVCZEDEUESPFRAITANORPOLPRTROURUSSRBSWEUKROVERALL N4172272082265062532132041772101912243573522582554278Gender1Female5662455457566649666961685550785058Male4337554443423351333037274346214640Age<25425121310101241632537241816361825–39382727362740273629163042414741263440–644842604742474956631841213332383541>6410614214124734132637AreaBigcity1567473630182512244225417242263335Mediumsizecity3025232022573138281550222424342929Ruralarea/smalltown55830444825455049432537534403836EducationPrimary/Secondary201013174588762922020228918Higher,non-university3349425102419201419261152116University4786787930826975755797715467877166Professionallyinvolved2Yes271930377354023271146172524221724Supply117132281914721091921612212Farm11232429311552813232019321193818Veterinarian1674141125381433156825161113511724Processing1114212836780832413801414Retail/butcher22122111012295161512007Researcher38935432546663567536114626252637FamiliarwithfarmingRegularnon-professionalcontact323726287222426201028321427262023Grewuponafarm162326161110161515182216720134717 1Prefernottoanswerthisquestionwasalsoincludedaspossibleansweroption.2Multipleanswerswerepossible.ParticipatingcountriesareBelgium(BEL),Bulgaria(BGR),Czechia(CZE),Germany(DEU),Spain(ESP),France(FRA),Croatia(HRV),Italy(ITA),Norway(NOR),Poland(POL),Portugal(PRT),Romania(ROU),Russia(RUS),Serbia(SRB),Sweden(SWE)andUkraine(UKR).

chunk 12 · 427 tokens

Animals2020,10,17589of25Table2.Porkconsumptioncharacteristics,backgroundknowledge,andexperienceoftherespondentsbycountryandoverall. CountryBELBGRHRVCZEDEUESPFRAITANORPOLPRTROURUSSRBSWEUKROVERALL PorkconsumptionLessthanonceaweek1610811201419232515161821133526181–2timesaweek31333828463443404535343733333437363–4timesaweek3530343620362730182835302830222329Morethan4timesaweek18282025131711712221616192391417WheredoyoubuyyourmeatButcher54676165455543562184044394785244Supermarket8149577380626951987578515746923166Localproducer22272424101024259348162321193320Likingscore1Porkchops5.16.05.86.25.85.55.75.75.85.56.05.16.05.15.16.15.6Mincedmeatproducts5.85.45.65.55.95.45.76.15.75.45.14.85.65.15.45.15.5Importanceatpurchase2Lowestprice943322721191213152536344431111124Goodtaste8495958082889189908385938992836686Improvedanimalwelfare5069603060536445524152675155893255Producedlocally5875795653627571414658705263702259Producedorganically3364531838364840112829575249363440Lowfatcontent234632223239272719453655544272133Hightenderness5683743655706264534774777661383460Easytoprepare3168583046503642425655706163343548Guaranteedfoodsafety8794946276908171817985948991867484Lowenvironmentalimpact5177602554565750393249675162503452Confidentthatmeatissafe9258706178937452846491715373764772Negativetowardsvaccination1918283416917151120328343182020Awareofpigletcastration7665667056498051654171343547846059Experiencewithbadsmell/taste2539443424323224383033262526304130Awarehowmainlyproduced4850486142416329473152292933674944Productionofboars31 1122 15 1 010152 42023Immunocastration39 0226 5127 3405 17 5 4Withanaesthesia/analgesia314 18 9913 913 836 4111151152 814Withoutanaesthesia/analgesia32430 36 49 2213 49 19424 23 16 1419735 23

chunk 13 · 100 tokens

0226 5127 3405 17 5 4Withanaesthesia/analgesia314 18 9913 913 836 4111151152 814Withoutanaesthesia/analgesia32430 36 49 2213 49 19424 23 16 1419735 23 1Scoredona7point-scalefromstronglydisliketostronglylike2Scoredona7-pointscalefromnotimportantatalltoveryimportant,%ofscores6and7arepresented3Percountry,thevalueinboldisthemainmalepigproductionmethodandtheunderlinedvaluesareadditionallyappliedmethods.

chunk 14 · 302 tokens

Animals2020,10,175810of253.3.OverallAcceptabilityofAlternativestoSurgicalCastrationRespondentsratedthedi erentalternativesaftertheyreceivedtheinfographicwithbackgroundinformation.Theoverallpercentageoftotallyacceptablewas53%forcastrationwithanaesthesia(ANAE),38%forimmunocastration(IMMUNO),20%forproductionofboars(BOAR),and10%forcastrationwithoutanaesthesia(CONTROL)(Figure3).Incontrast,61%indicatedCONTROLasnotacceptable,33%forBOAR,14%forIMMUNO,and6%forANAE.Ingeneral,theacceptabilitywasthushighestforANAE,inparticularforrespondentsofSWE,NOR,PRT,andBGR.MainlyrespondentsfromSWE,PRT,NOR,andBELwereinfavour(>49%)ofIMMUNO,incontrasttorespondentsofBGR,SRB,andUKR(>20%).RespondentsofFRAandESPacceptedBOARmostoften(>33%)andtheshareofnon-acceptanceofBOARwasalsolowerforrespondentsofBELandSWE.RespondentsofBGRwereleastacceptingBOAR.Overall,acceptancewaslowestforCONTROL,especiallyinDEU,ESP,FRA,ITA,NOR,andSWE(>72%).AlthoughproCONTROLlevelswerelowoverall,respondentsfromUKR,CZE,andBGRscoredhighest(>23%totallyacceptable). Figure3.Acceptabilityofcastrationalternativespercountryfor(a)Castrationwithoutpainrelief—CONTROL,(b)castrationwithanaesthesia—ANAE,(c)Immunocastration—IMMUNO,(d)nocastration—BOAR.TOT—totalsample.

chunk 15 · 194 tokens

Animals2020,10,175811of253.4.PerceptionofKeyFeaturesRelatedtoPigProductionandMeat:EvaluationandCorrespondenceAnalysisAll14CATAtermswereselectedfrequentlybytherespondents(>20%)foratleastoneofthealternatives,withtheexceptionof“expensive”(Figure4).Mainly“goodquality”,“safetoeat”,“welfarefriendly”,and“natural”weremorefrequentlycheckedforIDEALcomparedtoeachoftheoptions(>60%).CONTROLhadthehighestfrequencyof“cruelpractice”,“stressful”,andinalesserextentalso“di cult”and“cheap”.ANAEshowedthehighestfrequencyof“safetoeat”,“freeofpain”,and“welfarefriendly”.IMMUNOwasmainlyassociatedwithhigherfrequenciesfor“welfarefriendly”,andinalesserextentalsoto“hormones”,“residues”,and“di cult”.BOARwasmostassociatedwithhigherfrequenciesof“badtaste”,butalso“natural”,“welfarefriendly”,and“cheap”.

chunk 16 · 325 tokens

erextentalsoto“hormones”,“residues”,and“di cult”.BOARwasmostassociatedwithhigherfrequenciesof“badtaste”,butalso“natural”,“welfarefriendly”,and“cheap”. Figure4.FrequenceofCheck-All-That-Apply(CATA)scoringoftheidealpieceofpork(IDEAL),castrationwithoutpainrelief(CONTROL),castrationwithanaesthesia(ANAE),immunocastration(IMMUNO),andnocastration(BOAR).a–edi erentsuperscriptsindicatesignificantdi erencesbetweenalternativesperCATAitem(p<0.05).Thesameassociationswereobservedwithinthecorrespondenceanalysis(Figure5).Thefirstaxis(46%)di erentiatesCONTROLfromtheotherthreeoptionsandIDEALbasedmainlyonthetermsrelatedtoanimalwelfare,i.e.,“cruelpractice”,“stressful”versus“welfarefriendly”and“freeofpain”.IDEALisstronglyassociatedwithallthepositivewelfarecharacteristicsandCONTROLwiththenegativeones,whilstthethreealternativesarealsomorerelatedtothepositivewelfarecharacteristics.Thesecondaxis(24%)allowsfurtherdi erentiationbetweenIDEALandthealternatives.IDEALismainlylinkedwith“goodquality”and“safetoeat”vs.BOARoppositeprimarilyduetoitsassociationwithbadtaste.IMMUNOisalso,butlessstrongly,positionedonthesamesideasBOARduetoitsassociationwith“hormones”.Withinthe4options,ANAEandCONTROLaresituatedatthesamesideasIDEAL,butclosetotheorigin,indicatingthat“foodquality”and“foodsafety”arelessdeterminantfortheseoptions.

chunk 17 · 285 tokens

Animals2020,10,175812of25 Figure5.CorrespondenceanalysisofCATAvariablesplottedforeachalternativefortheidealpieceofpork(IDEAL),castrationwithoutpainrelief(CONTROL),castrationwithanaesthesia(ANAE),immunocastration(IMMUNO),andnocastration(BOAR)withthesmalldotsrepresentingtheresultsofacountryperoptionandthelargedotrepresentingtheaverageofeachoutthefiveoptions.3.5.PerceptionoftheAlternativesBasedonDi erentStatementsOverall,respondentsagreedmostwithANAEfollowedbyIMMUNOanddisagreedwithBOAR,anddisagreedespeciallystronglywithCONTROLforBESTPRACTICE(“Iamcompletelyconvincedthatthisisthebestoption“)andWTB(“Ifthecastrationmethodwasclearlylabelled,Iwouldsurelybuy”)(Figure6).ForANAE,therewasmostagreementwiththestatementsregardingSAFE(“totallysafetoeat”),WELFARE(“animalwelfareisbest”),andTASTE(“IfIconsiderthetastinessofthemeat,Iprefermeatfrom”)comparedtotheotheroptions.ForBOARandIMMUNO,levelofagreementwassimilarforSAFE,butbothlowerthanCONTROLandANAE.BOARandIMMUNOscoredslightlylowerforWELFAREcomparedtoANAE,butallmuchbetterthanCONTROL.ForTASTE,respondentsagreedmostwithANAE,followedbyIMMUNOandCONTROL;respondentsdisagreedmostfrequentlywithBOAR.

chunk 18 · 6 tokens

Animals2020,10,175813of25

chunk 19 · 620 tokens

Animals2020,10,175813of25 Figure6.Overalllevelofagreementscoredonascalefrom1(totallydisagree)to7(totallyagree)towardsdi erentstatementsforthedi erentcastrationalternatives“Ifthecastrationmethodwasclearlylabelled,Iwouldsurelybuy:::”(WTB),“Ithinkthatistotallysafetoeatmeatfrom:::”(SAFE),“WhenIthinkaboutthefollowingproductionmethod,itseemslogicaltomethatanimalwelfareisbestfor:::”(WELFARE),“IfIconsiderthetastinessofmeat,Iprefermeatfrom:::”(TASTE),”Iamcompletelyconvincedthatthisisthebestoption:::”(BESTPRACTICE)forcastrationwithoutpainrelief—CONTROL,castrationwithanaesthesia—ANAE,Immunocastration—IMMUNO,andnocastration—BOAR.a–ddi erentsuperscriptsindicatesignificantdi erenceswithinstatementvariablesperoption(p<0.05).Somecountrydi erencescouldagainbeobservedhere(Figure7).InBEL,DEU,ESP,POL,andSWE,respondentsagreedequallywiththeWTBstatementforIMMUNOandANAE.ForDEU,ESP,POL,SWE,aswellasITAandROU,agreementwithSAFEwasratedeitherhigherorequalforIMMUNOandCONTROL.InFRA,agreementforWTBwasalsohighforBOARandANAE.ThisisalsovisibleinthehigheragreementscoreforWELFAREcomparedtotheotheroptionsandequalscoreforBESTPRACTICEasANAEandIMMUNO.Incontrast,respondentsofBGR,HRV,UKR,andrespondentsofCZE,PRT,ROU,RUS,andSRBshowedmoreorequaldisagreementwithWTBforBOARascomparedtoANAE.ThisisreflectedinaloweragreementwithSAFEforBOARcomparedtoCONTROLinBGR,HRV,PRT,ROU,RUS,SRB,UKR,andPOL.RespondentsofUKRalsoagreedlesswithWELFAREforBOAR.3.6.E ectofDemographicsand(Non-)ProfessionalInvolvementMalerespondentsagreedmorewiththepracticeofCONTROL(forallstatements)andagreedmorewithBOARontheSAFEandWELFAREstatementscomparedtofemalerespondents(Table3).FemalerespondentsassignedaslightlyhigherscoretoANAEandIMMUNOforWTBandWELFARE.Themaindi erencewasinacceptabilityofCONTROL,with38%acceptancebymaleand27%byfemalerespondents.Somedi erencescouldbeobservedbetweenthedi erentagegroups,butthesearegenerallysmall.Theyoungergroupofrespondents(<25yearsofage)gaveahigherscoretoCONTROLandIMMUNOforWTBandWELFAREcomparedtothe>25and>40yearsofagegroups.TheyoungergroupscoredSAFEandWELFAREaslowerforBOAR.Again,mainlytheacceptabilityofCONTROLwasdi erent,with38%acceptancebytheyoungestrespondentsand27%bytheoldestgroup.Ingeneral,livingareadidnota ectagreementscores(datanotshown).Foreachofthestatements,ANAEandIMMUNOreceivedahigherscorebytherespondentswithauniversitydegree.TheSAFEandWELFAREstatementswerealsoscoredhigherbythisgroupforBOAR,whilstTASTEreceivedalowerscore.ForCONTROLaswell,SAFEandTASTEreceivedahigherscorebythisgroup,

chunk 20 · 194 tokens

Animals2020,10,175814of25whilstWELFAREscoredslightlylower.Thesehigherscoresarealsoreflectedinhigheracceptanceofalloptions. Figure7.Overalllevelofagreementtowardsdi erentstatementsforthedi erentcastrationalternativespercountry(a)“Ifthecastrationmethodwasclearlylabelled,Iwouldsurelybuy:::”(WTB),(b)“Ithinkthatistotallysafetoeatmeatfrom:::”(SAFE),(c)“WhenIthinkaboutthefollowingproductionmethod,itseemslogicaltomethatanimalwelfareisbestfor:::”(WELFARE),(d)“IfIconsiderthetastinessofmeat,Iprefermeatfrom:::”(TASTE),(e)”Iamcompletelyconvincedthatthisisthebestoption:::”(BESTPRACTICE)forcastrationwithoutpainrelief—CONTROL,castrationwithanaesthesia—ANAE,Immunocastration—IMMUNO,andnocastration—BOAR.a–ddi erentsuperscriptsindicatesignificantdi erenceswithincountriesperoption(p<0.05).

chunk 21 · 109 tokens

Animals2020,10,175815of25Table3.E ectofthedemographicvariablesontheagreementtothedi erentstatementsandtheacceptabilityofthedi erentoptions(Castrationwithoutpainrelief—CONTROL,castrationwithanaesthesia—ANAE,Immunocastration—IMMUNO,andnocastration—BOAR). WTB1SAFE1WELFARE1TASTE1ACCEPTANCE2%Acceptable/%Non-Acceptable CONTROL ANAE IMMUNO BOAR CONTROL ANAE IMMUNO BOAR CONTROL ANAE IMMUNO BOAR CONTROL ANAE IMMUNO BOAR CONTROL ANAE IMMUNO BOAR

chunk 22 · 473 tokens

cceptable/%Non-Acceptable CONTROL ANAE IMMUNO BOAR CONTROL ANAE IMMUNO BOAR CONTROL ANAE IMMUNO BOAR CONTROL ANAE IMMUNO BOAR CONTROL ANAE IMMUNO BOAR GenderFemale2.7a5.3a4.6a3.54.8a5.5a4.64.5a2.2a5.1b4.9b4.7a3.9a5.14.43.1a27/6689/572/1348/32Male3.3b5.2b4.4b3.55.3b5.6b4.54.7b2.7b5.0a4.7a4.8b4.4b5.14.33.2b38/5589/669/1751/34Age<253.2b5.34.6b3.5ab4.7b5.4ab4.64.2a2.6b5.2b4.9c4.6b4.2c5.14.4b3.338/5591/373/1049/3225–392.9a5.34.6b3.6b5.1b5.6ab4.64.7b2.4ab5.1ab4.9bc4.8b4.2bc5.14.4ab3.133/6188/772/1452/3140–642.9a5.34.5ab3.4a5.1b5.6b4.64.7b2.4a5.1ab4.8ab4.8b4.1b5.24.4ab3.031/6389/670/1649/34>642.5a4.94.1a3.4a4.1a5.1a4.24.1a2.4ab4.7a4.3a4.3a3.4a4.74.0a3.322/7086/663/1733/38EducationPrimary/Secondary2.84.9a4.3a3.6ab4.1a4.9a4.1a4.0a2.6b4.7a4.4a4.4a3.5a4.6a4.1a3.4b24/6583/862/1544/30Higher,non-university2.85.1a4.4a3.8b4.6b5.3b4.4b4.5b2.3a4.9a4.6b4.9b3.8b4.9b4.3b3.5b27/6487/666/1551/25University3.05.4b4.7b3.4a5.3c5.8c4.7c4.7b2.4a5.2b5.0c4.8b4.4c5.3c4.5b3.0a35/5991/574/1450/35Profession3No2.7a5.2a4.5a3.6b4.7a5.4a4.4a4.4a2.3a5.0a4.7a4.73.9a5.0a4.3a3.3b27/6587/668/1548/31Yes3.5b5.6b4.8b3.2a5.9b6.1b5.0b4.9b2.7b5.3b5.2b4.84.9b5.6b4.7b2.8a48/4892/578/1351/40Supply3.85.74.83.25.96.04.95.03.25.25.14.85.05.54.83.052/4390/777/1250/37Farm4.15.54.32.95.65.84.54.43.65.34.84.25.05.44.32.861/3392/470/1943/49Veterinarian3.45.55.13.06.06.25.35.02.65.25.44.64.85.64.82.650/4889/1086/1149/47Processing3.75.44.22.55.35.94.53.93.15.64.83.94.85.74.42.447/4692/470/1729/61Retail/butcher3.25.04.82.75.25.64.94.12.64.95.04.34.35.14.52.838/6095/577/1143/46Researcher3.45.84.93.66.26.35.25.52.55.35.35.25.25.74.92.846/5295/482/1263/30FamiliarityNo2.5a5.1a4.6c3.7c4.7a5.4a4.6b4.6b2.2a4.9a4.8b4.8b3.8a4.9a4.4b3.3c24/6987/673/1252/28Contact3.3b5.5b4.5b3.4b5.4b5.8b4.6b4.7b2.6b5.3b4.9ab4.9b4.5b5.4b4.4ab3.0b40/5390/568/1749/37Farm3.8c5.5b4.3a3.0a5.4b5.7b4.4a4.2a3.0c5.3b4.7a4.4a4.7b5.3b4.2a2.7a50/4491/565/2040/46

chunk 23 · 232 tokens

8b4.6b4.7b2.6b5.3b4.9ab4.9b4.5b5.4b4.4ab3.0b40/5390/568/1749/37Farm3.8c5.5b4.3a3.0a5.4b5.7b4.4a4.2a3.0c5.3b4.7a4.4a4.7b5.3b4.2a2.7a50/4491/565/2040/46 OVERALL2.95.34.53.55.05.54.64.62.45.14.84.74.15.14.43.132/6189/671/1449/33RMSE1.71.92.02.01.82.11.81.82.12.01.61.71.91.71.92.0 a,bdi erentsuperscriptsindicatesignificantdi erenceswithindemographicvariablesperoption(p<0.05)1Statementswerescoredonascalefrom1(totallydisagree)to7(totallyagree)“Ifthecastrationmethodwasclearlylabelled,Iwouldsurelybuy:::”(WTB),“Ithinkthatistotallysafetoeatmeatfrom:::”(SAFE),“WhenIthinkaboutthefollowingproductionmethod,itseemslogicaltomethatanimalwelfareisbestfor:::”(WELFARE),“IfIconsiderthetastinessofmeat,Iprefermeatfrom:::”(TASTE)2Acceptabilitywasscoredastotallyacceptable,possiblyacceptable,notacceptableordon’tknow.Acceptableisthesumoftotallyacceptableandpossiblyacceptable).3Statisticalanalysisbetweenprofessionallyinvolvedversusnotinvolved.

chunk 24 · 923 tokens

Animals2020,10,175816of25Professionally-involvedrespondentsalwaysgaveahigherscoretoeachofthestatementsforCONTROL,ANAE,andIMMUNOthanpeoplewhowerenotprofessionallyinvolved.OnlyforBOAR,non-professionalsindicatedaslightlyhigheragreementwiththestatementsregardingWTBandTASTE.AcceptanceofCONTROLwashigherforprofessionally-involvedrespondents(48%vs.27%),withthehighestacceptancebythefarmers(61%)(FigureS1).ANAEwashighlyacceptedbythenotinvolvedrespondents(87%)andevenmorebytheprofessionalrespondents(89–95%).Onlyfarmersshowedaslightlyloweracceptance(83%).IMMUNOwasmoreacceptedbytheprofessionally-involvedrespondents(78%versus68%),andvariedfrom70%forfarmersandprocessingupto86%forveterinarians.ForBOAR,highestvariationwasnotedamongprofessionally-involvedstakeholders.Researchersshowedthehighestacceptability(63%),andprocessorsthelowest(29%),whilsttheotherrespondentswereintermediate(43–52%).Regardingimpactoffamiliaritywithagriculture,trendsarecomparabletoprofessionalinvolvement.RespondentswithnoorlimitedfamiliaritywithagricultureagreelesswithallaspectsofCONTROLandANAEtoalesserextent.ForIMMUNO,numericaldi erencesaresmall,butaregenerallylowerfortherespondentsthatgrewuponafarm.ForBOAR,WTBandTASTEwaslowerforrespondentsthatgrewuponafarmversusrespondentswhoarenotfamiliarandintermediateforthosewithregularcontact.3.7.ClusterAnalysisThreeclusterscouldbedefinedbasedontherespondents’agreementtothedi erentstatementforeachofthealternatives,representing45%(n=1910),38%(n=1619),and18%(n=749)ofallrespondents,respectively(Table4).Cluster1hasthehighestshareoffemales(60%vs.38%male),ishighlyfamiliarwithagriculture(41%),andmostprofessionallyinvolved(31%).Thisclusteriswellawareofpigletcastration(69%),hasthemostpositiveattitudetowardstheuseofvaccines(88%),andahighconfidenceinfoodsafety(79%).Goodtasteandtendernessandanimalwelfareweremoreoutspokenasimportantpurchaseattributes.RespondentsofSWE,NOR,BEL,ESP,andPRTaremorethanaveragelyrepresented(>50%).Cluster2containstheleastprofessionally-involved(23%)andagriculturefamiliarrespondents(32%)andtheyareleastawareofpigletcastration(45%).Thisclusterisrelativelylesspositiveabouttheuseofvaccines(73%),leastconfidentinthefoodsafety(63%),andhastheleastheavyporkconsumers(10%>4timesperweek).Organicallyproduced(44%)andlow-fatcontent(36%)aremoreoutspokenaspurchaseattributes.RespondentsofDEUaremostrepresented(61%).Cluster3hasahighershareofmalerespondents(44%vs.54%female),ismostfamiliarwithagriculture(54%),andmoderatelyprofessionallyinvolved(27%).Thisclusteriswellawareofpigletcastration(64%),lesspositiveabouttheuseofvaccines(73%),andmoderatelyconfidentinfoodsafety(71%).Goodtasteandtenderness,localproduction,andfoodsafetyaremoreoutspokenaspurchaseattributes.Thisclustercontainsthehighestamountofporkconsumers(16%>4timesperweek)andismorerepresentedbyBGRrespondents(40%).Cluster1canbeconsideredasforANAEandIMMUNO,andagainstCONTROL(Table4,FigureS2).TheydisagreewiththepracticeofCONTROL(WTB:2.8)foranimalwelfarereasons,butconsiderthemeatassafeandhavenooutspokenpositionregardingtaste.IMMUNO(WTB:5.8)andANAE(WTB:5.6)areconsideredasvalidalternativesforCONTROLbasedonsafety,welfare,andtaste.BOARislessfavored(WTB:3.5),duetoaperceptionofitbeinglesstasty,althoughthisalternativeisconsideredsafe,animalwelfarefriendly,andnatural.Cluster2alsodisagreeswithCONTROL(WTB:2.5)becauseofanimalwelfare,butconsidersitsafeandtasty.Thisclusterhasnooutspokenopinionaboutthethreealternatives,however.Cluster3hasamoreneutralattitudetowardsCONTROL(WTB:3.6)basedonapositivescoreforsafetyandtaste,andanegativescoreforanimalwelfare.TheyconsiderANAEasgoodalternative(WTB:6.3)basedonwelfare,taste,andsafety,butareagainstIMMUNO(WTB:2.9)andBOAR(WTB:2.8).TheyrejectIMMUNOforreasonsofsafetyandtasteand

chunk 25 · 414 tokens

Animals2020,10,175817of25toalesserextentalsowelfare.TheydisagreewithBOARforreasonsoftasteandtoalesserextentalsosafety.Table4.ComparisonofthestatementsandCATAscoringoverclustersforallrespondentsandallnon-professionallyinvolvedrespondentsofthedi erentoptions(Castrationwithoutpainrelief—CONTROL,castrationwithanaesthesia—ANAE,Immunocastration—IMMUNO,andnocastration—BOAR). Cluster1Cluster2Cluster3RMSE N(%)1910(45%)1619(38%)749(18%) Statements1WTBCONTROL2.8a2.8a3.6b1.5ANAE5.6b4.3a6.3c1.5IMMUNO5.8c3.8b2.9a2.0BOAR3.5b3.9c2.8a1.9SAFECONTROL5.5a3.9b5.9c1.3ANAE6.2a4.3b6.5c1.4IMMUNO5.9a3.7b2.9c2.1BOAR5.1a4.1b4.1b1.9WELFARECONTROL2.3a2.5ab2.6b1.6ANAE5.4a4.2b6.3c1.5IMMUNO6.0a3.9b3.8b2.1BOAR4.9a4.6b4.6b2.0TASTECONTROL4.3a3.6b4.9c1.4ANAE5.5a4.0b6.2c1.4IMMUNO5.5a3.6b3.1c1.8BOAR3.0a3.7b2.3c2.0 CATA(%)SafetoeatCONTROL47a32b60c48ANAE62a36b69c44IMMUNO49a21b11c48BOAR40a29b36a17HormonesCONTROL44321ANAE3a8b2a45IMMUNO23a30b52c33BOAR14a9b20c50AnimalwelfarefriendlyCONTROL7a10b9ab49ANAE52a34b66c46IMMUNO61a24b32c50BOAR46a41b45ab11NaturalCONTROL21a25b37c41ANAE21a18a33b33IMMUNO16a13b5c50BOAR51a45b50ab35GoodqualityCONTROL45a35b61c47ANAE67a41b78c45IMMUNO59a25b20c41BOAR22a24a14b12BadtasteCONTROL5a7b5a15ANAE1a4b1a23IMMUNO2a7b13c48BOAR61a37b75c48 a–c:di erentsuperscriptsindicatesignificantdi erenceswithinclustersperoption(p<0.05)1Statementswerescoredonascalefrom1(totallydisagree)to7(totallyagree)“Ifthecastrationmethodwasclearlylabelled,Iwouldsurelybuy:::”(WTB),“Ithinkthatistotallysafetoeatmeatfrom:::”(SAFE),“WhenIthinkaboutthefollowingproductionmethod,itseemslogicaltomethatanimalwelfareisbestfor:::”(WELFARE),“IfIconsiderthetastinessofmeat,Iprefermeatfrom:::”(TASTE).

chunk 26 · 951 tokens

Animals2020,10,175818of25Asimilarclusteranalysiswasperformedforallrespondentsthatarenotprofessionallyinvolved(datanotshown).Thethreeclustersweredefinedbycomparablecharacteristics,with42%oftherespondentsincluster1,35%incluster2,and24%incluster3.Ingeneral,itcanbestatedthattheattitudeofthesenon-professionallyinvolvedrespondentsismoreoutspokenregardingCONTROLandmoreneutralregardingIMMUNO.Themaindi erenceswerepresentinclusters1and3,whichwerealsothemostprofessionallyinvolvedfortheoveralldataset.Forthenon-professionalrespondents,cluster1wasagainforANAE(WTB:5.9)andIMMUNO(WTB:5.4)andmoreoutspokenlyagainstCONTROL(WTB:1.9).Cluster2wasagainstCONTROL(WTB:2.7)andneutralregardingthealternatives.Cluster3hadaslightlymorepositiveattitudetowardsCONTROL(WTB:4.3)andtowardsANAE(WTB:5.8),wasagainstBOAR(WTB:2.9),andmoreneutraltowardsIMMUNO(WTB:3.7).4.Discussion4.1.GeneralCharacteristics,Involvement,Awareness,andBackgroundInformationRespondentswererecruitedviaconveniencesamplingwithaspecialemphasistoincludeprofessionally-involvedstakeholders.Asaresult,respondentsarecharacterizedbyahighprofessionalinvolvement(24%),highfamiliaritywithagriculture(40%),andarehighlyeducated(66%universitydegree).Femalerespondentsareslightlyoverrepresented(58vs.40%),whilstthedi erentagecategorieswerewellrepresentedoverall,althoughthisdistributionalsodi ersbetweencountriesandtheshareof+64yearsoldisratheronthelowerside.Theresultsofthissurveyarethereforemainlyexploratoryanddonotallowstrongconclusionstobemadebetweencountries.Thestudydesigndoesenableevaluationofthee ectofdi erentrespondentcharacteristicsanddegreeandtypeofinvolvementontheattitudetowardssurgicalcastrationandthedi erentalternatives.Thedevelopedquestionnaireandinfographiccanbeusedinfuturestudies.Duetothespecificrespondentcharacteristics,theoverallawarenessofpigletcastrationwithintheentiregroupofrespondents(59%)washigherthanreportedinotherstudies.Only50%oftherespondentsthatwerenotprofessionallyinvolvedwereawareofpigletcastrationvs.86%oftheprofessionallyinvolvedrespondents.Whenrespondentswereaskedtoindicateiftheyknewwhichmethodwaspracticedintheircountry,thenumberswerelower(43%)andnotallrespondentswereabletoselectthecorrectanswer.Anawarenessof40to50%ofpigletcastrationwasalsoreportedintheliterature[21,25,27,28],whileonly14to21%reportedbeingwellawareofit[25].Withinthecurrentstudy,nospecificquestionsregardingawarenessofthealternativeshavebeenasked.InapreviousstudyofVanhonackerandVerbeke[25],about10%oftherespondentssaidtheywerefamiliarwiththeconceptofboartaint,whileonly1%wasfamiliarwithimmunocastration.Inthisstudy,dependingonthecountry,24to44%oftherespondentsindicatedtohaveexperiencedabadsmellortastewhenconsumingpork.Thisvariationwasnotspecificallyrelatedtocountriesthatproduceentiremalepigs,however,indicatingthatabadsmellortastemayberelatedtootheraspectsthanboartaint.Itcanbeconcludedthatnon-professionallyinvolvedrespondentsgenerallyansweredbasedontheinformationthatwaspresentedintheinfographicandmuchlessonexistingknowledge.Attheendofthequestionnaire,respondentswereaskediftheythoughttheyreceivedsu cientinformationtoanswerallquestionsproperly.Themajorityoftherespondents(77%)indicatedthattheinformationprovidedwassu cient.Providingbackgroundinformationinacomprehensiveandobjectivemannerisachallengingtask.Immunocastrationasapracticehasbeenreferredtousingdi erenttermsinanumberofstudies,suchas“vaccinetopreventboartaint”[25],“medicalcastrationwithtwoinjections”[21],or“immunovaccinationbyinjectingahormonelikesubstance”[24].Itisoftenquestionedwhethertheprovidedinformationmayinfluenceconsumerattitudes.Severalstudieshavealreadyinvestigatedthis.Especiallythepossiblee ectofnegativeinformationisrelevant,asthee ectofanegativepubliccampaignisoftensuggestedasoneofthemainreasonsthattheporkproductionsectorisreluctanttoshifttothealternativeofimmunocastration.

chunk 27 · 994 tokens

Animals2020,10,175819of25Thee ectofterminologyandextensivenesswasstudiedbyHeidandHamm[22]usingconsumersoforganicallyproducedmeatinGermanybyprovidingthreevariantsofinformationoncastrationandthealternatives:basicinformation,basicincludingprosandcons;andbasicincludingprosandconsandthewordhormoneinthedescriptionofimmunocastration.Basicversusextensiveinformationdidnotresultinadi erentrankingofimmunocastrationorcastrationwithoutpainrelief,butrankingofcastrationwithanaesthesiaimprovedwhileboarfatteningmovedoneplacedownwards.Addingtheterm“hormone”totheexplanationofimmunocastrationdidnota ectranking,butmoreinformationdidresultinastrongerpolarisationinattitudes.Inanotherstudy,addingmoreinformationonimmunocastrationregardingwelfare,quality,andpracticabilityinthe“pro”(reductioninanimalpainanddiscomfort,absenceofnegativee ectsonmeatquality,improvedfeede ciency)and“con”(accidentalself-injectionrisksforfarmworkers)sectionsdidnota ectItalianconsumerattitudesinthestudyofDiPasqualeetal.[34].Includingbenefits,includingrisks,orincludingbenefitsandrisksdidalsonota ecttheacceptanceofimmunocastrationinthestudyofVanhonackeretal.[27],buttheauthorsofthisstudynotethatthenumberofconsumerspergroupmayhavebeentoolow(n=57)todrawclearconclusions.AddinginformationthatIMMUNOmayslightlyincreasethechanceofboartaintshifted9%oftheconsumersfromtotallyacceptabletopossiblyacceptableinthestudyofSodringetal.[28].Besidesthephrasingandextensiveness,theformatofinformationmaya ectfinaloutcome.Tuyttensetal.[35]studiedthee ectofextensivenessaswellasformat.Includingmoreextensiveinformationonpaperdidnota ectconsumerattitudes,whilstprovidingaudiovisualinformationinadditiontoextensiveinformationdidincreasethepreferenceforimmunocastration.Inseveralstudies,theauthorsdidnotreportallthebackgroundinformation(explanations,prosandcons)inthepublicationthatwasprovidedtotheparticipants,makingitdi culttomakecomparisonsbetweenstudies.Moreover,agoodinterpretationoftheoutcomeofconsumerstudiesisonlypossiblewhenthisinformationisincludedinthepublication.Finally,theprovidedinformationneedstobethoroughlypreparedandtested.4.2.EvaluationofTheDi erentAlternativesSeveralstudiesindicatethatconsumersrelatefactorssuchasnaturalness,i.e.spaceallowanceandfreedom(e.g.,cagedvs.grouphousedsows)moretoanimalwelfarethansurgicalcastrationofpiglets[21,23,27,36].Unfamiliaritywithpigproductioningeneralandthistopicspecificallycanbeoneofthereasonsforthis.Withinthisstudy,wespecificallyfocusedontheimpactofsurgicalcastrationtolearnmoreabouthowandwhyconsumersandstakeholdersdoordonotacceptthedi erentalternativesforsurgicalcastration,althoughitisofcourserelevanttoconsideritinthebroadercontextofpigproduction.Theseinsightsmayhelptoincreaseimplementationofthealternativesintermsofconsumerandmarketacceptance,whichisthemainaimofthisstudy.Inordertobetterunderstandwhyconsumers,acceptorrejectacertainoption,respondentswereaskedtoscore5statementsforeachofthe4optionsandtotickalltermsthattheyrelatedtoeachoftheoptionsaswellastheidealpieceofpork.BasedontheCATAtermsthatwerepresentedtotherespondents,theidealpieceofporkwascharacterizedby“goodquality”,“safetoeat”,“welfarefriendly”,and“natural”.Outofthe4presentedoptions,ANAEalignedmostwithIDEAL.Overall,resultsofstatementsandCATAtermsareinagreement,buttheuseofCATAtermsisafastwaytogainadditionalinsightsintotheconsumer’sideaofanidealpieceofporkversusthealternatives.ThestudyofSodring[12]gaverespondentsanopenquestioninwhichtheycouldfillinwhyacertainoptionwasconsideredunacceptable.Therespondentsindicatedthatanimalwelfare,foodsafety,andeatingqualityoracombinationofthesewasamaindriverforchoosingacertainoption.Withinthepresentstudy,thisisalsoreflectedbythedi erentaxesfoundinthecorrespondenceanalysiswithCONTROLseparatedfromthealternativesandIDEALduetoanimalwelfareandafurtherpartitioningbetweenthealternativesbasedonqualityandfoodsafety.InagreementwiththescoringofstatementsandCATAscores,wefoundthehighestacceptability(totally+possibly)forANAE(85%),followedbyIMMUNO(71%),andBOAR(49%)andthelowest

chunk 28 · 1018 tokens

Animals2020,10,175820of25acceptabilityforCONTROL(32%).Theresultsofacceptabilityofthedi erentoptionsarehighlyconsistentwiththestudiesperformedinNorwayin2008and2018whereacceptabilitywas89and88%forANAE,74and78%forIMMUNO,32and38%forBOAR,and15and22%forCONTROL[21,28].InthestudyofHuber-Eicher[37],acceptancewasalsohighestforANAE(82%),followedby60%acceptanceforBOAR,and53%forIMMUNO.WhilstCONTROLismainlyconsideredunacceptable,theoverallacceptanceofANAEishigh,withfewornonegativeconnotations.Asuccessfuleliminationofthepaininducedbysurgicalcastrationseemstobethecrucialfactorforconsumeracceptance,regardlessoftheactofcastrationitself.OnlyasmallshareofrespondentsconsideredANAEasunacceptable.InthestudyofSodring[28],respondentcommentsincaseofnon-acceptancewere“incompleteeliminationofpain”(40%),“formofanimalcruelty”(16%),“unnatural”(11%),and“unethical”(11%).Agoodandcorrectimplementationofthispracticeinthefieldisthereforeimportanttocomplywithconsumerattitudesandexpectations.Inthisstudy,aswellasinthestudyofFredriksenetal.[21],consumersweregenerallyeitherpositiveorneutraltowardsIMMUNO.Thishighacceptanceratecanbeexplainedbythetrustthatconsumershaveintheirnationalfoodsafetyauthority.Mancinietal.[38]alsofoundthatItalianconsumerswouldacceptimmunocastrationforpork,evenfortraditionalproducts,ifgovernmentinstitutionsguaranteeastronginvolvementinquality,safety,andethicaltreatment.SwedishconsumersalsoshowednoaversiontowardsimmunocastrationinthestudyofViskeetal.[23].Theyindicatedthatanimalwelfareconcernsoutweighedbiotechnologyaversionorfoodsafetyriskwhenconsumerscomparedimmunocastrationandsurgicalcastration,whileporkqualitycouldbeexpectedtobesimilar.Similartoourstudy,alsoVanhonackerandVerbeke[25]foundthehighestpreferenceforimmunocastrationintheanimalwelfare-orientedcluster.Ingeneral,consumersshowahighconfidenceinthefoodsafetyofpork(72%).Besidesthepositivee ectofimmunocastration,trustinthefoodsafetyofporkprobablyfurthersupportstherespondents’positiveattitudestowardsthisalternative.Asmallerpartoftherespondentsdidquestionthepracticefromthepointoffoodsafety,however.SimilarobservationsweremadebyMancinietal.[29].Thepreferenceforareduceduseofdrugshasbeenmentionedasdrawbackforthismethod[38],whichmayalsobeanissueforANAE.Althoughthetermhormonewasnotusedintheinfographicprovidedwithoursurvey,frequencyoftheCATAterm“hormone”wasaround30%forIMMUNOandaround15%fortheboars.ThesameobservationwasalsomadebyFredriksenetal.[20].Severalstudiesindicatedthatfoodsafety(fearofdrugresiduesinmeatproducts,fearofunknownlong-terme ectsandunnaturalness)canbeaconsumerconcernandsuggesttheimportanceofguaranteeingproductsafety[21,25,28,29].Infuturestudies,itcouldbeinterestingtoinvestigateiftheterm“hormone”inallcaseshasanegativeconnotationornot,i.e.,assomethingnaturalvs.artificial.ForBOAR,theword“hormone”aswellas“natural”hadahigherfrequency.Furtherresearchintowhichinformationorassurancestrategycouldsupporttheconfidenceofthisconsumersegmentcouldbeinteresting.Forexample,inthestudyofFredriksenetal.[21],acceptabilitydidnotimprovewhenmoreinformationonfoodsafety(noresiduals,noriskforhumansafety)wasadded.Ingeneral,consumersrespondedeitherneutrallyorwereagainstBOARduetothechanceofboartaint.Di erenceinacceptanceorrankingofproductionofentiremalepigscouldbeobservedinotherstudiesaswell.HeidandHamm[22]foundthatconsumersoforganicporkwerewillingtopaymoreforporkfromboarscomparedtoporkfrompigletscastratedwithoutpainrelief.However,theseresultsarenotsupportedbyotherstudies.AccordingtoViskeandco-authors[23],Swedishconsumerspreferredporkfromsurgicallycastratedpigstoporkfromboars,illustratingtheweightoffoodqualityintheirdecisionmaking.Partoftheexplanationforthiscontrastcouldpossiblyberelatedtothedi erentconsumergroups(organicversusconventional).HeidandHamm[22]alsosuggestedasecondexplanation.Theyrelatedtheirfindingstothelackoffamiliaritywithboartaint,asmostparticipantsrespondedthattheydidknowthiso -odour.TheparticipantsofthefocusgroupstudyofFredriksenetal.[20]neverthelessindicatedthatpresenceofboartaintorreductionofporkqualitywouldreducetheirporkconsumption.Possibly,di erencesintheprovidedbackground

chunk 29 · 952 tokens

Animals2020,10,175821of25informationcanalsofurtherexplainthedi erences.AsolutionsuggestedbyHeidandHamm[22],namelyprovidingsampleswithknownlevelsofboartaint,couldhelptoovercomethisissueincaseoffocusgroupsorface-to-faceinterviews.Thesameattitudeisseeninourstudy.Basedontheresponsesinthisquestionnaire,respondentsreportedthattheywouldaddresstheircomplaintstotheshopinpersonorviamail(40%),gotoanothershoptobuypork(33%),whilst20%wouldjustgiveitanotherchance.ThesuccessofacceptanceofBOARwillthereforedependon(reductionof)theprevalenceofboartaint,agooddetectionoftaintedcarcassesattheslaughterline,valorizationoftaintedcarcasses,andtheabilityofaconsumerstoperceiveboartaintintheirhomecontext.Basedonthestudyset-upofFredriksenetal.[39],“possibly”and“don’tknow”werealsoincludedasoptionstoevaluatelevelofagreementwithsurveystatements.Inthatstudy,theoptionof“possiblyacceptable”wasmostusedforANAE(35%)andIMMUNO(26%),andthefrequencyof“don’tknow”washighestforBOAR(40%).Withinthecurrentstudy,29to35%oftherespondentsused“possiblyacceptable”foreachofthealternativeoptions,whilsttheoption“‘don’tknow”waslessusedforBOARinourstudy(18%).“Di culttounderstand”wasincludedasoneoftheoptionsasaCATAterm,asitwasexpectedtoberelatedtothesecategoriesandwasalsosuggestedasrelevanttermduringthepre-testsofthisquestionnaire.However,mainlyCONTROLandIMMUNOhadthehighestfrequencyfor“di culttounderstand”,whilstthiswaslowerforANAE,indicatingthatthisdoesnotfullycorrespondwiththeselectionofpossiblyacceptableanddon’tknowinthescaleofacceptability.Assuggestedinotherstudies,amoreneutralscoringmayalsoindicatethatrespondentsarefeelinguncertainwhenaskedtojudgethedi erentalternatives[40].Basedonthefrequencyofusageofthese2categoriesinthisstudy,itseemsvaluabletohavetheseoptionsincluded.Addingfocusgroupsoropenquestionsinadditiontoclosedresponsesonlycouldhelptofurtherincreaseinsightsintheseattitudes.4.3.ConsumerandStakeholderSegmentsMakingconclusionsbasedonaverageresultscanbemisleadingwhenstudyingattitudes.Consumerattitudescandi erdependingon(country-dependent)culturalbackgroundandhabits,backgroundknowledgeandawareness,professionalinvolvement,familiaritywithagriculture,andsocio-demographics.Di erencesinconsumerandstakeholdercharacteristicswerethereforeexploredinthreeclusters.Afirstcluster(45%)wasagainstCONTROLandforANAEandIMMUNO.Thesecondcluster(38%)wasagainstCONTROLandhadaneutralattitudetowardstheotheroptions.Thethirdandsmallestcluster(18%)hasaneutralattitudetowardsCONTROL,isforANAE,andagainstBOARanIMMUNO.Theseclustersrevealdi erencesintheimportanceoftherespondents’attitudetowardswelfare,typeofproductionsystem,andhealthandfoodsafety,asdiscussedabove,withthefirstclustermainlywelfareandtasteoriented,thesecondlowfat(health)andorganicproduction,andthethirdmainlyquality,safety,andlocalproduction.Moreover,countryrepresentationdi ers.Inthefirstcluster,respondentsofBEL,NOR,PRT,andSWEwererepresentedmorethanaverage;inthesecondcluster,thiswasmainlyDEU,andinthethird,mainlyBGR.Di erencesinacceptancepercountryoftenseemtoberelatedtothecurrentpracticeofeitheranalternativeorCONTROLineachofthecountries.RespondentsofFRAandESPacceptedBOARthemost(>33%)andtherespondentsofBEandSWalsoshowedalessnegativeattitudetowardsBOAR.AcceptanceofANAEwashighestinSWE,NOR,PRT,andBGR.Indeed,inSWEaswellasinNOR,ANAEisroutinepractice.InBGR,ANAEisalsoappliedforhome-grownpigs.RespondentsfromBEL,NOR,PRT,andSWEshowedalsomoreacceptanceforthepracticeofIMMUNO,whichiscommonbutnotroutineinBEL,SWE,andNOR.ForPRT,itislessclearwhyacceptanceofANAEandIMMUNOwasrelativelyhigh,asitisnotrelatedtothecurrentsituation.ApossibleexplanationisthehighershareoffemalerespondentsinPRT.Representativityoftherespondentscanbeanissuewheninterpretingthesecountry-relatedresults,andthenecessarycautionissurelyneeded.Largerscalestudiesarerequiredtogetmorereliableinsightsinthesecountrydi erences.

chunk 30 · 988 tokens

Animals2020,10,175822of25Theclustersarealsocharacterizedbydemographics(TableS1).Femalerespondents,whoaremostrepresentedincluster1andleastin3,generallyassignmoreimportancetoanimalwelfare.AcceptabilityofCONTROLwasindeedlessforfemalethanformalerespondentsandthisisalsoreflectedintheanimalwelfarerelatedaspects,whileacceptabilityofIMMUNOwashigher.Inthisstudy,agedi erencesbetweenclustersweresmall,withyoungerrespondentsshowingaslightlyhigheracceptanceofIMMUNO,BOAR,andCONTROL.PreviousstudiesindicatedthattheknowledgeonthetopicofsurgicalcastrationislowerinyoungerpeopleandthatacceptanceofIMMUNOwashigheratyoungerage(18–29years)thanforover-60-year-oldrespondents[21,28].Cluster2showedfewestrespondentswithauniversitydegree,whichwerecharacterizedbyanoverallhigheracceptanceofeachoftheoptions.Livingareadidnotstronglydi erbetweenclustersandhadonlylittlee ectontherespondents’attitudes.Moreimportanttoconsiderarethedi erencesbasedonprofessionalinvolvementandfamiliaritywithagriculture.Professionally-involvedrespondentsalwaysgaveahigherscoretoeachofthestatementsforCONTROL,ANAE,andIMMUNOthanpeoplewhowerenotprofessionallyinvolved,whilenon-professionalsindicatedaslightlyhigheragreementforBOAR.Professionalinvolvementvs.noinvolvementmainlyincreasestheacceptanceofCONTROL(48%vs.27%)andIMMUNO(78vs.67%).However,alsowithinthetypesofprofessionalinvolvement,wecanobservedi erences.FarmersshowedthehighestacceptabilityofCONTROLamongsttheprofessions.TheydoconsiderANAEandIMMUNOasmoreacceptablethanCONTROL.However,withintheprofessionallyinvolvedrespondents,theyarepositivetowardsIMMUNO,butlessthanaverage,whichisalsothecaseforrespondentsinvolvedinmeatprocessing.ThelattergroupwasalsoleastacceptingBOARanddidnotconsideritasagoodalternative,basedonsafety,welfare,aswellastaste.Contrarytothat,researchersarewithintheprofessionalinvolvedstakeholdersmostproBOAR.RespondentsprofessionallyinvolvedasbutcherorinretailshowedthelowestacceptanceforCONTROL,mainlyduetoanimalwelfare.Theshorterrelationshipofthebutcher/retailertothesocietalconcernonanimalwelfareandmaybelowerfamiliaritywithagriculturemayexplainthedi erenceinacceptancebetweenbutcher/retailervs.farmer.TheonealternativethatallrespondentswerehighlyacceptingwasANAE,andonlyveterinarianswereslightlymorenotacceptingthis(10%vs.onaverage5%).Regardingtheimpactoffamiliaritywithagriculture,trendsarecomparabletoprofessionalinvolvement.RespondentswithnoorlimitedfamiliaritywithagricultureagreelesswiththestatementsrelatedtoCONTROLandANAE.Inlinewiththeresultsforthefarmers,respondentsthatgrewuponafarmalsohadaloweracceptanceofIMMUNOandBOARcomparedtonon-familiarstakeholders.5.ConclusionsLargescaleEuropeanconsumerstudiescoveringallalternativesarescarceandrecentdataontheacceptanceofthemainalternativesforsurgicalcastrationofpigletsislacking.Basedonthecurrent,exploratorystudy,itisnotpossibletodrawfarreachingconclusionsfortheaverageEuropeanconsumers.Apartoftherespondentswasalsohighlyprofessionallyinvolvedandfamiliarwithagricultureandhadhighawarenessofpigletcastrationaswealsowantedtoevaluatestakeholders’attitudes.Eachoftheseaspectscaninfluencethefinalpercentagesofacceptability;however,thismaybethecaseinotherstudiesaswell.Conclusionsarethereforeapplicablewithintheseconditions.Ofthe4presentedoptions,thepracticeofCONTROLwasoverallleastaccepted(32%),whilstthereiswashighacceptanceforANAE(85%),followedbyIMMUNO(71%),andBOAR(49%).Therespondentsstronglydistinguishedthecurrentpracticefromthealternativesduetoanimalwelfarereasons.Thiswasevenmoreoutspokenbynon-involvedrespondents,andalsoregionaldi erencescouldbeobserved(i.e.,withahigheracceptanceofCONTROLinseveralEasternEuropeancountries).Withinthealternatives,furtherdi erentiationwasmadebasedonqualityfollowedbysafety,althoughabiggroupofcorrespondentschooseagainstCONTROLwithoutapreferenceforonealternative.ForANAE,therewasahighacceptanceandhighconsensusthroughoutthedi erentrespondentprofiles,regardlessofprofessionalinvolvementorfamiliaritywithagriculture,theclustersthatcould

chunk 31 · 1022 tokens

Animals2020,10,175823of25bedefined,orthenationalityoftherespondent,asthisoptionalignswellwithexpectationsregardingwelfare,safety,aswellasgoodtaste.Aprerequisiteisapracticallyandeconomicallyfeasible,good,andcorrectimplementationofthispracticeinthefieldtocomplywithattitudesandexpectationsforstakeholdersaswellasconsumers.AlsoIMMUNOhasahighdegreeofacceptance,althoughmoreprofilerelatedvariationisvisible.Overall,respondentshaveconfidenceinIMMUNOaspractice,asitimprovesanimalwelfareandguaranteesagoodquality.Theaspectofapossiblynegativeperceptionregardingfoodsafetyisoftendebatedinthefield.However,mostrespondentshadapositiveorneutralattitudeandahighconfidenceinfoodsafetyingeneral.Basedontheclusteranalysis,onlyasmallsegmentoftherespondents(18%)wasnegativetowardsIMMUNOaswellastoBOAR.Whendi erentiationwasmadebasedonprofessionalinvolvementandfamiliaritywithagriculture,itcouldbeobservedthatmainlyfarmersandprocessorsshowlessacceptanceforIMMUNO.Moreinsightsintotheserespondentgroupsspecificallywouldthereforebeinteresting.HowtherespondentsperceivethepotentialimpactofboartaintwillsurelyimpacttheacceptabilityofBOARinattitudequestionnaires.Withintheproposedalternatives,theacceptabilityofBOARwaslowercomparedtotheothertwoalternativeoptions.MainlyprofessionallyinvolvedstakeholdersandthoseinvolvedinfoodprocessingspecificallywerelesspositivetowardsBOAR.Overall,ahigheracceptancecanbeanticipatediftheriskforboartaintcanbelimitedbyareductionofboartaint,areliabledetectionoftaintedcarcassesattheslaughterline,andvalorizationoftaintedcarcasses.WhendiscussingtheimplementationofanalternativetoreplaceCONTROL,itshouldbeeconomicallyandpracticallyfeasibleforthefarmerandacceptedbytheslaughterhouse,meatindustry,butchersandretailers,aswellasconsumers.Basedonthisstudy,amoderatetoveryhighacceptabilitycanbeexpectedfromthealternatives,ifperformedaccordingtobestpractices,whilstacceptabilityofCONTROLisclearlylower.SupplementaryMaterials:Thefollowingareavailableonlineathttp://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/10/10/1758/s1,FigureS1:Acceptabilityofcastrationalternativespertypeofprofessionallyinvolvedstakeholderfor(a)Castrationwithoutpainrelief—CONTROL,(b)castrationwithanaesthesia—ANAE,(c)Immunocastration—IMMUNO,(d)nocastration—BOAR,FigureS2:Acceptabilityofcastrationalternativesperclusterfor(a)Castrationwithoutpainrelief—CONTROL,(b)castrationwithanaesthesia—ANAE,(c)Immunocastration—IMMUNO,(d)nocastration—BOAR,TableS1:Overviewofdemographicsperclusterforallrespondentsandallnotprofessionallyinvolvedrespondents.AuthorContributions:Conceptualization:M.A.,M.E.,andA.V.d.B.;Methodology:M.A.andM.E.;Investigation:M.A.,M.E.,A.V.d.B.,J.M.A.,J.B.,G.Z.,G.B.,J.ˇC.,M.F.i.F.,A.G.,D.K.,E.K.,S.˙Z.-B.,K.K.,G.K.,D.M.,A.S.,M.Š.,T.S.,I.T.,L.T.,M.V.S.andM.E.;DataCuration,M.A.andE.H.;Writing—OriginalDraftPreparation:M.A.;Writing—ReviewandEditing,M.A.,E.H.,A.V.d.B.,M.E.,M.S.,D.M.,G.Z.,E.K.,S.˙Z.-B.,andM.F.i.F.Allauthorshavereadandagreedtothepublishedversionofthemanuscript.Funding:Thisresearchreceivednoexternalfunding.Acknowledgments:PaperpreparedwithintheframeworkoftheCostActionCA15215IPEMA.TheauthorswouldliketothankMiriamLevenson(ILVO)andallpeoplelisted,helpingwithpre-testing,translationordistributionofthequestionnaireaswell:L.Paternoster(BE),M.Frijlinck(BE),M.Lourenco(BE),O.Moreira(PT),J.Prates(PT),M.Bonneau(FR),P.Lawlor(IR),L.Doran(UK),J.E.Haugen(NO),M.Candek-Potokar(SL),M.Verhaagh(DE),D.Nakov(MK),M.Veneziani(IT),andmanymorecolleaguesandmembersoftheCostIPEMAnetwork.InsweetmemoryandhonourofUlrikeWeiler.ConflictsofInterest:Theauthorsdeclarenoconflictofinterest.References1.EuropeanCommission.EstablishingBestPracticesontheProduction,theProcessingandtheMarketingofMeatfromUncastratedPigsorPigsVaccinatedAgainstBoarTaint(Immunocastrated)—FinalReport.Availableonline:https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/animals/docs/aw_prac_farm_pigs_cast-alt_establishing-best-practices.pdf(accessedon1September2020).2.EuropeanDeclarationonAlternativestoSurgicalCastrationofPigs.Availableonline:https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/animals/docs/aw_prac_farm_pigs_cast-alt_establishing-best-practices.pdf(accessedon1September2020).

chunk 32 · 1017 tokens

Animals2020,10,175824of253.Weber,S.;Das,G.;Waldmann,K.H.;Gauly,M.Labourtimerequiredforpigletcastrationwithisoflurane-anaesthesiausingsharedandstationaryinhalerdevices.Berl.Munch.Tierarztl.Wochenschr.2014,127,108–114.4.CASTRUMConsortium.PigCastration:MethodsofAnaesthesiaandAnalgesiaforAllPigsandOtherAlternativesforPigsUsedinTraditionalProducts.Availableonline:https://www.boarsontheway.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Castrum-study.pdf(accessedon1September2020).5.Enz,A.;Schupbach-Regula,G.;Bettschart,R.;Fuschini,E.;Burgi,E.;Sidler,X.ExperienceswithpaincontrolduringpigletcastrationinSwitzerlandPart1:Inhalationanesthesia.Schweiz.Arch.Tierheilkd.2013,155,651–659.[CrossRef]6.Enz,A.;Schupbach-Regula,G.;Bettschart,R.;Fuschini,E.;Burgi,E.;Sidler,X.ExperienceswithpaincontrolduringpigletcastrationinSwitzerlandPart2:Injectionanesthesia.Schweiz.Arch.Tierheilkd.2013,155,661–668.[CrossRef]7.DeBriyne,N.;Berg,C.;Blaha,T.;Temple,D.Pigcastration:WilltheEUmanagetobanpigcastrationby2018?PorcineHealthManag.2016,2,29.[CrossRef][PubMed]8.Walstra,P.;Claudi-Magnussen,C.;Chevillon,P.;vonSeth,G.;Diestre,A.;Matthews,K.R.;Homer,D.B.;Bonneau,M.Aninternationalstudyontheimportanceofandrostenoneandskatoleforboartaint:Levelsofandrostenoneandskatolebycountryandseason.Liv.Prod.Sci.1999,62,15–28.[CrossRef]9.Prusa,K.;Nederveld,H.;Runnels,P.L.;Li,R.;King,V.L.;Crane,J.P.Prevalenceandrelationshipsofsensorytaint,5alpha-androstenoneandskatoleinfatandleantissuefromtheloin(Longissimusdorsi)ofbarrows,gilts,sows,andboarsfromselectedabattoirsintheUnitedStates.MeatSci.2011,88,96–101.[CrossRef][PubMed]10.Bonneau,M.;Weiler,U.Prosandconsofalternativestopigletcastration:Welfare,boartaint,andothermeatqualitytraits.Animals2019,9,12.[CrossRef]11.Borggaard,C.;Birkler,R.;Meinert,L.;Stoier,S.AtLineRapidInstrumentalMethodforMeasuringtheBoarTaintComponentsAndrostenoneandSkatoleinPorkFat.Availableonline:https://www.dti.dk/specialists/analytical-method-for-meat-from-entire-male-pigs/39301?cms.query=LDTD(accessedon12August2020).12.Martin-Bernal,R.;Aluwé,M.;Bonneau,M.;Haugen,J.E.;Mörlein,D.;Mörlein,J.;Panella-Riera,N.;Skrlep,M.;Font-i-Furnols,M.Feasibilityofon/atlinemethodstodetermineboartaintandboartaintcompounds:Anoverview.Animals2020,10.(Inpress)13.Pauly,C.;Luginbuhl,W.;Ampuero,S.;Bee,G.Expectede ectsoncarcassandporkqualitywhensurgicalcastrationisomitted-Resultsofameta-analysisstudy.MeatSci.2012,92,858–862.[CrossRef]14.Aluwé,M.;Langendries,K.C.;Bekaert,K.M.;Tuyttens,F.A.;DeBrabander,D.L.;DeSmet,S.;Millet,S.E ectofsurgicalcastration,immunocastrationandchicory-dietonthemeatqualityandpalatabilityofboars.MeatSci.2013,94,402–407.[CrossRef]15.Aluwe,M.;Degezelle,I.;Depuydt,L.;Fremaut,D.;VandenBroeke,A.;Millet,S.Immunocastratedmalepigs:E ectof4v.6weekstimepostsecondinjectiononperformance,carcassqualityandmeatquality.Animal2016,10,1466–1473.[CrossRef]16.Skrlep,M.;Tomasevic,I.;Mörlein,D.;Novakovic,S.;Egea,M.;Garrido,M.D.;Linares,M.B.;Peñaranda,I.;Aluwé,M.;Font-i-Furnols,M.Theuseofporkporkfromentiremaleandimmunocastratedpigsfordi erentproducts—Anoverviewwithrecommendations.Animals2020,10.(Inpress)17.Gispert,M.;Oliver,M.A.;Velarde,A.;Suarez,P.;Perez,J.;Furnols,M.F.I.Carcassandmeatqualitycharacteristicsofimmunocastratedmale,surgicallycastratedmale,entiremaleandfemalepigs.MeatSci.2010,85,664–670.[CrossRef][PubMed]18.Pauly,C.;Spring,P.;O’Doherty,J.V.;Kragten,S.A.;Bee,G.Growthperformance,carcasscharacteristicsandmeatqualityofgroup-pennedsurgicallycastrated,immunocastrated(Improvac(R))andentiremalepigsandindividuallypennedentiremalepigs.Animal2009,3,1057–1066.[CrossRef][PubMed]19.Skrlep,M.;Segula,B.;Prevolnik,M.;Kirbis,A.;Fazarinc,G.;Candek-Potokar,M.E ectofimmunocastration(Improvac(R))infatteningpigsII:Carcasstraitsandmeatquality.Slov.Vet.Res.2010,47,65–72.20.Fredriksen,B.;Furnols,M.F.I.;Lundstrom,K.;Migdal,W.;Prunier,A.;Tuyttens,F.A.M.;Bonneau,M.PracticeoncastrationofpigletsinEurope.Animal2009,3,1480–1487.[CrossRef]21.Fredriksen,B.;Johnsen,A.M.S.;Skuterud,E.Consumerattitudestowardscastrationofpigletsandalternativestosurgicalcastration.Res.Vet.Sci.2011,90,352–357.[CrossRef]

chunk 33 · 912 tokens

Animals2020,10,175825of2522.Heid,A.;Hamm,U.Animalwelfareversusfoodquality:Factorsinfluencingorganicconsumers’preferencesforalternativestopigletcastrationwithoutanaesthesia.MeatSci.2013,95,203–211.[CrossRef]23.Viske,D.;Lagerkvist,C.J.;Carlsson,F.Swedishconsumerpreferencesforanimalwelfareandbiotech:Achoiceexperiment.AgBioForum2006,9,8.24.VanBeirendonck,S.;Driessen,B.;Geers,R.Belgianconsumers’opiniononporkconsumptionconcerningalternativesforunanesthetizedpigletcastration.J.Agric.Environ.Ethics2013,26,259–272.[CrossRef]25.Vanhonacker,F.;Verbeke,W.Consumerresponsetothepossibleuseofavaccinemethodtocontrolboartaintv.physicalpigletcastrationwithanaesthesia:AquantitativestudyinfourEuropeancountries.Animal2011,5,1107–1118.[CrossRef][PubMed]26.Kallas,Z.;Martínez,B.;Panella-Riera,N.;Gil,J.M.Thee ectofsensoryexperienceonexpectedpreferencestowardamaskingstrategyforboar-taintedfrankfurtersausages.FoodQual.Prefer.2016,54,1–12.[CrossRef]27.Vanhonacker,F.;Verbeke,W.;Tuyttens,F.A.M.Belgianconsumers’attitudetowardssurgicalcastrationandimmunocastrationofpiglets.Anim.Welf.2009,18,371–380.28.Sodring,M.;Nafstad,O.;Haseth,T.T.ChangeinNorwegianconsumerattitudestowardspigletcastration:Increasedemphasisonanimalwelfare.Act.Vet.Scand.2020,62.[CrossRef]29.Mancini,M.C.;Menozzi,D.;Arfini,F.Immunocastration:Economicimplicationsfortheporksupplychainandconsumerperception.Anassessmentofexistingresearch.Livest.Sci.2017,203,10–20.[CrossRef]30.Tuyttens,F.A.M.;Vanhonacker,F.;Langendries,K.;Aluwe,M.;Millet,S.;Bekaert,K.;Verbeke,W.E ectofinformationprovisioningonattitudetowardsurgicalcastrationofmalepigletsandalternativestrategiesforavoidingboartaint.Res.Vet.Sci.2011,91,327–332.[CrossRef]31.Tomasevic,I.;Bahelka,I.;Candek-Potokar,M.;Citek,J.;Djekic,I.;DjurkinKusec,I.;Getya,A.;Guerrero,L.;Iordachescu,G.;Ivanova,S.;etal.AttitudesandbeliefsofEasternEuropeanconsumerstowardspigletcastrationandmeatfromcastratedpigs.MeatSci.2020,160,12.[CrossRef]32.RCoreTeam.R:ALanguageandEnvironmentforStatisticalComputing;RFoundationforStatisticalComputing:Vienna,Austria,2020.33.Meyners,M.;Castura,J.C.;Carr,B.T.ExistingandnewapproachesfortheanalysisofCATAdata.FoodQual.Prefer.2013,30,309–319.[CrossRef]34.DiPasquale,J.;Nannoni,E.;Sardi,L.;Rubini,G.;Salvatore,R.;Bartoli,L.;Adinolfi,F.;Martelli,G.TowardstheAbandonmentofSurgicalCastrationinPigs:HowisImmunocastrationPerceivedbyItalianConsumers?Animals2019,9,12.[CrossRef]35.Heyrman,E.;Kowalski,E.;Millet,S.;Tuyttens,F.A.M.;Ampe,B.;Janssens,S.;Buys,N.;Wauters,J.;Vanhaecke,L.;Aluwe,M.Monitoringofbehavior,sexhormonesandboartaintcompoundsduringthevaccinationprogramforimmunocastrationinthreesirelines.Res.Vet.Sci.2019,124,293–302.[CrossRef]36.Kallas,Z.;Gil,J.M.;Panella-Riera,N.;Blanch,M.;Font-i-Furnols,M.;Chevillon,P.;DeRoest,K.;Tacken,G.;Oliver,M.A.E ectoftastingandinformationonconsumeropinionaboutpigcastration.MeatSci.2013,95,242–249.[CrossRef][PubMed]37.Huber-Eicher,B.;Spring,P.AttitudesofSwissconsumerstowardsmeatfromentireorimmunocastratedboars:Arepresentativesurvey.Res.Vet.Sci.2008,85,625–627.[CrossRef][PubMed]38.Mancini,M.C.;Menozzi,D.;Arfini,F.;Veneziani,M.Chapter13—Howdofirmsuseconsumersciencetotargetconsumercommunication?Thecaseofanimalwelfare.InCaseStudiesintheTraditionalFoodSector;Elsevier:Amsterdam,TheNetherlands,2018;pp.337–357.39.Fredriksen,B.;Lium,B.M.;Marka,C.H.;Mosveen,B.;Nafstad,O.Entiremalepigsinfarrow-to-finishpens—E ectsonanimalwelfare.Appl.Anim.Behav.Sci.2008,110,258–268.[CrossRef]40.Tomasevic,I.;Bahelka,I.;Citek,J.;Candek-Potokar,M.;Djekic,I.;Getya,A.;Guerrero,L.;Ivanova,S.;Kusec,G.;Nakov,D.;etal.Attitudesandbeliefsofeasterneuropeanconsumerstowardsanimalwelfare.Animals2020,10,17.[CrossRef][PubMed]

chunk 34 · 90 tokens

.;Guerrero,L.;Ivanova,S.;Kusec,G.;Nakov,D.;etal.Attitudesandbeliefsofeasterneuropeanconsumerstowardsanimalwelfare.Animals2020,10,17.[CrossRef][PubMed] ©2020bytheauthors.LicenseeMDPI,Basel,Switzerland.ThisarticleisanopenaccessarticledistributedunderthetermsandconditionsoftheCreativeCommonsAttribution(CCBY)license(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).