Hubbry Logo
Boar taintBoar taintMain
Open search
Boar taint
Community hub
Boar taint
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Boar taint
Boar taint
Boar taint
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Boar taint is the offensive odor or taste that can be evident during the cooking or eating of pork or pork products derived from non-castrated male pigs once they reach puberty. Boar taint is found in around 20% of entire male finishing pigs. Skatole may also be detected in young female swine, but this is linked with fecal contamination of the skin. Studies show that about 75% of consumers are sensitive to boar taint, leading pork producers to control this in order to maximize profits.[1]

Causes

[edit]

Boar taint is caused by the accumulation of two compounds – androstenone and skatole – in the fat of male pigs. Androstenone (a male pheromone) is produced in the testes as male pigs reach puberty and gives the meat a urine or sweat flavour, while skatole (a byproduct of intestinal bacteria, or bacterial metabolite of the amino acid tryptophan) is produced in both male and female pigs and gives the meat a 'fecal' flavour. However, levels are much higher in intact boars, because testicular steroids inhibit its breakdown by the liver. As a result, skatole accumulates in the fat of male pigs as they mature.

Controlling boar taint

[edit]

For centuries, pigs have been castrated to prevent boar taint. Castration rates vary from country to country, and most still do not use anesthesia or analgesia when castrating pigs. Commercial farms that do castrate will do so in the pig's first week of life.

Another possible method to control boar taint is to use sex sorted semen for artificial insemination so as to produce mostly female offspring. This method has been successfully used in cattle breeding, but the technique is still under research and no economical or practical solution yet exists in pig production.

As castration has received criticism in recent years, for welfare reasons, some producers and producer associations are seeking alternative methods to control boar taint.[2] Some producers are breeding out the taint and avoiding the few breeds of pigs that are high in taint. Yorkshire, Hampshire and other lighter-colored pigs are known to be particularly low in the androstenone-based taint while Duroc pigs are high in the taint.[citation needed]

Vaccination

[edit]

Vaccination against boar taint with Improvac,[3]: 503  which has been used in Australia and New Zealand since 1998, is a solution[2][4][3]: 503 [5] that uses the pig's immune system to control boar taint. The use of the vaccine is claimed to be as simple and reliable as physical castration in controlling boar taint. It can be administered by trained farm personnel and enables the production of pork meat that is claimed to be of high quality and to be safe for consumers to eat.[6]

The vaccine works by stimulating the pig's immune system to produce specific antibodies against gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH). This temporarily inhibits testes function and thus stops the production and accumulation of boar taint–causing compounds.

By stimulating production of antibodies specific to GnRH, the vaccine stops the chain of events that lead to the release of testosterone and other steroids from the testes, including androstenone, one of the two causes of boar taint. The other major taint-causing compound, skatole, is also eliminated, because the lower steroid levels allow the liver to more efficiently metabolise it.

Each pig must be immunised twice to successfully control boar taint. The timing of the first dose is relatively flexible, but there must be a minimum of four weeks between the two doses, with the second taking place four to six weeks before slaughter. After the second dose, the boar's testicles stop growing. The handler should be trained in the use of the vaccine and the vaccinator with enhanced safety features.

The vaccine is claimed to offer an animal-friendly and a more environmentally sustainable solution to boar taint, and to allow getting benefits of natural boar growth while preserving eating quality.[7][8][9][10][11][12] However concerns about the effect of the drugs on animal and consumer health have been expressed.[13]

The vaccine will work in multiple mammalian species and is commonly used for contraceptive purposes in zoo animals and oestrus suppression in horses. The vaccine would also work to temporarily prevent sexual function in humans, but no cases of this have ever been recorded. [citation needed]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Boar taint

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Boar taint is an off-odor and off-flavor detectable in the and of some uncastrated pigs (boars) during cooking or consumption, primarily resulting from the accumulation of two compounds: , a steroidal produced in the testes, and , a formed by microbial degradation of in the intestines. imparts a - or sweat-like , while contributes fecal or mothball notes, with their levels influenced by factors such as age at slaughter, breed, diet, and activity. These sensory defects reduce acceptability, particularly among those sensitive to the odors, though varies widely from 1% to 30% across populations due to genetic and environmental differences. The condition arises because entire males, unlike castrates, retain testicular function that elevates synthesis and impairs metabolism, leading to deposition in backfat; other minor contributors like may exacerbate taint in specific cases. Detection relies on sensory by trained panels or analytical methods measuring compound thresholds (e.g., >0.5–1 μg/g fat, >0.2–0.25 μg/g), with perception varying—up to 30–50% of people exhibit low sensitivity to . Historically managed through physical of piglets shortly after birth, which eliminates taint but involves acute pain without , prompting regulatory shifts like the European Union's 2018 recommendations against routine surgical and favoring alternatives. Key strategies to mitigate boar taint include for low-androstenone/ genotypes (heritabilities of 0.3–0.6), dietary interventions to enhance clearance (e.g., via or additives), and immunological using vaccines that suppress gonadal function without surgery. These approaches balance meat quality with welfare, as entire males offer advantages like improved feed efficiency and leaner carcasses, though implementation challenges persist in detecting tainted carcasses at slaughter to prevent market entry. Ongoing research emphasizes genomic selection and management to reduce incidence without compromising productivity, reflecting a causal focus on physiological origins over symptomatic fixes.

Definition and Characteristics

Compounds and Sensory Profile

Boar taint arises primarily from two lipophilic compounds that accumulate in the and meat of uncastrated male pigs: (5α-androst-16-en-3-one), a testicular , and (3-methylindole), an intestinal of . is biosynthesized in the Leydig cells of the testes via the Δ16-androstene pathway and partitions into , where concentrations above 0.5–1.0 μg/g typically elicit detectable taint. forms through microbial in the and is absorbed systemically, with threshold levels for taint perception around 0.2–0.25 μg/g ; both compounds exhibit low volatility, requiring (e.g., cooking) for release. While other 16-androstenes (e.g., androstenol) and derivatives contribute minor effects, and account for the majority of taint variance, though interactions and unidentified factors explain only about 50% of total sensory variation. Sensory perception of boar taint manifests as an off-odor and off-flavor upon heating fat or meat, often described as urine-like, sweaty, or pungent from androstenone, and fecal, manure-like, or pigsty-associated from skatole. Combined, these yield a composite profile of "boar" or "male " odor, with skatole influencing both aroma and taste more persistently than androstenone, which dissipates faster post-cooking. sensitivity varies genetically; up to 30–50% of individuals are anosmic to androstenone, reducing perceived taint intensity, while skatole detection is more universal. In trained panels, taint scores correlate positively with compound levels, with fat samples exceeding 1.0 μg/g androstenone or 0.3 μg/g skatole rated unacceptable by over 80% of assessors.

Prevalence in Pork Production

Boar taint affects a variable proportion of entire pigs in commercial production, with reported incidence rates typically ranging from 1% to 10% based on olfactory detection or chemical thresholds for key compounds, though higher rates up to 28% have been observed in certain populations. Prevalence is influenced by genetic selection, dietary factors, and environmental management, with lower rates achieved through breeding programs targeting reduced deposition of and . In regions transitioning from routine , such as the following the 2018 recommendation against surgical , monitoring has shown average olfactory prevalence of 1.8% across farms, with intra-farm variations up to 9.1% between slaughter batches. Chemical analyses from commercial settings provide granular data on compound levels contributing to taint. In a survey of Spanish farms, 5.5% of carcasses exhibited high levels (≥1.00 μg/g), while 6.6% had elevated (≥0.20 μg/g), indicating potential taint risk when either exceeds thresholds, though not all high levels result in perceptible off-odors due to individual sensory variation. Australian studies reported exceeding 1 μg/g in over 28% of entire males, alongside above 0.2 μg/g in 15%, highlighting regional differences possibly linked to breed lines and feeding practices. Genetic factors exacerbate variability, with dam lines showing higher compound accumulation than sire lines selected for lean growth, underscoring the role of targeted breeding in mitigating prevalence. Overall, in modern entire male production systems emphasizing low-taint and management, boar taint remains a minority issue but necessitates carcass sorting to maintain , as undetected cases can impact . is lower in summer than winter and correlates inversely with aggression levels and skin lesions, suggesting behavioral and housing factors as modifiable risks. Ongoing genetic advancements, including genomic selection, have demonstrated potential to reduce incidence by up to 40% in selected populations.

Causes and Influencing Factors

Primary Compounds

The primary compounds responsible for boar taint are the steroidal androstenone (5α-androst-16-en-3-one) and the tryptophan metabolite (3-methylindole), which accumulate in the of entire male pigs and release unpleasant odors upon cooking. Androstenone is synthesized in the Leydig cells of the testes under regulation by , with lipophilic properties leading to deposition in fat as advances. It produces a urine-like, sweaty, or musky sensory profile, though detection varies due to genetic in approximately 15-25% of consumers, particularly females. Skatole forms through bacterial fermentation of in the , primarily by microbes such as certain strains, followed by absorption and hepatic metabolism that is often insufficient in boars, resulting in fat accumulation. Its odor is characterized as fecal, manure-like, or naphthalene-resembling, and it is more universally detectable than , often dominating sensory perceptions of taint. Threshold concentrations for taint detection in backfat are typically 0.5–1.0 μg/g for and 0.20–0.25 μg/g for , though interactions between the compounds can lower effective thresholds and intensify off-odors, partly because high levels inhibit enzymes involved in clearance. Indole (2,3-benzopyrrole), produced via similar gut microbial pathways from , contributes secondarily by enhancing 's fecal notes but at lower concentrations and impact. Minor contributors, including other 16-androstene steroids, 4-methylphenol, or , may modulate taint in specific cases but do not account for the majority of sensory defects attributable to and . Levels of these compounds rise with age, , and onset, typically becoming problematic in boars slaughtered at 5–6 months and over 100 kg live weight.

Biological and Environmental Contributors

Biological contributors to boar taint primarily involve the physiological production and accumulation of androstenone and skatole in entire male pigs. Androstenone, a steroidal pheromone synthesized by Leydig cells in the testes, increases with sexual maturation and age, leading to higher concentrations in fat tissue of older boars approaching slaughter weight. Skatole arises from microbial degradation of tryptophan in the hindgut, followed by incomplete hepatic metabolism, resulting in its deposition in adipose tissue. Genetic factors play a significant role, with heritability estimates for androstenone ranging from 0.25 to 0.88 and for skatole from 0.20 to 0.55 across studies, enabling selective breeding to mitigate taint. Breed differences influence prevalence, such as elevated androstenone in Duroc compared to Landrace pigs and higher skatole in Large White versus Pietrain. Environmental factors modulate these compounds, particularly levels, through impacts on and overall welfare. Diets rich in fermentable carbohydrates, such as pulp at 100 g/kg, reduce skatole production by enhancing microbial in the (e.g., lowering deposition from 480 µmol to 230 µmol compared to low-fiber feeds), with incidence dropping from 26% to 6% in some trials. Conversely, diets with low pre-caecal protein digestibility elevate skatole via increased undigested protein reaching the colon. Housing conditions affect accumulation, as pigs in clean environments exhibit lower skatole than those in soiled pens, likely due to reduced fecal re-ingestion and stress. Social stressors, including mixing and disruptions, can indirectly elevate taint via altered , though evidence remains correlative. These interactions underscore that while biological mechanisms drive baseline taint potential, environmental management can substantially attenuate expression.

Detection and Assessment

Laboratory Methods

Laboratory methods for detecting boar taint focus on the quantitative determination of key compounds—primarily , , and —in porcine , such as backfat or neck fat samples, where these steroids and indoles accumulate. These analyses typically involve extraction of the fat matrix followed by chromatographic separation and detection, enabling measurement against established thresholds like 0.5–1.0 μg/g fat for androstenone and 0.20–0.25 μg/g fat for skatole, beyond which taint risk increases. , though less prevalent, is often included as a supplementary due to its synergistic off-odor effects. Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS), frequently employing isotope dilution for enhanced accuracy, represents the reference standard for boar taint compound quantification. In this procedure, fat samples undergo alkaline or solvent extraction for cleanup, followed by derivatization of analytes like , then GC separation and MS detection in selected ion monitoring mode to achieve limits of quantification around 0.01 μg/g. Collaborative trials have validated this method's across laboratories, with relative standard deviations under 15% for and at typical concentrations. High-resolution variants, such as GC-high resolution MS (GC-HRMS), further improve specificity by resolving isobaric interferences in complex fat matrices. Liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) and (HPLC) offer alternatives, particularly for high-throughput or non-derivatized analysis. HPLC with fluorescence detection has been adapted for simultaneous and measurement in liquid fat, achieving linearity from 0.05–5 μg/g and recoveries exceeding 90% after simple dilution and , bypassing extensive cleanup. LC-MS/MS enables direct quantification without derivatization, supporting rapid processing of large sample sets in breeding or slaughter contexts. These methods address variability in earlier protocols, though remains essential due to differences in extraction and instrument calibration across labs.

On-Line and Sensory Detection

Sensory detection of boar taint primarily relies on human olfactory evaluation, where trained assessors sniff heated samples from the carcass to identify off-s associated with and . This method classifies carcasses as tainted or untainted based on perceived intensity of urine-like or fecal smells, often using scales from low to high taint levels. Common heating techniques include the hot-iron method, which applies a heated iron to backfat for rapid odor release, outperforming alternatives like or hot-water immersion in correlation with chemical analyses and sensory panels. Sensory evaluation remains subjective, influenced by assessor sensitivity—up to 30% of people are insensitive to —and requires training to minimize variability, yet it provides a direct proxy for consumer-perceived taint. On-line detection methods aim for real-time carcass assessment during slaughter to enable sorting without halting production lines, focusing on rapid, automated measurement of taint compounds. Laser diode thermal desorption coupled with (LDTD-MS/MS) extracts and quantifies and from fat biopsies in under 30 seconds per sample, achieving high accuracy for at-line use after minor line diversion. Electronic noses, employing gas arrays, mimic human olfaction by detecting volatile profiles and have shown potential to differentiate high- and low-taint carcasses independently of specific compounds, though against sensory data is essential for reliability. Emerging approaches integrate with ; for instance, of fat layers has classified up to 81% of samples correctly using inner-layer spectra alone, supporting fully on-line implementation. Colorimetric tests, which react fat extracts to produce visible color changes proportional to compound levels, offer simplicity but lower specificity compared to . Despite advances, no standardized on-line system exists universally due to trade-offs in speed, , and false positives; for example, sensor-based methods must handle production variability like fat thickness while maintaining throughput above 100 carcasses per hour. Hybrid models combining , AI, and chemical validation are under development to enhance feasibility, with trials on thousands of boars demonstrating improved predictive accuracy for taint beyond traditional thresholds. Sensory methods, while cost-effective for low-volume checks, are impractical for high-speed lines due to assessor and concerns, underscoring the push toward instrumental .

Historical and Industry Context

Emergence as a Production Issue

Boar taint first gained systematic scientific attention in the early amid growing interest in rearing entire male pigs for enhanced production efficiency, as these animals exhibited 10-20% better feed conversion and leaner carcasses than castrates. Prior to this period, surgical of male piglets—practiced for centuries primarily to mitigate , mounting , and excessive fat deposition—implicitly prevented taint without it being formally quantified as a distinct quality defect in modern intensive systems. Norwegian researcher E. Vold's 1963 of boar odor marked an early milestone, linking the unpleasant sensory profile to post-pubertal accumulation in and estimating its prevalence in up to 10% of entire males slaughtered at commercial weights around 90-100 kg. Subsequent research in the late 1960s identified the androstenone (5α-androst-16-en-3-one) as the principal compound responsible for the urine-like musk odor, isolated via from boar salivary glands and correlated with taint in cooked . This identification, building on Vold's observations, highlighted taint's and dependence on , with levels rising sharply after 5-6 months of age in intact males. By the , reported taint incidence rates of 15-30% in entire males under intensive confinement, prompting industry concerns over carcass downgrading and consumer rejection, as the defect became detectable during cooking or storage and affected up to 80% of sensitive consumers. These findings solidified boar taint as a barrier to shifting from routine , despite entire males' economic advantages in growth rate (up to 12% faster) and reduced labor for surgical procedures. The issue's prominence escalated with post-war intensification of pork production, where heavier market weights (exceeding 100 kg live weight) amplified taint risk, as compounds like —later recognized alongside —accumulated from gut under high-stocking densities and uniform diets. Early surveys in and the , including Walstra's work in the , quantified dual-compound and environmental influences, estimating annual economic losses from tainted exceeding millions in rejected product value across . This era's data underscored taint's causal realism: not merely sensory but tied to physiological steroidogenesis and , challenging producers to balance welfare-driven alternatives against quality consistency.

Shift Toward Entire Male Rearing

The shift toward rearing entire (uncastrated) male in production has been primarily driven by concerns regarding the pain associated with surgical without or analgesia, alongside economic incentives from improved production efficiency. In 2010, stakeholders from the European pig industry, retailers, and organizations signed a voluntary Declaration on Alternatives to Surgical of , committing to phase out routine surgical by January 1, 2012 (requiring thereafter) and eliminate it entirely across the and associated countries by 2018. However, these deadlines were not met, with surgical persisting in many regions due to unresolved challenges in implementing alternatives at scale. Entire male pigs offer verifiable production advantages over castrates, including 10-20% higher feed conversion efficiency, faster daily weight gains (up to 50-100 g/day more), and leaner carcasses with reduced fat deposition, which lower feed costs and environmental footprints from manure and emissions. These benefits stem from the physiological effects of testosterone, enhancing muscle growth and protein utilization without the metabolic penalties of castration. Adoption has been gradual and regionally varied; in the EU, countries like Spain and Denmark have increased entire male or immunocastrate proportions to over 20-30% of male slaughter pigs by the mid-2010s, often combining rearing with pre-slaughter taint detection to divert affected carcasses. In contrast, North American production has seen minimal uptake, prioritizing taint-free consistency over welfare-driven changes, though pilot studies explore feasibility. Challenges impeding widespread transition include boar taint incidence (affecting 10-80% of entire males depending on and management), heightened , and mounting behaviors post-puberty, necessitating adapted (e.g., larger pens, ) and dietary interventions to mitigate skatole accumulation. Recent advancements, such as genetic selection for low-androstenone breeds and on-line taint sensors, have enabled viable entire male systems in research settings with taint levels below sensory thresholds in over 90% of carcasses. Despite these, immunocastration remains a preferred hybrid approach in much of , balancing welfare gains with taint control, as full entire male rearing requires robust sorting to avoid consumer rejection.

Control Methods

Surgical Castration

Surgical castration involves the physical removal of the testicles from male piglets, primarily to eliminate the risk of boar taint caused by accumulation of and in sexually mature boars. This procedure has been standard in the swine industry for centuries, as it also reduces aggressive and sexual behaviors that can lead to injuries among pen mates and handlers. Performed typically within the first week of life, when piglets are 1-7 days old, it minimizes complications compared to later but remains a source of acute pain without mitigation. The procedure entails restraining the piglet, making small incisions in the to exteriorize and sever the , then removing the testes; it is often done manually without specialized equipment. Effectiveness in controlling boar taint is near-complete, as it halts testicular production of and reduces skatole-related risks by altering metabolism, resulting in indistinguishable from that of females or immunocastrates in sensory tests. Studies confirm that surgically castrated males (barrows) exhibit no detectable taint upon slaughter, unlike entire males where prevalence can exceed 10-20% depending on and management. In the , where approximately 100 million male piglets were castrated annually as of early 2000s data (representing about 80% of males), surgical remains prevalent despite a 2012 voluntary agreement mandating and/or prolonged analgesia for procedures after that date to address welfare concerns. However, enforcement varies, with many operations still performing it without full relief on piglets under 7 days old, as permitted by directives like Council Directive 2008/120/EC. Outside the , such as in the U.S., it is routinely conducted without , prioritizing practicality over mitigation due to the procedure's brevity (under 1 minute per piglet). Welfare drawbacks include short-term from tissue trauma and potential long-term effects like increased or altered growth, though benefits like reduced inter-male offset some issues in group . assessments highlight that unanesthetized violates animal integrity principles, prompting research into alternatives, yet it persists due to its simplicity, low cost (under €0.50 per piglet), and reliability in taint prevention amid inconsistent adoption of entire male production.

Immunocastration

Immunocastration, also known as immunological castration, is a non-surgical method to prevent boar taint in male pigs by vaccinating them against (GnRH), which suppresses testicular function and reduces the accumulation of taint-causing compounds such as and in . The process typically involves two subcutaneous injections of a GnRH analogue , with the first dose administered around 10-12 weeks of age priming the and the second dose, given 4-6 weeks later, inducing high levels of anti-GnRH antibodies that neutralize endogenous GnRH, thereby halting activity and steroidogenesis. This leads to a significant decline in testosterone levels and taint compounds, with reductions in and becoming evident 4-6 weeks post-second vaccination as existing stores are cleared from tissues. The primary commercial vaccine, Improvac (developed by Animal Health, now ), was approved for use in the on May 19, 2009, following demonstrations of efficacy comparable to physical in large-scale trials, achieving over 99% reduction in boar taint incidence across commercial populations. Peer-reviewed studies confirm that immunocastrated pigs exhibit boar taint levels below sensory detection thresholds in over 95% of cases, with fat androstenone concentrations dropping to less than 0.5 μg/g, similar to those in surgically castrated males. Efficacy is maintained regardless of breed or production system, though optimal timing of the second dose (e.g., 4-8 weeks pre-slaughter) maximizes carcass yield benefits from interim entire-male growth advantages. Compared to surgical , immunocastration avoids acute procedural pain, tissue damage, and infection risks associated with physical removal of testes without , which remains common in regions like the where it affects over 90% of male piglets. Welfare outcomes are improved, as vaccinated boars show reduced , mounting, and sexual behaviors post-second dose, alongside better feed and growth rates approximating those of entire males until final suppression. However, a transient increase in may occur after the first dose, and full welfare equivalence to entire males requires consideration of delayed suppression. Industry adoption varies globally, with widespread use in , , and parts of for heavy pigs destined for cured products, where it supports entire-male rearing benefits like leaner carcasses (up to 2-3% higher yield) without taint risks. In the , regulatory frameworks encourage it as part of efforts to phase out routine surgical by 2018 targets, though consumer acceptance challenges persist in some markets due to perceptions of "vaccinated" . Economic analyses indicate cost savings from avoided surgical labor and improved slaughter weights, with no residues detected in meeting standards. Drawbacks include the need for precise scheduling and potential for incomplete response in a small (<1%) of animals, necessitating monitoring.

Genetic and Breeding Approaches

Genetic selection for reduced boar taint targets the primary compounds androstenone and skatole, which exhibit moderate to high heritability estimates of 0.41–0.88 for androstenone and 0.23–0.55 for skatole in backfat, enabling effective breeding programs to lower their accumulation in entire male pigs. Quantitative trait loci (QTLs) associated with these compounds have been identified primarily on porcine chromosomes 6, 7, and 14, harboring candidate genes such as CYP11A1, CYP17A1, and CYB5A for androstenone biosynthesis in the testes, and CYP2E1 for skatole metabolism in the liver. Indole, a minor contributor, shows heritability of 0.20–0.37 and similar genomic regions. These genetic parameters indicate that selection can substantially decrease taint incidence without invasive interventions, though progress requires balancing against unfavorable genetic correlations, such as negative associations between androstenone levels and reproductive traits like total piglets born (r = -0.22). Breeding approaches include performance testing via fat biopsies or progeny evaluation to select sires with low compound levels, marker-assisted selection using validated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in over 28 candidate genes (approximately 80–1400 markers identified), and genomic selection based on estimated breeding values. For instance, ranking artificial insemination boars on genomic values for low taint reduced prevalence by 40% in tested lines, with skatole levels notably lower in certain sire lines. Breed-specific differences support targeted selection, as Duroc pigs exhibit higher androstenone than Landrace, while Pietrain show lower skatole than Large White, allowing crossbreeding strategies to minimize risk at given slaughter weights. Model simulations predict that restricted index selection could halve the frequency of boars exceeding 1 μg/g androstenone in 4–6 generations (8–12 years), though correlations with growth traits like average daily gain (unfavorable for androstenone) necessitate multitrait indices to preserve production efficiency. Emerging techniques like genome editing via CRISPR/Cas9 target taint-related genes, such as mutations in CYP17A1 and CYB5A to disrupt androstenone synthesis while retaining other steroids, potentially yielding low-taint lines with intact growth performance. However, adoption faces regulatory hurdles, as edited pigs are classified as genetically modified organisms in regions like the EU, limiting commercial use. Selection against skatole may inadvertently increase backfat depth or polyunsaturated fatty acids (genetic correlation r = -0.33), potentially affecting processed meat quality like dry-cured hams, underscoring the need for integrated genomic and metabolic evaluations in breeding programs. Overall, these approaches have enabled breeding companies to develop entire-male lines with taint incidences below 5% in some populations, supporting the shift away from castration.

Dietary and Management Interventions

Dietary interventions to mitigate boar taint focus predominantly on reducing skatole accumulation, achieved by incorporating fermentable carbohydrates that alter hindgut microbial fermentation from proteolytic to saccharolytic pathways, thereby limiting tryptophan degradation. Supplementation with inulin or oligofructose at 5% in finisher diets significantly lowers skatole concentrations in back fat when fed for the final three weeks before slaughter, without affecting indole levels or overall performance metrics like daily gain and feed efficiency. Similarly, inclusion of raw potato starch at ≥20% or sugar beet pulp at 20% reduces skatole in blood, digesta, and adipose tissue by enhancing microbial energy availability and inhibiting skatole-producing bacteria such as Clostridium species, with reductions up to 70% in portal blood skatole observed in fiber-enriched diets. Lupin seeds at 25% also decrease digesta skatole through improved prececal digestibility of tryptophan. Efforts to control androstenone via diet are less established but include dried chicory root at 10% for 16 days, which decreases adipose tissue deposition by upregulating hepatic 3β-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase expression to enhance metabolism, though it may elevate indole without impacting skatole or testosterone. Hydrolysable tannins from sources like chestnut wood extract at 3% halve skatole in colon contents but show limited effects on fat deposition or androstenone, with dosage-dependent decreases in the latter noted in some trials. These strategies require precise dosing and duration for efficacy, as lower levels often yield insignificant results, and they do not fully eliminate taint risk due to genetic variability in compound synthesis. Management practices complement dietary approaches by minimizing environmental and physiological factors promoting skatole production. A 24-hour pre-slaughter fasting period improves carcass cleanliness and reduces fecal odor risks by emptying the gut, though shorter 12-hour withdrawals show inconsistent skatole reductions. Enhancing hygiene through increased straw bedding (e.g., 20% more during rearing and extra before slaughter) and clean housing lowers skatole via reduced microbial exposure, while liquid feeding or restricted appetite regimes shorten intestinal transit time to limit absorption. Such interventions are practical for entire male production but prove variably effective, often necessitating integration with genetic selection for comprehensive taint control.

Economic and Production Impacts

Benefits of Entire Males

Entire male pigs, or boars, exhibit superior feed efficiency compared to surgically castrated males (barrows), with feed conversion ratios often 10-20% lower, as evidenced by studies showing values of approximately 1.9 kg feed per kg gain for boars versus 2.2 kg for barrows under ad libitum feeding. This efficiency arises from reduced voluntary feed intake in boars, which consume 10-15% less feed overall while prioritizing lean tissue deposition over fat accumulation. Carcass composition benefits include higher lean meat percentages, typically 2-4 percentage points greater than in barrows, resulting in carcasses with 3.4% more lean content on average in production trials. This leanness enhances economic value in grading systems that premiumize low-fat pork, such as those in Europe, where leaner cuts command higher prices per kilogram. These traits contribute to overall production advantages, including elimination of surgical castration labor and associated costs, estimated at €1-2 per pig in labor and facilities across EU operations as of 2010s data. When combined with comparable or superior average daily gains in many genotypes—ranging from 750-900 g/day for boars versus slightly variable rates in barrows—rearing entire males reduces total feed expenditures, which account for 60-70% of variable costs in swine finishing, potentially boosting gross margins by 5-10% in low-taint herds. Additionally, the lower fat deposition minimizes environmental impacts from manure nutrients, aligning with sustainability goals in intensive systems.

Costs and Risks of Taint

Boar taint incurs direct economic losses through carcass downgrading or rejection at slaughter, where tainted meat faces deductions or diversion to lower-value processed products like sausages, reducing overall pork yield and revenue. In commercial settings, 5-10% of entire male carcasses may require such handling due to detectable levels of and exceeding sensory thresholds, leading to financial penalties estimated at 4.6 DKK (approximately 0.62 €) per kg of affected carcass weight in Danish systems. For a typical 80-90 kg carcass, this translates to losses of 368-414 DKK (49-55 €) per tainted animal before partial recovery via trimming or reallocation. These costs partially offset the production advantages of entire males, which include feed efficiency gains of about 45 DKK (6 €) per pig from weaning to slaughter and overall lower rearing expenses of 0.61 DKK (0.08 €) per kg carcass compared to physical castrates. Economic viability requires taint incidence below 14.5% under standard deduction rates to break even against castrates; exceeding 2.5% can eliminate net benefits from improved lean growth and reduced fat deposition. Slaughterhouses incur further expenses for rapid detection via olfactory assessment, chemical analysis, or biopsy, with misclassification risks amplifying losses through false negatives that reach consumers. Prevalence varies widely (1.8% on average but up to 9.1% within farms), influenced by risk factors like high dietary crude protein, poor hygiene, large group sizes (>30 pigs per pen), and winter slaughter seasons, introducing production uncertainty and necessitating contingency planning such as market diversion or adjusted slaughter weights. Undetected taint heightens reputational risks, including consumer returns and aversion in sensitive markets, where even low-level off-odors can erode demand for fresh cuts. In regions shifting to entire male rearing, such as parts of , failure to maintain low taint via breeding or management amplifies these vulnerabilities, potentially reversing gains in carcass leanness (up to 2-3% higher yield).

Consumer Perception and Acceptability

Sensory Sensitivity Variations

Individual sensitivity to boar taint compounds varies significantly, primarily due to differences in olfactory perception of , one of the key contributors to the off-odor. Estimates of specific (inability to detect the odor) to range from 10% to 50% of the human population, with traditional studies often citing 30-50% based on initial exposure tests, though refined methods accounting for adaptation and familiarity suggest lower true prevalence rates. This variation arises partly from genetic polymorphisms in the OR7D4 gene, where certain homozygous variants, such as those rendering the receptor non-functional, lead to diminished or absent detection of in . Gender influences sensitivity, with females typically exhibiting greater olfactory acuity to than males, as demonstrated in comparative studies where women rated tainted samples higher in intensity. Exposure can modulate perception; ostensibly anosmic individuals may acquire sensitivity through repeated sniffing, indicating that some cases involve learned familiarity rather than fixed deficit. In contrast, sensitivity to , the other primary boar taint compound, shows minimal inter-individual variation, as the vast majority of people detect its fecal-like at concentrations as low as 0.20-0.25 ppm in fat. These sensory differences impact consumer acceptability assessments, as insensitive individuals may underrate taint severity, leading to discrepancies between trained panel evaluations and broad consumer trials; panels are thus selected for high sensitivity to ensure reliable detection thresholds around 1.0-1.5 μg/g for .

Masking and Processing Strategies

Masking strategies for boar taint primarily target the sensory perception of off-odors and off-flavors caused by and through the addition of strong-flavored ingredients or processing techniques that overpower these compounds. Smoking has been identified as one of the most effective methods, particularly in processed products like sausages, where in bind to or compete with taint volatiles, reducing detectability even in meat with high taint levels. Studies on frankfurters from entire males showed that application significantly lowered sensory scores for boar taint, with optimal levels around 0.5-1% to avoid over-smoking. Spices and herbs serve as common masking agents by introducing competing aromas, with garlic (Allium sativum), oregano (Origanum vulgare), clove (Syzygium aromaticum), and others like paprika, chili, thyme, rosemary, and cinnamon demonstrating efficacy in sensory panels. In experiments adding dried oregano or garlic to ground pork from tainted boars, these additives reduced skatole perception by up to 50% in cooked patties, though effectiveness varied with dosage (e.g., 1-2% oregano) and taint intensity. Marinating with oregano extracts or liquid smoke has similarly shifted sensory thresholds in ready-to-eat pork, masking taint in samples with androstenone levels exceeding 1 μg/g. Processing modifications, such as reducing fat content or incorporating hydrocolloids, further aid mitigation by altering fat deposition where taint compounds accumulate. Reduced-fat sausages (fat levels below 20%) from entire males exhibited diminished boar taint perception compared to full-fat versions, as lower lipid content limits solubility and release during cooking. Edible gels and films made from or agar-agar infused with spices have been developed to coat tainted cuts, encapsulating off-flavors during heating; trials showed these reduced taint intensity by 30-40% in grilled . Cooking methods like high-temperature or also partially volatilize taint compounds, though masking is more reliable for severe cases. These strategies are not universally effective and depend on taint severity, product type, and consumer sensitivity; for instance, taint resists masking more than due to its urinary-like persistence. Peer-reviewed evaluations emphasize combining approaches (e.g., plus spices) for processed meats, but fresh cuts remain challenging without additives.

Animal Welfare Considerations

Welfare Effects of Castration

Surgical castration of male piglets, typically performed between 1 and 7 days of age without anesthesia in many production systems, induces acute pain through severance of the spermatic cords and scrotal incision, leading to behavioral indicators such as prolonged high-frequency vocalizations, trembling, and isolation from littermates for up to 3 days post-procedure. Physiological responses include elevated plasma cortisol concentrations peaking within 30 minutes and remaining above baseline for 2-4 hours, alongside inflammatory markers like increased interleukin-6 and haptoglobin levels persisting for several days. Medium-term welfare compromises involve wound healing complications, such as adhesions or abscesses in 1-5% of cases, and potential chronic pain from neuroma formation at severed nerve endings, evidenced by altered and reduced play lasting weeks. The (EFSA) classifies unanesthetized surgical as causing severe pain at any age, with short- and medium-term negative welfare outcomes, recommending its avoidance or mandatory use of and analgesia where performed. Studies indicate that analgesia alone (e.g., ) mitigates some inflammatory pain but does not fully eliminate acute procedural without local anesthetics like lidocaine. In contrast, immunocastration via GnRH vaccines avoids surgical trauma, inducing transient injection-site discomfort but no evidence of systemic or long-term welfare deficits, with reduced aggression post-second dose approximating entire male behaviors temporarily before castration effects onset around 4-6 weeks later. Delaying castration beyond the neonatal period exacerbates duration and intensity due to larger testicular size and heightened neural development, though some producers perform it later without mitigation, compounding welfare risks. Overall, routine surgical without control represents a significant welfare violation, substantiated by consistent empirical data across behavioral, physiological, and histological assessments.

Behavioral Issues in Entire Males

Entire male pigs exhibit elevated levels of aggressive and sexual behaviors compared to castrated males and females, primarily due to the influence of testicular hormones such as testosterone. These behaviors include increased mounting, fighting, and biting, which intensify with typically occurring between 5 and 6 months of age. Mounting behavior is particularly prevalent in entire males, often directed indiscriminately toward pen-mates, and persists at higher rates than in castrates, contributing to disruptions in group dynamics. This activity has been linked to physical consequences such as skin lesions, leg injuries from unbalanced mounting, and overall higher injury risks in mixed-sex or all-male groups. Aggressive interactions, including head-to-head knocking and biting, occur more frequently in entire males, with studies reporting greater overall social hostility that can harm pen-mates and elevate stress levels. In production settings, these traits result in practical challenges, such as difficulties in handling and increased labor demands for separating combative individuals. Health records from longitudinal observations indicate that approximately 15% of entire males suffer related health problems, compared to 6% in females, underscoring the welfare implications. Entire males also demonstrate heightened general activity, including more standing, walking, and playful bouts, which can exacerbate in confined spaces but may offer benefits in extensive systems if managed appropriately. Strategies like larger pen sizes, early , or immunocastration— which reduces mounting and to levels akin to surgical post-immunization—have been proposed to mitigate these issues without routine physical .

Recent Research and Future Directions

Advances in Mitigation (2020-2025)

Research from 2020 to 2025 has emphasized genetic selection, dietary additives, and refined immunocastration protocols as primary strategies to mitigate boar taint without routine surgical castration. Genetic approaches leverage heritability estimates for androstenone and skatole, with studies confirming moderate to high heritability (0.30-0.60 for androstenone, 0.20-0.40 for skatole), enabling genomic selection to breed low-taint lines while minimizing impacts on growth or reproduction traits, as genetic correlations with litter size or feed efficiency were generally low or nonsignificant. A 2023 analysis across multiple breeds demonstrated that selecting against taint compounds could reduce accumulation by up to 20-30% per generation without compromising carcass yield. Dietary interventions advanced notably, with activated charcoal and biochar emerging as effective adsorbents for skatole and androstenone in the gastrointestinal tract. In a 2025 trial, supplementing finisher diets with 1% activated charcoal or biochar prevented detectable boar taint in 83% of treated boars, reducing fat skatole levels by over 50% compared to controls, without altering plasma estrone sulfate or growth performance. Complementary studies validated inulin and hydrolysable tannins; a 2022 experiment found 5% inulin supplementation lowered adipose skatole by 40-60% in entire males, while 2021 research on tannins reported similar reductions alongside improved fat stability. These additives target microbial fermentation in the hindgut, binding indoles before absorption, though efficacy varies by dose and pig phenotype. Immunocastration protocols saw optimization for broader adoption, particularly in , where two-dose GnRH vaccines (e.g., Improvac) reliably suppressed testicular function, reducing to undetectable levels (<0.5 μg/g fat) in over 95% of males when administered 4-8 weeks pre-slaughter. A 2025 sustainability assessment highlighted immunocastrates' intermediate between entire males and castrates, with taint risk near zero but behavioral management needs persisting. Ongoing refinements include timing adjustments for heavy breeds, minimizing second-dose variability, and integration with genetic screening to select responsive genotypes. Despite these gains, challenges remain in scaling cost-effective detection for sorting residual taint-positive carcasses, with rapid spectroscopic methods under validation but not yet universal.

Ongoing Challenges and Innovations

Despite advances in entire male pig production, challenges persist in reliably detecting and mitigating boar taint, primarily due to the variability of causative compounds and influenced by , age, and rearing conditions, with no universal detection standard established as of 2025. Carcass sorting remains technically demanding, as taint incidence can reach 10-20% in some populations, leading to economic losses from rejection and complicating . Regulatory progress on castration bans lags, with uneven adoption of pain relief or alternatives across regions, exacerbating welfare-production trade-offs. Innovations in prevention focus on genetic selection and dietary interventions to lower taint compounds without compromising growth rates, which exceed those of castrates by 10-15% in feed efficiency. Selective breeding targets phenotypes like backfat levels of androstenone and skatole in Pietrain-sired crossbreds, enabling identification of low-risk lines through genomic markers, though widespread implementation requires validated breeding programs. Dietary mineral adsorbents, such as spent filter aid—a low-cost by-product priced at two-thirds of corn grain—bind up to 89.9% of skatole in vitro, offering a promising, economical alternative to pricier activated charcoal, pending in vivo confirmation of no adverse effects on pig performance. Processing innovations emphasize masking taint post-slaughter, with injection marination of high-taint entire male yielding sensory profiles comparable to castrated in panels of 120 participants, reducing perceived farm-like odors and flavors while enhancing purchase intent through welfare-linked . Feed supplementation with non-digestible carbohydrates or phytochemicals continues to show variable reduction, but integration with precision holds potential for comprehensive control, as explored in 2025 reviews synthesizing multi-method approaches. These strategies aim to balance gains from avoiding with consistent quality, though and cost-effectiveness require further field trials.

References

  1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/boar-taint
  2. https://actavetscand.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1751-0147-48-S1-S5
  3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10417360/
  4. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301622612800121
  5. https://www.aasv.org/shap/issues/v5n4/v5n4p151.pdf
  6. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26468980/
  7. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2674915/
  8. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751731111000164
  9. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jafc.6b00355
  10. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7822767/
  11. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/asj.70090
  12. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7602555/
  13. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0309174022002534
  14. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0309174024000743
  15. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229923841_Sensory_characterization_of_boar_taint_in_entire_male_pigs
  16. https://food.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2016-10/aw_prac_farm_pigs_cast-alt_detection_2009_meat-from-vsc-pigs.pdf
  17. https://www.dti.dk/services/boar-taint-odour-and-flavour/39307
  18. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7552758/
  19. https://www.imeko.info/publications/tc23-2017/IMEKO-TC23-2017-063.pdf
  20. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751731120301439
  21. https://www.thepigsite.com/articles/mythbusting-boar-taint
  22. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S157352141530004X
  23. https://www.pig333.com/articles/boar-taint-in-pork-detection-on-the-slaughter-line_17623/
  24. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/10/9/1665
  25. https://actavetscand.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1751-0147-48-S1-S6
  26. https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC91075
  27. https://digicomst.ie/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/2009_10_11.pdf
  28. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590157520300079
  29. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590157524005741
  30. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11633357/
  31. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7817497/
  32. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51534791_Review_of_analytical_methods_to_measure_boar_taint_compounds_in_porcine_adipose_tissue_The_need_for_harmonised_methods
  33. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751731112000821
  34. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0309174015300814
  35. https://www.imeko.org/publications/tc23-2017/IMEKO-TC23-2017-063.pdf
  36. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0924224421002594
  37. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3226082/
  38. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346241372_Feasibility_of_onat_Line_Methods_to_Determine_Boar_Taint_and_Boar_Taint_Compounds_An_Overview
  39. https://docs.eaap.org/2024/m221/S09T08.pdf
  40. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7552340/
  41. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0309174001001590
  42. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5382460/
  43. https://www.pig333.com/swine_abstracts/pig-castration-will-the-eu-manage-to-ban-pig-castration-by-2018_12013/
  44. https://porcinehealthmanagement.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40813-016-0046-x
  45. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751731109990693
  46. https://eurcaw-pigs.eu/dossier/keeping-entire-male-pigs-dossier
  47. https://www.thepigsite.com/articles/entire-male-pig-production-welfare-management-issues
  48. https://www.aasv.org/shap/issues/v1n5/v1n5p11.pdf
  49. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/animal-science/articles/10.3389/fanim.2025.1433925/full
  50. https://www.jafs.com.pl/Feeding-and-housing-boars-after-puberty-without-castration-allows-nfor-good-performance%2C148234%2C0%2C2.html
  51. https://www.swineinnovationporc.ca/fact-sheets/identification-and-removal-of-barriers-preventing-the-use-of-entire-males-for-canadian-pork-production.
  52. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/12/13/1625
  53. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6912452/
  54. https://www.avma.org/sites/default/files/resources/swine_castration_bgnd.pdf
  55. https://food.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2016-10/aw_prac_farm_pigs_cast-alt_sci_efsa_opinion_welfare-aspects.pdf
  56. https://www.pubs.ext.vt.edu/content/dam/pubs_ext_vt_edu/APSC/APSC-174/APSC-174.pdf
  57. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7734676/
  58. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751731114002894
  59. https://www.dechra.co.uk/food-producing-animal/pain-management-in-swine/piglet-castration-and-swine-welfare-in-europe-overview-of-current-situation
  60. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7698590/
  61. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751731109004728
  62. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211601X15001546
  63. https://ec.europa.eu/health/documents/community-register/2011/20110905107948/anx_107948_en.pdf
  64. https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/eu_commission_approves_pfizer_animal_health_s_vaccine_against_boar_taint
  65. https://www2.zoetis.co.nz/products-solutions/pigs/improvac-new/
  66. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264410X11016082
  67. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/veterinary-science/articles/10.3389/fvets.2023.1248879/full
  68. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3403930/
  69. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/14/9/1284
  70. https://www.improvac.com/nz/technical-information.aspx
  71. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/13/15/2445
  72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2017.06.016
  73. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4494329/
  74. https://doi.org/10.1186/1751-0147-48-S1-S6
  75. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22353548/
  76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-016-0399-1
  77. https://www.pig333.com/articles/how-to-reduce-boar-taint-in-pig-carcasses_19682/
  78. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751731108002826
  79. https://aab.copernicus.org/articles/56/399/2013/aab-56-399-2013.pdf
  80. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279019863_Voluntary_feed_intake_and_growth_performance_of_boars_and_barrows_in_dependence_on_lysine-to-energy_ratio
  81. https://pigresearchcentre.dk/-/media/PDF/English-site/Publikationer/Meddelelse_1234_UK.pdf
  82. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22444985/
  83. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0308814624002206
  84. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12826538/
  85. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1664751/
  86. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.86.20.7976
  87. https://www.thepigsite.com/articles/genetic-variation-of-an-odourant-receptor-and-sensory-perception-of-cooked-meat-containing-androstenone
  88. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26348414/
  89. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S096399691830259X
  90. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0309174016300080
  91. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11171060/
  92. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/14/11/1544
  93. https://www.academia.edu/9383386/Marinating_as_a_technology_to_shift_sensory_thresholds_in_ready_to_eat_entire_male_pork_meat
  94. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10000180/
  95. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0309174023000542
  96. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7602271/
  97. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/animal-welfare/article/review-of-the-welfare-consequences-of-surgical-castration-in-piglets-and-the-evaluation-of-nonsurgical-methods/D2BBF2A544789764798E5BEC87C0E819
  98. https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/plain-language-summary/welfare-pigs-farm
  99. https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7421
  100. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6562759/
  101. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09064700601079527
  102. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168159113001317
  103. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168159125001741
  104. https://www.depts.ttu.edu/animalwelfare/research/pigcastration/documents/BehaviorofimmunologicallycastratedboarscomparedtosurgicallycastratedpigsMarch2012.pdf
  105. https://academic.oup.com/af/article/3/4/12/4638649
  106. https://www.mdpi.com/2218-273X/15/9/1257
  107. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41008564/
  108. https://agronomy.emu.ee/category/volume-20-2022/number-2-volume-20-2022-volume-20-2022/?aid=9106&sa=0
  109. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/11/3/896
  110. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666916125000441
  111. https://www.feedstuffs.com/swine/european-swine-industry-seeks-boar-taint-solutions
  112. https://www.uoguelph.ca/alliance/news/2025/05/research-uncovers-innovative-approaches-prevent-boar-taint
  113. https://academic.oup.com/jas/article/doi/10.1093/jas/skae389/7932173
  114. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11939741/
  115. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0309174024000391
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.