Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:55:15.217Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of production system in local and conventional pig breeds on stress indicators at slaughter, muscle and meat traits and pork eating quality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 April 2015

B. Lebret ,
P. Ecolan ,
N. Bonhomme ,
K. Méteau  and
A. Prunier
B. Lebret*
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1348 PEGASE, F-35590 Saint-Gilles, France Agrocampus Ouest, UMR1348 PEGASE, F-35000 Rennes, France
P. Ecolan
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1348 PEGASE, F-35590 Saint-Gilles, France Agrocampus Ouest, UMR1348 PEGASE, F-35000 Rennes, France
N. Bonhomme
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1348 PEGASE, F-35590 Saint-Gilles, France Agrocampus Ouest, UMR1348 PEGASE, F-35000 Rennes, France
K. Méteau
Affiliation:
INRA, UE EASM, Le Magneraud, BP 52, F-17700 Surgères, France
A. Prunier
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1348 PEGASE, F-35590 Saint-Gilles, France Agrocampus Ouest, UMR1348 PEGASE, F-35000 Rennes, France
*
†E-mail: Benedicte.Lebret@rennes.inra.fr
Get access

Abstract

Sensory quality of pork is a complex phenotype determined by interactions between genetic and environmental factors. This study aimed at describing the respective influences of breed and production system on the development of pork quality. Plasma stress indicators and Longissimus muscle (LM) composition, physicochemical and sensory quality traits were determined in two contrasted breeds – the conventional Large White (LW, n=40) and the French local Basque (B, n=60). Pigs were reared in either a conventional (C; n=20 per breed), alternative (A; sawdust bedding and outdoor area, n=20 per breed) or extensive system (E; free-range, n=20 B). All the pigs from A and C systems were slaughtered at the same slaughterhouse, whereas B pigs from the E system were slaughtered at a local commercial abattoir. Major breed differences were found for almost all traits under study. LM from B pigs exhibited higher lipid, lower water and collagen concentrations, as well as lower collagen thermal solubility (P<0.001). Although plasma stress indicators at slaughter did not differ between breeds, except lower (P<0.05) lactate levels in B pigs, they exhibited higher LM pH1 and pHu values, and lower meat lightness, hue angle, water (drip, thawing and cooking) losses, glycolytic potential and shear force. Sensory analyses highlighted higher redness, marbling, tenderness, juiciness and flavour scores (P<0.01) of meat from B compared with LW pigs. Within both LW and B breeds, compared with C, the A system did not (P>0.05) influence plasma stress indicators, LM chemical composition and physicochemical or sensory traits of pork. In contrast, within the B pigs, the E system affected the meat quality more. Lower plasma cortisol levels (P<0.05), but higher plasma lactate, creatine kinase and lactate dehydrogenase activities, and more skin lesions (P<0.05), indicating higher muscular activity during pre-slaughter handling, were found in pigs produced in the E compared with the C system. E pigs exhibited higher meat pH1 and pHu values and shear force (P<0.01) and exhibited lower lightness, hue angle and drip and thawing losses (P<0.01) compared with the C pigs, whereas LM lipid, protein or collagen concentrations were not affected. Regarding sensory traits, the E system produced redder meat, but did not impact the eating quality of pork. Altogether, this study demonstrates that differences in meat quality between B and LW breeds can be modulated by extensive pig production system.

Keywords

pigsbreedproduction systemmuscle compositionmeat quality
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 9 , Issue 8 , August 2015 , pp. 1404 - 1413
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2015 

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

Alfonso, L, Mourot, J, Insausti, K, Mendizabal, JA and Arana, A 2005. Comparative description of growth, fat deposition, carcass and meat quality characteristics of Basque and Large White pigs. Animal Research 54, 33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, AJ and Light, ND 1989. Fibre formation and stabilisation of collagen. In Connective tissue in meat and meat products (ed. AJ Bailey and ND Light), pp. 74–96. Elsevier Applied Science, Barking, England.Google Scholar
Barton Gade, P 2008. Effect of rearing system and mixing at loading on transport and lairage behaviour and meat quality: comparison of outdoor and conventionally raised pigs. Animal 2, 902–911.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bee, G, Guex, G and Herzog, W 2004. Free range rearing of pigs during the winter. Adaptations in muscle fiber characteristics and effects on adipose tissue composition and meat quality traits. Journal of Animal Science 82, 1206–1218.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bee, G, Calderini, M, Biolley, C, Guex, G, Herzog, W and Lindemann, MD 2007. Changes in the histochemical properties and meat quality traits of porcine muscles during the growing-finishing period as affected by feed restriction, slaughter age, or slaughter weight. Journal of Animal Science 85, 1030–1045.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bonneau, M and Lebret, B 2010. Production systems and influence on eating quality of pork. Meat Science 84, 293–300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeVol, DL, McKeith, FK, Bechtel, PJ, Novakofski, FK, Shanks, RD and Carr, TR 1988. Variation in composition and palatability traits and relationships between muscle characteristics and palatability in a random sample of pork carcasses. Journal of Animal Science 66, 385–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandez, X, Meunier-Salaün, MC, Ecolan, P and Mormede, P 1995. Interactive effect of food deprivation and agonistic behavior on blood parameters and muscle glycogen in pigs. Physiology & Behavior 58, 337–345.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foury, A, Lebret, B, Chevillon, P, Vautier, A, Terlouw, C and Mormede, P 2011. Alternative rearing systems in pigs: consequences on stress indicators at slaughter and meat quality. Animal 5, 1620–1625.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geverink, NA, De Jong, IC, Lambooij, E, Blokhuis, HJ and Wiegant, VM 1999. Influence of housing conditions on responses of pigs to preslaughter treatment and consequences for meat quality. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 79, 285–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gondret, F, Combes, S, Lefaucheur, L and Lebret, B 2005. Effects of exercise during growth and alternative rearing systems on muscle fibers and collagen properties. Reproduction Nutrition Development 45, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Honikel, KO 1998. Reference methods for the assessment of physical characteristics of meat. Meat Science 49, 447–457.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huff-Lonergan, ET, Baas, J, Malek, M, Dekkers, JCM, Prusa, K and Rotschild, MF 2002. Correlations among selected quality pork traits. Journal of Animal Science 80, 617–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klont, RE, Hulsegge, B, Hoving-Bolink, AH, Gerritzen, MA, Kurt, E, Winkelman-Goedhart, HA, De Jong, IC and Kranen, RW 2001. Relationships between behavioral and meat quality characteristics of pigs raised under barren and enriched housing conditions. Journal of Animal Science 79, 2835–2843.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kristensen, L, Therkildsen, M, Aaslyng, MD, Oksbjerg, N and Ertbjerg, P 2004. Compensatory growth improves meat tenderness in gilts but not in barrows. Journal of Animal Science 82, 3617–3624.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Labroue, F, Goumy, S, Gruand, J, Mourot, J, Neelz, V and Legault, C 2000. Comparison with Large White of four local breeds of pigs for growth, carcass and meat quality traits. Journées de la Recherche Porcine 32, 403–411.Google Scholar
Lebret, B 2008. Effects of feeding and rearing systems on growth, carcass composition and meat quality in pigs. Animal 2, 1548–1558.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lebret, B 2009. Growth and tissue composition in growing pigs as influenced by feeding strategy: consequences on meat quality. Thesis, Agrocampus Ouest, Rennes, France, 116 pp.Google Scholar
Lebret, B, Heyer, A, Gondret, F and Louveau, I 2007. The response of various muscle types to a restriction – re-alimentation feeding strategy in growing pigs. Animal 1, 849–857.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lebret, B, Dourmad, JY, Mourot, J, Pollet, PY and Gondret, F 2014. Production performance, carcass composition and adipose tissue traits of heavy pigs: influence of breed and production system. Journal of Animal Science 92, 3543–3556.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lebret, B, Meunier-Salaün, MC, Foury, A, Mormède, P, Dransfield, E and Dourmad, JY 2006. Influence of rearing conditions on performance, behavioral, and physiological responses of pigs to preslaughter handling, carcass traits, and meat quality. Journal of Animal Science 84, 2436–2447.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lebret, B, Prunier, A, Bonhomme, N, Foury, A, Mormède, P and Dourmad, JY 2011. Physiological traits and meat quality of pigs as affected by genotype and housing system. Meat Science 88, 14–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maiorano, G, Gambacorta, M, Tavaniello, S, D’Andrea, M, Stefanon, B and Pilla, F 2013. Growth, carcass and meat quality of Casertana, Italian Large White and Duroc×(Landrace×Italian Large White) pigs reared outdoors. Italian Journal of Animal Science 12, 426–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayoral, AI, Dorado, M, Guillen, MT, Robina, A, Vivo, JM, Vazquez, C and Ruiz, J 1999. Development of meat and carcass quality characteristics in Iberian pigs reared outdoors. Meat Science 52, 315–324.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Millet, S, Moons, CPH, Van Oeckel, MJ and Janssens, GPJ 2005. Welfare, performance and meat quality of fattening pigs in alternative housing and management systems: a review. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 85, 709–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monin, G 1988. Evolution post-mortem du tissu musculaire et conséquences sur les qualités de la viande de porc. Journées de la Recherche Porcine en France 20, 201–214.Google Scholar
Patton, BS, Huff-Lonergan, E, Honeyman, MS, Crouse, JD, Kerr, BJ and Lonergan, SM 2008. Effects of deep-bedded finishing system on market pig performance, composition and pork quality. Animal 2, 459–470.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prunier, A, Mounier, AM and Hay, M 2005. Effects of castration, tooth resection, or tail docking on plasma metabolites and stress hormones in young pigs. Journal of Animal Science 83, 216–222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pugliese, C and Sirtori, F 2012. Quality of meat and meat products from southern European pig breeds. Meat Science 90, 511–518.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pugliese, C, Bozzi, R, Campodoni, G, Acciaioli, A, Franci, O and Gandini, G 2005. Performance of Cinta Senese pigs reared outdoors and indoors. 1. Meat and subcutaneous fat characteristics. Meat Science 69, 459–464.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scheffler, TL, Scheffler, JM, Kasten, SC, Sosnicki, AA and Gerrard, DE 2013. High glycolytic potential does not predict low ultimate pH in pork. Meat Science 95, 85–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terlouw, C, Berne, A and Astruc, C 2009. Effect of rearing and slaughter conditions on behaviour, physiology and meat quality of Large White and Duroc-sired pigs. Livestock Science 122, 199–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terlouw, EMC, Arnould, C, Auperin, B, Berri, C, Le Bihan-Duval, E, Deiss, V, Lefèvre, F, Lensink, BJ and Mounier, L 2008. Pre-slaughter conditions, animal stress and welfare: current status and possible future research. Animal 2, 1501–1517.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Warriss, PD 2000. Meat Science: an introductory text. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar