Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T16:29:31.576Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Meat and fat quality of Krškopolje pigs reared in conventional and organic production systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 October 2018

U. Tomažin ,
N. Batorek-Lukač ,
M. Škrlep ,
M. Prevolnik-Povše  and
M. Čandek-Potokar
U. Tomažin
Affiliation:
Agricultural Institute of Slovenia (KIS), Hacquetova ul. 17, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
N. Batorek-Lukač
Affiliation:
Agricultural Institute of Slovenia (KIS), Hacquetova ul. 17, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
M. Škrlep
Affiliation:
Agricultural Institute of Slovenia (KIS), Hacquetova ul. 17, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
M. Prevolnik-Povše
Affiliation:
Agricultural Institute of Slovenia (KIS), Hacquetova ul. 17, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia University of Maribor, Faculty of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Pivola 10, 2311 Hoče, Slovenia
M. Čandek-Potokar*
Affiliation:
Agricultural Institute of Slovenia (KIS), Hacquetova ul. 17, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia University of Maribor, Faculty of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Pivola 10, 2311 Hoče, Slovenia
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Data on production traits of the only Slovenian autochthonous pig breed, the Krškopolje pig, is very scarce. Krškopolje pigs are reared in conventional and organic production systems, which were compared in the present study. After weaning, 24 barrows were assigned within litter to either conventional (CON) or organic (ECO) rearing system. Group CON (n=12) was housed indoors in two pens (7.5 m2) with partly slatted floor. Group ECO (n=12) was held in a sty with sheltered area (concrete floor, bedded with straw, 16 m2) and outdoor paddock area (100 m2). The trial started when pigs had 68±8 kg BW and 157±6 days of age. Two diets were formulated with equivalent ingredients and composition. For ECO diet the ingredients used were ecological. Group ECO received a diet with 12.4 MJ metabolisable energy (ME) per kilogram and 12.9% CP and group CON a diet with 12.7 MJ ME/kg and 13.6% CP. Feed distribution was limited to 3.5 kg per pig daily. In line with the rules for organic production, ECO pigs were additionally given alfalfa hay ad libitum. After 73 days on trial, the pigs were slaughtered and carcass, meat and fat quality was evaluated. Meat quality traits (pH, colour, water holding capacity), fatty acid composition, lipid and protein oxidation, collagen content and solubility were analysed in longissimus lumborum (LL) muscle. Fatty acid composition, lipid oxidation, and vitamins A and E concentrations were determined in backfat. There were no significant differences in growth rate and carcass traits between ECO and CON pigs, however, ECO pigs tended (P<0.10) to have higher daily gain and lower dressing percentage, higher (P<0.001) pH 45 min and lower (P<0.01) pH 24 h postmortem, affecting (P<0.10) also water holding capacity and objective colour parameters (P<0.05) of LL muscle. There were no differences in intramuscular fat (IMF) content of LL muscle, however, IMF of ECO pigs had lower (P<0.05) proportion of saturated and higher (P<0.01) proportion of monounsaturated fatty acids accompanied by higher (P<0.001) values of thiobarbituric reactive substances (TBARS). In backfat, ECO pigs showed lower (P<0.05) vitamin E content, higher (P<0.001) TBARS, higher (P<0.01) degree of unsaturation (percentage of polyunsaturated fatty acids), and also higher (P<0.05) vitamin A concentration than CON pigs, which can be related to alfalfa hay supplementation of ECO pigs. In brief, organic rearing of Krškopolje pigs did not affect performances but had an effect on meat and fat quality.

Keywords

local breeddietperformancefatty acidsoxidative stability
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 13 , Issue 5 , May 2019 , pp. 1103 - 1110
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2018 

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 2000. Official methods of analysis, volume 1, 17th edition. AOAC, Gaithersburgh, MD, USA.Google Scholar
Batorek, N, Škrlep, M, Prunier, A, Louveau, I, Noblet, J, Bonneau, M and Čandek-Potokar, M 2012. Effect of feed restriction on hormones, performance, carcass traits, and meat quality in immunocastrated pigs. Journal of Animal Science 90, 4593–4603.10.2527/jas.2012-5330Google Scholar
Bee, G, Guex, G and Herzog, W 2004. Free-range rearing of pigs during the winter: adaptations in muscle fibre characteristics and effects on adipose tissue composition and meat quality traits. Journal of Animal Science 82, 1206–1218.10.1093/ansci/82.4.1206Google Scholar
Bonneau, M and Lebret, B 2010. Production systems and influence on eating quality of pork. Meat Science 84, 293–300.10.1016/j.meatsci.2009.03.013Google Scholar
Brandt, H, Werner, DN, Baulain, U, Brade, W and Weissmann, F 2010. Genotype–environment interactions for growth and carcass traits in different pig breeds kept under conventional and organic production systems. Animal 4, 535–544.10.1017/S1751731109991509Google Scholar
Čandek-Potokar, M, Batorek Lukač, N, Tomažin, U and Nieto, R, Treasure Consortium 2017. Growth performance of local pig breeds – analytical review in the project treasure. In Book of abstracts of the 4th Fatty Pig Science & Utilization International Conference, 23–25 November 2017, Badajoz, Spain, pp. 31–32.Google Scholar
Christensen, LB 2003. Drip loss sampling in porcine m. longissimus dorsi . Meat Science 63, 469–477.10.1016/S0309-1740(02)00106-7Google Scholar
Daza, A, Rey, AI, Olivares, A, Cordero, G, Toldrá, F and López-Bote, CJ 2009. Physical activity-induced alterations on tissue lipid composition and lipid metabolism in fattening pigs. Meat Science 81, 641–646.10.1016/j.meatsci.2008.11.001Google Scholar
Edwards, SA 2005. Product quality attributes associated with outdoor pig production. Livestock Production Science 94, 5–14.10.1016/j.livprodsci.2004.11.028Google Scholar
Fernandez, X and Tornberg, E 1991. A review of the causes of variation in muscle glycogen content and ultimate pH in pigs. Journal of Muscle Foods 2, 209–235.10.1111/j.1745-4573.1991.tb00454.xGoogle Scholar
Fritsche, KL and McGuire, SO 1996. The adverse effects of an in vivo inflammatory challenge on the vitamin E status of rats is accentuated by fish oil feeding. The Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry 7, 623–631.10.1016/S0955-2863(96)00126-XGoogle Scholar
Hansen, LL, Claudi-Magnussen, C, Jensen, SK and Andersen, HJ 2006. Effect of organic pig production on performance and meat quality. Meat Science 74, 605–615.10.1016/j.meatsci.2006.02.014Google Scholar
Huff-Lonergan, E and Lonergan, SM 2005. Mechanisms of water-holding capacity of meat: the role of postmortem biochemical and structural changes. Meat Science 71, 194–204.10.1016/j.meatsci.2005.04.022Google Scholar
Jensen, C, Lauridsen, C and Bertelsen, G 1998. Dietary vitamin E: quality and storage stability of pork and poultry. Trends in Food Science & Technology 9, 62–72.10.1016/S0924-2244(98)00004-1Google Scholar
Kastelic, A and Čandek-Potokar, M 2013. Application of quality labels in support of conservation of local breeds - a challenge for Slovenian Krškopolje pig. Acta Agriculturae Slovenica (Suppl. 4), 205–209.Google Scholar
Lebret, B 2008. Effects of feeding and rearing systems on growth, carcass composition and meat quality in pigs. Animal 2, 1548–1558.10.1017/S1751731108002796Google Scholar
Lynch, SM and Frei, B 1993. Mechanisms of copper- and iron-dependent oxidative modification of human low density lipoprotein. Journal of Lipid Research 34, 1745–1753.Google Scholar
Mancini, RA and Hunt, MC 2005. Current research in meat color. Meat Science 71, 100–121.10.1016/j.meatsci.2005.03.003Google Scholar
McDowell, LR 2000. Vitamins in animal and human nutrition. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA, USA.10.1002/9780470376911Google Scholar
Millet, S 2004. Influence of nutrition on performance, product quality and immunocompetence in organic pig production, PhD thesis, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.Google Scholar
Millet, S, Raes, K, Van den Broeck, W, De Smet, S and Janssens, GPJ 2005. Performance and meat quality of organically versus conventionally fed and housed pigs from weaning till slaughtering. Meat Science 69, 335–341.10.1016/j.meatsci.2004.08.003Google Scholar
Nilzén, V, Babol, J, Dutta, PC, Lundeheim, N, Enfält, A-C and Lundström, K 2001. Free range rearing of pigs with access to pasture grazing – effect on fatty acid composition and lipid oxidation products. Meat Science 58, 267–275.10.1016/S0309-1740(00)00164-9Google Scholar
OJ EU L56/28 2008. Commission decision of 18 February 2008 amending Decision 2005/879/EC authorising methods for grading pig carcases in Slovenia. Retrieved 28 December 2017 from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008D0167&rid=7.Google Scholar
OJ EU L250/1 2008. Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 of 5 September 2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products with regard to organic production, labelling and control. Retrieved 28 December 2017 from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008R0889&from=en.Google Scholar
Olsson, V, Andersson, K, Hansson, I and Lundström, K 2003. Differences in meat quality between organically and conventionally produced pigs. Meat Science 64, 287–297.10.1016/S0309-1740(02)00200-0Google Scholar
Park, PW and Goins, RE 1994. In situ preparation of fatty acid methyl esters for analysis of fatty acid composition in foods. Journal of Food Science 59, 1262–1266.10.1111/j.1365-2621.1994.tb14691.xGoogle Scholar
Pravilnik o zaščiti rejnih živali 2010. Uradni list Republike Slovenije, 51/10 (pp. 7592–7603. The Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, Ljubljana, Slovenia. pp. 7592–7603.Google Scholar
Rey, AI, Daza, A, López-Carrasco, C and López-Bote, CJ 2006. Feeding Iberian pigs with acorns and grass in either free-range or confinement affects the carcass characteristics and fatty acids and tocopherols accumulation in Longissimus dorsi muscle and backfat. Meat Science 73, 66–74.10.1016/j.meatsci.2005.10.018Google Scholar
Rezar, V, Salobir, J, Levart, A, Tomažin, U, Škrlep, M, Batorek Lukač, N and Čandek-Potokar, M 2017. Supplementing entire male pig diet with hydrolysable tannins: effect on carcass traits, meat quality and oxidative stability. Meat Science 133, 95–102.10.1016/j.meatsci.2017.06.012Google Scholar
Škrlep, M, Čandek-Potokar, M, Tomažin, U, Batorek Lukač, N and Flores, M 2017. Properties and aromatic profile of dry-fermented sausages produced from Krškopolje pigs reared under organic and conventional rearing regime. Animal 12, 1316–1323.Google Scholar
Terlouw, C 2005. Stress reactions at slaughter and meat quality traits in pigs: genetic background and prior experience. a brief review of recent findings. Livestock Production Science 94, 125–135.10.1016/j.livprodsci.2004.11.032Google Scholar
Trout, GR 1991. A rapid method for measuring pigment concentration in porcine and other low pigmented muscles. In Proceedings of the 37th International Congress of Meat Science and Technology, 1–6 September 1991, Kulmbach, Germany, pp. 1198–1201.Google Scholar
Wang, T, Crenshaw, MA, Regmi, N, Rude, BJ, Hasan, MS, Sukumaran, AT, Dinh, T and Liao, SF 2018. Effects of dietary lysine level on the content and fatty acid composition of intramuscular fat in late-stage finishing pigs. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 98 (2), 241–249.10.1139/cjas-2017-0083Google Scholar
Wood, JD, Richardson, RI, Nute, GR, Fisher, AV, Campo, MM, Kasapidou, E, Sheard, PR and Enser, M 2003. Effects of fatty acids on meat quality: a review. Meat Science 66, 21–32.10.1016/S0309-1740(03)00022-6Google Scholar
Zakon o zaščiti živali 2007. Uradni list Republike Slovenije, 43. The Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, Ljubljana, Slovenia. pp. 5943–5952.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Tomažin et al. supplementary material

Tomažin et al. supplementary material 1

Download Tomažin et al. supplementary material(File)
File 30.9 KB