Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T15:29:50.509Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Potential for small-scale farmers to produce niche market pork using alternative diets, breeds and rearing environments: Observations from North Carolina

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2007

Chuck Talbott ,
Todd See ,
Mohammed Ahmedna ,
Herman Fennell ,
Greg Gunthorp  and
Paul Willis
Chuck Talbott*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, NC A&T SU, 101 Webb Hall, Greensboro, NC, 27411, USA.
Todd See
Affiliation:
NCSU, Campus, Box 7621, Raleigh, NC, 27695, USA.
Mohammed Ahmedna
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, NC A&T SU, 101 Webb Hall, Greensboro, NC, 27411, USA.
Herman Fennell
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, NC A&T SU, 101 Webb Hall, Greensboro, NC, 27411, USA.
Greg Gunthorp
Affiliation:
HayforHogs Farm, La Grange, Indiana, USA.
Paul Willis
Affiliation:
Niman Ranch Pork Co. Thornton, Iowa, USA.
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

With the extensive focus on lean conformation in the finished hog over the past 25 years, there is some indication that pork quality has suffered and taste has been bred out of today's pork. Similar to the Certified Angus Beef program (a breed noted for intramuscular fat), small-scale farmers can promote a different ‘upscale’ pork by using breeds that will focus on pork taste exclusively, and feeding diets (possibly apart from corn and soybeans) to enhance flavor. Two experiments were devised to examine the influence of breed, rearing environment and diet on fresh pork quality and flavor. In Trial 1, three sow breed groups (Tamworth, Tamworth×Landrace, or Hampshire×Landrace) were mated to Duroc boars. Littermates (91 pigs total) were assigned randomly at weaning to one of three treatments: (1) confinement, (2) dry-lot and (3) pasture. All pigs were full fed a 16% crude protein (CP) grow-finish ration. Pasture pigs were allowed access to plots consisting of predominately white and crimson clovers with warm-season grasses (Bermuda grass and crab grass). Hampshire crosses had higher Minolta L* scores, indicating a paler, less desirable loin. Pork quality was similar across rearing environments except for lower initial pH levels observed in the pasture system and higher drip-loss percentage recorded in both outdoor systems. In Trial 2, 42 Tamworth×Duroc littermates were randomly assigned to one of two rearing environments (confinement or pasture) at 55 kg and full fed a 14% CP diet. Pigs finishing on pasture had access to standing, mature barley. Pork from the pasture system was darker than that from pigs reared in confinement. No differences were observed in sensory evaluation of the pork for the rearing environments examined. For both trials, intramuscular fat levels (<2%) and visual color scores were too low to be considered for ‘upscale’ markets. Alternative diets to produce niche-market pork are unlikely to influence flavor without adequate levels of marbling.

Keywords

pork qualityalternative hog systemssustainable agricultureniche markets
Type
Research Article
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , September 2004 , pp. 135 - 140
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2004

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

1Behr, E. 1999. The Art of Eating, Vol. 51. The Lost Taste of Pork: Finding a Place for the Iowa Family Farm. Art of Eating Publishing Co., Peacham, VT.Google Scholar
2Porter, V. 1993. Pigs: A Handbook to the Breeds of the World. Comstock Publishing Association, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
3Suzuki, K., Shibita, T., Kadowaki, H., Abe, H. and Toyoshima, T. 2003. Meat quality comparison of Berkshire, Duroc and crossbred pigs sired by Berkshire and Duroc. Meat Science 64: 35–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Melton, S. 1990. Effects of feeds on flavor of red meat: A Review. Journal of Animal Science 68: 4421–4435.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Wasserman, A.E. and Spinelli, A.M. 1972. Effect of some water-soluble components on aroma of heated adipose tissue. Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry 20:171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Field, R.A., Williams, J.C., Ferrell, C.L., Crouse, J.D. and Kunsman, J.E. 1978. Dietary alteration of palatability and fatty acids in meat from light and heavy weight ram lambs. Journal of Animal Science 47:858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7Baas, T. and Mabry, J. (eds) 1999. The Impact of Genetics on Pork Quality NPPC, Des Moines, IA.Google Scholar
8De Vol, D.L., McKeith, F.K., Bechtel, P.J., Novakoski, J., Shanks, R.D. and Carr, T.R. 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 69(12): 4858–4865.Google Scholar
9Bass, T.J., Huff-Lonergan, E., Malek, M., Dekkers, J.C., Prusa, K. and Rothschilo, M.F. 2002. Correlations among pork quality traits. Journal of Animal Science 30: 133–139.Google Scholar
10Jeremiah, L.E. (ed.) 1999. Marbling and Tenderness. NPPC Fact sheet #NPB-04310. NPPC, Des Moines, IA.Google Scholar
11Lonergan, S.M., Huff-Lonergan, E., Rowe, L.J., Kuhlers, D.L. and Aungst, S.J. 2001. Selection for lean growth efficiency in Duroc pigs influences pork quality. Journal of Animal Science 79: 2075–2085.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12McGlone, J.J. 2001. Farm animal welfare in context of other society issues: toward sustainable systems. Livestock Production Science 72: 75–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13NPPC 2000. Pork Quality Standards. National Pork Producers Council, Des Moines, IA.Google Scholar
14Kauffman, R.G., Eikelenboom, G., and van der Wal, P.G. 1986. A comparison of methods to estimate water-holding capacity in post-rigor porcine muscle. Meat Science 18: 307–322.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15SAS Institute Inc. 1994. SAS/STAT User's Guide: Version 6. 4th ed.SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
16Hamilton, D.N., Ellis, M., Miller, K.D., McKeith, F.K. and Parrett, D.F. 2000. The effect of the Halothane and Rendement Napole genes on carcass and meat quality characteristics of pigs. Journal of Animal Science 78: 2862–2867.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17Moeller, S.J., Baas, T.J., Leeds, T.D., Emnett, R.S. and Irvin, K.M. 2003. Rendement Napole gene effects and a comparison of glycolytic potential and DNA genotyping for classification of Rendement Napole status in Hampshire-sired pigs. Journal of Animal Science 81: 402–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18LeRoy, P., Elsen, J.M., Caritez, J.C., Talmant, A., Join, H., Sellier, P., and Monin, G. 2000. Comparison between the three porcine RN genotypes for growth, carcass composition and meal quality traits. Genetic Selection and Evolution 32: 165–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19Warriss, P.D., Kestin, S.C. and Robinson, J.M. 1983. A note on the influence of rearing environment on meat quality in pigs. Meat Science 9: 271–279.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20Enfält, A.C., Lundstrom, K., Hansson, I., Lundheim, N. and Nystrom, P.E. 1997. Effects of outdoor rearing and sire breed (Duroc or Yorkshire) on carcass composition and sensory and technological meat quality. Meat Science 45: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21Gentry, J.G. 2001. Alternative and outdoor housing systems for pigs: effects on growth, meat quality, and muscle characteristics. PhD thesis, Texas Technical University. Lubbock, TX.Google Scholar
22van der Wal, P.G. 1991. Free range pigs: carcass characteristics and meat quality. Proceedings of the 35th International Congress of Meat Science and Technology, August 20–25, Copenhagen, Denmark. p. 202–205.Google Scholar
23Wigginton, E. 1968. The Foxfire Book Anchor Press, Garden City, NY.Google Scholar
24Morrison, F.B. 1949. Feeds and Feeding: A Handbook for the Student and Stockman 21st ed.The Morrison Publishing Co., Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar