Display options
Cite
Whitley N, Hanson D, Morrow W, et al. Comparison of pork quality and sensory characteristics for antibiotic free yorkshire crossbreds raised in hoop houses. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2012;25(11):1634-40doi: 10.5713/ajas.2012.12296.
Whitley, N., Hanson, D., Morrow, W., See, M. T., & Oh, S. H. (2012). Comparison of pork quality and sensory characteristics for antibiotic free yorkshire crossbreds raised in hoop houses. Asian-Australasian journal of animal sciences, 25(11), 1634-40. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2012.12296
Whitley, N, et al. "Comparison of pork quality and sensory characteristics for antibiotic free yorkshire crossbreds raised in hoop houses." Asian-Australasian journal of animal sciences vol. 25,11 (2012): 1634-40. doi: https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2012.12296
Whitley N, Hanson D, Morrow W, See MT, Oh SH. Comparison of pork quality and sensory characteristics for antibiotic free yorkshire crossbreds raised in hoop houses. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2012 Nov;25(11):1634-40. doi: 10.5713/ajas.2012.12296. PMID: 25049527; PMCID: PMC4093026.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2012 Nov;25(11):1634-40. doi: 10.5713/ajas.2012.12296.

Comparison of pork quality and sensory characteristics for antibiotic free yorkshire crossbreds raised in hoop houses.

Asian-Australasian journal of animal sciences

N Whitley, D Hanson, W Morrow, M T See, S-H Oh

Affiliations

  1. Department of Food Science, North Carolina State University, USA .
  2. Department of Animal Science, North Carolina State University, USA .

PMID: 25049527 PMCID: PMC4093026 DOI: 10.5713/ajas.2012.12296

Abstract

The objective of this study was to compare pork characteristics and to determine consumer acceptability of pork chops from antibiotic free Yorkshire crossbreds sired by Berkshire (BY), Large Black (LBY), Tamworth (TY) or Yorkshire (YY) boars and reared in hoop houses. The experiments were conducted at the North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University (NCA&TSU) Farm in Greensboro, NC and the Cherry Research Station Center for Environmental Farming Systems (CEFS) Alternative Swine Unit in Goldsboro, NC (source of antibiotic free Yorkshire sows used at both places). Twenty-four sows were artificially inseminated at each location in each of three trials. Litters were weaned at 4 wks old, and reared within deep-bedded outdoor hoop houses. To compare pork characteristics, 104 randomly selected animals were harvested at a USDA-inspected abattoir at approximately 200 d of age. Variables measured included pH, color score, L*, a*, b*, marbling score, drip loss, hot carcass weight, backfat thickness (BF), loin muscle area (LMA), and slice shear force. Sensory panel tests were also conducted at two time periods. The data was analyzed with GLM in SAS 9.01 including location, trial, and sire breed as fixed effects. Backfat thickness, LMA, color score and a* were different among breeding groups (p<0.05). The LBY pigs had thicker backfat and smaller LMA than the other breed types. The TY and YY had less backfat than all other breed groups. Color score was lower for YY than BY and LBY but intermediate for TY. The a* was lower for TY than other breeds except LBY which was intermediate. For one sensory panel test, YY pork was more preferred overall as well as for juiciness and texture compared to BY and LBY (p<0.05), but no impact of breed type was noted for the other test, with values similar for BY, LBY, TY and YY pork. This information may help small farmers make decisions about breed types to use for outdoor production.

Keywords: Antibiotic-Free; Crossbred; Outdoor; Pork; Yorkshire

References

  1. J Anim Sci. 2006 Sep;84(9):2436-47 - PubMed
  2. J Anim Sci. 2004 Jan;82(1):238-41 - PubMed
  3. Meat Sci. 2005 Mar;69(3):537-43 - PubMed
  4. J Anim Sci. 2003 Aug;81(8):1895-9 - PubMed
  5. J Anim Sci. 1992 Aug;70(8):2373-86 - PubMed
  6. Meat Sci. 2004 Jan;66(1):125-34 - PubMed
  7. J Anim Sci. 2003 Jul;81(7):1663-70 - PubMed
  8. Meat Sci. 2003 May;64(1):35-42 - PubMed
  9. Meat Sci. 2007 Dec;77(4):504-11 - PubMed
  10. Meat Sci. 2002 Jul;61(3):249-56 - PubMed
  11. Meat Sci. 1996 Sep;44(1-2):105-12 - PubMed
  12. J Anim Sci. 2002 Jul;80(7):1781-90 - PubMed
  13. J Anim Sci. 1999 Sep;77(9):2384-90 - PubMed
  14. J Anim Sci. 2004 Apr;82(4):1206-18 - PubMed

Publication Types