Life Cycle Assessment (Lca) and Environmental Product Declaration (Epd) of an Immunological Product for Boar Taint Control in Male Pigs

Moraes, Paulo J. U. De; Allison, Jim; Robinson, J. A.; Baldo, Gian Luca; Boeri, Fabrizio; Borla, Paola

doi:10.1142/s1464333213500014

Cited by 13 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, also per kg of meat, immunocastrates can be expected to have a lower impact than barrows. This was confirmed by the study of De Moraes and co-authors [107], who calculated a 3.7% improvement of global warming potential per kg live weight and of 5.0% per kg of meat in immunocastrates versus barrows.…”

Section: Consequences Of Immunocastration For the Environmental Burdensupporting

confidence: 52%

“…Nitrogen efficiency was also higher in immunocastrates than in barrows and slightly lower than in boars [105]. Immunocastration is therefore considered to lessen the environmental impact of pork compared to barrow production [102,106,107]. Comparing barrows receiving ractopamine throughout finishing with immunocastrates receiving ractopamine after second vaccination, Bandekar and co-authors [102] estimated a reduction of 2.39%, 2.57%, and 2.96% in global warming potential, energy use and water use per kg pig, respectively.…”

Section: Consequences Of Immunocastration For the Environmental Burdenmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Apart from the differences in performance and hence the amount of feed consumed, the environmental cost of the product for vaccinating pigs also needs to be taken into account. In a study carried out by the manufacturer of Improvac ® and an independent consulting firm [107], the calculated contribution of the product manufacturing accounted for 0.01% of the global warming potential, compared to 36% assigned to the feed consumed and 30% to the slurry management. In barrows, there is increasing pressure for using analgesics and anesthetics during castration.…”

Section: Consequences Of Immunocastration For the Environmental Burdenmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Sustainability of Pork Production with Immunocastration in Europe

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Immunocastration, a technique to replace surgical castration of piglets, consists of two consecutive vaccinations to induce antibodies which transiently suppress testicular functions and avoid boar taint. It is a method to ensure both a high product quality and a high level of animal welfare. The impact of immunocastration on the three pillars of sustainability has been studied extensively. While all aspects of sustainability have been studied separately, however, a contemporary global overview of different aspects is missing. In immunocastrates, performance results are better than in barrows, but worse than in boars. The environmental impact of pork production with immunocastrates is lower than with barrows, but higher than with boars. The level of aggression is considerably lower in immunocastrates compared to boars. Societal concerns are mainly related to food safety, and are not supported by scientific evidence. After second vaccination, immunocastrates switch from a boar- to a barrow-like status. Therefore, the timing of second vaccination is a fine-tuning tool to balance advantages of boars with environmental and economic benefits against increased risk of welfare problems and boar taint. Nevertheless, both synergic and conflicting relationships between the pillars of sustainability must be communicated along the value chain to produce tailored pork products.

show abstract

Section: Consequences Of Immunocastration For the Environmental Burdensupporting

confidence: 52%

Section: Consequences Of Immunocastration For the Environmental Burdenmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Consequences Of Immunocastration For the Environmental Burdenmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sustainability of Pork Production with Immunocastration in Europe

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[ Table 1] Table 1. Classification of the literature related to EPD programmes and PCR As can be seen in Table 1, although a number of publications have focused on analysing the process of obtaining EPD, PCR and/or carrying out practical cases (Benaviste et al, 2011;De Moraes et al, 2013;Del Borghi et al, 2007;Fet & Skaar, 2006;etc. ), only three studies attempt to identify the motivating factors that lead companies to opt for EPD as a tool for communicating the environmental impact of their products/services.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental Product Declarations: exploring their evolution and the factors affecting their demand in Europe

Ibáñez-Forés

Pacheco-Blanco

Capuz-Rizo

et al. 2016

Journal of Cleaner Production

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents the findings of an exploratory study conducted to analyse the growing use of Environmental Declarations as environmental communication tools, together with the factors that have led to this situation in Europe. To do so, and focusing on the EPD programme called the International EPD System, an exhaustive analysis was performed of the evolution of Product Category Rules (PCR) and Environmental Product Declarations (EPD). The next step was to draw up a survey to be administered to companies that currently have EPD in that programme in order to identify the factors that led to its being chosen as an environmental communication tool, the communication channels through which they came to know about the programme, the target public of EPD, whether or not they intend to renew it and the reasons for not doing so if that is the case, and so on. Despite a progressive growth in the use of EPD, according to the companies, the main weakness of these programmes is the fact that final consumers do not know about EPD. Implementing actions geared towards raising awareness about them may therefore play a key role in maintaining and continuing to increase the success of EPD programmes.

show abstract

“…In the UK, meat pigs are marketed at a younger age than, for example, in the USA. Intact males convert feed to pork more efficiently which will help world hunger, lower production costs and reduce the environmental impact since there are fewer manure nutrients than when males are castrated [ 30 , 31 ]. The idea is that if male pigs are slaughtered before puberty, then they will not have boar taint.…”

Section: Example #3: Male Pig Castrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Future of Pork Production in the World: Towards Sustainable, Welfare-Positive Systems

McGlone

2013

Animals

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Simple SummaryMore pork is eaten in the world than any other meat. Making production systems and practices more sustainable will benefit the animals, the planet and people. A system is presented by which production practices are evaluated using a sustainability matrix. The matrix shows why some practices are more common in some countries and regions and the impediments to more sustainable systems. This method can be used to assess the sustainability of production practices in the future where objective, science-based information is presented alongside ethical and economic information to make the most informed decisions. Finally, this paper points to current pork production practices that are more and less sustainable.AbstractAmong land animals, more pork is eaten in the world than any other meat. The earth holds about one billion pigs who deliver over 100 mmt of pork to people for consumption. Systems of pork production changed from a forest-based to pasture-based to dirt lots and finally into specially-designed buildings. The world pork industry is variable and complex not just in production methods but in economics and cultural value. A systematic analysis of pork industry sustainability was performed. Sustainable production methods are considered at three levels using three examples in this paper: production system, penning system and for a production practice. A sustainability matrix was provided for each example. In a comparison of indoor vs. outdoor systems, the food safety/zoonoses concerns make current outdoor systems unsustainable. The choice of keeping pregnant sows in group pens or individual crates is complex in that the outcome of a sustainability assessment leads to the conclusion that group penning is more sustainable in the EU and certain USA states, but the individual crate is currently more sustainable in other USA states, Asia and Latin America. A comparison of conventional physical castration with immunological castration shows that the less-common immunological castration method is more sustainable (for a number of reasons). This paper provides a method to assess the sustainability of production systems and practices that take into account the best available science, human perception and culture, animal welfare, the environment, food safety, worker health and safety, and economics (including the cost of production and solving world hunger). This tool can be used in countries and regions where the table values of a sustainability matrix change based on local conditions. The sustainability matrix can be used to assess current systems and predict improved systems of the future.

show abstract

Life Cycle Assessment (Lca) and Environmental Product Declaration (Epd) of an Immunological Product for Boar Taint Control in Male Pigs

Cited by 13 publications

References 6 publications

Sustainability of Pork Production with Immunocastration in Europe

Sustainability of Pork Production with Immunocastration in Europe

Environmental Product Declarations: exploring their evolution and the factors affecting their demand in Europe

The Future of Pork Production in the World: Towards Sustainable, Welfare-Positive Systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About