Pork Quality, Opportunities That Still Exist - Pork Matters

NEW TECHNOLOGIES ON VERTICAL PORK
PRODUCTION CHAIN
España, Octubre 2014
1
Presentation Title – 00/00/12 (Optional)
Back to the beginning...
The average pig delivered to the plant – what is it?
100
90
% of live weight
80
71%
70
60
50
48
40
23
30
20
12
8
10
5
0
Lean
Fat
Bones
Blood
Hide
Impact of new technologies on the pork
production chain
• Decrease variability
– piglets – growers –
finishers – carcasses – end
products.
• Enhance welfare
– disease free herds
• Genetic “protected” pigs
• Increase yields
– lower fabrication costs
• Plant automation
– Replaces labour
– More precise tasks
• Wholesomeness
– Meat produtcs being
perceived as healthy and
free of contaminants of
any kind
How to handle technological needs
• “New” techniques are offered
almost every day
– Housing, nutrition, health,
genetics, cleaning, casings,
ovens...
• There is no way to evaluate all
that all the time
• Breakthroughs are not frequent
and innovation is not always the
case
• Universities and Research
Institutes are precise, but costly
and time consuming
• In-company trials might be done
without specific controls and
technical expertise leading to
flimsy results
• In-company results are often
hidden or not disclosured
Improvest® Improvac® Vivax® Innosure® benefits
from nursery to packing
• Entire males are by far the most
efficient gender to produce,
mainly at heavy weights (125 –
135 kg)
• At this weight, “Boar taint” may
arise in up to 30 % of the
carcasses.
• Taint-free heavy pigs are desirable
in vertical production systems.
• As far as carcass quality is
concerned, there is an interaction
between immunocastration and
ractopamine
• Meta-analysis are avaiable
detailing the results of
immunocastration on pig
performance as well as on carcass
composition and quality.
– Batorek et al., 2012
– Pauly et al., 2012
– Dunshea et al., 2013
– Trefan et al., 2013
• Complex data analysis are
becoming crucial for the decision
makers.
EU Castrated pigs %
(Fredriksen et al., 2009)
Inmunocastration vs Entires
Inmunocastration vs surgical castrated
Inmunocastración - machos enteros
Inmunocastración - castración quirúrgica
Batorek et al., 2012
Benefits at Farm level
Tabla 1. Resumen del metanálisis (magnitud de efecto) comparativo de cerdos inmunocastrados
(IC) con cerdos castrados quirúrgicamente (SC) y enteros (EM).
Daily gain: Ganancia diaria; DFI: Consumo diario; FCR: IC
(Batorek et al., 2012)
Benefits at SH Level
Tabla 2. Efecto de la inmunocastración con factor liberador de gonadotropinas sobre las
características de la canal de cerdos sacrificados 4 y 6 semanas después de la segunda inyección.
Castración quirúrgica
Inmunocastración
BW: PC, HCW: PCC (peso de la canal en caliente); Loin depth: espesor lomo; Fat depth: espesor grasa; Estimated lean: magro estimado
(Boler et al., 2012)
Effects on Carcass composition
Tabla 5. Efecto de la inmunocastración con factor liberador de gonadotropinas sobre el peso en frío
de la semicanal derecha y el rendimiento en cortes de cerdos sacrificados 4 y 6 semanas después
de la segunda inyección
Castración
quirúrgica
Inmuno castración
Peso frío semicanal, Rendimiento cortes magro1, Rendimiento cortes canal2
1Rendimiento
2Rendimiento
cortes magro = [(jamón recortado + lomo recortado + cabeza de lomo + paleta picnic]/peso en frío semicanal izq. ] x 100
cortes canal = [(componente rendimiento cortes magro + vientre recortado)/peso en frío semicanal izq. ] x 100
(Boler et al., 2012)
(Alfonso et al., 2010)
Shoulder Weight(kg)
Ham Weight (kg)
Loin Weight(kg)
Carcass Weight (kg)
Same or different?
…and what is the industry looking for?
22%
19%
17%
25%
Misc.
17%
Lean yield
Cuts´ yield
Lean quality (WHC)
Fat quality (Melting point, Fatty acids)
(Carr, 2006)
Relative contribution of the principal cuts to
the total market carcass value
Year
Ham
Loin
Belly
Butt
Picnic
Spare-ribs
1999
21,97
38,62
13,61
9,41
6,92
6,59
2000
21,44
37,15
15,73
9,04
6,81
6,41
2001
21,52
35,65
15,36
9,54
7,45
6,99
2002
19,50
36,59
17,80
9,6
7,11
7,09
2003
19,63
34,18
19,65
8,55
7,24
6,77
Calculated as {[price of the cut ($CAN/kg) x weight of the cut (kg)]/the sum of the total values of the cuts ($CAN)} x
(Marcoux et al., 2007)
PORK QUALITY
Evaluation and adoption of new technologies
Challenging situation...
Pitfall in a 100% vertical production system
High added value Dry cured hams
pHu, color and WHC - Fat quality
Cellar trimmed (“Coppa”)
Re-Setting of the ripening times due to variation in pHu and WHC
Belly and bacon
Sliceability and yield
Fat quality - variation in UFA, IV and flop distance
Cook-in ham
color and WHC
Quality checks - Raw material for cooked and dry cured hams 2
pHu
Color meter
Color JPCS
Drip loss
Belly – “Flex test”
Quality criteria on Belly & Bacon
23
Falhas no pré-abate observadas no frigorífico
Genotip Molecular – Halotan (RYR1)
pH M. semimembranosus vs genótip halotan
NN
6,40
Nn
*
6,30
6,20
pH
6,10
6,00
*
5,90
*
5,80
*
5,70
5,60
5,50
1
2
3
4
24
Horas post-mortem
*P<0,05
(Kerth et al., 2001)
Japanese Color Standards
1
2
3
4
5
6
Pork Quality* vs Halotan genotips
Qualidade
pH 45
pHu
L*
a*
b*
PG%
NN
6,40 ± 0,06
5,63 ± 0,05
50,08 ± 0,72
7,50 ± 0,26
10,99 ± 0,40
3,77 ± 0,34
Nn
6,24 ± 0,06
5,59 ± 0,05
50,69 ± 0,70
7,67 ± 0,25
11,42 ± 0,4
4,12 ± 0,36
Diferença
- 2,56 %
- 0,71 %
+ 9,3 %
P
<0,01
<0,05
>0,10
>0,10
<0,01
>0,10
*Lomo
(Salmi et al., 2010)
Problemas de carne PSE en jamón vs frecuencia
de gen halotano en cinco frigorificos
14
5
% de severa PSE no pernil
12
R² = 0.8673
10
4
8
6
3
2
1
4
2
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Frequencia (%) do gene halotano nos suínos de abate
(Gispert et al., 2000)
Stunning System
31
PSE Pork -(NN e Nn)
(Velarde et al., 2001)
SH Colling
Systems and Time
33
Resfriamento das Carcaças - Temperatura
Jamon y lomo
(Kerth et al., 2001)
Frequência de PSE X Resfriamento X Gen Hal
Ham
Loin
(Kerth et al., 2001)
Más práticas:
Muchas gracias
José Vicente Peloso
Médico-Veterinário, M.Agr.Sc., D.Sc.
[email protected]
38

Download Report