Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T17:31:22.044Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of deep-bedded finishing system on market pig performance, composition and pork quality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2008

B. S. Patton ,
E. Huff-Lonergan ,
M. S. Honeyman ,
J. D. Crouse ,
B. J. Kerr  and
S. M. Lonergan
B. S. Patton
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA
E. Huff-Lonergan
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA
M. S. Honeyman
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA
J. D. Crouse
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Swine Odor and Manure Management Research Unit, Ames, IA 50011, USA
B. J. Kerr
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Swine Odor and Manure Management Research Unit, Ames, IA 50011, USA
S. M. Lonergan*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA
*
E-mail: slonerga@iastate.edu
Get access

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare effects of finishing environment on growth performance, pork quality and lipid composition of pork. Environments compared were standard confinement (CON) and deep-bedded semi-outdoor systems. The deep-bedded method employed in the current study was the use of hoop structures. Hoops are large, tent-like shelters with cornstalks or straw for bedding. Gilts ranging in weight from 59 to 71 kg were randomly assigned to treatments of Hoop (n = 50) and CON (n = 18) environments. Gilts were fed a two-phase dietary sequence, ad libitum for 45 days. Six gilts per treatment were selected for carcass composition and quality evaluation. The experiment was replicated a total of five times. Pigs raised in the Hoop environment gained significantly less and required significantly more feed for growth than pigs raised in the CON environment. Carcasses from CON-finished pigs were significantly fatter at the 10th rib, which lowered carcass percentage fat-free lean(FFL) and they also had greater loin marbling scores compared with carcasses from Hoop-finished pigs (P < 0.05). Significant replication effects were noted on beginning weight, live weight, carcass weight, percentage FFL, backfat, lipid content and adipose firmness. Carcasses from Hoop pigs had lower proportions of palmitic acid (P < 0.05), and higher proportions of oleic and linoleic acid (P < 0.05) in the inner layer of adipose tissue. The proportion of saturated fatty acid was lower, and that of mono- and poly-unsaturated fatty acid was higher in the inner layer of the adipose tissue of Hoop pigs. Variations in fatty acid composition and lipid deposition may have been caused by environmental temperature, since decreases in environmental temperature accompanied compositional variation of the adipose, leading to higher proportions of monounsaturated fatty acid and lower proportions of saturated and polyunsaturated fatty acid in adipose tissue, regardless of treatment. Volatile profile analysis revealed that adipose tissue of Hoop pigs had significantly higher amounts of 3-butanal and heptanal compared with CON pigs, which may be related to the amount of oleic and linoleic acids composing the adipose tissue. These data indicate finishing pigs in hoop structures allows for exposure to fluctuating temperatures, which may influence the growth of pigs, as well as fatty acid composition and firmness of pork products.

Keywords

pork qualitypig production
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 2 , Issue 3 , March 2008 , pp. 459 - 470
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2008

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

Ahn, DU, Nam, KC, Du, M, Jo, C 2001. Volatile production in irradiated normal, pale soft exudative (PSE), and dark firm dry (DFD) pork under different packaging and storage conditions. Meat Science 57, 419–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barton-Gade P and Blaagjerg LO 1989. Preliminary observations on the behaviour and meat quality of free range pigs. In Proceedings. 35th International Congress of Meat Science Technology, Copenhagen, Denmark, pp. 1002–1005.Google Scholar
Bee, G, Gebert, S, Messikommer, R 2002. Effect of dietary energy supply and fat source on the fatty acid pattern of adipose and lean tissues and lipogenesis in the pig. Journal of Animal Science 80, 1564–1574.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bee, G, Guex, G, 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.Google Scholar
Bruce, JM, Clark, JJ 1979. Models of heat production and critical temperature for growing pigs. Animal Production 28, 353–369.Google Scholar
Cava, R, Ventanas, J, Ruiz, J, Andres, AI, Antequera, T 2000. Sensory characteristics of Iberian ham: influence of rearing system and muscle location. Food Science and Technology International 6, 235–242.Google Scholar
De Jong, IC, Ekkel, ED, Van de Burgwal, JA, Lambooij, E, Korte, SM, Ruis, M, Koolhaas, JM, Blokhuis, HJ 1998. Effects of straw bedding on physiological responses to stressors and behavior in growing pigs. Physiology and Behavior 64, 303–310.Google Scholar
Dransfield, E, Ngapo, TM, Nielsen, NA, Bredahl, L, Sjoden, PO, Magnusson, M, Campo, MM, Nute, GR 2005. Consumer choice and suggested price for pork as influenced by its appearance, taste and information concerning country of origin and organic pig production. Meat Science 69, 61–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edwards, SA 2005. Product quality attributes associated with outdoor pig production. Livestock Production Science 94, 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfalt, AC, Lundstrom, K, Hansson, I, Lundeheim, N, Nystrom, PE 1997. Effects of outdoor rearing and sire breed (Duroc or Yorkshire) on carcass composition and sensory and technological meat quality. Meat Science 45, 1–15.Google Scholar
Folch, J, Lees, M, Stanley, G 1957. A simple method for the isolation and purification of total lipids from animal tissues. Journal of Biological Chemistry 226, 497–509.Google Scholar
Gardner, MA, Huff-Lonergan, E, Rowe, LJ, Schultz-Kaster, CM, Lonergan, SM 2006. Influence of harvest processes on pork loin and ham quality. Journal of Animal Science 84, 178–184.Google Scholar
Gentry, JG, McGlone, JJ, JrBlanton, JR, Miller, MF 2002a. Alternative housing systems for pigs: influences on growth composition, and pork quality. Journal of Animal Science 80, 1781–1790.Google Scholar
Gentry, JG, McGlone, JJ, Miller, MF, Blanton, JR 2002b. Diverse birth and rearing environment effects on pig growth and meat quality. Journal of Animal Science 80, 1707–1715.Google Scholar
Grandin, T 2003. Transferring results of behavioral research to industry to improve animal welfare on the farm, ranch and the slaughter plant. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81, 215–228.Google Scholar
Grueb, H, Gatfield, JL 1989. Generation of flavor components. In Flavor chemistry of lipid foods (ed. D, MinTH, Smouse), pp. 367–375. American Oil Chemists’ Society, Champaign, IL.Google Scholar
Hansen, LL, Larsen, AE, Jensen, BB, Hansen-Møller, J, Barton-Gade, P 1994. Influence of stocking rate and faeces deposition in the pen at different temperatures on skatole concentration (boar taint) in subcutaneous fat. Animal Production 59, 99–110.Google Scholar
Ho, CT, Oh, YC, Bae-Lee, M 1994. The flavor of pork. In Flavor of meat and meat products (ed. F Shahidi), vol. 1, pp. 38–51. Blackie Academic and Professional, New York.Google Scholar
Honeyman, MS 1996. Sustainability issues of US swine production. Journal of Animal Science 74, 1410–1417.Google Scholar
Honeyman, MS, Harmon, JD 2003. Performance of finishing pigs in hoop structures and confinement during winter and summer. Journal of Animal Science 81, 1663–1670.Google Scholar
Honeyman, MS, Harmon, JD, Kliebenstein, JB, Richard, TL 2001. Feasibility of hoop structures for market swine in Iowa: pig performance, pig environment, and budget analysis. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 17, 869–874.Google Scholar
Jo, C, Ahn, DU 2000. Volatiles and oxidative changes in irradiated pork sausage with different fatty acid composition and tocopherol content. Journal of Food Science 65, 270–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klont, RE, Hulsegge, B, Hoving-Bolink, AH, Gerritzen, MA, Kurt, E, Winkelman-Goedhart, HA, De Jong, IC, Kranen, RW 2001. Relationships between behavioral and meat quality characteristics of pigs raised under barren and enriched housing conditions. Journal of Animal Science 79, 2835–2843.Google Scholar
Lebret, B, Massabie, P, Granier, R, Juin, H, Mourot, J, 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 Scholar
Lefaucheur, L, Ledividich, J, Mourot, J, Monin, G, Ecolan, P, Krauss, D 1991. Influence of environmental temperature on growth, muscle and adipose metabolism, and meat quality in swine. Journal of Animal Science 69, 2844–2854.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leymaster, KA, Mersmann, HJ 1991. Effect of limited feed-intake on growth subcutaneous adipose-tissue layers and on carcass composition in swine. Journal of Animal Science 69, 2837–2843.Google Scholar
Lonergan, SM, Huff-Lonergan, E, Rowe, LJ, Kuhlers, DL, Jungst, SB 2001. Selection for lean growth efficiency in Duroc pigs influences pork quality. Journal of Animal Science 79, 2075–2085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lonergan, SM, Stalder, KJ, Huff-Lonergan, E, Knight, TJ, Goodwin, RN, Prusa, KJ, Beitz, DC 2007. Influence of lipid content on pork sensory quality within pH classification. Journal of Animal Science 85, 1074–1079.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miao, ZH, Glatz, PC, Ru, YJ 2004. Review of production, husbandry and sustainability of free-range pig production systems. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Science 17, 1615–1634.Google Scholar
Morrison, W, Smith, L 1964. Preparation of fatty acid methyl esters and dimethylacetals from lipids with boron fluoride-methanol. Journal of Lipid Research 5, 600–608.Google Scholar
Morrison, RS, Hemsworth, PH, Cronin, GM, Campbell, RG 2003a. The social and feeding behaviour of growing pigs in deep-litter, large group housing systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 82, 173–188.Google Scholar
Morrison, RS, Hemsworth, PH, Cronin, GM, Campbell, RG 2003b. The effect of restricting pen space and feeder availability on the behaviour and growth performance of entire male growing pigs in a deep-litter, large group housing system. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 83, 163–176.Google Scholar
Mottram DS 1991. Meat. In Volatile compounds in foods and beverages (ed. H Maarse and M Dekker), pp. 107–177. Culinary and Hospitality Industry Publications Services, New York.Google Scholar
National Pork Board 2000. In Pork composition and quality assessment procedures (ed. EP Berg), pp. 17–32. NPB, Des Moines, IA.Google Scholar
Nishioka, T, Irie, M 2005. Evaluation method for firmness and stickiness of porcine perirenal fat. Meat Science 70, 399–404.Google Scholar
Nürnberg, K, Wegner, J, Ender, K 1998. Factors influencing fat composition in muscle and adipose tissue of farm animals. Livestock Production Science 56, 145–156.Google Scholar
O’Connell, NE, Beattie, VE, Moss, BW 2004. Influence of social status on the welfare of growing pigs housed in barren and enriched environments. Animal Welfare 13, 425–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quiniou, N, Dubois, S, Noblet, J 2000. Voluntary feed intake and feeding behaviour of group-housed growing pigs are affected by ambient temperature and body weight. Livestock Production Science 63, 245–253.Google Scholar
Rius, MA, García-Regueiro, JA 2001. Skatole and indole concentrations in Longissimus dorsi and fat samples of pigs. Meat Science 59, 285–291.Google Scholar
Sather, AP, Jones, SDM, Schaefer, AL, Colyn, J, Roberston, W 1997. Feedlot performance, carcass composition and meat quality of free-range reared pigs. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 77, 225–232.Google Scholar
Schiffman, SS, Bennett, JL, Raymer, JH 2001. Quantification of odors and odorants from swine operations in North Carolina. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 108, 213–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornton, K 1988. Outdoor pig production. Farming Press, Ipswich, UK.Google Scholar
Warnants, N, VanOeckel, M, Boucque, CV 1996. Incorporation of dietary polyunsaturated fatty acids in pork tissues and its implications for the quality of the end products. Meat Science 44, 125–144.Google Scholar
Warriss, PD, Kestin, SC, Robinson, JM 1983. A note on the influence of rearing environment on meat quality in pigs. Meat Science 9, 271–279.Google Scholar
Wood, JD, Enser, M 1997. Factors influencing fatty acids in meat and the role of antioxidants in improving meat quality. British Journal of Nutrition 78, S49–S60.Google Scholar
Wood, JD, Richardson, RI, Nute, GR, Fisher, AV, Campo, MM, Kasapidou, E, Sheard, PR, Enser, M 2004. Effects of fatty acids on meat quality: a review. Meat Science 66, 21–32.Google Scholar