Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T05:49:52.170Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The influence of terminal sire genotype, sex, slaughter weight, feeding regime and slaughter-house on growth performance and carcass and meat quality in pigs and on the organoleptic properties of fresh pork

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

M. Ellis ,
A. J. Webb ,
P. J. Avery  and
I. Brown
M. Ellis
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, University of Illinois, 1207 West Gregory Drive, Urbana, Illinois 61801, USA
A. J. Webb
Affiliation:
Cotswold Pig Development Company Limited, Rothwell, Lincoln LN7 6BJ
P. J. Avery
Affiliation:
Faculty of Mathematics and Statistics, The University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU
I. Brown
Affiliation:
Department of Chemical and Life Sciences, University of Northumbria at Newcastle, Coach Lane Campus, Newcastle upon Tyne NE7 7XA
Get access

Abstract

A total of 897 pigs were used in a study to investigate the relative effects of terminal sire genotype (lines Av.Bv. C), sex (castrate v. gilt), slaughter weight (80 v. 100 v. 220 kg), feeding regimen (ad libitum v. restricted, 0·82 ad libitum intake) and slaughter-house (HI v. H2 v. H3) on growth performance, carcass and meat quality characteristics and the eating quality offresh pig meat. Sire line A was a pure Duroc population, and B and C were European-type experimental lines where C contained Pietrain and B did not. In total, 26 sires from line A, 42 sires from line B, and 21 sires from line C were mated to females from the same crossbred dam line and progeny were reared under standard conditions to slaughter. Following slaughter and carcass evaluation, samples of longissimus dorsi were investigated for a range of meat quality and organoleptic characteristics. Line A produced fatter carcasses (C fat depths = 15·6 v. 24·0 v. 14·0 mm for lines A, B, and C, respectively, average s.e. 0·39) with higher killing-out proportions (g/kg) (790 v. 779 v. 786 respectively, average s.e. 1·4) and higher visible marbling, less tissue separation, firmer backfat, and juicier (3·81 v. 3·67 v. 3·72 respectively, average s.e. 0·044: on a scale 1 (extremely dry) to 8 (extremely juicy)) and more acceptable meat (4·54 v. 4·37 v. 4·42 respectively average s.e. 0·037: on a scale 1 (dislike extremely) to 8 (like extremely)) with a lower shear force (5·35 v. 5·78 v. 5·67 kg respectively, average s.e. 0·078) than lines B and C which were similar in most respects. Increases in slaughter weight were associated with a reduction in growth rate (785 v. 769 v. 725 glday for 80, 100 and 120 kg slaughter weight respectively, average s.e. 8·5), increases in backfat (Cfat = 13·3 v. 24·2 v. 26·3 mm respectively, average s.e. 0·34) and longissimus muscle area (34·6 v. 40·7 v. 44·6 cm2 respectively, average s.e. 0·59) and a deterioration in tenderness (4·72 v. 4·40 v. 3·95 respectively, average s.e. 0·062: on a scale 1 (extremely tough) to 8 (extremely tender) and overall acceptability (4·65 v. 4·44 v. 4·25 respectively, average s.e. 0·045) and an increase in shear force (5·37 v. 5·58 v. 5·87 kg respectively, average s.e. 0·085). Slaughter-house had a significant impact on pork odour scores but not on other organoleptic properties. Pigs reared under ad libitum feeding grew faster (840 v. 678 g/day respectively, average s.e. 3·7), were fatter (Cfat = 15·8 v. 23·2 mm respectively, s.e. 0·28), had lower carcass yields (780 v. 790 g/kg respectively, average s.e. 1) and produced more tender, juicier meat than those reared under restricted feeding. Differences between castrated males and gilts in growth and carcass trait were in line with other studies and there were no significant differences between the sexes for eating quality. There were relatively few significant interactions (P < 0·05) for eating quality traits and most of these involved slaughter-house and were for pork odour intensity, which are of limited practical significance. This suggests that the effects of sire genotype, slaughter weight and feeding regimen on eating quality identified in this study are likely to be additive.

Keywords

genotypesgrowthmeat qualitypigsslaughter weight
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 62 , Issue 3 , June 1996 , pp. 521 - 530
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barton-Gade, P. A. 1987. Meat and fat quality in boars, castrates and gilts. Livestock Production Science 16:187–196.Google Scholar
Bejerholm, C. and Barton-Gade, P. 1986. Effect of intramuscular fat level on eating quality of pig meat. Danish Meat Research Institute, manuscript no. 720E.Google Scholar
Cameron, N. D., Warriss, P. D., Porter, S. J. and Enser, M. B. 1990. Comparison of Duroc and British Landrace pigs for meat and eating quality. Meat Science 27:227–247.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cisneros, F., Ellis, M., McCaw, J., McKeith, F. K. and Hyun, Y. 1994. Influence of slaughter weight on carcass cutting yields and meat quality in pigs, journal of Animal Science 72:suppl. 1:378(abstr.).Google Scholar
DeVol, D. L., McKeith, F. K., Bechtel, P. J., Novakofski, J., Shanks, R. D. and Carr, T. R. 1988. Variation in composition and palatability traits and relationships between muscle characteristics and palatability in a random sample of pork carcasses, journal of Animal Science 66:385–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, S. A., Wood, J. D., Moncrieff, C. B. and Porter, S. J. 1992. Comparison of the Duroc and Large White as terminal sire breeds and their effect on pigmeat quality. Animal Production 54:289–297.Google Scholar
Ellis, M. and Avery, P. J. 1990. The influence of heavy slaughter weights on growth and carcass characteristics of pigs. Animal Production 50:569 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Ellis, M. and Horsfield, S. v. K. 1988. The potential for increasing slaughter weights for bacon pigs in the United Kingdom. Pig News and Information 9:31–34.Google Scholar
Harvey, W. R. 1990. User's guide for LSMLMW and MIXMDL, PC-2 version: mixed model least squares and maximum likelihood computer program. Mimeograph.Google Scholar
Kanis, E., Nieuwhof, G. J., Greef, K. H. de, Hel, W. van der, Verstegen, M. W. A., Huisman, J. and Wai, P. van der. 1990. Effect of recombinant porcine somatotropin on growth and carcass quality in growing pigs: interactions with genotype, gender and slaughter weight, journal of Animal Science 68:1193–1200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGloughlin, P., Allen, P., Tarrant, P. V., Joseph, R. L., Lynch, P. B. and Hanrahan, T. J. 1988. Growth and carcass quality of crossbred pigs sired by Duroc, Landrace and Large White boars. Livestock Production Science 18:275–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martel, J., Minvielle, F. and Poste, L. M. 1988. Effects of crossbreeding and sex on carcass composition, cooking properties and sensory characteristics of pork. Journal of Animal Science 66:41–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, A. H., Sather, A. P., Fredeen, H. T. and Jolly, R. W. 1980. Alternative market weights for swine. II. Carcass composition and meat quality. Journal of Animal Science 50:699–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission. 1989. Stotfold pig development unit first trial results. Meat and Livestock Commission, Milton Keynes.Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission. 1992. Stotfold pig development unit second trial results. Meat and Livestock Commission, Milton Keynes.Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission. 1994. Pig production yearbook. Meat and Livestock Commission, Milton Keynes.Google Scholar
Shuler, R. O., Pate, T. D., Mandigo, R. W. and Lucas, L. E. 1970. Influence of confinement, floor structure and slaughter weight on pork carcass characteristics. Journal of Animal Science 31:31–35.Google Scholar
Simpson, S. P. and Webb, A. J. 1989. Growth an d carcass performance of British Landrace pigs heterozygous at the halothane locus. Animal Production 49:503–509.Google Scholar
Warkup, C. C. 1993. Improving meat quality: the blueprint approach. In Safety and quality offood from animals (ed. Wood, J. D. and Lawrence, T. L. J.), pp. 63–67. British Society of Animal Production, occasional publication no 17.Google Scholar
Warkup, C. C. and Kempster, A. J. 1991. A possible explanation of the variation in tenderness and juiciness of pig meat. Animal Production 52:559 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Wood, J. D., Jones, R. C. D., Francombe, M. A. and Whelehan, O. P. 1986. The effects of fat thickness and sex on pig meat quality with special reference to the problems associated with overleanness. 2. Laboratory and trained taste panel results. Animal Production 43:535–544.Google Scholar