Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-q6k6v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T04:25:36.511Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetic parameters of meat quality traits in two pig breeds measured by rapid methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 June 2010

E. Gjerlaug-Enger ,
L. Aass ,
J. Ødegård  and
O. Vangen
E. Gjerlaug-Enger*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences, The Norwegian University of Life Sciences, PO Box 5003, 1432 Ås, Norway Norsvin, PO Box 504, 2304 Hamar, Norway
L. Aass
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences, The Norwegian University of Life Sciences, PO Box 5003, 1432 Ås, Norway
J. Ødegård
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences, The Norwegian University of Life Sciences, PO Box 5003, 1432 Ås, Norway Nofima Marin, PO Box 5010, 1432 Ås, Norway
O. Vangen
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences, The Norwegian University of Life Sciences, PO Box 5003, 1432 Ås, Norway
*
†E-mail: eli.gjerlaug@norsvin.no
Get access

Abstract

To study genetic variation in meat quality traits measured by rapid methods, data were recorded between 2005 and 2008 on samples of M. longissimus dorsi (LD) in Landrace (n = 3838) and Duroc (n = 2250) pigs included in the Norwegian pig breeding scheme. In addition, ultimate pH levels in the glycolytic LD (loin muscle) and M. gluteus medius (GM, ham muscle), and in the oxidative m. gluteus profundus (GP, ham muscle) were recorded as an extended data set (n = 16 732 and n = 7456 for Landrace and Duroc, respectively) from 1998 to 2008. Data were analysed with a multi-trait animal model using AI-REML methodology. Meat from Duroc had considerably more intramuscular fat (IMF), less moisture and protein, appeared darker with higher colour intensity and had lower drip loss than meat from Landrace. The heritability estimates (s.e. 0.01 to 0.07) for pH in LD (0.19 and 0.27 for Landrace and Duroc, respectively), GM (0.12 and 0.22) and GP (0.19 and 0.38), drip loss (0.23 and 0.33), colour values: L* (lightness) (0.41 and 0.28), a* (redness) (0.46 and 0.43), b* (yellowness) (0.31 and 0.33), IMF (0.50 and 0.62), muscle moisture (0.31 and 0.50) and muscle protein content (0.40 and 0.54) in LD all demonstrated moderate-to-high genetic variation for these traits in both breeds. Near infrared spectroscopy and EZ-DripLoss are modern technologies used in this study for the determination of chemical components and drip loss in meat. These methods gave higher heritabilities than more traditional methods used to measure these traits. The estimated genetic correlations between moisture and IMF in Duroc, and pH and drip loss in Duroc were both −0.89. Interesting differences between the two breeds in numerical value of some genetic correlations were observed, probably reflecting the differences in physiology and selection history between Landrace and Duroc. The estimated genetic correlation between drip loss and pH was much stronger in Duroc than in Landrace (−0.89 and −0.63, respectively). This might be due to the high pH in Duroc, whereas Landrace had a lower pH closer to the iso-electric point for muscle proteins. The positive genetic correlation between the L* value in meat and IMF in Duroc (0.50) was an effect of differences in visible marbling, rather than meat colour. For Landrace, this correlation was negative (−0.20). IMF content showed favourable genetic correlations to drip loss (−0.36 and −0.35 for Landrace and Duroc, respectively).

Keywords

quantitative geneticdrip lossultimate pHMinolta colournear infrared spectroscopy
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 4 , Issue 11 , November 2010 , pp. 1832 - 1843
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2010

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

Bahelka, I, Hanusova, E, Peskovicova, D, Demo, P 2007. The effect of sex and slaughter weight on intramuscular fat content and its relationship to carcass traits of pigs. Czech Journal of Animal Science 52, 122–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, EP, McFadin, EL, Maddock, KR, Goodwin, RN, Baas, TJ, Keisler, DH 2003. Serum concentrations of leptin in six genetic lines of swine and relationship with growth and carcass characteristics. Journal of Animal Science 81, 167–171.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cameron, ND 1990. Genetic and phenotypic parameters for carcass traits, meat and eating quality traits in pigs. Livestock Production Science 26, 119–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, ND, Warriss, PD, Porter, SJ, Enser, MB 1990. Comparison of Duroc and British Landrace pigs for meat and eating quality. Meat Science 27, 227–247.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Christensen, LB 2003. Drip loss sampling in porcine m. longissimus dorsi. Meat Science 63, 469–477.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cisneros, F, Ellis, M, Mckeith, FK, Mccaw, J, Fernando, RL 1996. Influence of slaughter weight on growth and carcass characteristics, commercial cutting and curing yields, and meat quality of barrows and gilts from two genotypes. Journal of Animal Science 74, 925–933.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Vries, AG, van der Wal, PG, Long, T, Eikelenboom, G, Merks, JWM 1994. Genetic parameters of pork quality and production traits in Yorkshire populations. Livestock Production Science 40, 277–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, M, Webb, AJ, Avery, PJ, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Essén-Gustavsson, B, Fjelkner-Modig, S 1985. Skeletal-muscle characteristics in different breeds of pigs in relation to sensory properties of meat. Meat Science 13, 33–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Essén-Gustavsson, B, Karlsson, A, Lundstrom, K, Enfalt, AC 1994. Intramuscular fat and muscle-fiber lipid contents in halothane-gene-free pigs fed high or low-protein diets and its relations to meat quality. Meat Science 38, 269–277.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hermesch, S, Luxford, BG, Graser, HU 2000a. Genetic parameters for lean meat yield, meat quality, reproduction and feed efficiency traits for Australian pigs 1. Description of traits and heritability estimates. Livestock Production Science 65, 239–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hermesch, S, Luxford, BG, Graser, HU 2000b. Genetic parameters for lean meat yield, meat quality, reproduction and feed efficiency traits for Australian pigs 2. Genetic relationships between production, carcase and meat quality traits. Livestock Production Science 65, 249–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honikel, KO 1987. The water binding of meat. Fleischwirtschaft 67, 1098–1102.Google Scholar
Hoset, K 2008. Genetics of beef tenderness in Norwegian Red Cattle (NRF) related to pH and proteolytic activity post mortem. MSc thesis. University of Life Sciences, 39.Google Scholar
Hovenier, R, Kanis, E, Vanasseldonk, T, Westerink, NG 1992. Genetic-parameters of pig peat quality traits in a halothane negative population. Livestock Production Science 32, 309–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huff-Lonergan, E, Baas, TJ, Malek, M, Dekkers, JCM, Prusa, K, Rothschild, MF 2002. Correlations among selected pork quality traits. Journal of Animal Science 80, 617–627.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jelenikova, J, Pipek, P, Miyahara, M 2008. The effects of breed, sex, intramuscular fat and ultimate pH on pork tenderness. European Food Research and Technology 227, 989–994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kadarmideen, HN, Schworer, D, Ilahi, H, Malek, M, Hofer, A 2004. Genetics of osteochondral disease and its relationship with meat quality and quantity, growth, and feed conversion traits in pigs. Journal of Animal Science 82, 3118–3127.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Larzul, C, Lefaucheur, L, Ecolan, P, Gogue, J, Talmant, A, Sellier, P, Leroy, P, Monin, G 1997. Phenotypic and genetic parameters for longissimus muscle fiber characteristics in relation to growth, carcass, and meat quality traits in large white pigs. Journal of Animal Science 75, 3126–3137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Latorre, MA, Lazaro, R, Gracia, MI, Nieto, M, Mateos, GG 2003. Effect of sex and terminal sire genotype on performance, carcass characteristics, and meat quality of pigs slaughtered at 117 kg body weight. Meat Science 65, 1369–1377.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leach, LM, Ellis, M, Sutton, DS, Mckeith, FK, Wilson, ER 1996. The growth performance, carcass characteristics, and meat quality of halothane carrier and negative pigs. Journal of Animal Science 74, 934–943.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lindahl, G, Lundstrom, K, Tornberg, E 2001. Contribution of pigment content, myoglobin forms and internal reflectance to the colour of pork loin and ham from pure breed pigs. Meat Science 59, 141–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloveras, MR, Goenaga, PR, Irurueta, M, Carduza, F, Grigioni, G, Garcia, PT, Amendola, A 2008. Meat quality traits of commercial hybrid pigs in Argentina. Meat Science 79, 458–462.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lo, LL, Mclaren, DG, Mckeith, FK, Fernando, RL, Novakofski, J 1992. Genetic analyses of growth, real-time ultrasound, carcass, and pork quality traits in Duroc and Landrace pigs. 2. Heritabilities and correlations. Journal of Animal Science 70, 2387–2396.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lundstrom, K, Malmfors, G 1985. Variation in light-scattering and water-holding capacity along the porcine longissimus-dorsi muscle. Meat Science 15, 203–214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Madsen, P, Jensen, P 2008. A user’s guide to DMU. A package for analysing multivariate mixed models. 4[6]. DIAS, Foulum, Denmark.Google Scholar
Mäntysaari, EA 1999. Derivation of multiple trait reduced rank random regression (RR) model for the first lactation test day records of milk, protein and fat. Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting EAAP, Zurich, Switzerland, 22–26 August 1999, 26.Google Scholar
Otto, G, Roehe, R, Looft, H, Thoelking, L, Kalm, E 2004. Comparison of different methods for determination of drip loss and their relationships to meat quality and carcass characteristics in pigs. Meat Science 68, 401–409.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rasmussen, AJ, Andersson, M 1996. New method for determination of drip loss in pork muscles. In Proceedings 42nd International Congress of Meat Science and Technology, Lillehammer, Norway, 1–6 September 1996, 286–287.Google Scholar
Risvik, E 1994. Sensory properties and preferences. Meat Science 36, 67–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sonesson, AK, de Greef, KH, Meuwissen, THE 1998. Genetic parameters and trends of meat quality, carcass composition and performance traits in two selected lines of large white pigs. Livestock Production Science 57, 23–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, K, Irie, M, Kadowaki, H, Shibata, T, Kumagai, M, Nishida, A 2005. Genetic parameter estimates of meat quality traits in Duroc pigs selected for average daily gain, longissimus muscle area, backfat thickness, and intramuscular fat content. Journal of Animal Science 83, 2058–2065.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Moeseke, W, de Smet, S 1999. Effect of time of deboning and sample size on drip loss of pork. Meat Science 52, 151–156.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Wijk, HJ, Arts, DJG, Matthews, JO, Webster, M, Ducro, BJ, Knol, EF 2005. Genetic parameters for carcass composition and pork quality estimated in a commercial production chain. Journal of Animal Science 83, 324–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, JF, Bertram, HC, Rosenvold, K, Lindahl, G, Oksbjerg, N 2005. Dietary creatine monohydrate affects quality attributes of Duroc but not Landrace pork. Meat Science 70, 717–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar