Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T20:04:57.444Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of genotype and castration method on the eating quality characteristics of pork from male pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

D. N. D’Souza  and
B. P. Mullan
B. P. Mullan
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, 3 Baron-Hay Court, South Perth, WA 6151, Australia
Get access

Abstract

Sixty crossbred (Large White × Landrace × Duroc) pigs were used to compare the growth performance, carcass and pork quality characteristics of entire, surgically castrated and immunologically castrated male pigs from two Western Australian commercial genotypes (genotype A : ‘lean’ genotype and genotype B : propensity for increased subcutaneous fat deposition). Pigs from genotype B had a higher average daily gain and a superior food conversion ratio compared with pigs from genotype A. Entire males had lower backfat compared with surgically and immunologically castrated male pigs. Pork from entire males was drier, tougher and had lower overall acceptability scores compared with surgically or immunologically castrated male pigs. Pork from genotype A pigs had a lower m. longissimus thoracis (LT) ultimate pH and higher drip loss compared with pork from genotype B pigs. However, consumer taste panel assessment indicated that pork from genotype A pigs was more tender, had higher juiciness and overall acceptability scores compared with pork from genotype B pigs. Within genotype A, the consumer taste panel preferred pork from surgically castrated pigs compared with either entire or immunologically castrated pigs. Within genotype B, the consumer taste panel preferred pork from immunologically castrated pigs compared with either entire or surgically castrated male pigs. These results indicate that interactions between genotype and castration method can significantly influence eating quality of pork.

Keywords

castrationgenotypesmeat qualitypigmeat
Type
Growth, development and meat science
Information
Animal Science , Volume 77 , Issue 1 , August 2003 , pp. 67 - 72
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2003

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.)

References

Anonymous. 2001. Google Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1990. Official methods of analysis, 15th edition. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, VA.Google Scholar
Bejerholm, C. and Barton-Gade, P. A. 1986. Effect of intramuscular fat level on eating quality of pig meat. Proceedings of the 32nd European meeting of meat research workers, Ghent, Belgium, pp. 389–391.Google Scholar
Blanchard, P. J., Warkup, C.C., Ellis, M., Willis, M. B. and Avery, P. 1999. The influence of the proportion of Duroc genes on growth, carcass and pork eating quality characteristics. Animal Science 68: 495–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Channon, H. A., Reynolds, J. and Baud, S. 2001. Identifying pathways to ensure acceptable eating quality of pork. Final report. Australian Pork Limited, Canberra.Google Scholar
DeVol, D. L., McKeith, F.K., Bechtel, P.J., Novakofski, J., 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diestre, A. and Kempster, A.J. 1985. The estimation of pig carcass composition from different measurements with special reference to classification and grading. Animal Production 41: 383–391.Google Scholar
D’Souza, D. N. and Mullan, B.P. 2002. Effect of genotype, sex and management strategy on the eating quality of pork. Meat Science 60: 95–101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
D’Souza, D. N., Warner, R. D., Dunshea, F. R. and Leury, B.J. 1998. The effect of handling pre-slaughter and carcass processing rate post-slaughter on pork quality. Meat Science 50: 429–437.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dunshea, F. R., Colantoni, C., Howard, K., McCauley, I., Jackson, P., Long, K. A., Lopaticki, S., Nugent, E. A., Simons, J. A., Walker, J. and Hennessy, D.P. 2001. Vaccination of boars with a GnRH vaccine (Improvac) eliminates boar taint and increases growth performance. Journal of Animal Science 79: 2524–2535.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friesen, K. G., Nelssen, J.L., Unnruh, J.A., Goodband, R.D. and Tokach, M.D. 1994. Effects of the interrelationship between genotype, sex and dietary lysine on growth performance and carcass composition in finishing pigs fed to either 104 or 127 kilograms. Journal of Animal Science 72: 946–954.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Genstat 5 Committee. 1993. GENSTAT 5 reference manual. Oxford Science Publications, Oxford.Google Scholar
Hennessy, D. P. and Wan, S.S. 1993. Boar odour: is it a problem for Australian consumers? In Manipulating pig production IV (ed. Batterham, E. S.), pp. 155–161. Australasian Pig Science Association, Victoria, Australia.Google Scholar
Honikel, K. O. 1987. How to measure the water-holding capacity of meat. Recommendation of standardised methods. In Evaluation and control of meat quality in pigs (ed. Tarrant, P. V., Eikelenboom, G. and Monin, G.), pp. 129–142. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trezona, M. 2000. Pattern of nutrition can explain seasonal variation in composition of pig carcasses. M.Sc. dissertation, University of Western Australia.Google Scholar
Unruh, J. A., Friesen, K.G., Stuewe, S.R., Dunn, B.L., Nelssen, J.L., Goodband, R.D. and Tokach, M.D. 1996. The influence of genotype, sex, and dietary lysine on pork subprimal cut yields and carcass quality of pigs fed to either 104 or 127 kilograms. Journal of Animal Science 74: 1274–1283.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Lunen, T. A. and D.J.A., Cole 1996. The effect of lysine/digestible energy ratio on growth performance and nitrogen deposition of hybrid boars, gilts and castrated male pigs. Animal Science 63: 465–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yen, H. T., D.J.A., Cole and D., Lewis 1986. Amino acid requirements of growing pigs. 8. The response of pigs from 50 to 90 kg live weight to dietary ideal protein. Animal Production 43: 155–165.Google Scholar