Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T00:00:21.242Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Investigation of uniformity in pig carcass and meat quality traits

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2010

L. Alfonso ,
G. Zudaire ,
M. V. Sarries ,
J. Viguera  and
F. Flamarique
L. Alfonso*
Affiliation:
Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Agrónomos, Universidad Pública de Navarra, 31006 Pamplona, Navarra, Spain
G. Zudaire
Affiliation:
Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Agrónomos, Universidad Pública de Navarra, 31006 Pamplona, Navarra, Spain
M. V. Sarries
Affiliation:
Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Agrónomos, Universidad Pública de Navarra, 31006 Pamplona, Navarra, Spain
J. Viguera
Affiliation:
Imasde Agroalimentaria, S.L. C/Nápoles 3, 28224 Pozuelo de Alarcón, Madrid, Spain
F. Flamarique
Affiliation:
Grupo AN, Campo de Tajonar s/n, 31192 Tajonar, Navarra, Spain
*
†E-mail: leo.alfonso@unavarra.es
Get access

Abstract

The study was carried out to provide information on uniformity of commercial pigs on some of the most important traits determining pork quality: carcass, loin, ham and shoulder weights, fatness, drip loss, pH and colour. Three batches of pigs raised at the same farm and slaughtered at four different dates in the same commercial abattoir were considered. Batches included halothane-free females and castrated males, Duroc and Pietrain sire lines and two slaughter weights, but a common maternal line. The first batch was obtained using commercial Duroc sire boars, and included a total of 112 animals (56 castrated males and 56 females). The second batch used Duroc and Pietrain sire boars with the target to achieve two different final weights (105 and 115 kg live weight); 128 animals were controlled (64 castrated males and 64 females), 16 for each combination of sire boar, sex and final weight. The last batch used only Pietrain sire boars with 96 controlled pigs (48 castrated males and 48 females). The uniformity was measured by the coefficient of variation (CV) and the coefficient of dispersion (CD) for all data available, and for groups of common sex, sire breed and slaughter weight. Differences in uniformity were tested among traits and groups by using confidence intervals (CIs) at 95% confidence level (CI95%) for the CV and CD. Results showed a significantly lower uniformity for drip loss (CV = 40.4%, CI95% 36.9% to 44.7%; CD = 32.1%, CI95% 28.7% to 35.4%) and backfat (CV = 22.8%, CI95% 21.1% to 24.8%; CD = 18.3%, CI95% 17.1% to 20.2%) the pH being the most uniform trait (CV = 3.2%, CI95% 3.0% to 3.5%; CD = 2.6%, CI95% 2.4% to 2.9%). When comparing different ‘sire breed–sex–slaughter weight’ groups, no consistent sex and slaughter weight differences in uniformity were found, but animals from Pietrain sire breed showed a tendency to be less uniform for carcass traits than animals from Duroc sire breed. Nevertheless, variability within those groups was very high and often similar to that observed when considering all the animals from all the groups. Small differences were found comparing uniformity when using the CV or the CD. CIs of these coefficients have proved to be a simple and useful tool for testing differences in uniformity.

Keywords

porkvariationhomogeneitycoefficient of variationcoefficient of dispersion
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 4 , Issue 10 , October 2010 , pp. 1739 - 1745
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

Ball, RO 2000. Differences among genotype and gender for growth, carcass composition and meat quality. Advances in Pork Production 11, 227–235.Google Scholar
Bonett, DG 2006. Confidence interval for a coefficient of quartile variation. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 50, 2953–2957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonett, DG, Seier, E 2006. Confidence interval for coefficient of dispersion in non normal distributions. Biometrical Journal 48 1, 144–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunter, KL, Bennett, C, Luxford, BG, Graser, HU 2008. Sire breed comparisons for meat and eating quality traits in Australian pig populations. Animal 2, 1168–1177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
European Association for Animal Production (EAAP) 2008. Report of the Commision on Pig Production, EAAP Newsletter, Issue 57.Google Scholar
Fischer, K 2007. Drip loss in pork: influencing factors and relation to further meat quality traits. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 124, 12–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hennessy, DA 2005. Slaughterhouse rules: animal uniformity and regulating for food safety in meat packing. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87, 600–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honikel, KO 1998. Reference methods for the assessment of physical characteristics of meat. Meat Science 49, 447–457.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kelley, K 2007. Sample size planning for the coefficient of variation from the accuracy in parameter estimation approach. Behaviour Research Methods 39, 755–766.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Magowan, E, McCann, MEE, Beattie, VE, McCracken, KJ, Henry, W, Smyth, S, Bradford, R, Gordon, FJ, Mayne, CS 2007. Investigation of growth rate variation between commercial pig herds. Animal 1, 1219–1226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mörlein, D, Link, G, Werner, C, Wicke, M 2007. Suitability of three commercially produced pig breeds in Germany for a meat quality program with emphasis on drip loss and eating quality. Meat Science 77, 504–511.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patience, JF, Engele, K, Beaulieu, AD, Gonyou, HW, Zijlstra, RT 2004. Variation: costs and consequences. Advances in Pork Production 15, 257–266.Google Scholar
Verrill, SP, Johnson, RA 2007. Confidence bounds and hypothesis tests for normal distribution coefficients of variation. Research paper FPL-RP-638. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Madison, WI, USA. p. 57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webb, J 2003. How we produce a uniform high quality market pig. Proceedings of the 3rd London Swine Conference. Maintaining Your Competitive Edge, 9–10 April 2003 (ed. JM Murphy and CFM de Lange), pp. 105–111. London, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar