Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T07:23:30.169Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The rearing system modulates biochemical and histological differences in loin and ham muscles between Basque and Large White pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2020

L. Lefaucheur  and
B. Lebret
L. Lefaucheur
Affiliation:
PEGASE (Physiology, Environment, and Genetics for the Animal and Livestock Systems), INRAE (French National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food and Environment), Institut Agro, 35590Saint-Gilles, France
B. Lebret*
Affiliation:
PEGASE (Physiology, Environment, and Genetics for the Animal and Livestock Systems), INRAE (French National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food and Environment), Institut Agro, 35590Saint-Gilles, France
*
†E-mail: Benedicte.Lebret@inrae.fr
Get access

Abstract

Conventional pork production, based on highly selected breeds for growth efficiency and carcass leanness, is generally considered to decrease pork quality. In contrast, non-selected breeds produced in extensive systems are associated with high pork quality, which is generally attributed to higher intramuscular fat (IMF) content and less glycolytic muscle metabolism. The present study aimed to determine biochemical, histological and quality traits of loin and ham muscles of pigs from selected Large White (LW) and local French, non-selected Basque (B) breeds. Pigs were reared in a conventional indoor (C, slatted floor), alternative (A, indoor bedding and outdoor area) or extensive system (E, free range, B pigs only). A total of 100 castrated males were produced in 2 replicates, each containing 5 groups of 10 pigs based on breed and system: LWC, LWA, BC, BA and BE. The glycolytic longissimus muscle (LM) and semimembranosus muscle (SM), and the deep red (RSTM) and superficial white (WSTM) portions of semitendinosus muscle (STM) were studied at 145 kg BW. Overall, breed induced stronger effects on muscle traits than the rearing system, among which the E system induced greater changes. The lower muscle growth of B pigs was associated with fewer muscle fibers and a smaller cross-sectional area (CSA) of glycolytic fibers (P < 0.01). The SM was less glycolytic and more oxidative in B than in LW pigs (P < 0.001). The WSTM followed a similar trend, with a larger relative area of type I fibers in B pigs. In contrast, the LM and RSTM were more oxidative in LW pigs. B pigs had higher IMF content and ultimate pH in all muscles, along with lower glycolytic potential, less light and redder meat in the LM and SM (P < 0.001). Compared to the C system, the A system induced only a shift towards a more oxidative metabolism in the LM and a smaller fiber CSA in the RSTM of LW pigs (P < 0.05), without influencing pork quality traits. Compared to BC pigs, BE pigs had a more oxidative and less glycolytic muscle metabolism, along with higher ultimate pH, lower lightness and redder meat (P < 0.01), but similar IMF content. Overall, results indicate that influences of breed and rearing system on muscle properties depend on muscle type, and that IMF content and fiber-type composition are unrelated traits that can be modified independently by genetic or rearing factors.

Keywords

muscle fiber typemuscle energy metabolismintramuscular fatpork qualitybreed
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 14 , Issue 9 , September 2020 , pp. 1976 - 1986
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2020

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

Bee, G, Guex, G and Herzog, W 2004. Free-range rearing of pigs during the winter: adaptations in muscle fiber characteristics and effects on adipose tissue composition and meat quality traits. Journal of Animal Science 82, 1206–1218.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bereta, A, Tyra, M, Ropka-Molik, K, Wojtysiak, D, Rozycki, M and Eckert, R 2014. Histological profile of the longissimus dorsi muscle in Polish Large White and polish Landrace pigs and its effect on loin parameters and intramuscular fat content. Annals of Animal Science 14, 955–966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonneau, M and Lebret, B 2010. Production systems and influence on eating quality of pork. Meat Science 84, 293–300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Font-i-Furnols, M and Guererro, L 2014. Consumer preference, behavior and perception about meat and meat products: an overview. Meat Science 98, 361–371.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gentry, JG, McGlone, JJ, Miller, MF and Blanton, JR 2004. Environmental effects on pig performance, meat quality, and muscle characteristics. Journal of Animal Science 82, 209–217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gil, M, Delday, MI, Gispert, M, Font-i-Furnols, M, Maltin, CM, Plastow, GS, Klont, R, Sosnicki, AA and Carrion, D 2008. Relationships between biochemical characteristics and meat quality of Longissimus thoracis and Semimembranosus muscles in five porcine lines. Meat Science 80, 927–933.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jeong, JY, Jeong, TC, Yang, HS and Kim, GD 2017. Multivariate analysis of muscle fiber characteristics, intramuscular fat content and fatty acid composition in porcine longissimus thoracis muscle. Livestock Science 202, 13–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kang, YK, Choi, YM, Lee, SH, Choe, JH, Hong, KC and Kim, BC 2011. Effects of myosin heavy chain isoforms on meat quality, fatty acid composition, and sensory evaluation in Berkshire pigs. Meat Science 89, 384–389.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Larzul, C, Lefaucheur, L, Ecolan, P, Gogué, J, Talmant, A, Sellier, P, Le Roy, P and 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
Lebret, B 2008. Effects of feeding and rearing systems on growth, carcass composition and meat quality in pigs. Animal 2, 1548–1558.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lebret, B, Dourmad, JY, Mourot, J, Pollet, PY and Gondret, F 2014. Production performance, carcass composition, and adipose tissue traits of heavy pigs: influence of breed and production system. Journal of Animal Science 92, 3543–3556.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lebret, B, Ecolan, P, Bonhomme, N, Meteau, K and Prunier, A 2015. Influence of production system in local and conventional pig breeds on stress indicators at slaughter, muscle and meat traits and pork eating quality. Animal 9, 1404–1413.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lebret, B, Massabie, P, Granier, R, Juin, H, Mourot, J and Chevillon, P 2002. Influence of outdoor rearing and indoor temperature on growth performance, carcass, adipose tissue and muscle traits in pigs, and on the technological and eating quality of dry-cured hams. Meat Science 62, 447–455.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lefaucheur, L 2010. A second look into fibre typing - relation to meat quality. Meat Science 84, 257–270.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lefaucheur, L, Milan, D, Ecolan, P and Le Callennec, C 2004. Myosin heavy chain composition of different skeletal muscles in Large White and Meishan pigs. Journal of Animal Science 82, 1931–1941.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lefaucheur, L and Vigneron, P 1986. Postnatal changes in some histochemical and enzymatic characteristics of three pig muscles. Meat Science 16, 199–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Listrat, A, Lebret, B, Louveau, I, Astruc, T, Bonnet, M, Lefaucheur, L, Picard, B and Bugeon, J 2016. How do muscle structure and composition determine the meat and flesh quality? The Scientific World Journal 2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/3182746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayoral, AI, Dorado, M, Guillen, MT, Robina, A, Vivo, JM, Vazquez, C and Ruiz, J 1999. Development of meat and carcass quality characteristics in Iberian pigs reared outdoors. Meat Science 52, 315–324.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mercat, MJ, Lebret, B, Lenoir, H and Batorek-Lukač, N 2019. Basque pig. In European local pig breeds – diversity and performance (ed. Čandek-Potokar, M and Nieto Linan, RM), pp. 37–49. IntechOpen, London, UK.Google Scholar
Millet, S, Moons, CPH, Van Oeckel, MJ and Janssens, GPJ 2005. Welfare, performance and meat quality of fattening pigs in alternative housing and management systems: a review. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 85, 709–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, JS, Henckel, P, Oksbjerg, N and Sorensen, MT 1998. Adaptations in muscle fibre characteristics induced by physical activity in pigs. Animal Science 66, 733–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pugliese, C and Sirtori, F 2012. Quality of meat and meat products produced from southern European pig breeds. Meat Science 90, 511–518.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quintanilla, R, Pena, RN, Gallardo, D, Canovas, A, Ramirez, O, Diaz, I, Noguera, JL and Amills, M 2011. Porcine intramuscular fat content and composition are regulated by quantitative trait loci with muscle-specific effects. Journal of Animal Science 89, 2963–2971.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenvold, K and Andersen, HJ 2003. Factors of significance for pork quality - a review. Meat Science 64, 219–237.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruusunen, M and Puolanne, E 2004. Histochemical properties of fibre types in muscles of wild and domestic pigs and the effect of growth rate on muscle fibre properties. Meat Science 67, 533–539.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scheffler, TL, Scheffler, JM, Kasten, SC, Sosnicki, AA and Gerrard, DE 2013. High glycolytic potential does not predict low ultimate pH in pork. Meat Science 95, 85–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimmers, K, Ngu, NT, Jennen, DGJ, Tesfaye, D, Murani, E, Schellander, K and Ponsuksili, S 2008. Relationship between myosin heavy chain isoform expression and muscling in several diverse pig breeds. Journal of Animal Science 86, 795–803.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wood, JD, Nute, GR, Richardson, RI, Whittington, FM, Southwood, O, Plastow, G, Mansbridge, R, Da Costa, N and Chang, KC 2004. Effects of breed, diet and muscle on fat deposition and eating quality in pigs. Meat Science 67, 651–667.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Lefaucheur and Lebret supplementary material

Lefaucheur and Lebret supplementary material

Download Lefaucheur and Lebret supplementary material(File)
File 28.4 KB