Betriebswirtschaftliche Auswirkungen von Alternativen zur betäubungslosen Ferkelkastration
Economic Impacts of Alternatives to Piglet Castration without Anesthesia
by Mandes Verhaagh
Date of Examination:2024-11-27
Date of issue:2024-12-09
Advisor:Dr. Claus Deblitz
Referee:Prof. Dr. Achim Spiller
Referee:Prof. Dr. Ludwig Theuvsen
Referee:Prof. Dr. Hiltrud Nieberg
Persistent Address:
http://dx.doi.org/10.53846/goediss-10907
Files in this item
Name:Betriebswirtschaftliche Auswirkungen von Alt...pdf
Size:3.03Mb
Format:PDF
The following license files are associated with this item:
Abstract
English
Piglet castration without anaesthesia has long been a common practice in pig farming to avoid boar taint in meat and to produce a homogeneous carcass. Due to the growing societal awareness of animal welfare, this practice has been strongly criticized in many European countries, and agricultural policy measures have been initiated to establish alternatives in modern pork production. In Germany, the ban on castration without anaesthesia has been postponed several times. On November 29, 2019, the German Bundestag extended the deadline for the amendment to the Animal Welfare Act to come into effect by two years, as neither agriculture nor politics had succeeded in finding a consensus on the available alternatives and implementing them resolutely. The legislative amendment means a change in the production process for pig farms. Several approaches are available to the industry to improve animal welfare during piglet castration. These methods aim to either ensure effective pain relief during castration or completely avoid the procedure. The various methods differ significantly in their effects on animal welfare, practicality, and especially economic viability. To make an informed decision on which procedure should be implemented on a farm, a thorough consideration of these factors is essential. A detailed analysis of the economic aspects of entire male finishing, vaccination against boar taint (immunocastration), castration under various general anaesthesia methods, and the use of local anaesthesia was carried out. Inhalation anaesthesia involves anaesthetizing male piglets with isoflurane gas before the castration procedure is performed. Inhalation anaesthesia is considered one of the most researched and established methods to meet animal welfare requirements for pain relief during castration. It causes less stress for the piglets compared to castration without anaesthesia. However, the process is time-consuming, as only a few piglets can be anaesthetized simultaneously. In addition, the purchase and maintenance of the anaesthesia equipment are associated with comparatively high costs. Depending on the farm, castration costs between 1.90 and 3.02 euros per male piglet more, depending on whether the farmer administers the anaesthesia themselves or has it performed by a veterinarian. In the latter case, the additional costs can be as high as 6.00 euros. Injection anaesthesia achieves general anaesthesia through the administration of ketamine/azaperone. This method is less time-consuming than inhalation anaesthesia, and no special equipment or investments are required. However, the dosage of the drugs requires greater precision, and the procedure is reserved exclusively for veterinarians in Germany, which increases the complexity of the method. In addition, piglets experience a significantly longer recovery or post-sleep phase, which can lead to higher piglet losses in the process. Therefore, the additional costs range between 5.04 and 6.70 euros per male piglet. Local anaesthesia is not a permissible method for piglet castration in Germany. The anaesthetic is injected directly into the area of the testicles. The injection increases the stress level of the piglets. Approval has failed due to insufficient pain relief. From an economic perspective, local anaesthesia is a much faster and less complicated procedure than the alternatives involving general anaesthesia and results in lower additional costs for anaesthetics and implementation, ranging between 0.98 and 1.57 euros per male piglet. Animal welfare laws in the European Union fall under the jurisdiction of individual member states. Each EU country enacts and implements its own national animal welfare regulations, which must comply with overarching EU guidelines. The EU provides a framework within which member states operate. Thus, national laws can be stricter than EU regulations but must not fall below them. Germany has one of the strictest animal welfare laws within the EU and has enshrined animal welfare as a state goal in the constitution. The implementation of EU directives into national law can lead to differences between member states, as seen in the definition of "effective pain relief" in piglet castration. However, trade law in the European internal market remains unaffected. There are established trade flows for piglets within the European Union, primarily between Germany, Denmark, and the Netherlands. Each country adopts its own strategy for implementing animal welfare laws concerning the cessation of castration without anaesthesia, leading to competitive distortions in trade. The Netherlands implemented a ban on castration without anaesthesia in 2009, following the Noordwijk Declaration, and established CO₂ anaesthesia for castration of male piglets exported to Germany. Driven by the agricultural policy debate on castration in Germany, Denmark adopted an industry agreement allowing local anaesthesia for piglet castration and prescribing its use in practice. Danish farmers can perform local anaesthesia themselves after completing a special training course. For German farmers who want to continue producing castrates, only isoflurane anaesthesia remains as an option after the amendment to the Animal Welfare Act, in order not to fall behind internationally. Both Denmark and Germany are losing competitiveness in the long-term profitability of pig farms compared to Dutch farms, which introduced alternative castration methods earlier and have lower production costs. The complete ban of surgical castration has a positive effect on animal welfare, as piglets remain intact, and strengthens the competitiveness of farmers from an economic perspective. Entire male finishing requires adjusted management but offers advantages such as improved feed conversion. No castration costs arise, reducing the workload for piglet producers. Boars have a shorter finishing period and better feed conversion, potentially generating a positive impact of up to 2.49 euros per 100 kg slaughter weight on long-term profitability. However, the risk of boar taint in the meat, which can affect market acceptance, must be considered. Specific settlement systems for boars at slaughterhouses can further negatively impact the profitability, as boar taint risks are priced in, preventing farmers from fully capitalizing on the higher productivity of the animals. Vaccination against boar taint offers farmers an animal welfare-friendly solution, where a two-time vaccination temporarily suppresses testicular function, preventing the development of boar taint. The major advantages are the avoidance of surgical castration, improved feed conversion, and higher growth rates in vaccinated male animals. The additional vaccination costs are offset by better feed conversion, allowing farms to produce more economically in the long term, with a potential benefit of up to 2.88 euros per 100 kg slaughter weight. This assumes that vaccinated boars are processed according to the standard payment system at German slaughterhouses. The lack of experience with carcass and cut composition in vaccinated boars does not yet allow a final assessment of pricing at slaughterhouses for farms and requires further analyses of the economic impact.
Keywords: Piglet Castration; Farm Economics; Immunocastration; International Competitiveness; Animal Welfare; agri benchmark; Boar fattening
Schlagwörter: agri benchmark; Ferkelkastration; Betriebswirtschaft; Internationale Wettbewerbsfähigkeit; Tierwohl; Immunokastration; Ebermast
