Pig meat diversification through use of localpiggeneticresourcesand wild boar hybrids: Ouality, taste and consumer panel evaluation Dr. Violeta Razmaitė Institute of Animal Science of LVA Slide number 1
Meat quality concept Eating and technological quality Nutritional value Safety Diversity Slide number 2
Themostconsumedmeatin Lithuania 13% 5% 28% 54% Pork Poultry Beef Other Slide number 3
Osteological material from 13th- 14th centuries According to the collected osteological material from Lithuanian archeological monuments (different castle-hills) research data there was about 99% bones of domestic animals Vilnius lower castle (Royal residence)- 78% bones of domestic animals Slide number 4
Current use of wild boar meat There is a growing interest in the production and marketing of wild boar meat and in different countries farms have been established specifically for production of wild boar. The population of wild boar is limited and some meat may be derived from wild boar and domestic pig crosses. Slide number 5
Slide number 6
In situ conservation objective Maintaining critical breeds covers the main objectives of in situ conservation: Niche marketing Wider use Slide number 7
Use of local pig breeds The use of critical breed may be considerably increased if these pigs can be: Integrated into regional crossbreeding schemes Adapted to ecological production Adapted to production niches with design for specific quality product Slide number 8
Parents used for intercross Slide number 9
Newborn piglets Slide number 10
Carcass related traits LI 1/4WB 1/2WB Number of animals 22 34 21 Live weight, kg 90.9 88.8 91.1 Dressing percentage (without head, feet, tail),% 68.2 67.7 65.7* Carcass cooling loss, % 1.96 2.08 3.49* Backfat thickness at 10 rib 26.05 23.4 30.9 * Loin area, cm2 26.3 27.8 29.9 * Slide number 11
Chemical meat composition by genotype LIW 1/4 WB 1/2WB Dry matter 24.83 25.14 24.91 Fat 1.51 1.45 1.32 Protein 22.30 22.62 22.53 Ash 1.02 1.05 1.03 Slide number 12
Technological meat quality by genotype LIW 1/4 1/2 WB WB phld 5.47 5.53 5.46 Colour 55.7 74.7 65.0 Water holding 60.7 62.0 61.5 capacity, % Cooking loss, % 39.8 39.9 40.4 Slide number 13
Effects of genotype on fatty acid composition of intramuscular fat in M.longissimus dorsi LIB 1/4WB 1/2WB ΣSFA 38.3 38.15 37.56 ΣMUFA 55.1 51.55 49.72 ΣPUFA 6.7 9.83 12.14 PUFA/SFA ratio 0.17 0.26 0.32 Slide number 14
Rearing of male hybrids The rearing of domestic entire male pigs is avoided in most countries because of its association with boar taint. Castration of male piglets is a controversial issue within Europe, mainly from the perspective of animal welfare (EFSA, 2004). Lithuanian consumers have no traditions of entire boar meat usage Slide number 15
Male hybrids for slaughter Slide number 16
Carcass related traits by gender Entire boars Castrates Live weight, kg Dressing percentage,% Carcass cooling loss,% 10 rib Thinnest point of backfat, mm Loin area, cm2 89.4 65.1 3.94 23.8 20.7 31.5 90.0 67.7* 2.39* 28.7* 29.4* 26.1* Slide number 17
Chemical meat composition by gender Dry matter (%) Fat (% of dry matter) Protein (% of dry matter) Ash (% of dry matter) Entire boars 24.49 1.10 22.32 1.04 Castrates 25.40 1.59 22.76 1.03 Slide number 18
Technological meat quality by gender Entire boars Castrates phld Colour Water holding capacity LD, % Thawing loss SM, % Cooking loss LD, % 5.59 69.9 61.3 6.5 38.8 5.44 69.6 62.1 6.7 41.0 Slide number 19
Effect of gender on fatty acid composition of intramuscular fat in M.longissimus dorsi ΣSFA ΣMUFA ΣPUFA Entire boars 37.23 48.03 14.44 Castrates 38.34 52.79* 8.70* PUFA/SFA ratio 0.39 0.23* Slide number 20
Effect of gender on pounsaturated fatty acid composition in M.longissimus dorsi PUFA Entire boars Castrates C18:n-6 11.68 7.26* C18:3n-3 C20:2n-6 C20:3n-6 C20:4n-6 DPA C22:5n-3 DHA C22:6n-3 0.35 0.01 0.31 1.67 0.30 0.12 0.25* 0.00 0.23* 0.77* 0.15* 0.04 Slide number 21
Taste panel evaluation Cooked samples of M.longissimus dorsi and cold smoked samples of M.semimembranosus evaluated using subjective scoring scales (1=extremely bad to 9=extremely good) Taste panel comprised 9 individuals. A total 5 panel sessionswere convened with three to five samples being evaluated at each session. Slide number 22
Taste panel evaluation by gender for eating quality scores of fresh M. longissimus dorsi and backfat Tenderness Juiciness Flavour Odour Pork odour in backfat Entire boars 6.68 6.63 6.50 6.07 6.32 Castrates 6.21* 6.39 7.30* 7.39* 6.60 Slide number 23
Taste panel evaluation by gender for eating guality scores of cold smoked M.semimembranosus Entire boars Castrates Tenderness 7.40 7.06* Juiciness 7.55 7.02* Flavour 7.06 7.59* Odour 7.21 7.75* Slide number 24
Collection of consumer data The method of personal interviews. The consumers ate the meat as part of their ordinary meals. No instructions were given on meal preparation. The consumers were asked to evaluate the meat in terms of visual appearance, lean/fat ratio,odour and flavour (scoring scale: from 1 to 9). Also consumers were asked to explain the preferences of their choice of meat from entire boars or castrates, i.e. if their choice was influenced by lean/fat ratio, price or interest. Slide number 25
Studied factors for the consumer choice Lean:fat ratio - 41.7% Price 58.3% Interest 75% Slide number 26
The frequencies used in choice of joints For one of factors 25% For two of factors 66.7% For three of factors 8% Slide number 27
Consumer panel evaluation Entire boars Castrates Visual appearance Lean:fat ratio Odour Flavour 8.6 8.1 7.6 8.5 8.1* 6.1* 8.5* 8.9* Slide number 28
Consumers had a slightly stronger preference for the pork from castrates All consumers have found the pork from entire boars acceptable 83.3% of consumers would be willing to pay the same price for meat from entire boars compared to the price of meat from castrates Slide number 29
Thank you for your attention Slide number 30