Diss. ETH No A dissertation submitted to the SWISS FEDERAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ZÜRICH for the degree of Doctor of Science ETH Zürich - PDF

Diss. ETH No Influence of alternative semi-outdoor housing systems in comparison with the conventional indoor housing on carcass composition and meat and fat quality of finishing pigs. A dissertation

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 78
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.


Publish on:

Views: 31 | Pages: 78

Extension: PDF | Download: 0

Diss. ETH No Influence of alternative semi-outdoor housing systems in comparison with the conventional indoor housing on carcass composition and meat and fat quality of finishing pigs. A dissertation submitted to the SWISS FEDERAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ZÜRICH for the degree of Doctor of Science ETH Zürich presented by HANS ULRICH BÄRLOCHER Dipl. Ing. Agr. ETH, distinction Animal Science Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zürich born September 15, 1960 citizen of St. Gallen, Switzerland accepted on the recommendation of Prof. Dr. C. Wenk, examiner Dr. M. R. L. Scheeder, co-examiner Prof. Dr. J. E. Pettigrew, co-examiner Dr. S. L. Rodriguez-Zas, co-examiner Zürich 2005 In Dankbarkeit für meinen Vater Hans Beat Bärlocher 1921 bis 2004 Acknowledgements The success of this dissertation (March 2000 to June 2005) was based on the participation of several companies and institutions and many people. Each contribution and help, no matter how large or small, was at its moment a piece of the puzzle of the larger work. I would like to say THANK YOU to all of you. Particularly I must address my thanks to: All the farmers who participated and provided their data, which represent the basis for this Ph.D. thesis. BVET 1 (Bern), who funded the project and approved funds for a three-month extension (project number ). Prof. Dr. Caspar Wenk, ETH 2 (Zürich), who took over the project on his competence, including providing the contact to slaughterhouses and other companies. Through his connections, I was able to make a stay in the U.S.A. Prof. Dr. Walter Meier, former director of Agroscope FAT 3 -Tänikon (Ettenhausen), who hosted the project at the FAT. He made possible a stay in the USA and funded a sixmonth extension. Dr. Ruth Badertscher, Agroscope FAT-Tänikon (Ettenhausen), head of the overall project: Overall Assessment of Selected Housing Systems of Dairy Cows and Fattening Pigs, No ; she was in charge of the planning and organisation and managed the present subproject until her leave in June She offered her technical support in the office and went to the ph measurements in the slaughterhouses, when needed. Dr. Martin R. L. Scheeder, ETH (Zürich), who advised me in technical and theoretical matters (interpretations, text, etc.) throughout the study, carried out the gas-chromatographic analyses of back fat samples, and for his engagement as the first co-examiner. Prof. Dr. James E. Pettigrew, University of Illinois at Champaign (USA), who hosted me in his lab for four months (April July 2002), and for his engagement as a co-examiner Dr. Sandra Rodriguez-Zas (Associate Professor at the University of Illinois) for her statistical support, and for her engagement as a co-examiner. Dr. Reto Schnider, Agroscope FAT-Tänikon (Ettenhausen), who managed the farm visits including the questionnaires, the feed samples, and the temperature loggers, and who provided much other information in the scope of his veterinarian Ph.D. thesis. He also went to the slaughterhouse for ph measurements, when needed. Dr. Stephan Pfefferli, Agroscope FAT-Tänikon (Ettenhausen), who took over the responsibility for the project and was the contact person after Ruth s leave. Dr. Hans Rudolf Roth, Statistical Seminar ETH (Zürich), who supported me in statistical and SAS aspects. 1 BVET: Bundesamt für Veterinärwesen (Swiss Federal Veterinary Office) 2 ETH: Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) 3 FAT: Eidgenössische Forschungsanstalt für Agrarwirtschaft und Landtechnik (Swiss Federal Re search Station for Agricultural Economics and Engineering) Prof. Dr. Karl-Otto Honikel, Director of Bundesforschungsanstalt für Ernährung und Lebensmittel/Federal Research Centre for Nutrition and Food (Kulmbach, Germany), who gave me advices regarding aspects of ph data (interpretation, extrapolation, etc.). Heinrich Hauswirth and Peter Stoll, of Agroscope Liebefeld-Posieux (Posieux), who were in charge of the feed sample analyses, and controlled the analyses results. Dr. Daniel Schwörer, and Dr. Andreas Hofer SUISAG (Sempach), who gave me theoretical support in ph reading and information about the Swiss pig population. The staff of Agroscope FAT (Tänikon-Ettenhausen) for their support during my nearly five years there. The staffs of animal marketing companies Anicom (Seuzach) and Prosus (Weinfelden), who provided the addresses of the majority of the farmers. They were the link between farmers and the office and informed us about slaughtering dates and times for pigs designated for the study; also to their truck drivers, who filled out and brought the questionnaires from the farmers at the deliveries, and the office staff who provided data about breeds according to the reading of ear tags after slaughtering. Further animal marketing companies that provided farmers addresses: IPS Kuvag and IGA (both at Sursee) and others. The staff of slaughterhouses SBA AG and Bell AG (Basel), and Micarna (Bazenheid) for the possibility of reading ear tags and measuring ph during the slaughtering process and in the chillers. They made possible the physical distinguishing of study- market groups by tattooing them differently and provided the data of weight and fat-free lean of the carcasses. The laboratory staff of the slaughterhouses who left us the processed back fat samples after analysing them for their own purposes and allowing us to use the fat scores. The perfect collaboration facilitated my job to a great extent (lists and labeling of samples, etc.) Willi Wirz, Wintion AG (Mühledorf), for the technical support regarding ph measurements (calibration solution and free electrode use). The Stipendienamt of the ETH for a grant in 2005. Table of Contents I. Table of Contents I. Table of Contents...I II. List of Tables...IV III. List of Figures...V IV. List of Appendix... VI V. Abbreviations... VII 1. Summaries Summary Zusammenfassung Résumé Introduction and research issues Literature review Fat score Fat score in Switzerland Unsaturated fatty acids in the diet and the adipose tissue Optimal ambient temperature ranges for fattening pigs Ambient temperature below the lower critical temperature Ambient temperature above the upper critical temperature Fat-free lean proportion PH postmortem PH course PH and fasting time PH and handling before slaughtering PH in relation with housing system Breed aspects and ph Material and methods Housing and feeding systems, diet sampling Number of farms, market groups and pigs Fat score Fat-free lean proportion PH of M.l.d Proportion of breeds Ambient temperature and season About data recording Slaughtering and data collecting Calibration of ph device and ph recording...33 I Table of Contents Plausibility of ph records and ph-45 min adjustment Statistical methodology Class effects Fixed effects Random effect (farm) Covariates Model fat score Model fat-free lean Model ph of M.l.d Configuration of the linear mixed effects model Fat score Fat-free lean PH of M.l.d Interactions Interactions among fixed effects Interactions between fixed effects and covariates (fat score) Interactions between fixed effects and covariates (fat-free lean) Interactions between fixed effects and covariates (ph) Results and discussion Results fat score Descriptive statistics Results (fat score) Residual analysis, model fit, F- and P-values Housing and season effects Temperature effect Discussion (fat score) Season and housing effects Temperature effect Results fat-free lean proportion Descriptive statistics Results (fat-free lean) Residual analysis, model fit, F- and P-values Housing effect Temperature effect Discussion (fat-free lean) Housing effect Temperature effect...72 II Table of Contents 5.3. Results ph of M.l.d Descriptive statistics Covariates (fasting-, transport- and lairage time) Response variable ph PH among breeds, PSE- and DFD-meat frequency Results (ph) Residual analysis, model fit, F- and P-values Housing effect Discussion (ph) Descriptive statistics Housing effect Conclusions References Appendix III List of Tables II. List of Tables Table 1: Number of farms and market groups (fat score)...27 Table 2: Number of farms, market groups and pigs (fat-free lean)...29 Table 3: Number of farms, market groups and pigs (ph)...30 Table 4: Proportion of breeds...31 Table 5: Approach of the ph adjustment from 45 to 35 min p.m. in slaughterhouse Table 6: Overview of model effects (fat score, fat-free lean, and ph)...40 Table 7: Model designation (fat score and fat-free lean)...41 Table 8: Descriptive results (fat score)...47 Table 9: F- and P-values of model effects (fat score)...50 Table 10: Variance of the random effect farm and the residual (fat score)...51 Table 11: LS-Means of housing and season comparisons (fat score)...52 Table 12: Descriptive results (fat-free lean)...60 Table 13: F- and P-values of model effects (fat-free lean)...66 Table 14: Variance of the random effect farm and the residual (fat-free lean)...67 Table 15: LS-Means of housing comparisons (fat-free lean)...68 Table 16: Descriptive results (ph)...77 Table 17: Quantiles and differences of ph records between the slaughterhouses...79 Table 18: PH averages of breeds and PSE-meat proportions...80 Table 19: F- and P-values of model effects (ph)...83 Table 20: Variance of the random effect farm and the residual (ph)...84 Table 21: LS-Means of housing comparisons (ph)...86 IV List of Figures III. List of Figures Fig. 1: Fig. 2: Development of alternative housing systems (proportions of pigs and farms)...13 Conceptual relationship of protein accretion rate to energy intake...20 Fig. 3: Scheme of the study design...36 Fig. 4: QQ- and normal distribution plot of residuals (fat score)...48 Fig. 5: Residual- and correlation plot of predicted v. observed (fat score)...49 Fig. 6: Fig. 7: Regression curves of the variables fat score and ambient temperature...53 Regression curves of the variables oleic acid in back fat and ambient temperature...58 Fig. 8: Regression curves of the variables oleic acid in back fat and fat-free lean...59 Fig. 9: Fig. 10: Fig. 11: Approximate weight of piglets within farms at starting...62 QQ- and normal distribution plot of residuals (fat-free lean)...64 Residual- and correlation plot of predicted v. observed values (fat-free lean)...65 Fig. 12: Regression curves of the variables fat-free lean and ambient temperature...69 Fig. 13: Fig. 14: Fig. 15: Fasting, transport and lairage time (ph), column diagrams...75 Density diagrams of ph records between slaughterhouses...78 QQ- and normal distribution plots of residuals (ph)...81 Fig. 16: Residual- and correlation plot of predicted v. observed values (ph)...82 Fig. 17: Last feeding- before delivery and total fasting time (ph), column diagrams...90 V List of Appendix IV. List of Appendix App. I: Detailed feed variables (Weender analysis) App. II: Descriptive results of dietary oleic acid (18:1) App. III: Differences of dietary PUFA and 18:1 between season, housing-, and feeding systems App. IV: LS-Means and comparisons of the 18:1 model App. V: Descriptive results of fasting, transport and lairage time (ph) App. VI: App. VII: PH-values observed in slaughterhouse, season, feeding and housing system Distribution diagrams of ph-2 h p.m. between housings and slaughterhouses App. VIII: Individual courses of 25 highest ph-ultimate records VI Abbreviations V. Abbreviations ad lib ad libitum feeding regime ALT alternative housing system ALT Complete-Feed ALT Whey-Feed am AutoFOM Avg BW alternative housing and complete feeding systems alternative housing and whey feeding systems ante meridiem (time of day) fully automatic ultrasonic carcass grading system average (in some tables) body weight (for carcass weight see weight ) 18:1 oleic acid, in this context the cis n-9 oleic acid 18:2 linoleic acid 18:3 linolenic acid Comp. comparison (of housing systems or season)(in some tables) CON conventional housing system CON Complete-Feed CON Whey-Feed CT low CT upper CV, cv DE DFD DM Duca FOM fs F h hs LR ls-means LW LWxLR conventional housing and complete feeding systems conventional housing and whey feeding systems lower critical temperature upper critical temperature coefficient of variance digestible energy dark, firm, and dry meat dry matter sire line of Piétrain ( ) and Duroc ( ) breed in Switzerland Fat-O-Meater ( Meater for meat and meter ), manual carcass grading with FOM-device feeding system F-values of model effects hour(s) housing system Swiss Landrace breed least square means (Mittelwerte der kleinsten Quadrate) Swiss Large White breed crossing of Swiss Large White and Swiss Landrace breed M. Musculus (muscle) Max maximum (upper case) MH malignant hyperthermia VII Abbreviations M.l.d. Musculus longissimus dorsi Min minimum (upper case) min minute (lower case) MJ mega joule MUFA monounsaturated fatty acids n number (in tables and captions) N_Resid normal distribution of residuals (in residual distribution plots) p.m. postmortem ph-35 min ph at 35 minutes postmortem/p.m. (also early p.m. ph) ph-2 h ph at 2 hours postmortem/p.m. (also early p.m. ph) ph-24 h ph at 24 hours postmortem/p.m. (also ultimate ph, ph-ultimate) pm post meridiem (time of day) Obs. observed value(s) (in tables) P Probability of error (significance level) Pred predicted/estimated value (in predicted-observed plots) PSE pale, soft, and exudative meat PUFA polyunsaturated fatty acids Q1, Q3 first (25 %), third quartile (75 %) QQ-plot quantile-quantile plot (of residuals) REML Restricted Maximum Likelihood method Resid residual (only in residual distribution plots) SD, sd standard deviation SE standard error sl slaughterhouse (in tables sometimes sl house) SM Semimembranosus muscle sn season T, (T a ) ambient temperature UFA unsaturated fatty acids Sub-model-ALT model including only alternative farms Sub-model-CON model including only conventional farms W carcass weight hot in kg *, interaction; example: season*housing system (sn*hs, also sn hs ) Ø; ; Σ arithmetic average; difference (delta); sum VIII Summary 1. Summaries 1.1. Summary General aspects A survey was carried out during the years 2000 to 2001 in Switzerland to investigate the influence of two housing systems, the conventional (CON) and an alternative (ALT) housing system, on the quality aspects of fattening pigs: fat score, fat-free lean percentage, and ph of the M.l.d.. CON housing comprised fully-slatted floors with minimal legal pen size (0.45 to 0.65 m 2 per growing-finishing pig) whereas ALT referred to an advanced animal welfare housing system with more space (0.60 to 0.90.m 2 per growing-finishing pig), a multi-surfaced floor including a feeding place (mostly perforated), a non-perforated littered rest area, and a limited permanent accessible outdoor area (0.45 to 0.65 m² per pig in addition to the indoor surface). The farms were further classified into two different feeding systems, the whey- (=liquid; in CON mainly cheese dairies) and complete feeding system. The study plan was a split-plot design where farm was considered as a random class effect nested in the fixed effects housing and feeding system. Observations (ph-measurements) from a summer (2000) and a winter (2000/2001) fattening period were carried out in two major Swiss slaughterhouses with CO 2 stunning, which kindly provided the carcass data of the monitored pigs (fat score, fat-free lean, and slaughter weight). The pigs (usually 20 to 30 per farm and fattening period) previewed for monitoring were raised and fed as the others in the farms but kept in separate pens. Feed samples of the entire fattening period were collected and analysed (Weender analysis and gas-chromatographic fatty acid profile). The farmers usually practised a split marketing according the weight of the animals into 1 to 3 market groups per fattening period. The experimental unit of the criterion fat score was market group, whereas records of individual pigs made up the experimental unit for the criteria fat-free lean and ph. Several covariates (given below) were regarded in the linear mixed effects models adjusting the lsmeans. The unbalanced data set was analysed with the computer package of SAS, 8.02 release, PROC MIXED, using the Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML) approach. Fat score of adipose tissue Fat scores are surveyed routinely in the major Swiss slaughterhouses and represent a mixed fat sample combined from all individual carcasses of one market group. The fat score is an index based on the amount of double bonds in the fatty acids of the outer layer of the back fat. Scores above 62 (comparable to an iodine value of about 68 to 69) entail monetary deductions for the producer (farmer) aiming to ensure an acceptable back fat quality in terms of consistency and oxidation stability of the processed fat in meat products. It is of interest 1 Summary whether ALT-pigs feature a different firmness of back fat than CON-pigs do (housing effect). A possible seasonal influence (season effect), i.e., of the ambient temperature (T) was of interest particularly regarding the fat score rising and endogenously synthesised oleic acid (18:1) that was computed in an analogous second model. The housing effect was analysed in each season and each feeding system interacting the three effects resulting in four housing comparisons. The estimated ls-means were adjusted for the effect of the covariates dietary PUFA [g/mj] for the response variable fat score, or dietary 18:1 [g/mj] for the response variable 18:1, and fat-free lean [%] for both response variables. Data of 291 market groups (99 and 192 for CON and ALT, respectively) from 89 different farms (37 and 52 for CON and ALT, respectively) were included. The ls-means ranged from 58.9 to Three housing comparisons exhibited no significant difference (P 0.2) whereas the CON-pigs of the fourth comparison in the category whey feeding system and in winter exhibited a significantly higher fat score than the ALT-pigs (P=0.0002). The same CON-pigs also showed a significantly higher fat score as in the precedent fattening period in summer (P=0.047), whereas the other three seasonal comparisons were not significant (P 0.15). Concomitantly, the ls-means of the temperaturedependent and fat score-influencing 18:1 showed as well one significant housing and season comparison which were, however, not congruent to those in the criterion fat score. Here the CON-pigs from farms with complete feeding systems and in summer were significantly higher than their ALT-pigs counterparts (P=0.019). The other three housing comparisons featured no significance (P 0.3). Within the seasonal comparisons a significantly higher ls-means of 18:1 in ALT-pigs in winter compared to the precedent summer period (P=0.008) was estimated where also the lowest temperature average of 10.5 C (summer 16.9 C) was recorded (average of the last sixty fattening days with 24 records per day). The other three seasonal comparisons were not significant (P 0.25). The range of the four comparisons of 18:1 was between 42.0 to 43.8 % of total fatty acids. The results showed that there was a fat score- and oleic acid-raising housing effect in CONpigs, and an oleic acid-raising effect at cold T in winter in ALT-pigs as well that did not influence, however, the fat score substantially. Endogenous synthesis of 18:1 was probably enhanced in some cases in CON-pigs at a temperature level of 18.5 C in the finishing period. Fat-free lean proportion The analysis of the fat-free lean proportion [%] based on a total of 5,295 AutoFOM-classified pigs from 87 farms (CON: 36 farms, 1,973 pigs; ALT: 51 farms, 3,322 pigs). The housing effect was structured alike in the fat score model but additionally computed within each slaughterhouse realising so eight housing comparisons (sixteen ls-means). The estimated ls- 2 Summary means have been adjusted for the effects of the covariates digestible energy [MJ], crude protein [%], carcass weight hot [kg], and time 25
Related Search
Similar documents
View more...
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks