rk and to reduce male specific behaviour, farmers have traditionally castrated their male piglets surgically and the procedure is still common in most countries. As this has usually been done without any pain relief, this measure faces strong public criticism. European stakeholders committed themselves to end this practice from 2018, but today, 75% of male piglets are still surgically castrated in the EU. Pain relief during and/or after surgery is increasingly used in some Western European countries to avoid suffering of the animals, but the surgery and risk of infections remain. Alternatives without surgical castration in pork production are raising entire males or immunocastration. Entire males have the advantage of a high growth potential and a good feed conversion rate, but the risk of boar taint and welfare problems due to male behavior limit the acceptance by the pork chain. Immunocastration reduces these problems but also decreases, in part, the anabolic advantage of males. To find country-specific, tailored solutions, there is a need to bundle the research activities along the pork chain and to spread scientific information to increase the acceptance of alternatives by farmers, industry and consumers. 1. Introduction For a very long time, farmers have been castrating their male piglets surgically without any pain relief. The practice is still common in most countries, but it is increasingly facing strong criticism because of the pain associated with the surgery. The suffering incurred by the animal during the surgical process and the following days has been well documented during the last 15 years. In 2010, European stakeholders had already committed themselves to end this practice and to develop pork production systems by 2018 that are independent of surgical
NoCast
Filters
…31) surgically castrated with topical application of Vetericyn Plus® at the incision site post-procedure. NoCast (Non-castrated): Intact male piglets (n = 32) subjected to sham castration with topical application of iodine…
…31) surgically castrated with topical application of Vetericyn Plus® at the incision site post-procedure. NoCast (Non-castrated): Intact male piglets (n = 32) subjected to sham castration with topical application of iodine…
tor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
tor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
ed true controls. Sows and piglets were housed in individual farrowing crates (0.8 x 2.3 m) on fully slatted floors within one farrowing room at North Carolina State University (NCSU) Swine Educa- tional Unit (Raleigh, North Carolina, US). The farrowing room was mechanically ventilated, and the temperature was maintained at 22˚ ± 1.0˚ C. Light was provided daily from 0630 to 1630 h. Creep area for piglets was heated to approximately 30–35˚C using heating lamps. Sows had ad libitum access to feed and water via awater nipple and stainless steel feeder (diet met or exceeded National Research Council [36] nutrient requirements for lactating sows) while housed in the farrowing system. Castration procedure. One trained person from NCSU performed castration (IG) on all enrolled male piglets (n = 39) on the same day between 0800-1000h. Piglets were moved to the alleyway via a transport cart and individually suspended by the hind legs while the procedure was performed. Once the piglet was secure, two, 2.5 cm incisions were made into the scrotal skin over each testicle using a scalpel blade. Spermatic cords were torn, testicles removed, and iodine was sprayed over the incision site to reduce infection risk. General or local anesthesia was not administered at the time of castration and is standard practice in the US. Currently in the US, there are no FDA approved drugs specifically labeled to manage pain in swine. There- fore, the use of any analgesic/anesthetic protocol to mitigate castration pain must be adminis- tered under the direct supervision of a veterinarian in accordance with the Animal Medicinal Drug Use Clarification Act of 1994. Piglets enrolled on this study were castrated according to the current standard operating procedure (SOP) approved on farm by the
ed true controls. Sows and piglets were housed in individual farrowing crates (0.8 x 2.3 m) on fully slatted floors within one farrowing room at North Carolina State University (NCSU) Swine Educa- tional Unit (Raleigh, North Carolina, US). The farrowing room was mechanically ventilated, and the temperature was maintained at 22˚ ± 1.0˚ C. Light was provided daily from 0630 to 1630 h. Creep area for piglets was heated to approximately 30–35˚C using heating lamps. Sows had ad libitum access to feed and water via awater nipple and stainless steel feeder (diet met or exceeded National Research Council [36] nutrient requirements for lactating sows) while housed in the farrowing system. Castration procedure. One trained person from NCSU performed castration (IG) on all enrolled male piglets (n = 39) on the same day between 0800-1000h. Piglets were moved to the alleyway via a transport cart and individually suspended by the hind legs while the procedure was performed. Once the piglet was secure, two, 2.5 cm incisions were made into the scrotal skin over each testicle using a scalpel blade. Spermatic cords were torn, testicles removed, and iodine was sprayed over the incision site to reduce infection risk. General or local anesthesia was not administered at the time of castration and is standard practice in the US. Currently in the US, there are no FDA approved drugs specifically labeled to manage pain in swine. There- fore, the use of any analgesic/anesthetic protocol to mitigate castration pain must be adminis- tered under the direct supervision of a veterinarian in accordance with the Animal Medicinal Drug Use Clarification Act of 1994. Piglets enrolled on this study were castrated according to the current standard operating procedure (SOP) approved on farm by the
rk and to reduce male specific behaviour, farmers have traditionally castrated their male piglets surgically and the procedure is still common in most countries. As this has usually been done without any pain relief, this measure faces strong public criticism. European stakeholders committed themselves to end this practice from 2018, but today, 75% of male piglets are still surgically castrated in the EU. Pain relief during and/or after surgery is increasingly used in some Western European countries to avoid suffering of the animals, but the surgery and risk of infections remain. Alternatives without surgical castration in pork production are raising entire males or immunocastration. Entire males have the advantage of a high growth potential and a good feed conversion rate, but the risk of boar taint and welfare problems due to male behavior limit the acceptance by the pork chain. Immunocastration reduces these problems but also decreases, in part, the anabolic advantage of males. To find country-specific, tailored solutions, there is a need to bundle the research activities along the pork chain and to spread scientific information to increase the acceptance of alternatives by farmers, industry and consumers. 1. Introduction For a very long time, farmers have been castrating their male piglets surgically without any pain relief. The practice is still common in most countries, but it is increasingly facing strong criticism because of the pain associated with the surgery. The suffering incurred by the animal during the surgical process and the following days has been well documented during the last 15 years. In 2010, European stakeholders had already committed themselves to end this practice and to develop pork production systems by 2018 that are independent of surgical
e.git. Received: 15 February 2024; Accepted: 21 February 2025 References 1. Fao, F. Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations. Rome http://faostat.fao.org 2, (2018). 2. Suryawanshi, K. R. et al. Impact of wild prey availability on livestock predation by snow leopards. R Soc. Open Sci. 4, (2017). 3. Collins, L. M., Smith, L. M. & Review Smart agri-systems for the pig industry. Animal 16, (2022). 4. Bonneau Weiler. Pros and cons of alternatives to piglet castration: welfare, Boar taint, and other meat quality traits. Animals 9, 884 (2019). 5. Sutherland, M. A. Welfare implications of invasive piglet husbandry procedures, methods of alleviation and alternatives: a review. N. Z. Vet. J. 63, 52–57 (2015). 6. Von Borell, E. et al. Animal welfare implications of surgical castration and its alternatives in pigs. Animal 3 (11), 1488–1496 (2009). 7. Burkemper, M. C., Pairis-Garcia, M. D., Moraes, L. E., Park, R. M. & Moeller, S. J. Effects of oral meloxicam and topical Lidocaine on pain associated behaviors of piglets undergoing surgical castration. J. Appl. Anim. Welfare Sci. 23, 209–218 (2020). 8. Tomasevic, I. & Bahelka, I. Čandek-Potokar. Attitudes and Beliefs of Eastern European Consumers Towards Piglet Castration and Meat from Castrated Pigs (Elsevier, 2020). 9. Lin-Schilstra, L. & Ingenbleek, P. T. A scenario analysis for implementing immunocastration as a single solution for piglet castration. Animals 12 (13), 1625 (2022). 10. H.R.8994–118th Congress: Pigs and Public Health Act. julho 11). https:/ /www.cong ress.gov/ bill/118th-congress/house-bi
e.git. Received: 15 February 2024; Accepted: 21 February 2025 References 1. Fao, F. Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations. Rome http://faostat.fao.org 2, (2018). 2. Suryawanshi, K. R. et al. Impact of wild prey availability on livestock predation by snow leopards. R Soc. Open Sci. 4, (2017). 3. Collins, L. M., Smith, L. M. & Review Smart agri-systems for the pig industry. Animal 16, (2022). 4. Bonneau Weiler. Pros and cons of alternatives to piglet castration: welfare, Boar taint, and other meat quality traits. Animals 9, 884 (2019). 5. Sutherland, M. A. Welfare implications of invasive piglet husbandry procedures, methods of alleviation and alternatives: a review. N. Z. Vet. J. 63, 52–57 (2015). 6. Von Borell, E. et al. Animal welfare implications of surgical castration and its alternatives in pigs. Animal 3 (11), 1488–1496 (2009). 7. Burkemper, M. C., Pairis-Garcia, M. D., Moraes, L. E., Park, R. M. & Moeller, S. J. Effects of oral meloxicam and topical Lidocaine on pain associated behaviors of piglets undergoing surgical castration. J. Appl. Anim. Welfare Sci. 23, 209–218 (2020). 8. Tomasevic, I. & Bahelka, I. Čandek-Potokar. Attitudes and Beliefs of Eastern European Consumers Towards Piglet Castration and Meat from Castrated Pigs (Elsevier, 2020). 9. Lin-Schilstra, L. & Ingenbleek, P. T. A scenario analysis for implementing immunocastration as a single solution for piglet castration. Animals 12 (13), 1625 (2022). 10. H.R.8994–118th Congress: Pigs and Public Health Act. julho 11). https:/ /www.cong ress.gov/ bill/118th-congress/house-bi