Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-zklqj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-29T08:36:23.783Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of two methods of increasing age at slaughter on carcass and muscle traits and meat sensory quality in pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

B. Lebret ,
H. Juin ,
J. Noblet  and
M. Bonneau
B. Lebret
Affiliation:
INRA, Unité Mixte de Recherches sur le Veau et le Porc, 35590 Saint-Gilles, France
H. Juin
Affiliation:
INRA, Domaine du Magneraud, BP52, 17700 Surgères, France
J. Noblet
Affiliation:
INRA, Unité Mixte de Recherches sur le Veau et le Porc, 35590 Saint-Gilles, France
M. Bonneau
Affiliation:
INRA, Unité Mixte de Recherches sur le Veau et le Porc, 35590 Saint-Gilles, France
Get access

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of a 30-day increase in age of pigs slaughtered at 110 kg body weight (BW) on carcass and m. longissimus dorsi (LD) and m. biceps femoris (BF) traits, and meat sensory quality. A total of 60 pigs from two genotypes: synthetic line ✕ (Large White ✕ Landrace) (SL) and Duroc ✕ (Large White ✕ Landrace) (D) were used, each genotype containing five groups of six littermates (three castrated males and three females). At the average BW of 30 kg, littermates of the same sex were allocated to three groups. Pigs of group AL were offered ad libitum a standard growing-finishing diet (13·6 MJ/kg digestible energy, 9·5 g/kg of lysine) from 30 up to 110 kg BW. The R1 pigs received the same diet at 0·75 of the ad libitum intake of their AL littermates. The R2 pigs were submitted to both energy and protein restrictions in order to get the same growth rate as the R1 pigs and the same body composition as the AL pigs. Results were similar in both genotypes. In agreement with the protocol, age at slaughter was increased by 30 days in R1 and R2, and AL and R2 pigs had comparable carcass composition. Compared with AL, average daily gain was decreased in R1 and R2 pigs, and food efficiency was decreased in R2, but remained unaffected in R1 pigs. Intramuscular fat (IMF) concentration was decreased in the R1 pigs, especially in BF (15·5 v. 19·7 mg/g), while it was increased in the LD of the R2 pigs, particularly in the D animals (24·2 v. 17·4 mg/g), compared with AL pigs. Meat quality parameters (rate and extent of pH fall, reflectance and drip loss) were similar in the three feeding regimens. The taste panel did not find any significant difference between feeding regimens for tenderness, juiciness, flavour, flour sensation after mastication and mouth coating of the meat, despite the differences reported in IMF concentration. This suggests that, for the genotypes used in this experiment, an increase of 30 days in the age at slaughter greatly influences the carcass and/or the muscle chemical composition, depending on the feeding strategy applied to reduce the growth rate but does not strongly modify the meat eating quality.

Keywords

age at slaughtercarcass compositiongrowth ratemeat qualitypigs

Information

Type
Non-ruminant nutrition, behaviour and production
Information
Animal Science , Volume 72 , Issue 1 , February 2001 , pp. 87 - 94
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2001

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Affentranger, P., Gerwig, C., Seewer, G. J. F., Schworer, D. and Kunzi, N. 1996. Growth and carcass characteristics as well as meat and fat quality of three types of pigs under different feeding regimens. Livestock Production Science 45: 187–196.Google Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1990. Official methods of analysis, 15th edition. AOAC, Arlington, VA.Google Scholar
Barton-Gade, P. A. and Bejerholm, C. 1985. Eating quality in pork. Pig Farming 33: 56–57.Google Scholar
Bergman, I. and Loxley, R. 1963. Two improved and simplified methods for the spectrophotometric determination of hydroxyproline. Analytical Chemistry 35: 1961–1965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanchard, P. J., Ellis, M., Warkup, C. C., Hardy, B., Chadwick, J. P. and Deans, G. A. 1999. The influence of rate of lean and fat tissue development on pork eating quality. Animal Science 68: 477–485.Google Scholar
Candek-Potokar, M., Zlender, B., Lefaucheur, L. and Bonneau, M. 1998. Effects of age and/or weight at slaughter on longissimus dorsi muscle: biochemical traits and sensory quality in pigs. Meat Science 48: 287–300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cannon, J. E., Morgan, J. B., Heavner, J., McKeith, F. K., Smith, G. C. and Meeker, D. L. 1995. Pork quality audit: a review of the factors influencing pork quality. Journal of Muscle Foods 6: 369–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castell, A. G., Cliplef, R. L., Poste-Flynn, L. M. and Butler, G. 1994. Performance, carcass and pork characteristics of castrates and gilts self-fed diets differing in protein content and lysine: energy ratio. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 74: 519–528.Google Scholar
Cisneros, F., Ellis, M., Baker, D. H., Easter, R. A. and McKeith, F. K. 1996. The influence of short-term feeding of amino acid-deficients diets and high dietary leucine levels on the intramuscular fat content of pig muscle. Animal Science 63: 517–522.Google Scholar
Dalens, M. and Runavot, J. P. 1993. Test moléculaire pour le dépistage du gène de sensibilité à l’halothane chez le porc. Techni-Porc 16: 17–20.Google Scholar
De Vol, D. L., McKeith, F. K., Bechtel, P. J., Novakofski, F. K., 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.Google Scholar
Eikelenboom, G., Hoving-Bolink, A. H. and Wal, P. G.van der. 1996. The eating quality of pork. 2. The influence of intramuscular fat. Fleischwirtschaft 76: 517–518.Google Scholar
Ellis, M., Webb, A. J., Avery, P. J. and Brown, I. 1996. 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. Animal Science 62: 521–530.Google Scholar
Etherington, D. E. and Sims, T. J. 1981. Detection and estimation of collagen. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 32: 539–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandez, X., Monin, G., Talmant, A., Mourot, J. and Lebret, B. 1999. Influence of intramuscular fat content on the quality of pig meat. 1. Composition of the lipid fraction and sensory characteristics of m. longissimus lumborum . Meat Science 53: 59–65.Google Scholar
Folch, J., Lee, M. and Sloane Stanley, G. H. 1957. A simple method for the isolation and purification of total lipids from animal tissues. Journal of Biological Chemistry 226: 497–509.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goerl, K. F., Eilert, S. J., Mandigo, R. W., Chen, H. Y. and Miller, P. S. 1995. Pork characteristics as affected by two populations of swine and six crude protein levels. Journal of Animal Science 73: 3621–3626.Google Scholar
Hill, F. 1966. The solubility of intramuscular collagen in meat animals of various ages. Journal of Food Science 31: 161–166.Google Scholar
Hodgson, R. R., Davis, G. W., Smith, G. C., Savell, J. W. and Cross, H. R. 1991. Relationship between pork loin palatability traits and physical characteristics of cooked chops. Journal of Animal Science 69: 4858–4865.Google Scholar
Honikel, K. O. 1998. Reference methods for the assessment of physical characteristics of meat. Meat Science 49: 447–457.Google Scholar
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique. 1989. L’alimentation des monogastriques: porc, lapin, volailles. Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Paris.Google Scholar
Lazo, A., Gandemer, G., Viau, M., Rampon, V., Gruand, J., Le Jossec, P. and Chevillon, P. 1994. Evolution de la composition lipidique du muscle long dorsal au cours du développement post-sevrage chez trois génotypes porcins. Journées de la Recherche Porcine en France 26: 175–182.Google Scholar
Lee, Y. B. and Kauffman, R. G. 1974. Cellular and enzymatic changes with animal growth in porcine intramuscular adipose tissue. Journal of Animal Science 38: 532–537.Google Scholar
Monin, G. and Sellier, P. 1985. Pork of low technological quality with a normal rate of muscle pH fall in the immediate post-mortem period: the case of the Hampshire breed. Meat Science 13: 49–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Noblet, J., Fortune, H., Dubois, S. and Henry, Y. 1989. Nouvelles bases d’estimation des teneurs en énergie digestible, métabolisable et nette des aliments pour le porc. Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Paris.Google Scholar
Noblet, J., Karege, C., Dubois, S. and Milgen, J. van. 1999. Metabolic utilization of energy and maintenance requirements in growing pigs: effect of sex and genotype. Journal of Animal Science 77: 1208–1216.Google Scholar
Noblet, J. and Quiniou, N. 1999. Principaux facteurs de variation du besoin en acides aminés du porc en croissance. Techni-Porc 22: 9–16.Google Scholar
Quiniou, N., Noblet, J., Milgen, J. van and Dourmad, J.-Y. 1995. Effect of energy intake on performance, nutrient and tissue gain and protein and energy utilization in growing boars. Animal Science 61: 133–143.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1989. SAS user’s guide: statistics. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Touraille, C., Monin, G. and Legault, C. 1989. Eating quality of meat from European ✕ Chinese crossbred pigs. Meat Science 25: 177–186.Google Scholar
Witte, D. P., Ellis, M., McKeith, F. K. and Wilson, E. R. 2000. Effect of dietary lysine level and environmental temperature during the finishing phase on the intramuscular fat content of pork. Journal of Animal Science 78: 1272–1276.Google Scholar
Wood, J. D., Brown, S. N., Nute, G. R., Whittington, F. M., Perry, A. M., Johnson, S. P. and Enser, M. 1996. Effects of breed, feed level and conditioning time on the tenderness of pork. Meat Science 44: 105–112.Google Scholar