Printer Friendly

Meat quality of crossbred porkers without the gene [RYR1.sup.T] depending on slaughter weight.


One of the unsettling problems faced by the Polish and European meat industries is the high share of pig carcasses with symptoms of wateriness (Pospiech et al., 1998; Fischer 2007). For this reason, it is necessary to look for ways of decreasing the watery meat in pig carcasses. The genetic improvement of animals and the optimisation of environmental factors must be taken into account when working to improve meat quality (Eblis et al., 1999; Monin et al., 1999; Rosenvold and Andersen, 2003; Migdal et al., 2004; Kocwin-Podsiadla et al., 2006; Lyczynski et al., 2006; Borzuta et al., 2010; van Arendonk, 2011). The reports in scientific publications, however, are citing more and more frequent cases of lowered meat quality in animals without the [RYR1.sup.T] (ryanodine receptor gene) gene (Fabrega et al., 2002; Kortz et al., 2004; Florowski et al., 2007). At the same time, many authors are reporting that an increase in the live weight of porkers may be one of the factors which improve the quality of meat as well as limit the defects related to wateriness (Martin et al., 1980; Lee and Choi, 1999; Beattie et al., 1999; Kocwin-Podsiadla et al., 2002; Przybylski et al., 2005; Zybert et al., 2005; Correa et al., 2006; Strzelecki et al., 2007). This view, though, has not been confirmed by all research studies done in this area (Pospiech et al., 1983; Cisneros et al., 1996; Leach et al., 1996; Latorre et al., 2004; Barowicz et al., 2006).

The first aim of our study was to compare selected quality parameters for the meat of porkers without [RYR1.sup.T] and slaughtered at 100 to 115 kg and 116 to 130 kg live weight. The second aim was to determine the occurrence frequency of standard-quality meat (red, firm, nonexudative [RFN]) and defective meat (pale, soft, exudative [PSE] and acid, soft, exudative [ASE]).


The study was conducted on 114 porkers which were crossbred sows and boars of Camborough 22, lines 337PIC (Pig Improvement Company, Hendersonville, TN, USA) (C22 x PIC), N = 34; Norsvin Landrace (C22 x NL), N = 35 and Pietrain (C22 x Pi), and N = 45. In each group, there were similar numbers of barrows and gilts sired by three boars. All the animals were provided with identical environmental and nutritional conditions.

After fattening, the animals were subjected to starvation for 20 hours. Next the animals were transported in special vehicles to a large industrial slaughter house located 40 km away. The slaughtering was conducted in accordance with standard veterinary and technological regulations and took place after 2 hours of lairage. Porkers were stunned using electrical current. Manual Lotterschmidt Weinberger tongs were used. The porkers were bled in a horizontal position.

The porkers were weighed before being slaughtered. After slaughter, the ULTRA-FOM 300 apparatus was used to estimate meatiness in the longissimus lumborum (mll) muscle of the warm carcasses. The meat quality of the hanging carcasses was assessed in the mll, at the level of the last thoracic vertebra. The estimation of meat quality was based on the measurements of its pH ([pH.sub.45]. and [pH.sub.24h]), electrical conductivity ([EC.sub.90] and [EC.sub.24h]), lightness (L*), and thermal drip and water holding capacity. Meat pH, electrical conductivity, and lightness were determined using the Handylab 2 (Schott Gerate, Meinz, Germany) apparatus with a glass and calomel electrode, LF-STAR (Matthaus, Nobitz, Germany) apparatus, and Minolta 508i spectrophometer, respectively. Thermal drip was calculated as the difference in the meat sample weight before and after heating in a water bath at 85[degrees]C for 10 min.

Water holding capacity measured as free water content (%) was determined with Grau and Hamm's method (1952) modified by Pohija and Niinivaara (1957).

Meat quality was determined in accordance with the method described by Borzuta and Pospiech (1999), with particular focus on the following parameters:

RFN [pH.sub.45'] > 5.8; [EC.sub.90] <8 mS/cm; [EC.sub.24h] <8 mS/cm

PSE [pH.sub.45'] [less than or equal to] 5.8 ; [EC.sub.90'] [greater than or equal to] 8 mS/cm ; [EC.sub.24h] 8 [greater than or equal to] mS/cm

ASE [pH.sub.45'] > 5.8; [EC.sub.90'] <8 mS/cm; [EC.sub.24h] [greater than or equal to] 8 mS/cm.

Polymorphism in locus RYR1 was established using the PCR-RLFP (polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism) method (Fujii et al., 1991). The biological material comprised porcine blood. Isolation of DNA from blood leukocytes was based on methodology provided by Kawasaki (1990) and modified by Coppieters et al. (1992). An Engine MJ Research (PTC-200 Peltier Thermal Cycler, Ramsey, MN, USA) thermocycler was used to perform the PCR amplication.

For the purpose of the analyses, the crossbred porkers were divided into two weight groups: 100 to 115 kg (light porkers) and 116 to 130 kg (heavy porkers).

Statistical methods

The obtained results were statistically verified using the SAS v. 9.2 (2011) statistical package. Basic statistical parameters were determined with the MEANS-SAS v. 9.2. (2011) procedure.

In the first analysis (Tables 1, 2, and 3), the significance of the experimental factors (breed, sex, slaughter weight, warm carcass weight, post-slaughter meatiness) was determined with a multifactorial/multivariate analysis of covariance using the GLM-SAS v. 9.2. (2011) procedure, according to the following linear model:

[y.sub.ijkl] = [mu] + [g.sub.i] + [S.sub.j] + [sw.sub.k] + [[beta].sub.1][cw.sub.ijk] + [[beta].sub.2][mt.sub.ijk] + [e.sub.ijkl]

[y.sub.ijkl], value of the analysed trait;

[mu], total mean;

[g.sub.i], animal breed fixed effect (i = 1,2,3);

[S.sub.j], sex of the animal (j = 1,2);

[sw.sub.k], slaughter weight in the group (k = 1,2);

[[beta].sub.1][[beta].sub.2], partial regression coefficients;

[cw.sub.ijkl], weight of warm carcass;

[mt.sub.ijkl], post-slaughter carcass meatiness;

[e.sub.ijkl], random error;

In the second analysis (Table 4), breed groups were divided into two weight groups; the 100 kg to 115 kg slaughter weight group and the 116 kg to 130 kg group.

To thoroughly compare the means for a given item, a number of multiple comparisons were conducted using Duncan's new multiple range test and the T-test. Correlations between given factors (meat quality classes, genotype, pre-slaughter body weight) were determined using the contingency analysis procedure with Fisher's exact test and [V.sub.Cramer] coefficient (proc FREQ- SAS v. 9.2., 2011).


None of the examined porkers had the stress resistance gene ([RYR1.sup.T]). The evaluation of the significance of experimental factors on the analysed meat qualitative features was presented in Table 1. The evaluation showed that breed affects several of the qualitative parameters of meat but sex only affects carcass meatiness and the final pH value of meat. Among the three analysed animal breeds, the C22 x NL crossbred animals proved to have the highest [pH.sub.24], lowest L* value, and lowest free-water content (p [less than or equal to] 0.05; Table 2). The average weight of the slaughtered animals in the group of lighter porkers was 110 kg, while in the group of heavier porkers it was 122 kg. The same post-slaughter average meatiness of 56.5% was found in both groups. The analysis of the qualitative meat features, according to the weight group of the slaughtered animals, did not show any statistically significant differences (p > 0.05; Table 3). The obtained low [pH.sub.45]. values indicated the fast course of glycogenolysis. These values were much lower than in the studies of other researchers (Czyzak-Runowska et al., 2005; Grzeskowiak et al., 2009; Lyczynski et al., 2009; Edwards et al., 2010). In the slaughtered carcasses of porkers with higher body weights, we observed a tendency for lower free-water content, which was not statistically confirmed (p = 0.6051; Table 3). A higher free-water content was noticeable in the heavier carcasses of the C22 x PIC crossbred animals (37.01%) compared to the heavier carcasses of the C22 x NL crossbred animals (34.74%); (p [less than or equal to] 0.05; Table 4). As reported by Przybylski et al. (2012), a big drip loss significantly decreases the sensory value of meat.

The analysis of meat colour in our study showed that only the breed influenced meat lightness (L*), and this was seen in those porkers with a slaughter weight of 100 to 115 kg (p [less than or equal to] 0.05; Table 4). Slaughter weight did not affect L* values. Most authors report darker colour in heavier porkers compared to lighter porkers (Barowicz et al., 2006; Virgili et al., 2012).

The average values of all quality differentiators were within what is considered the normal meat category. Nonetheless, in our study, the qualitative analysis of the longissimus lumborum muscle of particular carcasses revealed the presence of defective meat. The defects in most cases were related to PSE meat but in some cases, acidic meat was observed. For that reason, further analyses included both defects (PSE and ASE). These two defects were then placed into one group--the defective meat group. Meat defects were observed in 20 carcasses, which means 17.54% of the investigated material.

Based on the distribution analysis of meat defects, a correlation was observed between the frequency of meat defects and the weight group of slaughtered animals within the entire analysed population (p [less than or equal to] 0.05; [V.sub.Cramera] = 0.25; Figure 1). The qualitative classification showed a meat defect frequency that was three times higher in the material obtained from carcasses of heavier porkers as opposed to the lighter ones, (respectively 8.47% and 27.27%). It can be assumed that slaughtered porkers of higher body weight are less resistant to the stress related to slaughtering, and in particular, to stunning. During stunning, the electric current parameters should be individually adjusted to the body weight of a given animal. The literature shows that an undeniably better meat quality is achieved when using the C[O.sub.2] stunning system than when electrical stunning is used, irrespective of the type of electrode applied, stun duration or level of current used (Velarde et al., 2000; Heather et al., 2003). Moreover, the design of slaughter handling systems and the slaughtering procedures can have an effect on the meat quality (Faucitano et al., 1998).

No significant influence of breeds (p > 0.05; Figure 2) and breed and slaughter-weight (p > 0.05; Figure 3) on the occurrence of meat defects was observed.

Pospiech et al. (1983) reached similar conclusions in their studies. They evaluated the quality of meat derived from pigs slaughtered at different body weights: 90, 100, 110, 120, and 130 kg. The mentioned authors discovered most meat defects in the groups of the lightest porkers slaughtered at the body weight of 90 kg as well as in the group of heavier ones slaughtered at 120 kg. According to these authors, the differences in metabolism may have been related to changes in the nutrition levels of the animals. Similarly, Cisneros et al. (1996) observed that meat quality decreased with the increase in slaughter weight, which was manifested in an increased thermal drip. In crossbred porkers derived from the mating of boars (Pietrain x Large White) and sows (Landrace x Large White), the increase in slaughter weight from 116 to 133 kg did not positively influence meat quality (Latorre et al., 2004). In the research conducted by Barowicz et al. (2006), the increase in the slaughter weight from 101 kg to 129 kg caused a significant darkening in the meat and the meat had a less pleasant scent. Numerous researchers report that heavier animals are characterised by better quality meat with fewer defects. These results were confirmed by the studies of Lyczynski et al. (2006a). They observed lower levels (17.1%) of defects in PSE and ASE meat. These levels were noted in heavier carcasses whose muscle tissue was characterised by a higher content of intramascular fat compared to lighter carcasses of lower intramascular fat content (25.7%). Similarly, the studies of Beattie et al. (1999) showed that meat quality can be improved when the carcass weight is from 70 to 100 kg. Also Correa et al. (2006) showed that porkers can be slaughtered at higher body weights of 107 to 125 kg without deterioration of carcass and meat quality. Also Strzelecki et al. (2007), in contrast to our study, showed that the slaughter weight of porkers at 133 kg, significantly improved the physicochemical and sensory parameters of meat and raw smoked tenderloin compared to porkers slaughtered at 114 kg.


Based on our research and the research of other authors, we can conclude that the elimination of the [RYR1.sup.T] gene in carcasses does not guarantee meat of good quality. It should be pointed out, that animals of high genetic potential must receive proper nutrition and care at all the production stages including breeding, fattening, handling before slaughter, slaughter, post-slaughter handling of carcasses, and meat distribution. In summary, the level of PSE and ASE meat with defects in the carcasses without the [RYR1.sup.T] gene, amounted to 17.54%. The conducted quality classification of longissimus lumborum muscle in different carcasses indicated that meat with defects occurs three times more often in the crossbred animals of higher body weight (116 to 130 kg) than in crossbred animals slaughtered at lower body weights (100 to 115 kg). Statistical analysis of meat quality parameters in different weight groups of the crossbred animals did not reveal any significant deterioration in quality. These results indicate the necessity of conducting individual quality evaluations of different carcasses.


van Arendonk, J. A. M. 2011. Opportunities for animal breeding to meet the challenges of the future. Nauka Przyr. Technol. 5, 3, #30.

Barowicz, T., M. Pietras, M. Pieszka, and W. Migdal. 2006. Evaluation of carcass and meat quality in Polish Landrace fatteners slaughtered at 128 kg live body weight. Anim. Sci. Pap. Rep. 24 (Suppl) 2:29-36.

Beattie, V. E., R. N. Weatherup, B. W. Moss, and N. Walker. 1999. The effect of increasing carcass weight of finishing boars and gilts on joint composition and meat quality. Meat Sci. 52:205-211.

Borzuta, K., D. Lisiak, A. Borys, J. Strzelecki, F. Magda, E. Grzeskowiak, and B. Lisiak. 2010. Study on the effect of lean meat content on commercial value of porcine carcasses (in Polish). Nauka Przyr. Technol. 4, 5, #54.

Borzuta, K. and E. Pospiech. 1999. Analysis of benefits related to the increase of porker meatiness and losses caused by meat quality deterioration (in Polish). Gosp. Mies. 9:36-40.

Coppieters, W., A. van Zeveren, A. van de Weghe, L. Peelman, and Y. Bouquet. 1992. Direct genotyping stress susceptibility and resistance in pigs by means of DNA test (in Dutch). Vlamms Diergeneeskunding Tijdschrift. 61:68-72.

Cisneros, F., M. Ellis, F. K. McKeith, J. McCaw, and R. L. Fernando. 1996. Influence of slaughter weight on growth and carcass characteristics, commercial cutting and curing yields, and meat quality of barrows and gilts from two genotypes. J. Anim. Sci. 74:925-933.

Correa, J. A., L. Faucitano, J. P. Laforest, J. Rivest, M. Marcoux, and C. Gariepy. 2006. Effects of slaughter weight on carcass composition and meat quality in pigs of two different growth rates. Meat Sci. 72:91-99.

Czyzak-Runowska, G, A. Lyczynski, E. Pospiech, E. Rzosinska, and M. Kocwin-Podsiadla. 2005. Rate of growth of porkers and selected fattening and slaughter traits and meat quality. Ann. Anim. Sci. 2:(Suppl):17-20.

Eblis M., F. K. McKeith, and K. D. Miller. 1999. The effects of genetic and nutritional factors on pork quality (A review). Asian Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 12:261-270.

Edwards, L. N., T. Grandin, T. E. Engle, M. J. Ritter, A. A. Sosnicki, B. A. Carlson, and D. B. Anderson. 2010. The effects of pre-slaughter pig management from the farm to the processing plant on pork quality. Meat Sci. 86:938-944.

Fabrega, E., X. Manteca, J. Font, M. Gispert, D. Carrion, A. Verlarde, J. L. Ruiz-Dela-Torre, and A. Diestyr. 2002. Effects of halothane gene and pre-slaughter treatment on meat quality and welfare from two pig crosses. Meat Sci. 62:463-472.

Fauciano, L., L. Marquardt, M. S. Oliveira, H. Sebastiany Coelho, and N. N. Terra. 1998. The effect of two handling and slaughter systems on skin damage, meat acidification and colour in pigs. Meat Sci. 50:13-19.

Fischer, K. 2007. Drip loss in pork: Influencing factors and relation to further meat quality traits. J. Anim. Breed. Genet. 124(Suppl):12-18.

Florowski, T., A. Pisula, and M. Kamyczek. 2007. Influence of high meatiness on pork quality from pigs free of RYR1T gene (in Polish). Med. Wet. 63:326-329.

Fujii, J., K. Otsu, F. Zorzato, S. De Leon, V. K. Khanna, J. E Weiler, P. O'Brien, and D. H. MacLennan. 1991. Identification of a mutation in porcine ryanodine receptor associated with malignant hyperthermia. Science 253:448-451.

Grau, R. and R. Hamm. 1952. A simple method for the determination of water absorption in the meat. (in German). Fleichwirtschaft 4:295-297.

Grzeskowiak, E., A. Borys, K. Borzuta, J. T. Buczynski, and D. Lisiak. 2009. Slaughter value, meat quality and backfat fatty acid profile in Zlotnicka White and Zlotnicka Spotted fatteners. Anim. Sci. Pap. Rep. 27:115-125.

Heather, A. Channon, A. M. Payne, and R. D. Warner. 2003. Effect of stun duration and current level applied during head to back and head only electrical stunning of pigs on pork quality compared with pigs stunned with CO2. Meat Sci. 65:1325-1333.

Kawasaki, E. S. 1990. Sample preparation from blood cells and other fluids. In: PCR Protocols: a Guide to Methods and Applications (Eds. M. A. Innis, D. H. Gelfand, J. J. Sninsky, and T. J. White). Academic Press, Orlando, FL, USA. 146-152.

Kocwin-Podsiadla, M., A. Zybert, E. Krzecio, K. Antosik, H. Sieczkowska, J. Kuryl, and A. Lyczynski. 2002. The influence of hot carcass weight on lean meat content and its technological usefulness in crossbreds of Danish landrace with Duroc. Ann. Anim. Sci. 2:319-324.

Kocwin-Podsiadla, M., E. Krzecio, and W. Przybylski. 2006. Pork quality and methods of its evaluation--A review. Pol. J. Food Nutr. Sci. 15/56:241-248.

Kortz, J., A. Rybarczyk, A. Pietruszka, R. Czarnecki, M. Jakubowska, and T. Karamucki. 2004. Effect of HAL genotype on normal and faulty meat frequency in hybrid fatteners. Pol. J. Food Nutr. Sci. 13/54:387-390.

Latorre, M. A., R. Lazaro, D. G Valencia, P. Medel, and G G Mateos. 2004. The effects of gender and slaughter weight on the growth performance, carcass traits, and meat quality characteristics of heavy pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 82:526-533.

Leach, L. M., M. Ellis, D. S. Sutton, F. K Mc Keith, and E. R. Wilson. 1996. The growth performance, carcass characteristics, and meat quality of halothane carrier and negative pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 74:934-943.

Lee, Y. B. and Y. I. Choi. 1999. PSE (pale, soft, exudative) Pork : The Causes and Solutions (A review). Asian Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 12:244-252.

Lyczynski, A., S. Wajda, G Czyzak-Runowska, E. Rzosinska, and B. Grzes. 2006. Effect on environmental condition on pork meat quality. Pol. J. Food Nutr. Sci. 15/56:109-116.

Lyczynski, A., E. Pospiech, E. Rzosinska, G Czyzak-Runowska, B. Grzes, B. Mikolajczak, and E. Iwanska. 2006a. Quality of porcine meat in relation to pig genotype and intramuscular fat content. Anim. Sci. Pap. Rep. 24(Suppl 2): 195-204.

Lyczynski, A., G Runowska, E. Pospiech, M. Kocwin-Podsiadla, J. Wojtczak, E. Rzosinska, B. Grzes, B. Mikolajczak, and E. Iwanska. 2009. Estimation of selected porcine meat quality indicators on the basis of electrical conductivity measured 24 hours post-slaughter. Anim. Sci. Pap. Rep. 27:51-58.

Martin, A. H., A. P. Sather, H. T. Fredeen, and R. W. Jolly. 1980. Alternative market weights for swine. II Carcass composition and meat quality. J. Anim. Sci. 50:699-705.

Migdal, W., P. Pasciak, A. Gardzinska, T. Barowicz, M. Pieszka, and D. Wojtysiak. 2004. The effect of genetic and environmental factors on the quality of pork (in Polish). Prace i Mater. Zoot. Special Issue. 15:103-117.

Monin, G, C. Larzul, P. Le Roy, J. Culioli, C. Touraille, and P. Sellier. 1999. Effect of halothane genotype and slaughter weight on texture of pork. J. Anim. Sci. 77:408-415

Pohia, N. S. and F. P. Ninivaara. 1957. The determination of water holding capacity of meat using constant pressure method. (in German). Fleischwirtschaft 9:193-195.

Pospiech, E., B. Dzierzynska-Cybulko, L. Gustowska, W. Maruniewicz, and W. Darul. 1983. The influence of slaughter weight of pigs on the meat quality (in German). Fleischwirtschaft 63:1072-1075.

Pospiech, E., K. Borzuta, A. Lyczynski, and W. Plokarz. 1998. Meat defects and their economic importance. Pol. J. Food Nutr. Sci. 7/48:7-20.

Przybylski, W., S. Niemyjski, E. Pospiech, E. Rzosinska, and G Czyzak-Runowska. 2005. Evaluation of possibilities production of heavy pigs with high percentage of meat in carcass originated from selected genetic group (in Polish). Roczniki Instytutu Przemyslu Miesnego i Tluszczowego Papers of the Meat and Fat Research Institute in Warsaw. 42/43:7-15.

Przybylski, W., D. Jaworska, K. Boruszewska, M. Borejko, and W. Podsiadly. 2012. Technological and sensory quality of defective pork meat (in Polish). Zywnosc. Nauka. Technologia. Jakosc--Food. Sci. Technol. Qual. 1:116-127.

Rosenvold, K. and H. J. Andersen. 2003. Factors of significance for pork quality--A review. Meat Sci. 64:219-237.

Strzelecki, J., E. Grzeskowiak, K. Borzuta, A. Borys, D. Lisiak, and P. Janiszewski. 2007. Weight impact of the PEN-AR-LAN line fatteners on the slaughter value and meat quality. Pol. J. Food Nutr. Sci. 57:511-515.

Velarde, A., M. Gispert, L. Faucitano, X. Manteca, and A. Diestre. 2000. The effect of stunning method on the incidence of PSE meat and haemorrhages in pork carcasses. Meat Sci. 55:309-314.

Virgili, R., M. Degni, C. Schivazappa, V. Faeti, E. Poletti, G Marchetto, M. T. Pacchioli, and A. Mordenti. 2003. Effect of age at slaughter on carcass traits and meat quality of Italian heavy pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 81:2448-2456.

Zybert, A., M. Kocwin-Podsiadla, E. Krz^cio, H. Sieczkowska, and K. Antosik. 2005. The gain and per cent content of primal cuts from the cutting of carcasses differentiated by hot carcass weight and leanness class according to the 'EUROP' carcass grading system (in Polish). Zywnosc. Nauka. Technologia. Jakosc--Food. Sci. Technol. Qual. 3:221-223.

Grazyna Czyzak-Runowska, Janusz Wojtczak, Andrzej Lyczynski, Jacek Wojtowski *, Maria Markiewicz-Keszycka (1), Daniel Stanislawski (2), and Marek Babicz (3)

Department of Small Mammalian Breeding and Raw Materials of Animal Origin, Faculty of Animal Breeding and Biology, Poznan University of Life Sciences, Suchy Las 62-002, Poland

* Corresponding Author: J. Wojtowski. Tel: +48-61-8125520, Fax: +48-61-8125520, E-mail:

(1) School of Agriculture and Food Science, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland.

(2) Computer Laboratory of Faculty of Animal Breeding and Biology, Poznan University of Life Sciences, Poznan 60-637, Poland.

(3) Department of Pig Breeding and Production Technology, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Lublin 20-950, Poland. Submitted Jul. 12, 2014; Revised Sept. 10, 2014; Accepted Oct. 14, 2014
Table 1. Evaluation of the influence of experimental factors on the
examined features

                             Fixed                 Regression
                             effects             effects [beta]

                   Breed   Sex   Slaughter   Hot carcass   Meatiness
                                  weight       weight

Slaughter           **     NS       --           **           NS
  weight (kg)
Hot carcass         **     NS       **           --           NS
  weight (kg)
Meatiness (%)       NS     **       NS           NS           --
[PH.sub.45']        NS     NS       NS           NS           NS
[pH.sub.24]          *      *       NS           **           NS
[EC.sub.90']        NS     NS       NS           NS           NS
[EC.sub.24h]        NS     NS       NS           NS           NS
Lightness (L*)      **     NS       NS           NS           NS
Cooking loss (%)    NS     NS       NS           NS           NS
WHC, free water     **     NS       NS           NS           NS
  content (%)

NS, not significantly; EC, electrical conductivity; WHC, water
holding capacity.

** Statistical significance at (p [less than or equal to] 0.01);
* Statistical significance at (p [less than or equal to] 0.05).

Table 2. Selected meat quality parameters depending on animal breed

Traits                                Breed

                          C22 x P            C22 x NL

                      Mean       SD       Mean       SD

Slaughter          118.69 (A)   8.13   115.97 (B)   7.15
  weight (kg)
Hot carcass        92.13 (A)    6.44   90.10 (B)    6.13
  weight (kg)
Meatiness (%)        56.98      3.66     56.97      2.52
[PH.sub.45']          6.09      0.26      6.19      0.31
[pH.sub.24]         5.54 (a)    0.04    5.57 (b)    0.08
[EC.sub.90']          5.24      2.50      4.68      2.41
[EC.sub.24h]          5.63      2.62      5.47      2.66
Lightness (L*)     56.99 (A)    3.23   54.85 (B)    1.96
Cooking loss (%)     27.20      1.65     27.09      2.38
WHC, free water    36.88 (A)    2.29   34.89 (B)    1.95
  content (%)

Traits                     Breed

                         C22 x Pi

                      Mean       SD

Slaughter          113.69 (c)   5.60
  weight (kg)
Hot carcass        88.11 (c)    4.82
  weight (kg)
Meatiness (%)        55.79      3.02
[PH.sub.45']          6.04      0.26
[pH.sub.24]          5.53a      0.08
[EC.sub.90']          4.77      2.32
[EC.sub.24h]          5.19      2.22
Lightness (L*)     57.40 (A)    2.79
Cooking loss (%)     27.64      1.86
WHC, free water    36.49 (A)    2.13
  content (%)

C22, Camborough; PIC, Line 337; NL, Norsvin Landrace; Pi, Pietrain;
SD, standard deviation; EC, electrical conductivity; WHC, water
holding capacity. (A-C) Statistical significance at (p [less than or
equal to] 0.01); (a-c) Statistical significance at (p [less than or
equal to] 0.05).

Table 3. Selected meat quality parameters depending on slaughter
weight of animals

Traits                     Slaughter weight (kg)

                       100 to 115          116 to 130

                      Mean        SD       Mean       SD

Slaughter           110.05 (A)   3.38   122.18 (B)   4.21
  weight (kg)
Hot carcass          85.43 (A)   3.27   94.77 (B)    4.06
  weight (kg)
Meatiness (%)        56.53       2.87     56.49      3.41
[PH.sub.45']          6.12       0.25      6.09      0.31
[pH.sub.24]           5.54       0.06      5.55      0.09
[EC.sub.90']          4.63       2.04      5.17      2.72
[EC.sub.24h]          5.22       2.28      5.61      2.66
Lightness (L*)       56.51       2.72     56.51      3.13
Cooking loss (%)     27.61       1.88     27.06      2.05
WHC, free water      36.19       2.25     36.05      2.30
  content (%)

SD, standard deviation; EC, electrical conductivity; WHC, water
holding capacity.

(A-C) Statistical significance at (p [less than or
equal to] 0.01).

Table 4. Selected meat quality parameters depending on breed and
slaughter weight (kg) of animals

Trait                   C22 x PIC           C22 x PIC

                       100 to 115          116 to 130

                      Mean       SD       Mean       SD

Slaughter            108.00     4.35     122.96     4.48
  weight (kg)
Hot carcass          84.30      3.85     95.26      4.18
  weight (kg)
Meatiness (%)        56.92      3.25     57.00      3.87
[PH.sub.45']          6.14      0.13      6.07      0.30
[pH.sub.24]           5.53      0.03      5.54      0.04
[EC.sub.90']          5.18      1.29      5.26      2.87
[EC.sub.24h]          4.63      1.41      6.04      2.90
Lightness (L*)     56.32 (ab)   2.73   57.24 (b)    3.41
Cooking loss (%)     26.89      1.40     27.32      1.75
WHC, free water    36.54 (AB)   2.47   37.01 (A)    2.27
  content (%)

Trait                    C22 x NL             C22 x NL

                        100 to 115           116 to 130

                      Mean        SD       Mean       SD

Slaughter            110.06      3.93     121.88     3.95
  weight (kg)
Hot carcass           85.40      3.69     94.81      4.10
  weight (kg)
Meatiness (%)         57.08      1.95     56.85      3.04
[PH.sub.45']          6.20       0.28      6.19      0.34
[pH.sub.24]           5.56       0.04      5.58      0.11
[EC.sub.90']          4.47       2.31      4.90      2.55
[EC.sub.24h]          5.67       2.89      5.28      2.48
Lightness (L*)       54.98a      1.94     54.71a     2.03
Cooking loss (%)      27.48      2.22     26.69      2.53
WHC, free water    35.03 (ABb)   1.84   34.74 (Bb)   2.11
  content (%)

Trait                    C22 x Pi            C22 x Pi

                        100 to 115          116 to 130

                      Mean        SD       Mean       SD

Slaughter            110.69      2.48     121.08     4.01
  weight (kg)
Hot carcass           85.81      2.86     93.79      3.89
  weight (kg)
Meatiness (%)         56.11      3.15     55.02      2.61
[PH.sub.45']          6.07       0.26      5.98      0.26
[pH.sub.24]           5.53       0.07      5.53      0.11
[EC.sub.90']          4.54       2.09      5.33      2.81
[EC.sub.24h]          5.18       2.15      5.24      2.48
Lightness (L*)       57.37b      2.78     57.49b     2.93
Cooking loss (%)      27.88      1.79     27.05      2.00
WHC, free water    36.71 (ABa)   2.23   35.93 (AB)   1.82
  content (%)

C22, Camborough; PIC, Line 337; NL, Norsvin Landrace; Pi, Pietrain;
SD, standard deviation; EC, electrical conductivity; WHC, water
holding capacity.

(A-C) Statistical significance at (p [less than or equal] 0.01);
(a-c) Statistical significance at (p [less than or equal] 0.05).

Figure 1. Frequency of occurrence of RFN meat and defective meat
(PSE and ASE) depending on slaughter weight of animals. RFN, red,
firm, non-exudative; PSE, pale, soft, exudative ; ASE, acid, soft,

[% of investigated animal material]

             RFN     DEFECTIVE

100-115 kg   91.53   8.47
116-130 kg   72.73   27.27

Note: table made from bar graph.

Figure 2. Frequency of occurrence of RFN meat and defective meat
(PSE and ASE) depending on the breed. RFN, red, firm, nonexudative;
PSE, pale, soft, exudative ; ASE, acid, soft, exudative.

[% of investigated animal material]

            RFN     DEFECTIVE

C22 x PIC   74.29   25.71
C22 x NL    85.29   14.71
C22 x Pi    86.67   15.33

Note: Table made from bar graph.

Figure 3. Frequency of occurrence of RFN meat and defective meat
(PSE and ASE) depending on breed and slaughter weight of animals.
RFN, red, firm, non-exudative; PSE, pale, soft, exudative ; ASE,
acid, soft, exudative.

[% of investigated animal material]

              NORMAL   DEFECTIVE

C22 x PIC

100-115 kg    100.00    0.00
116-130 kg     64.00   36.00

C22 x NL

100-115 kg     88.24   11.76
116-130 kg     82.35   17.65

C22 x Pi

100-115 kg     90.62    9.38
116-130 kg     76.92   23.08

Note: Table made from Bar graph.
COPYRIGHT 2015 Asian - Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2015 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Czyzak-Runowska, Grazyna; Wojtczak, Janusz; Lyczynski, Andrzej; Wojtowski, Jacek; Markiewicz-Keszyck
Publication:Asian - Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences
Article Type:Report
Date:Mar 1, 2015
Previous Article:Effect of dietary marine microalgae (Schizochytrium) powder on egg production, blood lipid profiles, egg quality, and fatty acid composition of egg...
Next Article:Evaluation of antimicrobial activities of sequential spray applications of decontamination treatments on chicken carcasses.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters