Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T04:20:03.977Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of the sustainability of contrasted pig farming systems: development of a market conformity tool for pork products based on technological quality traits

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 September 2014

J. Gonzàlez ,
M. Gispert ,
M. Gil ,
M. Hviid ,
J. Y. Dourmad ,
K. H. de Greef ,
C. Zimmer  and
E. Fàbrega
J. Gonzàlez*
Affiliation:
IRTA, Finca Camps i Armet, 17121 Monells, Girona, Spain
M. Gispert
Affiliation:
IRTA, Finca Camps i Armet, 17121 Monells, Girona, Spain
M. Gil
Affiliation:
IRTA, Finca Camps i Armet, 17121 Monells, Girona, Spain
M. Hviid
Affiliation:
DMRI, Maglegaardsvej 2, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark
J. Y. Dourmad
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR 1348 PEGASE, 35590 Saint-Gilles, France
K. H. de Greef
Affiliation:
Wageningen UR Livestock Research, PO Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
C. Zimmer
Affiliation:
BESH, Haller Str. 20, 74549 Wolpertshausen, Germany
E. Fàbrega
Affiliation:
IRTA, Finca Camps i Armet, 17121 Monells, Girona, Spain
*
†E-mail: joel.gonzalez@irta.cat
Get access

Abstract

A market conformity tool, based on technological meat quality parameters, was developed within the Q-PorkChains project, to be included in a global sustainability evaluation of pig farming systems. The specific objective of the market conformity tool was to define a scoring system based on the suitability of meat to elaborate the main pork products, according to their market shares based on industry requirements, in different pig farming systems. The tool was based on carcass and meat quality parameters that are commonly used for the assessment of technological quality, which provide representative and repeatable data and are easily measurable. They were the following: cold carcass weight; lean meat percentage; minimum subcutaneous back fat depth at m. gluteus medius level, 45 postmortem and ultimate pH (measured at 24-h postmortem) in m. longissimus lumborum and semimembranosus; meat colour; drip losses and intramuscular fat content in a m. longissimus sample. Five categories of pork products produced at large scale in Europe were considered in the study: fresh meat, cooked products, dry products, specialties and other meat products. For each of the studied farming systems, the technological meat quality requirements, as well as the market shares for each product category within farming system, were obtained from the literature and personal communications from experts. The tool resulted in an overall conformity score that enabled to discriminate among systems according to the degree of matching of the achieved carcass and meat quality with the requirements of the targeted market. In order to improve feasibility, the tool was simplified by selecting ultimate pH at m. longissimus or semimembranosus, minimum fat thickness measured at the left half carcass over m. gluteus medius and intramuscular fat content in a m. longissimus sample as iceberg indicators. The overall suitability scores calculated by using both the complete and the reduced tools presented good correlation and the results obtained were similar. The tool could be considered as robust enough to discriminate among different systems, since it was tested in a wide range of them. It also can be used to detect improvement opportunities to enhance sustainability of pig farming systems. The final objective of the study was achieved, since the market suitability tool could be used in an integrated sustainability analysis of pig farming systems.

Keywords

farming system sustainabilitymeat qualitypigmarket shareacceptability requirements
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 8 , Issue 12 , December 2014 , pp. 2038 - 2046
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2014 

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

Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) 1990. Official methods of analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists 931–932. AOAC, Arlington, VA, USA.Google Scholar
Barton-Gade, P, Warriss, PD, Brown, SN and Lambooij, B 1995. Methods of improving pig welfare and meat quality by reducing stress and discomfort before slaughter – methods of assessing meat quality. In Proceedings of the EU-Seminar ‘New Information on Welfare and Meat Quality of Pigs as Related to Handling, Transport and Lairage Conditions’, Germany, Mariensee, 29–30 June, pp. 23–34.Google Scholar
Bee, G, Anderson, AL, Lonergan, SM and Huff-Lonergan, E 2007. Rate and extent of pH decline affect proteolysis of cytoskeletal proteins and water-holding capacity in pork. Meat Science 76, 359–365.Google Scholar
Bonneau, M, Antoine-Ilari, E, Phatsara, C, Brinkmann, D, Hviid, M, Christiansen, MG, Fàbrega, E, Rodríguez, P, Rydhmer, L, Enting, I, De Greef, K, Edge, H, Dourmad, JY and Edwards, S 2011. Diversity of pig production systems at farm level in Europe. Journal on Chain and Network Science 112, 115–135.Google Scholar
Bonneau, M, Klauke, TN, Gonzàlez, J, Rydhmer, L, Ilari-Antoine, E, Dourmad, JY, De Greef, K, Houwers, HWJ, Cinar, MU, Fàbrega, E, Zimmer, C, Hviid, M, Van der Oever, B and Edwards, SA 2014b. Evaluation of the sustainability of contrasted pig farming systems: integrated evaluation. Animal, doi:10.1017/S1751731114002122.Google Scholar
Bonneau, M, De Greef, K, Brinkman, D, Cinar, MU, Dourmad, JY, Edge, HL, Fàbrega, E, Gonzàlez, J, Houwers, HWJ, Hviid, M, Ilari-Antoine, E, Klauke, TN, Phatsara, C, Rydhmer, L, Van der Oever, B, Zimmer, C and Edwards, SA 2014a. Evaluation of the sustainability of contrasted pig farming system: the procedure, the evaluated systems and the evaluation tools. Animal, doi:10.1017/S1751731114002110.Google Scholar
Dourmad, JY, Ryschawy, J, Trousson, T, Bonneau, M, Gonzàlez, J, Houwers, HWJ, Hviid, M, Zimmer, C, Nguyen, TLT and Morgensen, L 2014. Evaluating environmental impacts of contrasting pig farming systems with life cycle assessment. Animal, doi:10.1017/S1751731114002134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Greef, KH 2013. Societal conformity of conventional and diversifying pork production systems in five European countries. In The ethics of consumption: the citizen, the market, and the law (ed. P Sandin and H Röcklinsberg), pp. 476–481. Wageningen Academic Publishers, EurSafe 2013, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
Edwards, SA 2005. Product quality attributes associated with outdoor pig production. Livestock Production Science 94, 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Commission (EC) 2009. European’s attitudes towards the issues of sustainable consumption and production. Flash Eurobarometer 256 – the Gallup Organisation, Hungary.Google Scholar
European Commission 2012. Commission Decision 2012/384/EU of 12 July 2012 amending Decision 2009/11/EC authorising methods for grading pig carcasses in Spain.Google Scholar
Faucitano, L, Ielo, MC, Ster, C, Lo Fiego, DP, Methot, S, Saucier, L 2010. Shelf life of pork from five different quality classes. Meat Science 84, 466–469.Google Scholar
Gonzàlez, J, Gil, M, Gispert, M, Oliver, MA and Fàbrega, E 2008. Q-PorkChains: developing tools to standardise the assessment of sustainability in pigmeat production systems – meat quality. In Proceedings EAAP 2008, Vilnius, Lithuania.Google Scholar
Hamm, R 1960. Biochemistry of meat hydration. Advances in Food Research 10, 355–463.Google Scholar
Hofmann, K 1988. pH. A quality criterion for meat. Fleischwirshaft 68, 67–70.Google Scholar
Hofmann, K 1994. What is meat quality? Definition, measurement, and evaluation of meat quality. Meat Focus International 3, 73–82.Google Scholar
Ilari-Antoine, E, Bonneau, M, Klauke, TN, Gonzàlez, J, Dourmad, JY, De Greef, K, Houwers, HWJ, Fàbrega, E, Zimmer, C, Hviid, M, Van der Oever, B and Edwards, SA 2014. Evaluation of the sustainability of contrasted pig husbandry systems: economy. Animal, doi:10.1017/S1751731114002158.Google Scholar
Lebret, B 2008. Effects of feeding and rearing systems on growth, carcass composition and meat quality in pigs. Animal 2, 1548–1558.Google Scholar
Lindahl, G, Lundström, K and Tornberg, E 2001. Contribution of pigment content, myoglobin forms and internal reflectance to the color of pork loin and ham from pure breed pigs. Meat Science 59, 141–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakai, H, Saito, F, Ikeda, T, Ando, S and Komatsu, A 1975. Report 29. NIAI, Chiba, Japan.Google Scholar
Offer, G and Knight, P 1988. The structural basis of water-holding in meat. Part 2: drip losses. In Development in meat science, vol. 4 (ed. R Lawrie), pp. 172–243. Elsevier, London.Google Scholar
Oliver, MA, Gispert, M and Diestre, A 1988. Estudio del pH de los músculos Longissimus dorsi y Semimembranosus en canales porcinas comerciales. Medecine Veterinary 5, 45–49.Google Scholar
Pugliese, C and Sirtori, F 2012. Quality of meat and meat products produced from southern European pig breeds. Meat Science 90, 511–518.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, AJ and Andersson, M 1996. New methods for determination of drip loss in pork muscles. In meat for the consumer, Proceedings 42nd International Congress of Meat Science and Technology, Matforsk, Lillehammer, Norway.Google Scholar
Rosenvold, K and Andersen, HJ 2003. Factors of significance for pork quality – a review. Meat Science 64, 219–237.Google Scholar
Rydhmer, L, Gourdine, JL, De Greef, K and Bonneau, M 2014. Evaluation of the sustainability of contrasted pig farming systems: breeding programmes. Animal, doi:10.1017/S175173111400216X.Google Scholar
Smith, WC and Wilcon, LA 1978. A note of some factors influencing muscle pH1 values in commercial pig carcasses. Animal Production 26, 229–232.Google Scholar
Van der Wal, PG, Bolink, AH and Merkus, SM 1988. Differences in quality characteristics of normal, PSE and DFD pork. Meat Science 24, 79–84.Google Scholar
Warner, RD, Kauffman, RG and Greaser, ML 1997. Muscle protein changes post mortem in relation to pork quality traits. Meat Science 45, 339–352.Google Scholar