Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T18:17:30.518Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sire breed comparisons for meat and eating quality traits in Australian pig populations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2008

K. L. Bunter ,
C. Bennett ,
B. G. Luxford  and
H.-U. Graser
K. L. Bunter*
Affiliation:
Animal Genetics and Breeding Unit, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, 2351, Australia
C. Bennett
Affiliation:
QAF Meat Industries Pty Limited, Redlands Road, Corowa, NSW, 2646, Australia
B. G. Luxford
Affiliation:
QAF Meat Industries Pty Limited, Redlands Road, Corowa, NSW, 2646, Australia
H.-U. Graser
Affiliation:
Animal Genetics and Breeding Unit, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, 2351, Australia
*
E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Sire breed comparisons for carcase (n = 1169), meat and eating quality (n = 686) traits were obtained using data recorded on progeny of known pedigree sired by Duroc (DU), Large White (LW), Landrace (LR) and Duroc Synthetic (DS) boars from crossbred (LW/LR) sows. Animals were reared in eco-shelters in large single-sex contemporary groups and slaughtered on an age constant basis at 22 weeks of age. Compared to progeny from other sire groups, animals sired by purebred Duroc boars tended to have improved eating quality traits (higher intramuscular fat and lower shear force) at the expense of poorer carcase characteristics (higher subcutaneous and belly fat). Animals sired by DS boars tended to be heavier and leaner than those sired by LW, LR or DU boars; intramuscular fat but not belly fat was correspondingly lower, while tenderness was generally consistent with that of the DU progeny. Significant variability of sire progeny groups within sire breed suggests that sire breed selection, potentially used for improving traits such as meat quality in commercial progeny, will be less accurate in the absence of sire-specific information, which is typically poorly recorded in this class of traits.

Keywords

tendernesscooking lossintramuscular fatpHcolourbelly traits
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 2 , Issue 8 , August 2008 , pp. 1168 - 1177
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

Baulain, U, Henne, H 1999. Variation of lean content in pig bellies of dam lines. Archives of Animal Breeding 42, 593–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanchard, PJ, Ellis, M, Warkup, CC, Hardy, B, Chadwick, JP, Deans, GA 1999a. The influence of rate of lean and fat tissue development on pork eating quality. Animal Science 68, 477–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanchard, PJ, Ellis, M, Warkup, CC, Chadwick, JP, Willis, MB 1999b. The influence of sex (boars and gilts) on growth, carcass and pork eating quality characteristics. Animal Science 68, 487–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanchard, PJ, Warkup, CC, Ellis, M, Willis, MB, Avery, P 1999c. The influence of proportion of Duroc genes on growth, carcass and pork eating quality characteristics. Animal Science 68, 495–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Channon, HA, Pengelly, AM, Warner, RD 1997. Effect of halothane genotype, pre-slaughter handling and stunning method on meat quality of pigs. In Manipulating Pig Production VI (ed. PD Cranwell), p. 126. Australasian Pig Science Association, Werribee, VIC, Australia.Google Scholar
D’Souza, DN, Mullan, BP 2003. The effect of genotype and castration method on the eating quality characteristics of pork from male pigs. Animal Science 77, 67–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, ML, Gonzales, SE 1992. Soxtec fat analyser for determination of total fat in meat: collaborative study. Journal of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists (JAOAC) 75, 288–292.Google Scholar
Hermesch, S, O’Shea, JO, Grigg, H 2004. Characterisation and improvement of belly composition. Project report for APL1637. Animal Genetics and Breeding Unit, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, 2351, Australia.Google Scholar
Jennings D, Knipe R, and Backes G 2005. Sourcing high quality pork: the retailers guide. Pork Fact Sheet, Initiative for the Development of Entrepreneurs in Agriculture (IDEA), University of Illinois Extension. Retrieved June 2005 from http://web.extension.uiuc.eduGoogle Scholar
Johnson, RK, Goodwin, R 1995. National Genetic Evaluation Program. National Hog Farmer, Special report June 1, 1995. Intertec Publishing Corporation, Overland Park, KS, USA.Google Scholar
Litten, JC, Corson, AM, Hall, AD, Clarke, L 2004. The relationship between growth performance, feed intake, endocrine profile and carcass quality of different maternal and paternal lines of pigs. Livestock Production Science 89, 33–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKenna, DR, King, DA, Savell, JW 2003. Comparison of clam-shell cookers and electric broilers and their effects on cooking traits and repeatability of Warner-Bratzler shear force values. Meat Science 66, 225–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MLC 1989. Stotfold Pig Development Unit. First Trial Results. Meat and Livestock Commission, Milton Keynes, UK.Google Scholar
O’Connell, N 2005. Reducing variability in weight of pigs. Pig Progress 21 2, 26–27.Google Scholar
Pigstats 2002 2003. Australian Pig Industry Handbook. Australian Pork Limited, Canberra, AU.Google Scholar
SAS Institute Inc. 1999. Online documentation. SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC, USA. Retrieved February 2006 from http://v8doc.sas.com/sashtml/Google Scholar
Shaw, TS, Rossetto, JF, Grigg, HC 2003. Belly fat determination using digital analysis. In Manipulating Pig Production IX (ed. JE Paterson), p. 22. Australasian Pig Science Association, Werribee, VIC, Australia.Google Scholar