DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of Pork Quality and Sensory Characteristics for Antibiotic Free Yorkshire Crossbreds Raised in Hoop Houses

  • Whitley, N. (Department of Animal Sciences, North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University) ;
  • Hanson, D. (Department of Food Science, North Carolina State University) ;
  • Morrow, W. (Department of Animal Science, North Carolina State University) ;
  • See, M.T. (Department of Animal Science, North Carolina State University) ;
  • Oh, S.H. (Department of Animal Sciences, North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University)
  • Received : 2012.05.30
  • Accepted : 2012.08.11
  • Published : 2012.11.01

Abstract

The objective of this study was to compare pork characteristics and to determine consumer acceptability of pork chops from antibiotic free Yorkshire crossbreds sired by Berkshire (BY), Large Black (LBY), Tamworth (TY) or Yorkshire (YY) boars and reared in hoop houses. The experiments were conducted at the North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University (NCA&TSU) Farm in Greensboro, NC and the Cherry Research Station Center for Environmental Farming Systems (CEFS) Alternative Swine Unit in Goldsboro, NC (source of antibiotic free Yorkshire sows used at both places). Twenty-four sows were artificially inseminated at each location in each of three trials. Litters were weaned at 4 wks old, and reared within deep-bedded outdoor hoop houses. To compare pork characteristics, 104 randomly selected animals were harvested at a USDA-inspected abattoir at approximately 200 d of age. Variables measured included pH, color score, $L^*$, $a^*$, $b^*$, marbling score, drip loss, hot carcass weight, backfat thickness (BF), loin muscle area (LMA), and slice shear force. Sensory panel tests were also conducted at two time periods. The data was analyzed with GLM in SAS 9.01 including location, trial, and sire breed as fixed effects. Backfat thickness, LMA, color score and $a^*$ were different among breeding groups (p<0.05). The LBY pigs had thicker backfat and smaller LMA than the other breed types. The TY and YY had less backfat than all other breed groups. Color score was lower for YY than BY and LBY but intermediate for TY. The $a^*$ was lower for TY than other breeds except LBY which was intermediate. For one sensory panel test, YY pork was more preferred overall as well as for juiciness and texture compared to BY and LBY (p<0.05), but no impact of breed type was noted for the other test, with values similar for BY, LBY, TY and YY pork. This information may help small farmers make decisions about breed types to use for outdoor production.

Keywords

Outdoor;Antibiotic-Free;Yorkshire;Crossbred;Pork

References

  1. ALBC (American Livestock Breed Conservatory). 2012. http://albc-usa.org/cpl/largeblack.html Accessed April 7, 2012.
  2. Aziz, N. 2004. Manipulating pork quality through production and pre-slaughter handling. Advances in Pork Production 15:245-251.
  3. Bee. G., G. Guex and W. Herzog. 2004. Free-range rearing of pigs during the winter: Adaptations in muscle fiber characteristics and effects on adipose tissue composition and meat quality traits. J. Anim. Sci. 82:1206-1218.
  4. Brewer, M. S., J. Jensen, A. A. Sosnicki, B. Fields, E. Wilson and F. K. McKeith. 2002. The effect of pig genetics on palatability, color and physical characteristics of fresh pork loin chops. Meat Sci. 61:249-256. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(01)00190-5
  5. Edwards, D. B., R. O. Bates and W. N. Osburn. 2003. Evaluation of Duroc- vs. Pietrain-sired pigs for carcass and meat quality measures. J. Anim. Sci. 81:1895-1899.
  6. Faucitano, L., P. Huff, F. Teuscher, C. Gariepy and J. Wegner. 2005. Application of computer image analysis to measure porkmarbling characteristics. Meat Sci. 69:537-543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2004.09.010
  7. Gegner, L. 2001. Considerations in organic hog production. ATTRA's Organic Matters Series.
  8. Gentry, J. G., J. J. McGlone, J. R. Blanton, Jr. and M. F. Miller. 2002. Alternative housing systems for pigs: Influences on growth, composition, and pork quality. J. Anim. Sci. 80:1781-1790.
  9. Hiner, R. L., J. W. Thornton and R. H. Alsmeyer. 1965. Palatability and quantity of pork as influenced by breed and fatness. J. Food Sci. 30:550-555. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1965.tb01800.x
  10. Honeyman, M. S. 2005. Extensive bedded indoor and outdoor pig production systems in USA: current trends and effects on animal care and product quality. Livest. Prod. Sci. 64:15-24.
  11. Honeyman, M. S. and J. D. Harmon. 2003. Performance of finishing pigs in hoop structures and confinement during winter and summer. J. Anim. Sci. 81:1663-1670.
  12. Judge, M. D., V. R. Cahill, L. E. Kunkle and W. H. Bruner. 1959. Pork quality. I. Influences of some factors on pork muscle characteristics. J. Anim. Sci. 18:448-452.
  13. Kleinbeck, S. N. and J. J. McGlone. 1999. Intensive indoor versus outdoor swine production systems: Genotype and supplemental iron effects on blood hemoglobin and selected immune measures in young pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 77:2384-2390.
  14. Lammers, P. J., D. R. Stender and M. S. Honeyman. 2007. Niche pork production - Pork quality. Iowa State University.
  15. Lebret, B., M. C. Meunier-Salaün, A. Foury, P. Mormède, E. Dransfield and J. Y. Dourmad. 2006. Influence of rearing conditions on performance, behavioral, and physiological responses of pigs to preslaughter handling, carcass traits, and meat quality. J. Anim. Sci. 84:2436-2447. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2005-689
  16. Lo, L. L., D. G. McLaren, F. K. McKeith, R. L. Fernando and J. Novakofski. 1992. Genetic analyses of growth, real-time ultrasound, carcass, and pork quality traits in Duroc and Landrace pigs: I. Breed effects. J. Anim. Sci. 70:2373-2386.
  17. McPhee, H. C. 1931. Swine inbreeding at the United States Department of Agriculture - A Progress Report. J. Anim. Sci. 1:131-134.
  18. Morlein, D., G. Link, C. Werner and M. Wicke. 2007. Suitability of three commercially produced pig breeds in Germany for a meat quality program with emphasis on driploss and eating quality. Meat Sci. 77:504-511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2007.04.030
  19. National Pork Producers Council (NPPC). 2000. Pork Composition and Quality Assessment Procedures. E.P. Berg, ed. Des Moines, IA, USA.
  20. Ngapo, T. M., E. Dransfield, J. F. Martin, M. Magnusson, L. Bredahl and G. R. Nute. 2003. Consumer perceptions: Pork and pig production. Insights from France, England, Sweden, and Denmark. Meat Sci. 66:125-134.
  21. Shackelford, S. D., T. L. Wheeler and M. Koohmaraie. 2004. Technical note: Use of belt grill cookery and slice shear force for assessment of pork longissimus tenderness. J. Anim. Sci. 82:238-241.
  22. Skelley, G. C. and D. L. Handlin. 1971. Pork acceptability as influenced by breed, sex, carcass measurements and cutability. J. Anim. Sci. 32:239-244.
  23. Suzuki, K., T. Shibata, H. Kadowaki, H. Abe and T. Toyoshima. 2003. Meat quality comparison of Berkshire, Duroc and crossbred pigs sired by Berkshire and Duroc. Meat Sci. 64:35-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(02)00134-1
  24. Thornton, K. 1990. Outdoor pig production. Farming Press, Ipswich, UK.
  25. Winters, L. M., R. E. Comstock and D. L. Dailey. 1943. The development of an inbred line of swine (Minn. No. 1) from a crossbred foundation. J. Anim. Sci. 2:129-137.
  26. Wood, J. D., S. N. Brown, G. R. Nute, F. M. Whittington, A. M. Perry, S. P. Johnson and M. Enser. 1996. Effects of breed, feed level and conditioning time on the tenderness of pork. Meat Sci. 44:105-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(96)00044-7
  27. Yiridoe, E. K., S. Bonti-Ankomah and R. C. Martin. 2005. Comparison of consumer perceptions and preference toward organic versus conventionally produced foods: A review and update of the literature. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 20:193-205. https://doi.org/10.1079/RAF2005113

Cited by

  1. Seasonal variation in growth of Berkshire pigs in alternative production systems vol.30, pp.5, 2016, https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.16.0587
  2. Research trends in outdoor pig production — A review vol.30, pp.9, 2017, https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.17.0330
  3. Factors affecting growth and body dimensions of pigs reared in alternative production pp.0974-1844, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1080/09712119.2017.1366323