DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Meat quality of pork loins from Hereford×Berkshire female and intact male pigs reared in an alternative production system

  • Robbins, Yvette (Department of Animal Science, North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University) ;
  • Park, Hyeon-Suk (Department of Animal Science, North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University) ;
  • Tennant, Travis (Department of Agricultural Sciences, West Texas A&M University) ;
  • Hanson, Dana (Department of Food, Bioprocessing, & Nutrition Sciences, North Carolina State University) ;
  • Whitley, Niki (Department of Agricultural Sciences, Fort Valley State University) ;
  • Min, Byungrok (Department of Animal Science, North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University) ;
  • Oh, Sang-Hyon (Department of Agriculture, Food, and Resource Sciences, University of Maryland Eastern Shore)
  • Received : 2018.09.06
  • Accepted : 2019.01.10
  • Published : 2019.09.01

Abstract

Objective: The objective of the present study was to investigate pork quality from Hereford${\times}$Berkshire female and intact male pigs reared outdoors in an alternative production system. Methods: Berkshire purebred sows were artificially inseminated, once in the fall and again in the spring of the following year, with semen from Hereford boars and managed free of antibiotics in an outdoor hoop structure until the last month of pregnancy, after which they were moved to a pasture-based unit of 0.8 hectares with individual lots with a farrowing hut, shade, and water ad libitum. Piglets were weaned at 4 weeks of age and housed in a deep-bedded hoop structure, grouped by sex. Animals were harvested at market weight of 125 kg, approximately 200 days of age. Hot carcass weight was collected at the time of the harvest. After 24 hours of refrigeration, carcass characteristics were measured. Longissimus dorsi samples collected from the right side loin. Loins were cut into 2.54-cm thick chops and were used to measure marbling score, color score, drip loss, and ultimate pH. Sensory panel tests were conducted as well at North Carolina State University. For pork characteristics and sensory panel data, trial and sex were included in the statistical model as fixed effects. Hot carcass weight was included in the model as a covariate for backfat thickness. Results: Neither the subjective nor the objective color scores displayed any differences between the boars and the gilts. No difference was found for pH and marbling score between trials or sexes. Gilts had a thicker backfat measurement at the last lumbar and a narrower longissimus muscle area measurement when compared to the boars. The only difference in the sensory characteristics was found between the trials for texture and moisture scores. Conclusion: Consumers were not able to detect boar taint under the condition of this study, which is that the intact males were reared outdoors. Additional trials would be necessary; however, based on the results of the present study, outdoor rearing can be suggested as a solution to the issue of boar taint.

Keywords

References

  1. Migliore G, Schifani G, Cembalo L. Opening the black box of food quality in the short supply chain: Effects of conventions of quality on consumer choice. Food Qual Prefer 2015;39:141-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.07.006
  2. Caraccioloa F, Ciciaa G, Del Giudice T, et al. Human values and preferences for cleaner livestock production. J Clean Prod 2016;112:121-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.045
  3. Heerwagen LR, Morkbak MR, Denver S, Sandoe P, Christensen T. The role of quality labels in market-driven animal welfare. J Agric Environ Ethics 2015;28:67-84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-014-9521-z
  4. Thorslunda CAH, Sandoea P, Aaslyng MD, Lassen J. A good taste in the meat, a good taste in the mouth - Animal welfare as an aspect of pork quality in three European countries. Livest Sci 2016;193:58-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2016.09.007
  5. Zamaratskaia G, Lou Y, Peacock J, et al. Effect of polymorphism in the porcine cytochrome b5 (CYB5A) gene on androstenone and skatole concentrations and sexual development in Swedish pig populations. Animal 2008;2:190-6. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731107001103
  6. Moss BW, Hawe SM, Walker N. Sensory thresholds for skatole and indole. In: M. Bonneau, editor. Measurement and prevention of boar taint in entire male pigs. Paris, France: INRA;1993. pp. 63-8.
  7. Aluwe M, Millet S, Bekaert KM, et al. Influence of breed and slaughter weight on boar taint prevalence in entire male pigs. Animal 2011;5:1283-9. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731111000164
  8. Frieden L, Looft C, Tholen E. Breeding for reduced boar taint. Lohmann Inf 2011;46:21-7.
  9. Baes C, Mattei S, Luther H, et al. A performance test for boar taint compounds in live boars. Animal 2013;7:714-20. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731112002273
  10. Strathe AB, Velander IH, Mark T, et al. Genetic parameters for androstenone and skatole as indicators of boar taint and their relationship to production and litter size traits in Danish Landrace. J Anim Sci 2013;91:2587-2595. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2012-6107
  11. Prunier A, Brillouet A, Merlot E, Meunier-Salaun MC, Tallet C. Influence of housing and season on pubertal development, boar taint compounds and skin lesions of male pigs. Animal 2013;7:2035-2043. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731113001596
  12. Koucky M, Dostalova A. New trends in market pig production. MASO International BRNO 2011;1:51-5. https://doi.org/10.2754/avb201101010051
  13. National Pork Producers Council (NPPC). In: Berg EP, editor. Pork composition and quality assessment procedures; Des Moines, IA, USA; 2000.
  14. Shackelford SD, Wheeler TL, Koohmaraie M. Technical note: Use of belt grill cookery and slice shear force for assessment of pork longissimus tenderness. J Anim Sci 2004;82:238-41. https://doi.org/10.2527/2004.821238x
  15. Shackelford SD, Wheeler TL, Koohmaraie M. Tenderness classification of beef: II. Design and analysis of a system to measure beef longissimus shear force under commercial processing conditions. J Anim Sci 1999;77:1474-81. https://doi.org/10.2527/1999.7761474x
  16. Ngapo TM, Martin JF, Dransfield E. International preferences for pork appearance: I. Consumer choices. Food Qual Pref 2007;18:26-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2005.07.001
  17. Trefan L, Doeschl-Wilson A, Rooke JA, Terlouw C, Bunger L. Meta-analysis of effects of gender in combination with carcass weight and breed on pork quality. J Anim Sci 2013;91:1480-92. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2012-5200
  18. Grela ER, Kowalczuk-Vasilev E, Klebaniuk R. Performance, pork quality and fatty acid composition of entire males, surgically castrated or immunocastrated males, and female pigs reared under organic system. Pol J Vet Sci 2013;16:107-14. https://doi.org/10.2478/pjvs-2013-0015
  19. De Briyne N, Berg C, Blaha T, Temple D. Pig castration: will the EU manage to ban pig castration by 2018? Porcine Health Manag 2016;2:29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40813-016-0046-x
  20. Merks JWM, Hanenberg EHAT, Bloemhof S, Knol EF. Genetic opportunities for pork production without castration. Anim Welf 2009;18:539-44.
  21. Mancini MA, Menozzi D, Arfini F. Immunocastration: Economic implications for the pork supply chain and consumer perception. An assessment of existing research. Livest Sci 2017;203:10-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2017.06.012
  22. Huber-Eicher B, Spring P. Attitudes of Swiss consumers towards meat from entire or immunocastrated boars: A representative survey. Res Vet Sci 2008;85:625-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2008.03.002
  23. Heid A, Hamm U. Consumer attitudes towards alternatives to piglet castration without pain relief in organic farming: qualitative results from Germany. J Agric Environ Ethics 2012;25:687-706. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-011-9350-2
  24. Squires EJ, Schenkel FS. Managing boar taint: focus on genetic markers. London Swine Conference 2010; 2010 Mar 31-Apr 1; London, UK.
  25. Samore AB, Fontanesi L. Genomic selection in pigs: state of the art and perspectives. Ital J Anim Sci 2016;15:211-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1828051X.2016.1172034
  26. Backus GBC, van den Broek E, van der Fels B, et al. Evaluation of producing and marketing entire male pigs. NJAS - Wageningen J Life Sci 2016;76:29-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2015.11.002
  27. Babol J, Zamaratskaia G, Juneja RK, Lundstrom K. The effect of age on distribution of skatole and indole levels in entire male pigs in four breeds: Yorkshire, Landrace, Hampshire and Duroc. Meat Sci 2004;67:351-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2003.11.008
  28. van Wagenberg CPA, Snoek HM, van der Peet-Schwering CMC, Vermeer HM, Heres L. Farm and management characteristics associated with boar taint. Animal 2013;7:1841-8. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731113001328
  29. Giersing M, Lundstrom K, Andersson A. Social effects and boar taint: Significance for production of slaughter boars (Sus scrofa). J Anim Sci 2000;78:296-305. https://doi.org/10.2527/2000.782296x
  30. Cornale P, Macchi E, Miretti S. Effects of stocking density and environmental enrichment on behavior and fecal corticosteroid levels of pigs under commercial farm conditions. J Vet Behavior 2015;10:569-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2015.05.002