DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Carcass characteristics and meat quality of purebred Pakchong 5 and crossbred pigs sired by Pakchong 5 or Duroc boar

  • Lertpatarakomol, Rachakris (Department of Animal Production Technology and Fisheries, Faculty of Agricultural Technology, King Mongkut's Institute of Technology Ladkrabang) ;
  • Chaosap, Chanporn (Department of Agricultural Education, Faculty of Industrial Education and Technology, King Mongkut's Institute of Technology Ladkrabang) ;
  • Chaweewan, Kamon (Bureau of Animal Husbandry and Genetic Improvement, Department of Livestock Development) ;
  • Sitthigripong, Ronachai (Department of Animal Production Technology and Fisheries, Faculty of Agricultural Technology, King Mongkut's Institute of Technology Ladkrabang) ;
  • Limsupavanich, Rutcharin (Department of Animal Production Technology and Fisheries, Faculty of Agricultural Technology, King Mongkut's Institute of Technology Ladkrabang)
  • Received : 2018.04.07
  • Accepted : 2018.08.28
  • Published : 2019.04.01

Abstract

Objective: This study investigated carcass characteristics and meat quality of purebred Pakchong 5, crossbred pigs sired by Pakchong 5, and crossbred pigs sired by Duroc. Methods: Forty-eight pigs (average body weight of 22.25 kg) were composed of three groups as purebred Pakchong 5 (PP), Large $White{\times}Landrace$ pigs sired by Pakchong 5 (LWLRP), and Large $White{\times}Landrace$ pigs sired by Duroc (LWLRD). Each group consisted of eight gilts and eight barrows. At 109-day-raising period, pigs were slaughtered, and carcass characteristics were evaluated. Longissimus thoracis (LT) muscles from left side of carcasses were evaluated for meat quality and chemical composition. Data were analyzed using general linear model procedure, where group, sex, and their interaction were included in the model. Results: The PP had greater carcass, total lean, and ham percentages than crossbred pigs (p<0.05). LWLRP had thicker backfat and more carcass fat percentage than LWLRD (p<0.05). There were no differences (p>0.05) on cutting percentages from tender loin, loin, boston butt, and picnic shoulder among groups. The PP and LWLRP had larger loin eye area (LEA) than LWLRD (p<0.05). Gilts had more loin percentage and lower $L^*$ value than barrows (p<0.05). No meat color parameters ($L^*$, $a^*$, and $b^*$) were affected by groups (p>0.05). PP and LWLRP had larger muscle fiber diameters than LWLRD (p<0.05). However, water holding capacity, Warner-Bratzler shear force values, and chemical composition of LT were not affected by group or sex (p>0.05). Conclusion: Pakchong 5 purebred has good carcass and lean percentages. Compared to Duroc crossbred pigs, Pakchong 5 crossbreds have similar carcass and lean percentages, larger LEA, and slightly more carcass fat, with comparable meat quality and chemical composition. Pakchong 5 boars are more affordable for very small- to medium-scale pig producers.

Keywords

Pakchong 5;Terminal Boar;Crossbred Pig;Carcass Characteristic;Meat Quality;Duroc

Acknowledgement

Supported by : Thailand Research Fund (TRF)

References

  1. Office of Agricultural Economics. Major agricultural products and trends in 2016 [Internet]. Thailand Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives; 2017 [cited 2017 Feb 2]. Available from: http://oldweb.oae.go.th/download/document_tendency/agri_situation2560.pdf
  2. Latorre MA, Medel P, Fuentetaja A, Lazaro R, Mateos GG. Effect of gender, terminal sire line and age at slaughter on performance, carcass characteristics and meat quality of heavy pigs. Anim Sci 2003;77:33-45. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1357729800053625
  3. Miar Y, Plastow GS, Moore SS, et al. Genetic and phenotypic parameters for carcass and meat quality traits in commercial crossbred pigs. J Anim Sci 2014;92:2869-84. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2014-7685
  4. Alonso V, Campo Mdel M, Espanol S, Roncales P, Beltran JA. Effect of crossbreeding and gender on meat quality and fatty acid composition in pork. Meat Sci 2009;81:209-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2008.07.021
  5. Suzuki K, Shibata T, Kadowaki H, Abe H, Toyoshima T. Meat quality comparison of Berkshire, Duroc and crossbred pigs sired by Berkshire and Duroc. Meat Sci 2003;64:35-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(02)00134-1
  6. Bunter KL, Bennett C, Luxford BG, Graser HU. Sire breed comparisons for meat and eating quality traits in Australian pig populations. Animal 2008;2:1168-77. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731108002085
  7. Latorre MA, Lazaro R, Gracia MI, Nieto M, Mateos GG. Effect of sex and terminal sire genotype on performance, carcass characteristics, and meat quality of pigs slaughtered at 117 kg body weight. Meat Sci 2003;64:1369-77.
  8. 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
  9. Chaweewan K, Nakavisut S, Jumparat V, Srisuriya V. Genetic parameters of selection for economic traits over five generations of Pakchong 5 swine. In: Proceeding of the 15th AAAP Animal Science Congress 2012; 2012 Nov 26-30; Thammasat University, Rangsit Campus, Thailand.
  10. Information and Communication Technology Center. Statistics of livestock in Thailand 2015 [Internet]. Department of Livestock Development, Thailand; 2015 [cited 2016 Dec 4]. Available from: http://ict.dld.go.th/th2/images/stories/stat_web/yearly/2558/province/4.buffpig_province.pdf
  11. Honikel KO. Reference methods for the assessment of physical characteristics of meat. Meat Sci 1998;49:447-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(98)00034-5
  12. Tuma HJ, Venable JH, Wuthier PR, Henrickson RL. Relationship of fiber diameter to tenderness and meatiness as influenced by Bovine age. J Anim Sci 1962;21:33-6. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1962.21133x
  13. Wheeler TL, Shackelford SD, Koohmaraie M. Technical note: Sampling methodology for relating sarcomere length, collagen concentration, and the extent of postmortem proteolysis to beef and pork longissimus tenderness. J Anim Sci 2002;80:982-7. https://doi.org/10.2527/2002.804982x
  14. AOAC. Official methods of analysis (17th ed). Gaithersburg, MD, USA: AOAC International; 2000.
  15. Hill F. The solubility of intramuscular collagen in meat animals of various ages. J Food Sci 1966;31:161-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1966.tb00472.x
  16. SPSS. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. In: 17.0 version. Chicago, IL, USA: SPSS Inc.; 2008.
  17. Cassady JP, Young LD, Leymaster KA. Heterosis and recombination effects on pig growth and carcass traits. J Anim Sci 2002;80:2286-302. https://doi.org/10.1093/ansci/80.9.2286
  18. Edwards DB, Tempelman RJ, Bates RO. Evaluation of Durocvs. Pietrain-sired pigs for growth and composition. J Anim Sci 2006;84:266-75. https://doi.org/10.2527/2006.842266x
  19. Edwards DB, Bates RO, Osburn WN. Evaluation of Duroc- vs. Pietrain-sired pigs for carcass and meat quality measures. J Anim Sci 2003;81:1895-9. https://doi.org/10.2527/2003.8181895x
  20. Morales JI, Serrano MP, Camara L, et al. Growth performance and carcass quality of immunocastrated and surgically castrated pigs from crossbreds from Duroc and Pietrain sires. J Anim Sci 2013;91:3955-64. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2012-6068
  21. Dube B, Mulugeta SD, Dzama K. Genetic relationship between growth and carcass traits in Large White pigs. S Afr J Anim Sci 2013;43:482-92.
  22. McCann MEE, Beattie VE, Watt D, Moss BW. The effect of boar breed type on reproduction, production performance and carcass and meat quality in pigs. Irish J Agric Food Res 2008;47:171-85.
  23. Faucitano L, Ielo MC, Ster C, et al. Shelf life of pork from five different quality classes. Meat Sci 2010;84:466-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2009.09.017
  24. Warriss PD, Brown SN. The relationships between initial pH, reflectance and exudation in pig muscle. Meat Sci 1987;20:65-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/0309-1740(87)90051-9
  25. Okrouhla M, Citek J, Stupka R, Brzobohaty L, Mahcova M. The effect of gender on the characteristics of muscle fibers in pork. J Cen Eur Agric 2014;15:64-71.
  26. Picard B, Lefaucheur L, Berri C, Duclos MJ. Muscle fibre ontogenesis in farm animal species. Reprod Nutr Dev 2002;42:415-31. https://doi.org/10.1051/rnd:2002035
  27. Aberle ED, Forrest JC, Gerrard DE, Mills EW. Principles of meat science. Kendall Hunt Publishing; 2012.
  28. Ryu YC, Rhee MS, Kim BC. Estimation of correlation coefficients between histological parameters and carcass traits of pig longissimus dorsi muscle. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2004;17:428-33. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2004.428
  29. Wimmers K, Ngu NT, Jennen DG, et al. Relationship between myosin heavy chain isoform expression and muscling in several diverse pig breeds. J Anim Sci 2008;86:795-803. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2006-521
  30. Bulotiene G, Jukna V. The influence of muscle fibre area on pork quality. Vet Med Zoot 2008;42:34-7.
  31. Christensen M, Kok C, Ertbjerg P. Mechanical properties of type I and type IIB single porcine muscle fibres. Meat Sci 2006;73:422-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2005.12.010
  32. Frank D, Joo ST, Warner R. Consumer acceptability of intramuscular fat. Korean J Food Sci Anim Resour 2016;36:699-708. https://doi.org/10.5851/kosfa.2016.36.6.699
  33. Font-i-Furnols M, Tous N, Esteve-Garcia E, Gispert M. Do all the consumers accept marbling in the same way? The relationship between eating and visual acceptability of pork with different intramuscular fat content. Meat Sci 2012;91:448-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.02.030
  34. Glinoubol J, Jaturasitha S, Mahinchaib P, Wicke M, Kreuzer M. Effects of crossbreeding Thai native or Duroc pigs with Pietrain pigs on carcass and meat quality. Agric Agric Sci Procedia 2015;5:133-8.
  35. Weston RA, Rogers WR, Althen GT. Review: the role of collagen in meat tenderness. Prof Anim Sci 2002;18:107-11. https://doi.org/10.15232/S1080-7446(15)31497-2