Pain alleviation associated with castration of piglets is a debated welfare issue. This study compares practical aspects, resource efficiency and economic implications of two protocols involving both analgesia and anaesthesia compared to a control group: conventional castration without pain relief (CTRL); joint administration of azaperone and meloxicam (AZA-MEL), i.m.; procaine (PROC-MEL), s.c., and meloxicam, i.m. A total number of 356 male piglets (56 L), was involved. Labour, mortality during the lactation period and costs for procedures were analysed. The total amount of labour required for each single male piglet and the risk of recording at least one dead piglet during lactation in litters were significantly higher in AZA-MEL and PROC-MEL groups than in CTRL group (labour: 02:04 and 02:04 vs. 01:18 min, respectively, p <.001; mortality risk: (RR = 1.48; CI 95% = 1.02 − 2.16; p =.029). The cost estimated for the castration of each male piglet in CRTL group was 0.32 €, whereas was 3.14 € for AZA-MEL group and 3.30 € for PROC-MEL group. The results suggest that adopting analgesia and anaesthesia showed notable cost increases for farmers. This might be expected and justifiable when the management is improved to reach a higher standard quality, such as in the case of welfare-friendly surgical castration, but might be questionable when also considering the result of increased piglet mortality in the lactation period.HIGHLIGHTS To use meloxicam + azaperone or + procaine on farm during piglets castration, increases labour of workers by 76.8 and 56.5%, respectively. At the same time, also piglets mortality risk increases by 48% during lactation. Total costs for each male piglet castrated with meloxicam + azaperone or + procaine increased by 3.14 and 3.30 €, respectively.

Analgesia and/or anaesthesia during piglet castration–part II: practicability of farm protocols, resource efficiency and economic implications

Galli M. C.;Contiero B.;De Benedictis G. M.;Gottardo F.
2021

Abstract

Pain alleviation associated with castration of piglets is a debated welfare issue. This study compares practical aspects, resource efficiency and economic implications of two protocols involving both analgesia and anaesthesia compared to a control group: conventional castration without pain relief (CTRL); joint administration of azaperone and meloxicam (AZA-MEL), i.m.; procaine (PROC-MEL), s.c., and meloxicam, i.m. A total number of 356 male piglets (56 L), was involved. Labour, mortality during the lactation period and costs for procedures were analysed. The total amount of labour required for each single male piglet and the risk of recording at least one dead piglet during lactation in litters were significantly higher in AZA-MEL and PROC-MEL groups than in CTRL group (labour: 02:04 and 02:04 vs. 01:18 min, respectively, p <.001; mortality risk: (RR = 1.48; CI 95% = 1.02 − 2.16; p =.029). The cost estimated for the castration of each male piglet in CRTL group was 0.32 €, whereas was 3.14 € for AZA-MEL group and 3.30 € for PROC-MEL group. The results suggest that adopting analgesia and anaesthesia showed notable cost increases for farmers. This might be expected and justifiable when the management is improved to reach a higher standard quality, such as in the case of welfare-friendly surgical castration, but might be questionable when also considering the result of increased piglet mortality in the lactation period.HIGHLIGHTS To use meloxicam + azaperone or + procaine on farm during piglets castration, increases labour of workers by 76.8 and 56.5%, respectively. At the same time, also piglets mortality risk increases by 48% during lactation. Total costs for each male piglet castrated with meloxicam + azaperone or + procaine increased by 3.14 and 3.30 €, respectively.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11577/3389224
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 2
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 2
social impact