Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T17:31:22.582Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of space allocation within a deep-bedded finishing system on pig growth performance, fatty acid composition and pork quality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2008

B. S. Patton ,
E. Huff-Lonergan ,
M. S. Honeyman ,
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
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 objectives of the current study were to determine the degree to which space allocation in a deep-bedded system influences swine performance and pork quality. The deep-bedded method employed was hoop structures, which are large, tent-like shelters with cornstalks or straw for bedding. One hundred gilts ranging in weight from 59 to 71 kg were randomly assigned to treatments of low (0.70 m2 per pig, n = 50) or high (1.13 m2 per pig, n = 50) space allocation. During the 45-day experimental period, gilts were ad libitum fed a two-phase diet. Six gilts per treatment were used for carcass composition and pork quality evaluation for each replication. Five replications were conducted over a period of 4 months. Pigs finished with greater space allocation had smaller longissimus muscle area and produced pork that appeared to be darker. Variations in fatty acid composition and lipid percentage of subcutaneous adipose and longissimus dorsi muscle were observed when space allocation was changed within hoop structures. Less space resulted in greater proportion of lipid present as polyunsaturated fatty acids. Greater space allocation resulted in lower total lipid in subcutaneous pork adipose tissue. Space allocation did not affect fat firmness. Replications spanned the months of August to November, with temperatures ranging from 32°C to −2°C within the hoop structure. As environmental temperature declined, the proportion of monounsaturated fatty acids increased. Providing more space during finishing in these systems had only a small affect on pig growth and pork quality. Variations observed from replication to replication at fluctuating temperatures provide insight to seasonal differences in growth and adipose tissue composition and firmness. Therefore, finishing pigs in these systems may lead to seasonal variation in lipid composition.

Keywords

pork compositionpork qualitystocking density
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 2 , Issue 3 , March 2008 , pp. 471 - 478
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

Beattie, VE, O’Connell, NE, Moss, BW 2000. Influence of environmental enrichment on the behaviour, performance and meat quality of domestic pigs. Livestock Production Science 65, 71–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bee, G 2002. Effect of available dietary carbohydrate on glycolytic potential and meat quality of swine muscles. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 82, 311–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bruce, JM, Clark, JJ 1979. Models of heat production and critical temperature for growing pigs. Animal Production 28, 353–369.Google Scholar
Bryant, MJ, Ewbank, R 1974. Effects of stocking rate upon performance, general activity and ingestive behaviour of groups of growing pigs. British Veterinary Journal 130, 139–149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cassens, RG 2000. Historical perspectives and current aspects of pork meat quality in the USA. Food Chemistry 69, 357–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Estevez, M, Morcuende, D, Cava, R 2003. Oxidative and colour changes in meat from three lines of free-range reared Iberian pigs slaughtered at 90 kg live weight and from industrial pig during refrigerated storage. Meat Science 65, 1139–1146.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gentry, JG, McGlone, JJ, Miller, MF, Blanton, JR 2002a. Diverse birth and rearing environment effects on pig growth and meat quality. Journal of Animal Science 80, 1707–1715.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gentry, JG, McGlone, JJ, Blanton, JR, Miller, MF 2002b. Impact of spontaneous exercise on performance, meat quality, and muscle fiber characteristics of growing/finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 80, 2833–2839.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guy, JH, Rowlinson, P, Chadwick, JP, Ellis, M 2002. Behaviour of two genotypes of growing-finishing pig in three different housing systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 75, 193–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honeyman, MS 1999. Sustainability issues of US swine production. Journal of Animal Science 74, 1663–1670.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoy, S 2004. Space requirements for finishing pigs. Tierärztliche Umschau 59, 576–582.Google Scholar
Hyun, Y, Ellis, M, Riskowski, G, Johnson, RW 1998. Growth performance of pigs subjected to multiple concurrent environmental stressors. Journal of Animal Science 76, 721–727.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Irie, M, Sakimoto, M, Ohmoto, K 1983. Effect of diets on oxidative stability of porcine fat. The Japanese Journal of Swine Science 20, 19–24.Google Scholar
Jo, C, Ahn, D 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kouba, M, Enser, M, Whittington, FM, Nute, GR, Wood, JD 2003. Effect of a high linolenic acid diet on lipogenic enzyme activities, fatty acid composition and meat quality in the growing pig. Journal of Animal Science 81, 1967–1979.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 ScholarPubMed
Lonergan, SM, Huff-Lonergan, E, Rowe, LJ, Kuhlers, DL, Jungst, SB 2001. Selection for lean growth efficiency in Duroc pigs: influence on pork quality. Journal of Animal Science 79, 2075–2085.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Lyons, CAP, Bruce, JM, Fowler, VR, English, PR 1995. A comparison of productivity and welfare of growing pigs in four intensive systems. Livestock Production Science 43, 265–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGlone, JJ, Newby, BE 1994. Space requirements for finishing pigs in confinement: behavior and performance while group size and space vary. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39, 331–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millet, S, Moons, CPH, Van Oeckel, MJ, Janssens, GPJ 2005. Welfare, performance and meat quality of fattening pigs in alternative housing and management systems: a review. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 85, 709–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, W, Smith, L 1964. Preparation of fatty acid methyl esters+dimethylacetals from lipids with boron fluoride-methanol. Journal of Lipid Research 5, 600pp.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Pork Board 2000. Pork composition and quality assessment procedures (ed. EP Berg), pp. 17–32. Des Moines, IA.Google Scholar
NCR-89. Committee on confinement management of swin 1993. Space requirements of barrows and gilts penned together from 54 to 113 kilograms. Journal of Animal Science 71, 1088–1091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nishioka, T, Irie, M 2005. Evaluation method for firmness and stickiness of porcine perirenal fat. Meat Science 70, 399–404.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, AW, Simonsen, HB, Dybkjraer, L 2002. Effect of access to roughage and shelter on selected behavioural indicators of welfare in pigs housed in a complex environment. Animal Welfare 11, 75–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, GP, Paterson, AM 1993. The effect of space restriction during rearing on the attainment of puberty and subsequent reproductive activity of female pigs. Animal Reproduction Science 32, 99–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Randolph, JH, Cromwell, GL, Stahly, TS, Kratzer, DD 1981. Effects of group size and space allowance on performance and behavior of swine. Journal of Animal Science 53, 922–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmolke, SA, Li, YZ, Gonyou, HW 2004. Effects of group size on social behavior following regrouping of growing-finishing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 88, 27–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, S, Heyer, A, Andersson, HK, Rydhmer, L, Lundström, K 2003. Production results and technological meat quality for pigs in indoor and outdoor rearing systems. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A, Animal Science 53, 166–174.Google Scholar
Tarrant, PJV 1989. The effects of handling, transport, slaughter and chilling on meat quality and yield in pigs: a review. Irish Journal of Food Science and Technology 13, 79–107.Google Scholar
Turner, SP, Ewen, M, Rooke, JA, Edwards, SA 2000. The effect of space allowance on performance, aggression and immune competence of growing pigs housed on straw deep-litter at different group sizes. Livestock Production Science 66, 47–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Weerd, HA, Docking, CM, Day, JEL, Avery, PJ, Edwards, SA 2003. A systematic approach towards developing environmental enrichment for pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 84, 101–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheatley, WP 2003. The natural and organic pork market: a sustainable niche for small-scale producers? A review and analysis of the evidence. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 18, 18–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, JD, Enser, M, Fisher, AV, Nute, GR, Sheard, PR, Richardson, RI, Hughes, SI, Whittington, FM 2007. Fat deposition, fatty acid composition and meat quality: a review. Meat Science doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2007.07.019.Google ScholarPubMed