4.7 Article

Sire-feed interactions for fattening performance and meat quality traits in growing-finishing pigs under a conventional and an organic feeding regimen

Journal

MEAT SCIENCE
Volume 179, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2021.108555

Keywords

Organic pig production; Genotype-environment interactions; Sire lines; Protein sources; Feed efficiency; Lipid composition

Funding

  1. Swiss Federal Office for Agriculture (BLW) [627000764]
  2. Bio Suisse, the Umbrella Organization of Swiss Organic Producers

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Results from the two-factorial feeding trial showed that pigs fed with organic diet (ORG) had lower weight gain, poorer feed conversion, higher intramuscular fat content, and higher PUFA content in backfat compared to those fed with conventional diet (CON). No sire-feed interactions were found except for cook loss and dressing percentage.
In a two-factorial feeding trial 120 growing-finishing pigs from eleven sires were fed on an organic (ORG) or a conventional (CON) diet. Diet ORG contained mainly oil press cakes and legume grains as protein source containing higher protein and crude fiber content along with slight deficiencies of limiting amino acids. Pigs were allocated to treatments balanced according to litter, sex and initial weight. Feed was offered ad libitum. Feed consumption, weight gain as well as carcass, meat and fat quality traits were recorded. ORG fed animals had lower weight gain, poorer feed conversion, lower loin muscle area, higher intramuscular fat content, higher ultimate pH (loin, ham), and a higher PUFA content in backfat. Despite for cook loss and dressing percentage, no sire-feed interactions were found. This indicates no need for a performance test, specifically designed for organic production. However, weight of the breeding values for the various traits and selection criteria should be adapted to the needs of organic production.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available