Submit or Track your Manuscript LOG-IN

Effect of Different Natural and Chemical Ingredients as Repellents of Pigs

Effect of Different Natural and Chemical Ingredients as Repellents of Pigs

Shad Mahfuz1,2†, Hong-Seok Mun1,3†, Veasna Chem1, Keiven Mark B Ampode1,4, Muhammad Ammar Dilawar1,5, Hae-Rang Park1, Il-Byung Chung1, Young-Hwa Kim6, Chul-Ju Yang1,5* 

1Department of Animal Science and Technology, Sunchon National University, Suncheon 57922, Korea; 2Department of Animal Nutrition, Sylhet Agricultural University, Sylhet-3100, Bangladesh; 3Department of Multimedia Engineering, Sunchon National University, Suncheon 57922, Korea; 4Department of Animal Science, College of Agriculture, Sultan Kudarat State University, 9800, Philippines; 5Interdisciplinary Program in IT-Bio Convergence System (BK21 plus), Sunchon National University, Suncheon 57922, Korea; 6Interdisciplinary Program in IT-Bio Convergence System (BK21 plus), Chonnam National University, Gwangju 61186, Korea.

† Both authors have contributed equally to the manuscript as co-first authors.

*Correspondence | Chul Ju Yang, Department of Animal Science and Technology, Sunchon National University, Suncheon 57922, South Korea; Email: [email protected]

ABSTRACT

The damage of crops by the wild pigs is an economic issue for agricultural sector. Therefore, it is necessary to identify the effective repellent for pigs. For this test, 6 pigs (Avg. wt. 66.03± 3.99 kg) were housed in an individual pen containing repellent and without repellent feeder. In this current study, a total six (6) ingredients (capsaicin, red chili, ground garlic, dead insects, denatonium benzoate, and thiophanate-methyl) were used as repellents. The repellent ingredients were used to hang over the feeders. Among the tested natural and chemical ingredients as a repellent, the average number of feeding approaches in repellent feeder was significantly lower (P < 0.05) in bitrex chemical (denatonium benzoate) and thiophanate-methyl chemical. No differences were noted in the number of feeding approach among the natural repellent, capsaicin, red chili, ground garlic, and dead insects (Riptortus clavatus). Moreover, there were no significant differences (P > 0.05) on the number of feeding approaches in the non-repellent feeder. The significant differences (P < 0.05) on feed intake were recorded in the repellent feeder. The lowest value was recorded in case of thiophanate-methyl repellent feeder (P < 0.05). A significant lower (P < 0.05) feed intake was noted in bitrex repellent feeder than the natural repellent ingredients (capsaicin and ground garlic and dead insects). However, as expected, no significant differences were noted on pig’s feed intake in non-repellent feeders. Considering, the lower number of feeding approach and the lower feed intake in bitrex and thiophanate-methyl chemical as a repellent, we suggest performing further research with bitrex and thiophanate-methyl chemicals as repellent for pigs.

Keywords | Pigs, Repellent, Feed approaching number, Feed intake 

To share on other social networks, click on any share button. What are these?

Advances in Animal and Veterinary Sciences

November

Vol. 12, Iss. 11, pp. 2062-2300

Featuring

Click here for more

Subscribe Today

Receive free updates on new articles, opportunities and benefits


Subscribe Unsubscribe