Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-24T03:23:22.210Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Association of halothane sensitivity with growth and meat quality in pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2012

R. O. Bates ,
M. E. Doumit ,
N. E. Raney ,
E. E. Helman  and
C. W. Ernst
R. O. Bates*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA
M. E. Doumit
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA
N. E. Raney
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA
E. E. Helman
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA
C. W. Ernst
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA
*
†E-mail: batesr@msu.edu
Get access

Abstract

Previous reports have indicated that a proportion of pigs, homozygous normal for the skeletal muscle ryanodine receptor gene (RYR1), was halothane sensitive, and this was associated with poor meat quality when pigs were handled aggressively. This study was conducted to evaluate halothane sensitivity in RYR1-normal pigs, managed under simulated commercial conditions, to ascertain the association of halothane sensitivity with growth rate and meat quality. A total of 363 pigs across four farrowing groups, from seven Landrace sires and 38 Yorkshire–Landrace F1 dams, were tested at 8 weeks of age for halothane sensitivity using a closed system that delivered 5% halothane at 2 l/min for 3 (group 1) or 2 (groups 2 to 4) min. After 1 min, limb rigidity, limb tremors and abdominal discoloration were evaluated on a binomial scale with 0 indicating no reaction and 1 indicating reaction. Testing was repeated 2 days later. At 10 weeks of age, pigs were moved to finishing pens and not moved again until marketing. Within farrowing group, pigs were harvested in one of two groups, and at marketing were moved a distance of 91 m, weighed, tattooed, loaded and transported a distance of 550 km to a commercial harvest plant. After overnight rest, pigs were harvested and the pH of the loin muscle was measured at 45 min (pH45) after stunning. After an 18-h chill, loin muscle pH (pHu), International Commission on Illumination (CIE) L*, a*, b*, color (1 to 6) and marbling (1 to 10) scores and fluid loss percent were collected. Generalized linear mixed models were used to estimate repeatabilities for response to halothane challenge. Repeatabilities for limb rigidity for the front right and left legs were 0.24 and 0.31, respectively, whereas rear right and left leg repeatabilities were 0.19 and 0.17, respectively. Repeatabilities for front right and left leg tremors were 0.16 and 0.20, respectively. Growth rate was not influenced by any measure of halothane sensitivity. Carcasses from pigs exhibiting limb rigidity tended to have lower pH45 (5.88 v. 5.97; P = 0.06), similar pHu (5.47 v. 5.49; P = 0.32), less pH decline from 45 min to 18 h (−0.40 v. −0.50; P = 0.04) and a tendency for greater fluid loss percent (5.01 v. 4.55; P = 0.08) than carcasses from pigs that did not exhibit limb rigidity during halothane challenge. A proportion of pigs normal for RYR1 did exhibit limb rigidity during halothane gas challenge, and subsequently tended to have lower 45 min pH and greater longissimus muscle fluid loss post harvest.

Keywords

pigmeat qualityhalothane sensitivity
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 6 , Issue 9 , September 2012 , pp. 1537 - 1542
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2012

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

Allison, CP, Johnson, RC, Doumit, ME 2005. The effects of halothane sensitivity on carcass composition and meat quality in HAL-1843 normal pigs. Journal of Animal Science 83, 671–678.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Allison, CP, Mar, AL, Berry, NL, Anderson, DB, Ivers, DJ, Richardson, LF, Keffaber, K, Johnson, RC, Doumit, ME 2006. Effects of halothane sensitivity on mobility status and blood metabolites of HAL-1843 normal pigs after rigorous handling. Journal of Animal Science 84, 1015–1021.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
CIE (International Commission on Illumination) 1976. International commission on illumination, colorimetry: official recommendations of the international commission on illumination. Publication CIE no. 15 (E-1.3.1). Bureau Central de la CIE, Paris.Google Scholar
Christian, LL 1972. A review of the role of genetics in animal stress susceptibility and meat quality. In Proceedings of the Pork Quality Symposium (ed. RG Cassens, F Giesler and Q Kolb), pp. 91–115. University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA.Google Scholar
Fujii, J, Otsu, K, Zorzato, F, Del Leon, S, Khanna, VK, Weiler, JE, O'Brien, PJ, MacLennan, D 1991. Identification of a mutation in porcine ryanodine receptor associated with malignant hyperthermia. Science 253, 448–451.Google Scholar
Kauffman, RG, Eikelenboom, G, van der Wal, PG, Engel, B, Zaar, M 1986. A comparison of methods to estimate water-holding capacity in post-rigor porcine muscle. Meat Science 18, 307–322.Google Scholar
Kauffman, RG, Cassens, RG, Scherer, A, Meeker, DL 1992. Variations in pork quality. National Pork Producers Council, Des Moines, IA, USA.Google Scholar
Lynch, M, Walsh, B 1998. Genetics and analysis of quantitative traits. Sinauer Associates Inc., Sunderland, MA, USA.Google Scholar
(NPPC) National Pork Producers Council 2000. Pork composition and quality assessment procedures, 1st edition. NPPC, Des Moines, IA, USA.Google Scholar
NRC 1998. Nutrient requirements of swine, 10th revised edition. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Reik, TR, Rempel, WE, McGrath, CJ, Addis, PB 1983. Further evidence on the inheritance of halothane reaction in pigs. Journal of Animal Science 57, 826–831.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rempel, WE, Lu, M, Kandelgy, SE, Kennedy, CFH, Irvin, LR, Mickelson, LR, Louis, CF 1993. Relative accuracy of the haplotype challenge test and a molecular genetic test in detecting the gene for porcine stress syndrome. Journal of Animal Science 71, 1395–1399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryu, YC, Kim, BC 2006. Comparison of histochemical characteristics in various pork groups categorized by postmortem metabolic rate and pork quality. Journal of Animal Science 84, 894–901.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salmi, B, Trefan, L, Bloom-Hansen, J, Bidenel, JP, Boeschl-Wilson, AB, Larzul, C 2010. Meta-analysis of the effect of the halothane gene on 6 variables of pig meat quality and on carcass leanness. Journal of Animal Science 88, 2841–2855.Google Scholar
Sellier, P 1996. Genetics of meat and carcass traits. In The genetics of the pig (ed. MF Rothchild and A Ruvinsky), pp. 463–510. CAB International, New York, USA.Google Scholar
Shen, QW, Underwood, KR, Means, WJ, McCormick, RJ, Du, M 2007. The halothane gene, energy metabolism, adenosine monophosphate-activated protein kinase and glycolysis in postmortem pig longissimus dorsi muscle. Journal of Animal Science 85, 1054–1061.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, C, Bampton, PR 1977. Inheritance of reaction to halothane anesthesia in pigs. Genetical Research 29, 287–292.Google Scholar
van Putten, G 1982. Handling of slaughter pigs prior to loading and during loading on a lorry. In Transport of animals intended for breeding, production and slaughter (ed. R Moss). Current topics in veterinarian medicine animal science, vol. 18, pp. 15–25. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague.Google Scholar
Webb, AJ, Jordon, CHC 1978. Halothane sensitivity as a field test for stress-susceptibility in the pig. Animal Production 26, 15–168.Google Scholar
Webb, AJ, Carden, AE, Smith, C, Imlah, P 1982. Porcine stress syndrome in pig breeding. Proceedings of the 2nd International Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Madrid, Spain, vol. 5, pp. 588–608.Google Scholar