Loading…

Effect of vitamin E on improving fresh pork quality in Berkshire- and Hampshire-sired pigs

This study was designed to evaluate the effects of vitamin E supplementation on pork quality of two genotypes with distinct differences in pork quality traits. Pigs (n = 240; BW = 87 +/- 0.35 kg) were allotted by weight to one of 20 treatments (4 pens/treatment, 3 pigs/pen) in a 2 x 2 x 5 factorial...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of animal science 2002-12, Vol.80 (12), p.3230-3237
Main Authors: Hasty, J. L, van Heugten, E, See, M. T, Larick, D. K
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites
container_end_page 3237
container_issue 12
container_start_page 3230
container_title Journal of animal science
container_volume 80
creator Hasty, J. L
van Heugten, E
See, M. T
Larick, D. K
description This study was designed to evaluate the effects of vitamin E supplementation on pork quality of two genotypes with distinct differences in pork quality traits. Pigs (n = 240; BW = 87 +/- 0.35 kg) were allotted by weight to one of 20 treatments (4 pens/treatment, 3 pigs/pen) in a 2 x 2 x 5 factorial randomized complete block design. Factors included 1) genotype (Berkshire or Hampshire sired), 2) sex (gilts or barrows), and 3) vitamin E level (12.1, 54.7, 98.8, 174.0, and 350.6 IU of vitamin E/kg diet). Hampshire-sired pigs had greater average daily gain (1.05 vs 0.98 kg) and gain:feed (0.30 vs 0.27) and less average daily feed intake (ADFI) (3.46 vs 3.62 kg) than Berkshire-sired pigs (P < 0.001) for the 6-wk study. Hampshire-sired barrows consumed more feed (3.54 vs 3.38 kg/d) and were less efficient (0.29 vs 0.31) than Hampshire-sired gilts (P < 0.05), but this sex difference was not observed in Berkshire-sired pigs (interaction, P < 0.05). Berkshire-sired pigs had greater backfat (34.1 vs 21.1 mm; P < 0.001), reduced longissimus muscle area (37.6 vs 46.3 cm2; P < 0.001), reduced lean percentage (53.0 vs 55.8; P < 0.001), and a greater head-on yield (79.8 vs 79.2; P < 0.05). Vitamin E increased (P < 0.05) ADFI linearly (P < 0.05), but had no effects on carcass composition. Loin chops from Hampshire-sired pigs had reduced ultimate pH (5.64 vs 5.91), greater drip loss (92.2 vs 66.3 mg), and increased Minolta L* (52.6 vs 48.6), a* (8.9 vs 7.5), and b* (6.9 vs 5.2) values compared to Berkshire-sired pigs (P < 0.001). Vitamin E had no effect on pH, temperature, drip loss, and L* or a* values, but tended (P < 0.07) to increase b* values linearly (P < 0.06). Oxidation as indicated by thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) was greatest in Hampshire-sired gilts at the lowest level of vitamin E, and decreased linearly (P < 0.001) with additional vitamin E. However, TBARS responded in a cubic fashion (P < 0.05) to vitamin E in Hampshire-sired barrows and were not affected in Berkshire-sired gilts or barrows (three-way interaction, P < 0.02). Hampshire-sired pigs had greater TBARS than Berkshire-sired pigs (0.053 vs 0.047 mg malondialdehyde equivalents/kg). Vitamin E supplementation increased serum concentrations of vitamin E on d 21 (1.06 to 4.79 microg/mL) and d 42 (1.02 to 2.82 microg/mL) and increased tissue concentrations of vitamin E (1.99 to 4.83 microg/g) linearly (P < 0.001). Vitamin E supplementation was not effective in improving fresh meat quality
doi_str_mv 10.2527/2002.80123230x
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_72833599</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>72833599</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-h296t-a8074aabd4159e774c30f21355cf33ef3b58b44c7942f062cb3455092b45dfca3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpd0UtLxDAQB_Agiq6Pq0cJgnqqJpOkTY8q6wMEL3rxUtI02Wbty6T18e2N7IrgZYYhP_4ME4QOKTkHAdkFEALnklBgwMjnBppRASJhNGWbaBbfaCIlhR20G8KSRCZysY12YudAUz5DL3NrjR5xb_G7G1XrOjzHfYddO_j-3XULbL0JNR56_4rfJtW48QtHdGX8a6idNwlWXYXvVDusxhBLhQe3CPtoy6ommIN130PPN_On67vk4fH2_vryIakhT8dESZJxpcqKU5GbLOOaEQuUCaEtY8ayUsiSc53lHCxJQZeMC0FyKLmorFZsD52ucuPGb5MJY9G6oE3TqM70UygykIyJPI_w-B9c9pPv4m4FUElpzjIZ0dEaTWVrqmLwrlX-q_g9WQQna6CCVo31qtMu_DnOOaT8J-hs5Wq3qD_iVYrQqqaJsbRYqiBJjCx-fo19AygDhiY</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>218119378</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Effect of vitamin E on improving fresh pork quality in Berkshire- and Hampshire-sired pigs</title><source>Oxford Journals Online</source><creator>Hasty, J. L ; van Heugten, E ; See, M. T ; Larick, D. K</creator><creatorcontrib>Hasty, J. L ; van Heugten, E ; See, M. T ; Larick, D. K</creatorcontrib><description><![CDATA[This study was designed to evaluate the effects of vitamin E supplementation on pork quality of two genotypes with distinct differences in pork quality traits. Pigs (n = 240; BW = 87 +/- 0.35 kg) were allotted by weight to one of 20 treatments (4 pens/treatment, 3 pigs/pen) in a 2 x 2 x 5 factorial randomized complete block design. Factors included 1) genotype (Berkshire or Hampshire sired), 2) sex (gilts or barrows), and 3) vitamin E level (12.1, 54.7, 98.8, 174.0, and 350.6 IU of vitamin E/kg diet). Hampshire-sired pigs had greater average daily gain (1.05 vs 0.98 kg) and gain:feed (0.30 vs 0.27) and less average daily feed intake (ADFI) (3.46 vs 3.62 kg) than Berkshire-sired pigs (P < 0.001) for the 6-wk study. Hampshire-sired barrows consumed more feed (3.54 vs 3.38 kg/d) and were less efficient (0.29 vs 0.31) than Hampshire-sired gilts (P < 0.05), but this sex difference was not observed in Berkshire-sired pigs (interaction, P < 0.05). Berkshire-sired pigs had greater backfat (34.1 vs 21.1 mm; P < 0.001), reduced longissimus muscle area (37.6 vs 46.3 cm2; P < 0.001), reduced lean percentage (53.0 vs 55.8; P < 0.001), and a greater head-on yield (79.8 vs 79.2; P < 0.05). Vitamin E increased (P < 0.05) ADFI linearly (P < 0.05), but had no effects on carcass composition. Loin chops from Hampshire-sired pigs had reduced ultimate pH (5.64 vs 5.91), greater drip loss (92.2 vs 66.3 mg), and increased Minolta L* (52.6 vs 48.6), a* (8.9 vs 7.5), and b* (6.9 vs 5.2) values compared to Berkshire-sired pigs (P < 0.001). Vitamin E had no effect on pH, temperature, drip loss, and L* or a* values, but tended (P < 0.07) to increase b* values linearly (P < 0.06). Oxidation as indicated by thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) was greatest in Hampshire-sired gilts at the lowest level of vitamin E, and decreased linearly (P < 0.001) with additional vitamin E. However, TBARS responded in a cubic fashion (P < 0.05) to vitamin E in Hampshire-sired barrows and were not affected in Berkshire-sired gilts or barrows (three-way interaction, P < 0.02). Hampshire-sired pigs had greater TBARS than Berkshire-sired pigs (0.053 vs 0.047 mg malondialdehyde equivalents/kg). Vitamin E supplementation increased serum concentrations of vitamin E on d 21 (1.06 to 4.79 microg/mL) and d 42 (1.02 to 2.82 microg/mL) and increased tissue concentrations of vitamin E (1.99 to 4.83 microg/g) linearly (P < 0.001). Vitamin E supplementation was not effective in improving fresh meat quality in genotypes with poor or superior meat quality traits.]]></description><identifier>ISSN: 0021-8812</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1525-3163</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2527/2002.80123230x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 12542164</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Savoy, IL: Am Soc Animal Sci</publisher><subject>Adipose Tissue - anatomy &amp; histology ; Adipose Tissue - metabolism ; Animal productions ; Animals ; Antioxidants - pharmacology ; Biological and medical sciences ; Body Composition - drug effects ; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug ; Eating ; Effects ; Female ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Genotype ; Hogs ; Male ; Meat - standards ; Muscle, Skeletal - anatomy &amp; histology ; Muscle, Skeletal - metabolism ; Pork ; Quality ; Random Allocation ; Sex Characteristics ; Swine - genetics ; Swine - growth &amp; development ; Swine - physiology ; Terrestrial animal productions ; Thiobarbituric Acid Reactive Substances - analysis ; Vertebrates ; Vitamin E ; Vitamin E - pharmacology ; Weight Gain - drug effects</subject><ispartof>Journal of animal science, 2002-12, Vol.80 (12), p.3230-3237</ispartof><rights>2003 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright American Society of Animal Science Dec 2002</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,27907,27908</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=14442648$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12542164$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hasty, J. L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Heugten, E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>See, M. T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Larick, D. K</creatorcontrib><title>Effect of vitamin E on improving fresh pork quality in Berkshire- and Hampshire-sired pigs</title><title>Journal of animal science</title><addtitle>J Anim Sci</addtitle><description><![CDATA[This study was designed to evaluate the effects of vitamin E supplementation on pork quality of two genotypes with distinct differences in pork quality traits. Pigs (n = 240; BW = 87 +/- 0.35 kg) were allotted by weight to one of 20 treatments (4 pens/treatment, 3 pigs/pen) in a 2 x 2 x 5 factorial randomized complete block design. Factors included 1) genotype (Berkshire or Hampshire sired), 2) sex (gilts or barrows), and 3) vitamin E level (12.1, 54.7, 98.8, 174.0, and 350.6 IU of vitamin E/kg diet). Hampshire-sired pigs had greater average daily gain (1.05 vs 0.98 kg) and gain:feed (0.30 vs 0.27) and less average daily feed intake (ADFI) (3.46 vs 3.62 kg) than Berkshire-sired pigs (P < 0.001) for the 6-wk study. Hampshire-sired barrows consumed more feed (3.54 vs 3.38 kg/d) and were less efficient (0.29 vs 0.31) than Hampshire-sired gilts (P < 0.05), but this sex difference was not observed in Berkshire-sired pigs (interaction, P < 0.05). Berkshire-sired pigs had greater backfat (34.1 vs 21.1 mm; P < 0.001), reduced longissimus muscle area (37.6 vs 46.3 cm2; P < 0.001), reduced lean percentage (53.0 vs 55.8; P < 0.001), and a greater head-on yield (79.8 vs 79.2; P < 0.05). Vitamin E increased (P < 0.05) ADFI linearly (P < 0.05), but had no effects on carcass composition. Loin chops from Hampshire-sired pigs had reduced ultimate pH (5.64 vs 5.91), greater drip loss (92.2 vs 66.3 mg), and increased Minolta L* (52.6 vs 48.6), a* (8.9 vs 7.5), and b* (6.9 vs 5.2) values compared to Berkshire-sired pigs (P < 0.001). Vitamin E had no effect on pH, temperature, drip loss, and L* or a* values, but tended (P < 0.07) to increase b* values linearly (P < 0.06). Oxidation as indicated by thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) was greatest in Hampshire-sired gilts at the lowest level of vitamin E, and decreased linearly (P < 0.001) with additional vitamin E. However, TBARS responded in a cubic fashion (P < 0.05) to vitamin E in Hampshire-sired barrows and were not affected in Berkshire-sired gilts or barrows (three-way interaction, P < 0.02). Hampshire-sired pigs had greater TBARS than Berkshire-sired pigs (0.053 vs 0.047 mg malondialdehyde equivalents/kg). Vitamin E supplementation increased serum concentrations of vitamin E on d 21 (1.06 to 4.79 microg/mL) and d 42 (1.02 to 2.82 microg/mL) and increased tissue concentrations of vitamin E (1.99 to 4.83 microg/g) linearly (P < 0.001). Vitamin E supplementation was not effective in improving fresh meat quality in genotypes with poor or superior meat quality traits.]]></description><subject>Adipose Tissue - anatomy &amp; histology</subject><subject>Adipose Tissue - metabolism</subject><subject>Animal productions</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Antioxidants - pharmacology</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Body Composition - drug effects</subject><subject>Dose-Response Relationship, Drug</subject><subject>Eating</subject><subject>Effects</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Genotype</subject><subject>Hogs</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Meat - standards</subject><subject>Muscle, Skeletal - anatomy &amp; histology</subject><subject>Muscle, Skeletal - metabolism</subject><subject>Pork</subject><subject>Quality</subject><subject>Random Allocation</subject><subject>Sex Characteristics</subject><subject>Swine - genetics</subject><subject>Swine - growth &amp; development</subject><subject>Swine - physiology</subject><subject>Terrestrial animal productions</subject><subject>Thiobarbituric Acid Reactive Substances - analysis</subject><subject>Vertebrates</subject><subject>Vitamin E</subject><subject>Vitamin E - pharmacology</subject><subject>Weight Gain - drug effects</subject><issn>0021-8812</issn><issn>1525-3163</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2002</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpd0UtLxDAQB_Agiq6Pq0cJgnqqJpOkTY8q6wMEL3rxUtI02Wbty6T18e2N7IrgZYYhP_4ME4QOKTkHAdkFEALnklBgwMjnBppRASJhNGWbaBbfaCIlhR20G8KSRCZysY12YudAUz5DL3NrjR5xb_G7G1XrOjzHfYddO_j-3XULbL0JNR56_4rfJtW48QtHdGX8a6idNwlWXYXvVDusxhBLhQe3CPtoy6ommIN130PPN_On67vk4fH2_vryIakhT8dESZJxpcqKU5GbLOOaEQuUCaEtY8ayUsiSc53lHCxJQZeMC0FyKLmorFZsD52ucuPGb5MJY9G6oE3TqM70UygykIyJPI_w-B9c9pPv4m4FUElpzjIZ0dEaTWVrqmLwrlX-q_g9WQQna6CCVo31qtMu_DnOOaT8J-hs5Wq3qD_iVYrQqqaJsbRYqiBJjCx-fo19AygDhiY</recordid><startdate>20021201</startdate><enddate>20021201</enddate><creator>Hasty, J. L</creator><creator>van Heugten, E</creator><creator>See, M. T</creator><creator>Larick, D. K</creator><general>Am Soc Animal Sci</general><general>American Society of Animal Science</general><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RQ</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88A</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>U9A</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20021201</creationdate><title>Effect of vitamin E on improving fresh pork quality in Berkshire- and Hampshire-sired pigs</title><author>Hasty, J. L ; van Heugten, E ; See, M. T ; Larick, D. K</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-h296t-a8074aabd4159e774c30f21355cf33ef3b58b44c7942f062cb3455092b45dfca3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2002</creationdate><topic>Adipose Tissue - anatomy &amp; histology</topic><topic>Adipose Tissue - metabolism</topic><topic>Animal productions</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Antioxidants - pharmacology</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Body Composition - drug effects</topic><topic>Dose-Response Relationship, Drug</topic><topic>Eating</topic><topic>Effects</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Genotype</topic><topic>Hogs</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Meat - standards</topic><topic>Muscle, Skeletal - anatomy &amp; histology</topic><topic>Muscle, Skeletal - metabolism</topic><topic>Pork</topic><topic>Quality</topic><topic>Random Allocation</topic><topic>Sex Characteristics</topic><topic>Swine - genetics</topic><topic>Swine - growth &amp; development</topic><topic>Swine - physiology</topic><topic>Terrestrial animal productions</topic><topic>Thiobarbituric Acid Reactive Substances - analysis</topic><topic>Vertebrates</topic><topic>Vitamin E</topic><topic>Vitamin E - pharmacology</topic><topic>Weight Gain - drug effects</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hasty, J. L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Heugten, E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>See, M. T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Larick, D. K</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Career &amp; Technical Education Database</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Biology Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agriculture Science Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of animal science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hasty, J. L</au><au>van Heugten, E</au><au>See, M. T</au><au>Larick, D. K</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Effect of vitamin E on improving fresh pork quality in Berkshire- and Hampshire-sired pigs</atitle><jtitle>Journal of animal science</jtitle><addtitle>J Anim Sci</addtitle><date>2002-12-01</date><risdate>2002</risdate><volume>80</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>3230</spage><epage>3237</epage><pages>3230-3237</pages><issn>0021-8812</issn><eissn>1525-3163</eissn><abstract><![CDATA[This study was designed to evaluate the effects of vitamin E supplementation on pork quality of two genotypes with distinct differences in pork quality traits. Pigs (n = 240; BW = 87 +/- 0.35 kg) were allotted by weight to one of 20 treatments (4 pens/treatment, 3 pigs/pen) in a 2 x 2 x 5 factorial randomized complete block design. Factors included 1) genotype (Berkshire or Hampshire sired), 2) sex (gilts or barrows), and 3) vitamin E level (12.1, 54.7, 98.8, 174.0, and 350.6 IU of vitamin E/kg diet). Hampshire-sired pigs had greater average daily gain (1.05 vs 0.98 kg) and gain:feed (0.30 vs 0.27) and less average daily feed intake (ADFI) (3.46 vs 3.62 kg) than Berkshire-sired pigs (P < 0.001) for the 6-wk study. Hampshire-sired barrows consumed more feed (3.54 vs 3.38 kg/d) and were less efficient (0.29 vs 0.31) than Hampshire-sired gilts (P < 0.05), but this sex difference was not observed in Berkshire-sired pigs (interaction, P < 0.05). Berkshire-sired pigs had greater backfat (34.1 vs 21.1 mm; P < 0.001), reduced longissimus muscle area (37.6 vs 46.3 cm2; P < 0.001), reduced lean percentage (53.0 vs 55.8; P < 0.001), and a greater head-on yield (79.8 vs 79.2; P < 0.05). Vitamin E increased (P < 0.05) ADFI linearly (P < 0.05), but had no effects on carcass composition. Loin chops from Hampshire-sired pigs had reduced ultimate pH (5.64 vs 5.91), greater drip loss (92.2 vs 66.3 mg), and increased Minolta L* (52.6 vs 48.6), a* (8.9 vs 7.5), and b* (6.9 vs 5.2) values compared to Berkshire-sired pigs (P < 0.001). Vitamin E had no effect on pH, temperature, drip loss, and L* or a* values, but tended (P < 0.07) to increase b* values linearly (P < 0.06). Oxidation as indicated by thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) was greatest in Hampshire-sired gilts at the lowest level of vitamin E, and decreased linearly (P < 0.001) with additional vitamin E. However, TBARS responded in a cubic fashion (P < 0.05) to vitamin E in Hampshire-sired barrows and were not affected in Berkshire-sired gilts or barrows (three-way interaction, P < 0.02). Hampshire-sired pigs had greater TBARS than Berkshire-sired pigs (0.053 vs 0.047 mg malondialdehyde equivalents/kg). Vitamin E supplementation increased serum concentrations of vitamin E on d 21 (1.06 to 4.79 microg/mL) and d 42 (1.02 to 2.82 microg/mL) and increased tissue concentrations of vitamin E (1.99 to 4.83 microg/g) linearly (P < 0.001). Vitamin E supplementation was not effective in improving fresh meat quality in genotypes with poor or superior meat quality traits.]]></abstract><cop>Savoy, IL</cop><pub>Am Soc Animal Sci</pub><pmid>12542164</pmid><doi>10.2527/2002.80123230x</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0021-8812
ispartof Journal of animal science, 2002-12, Vol.80 (12), p.3230-3237
issn 0021-8812
1525-3163
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_72833599
source Oxford Journals Online
subjects Adipose Tissue - anatomy & histology
Adipose Tissue - metabolism
Animal productions
Animals
Antioxidants - pharmacology
Biological and medical sciences
Body Composition - drug effects
Dose-Response Relationship, Drug
Eating
Effects
Female
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
Genotype
Hogs
Male
Meat - standards
Muscle, Skeletal - anatomy & histology
Muscle, Skeletal - metabolism
Pork
Quality
Random Allocation
Sex Characteristics
Swine - genetics
Swine - growth & development
Swine - physiology
Terrestrial animal productions
Thiobarbituric Acid Reactive Substances - analysis
Vertebrates
Vitamin E
Vitamin E - pharmacology
Weight Gain - drug effects
title Effect of vitamin E on improving fresh pork quality in Berkshire- and Hampshire-sired pigs
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-16T22%3A00%3A25IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Effect%20of%20vitamin%20E%20on%20improving%20fresh%20pork%20quality%20in%20Berkshire-%20and%20Hampshire-sired%20pigs&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20animal%20science&rft.au=Hasty,%20J.%20L&rft.date=2002-12-01&rft.volume=80&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=3230&rft.epage=3237&rft.pages=3230-3237&rft.issn=0021-8812&rft.eissn=1525-3163&rft_id=info:doi/10.2527/2002.80123230x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E72833599%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-h296t-a8074aabd4159e774c30f21355cf33ef3b58b44c7942f062cb3455092b45dfca3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=218119378&rft_id=info:pmid/12542164&rfr_iscdi=true