Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T12:27:02.298Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factors affecting the tissues composition of pork belly

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2015

K. Duziński ,
D. Knecht ,
D. Lisiak  and
P. Janiszewski
K. Duziński*
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Breeding, Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Chelmonskiego 38C, 51-630 Wroclaw, Poland
D. Knecht
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Breeding, Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Chelmonskiego 38C, 51-630 Wroclaw, Poland
D. Lisiak
Affiliation:
Division of Meat and Fat Technology, Prof. Wacław Dąbrowski Institute of Agricultural and Food Biotechnology, Jubilerska 4, 04-190 Warsaw, Poland
P. Janiszewski
Affiliation:
Division of Meat and Fat Technology, Prof. Wacław Dąbrowski Institute of Agricultural and Food Biotechnology, Jubilerska 4, 04-190 Warsaw, Poland
*
†E-mail: kamil.duzinski@up.wroc.pl
Get access

Abstract

Bellies derived from the commercial population of pig carcasses are diverse in terms of tissue composition. Knowledge of the factors influencing it and the expected results, permits quick and easy evaluation of raw material. The study was designed to determine the factors affecting the tissues composition of pork bellies and to estimate their lean meat content. The research population (n=140 pig carcasses) was divided into groups according to sex (gilts, barrows), half-carcass mass (<40, 40 to 43.9, 44 to 46.9, ⩾47 kg) and lean meat content class: S (⩾60%), E (55% to 60%), U (50% to 55%), R (<50%). Bellies were subjected to a detailed dissection. Half-carcass mass affected the levels of all the analysed parameters. The only exception was the mass of the fat with the skin in the 40 to 43.9 kg group, for which the value did not differ statistically between the two groups <40 and 44 to 46.9 kg. Decrease in lean meat content affected the growth of the fat and skin mass in a linear way. No differences were observed between class S and E in terms of belly muscle mass. A 0.37% higher share of belly in the half-carcass was found for barrows (P<0.001), although bellies issued from barrows were characterized by a higher proportion of fat with skin compared with gilts (P=0.02). Interactions were observed between sex and half-carcass mass, so the sex of heavy half-carcasses becomes an important determinant for conditioning the muscle content. Equations were calculated and allow a fast and highly accurate determination of the lean meat content in bellies, suggesting they may be used directly in the production line.

Keywords

pigssexcarcass masslean meat contentpork belly
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 9 , Issue 11 , November 2015 , pp. 1897 - 1903
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2015 

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

Bahelka, I, Oravcová, M, Hanusová, E and Demo, P 2011. The effect of sex and terminal sire line on carcass characteristics of pork belly. Archiv Tierzucht 54, 264–270.Google Scholar
Borzuta, K, Lisiak, D, Borys, A, Strzelecki, J, Magda, F, Grześkowiak, E and Lisiak, B 2010. Study on the effect of lean meat content on commercial value of porcine carcass. Nauka Przyroda Technologie 4, 1–14.Google Scholar
Correa, JA, Gariepy, C, Marcoux, M and Faucitano, L 2008. Effects of growth rate, sex and slaughter weight on fat characteristics of pork bellies. Meat Science 80, 550–554.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daumas, G, Donko, T and Monziols, M 2013. Identification of possible and relevant post mortem reference methods for carcass composition. In Proceedings of 2nd Annual Conference of COST action farm animal imaging, Kaposvar, Hungary (ed. C Maltin, C Craigie and L Bünger), pp. 14–17. Quality Meat Scotland, Ingliston, UK.Google Scholar
Duziński, K, Knecht, D, Lisiak, D and Środoń, S 2015. The estimation of pork carcass primal cuts value based on backfat thickness. Journal of Central European Agriculture 16, 112–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EC 2006. EC Regulation, Commission Regulation No 1197/2006 of 7 August 2006 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2967/85 laying down detailed rules for the application of the Community scale for grading pig carcasses. Official Journal of the European Union L217, 6–7.Google Scholar
EC 2011. EC Decision, Commission implementing Decision No C(2011) 5745 of 16 August 2011 amending Decision 2005/240/WE authorising methods for grading pig carcasses in Poland. Official Journal of the European Union L209, 43–48.Google Scholar
Freeden, HT 1980. Yields and dimensions of pork bellies in relation to carcass measurements. Journal of Animal Science 51, 59–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hermesch, S 2008. Genetic relationships between composition of pork bellies and performance, carcase and meat quality traits. Animal 2, 1178–1185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knecht, D, Jankowska, A and Zaleśny, G 2012. The impact of gastrointestinal parasites infection on slaughter efficiency in pigs. Veterinary Parasitology 184, 291–297.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kosovac, O, Vidović, V, Živković, B, Radović, Č and Smiljaković, T 2009. Quality of pig carcasses on slaughter line according to previous and current EU regulation. Biotechnology in Animal Husbandry 25, 791–801.Google Scholar
Kouba, M and Bonneau, M 2009. Compared development of intermuscular fat and subcutaneous fat in carcass and primal cuts of growing pigs from 30 to 140 kg body weight. Meat Science 81, 270–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lisiak, D, Borzuta, K, Janiszewski, P, Magda, F, Grześkowiak, E, Strzelecki, J, Powałowski, K and Lisiak, B 2012. Verification of regression equations for estimating pork carcass meatiness using CGM, IM-03, Fat-O-Meat’er II and UltraFom 300 devices. Annals of Animal Science 12, 585–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lisiak, D, Duziński, K, Janiszewski, P, Borzuta, K and Knecht, D 2015. A new simple method for estimating the pork carcass mass of primal cuts and lean meat content of the carcass. Animal Production Science 55, 1044–1050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lonergan, SM, Huff-Lonergan, E, Rowe, LJ, Kuhlers, DL and Jungst, SB 2001. Selection for lean growth efficiency in Duroc pigs influences pork quality. Journal of Animal Science 79, 2075–2085.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marcoux, M, Pomar, C, Faucitano, L and Brodeur, C 2007. The relationship between different pork carcass lean yield definitions and the market carcass value. Meat Science 75, 94–102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Monziols, M, Collewet, G, Bonneau, M, Mariette, F, Davenel, A and Kouba, M 2006. Quantification of muscle, subcutaneous fat and intermuscular fat in pig carcasses and cuts by magnetic resonance imaging. Meat Science 72, 146–154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nam, KC, Jo, C and Lee, M 2010. Meat products and consumption culture in the East. Meat Science 86, 95–102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oh, SH and See, MT 2012. Pork preference for consumers in China, Japan and South Korea. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 25, 143–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Person, RC, McKenna, DR, Griffin, DB, McKeith, FK, Scanga, JA, Belk, KE, Smith, GC and Savell, JW 2005. Benchmarking value in the pork supply chain: processing characteristics and consumer evaluations of pork bellies of different thickness when manufactured into bacon. Meat Science 70, 121–131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Picouet, PA, Teran, F, Gispert, M and Font-i-Furnols, M 2010. Lean content prediction in pig carcasses, loin and ham by computed tomography (CT) using a density model. Meat Science 86, 616–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pulkrábek, J, Pavlík, J, Smital, J, Fiedler, J and Houška, L 1998. Quantification of changes of the carcass at various slaughter weight. Scientia Agriculturae Bohemica 29, 119–127.Google Scholar
Pulkrábek, J, Pavlík, J, Vališ, L and Vítek, M 2006. Pig carcass quality in relation to carcass lean meat proportion. Czech Journal of Animal Science 51, 18–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schinckel, AP 2001. Nutrient requirements of modern pig genotypes. In Recent developments in pig nutrition 3 (ed. J Wiseman and PC Garnsworthy), pp. 399–438. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham, UK.Google Scholar
Skiba, G, Raj, S, Poławska, E, Pastuszewska, B, Elminowska-Wenda, G, Bogucka, J and Knecht, D 2012. Profile of fatty acids, muscle structure and shear force of musculus longissimus dorsi (MLD) in growing pigs as affected by energy and protein or protein restriction followed by realimentation. Meat Science 91, 339–346.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stetzer, AJ and McKeith, FK 2003. Benchmarking value in the pork supply chain: quantitative strategies and opportunities to improve quality Phase I. American Meat Science Association, Savoy, IL. pp. 1–6.Google Scholar
Stupka, R, Šprysl, M and Čitek, J 2004. Evaluation of the formation of the belly lean meat part in relation to the achieved carcass lean meat share. Scientia Agriculturae Bohemica 35, 104–110.Google Scholar
Szulc, K, Skrzypczak, E, Buczyński, JT, Stanisławski, D, Jankowska-Mąkosa, A and Knecht, D 2012. Evaluation of fattening and slaughter performance and determination of meat quality in Złotnicka Spotted pigs and their crosses with the Duroc breed. Czech Journal of Animal Science 57, 95–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tholen, E, Brandt, H, Henne, H, Stork, FJ and Schellander, K 2001. Genetic foundation of AutoFOM-traits. Archiv Tierzucht 44, 167–179.Google Scholar
Tomović, VM, Žlender, BA, Jokanović, MJ, Tomović, MS, Šojić, BV, Škaljac, SB, Tasić, TA, Ikonić, PM, Šošo, MM and Hromiš, NM 2014. Technological quality and composition of the M. semimembranosus and M. longissimus dorsi from Large White and Landrace pigs. Agricultural and Food Science 23, 9–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uttaro, B and Zawadski, S 2010. Prediction of pork belly fatness from the intact primal cut. Food Control 21, 1394–1401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vališ, L, Pulkrábek, J, Pavlík, J, Vítek, M and Wolf, J 2005. Conformation and meatiness of pork belly. Czech Journal of Animal Science 50, 116–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walstra, P and Merkus, GSM 1996. Procedure for assessment of the lean meat percentage as a consequence of the new EU reference dissection method in pig carcass classification. Report ID-DLO 96.014, DLO-Research Institute for Animal Science and Health, Zeist, The Netherlands.Google Scholar