| Literature DB >> 25050003 |
Zofia Turyk, Maria Osek, Bogusław Olkowski, Alina Janocha.
Abstract
This study examined carcass and meat quality parameters in growing/finishing pigs fed unconventionally versus the concentrate-based system. Ninety-six, 12 wk old pigs (34±SD 0.3 kg) were randomly divided into three groups, assigned to one of the three dietary treatments: standard complete concentrate mixture, conventional (C diet); unconventional, steamed potato-green forage-concentrate based diet (U diet), and unconventional basal diet+herbage mix (UH diet). Pigs fed U diet showed lower dressing percentage, meatiness, loin eye area, and weight of pork neck (p≤0.05), but their carcasses were significantly (p≤0.05) longer and had increased backfat depth (p≤0.05). There was no impact of the diet on the meat content of dry matter, crude ash, acidity, and colour parameters of m. longissimus. Unconventional feeding significantly (p≤0.05) elevated water the holding capacity of m. longissimus and slightly improved the sensory attributes analysis of meat. The addition of herbs resulted in increased loin eye area (p≤0.05), decreased fat content (p≤0.05) in m. longissimus, and tended to improve some sensory attributes of meat. There were significant gender differences in response to all diets. There were significant diet×sex interactions for some measured variables, but there were no clearly identifiable trends with regard to any specific carcass or meat parameters. Feeding unconventional diet to pigs may offer better culinary attributes of the meat, and improve some technologically important characteristics of pig carcass, but may negatively affect some carcass or meat parameters.Entities:
Keywords: Carcass; Complete Mixture; Herbage; Meat; Potato-green Forage-concentrate Mixture; Swine
Year: 2014 PMID: 25050003 PMCID: PMC4093189 DOI: 10.5713/ajas.2012.12543
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Asian-Australas J Anim Sci ISSN: 1011-2367 Impact factor: 2.509
Ingredients of the experimental diets (%)
| Items | Treatments/diets | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| C (Conventional) | U (Unconventional) | UH (U+herbs) | ||||
|
|
|
| ||||
| Starter | Grower | Starter | Grower | Starter | Grower | |
| Barley | 32.33 | 30.23 | 35.78 | 36.54 | 35.78 | 36.54 |
| Wheat | 30.82 | 20.61 | - | - | - | - |
| Triticale (%) | 10.19 | 20.61 | - | - | - | - |
| Soy bean meal solvent ext. (42% CP) | - | 15.80 | 11.01 | 8.60 | 11.01 | 8.60 |
| Soy bean meal solvent ext. (48% CP) | 8.42 | - | - | - | - | - |
| Wheat middlings | 5.31 | 10.31 | - | - | - | - |
| Fish meal (56% CP) | 5.31 | - | - | - | - | - |
| Porcine blood dried (75% CP) | 2.66 | - | - | - | 0.0 | - |
| Soya oil | 2.66 | - | 1.76 | - | 1.76 | - |
| Vitamin-mineral suplement | 2.30 | 2.44 | 1.90 | 1.14 | 1.90 | 1.14 |
| Potatoes steamed (average DM 21.5%) | - | - | 35.78 | 42.98 | 35.78 | 42.98 |
| Grass forage | - | - | 13.76 | 10.75 | 13.76 | 10.75 |
| Herbs mixture | - | - | - | - | 650 | 850 |
Starter: provided per pig/d: Vitamin A, 21,000 IU; Vitamin D3, 4,200 IU; Vitamin E, 117.6 mg; Vitamin K3, 2.52 mg; Riboflavin, 8.4 mg; Calcium pantothenic acid, 42 mg; Niacin, 33.6 mg; Biotin, 168 μg; Vitamin B12, 42 μg; Fe, 159.6 mg; Cu, 42 mg; Zn, 160 mg; Mn, 69.1 mg; I, 2.1 mg; Se, 0.53 mg. Lysine (synthetic), 1.5 g; NaCl, 2.1 g; Ca, 8 g; P, 2.3 g. Ca and P were supplemented with limestone and dicalcium phosphate. Grower: provided per pig/d: Vitamin A, 26,000 IU; Vitamin D3, 5,500 IU; Vitamin E 275 mg; Vitamin K3, 4.5 mg; Riboflavin, 10.3 mg; Calcium pantothenic acid, 27.5 mg; Niacin, 55 mg; Biotin, 137.5 μg; Vitamin B12, 72 μg; Fe, 206.2 mg; Cu, 70 mg; Zn, 310 mg; Mn, 206 mg; I, 2,1 mg; Se, 0.96 mg; NaCl, 2.1 g; Ca, 9.5 g. Ca and P were supplemented with limestone and dicalcium phosphate.
Daily cuts green forage mixture: ryegrass, red clover, white clover, lucerne.
Herbs extracts: X-tract™ Provit Kutno, Poland, (Mexican pepper, Cinamon, Oregano).
Daily rations and nutritive value of diets
| Items | Treatments | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| C (Conventional) | U (Unconventional) | UH (U+herbs) | ||||
|
|
|
| ||||
| Starter | Grower | Starter | Grower | Starter | Grower | |
| Daily rations (kg) | 2.26 | 2.87 | 3.50 | 4.60 | 3.50 | 4.60 |
| Nutritional value per 1 kg of diet | ||||||
| Metabolizable energy (MJ) | 12.87 | 11.96 | 7.99 | 7.33 | 7.99 | 7.33 |
| Digestible protein (g) | 125.5 | 116.6 | 78.2 | 71.4 | 78.2 | 71.4 |
| Lysine (g) | 8.4 | 7.3 | 5.4 | 4.4 | 5.4 | 4.4 |
| Methionine+cysteine (g) | 5.7 | 5.5 | 3.2 | 3.0 | 3.2 | 3.0 |
| Calcium (g) | 7.0 | 5.4 | 4.2 | 3.4 | 4.2 | 3.4 |
| Available phosphorus (g) | 2.1 | 1.9 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.1 |
Results of slaughter value of fatteners
| Specification | Treatment (Diet/sex) | SEM | Significance | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||||||||
| C (Conventional) | U (Unconventional) | UH (U+herbs) | Diet (D) | Sex (S) | D×S | |||||
|
|
|
| ||||||||
| G | B | G | B | G | B | |||||
| Slaughter BW (kg) | 107.0 | 108.5 | 107.1 | 107.8 | 107.1 | 106.8 | 0.346 | 0.196 | 0.116 | 0.122 |
| Dressing percentage (%) | 78.6 | 79.3 | 81.3 | 81.8 | 81.9 | 82.8 | 0.570 | 0.006 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Internal carcass length (cm) | 83.4 | 83.8 | 86.3 | 84.5 | 84.6 | 84.7 | 0.446 | 0.001 | 0.148 | 0.007 |
| Meatness (%) | 59.1 | 56.3 | 56.7 | 52.8 | 56.3 | 53.6 | 0.346 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.437 |
| Loin eye area (cm2) | 50.3 | 44.8 | 38.6 | 38.1 | 43.9 | 43.8 | 1.16 | 0.001 | 0.035 | 0.045 |
| Ham weight (kg) | 8.0 | 8.1 | 7.8 | 8.0 | 7.9 | 7.9 | 0.212 | 0.724 | 0.573 | 0.909 |
| Shoulder weight (kg) | 7.4 | 6.6 | 7.4 | 7.4 | 7.5 | 7.3 | 0.178 | 0.112 | 0.014 | 0.104 |
| Neck weight (kg) | 3.29 | 3.30 | 3.16 | 3.11 | 3.18 | 3.03 | 0.070 | 0.020 | 0.228 | 0.518 |
| Suet weight (kg) | 1.06 | 1.73 | 1.58 | 1.62 | 1.51 | 2.03 | 0.062 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Backfat depth (mm) | ||||||||||
| Over the shoulder | 29.8 | 34.3 | 37.3 | 38.8 | 40.6 | 37.8 | 0.885 | 0.001 | 0.064 | 0.001 |
| Mid back | 25.0 | 26.0 | 26.5 | 29.5 | 29.0 | 27.3 | 0.774 | 0.002 | 0.242 | 0.014 |
| Sacrum I | 27.5 | 21.3 | 24.5 | 22.3 | 27.1 | 27.5 | 0.862 | 0.001 | 0.146 | 0.317 |
| Sacrum II | 27.8 | 25.0 | 28.7 | 27.8 | 26.8 | 30.5 | 0.970 | 0.056 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Sacrum III | 31.8 | 28.3 | 33.0 | 33.0 | 31.8 | 33.0 | 0.907 | 0.001 | 0.151 | 0.042 |
| Average 5 measurement | 27.4 | 27.0 | 30.2b | 30.5 | 30.9 | 31.2 | 0.568 | 0.001 | 0.957 | 0.811 |
G = Gilts (n = 8); B = Barrows (n = 8).
Means in columns with a similar letter did not differ p≤0.05.
Physical and chemical properties of m. longissimus muscle
| Specification | Treatment (Diet/sex) | SEM | Significance | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||||||||
| C (Conventional) | U (Unconventional) | UH (U+herbs) | Diet (D) | Sex (S) | D×S | |||||
|
|
|
| ||||||||
| G | B | G | B | G | B | |||||
| WHC (%) | 21.1 | 19.8 | 26.8 | 27.6 | 26.5 | 27.8 | 0.580 | 0.001 | 0.606 | 0.071 |
| pH45 | 6.29 | 6.12 | 6.54 | 6.51 | 6.50 | 6.36 | 0.159 | 0.134 | 0.392 | 0.906 |
| pH24 | 5.75 | 5.50 | 5.44 | 5.68 | 5.46 | 5.47 | 0.097 | 0.244 | 0.975 | 0.050 |
| Colour | ||||||||||
| L* | 50.7 | 47.6 | 49.3 | 47.8 | 49.2 | 48.4 | 0.861 | 0.674 | 0.054 | 0.215 |
| a* | 8.1 | 7.9 | 8.5 | 7.5 | 6.9 | 8.0 | 0.327 | 0.233 | 0.642 | 0.135 |
| b* | 1.6 | 1.5 | 1.4 | 1.3 | 1.5 | 1.4 | 0.390 | 0.354 | 0.542 | 0.216 |
| Crude ash (%) | 1.10 | 1.11 | 1.11 | 1.10 | 1.12 | 1.12 | 0.006 | 0.069 | 0.636 | 0.293 |
| CP (%) | 22.02 | 22.44 | 22.96 | 22.47 | 22.67 | 22.47 | 0.185 | 0.035 | 0.561 | 0.050 |
| Crude fat (%) | 2.01 | 1.76 | 1.55 | 1.91 | 1.31 | 1.86 | 0.101 | 0.018 | 0.008 | 0.001 |
G = Gilts (n = 8); B = Barrows (n = 8).
Means in columns with a similar letter did not differ p≤0.05.
Results of sensory evaluation of m. longissimus muscle (Scores)*
| Specification | Treatment (Diet/sex) | SEM | Significance | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||||||||
| C (Conventional) | U (Unconventional) | UH (U+herbs) | Diet (D) | Sex (S) | D×S | |||||
|
|
|
| ||||||||
| G | B | G | B | G | B | |||||
| Flavour intensity | 4.00 | 4.00 | 4.50 | 4.25 | 4.50 | 4.38 | 0.199 | 0.071 | 0.447 | 0.822 |
| Flavour desirability | 4.38 | 4.00 | 4.50 | 4.25 | 4.50 | 4.34 | 0.183 | 0.372 | 0.102 | 0.793 |
| Palatability intensity | 4.25 | 4.12 | 4.75 | 4.63 | 4.88 | 4.87 | 0.149 | 0.001 | 0.498 | 0.890 |
| Palatability desirability | 4.50 | 4.13 | 4.75 | 4.69 | 4.88 | 4.88 | 0.154 | 0.003 | 0.193 | 0.471 |
| Tenderness | 4.12 | 3.88 | 4.34 | 4.50 | 4.63 | 4.50 | 0.185 | 0.010 | 0.584 | 0.591 |
| Juiciness | 4.13 | 3.89 | 4.25 | 4.00 | 4.50 | 4.38 | 0.182 | 0.057 | 0.168 | 0.924 |
From 1 (least favourable) to 5 (most favourable).
G = Gilts (n = 8); B = Barrows (n = 8).
Means in columns with a similar letter did not differ p≤0.05.