Meat production using four terminal pig lines

Abstract

The influence of terminal sire (Duroc (D1 and D2), Large White/Pietrain (LW/P) and Large White (LW)) on several meat production and meat quality traits was investigated in 452 male and female offspring of Landrace/Large White dams. Age at slaughter, carcass length, carcass weight and dressing yield were similar for all lines, as was the production of shoulders, chops, and ribs with bacon. D2-sired pigs produced more noble pieces as a percentage of their carcass weight than the other three lines. LW/Pand LW-sired pigs were generally leaner than Duroc-sired pigs. LW/P and LW pigs had the highest percentage of cuts (longissimus dorsi and semimembranosus muscle) classified as pale, soft and exudative (PSE) meat. There were no large differences between the lines in the occurrence of dark, firm and dry (DFD) cuts.

Influence of selection for improved growth rate on pork quality

“…A common theme between studies evaluated, however, is that there are conflicting results as to the overall benefit the use of the Duroc breed provides. Some studies have shown a decrease in carcass backfat thickness through the use of Duroc sires (Ramirez and Cava, 2007;Rauw et al, 2003) while others have shown no difference between the Duroc and other breeds such as a Pietran X Large White cross , however this does not show a negative with the use of the breed it just does not show any improvement.…”

“…The Duroc breed is commonly used in selection programs as a terminal sire in crossbred market hog production systems because of its advantages over other breeds in terms of growth rate and meat quality . Because of these reasons, many studies have investigated the possible advantages in using the Duroc breed when compared to other breed lines on traits important for meat quality and carcass composition Ramirez and Cava, 2007;Rauw et al, 2003). A common theme between studies evaluated, however, is that there are conflicting results as to the overall benefit the use of the Duroc breed provides.…”

“…There is agreement, though, in that the Duroc breed has been shown to improve instrumental tenderness measurements . This improvement in instrumental tenderness may be offset by a larger degree of drip loss and cook loss (Ramirez and Cava, 2007), though the effect of the Duroc breed is still debated as not all studies are in agreement as to the negative association of drip loss and cook loss with the Duroc breed (Ramirez and Cava, 2007;Rauw et al, 2003;. Therefore, the Duroc breed has positives in terms of production and carcass composition improvements in addition to potential positives in terms of improving meat quality Rauw et al, 2003).…”

“…This improvement in instrumental tenderness may be offset by a larger degree of drip loss and cook loss (Ramirez and Cava, 2007), though the effect of the Duroc breed is still debated as not all studies are in agreement as to the negative association of drip loss and cook loss with the Duroc breed (Ramirez and Cava, 2007;Rauw et al, 2003;. Therefore, the Duroc breed has positives in terms of production and carcass composition improvements in addition to potential positives in terms of improving meat quality Rauw et al, 2003). However, its effectiveness is not entirely agreed upon (Ramirez and Cava, 2007) and thus the use of the Duroc breed may still account for variation in pork quality regardless of improvements in pig production.…”

Classification accuracy of different pork quality evaluation methods in assessment of meat with lowered drip loss

“…Significant differences in results between these methods are also observed due to various procedures used (FILHO et al, 2017). It is also common to classify pork into quality classes (PSE -pale, soft, exudative; RFN -red, firm, nonexudative; DFD -dark, firm, dry and AM -acid meat) on the basis of several criteria measured up to 24 hours after slaughter but both selection of these criteria and their threshold values differ amongst most countries (KAUFFMAN et al, 1993;RAUW et al, 2003;KOĆWIN-PODSIADŁA et al, 2006;FAUCITANO et al, 2010;POSPIECH et al, 2011;PRZYBYLSKI et al, 2012;TARCZYŃSKI et al, 2018;KIM et al, 2016). Therefore, the frequency distribution of pork quality classes could vary which was recently confirmed by CAZADEY et al (2016).…”