Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T20:38:44.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of various boar taint detection methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2012

M. Aluwé ,
F. A. M. Tuyttens ,
K. M. Bekaert ,
S. De Smet ,
D. L. De Brabander  and
S. Millet
M. Aluwé*
Affiliation:
Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), Animal Sciences Unit, Scheldeweg 68, 9090 Melle, Belgium
F. A. M. Tuyttens
Affiliation:
Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), Animal Sciences Unit, Scheldeweg 68, 9090 Melle, Belgium
K. M. Bekaert
Affiliation:
Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), Animal Sciences Unit, Scheldeweg 68, 9090 Melle, Belgium Laboratory of Chemical Analysis, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Research Group of Veterinary Public Health and Zoonoses, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
S. De Smet
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Animal Nutrition and Animal Product Quality, Department of Animal Production, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Proefhoevestraat 10, 9090 Melle, Belgium
D. L. De Brabander
Affiliation:
Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), Animal Sciences Unit, Scheldeweg 68, 9090 Melle, Belgium
S. Millet
Affiliation:
Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), Animal Sciences Unit, Scheldeweg 68, 9090 Melle, Belgium
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of various boar taint detection methods, measure the relationship between them and identify possible points of improvement for boar taint detection. The methods used to evaluate boar taint in the carcasses of 448 entire male pigs and 17 barrows were the hot iron method (n = 442), a standardised (n = 323) and home (n = 58) consumer meat-evaluation panel, an expert panel assessment of meat and fat (n = 464) and laboratory analysis of skatole, androstenone and indole in fat (n = 464). The axillary odour of a number of slaughtered entire male pigs was also investigated (n = 231). As correlation coefficients were generally weak, a positive result for one of these detection methods did not per se result in a positive result for all other methods. Results of one detection method could not be generalised. The choice to use one or more detection methods deserves consideration depending on the aim of the study. In this paper, we suggest some possible improvements for evaluating boar taint with a consumer panel based on our results and experience. The home consumer evaluation was correlated with the concentration of indole (r = 0.27) but not with skatole or androstenone. We therefore recommend that lab analyses include indole testing. The hot iron method seems to be an easy and fast detection method, which yields comparable or better correlation coefficients with the other detection methods than an expert panel evaluating fat samples. However, the reliability of the hot iron method depends on the training and reliability of one or two assessors. Efforts should be made to further optimise this method by evaluating the effect of testing conditions. The axillary odour score was moderately correlated with the other detection methods (up to 0.32). More research is needed to evaluate the possibilities of axillary odour as a boar taint detection method.

Keywords

entire male pigsboar taint detection methodsexpert panelconsumer panellaboratory analysis
Type
Product quality, human health and well-being
Information
animal , Volume 6 , Issue 11 , November 2012 , pp. 1868 - 1877
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2012

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

Aluwé, M 2012. Influence of feed and management strategies on boar taint prevalence. PhD thesis, Ghent University, Belgium, 166 pp.Google Scholar
Aluwé, M, Bekaert, KM, Tuyttens, FAM, Vanhaecke, L, De Smet, SM, De Brabander, HF, De Brabander, DL, Millet, S 2011a. Influence of soiling on boar taint in boars. Meat Science 87, 175–179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aluwé, M, Millet, S, Langendries, KCM, Bekaert, KM, Tuyttens, FAM, De Brabander, Dl 2011b. Comparison of meat quality between barrows, boars and boars vaccinated against gonadotropin-releasing hormone. In 57th International Congress of Meat Science and Technology, Ghent, Belgium, 118 pp.Google Scholar
Aluwé, M, Millet, S, Tuyttens, FAM, Vanhaecke, L, De Smet, SM, De Brabander, DL 2011c. Influence of breed and slaughter weight on boar taint prevalence in entire male pigs. Animal 5, 1283–1289.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aluwé, M, Millet, S, Nijs, G, Tuyttens, FAM, Verheyden, K, De Brabander, HF, De Brabander, DL, Van Oeckel, MJ 2009. Absence of an effect of dietary fibre or clinoptilolite on boar taint in entire male pigs fed practical diets. Meat Science 82, 346–352.Google Scholar
Annor-Frempong, IE, Nute, GR, Whittington, FW, Wood, JD 1997a. The problem of taint in pork .1. Detection thresholds and odour profiles of androstenone and skatole in a model system. Meat Science 46, 45–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Annor-Frempong, IE, Nute, GR, Whittington, FW, Wood, JD 1997b. The problem of taint in pork .2. The influence of skatole, androstenone and indole, presented individually and in combination in a model lipid base, on odour perception. Meat Science 47, 49–61.Google Scholar
Annor-Frempong, IE, Nute, GR, Whittington, FW, Wood, JD 1997c. The problem of taint in pork .3. Odour profile of pork fat and the interrelationships between androstenone, skatole and indole concentrations. Meat Science 47, 63–76.Google Scholar
Annor-Frempong, IE, Nute, GR, Wood, JD, Whittington, FW, West, A 1998. The measurement of the responses to different odour intensities of ‘boar taint’ using a sensory panel and an electronic nose. Meat Science 50, 139–151.Google Scholar
Babol, J, Squires, EJ 1995. Quality of meat from entire male pigs. Food Research International 28, 201–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Babol, J, Squires, EJ, Bonneau, M 1996. Factors regulating the concentrations of 16-androstene steroids in submaxillary salivary glands of pigs. Journal of Animal Science 74, 413–419.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bekaert, KM, Tuyttens, FAM, De Brabander, HF, Vandendriessche, F, Duchateau, L, Vanhaecke, L 2011a. The use of the hot iron method and U-HPLC-MS/MS analysis for the detection of boar taint. In 57th International Congress of Meat Science and Technology, Ghent, Belgium, 118 pp.Google Scholar
Bekaert, KM, Tuyttens, FAM, Duchateau, L, De Brabander, HF, Aluwé, M, Millet, S, Vandendriessche, F, Vanhaecke, L 2011b. The sensitivity of Flemish citizens to androstenone: influence of gender, age, location and smoking habits. Meat Science 88, 548–552.Google Scholar
Bonneau, M, Ledenmat, M, Vaudelet, JC, Nunes, JRV, Mortensen, AB, Mortensen, HP 1992. Contributions of fat androstenone and skatole to boar taint: 1. Sensory attributes of fat and pork meat. Livestock Production Science 32, 63–80.Google Scholar
Bonneau, M, Kempster, AJ, Claus, R, Claudi-Magnussen, C, Diestre, A, Tornberg, E, Walstra, P, Chevillon, P, Weiler, U, Cook, GL 2000. An international study on the importance of androstenone and skatole for boar taint: I. Presentation of the programme and measurement of boar taint compounds with different analytical procedures. Meat Science 54, 251–259.Google Scholar
Bremner, EA, Mainland, JD, Khan, RM, Sobel, N 2003. The prevalence of androstenone anosmia. Chemical Senses 28, 423–432.Google Scholar
Brooks, RI, Pearson, AM 1989. Odor thresholds of the C19-Delta-16-Steroids responsible for boar odor in pork. Meat Science 25, 11–19.Google Scholar
de Kock, HL, van Heerden, SM, Heinze, PH, Dijksterhuis, GB, Minnaar, A 2001. Reaction to boar odour by different South African consumer groups. Meat Science 59, 353–362.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Desmoulin, B, Bonneau, M, Frouin, A, Bidard, JP 1982. Consumer testing of pork and processed meat from boars – the influence of fat androstenone level. Livestock Production Science 9, 707–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijksterhuis, GB, Engel, B, Walstra, P, Furnols, MFI, Agerhem, H, Fischer, K, Oliver, MA, Claudi-Magnussen, C, Siret, F, Beague, MP, Homer, DB, Bonneau, M 2000. An international study on the importance of androstenone and skatole for boar taint: II. Sensory evaluation by trained panels in seven European countries. Meat Science 54, 261–269.Google Scholar
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) 2004. Welfare aspects of the castration of piglets. The EFSA Journal 91, 1–18.Google Scholar
Furnols, MFI, Gispert, M, Diestre, A, Oliver, MA 2003. Acceptability of boar meat by consumers depending on their age, gender, culinary habits, and sensitivity and appreciation of androstenone odour. Meat Science 64, 433–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furnols, MFI, Gonzalez, J, Gispert, M, Oliver, MA, Hortos, M, Perez, JF, Suarez, P, Guerrero, L 2009. Sensory characterization of meat from pigs vaccinated against gonadotropin releasing factor compared to meat from surgically castrated, entire male and female pigs. Meat Science 83, 438–442.Google Scholar
Gibis, M, Hilmes, C, Fischer, A 1998. Off-flavour in pork caused by skatole. Fleischwirtschaft 78, 727–730.Google Scholar
Hansson, KE, Lundström, K, Fjelknermodig, S, Persson, J 1980. The importance of androstenone and skatole for boar taint. Swedish Journal of Agricultural Research 10, 167–173.Google Scholar
Haugen, JE, Brunius, C, Zamaratskaia, G 2012. Review of analytical methods to measure boar taint compounds in porcine adipose tissue: the need for harmonised methods. Meat Science 90, 9–19.Google Scholar
Haugen, JE, Zamaratskaia, G, Lundström, K, Chen, G, Squires, EJ, Lou, Y, Whittington, FM 2008. The boar taint case: need for standardisation and harmonisation. In first European Food Congress, Ljubljana, Slovenia, 1p.Google Scholar
Jarmoluk, L, Martin, AH, Fredeen, HT 1970. Detection of taint (sex odour) in pork. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 50, 750–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lunde, K, Skuterud, E, Egelandsdal, B, Furnols, MFI, Nute, GR, Bejerholm, C, Nilsen, A, Stenstrom, YH, Hersleth, M 2010. The importance of the recruitment method for androstenone sensitivity with respect to accurate sensory evaluation of androstenone tainted meat. Food Quality and Preference 21, 648–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lundström, K, Matthews, KR, Haugen, JE 2009. Pig meat quality from entire males. Animal 3, 1497–1507.Google Scholar
Malmfors, B, Lundström, K 1983. Consumer reactions to boar meat – a review. Livestock Production Science 10, 187–196.Google Scholar
Matthews, KR, Homer, DB, Punter, P, Beague, MP, Gispert, M, Kempster, AJ, Agerhem, H, Claudi-Magnussen, C, Fischer, K, Siret, F, Leask, H, Furnols, MFI, Bonneau, M 2000. An international study on the importance of androstenone and skatole for boar taint: III. Consumer survey in seven European countries. Meat Science 54, 271–283.Google Scholar
Moss, BW, Hawe, SM, Walker, N 1993. Sensory thresholds for skatole and indole. In Measurement and prevention of boar taint in entire male pigs (ed. M Bonneau), pp. 63–68. INRA, Paris.Google Scholar
Patterson, P 1968. 5-androst-16-ene-3-one: compound responsible for boar taint fat. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 19, 31–37.Google Scholar
Pauly, C, Spring, P, O'Doherty, JV, Kragten, SA, Bee, G 2009. Growth performance, carcass characteristics and meat quality of group-penned surgically castrated, immunocastrated (Improvac (R)) and entire male pigs and individually penned entire male pigs. Animal 3, 1057–1066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pauly, C, Spring-Staehli, P, O'Doherty, JV, Kragten, SA, Dubois, S, Messadene, J, Bee, G 2010. The effects of method of castration, rearing condition and diet on sensory quality of pork assessed by a trained panel. Meat Science 86, 498–504.Google Scholar
Prusa, K, Nederveld, H, Runnels, PL, Li, R, King, VL, Crane, JP 2011. Prevalence and relationships of sensory taint, 5 alpha-androstenone and skatole in fat and lean tissue from the loin (Longissimus dorsi) of barrows, gilts, sows, and boars from selected abattoirs in the United States. Meat Science 88, 96–101.Google Scholar
Rius, MA, Hortos, M, Garcia-Regueiro, JA 2005. Influence of volatile compounds on the development of off-flavours in pig back fat samples classified with boar taint by a test panel. Meat Science 71, 595–602.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Verheyden, K, Noppe, H, Aluwé, M, Millet, S, Vanden Bussche, J, De Brabander, HF 2007. Development and validation of a method for simultaneous analysis of the boar taint compounds indole, skatole and androstenone in pig fat using liquid chromatography-multiple mass spectrometry. Journal of Chromatography A 1174, 132–137.Google Scholar
Whittington, FM, Zammerini, D, Nute, GR, Baker, A, Hughes, SI, Wood, JD 2011. Comparison of heating methods and the use of different tissues for sensory assessment of abnormal odours (boar taint) in pig meat. Meat Science 88, 249–255.Google Scholar
Wysocki, CJ, Beauchamp, GK 1984. Ability to smell androstenone is genetically determined. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 81, 4899–4902.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zamaratskaia, G 2004. Factors involved in the development of boar taint – influence of breed, age, diet and raising conditions. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
Zamaratskaia, G, Babol, J, Andersson, HK, Lundström, K 2004. Plasma skatole and androstenone levels in entire male pigs and relationship between boar taint compounds, sex steroids and thyroxine at various ages. Livestock Production Science 87, 91–98.Google Scholar