Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Jun 24;14(6):e0218176.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0218176. eCollection 2019.

Is Gene Editing an Acceptable Alternative to Castration in Pigs?

Affiliations
Free PMC article

Is Gene Editing an Acceptable Alternative to Castration in Pigs?

Maria Cristina Yunes et al. PLoS One. .
Free PMC article

Abstract

Male piglets are commonly castrated to eliminate the risk of boar taint. Surgical castration is the commonly used procedure and is known to induce pain. Gene modification targeted at eliminating boar taint in male pigs has been proposed as a possible alternative to surgical castration. The aims of this study were to explore public acceptability of this biotechnology using a mixed methods approach. Quantitative data to assess acceptability of 570 participants from southern Brazil were analysed with multinomial logistic regression models and Spearman correlations; qualitative responses of the reasons provided in support of their position were coded into themes. Just over half of the participants (56%) considered gene modification of male pigs acceptable. Acceptability was lower among participants who grew up in an agricultural environment (ρ = 0.02), but was not influenced by sex, age, religion, urban or rural living, or level of education. Acceptability of gene modification of male pigs as an alternative to surgical castration was positively related to the perception of benefits (r = -0.56, ρ<0.0001) and negatively related to the participant's perception of risks (r = -0.35, ρ<0.0001). Acceptability was not related to knowledge of basic concepts of genetic biotechnologies (r = 0.06, ρ<0.14), or to awareness of issues related to pig castration or boar taint (r = 0.03, ρ<0.44), both of which were low among participants. Participants that considered gene modification of pigs acceptable justified their position using arguments that it improved animal welfare. In contrast, those that were not in favour were generally opposed to genetic modification. Unforeseen downstream consequences of using genetic modification in this manner was a major concern raised by over 80% of participants. Our findings suggest that perceived animal welfare may encourage public support of gene editing of food animals. However, potential risks of the technology need to be addressed and conveyed to the public, as many participants requested clarification of such risks as a condition for support.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 1 article

  • CRISPR in livestock: From editing to printing.
    Menchaca A, Dos Santos-Neto PC, Mulet AP, Crispo M. Menchaca A, et al. Theriogenology. 2020 Jul 1;150:247-254. doi: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2020.01.063. Epub 2020 Jan 29. Theriogenology. 2020. PMID: 32088034 Free PMC article.

References

    1. Lundström K, Zamaratskaia G. Moving towards taint-free pork–alternatives to surgical castration. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica. 2006; 48(1):S1 10.1186/1751-0147-48-s1-s1 - DOI
    1. Claus R, Weiler U, Herzog A. Physiological-aspects of androstenone and skatole formation in the boar—A review with experimental-data. Meat Science. 1994; 38(2):289–305. 10.1016/0309-1740(94)90118-X - DOI - PubMed
    1. Patterson RLS. 5α-androst-16-ene-3-one:—Compound responsible for taint in boar fat. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 1968; 19(1):31–8. 10.1002/jsfa.2740190107 - DOI
    1. Prunier A, Bonneau M, von Borell EH, Cinotti S, Gunn M, Fredriksen B, et al. A review of the welfare consequences of surgical castration in piglets and the evaluation of non-surgical methods. Animal Welfare. 2006; 15(3):277–89.
    1. Rault J-L, Lay DC Jr., Marchant-Forde JN. Castration induced pain in pigs and other livestock. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2011; 135(3):214–25. 10.1016/j.applanim.2011.10.017 - DOI

Publication types

Grant support

This research was supported by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (311509/2015-0 to MJH) and the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa e Inovação do Estado de Santa Catarina. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Feedback