1. Dutch research on stopping castration dr.ir. Gé Backus April 2013

2. Research Interdisciplinary consumer behaviour, supply chain management, farm management, economics, animal behaviour, genetics, feeding Business - science cooperation genetics, detection, feeding International cooperation between science groups EU BoarCheck: rapid detection methods EU CAMPIG:consumer acceptance

3. Setting the stage  Non-castration: animal welfare  Less feed efficiency ● better economics ● better for environment  Boar taint: side effect of non castration that has to be prevented  ‘No boar taint’ condition for market acceptance

4. Developments in castrating male pigs by country 2006 data from PIGCAS project

5. Quality check more than 1.5 million boars tested in The Netherlands!

6. Boar taint: consumer research Marcel Kornelis, Harriette Snoek, Gemma Tacken

7. Price and taste!!!! Animal welfare and the environment Importance food quality attributes Good for health Affordable Tasty Safe Convenient Feel good with Honestly produced Animal friendly Well known to me Traditional Environmental friendly Looking good Not important Important

8. 2008: test with 196 consumers Tasty Pleasant Pleasant Acceptable Deviating Acceptable Fatty Deviating smell taste smell smell taste taste taste Gilt Detection – Detection + Meat from boars that passed quality check (detection-) matches meat from gilts

9. 2010: Quality perception of boar meat with high levels of androstenone and skatole in a home environment Results Boar meat with high levels of andronstenone and skatole lower quality than gilt meat No evidence for adjustment effects after presenting boar-tainted boar chops for 2nd time Also: Consumer sensitivity of And/Skatol related to quality scores of boar-tainted meat

10. Consumers having difficulty to smell boar taint Lowest human nose score Highest human nose score

11. 2011: Survey of household consumption SurveySample size Sample periodKey characteristics February 2011 2025 days in 5 weeksQuality judgments of both the cook and one household member October 2011 2406 days in 6 weeksDifferent parts of the boar’s carcass Both Dutch and German consumers October 2011 1204 days in 4 weeks4 types of sausages January 2012 1201 day in 1 weekDifferences in product information Questions Is there a difference in evaluation between cook and other family members? Are some parts of the carcass more risky than others? Does product information influence sensory evaluation?

12. Empirical results so far  Properly tested meat from boars evaluated as normal  Consumers smell boar tainted meat  Consumer sensitivity related to quality scores  No training effect over time  Consumer differences larger than between pigs  Androstenon important when preparing meat  Consumers can be influenced by product information  Taste much more important consumer attribute than smell

13. Upper bound Baseline sales Lower bound In store experiments: Monitoring sales

14. Breeding against boar taint Pramod Mathur & Egbert Knol Androstenone, skatol and the human nose score are heritable

15. Searching regions on the chromosome having a relation with boar taint: Breeding effectivity twice as high SNP (single-nucleotide polymorphism) is a DNA sequence variation occurring when a single nucleotide in the genome (or other shared sequence) differs between members of a biological species or paired chromosomes in an animal

16. Response to selection Costs of selection to reduce boar taint are limited (combined with reproduction traits) Selection to reduce boar taint is even cost-effective when using incentives

17. Results genetics and breeding research Breeding research has helped select terminal sires that can significantly reduce (40%) boar taint in commercial crosses Reducing boar taint (25%) from the dam side also necessary Costs of selection on boar taint limited (combine with other traits) Selection on boar taint cost-effective when using incentives price differentiation for farms with high-low boar taint levels Still a long way to go Estimates of genetic correlations and breeding simulations suggest possible negative effects on some reproduction traits Combined approach boar taint and production traits necessary

18. Economics of producing and marketing intact male pigs  Better on farm productivity Daily gain (+ 25 gr), better feed efficiency (8-10%) + € 6,- Higher Feed Price- € 2,- Higher % Meat (+2%)+ € 2,- Net farm level result per male slaughter pig + € 6,-  Higher cost slaughter plant Estimated testing cost - € 1½ Estimated average lower price detected carcasses- € ½ Estimated net result slaughter plant- € 2,-  Long term potential benefit per pig + € 4,-

19. Wrap up: main overall findings Consumer studies Properly tested meat from boars evaluated as normal Consumers smell boar tainted meat, some better than others No training effect over time Consumer differences larger than between pigs Taste much more important consumer attribute than smell Breeding Terminal sires are selected that can significantly reduce (40%) boar taint Reducing boar taint (25%) from the dam side also necessary Costs of selection on boar taint limited (combine with other traits) Selection on boar taint cost-effective when using incentives Still long way to go: Combined approach boar taint and production traits Detection Humane nose score highest agreement with score by the consumer Agreement higher than with lab analysis of androstenone and skatole Farm management Mounting behaviour: a lot of variation between farms Productivity: lower feed conversion, higher daily gain and higher % meat Economics Substantial long term potential benefit of up to 4 euro per pig

20. Thank you for your attention!