Pork carcass composition: II. Use of indicator cuts for predicting carcass composition.

Swensen, K.; Ellis, Michael; Brewer, M.S.; Novakofski, J.; McKeith, F. K.

doi:10.2527/1998.7692405x

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, studies have consistently shown that dissection of any primal cut is a more accurate estimate of carcass lean content than any linear carcass measure. Swensen et al ( 1998) found the loin to be the most accurate estimator of both dissectable lean and fatfree lean (R 2 = 0.90 and 0.89).…”

Section: Linear Carcass Measuresmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Other more efficient and less costly measures needed to be found. Sample joint dissection has been revisited several times but has still been found to be too expensive, laborious, and destructive (Swensen et al, 1998;Planella and Cook, 1991;Kempster and Evans, 1981;Evans and Kempster, 1979;Cuthbertson et al, 1968;Adam and Smith, 1966). However, studies have consistently shown that dissection of any primal cut is a more accurate estimate of carcass lean content than any linear carcass measure.…”

Section: Linear Carcass Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Genetic parameters for pork carcass components1

Newcom

Baas

Mabry

et al. 2002

Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Data from 456 homozygous halothane normal purebred Yorkshire, Duroc, and Other-breed pigs from two national progeny testing and genetic evaluation programs were utilized to estimate genetic parameters for carcass components in pigs. Carcass components were cut and weighed according to Institutional Meat Purchase Specifications. Primal cut weights evaluated included 401 Ham (HAM), 410 Loin (LOIN), 405 Picnic shoulder (PIC), 406 Boston Butt (BB), and 409 Belly (BELLY). Individual muscle weights included the inside (INS), outside (OUT), and knuckle (KNU) muscles of the ham, the longissimus dorsi (LD) and psoas major (TEND) of the loin, and the boneless components of both the Boston Butt (BBUTT) and picnic (BPIC). Muscle weights from each primal were summed to yield a boneless subprimal weight (BHAM, BLOIN, BSHLDR), and all boneless subprimals were summed to yield total primal boneless lean (LEAN). Heritability estimates for HAM, LOIN, and BELLY were 0.57, 0.51, and 0.51, respectively. Heritability estimates for BB and PIC were 0.09 and 0.21, respectively. Heritability estimates for the boneless components of each primal were higher than those for the intact primals. Genetic correlations for HAM, LOIN, and PIC with loin muscle area (LMA) were 0.53, 0.78, and 0.70, respectively, and-0.62, -0.51, and -0.60, respectively, with 10th rib off-midline backfat (BF10). Boneless subprimal components were highly correlated with LEAN. Gilts had heavier weights (P < 0.01) than barrows for all boneless subprimals, individual muscles, LEAN, and for all primal cuts except BELLY. Gilts also had less BF10 and more LMA (P < 0.01) than barrows. Duroc pigs had a heavier (P < 0.01) weight for HAM and PIC when compared to Yorkshires. Yorkshire pigs had more (P < 0.01) LOIN weight than did the Durocs. Results suggest primal, boneless subprimal, and individual muscle weights in pigs should respond favorably to selection.

show abstract

Section: Linear Carcass Measuresmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Linear Carcass Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Genetic parameters for pork carcass components1

Newcom

Baas

Mabry

et al. 2002

Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A 10 g sample of soft tissue was oven-dried at 110 °C for approximately 24 h to determine percentage moisture. The dried sample was then washed multiple times in an azeotropic mixture of warm chloroform/methanol, as described by Swensen et al [ 22 ], to determine the fat content of the soft tissue. Finally, the percentage of carcass weight, categorized as fat vs. fat-free lean, was calculated for each pig.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Longitudinal Effects of Iron Deficiency Anemia and Subsequent Repletion on Blood Parameters and the Rate and Composition of Growth in Pigs

Knight

Dilger

2018

Nutrients

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Iron deficiency is reported as the most common nutrient deficiency worldwide. Due to rapid growth, infants are at particular risk for developing iron deficiency, which can easily progress to iron deficiency anemia (IDA), if not treated. The aim of this study was to determine the lasting effects of an early-life iron deficiency after a period of dietary iron repletion. Forty-two intact male pigs were fed, ad libitum, either control (CONT, 21.3 mg Fe/L) or iron-deficient (ID 2.72 mg Fe/L) milk replacer from postnatal day (PND) 2 to 32 (phase 1). From PND 33 to 61 (phase 2), all pigs were transitioned onto a series of industry-standard, iron-adequate diets. Blood was collected weekly from PND 7 to 28, and again on PND 35 and 56, and tissues were collected at either PND 32 or PND 61. At the end of phase 1, ID pigs exhibited reduced hematocrit (Hct; p < 0.0001) and hemoglobin (Hb; p < 0.0001) compared with CONT pigs, but neither Hct (p = 0.5968) nor Hb (p = 0.6291) differed between treatment groups after dietary iron repletion at the end of phase 2. Body weight gain was reduced (p < 0.0001) 58% at PND 32 in ID pigs compared with CONT pigs during phase 1, and this effect remained significant at the end of phase 2 (p = 0.0001), with ID pigs weighing 34% less than CONT pigs at PND 61. Analysis of peripheral protein and messenger RNA (mRNA) gene expression biomarkers yielded inconclusive results, as would be expected based on previous biomarker analyses across multiple species. These findings suggest that early-life iron status negatively influences blood parameters and growth performance, with dietary iron repletion allowing for full recovery of hematological outcomes, but not growth performance.

show abstract

“…Adipose tissue is an important component accounting for a considerable ratio in a pig carcass (Mas et al., 2011; Swensen et al., 1998). In recent past decades, the pig breeding programs for improving protein deposition and the genetic selection for increased growth rate have resulted in limited amount of visible fat in body and meat tissues as well as decreased back‐fat (BF) thickness (Gjerlaug‐Enger et al., 2010; Hamill et al., 2012; Sonesson et al., 1998).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Adipose tissue is an important component accounting for a considerable ratio in a pig carcass (Mas et al, 2011;Swensen et al, 1998).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Back‐fat thickness as a primary index reflecting the yield and overall acceptance of pork meat

Seo

Seong

et al. 2021

Animal Science Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Predicting aspects of lean meat yield and eating quality of pork based on some particular carcass traits become increasingly important from an economic profitability point of view. The present study aimed to determine the relationship between the back‐fat (BF) thickness with lean meat yield and meat quality traits of crossbred pigs. A total of 220 crossbred pigs [(Landrace × Yorkshire) ♀ × Duroc ♂] reared under identical conditions and harvested at 180 days old were slaughtered and screened for BF thickness. Four BF thickness groups: 12–15, 16–20, 21–25, and 26–30 mm were classified, and longissimus dorsi (LD) muscles from these groups were used to analyze meat quality characteristics. Results showed that increasing BF thickness decreased the lean meat yield and loin lean area. Increasing BF thickness up to 26–30 mm increased intramuscular fat content and pH of LD muscles. The LD muscles of the thicker BF (21–30 mm) groups received significantly higher flavor, juiciness, and overall acceptability scores than those of the thinner back‐fat (12–20 mm) groups. Overall, when all the pre‐harvest factors are kept the same, BF thickness could be considered as a primary index for predicting lean meat yield, and the minimal back‐fat thickness of 21–30 mm is required to improve the overall acceptability of pork meat.

show abstract

Pork carcass composition: II. Use of indicator cuts for predicting carcass composition.

Cited by 8 publications

References 14 publications

Genetic parameters for pork carcass components1

Genetic parameters for pork carcass components1

Longitudinal Effects of Iron Deficiency Anemia and Subsequent Repletion on Blood Parameters and the Rate and Composition of Growth in Pigs

Back‐fat thickness as a primary index reflecting the yield and overall acceptance of pork meat

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About