Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T20:29:02.750Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The administration of sugar solutions to pigs immediately prior to slaughter 2. Effect on carcass yield, liver weight and muscle quality in commercial pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

T. H. Fernandes
Affiliation:
Faculty of Agriculture, The University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU
W. C. Smith
Affiliation:
Faculty of Agriculture, The University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU
M. Ellis
Affiliation:
Faculty of Agriculture, The University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU
J. B. K. Clark
Affiliation:
Faculty of Agriculture, The University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU
D. G. Armstrong
Affiliation:
Faculty of Agriculture, The University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU
Get access

Abstract

Three field trials were undertaken to determine the influence of feeding sugar solutions to pigs immediately prior to slaughter on carcass yield, liver weight and muscle quality. In the first, which involved 168 pigs of 85 to 95 kg live weight, provision of a glucose syrup solution in lairage (4 h) followed by water (12 h), compared with water-only (16 h) increased carcass yield (3%) and liver weight (27%) and reduced muscle ultimate pH (0·1 to 0·4 unit). When water was not made available after consumption of the sugar there was no response in carcass yield. In the second trial conducted with 169 pigs of 110 to 125 kg live weight, and involving the same treatments as in Trial I, except that sugar was provided for a longer period (6 h), corresponding responses in carcass yield, liver weight and muscle ultimate pH were +2·7%, +24% and a decrease of 0·2 to 0·3 units. In both trials responses to sugar feeding were less when compared with pigs slaughtered shortly after arrival at the abattoir. In the final trial, which also involved heavy pigs (88), access to a glucose syrup solution (9 h), but not a sucrose one, followed by water (8 h), relative to water-only in lairage, improved carcass yield (1·1%). Liver weight was increased with glucose (34·2%) and markedly so with sucrose (49·7%) and both sugars reduced muscle ultimate pH (0·1 to 0·6 units).

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1979

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

REFERENCES

Casteels, M. and Eeckhout, W. 1977. [Influence de l'administration de sucre sur la qualite de la viande de pores de boucherie.] Revue agric, Brux. 45: 907919.Google Scholar
Clark, J. B. K. 1973. The effect of pre-slaughter influences on quality. Proc. Inst. Fd Sci. Technol. 6: 136144.Google Scholar
Fernandes, T. H., Smith, W. C. and Armstrong, D. G. 1979. The administration of sugar solutions to pigs immediately prior to slaughter. 1. Effect on carcass yield and some muscle and liver characteristics. Anim. Prod. 29: 213221.Google Scholar
Gallwey, W. T., Tarrant, P. V. and McMahon, P. 1977. Pigmeat quality and yield in relation to pre-slaughter sugar feeding. Ir. J. Fd Sci. Technol. 1: 7177.Google Scholar
Gibbons, N. E. and Rose, D. 1950. Effect of ante-mortem treatment of pigs on the quality of Wiltshire bacon. Can. J. Res. 28F: 438450.Google Scholar
Heck, M. C. 1956. Effect of feeding dark brown sugar prior to slaughter on pork. J. Anim. Sci. 15: 12661267 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Madsen, J. 1942. [Undersøgelser af svinekødets holdbarhed efter forskellig Fodring 11.] Beretn. K. Vet.-og Landbohøgsk.Google Scholar
Wilcox, E. B., Merkley, M. B., Galloway, L. S., Greenwood, D. A., Binns, W., Bennett, J. A. and Harris, L. E. 1953. The effect of feeding sucrose to beef cattle and swine on the dressing percentage and quality of meat. J. Anim. Sci. 12: 2432.Google Scholar
Wismer-Pedersen, J. 1959. Some observations on the quality of cured bacon in relation to ante-mortem treatment. I. Results of a sugar feeding experiment. Acta. Agric. scand. 9: 6990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar