…article was downloaded by: [University of Sydney] On: 06 August 2014, At: 00:43 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41…
Routledge
Filters
I. Zootechnical Description..........................................................................................................13 II. Veterinary Inventory................................................................................................................. 15 Biological Outcomes........................................................................................................ 16 Affective Experiences............................................................................................................17 Association Between Circumstances, Biological Outcomes, and Affective Experiences.20 III. Affective Quantification.......................................................................................................... 20 (A) Temporal Description Using Notation Systems.............................................................21 (B) Calculation of Cumulative Affect....................................................................................27 IV. Epidemiological Investigation................................................................................................ 29 V. Econometric Calculation......................................................................................................... 29 Cumulative Pain and Pleasure for Each Life-Fate................................................................30 Cumulative Pain and Pleasure for the Average Individual in a System.............................. 30 Welfare Footprint: Cumulative Pain and Pleasure per Unit of Product.............................. 30 Interspecific Scaling...............................................................................................................31 Welfare Footprint Expression and
the key to the future of The utilization and assessment of immunocastration vaccines in immunocastration vaccines. pigs has been extensively reported (34, 48, 75). However, there is currently no commercially available vaccine for chickens. Recently, only three studies have investigated the use of the GnRH vaccine for Author contributions immunizing roosters. Quaresma and colleagues evaluated the effects of Improvac on the body and bone development, meat color, and CW: drafting the manuscript. YZ and CY: provision of study composition of roosters, and found that the color parameters of materials. MZ: conceptualization and supervision. All authors Improvac birds, such as brightness, red, and hue angle, were between contributed to the article and approved the submitted version. roosters and capons (5). In addition, i.c. Antunes et al. found that immunocastration had little effect on the fatty acid profile of broilers, but improved overall lipid markers in breast and leg meat to some Funding extent, which could partially enable GnRH immunization (6). Previous studies have shown that both caponization and ovariectomy This research was supported by National Key Research and likely improve the meat quality of the breast muscle based on the Development Projects of China (2021YFD1600200). objective indices of IMF, appearance (color), texture, and minor change of the fatty acid profile; ovariectomy improves flavor-related indices (76). In our study, we found that roosters inoculated with Conflict of interest Improvac had some effect on muscle development, but the effect was not completely satisfactory (77, 78). The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of
the key to the future of The utilization and assessment of immunocastration vaccines in immunocastration vaccines. pigs has been extensively reported (34, 48, 75). However, there is currently no commercially available vaccine for chickens. Recently, only three studies have investigated the use of the GnRH vaccine for Author contributions immunizing roosters. Quaresma and colleagues evaluated the effects of Improvac on the body and bone development, meat color, and CW: drafting the manuscript. YZ and CY: provision of study composition of roosters, and found that the color parameters of materials. MZ: conceptualization and supervision. All authors Improvac birds, such as brightness, red, and hue angle, were between contributed to the article and approved the submitted version. roosters and capons (5). In addition, i.c. Antunes et al. found that immunocastration had little effect on the fatty acid profile of broilers, but improved overall lipid markers in breast and leg meat to some Funding extent, which could partially enable GnRH immunization (6). Previous studies have shown that both caponization and ovariectomy This research was supported by National Key Research and likely improve the meat quality of the breast muscle based on the Development Projects of China (2021YFD1600200). objective indices of IMF, appearance (color), texture, and minor change of the fatty acid profile; ovariectomy improves flavor-related indices (76). In our study, we found that roosters inoculated with Conflict of interest Improvac had some effect on muscle development, but the effect was not completely satisfactory (77, 78). The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of
animals Article Exploratory Survey on European Consumer and Stakeholder Attitudes towards Alternatives for Surgical Castration of Piglets Marijke Aluwé 1, *, Evert Heyrman 1 , João M. Almeida 2 , Jakub Babol 3 , Gianni Battacone 4 , Jaroslav Čítek 5 , Maria Font i Furnols 6 , Andriy Getya 7 , Danijel Karolyi 8 , Eliza Kostyra 9 , Kevin Kress 10 , Goran Kušec 11 , Daniel Mörlein 12 , Anastasia Semenova 13 , Martin Škrlep 14 , Todor Stoyanchev 15 , Igor Tomašević 16 , Liliana Tudoreanu 17 , Maren Van Son 18 , Sylwia Żakowska-Biemans 9 , Galia Zamaratskaia 19 , Alice Van den Broeke 1 and Macarena Egea 20 1 Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (ILVO), Animal Sciences Unit, 9090 Melle, Belgium; evert.heyrman@ilvo.vlaanderen.be (E.H.); alice.vandenbroeke@ilvo.vlaanderen.be (A.V.d.B.) 2 Instituto Nacional de Investigação Agrária e Veterinária (INIAV), Quinta da Fonte Boa, 2005-048 Vale de Santarém, Portugal; joaoalmeida@iniav.pt 3 Department of Biomedical Science and Veterinary Public Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7015, 750 07 Uppsala, Sweden; jakub.babol@slu.se 4 Department of Agriculture, University of Sassari, Viale Italia 39, 07100 Sassari, Italy; battacon@uniss.it 5 Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agrobiology, Food and Natural Resources, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague (CZU), Kamycka 129, 16500 Prague, Czech Republic; citek@af.czu.cz 6 Institute for Food and Agriculture Research and Technology (IRTA), Product Quality Program, Finca Camps i Armet, 17121 Monells, Girona, Spain; maria.font@irta.cat 7 Animal Breeding Department, National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine (NULES), Henerala Rodimtseva 19, 03041 Kyiv, Ukraine; getya@ukr.net 8 Department of Animal
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.
eting interests The authors declare no competing interests. Additional information Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi .org/1 0.10 38/s41598- 025-91551-6. Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to P.H.E.T. Reprints and permissions information is available at www.nature.com/reprints. Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:/ /creativec ommo ns.org /licenses/
eting interests The authors declare no competing interests. Additional information Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi .org/1 0.10 38/s41598- 025-91551-6. Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to P.H.E.T. Reprints and permissions information is available at www.nature.com/reprints. Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:/ /creativec ommo ns.org /licenses/
he potential of misinterpreting trial outcomes. Although there is a high degree of variability in the literature of test methods employed and outcomes obtained, there is nevertheless a growing body of evidence to suggest that some piglet responses to pain induced by castration, are more consistently reproduced and specific to the pain experienced during castration than others. In this narrative review, we examine the potential indicators of pain in neonatal piglets undergoing castration to determine the optimal methods, currently available to most accurately detect pain, and assess pain mitigation. Abstract: Analgesic products for piglet castration are critically needed. This requires extensive animal experimentation such as to meet regulatory-required proof of efficacy. At present, there are no validated methods of assessing pain in neonatal piglets. This poses challenges for investigators to optimize trial design and to meet ethical obligations to minimize the number of animals needed. Pain in neonatal piglets may be subtle, transient and / or variably expressed and, in the absence of validated methods, investigators must rely on using a range of biochemical, physiological and behavioural variables, many of which appear to have very low (or unknown) sensitivity or specificity for documenting pain, or pain-relieving effects. A previous systematic review of this subject was hampered by the high degree of variability in the literature base both in terms of methods used to assess pain and pain mitigation, as well as in outcomes reported. In this setting we provide a narrative review, to assist in determining the optimal methods currently available to detect piglet pain during castration and methods to mitigate castration-induced pain. In overview, the optimal outcome