Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

A summary review of carcass cutability data comparing primal value of immunologically and physically castrated barrows

A summary review of carcass cutability data comparing primal value of immunologically and... A summary review of carcass cutability data comparing primal value of immunologically and physically castrated barrows B. N. Harsh,* B. Cowles,† R. C. Johnson,‡ D. S. Pollmann,§ A. L. Schroeder,† A. C. Dilger,* and D. D. Boler* *Department of Animal Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana 61801; †Zoetis, Kalamazoo, MI 49007; ‡Independent consultant, Des Moines, IA 50266; and §DSP Consulting LLC, Alpine, UT 84004 ABSTRACT: The objectives were to 1) assess treatment averages of 851 IC and PC barrow carcasses. cutability, quality, and value of carcasses from immu- Lean cutting yield of IC barrows was 1.41 units great- nologically castrated (IC) barrows compared with er (P < 0.0001) than PC barrows (70.97 vs. 69.56%). carcasses from physically castrated (PC) barrows and Similarly, CCY of IC barrows was 1.29 units greater 2) evaluate the effect of hot carcass weight (HCW) on (P < 0.001) compared with PC barrows (87.27 vs. cutability and value of IC barrows summarizing U.S. 85.98%). As HCW of IC barrows increased, both CCY data. Lean cutting yield (LCY) was defined as: LCY = and LCY declined (P < 0.01), with light IC barrow car- [(whole ham + trimmed loin + Boston butt + picnic + casses having a 1.43 unit advantage in CCY compared spareribs)/chilled side wt] x 100. Carcass cutting yield with heavy IC barrow carcasses (P < 0.01). Natural fall (CCY) was determined using the following equation: bellies of PC barrows comprised a greater (P < 0.05) CCY = [(lean cutting yield components + natural fall percentage of side weight than those from IC barrows belly)/chilled side wt] x 100. To evaluate the effects of (15.81 vs. 15.50%). A reduction in belly primal value HCW of IC barrows on carcass cutting yields, IC bar- was confirmed by a 3.43 unit reduction in the com- rows were grouped by HCW: light ( < 90.9 kg), average mercial bacon slicing yields of IC barrows. However, (90.9- 97.7 kg), or heavy ( > 97.7 kg). Differences in the belly yield and slicing yield differences were mini- value of the carcass components for IC and PC barrow mized when IC barrows were marketed at a heavier carcasses were calculated using a 5 yr average of meat weight. Using carcass cutout estimates determined in prices from the USDA Agriculture Marketing Service the summary as the foundation for value calculations, and the carcass cutting yield estimates generated from lean cuts of IC barrow carcasses were worth $2.66 to this summary. Data were analyzed using the MIXED $3.80 more than PC barrow carcasses. Therefore, after procedure of SAS with fixed effects of Improvest treat- adjustment for the reduction in belly primal value, the ment or HCW group. Study was included as a random primal value of an IC barrow carcass was $2.08 to effect. This review allowed for a summarization of the $3.13 greater than a PC barrow carcass. Key words: belly quality, cutability, gonadotropin-releasing factor, Improvest, pork © 2017 American Society of Animal Science. This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) Transl. Anim. Sci. 2017.1:77–89 doi:10.2527/tas2016.0009 INTRODUCTION tion (Improvest, Zoetis Inc., Kalamazoo, MI, GnRF analog-diphtheria toxoid conjugate) provides an ef- For any technology to gain industry-wide adoption, fective alternative to physical castration for reducing it must provide value to all segments of the industry and boar odor of intact male pigs while improving lean have minimal associated risks. Immunological castra- deposition compared with physically castrated (PC) barrows. The effects of immunological castration on growth performance (Dunshea et al., 2013), carcass Corresponding author: dboler2@illinois.edu cutability (Boler et al., 2011a, 2012) and belly quality Received September 1, 2016. (Kyle et al., 2014; Tavárez et al., 2016) have been well Accepted November 29, 2016. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/1/1/77/4636611 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 10 April 2018 78 Harsh et al. documented in a number of studies. However, because To ensure relevance to U.S. packers, only stud- experimental objectives differed among research stud- ies using U.S. cutting standards were included in ies, true differences in cutability and other carcass traits the carcass cutting yield analyses. For inclusion in between IC and PC carcasses are not clear. Production the bacon processing characteristics analysis, bellies factors such as diet (Tavárez et al., 2014), interval be- must have been commercially processed under the tween second Improvest injection and slaughter (Boler supervision of the USDA Food Safety and Inspection et al., 2012; Tavárez et al., 2016), marketing group Service. Hams fabricated to meet the specification of a (Lowe et al., 2014), and the use of ractopamine hydro- NAMP #401 (NAMP, 2007) were designated as whole chloride (Lowe et al., 2014; 2016b) all affect cutting hams. Trimmed hams were those fabricated to meet yield, belly characteristics, and meat quality attributes the specification of a NAMP #402 ham, skinned and of immunologically castrated (IC) barrows. Herrick et trimmed of excess fat. Skin and fatback (subcutane- al. (2016) demonstrated belly quality of IC barrow car- ous fat along the lateral portion of the loin) on bone-in casses is particularly dependent on HCW. However, the loins were designated as whole loins. Trimmed loins effect of HCW on cutability of other carcass compo- were those fabricated to meet the specification of a nents, as well as meat quality traits, has not been char- NAMP #410 loin. Bone-in Boston butt was designated acterized. Although comprehensive meta-analyses have as skinned, clear plate-removed shoulders fabricated been conducted to determine the average effects of im- to meet the specification of a NAMP #406. Modified, munological castration on live performance (Dunshea skinned NAMP #405 were designated as a bone-in et al., 2013) and elimination of boar odor compounds picnic. Bone-in picnics that were further fabricated (Batorek et al., 2012), these reviews have not evalu- were designated as a boneless picnic shoulder (NAMP ated the effects on carcass cutability, quality, and value. #405A) and cushion (triceps brachii; NAMP #405B). Therefore, the objectives of this work were to assess the Because ending live weights varied from study to carcass value of IC barrows compared with PC barrows study as a result of differences in study BW endpoints and to evaluate the effect of hot carcass weight (HCW) and objectives, emphasis was placed on percentage of on IC barrow carcass cutability and value. chilled side weight each component comprises as well as the magnitude of difference between IC and PC bar - MATERIALS AND METHODS rows for each component. Lean cutting yield (LCY) and carcass cutting yield (CCY) were calculated using A comprehensive summary provides a quantitative, the following equations: statistical approach to the summarization of previous Bone in LCY= [(Boston butt + picnic shoul- literature and scientific findings (Sauvant et al., 2008). der + trimmed loin + whole ham + spareribs) / By compiling the results of studies, statistical power (chilled side weight)] × 100 increases enabling more precise estimates of the mag- nitude of effect and confidence limits (Sauvant et al., 2008). As a result, the information provided provides Bone in CCY= [(Lean cutting yield greater understanding of the previous results through components + natural fall belly) / (chilled side a more comprehensive overview which ultimately al- weight)] × 100 lows for consensus to be drawn. A total of seven studies matched the pre-defined in- Study Selection Criteria clusion criteria for evaluating the effects of Improvest Although comprehensive summaries allow for the on carcass cutability and primal yields. These studies aggregation of multiple studies, an analysis may not include Boler et al. (2011a, 2012, and 2014), Lowe et al. necessarily include all previous findings. Determining (2014, 2016a, 2016b), Tavárez et al. (2014), and Harris which studies match summary objectives is of critical (2014). Within the belly quality characteristic evaluation, importance (Sauvant et al., 2008). Ultimately, using 7 studies were used: Boler et al. (2011b, 2012), Kyle et al. specific pre-defined inclusion criteria allows for ap- (2014), Lowe et al. (2014, 2016b), Tavárez et al. (2014, propriate industry application of the results. Pigs in all 2016), and Harris (2014). Loin quality summaries were the studies included in this review were administered conducted using 8 studies: Pauly et al. (2009), Boler et Improvest according to United States label require- al. (2011a, 2012, and 2014), Lowe et al. (2014, 2016b), ments at the time they were administered. To mirror Tavárez et al. (2014, 2016), Harris (2014), and Elsbernd current industry feeding practices, studies in which et al. (2016). Some studies included more than 1 experi- dried distillers grains with solubles (DDGS) as well rac- ment and data meeting criteria for cutability and belly topamine hydrochloride (RAC) was fed were included. analyses were included in both analyses. Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/1/1/77/4636611 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 10 April 2018 Carcass yield and value of Improvest pigs 79 Treatment Analyses (IC Barrows vs. PC Barrows) multiplied by the corresponding cutout price and con- Because immunological castration is a technology verted to value per kg. To provide a fair comparison of designed to provide an alternative to physical castra- the added value of Improvest to packers, equal carcass tion, the most relevant comparison in the U.S. pork weights for IC and PC barrows were used. To address industry for the IC barrow carcass cutting yields and fluctuation in pricing structures, a 5 year average of belly characteristics, is with PC barrows. Overall, this primal prices (2011 to 2015) was used for an average analysis allowed for a summarization of the treatment value calculation with 2 other scenarios during that averages for total 851 carcasses. time period highlighting the best (2014) and worst (2015) overall pricing for a single year. Hot Carcass Weight Analyses Statistical Analyses Marketing finished pigs in groups, or cuts has become a common strategy to maximize the number Data were analyzed using 2 different analysis of pigs meeting a target BW at the time of slaughter strategies to address the 2 objectives of the study. The (Meyer, 2005). The current labeled marketing period first objective was to evaluate the average effect of for male pigs treated with Improvest is from 3 to 10 immunological castration on carcass value, cutability, wk (21 to 70 d) after the second dose of Improvest. belly quality, and loin quality compared with physi- This time period allows for the reduction of boar odor cal castration. The second objective was to assess the compounds and ensures slaughter before boar odor effects of slaughtering immunologically castrated bar - compounds reappear. This flexible marketing window rows at different hot carcass weights. enables producers to use a variety of different mar - Data sets were analyzed using the MIXED pro- keting strategies. After the second Improvest dose, the cedure in SAS (SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC). The model weight of IC barrows continues to increase and tran- for comparing IC barrow carcasses with PC barrow sition, compositionally, toward greater fat deposition carcasses included fixed effects of castration method (Lowe et al., 2014). with treatment means from each study as the experi- The effect of IC barrow HCW on carcass cutability mental unit. Study was included as a random variable and belly characteristics in relation to packer-derived to account for differences in the production factors revenue is not well defined. To analyze the effect of evaluated. To assess the effects of HCW on IC bar - HCW, carcasses of IC barrows were categorized as row carcasses, the model included hot carcass weight light (< 90.9 kg), average (90.9 to 97.7 kg) or heavy ( > category as a fixed effect. Similarly, treatment means 97.7 kg). Carcass weight bins were fit to the available served as the experimental unit and study was in- data with the average HCW category encompassing the cluded as a random effect. Least square means were average HCW (93.2 kg) that was used for cutout value separated using PDIFF option with a Tukey-Kramer estimations in the 2016 USDA carlot report (USDA. adjustment for multiple comparisons. Differences in AMS, Livestock & Seed Program, Livestock, & Grain means were determined significant at P ≤ 0.05. For er - Market News, 2016). In total, this resulted in a sum- ror reporting of all evaluated variables, standard error marization of the treatment averages for 491 carcasses. of the difference (SED) was used instead of standard error of the mean to limit the influence of very large and very small studies on the overall results. Value Calculations The carcass cutout estimates resulting from the RESULTS AND DISCUSSION current review were used as a basis for the economic analysis of packer revenue for Improvest carcasses. The majority of studies comparing IC and PC bar- These data provided the foundation for determining rows were ended at a constant age for comparison of differences in the primal value of IC and PC barrow different lengths of time after second dose of Improvest carcasses. Corresponding price data for pork cutouts (Boler et al., 2012; Tavárez et al., 2014; Tavárez et al., were obtained from USDA daily pork cutout and 2016). Although ending live weights (ELW) of IC bar- primal values (USDA. USDA Market News, 2017). rows were not statistically different (P = 0.13) from PC Historical pricing figures can be verified using the barrows, the ELW of IC barrows was 3.12 kg heavier USDA mandatory reporting data mart application (129.21 vs. 126.09 kg) than PC barrows. Hot carcass (USDA. LMR Date Mart, 2017). Within this applica- weights were not different (P = 0.99) between IC and tion, all pricing is on a century weight basis ($/100 lbs PC barrows (96.26 vs. 96.25 kg). Dressing percentage of product) and the value of each cutout was provided of PC barrows was 1.9% units greater than IC barrows. as value per lbs. Therefore, pork cutout weights were This supports the numerical differences in ELW and Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/1/1/77/4636611 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 10 April 2018 80 Harsh et al. Table 1. Average fixed effects of Improvest [immunologically castrated barrows (IC)– physically castrated barrows (PC)] on whole and trimmed primal cut-out values from a summary of previously reported data Item IC PC Effect IC- PC 95% CI SED P-value Studies, n 7 6 Carcasses, n 511 320 HCW, kg 96.26 96.25 0.01 (-3.27, 3.31) 3.57 0.99 Chilled side wt, kg 46.22 46.19 0.03 (-1.97, 2.03) 2.15 0.98 Estimated lean, % 53.18 52.60 0.58 (-0.40, 1.55) 0.47 0.29 Lean cutting yield, % 70.89 69.50 1.39 (0.88, 1.90) 0.24 < 0.01 Carcass cutting yield, % 86.80 85.56 1.24 (0.62, 1.85) 0.31 0.02 Whole ham, kg 11.49 11.38 0.11 (-0.26, 0.50) 0.41 0.56 % chilled side wt 24.67 24.43 0.24 (-0.23, 0.71) 0.23 0.34 Trimmed ham, kg 9.85 9.56 0.29 (-0.02, 0.60) 0.33 0.11 % chilled side wt 21.36 20.74 0.62 (0.13, 1.12) 0.24 0.05 Trimmed loin, kg 10.65 10.47 0.18 (-0.23, 0.60) 0.48 0.40 % chilled side wt 22.19 21.86 0.33 (-0.11, 0.78) 0.22 0.19 Boston butt, kg 4.21 4.02 0.19 (0.03, 0.36) 0.18 0.05 % chilled side wt 9.14 8.69 0.45 (0.19, 0.69) 0.12 0.01 Picnic shoulder, kg 5.11 4.93 0.18 (-0.06, 0.42) 0.26 0.17 % chilled side wt 10.76 10.38 0.38 (0.14, 0.63) 0.12 0.02 Spareribs, kg 1.79 1.71 0.08 (-0.03, 0.18) 0.11 0.18 % chilled side wt 3.71 3.59 0.12 (0.00, 0.24) 0.06 0.10 Natural fall belly, kg 7.58 7.69 -0.11 (-0.39, 0.17) 0.31 0.45 % chilled side wt 15.50 15.80 -0.30 (-0.61, 0.01) 0.15 0.10 Sources include Boler et al. (2011a, 2012, and 2014), Lowe et al. (2014, 2016b), Tavárez et al. (2014), and Harris (2014). Lean cutting yield = [(whole ham + trimmed loin + Boston butt + picnic + spareribs)/chilled side wt] × 100. Carcass cutting yield = [(lean cutting yield components + natural fall belly)/chilled side wt] × 100. lack of difference in HCW observed in this review and strated similar cutability to RAC-fed PC barrows. previous studies, with dressing percentage differences Furthermore, Lowe et al. (2014) reported RAC-fed IC likely attributable to increased testicle, reproductive barrows had greater carcass cutting yields than RAC- tract and intestinal weights of IC barrows compared fed PC barrows, suggesting additive effects of the with PC barrows (Boler et al., 2014). RAC and Improvest technologies. Lowe et al. (2014) reported carcass cutout data as a percentage of HCW by multiplying the weight of cuts by 2 and dividing Whole and Trimmed Primal Yield by the HCW. Although the total percentages reported Immunologically castrated barrows exhibited a in that study are less than reported in this review, the 1.39% unit advantage (P < 0.0001; SED 0.30) over PC overall magnitude of differences are still representa - barrows in lean cuts (LCY). When differences in belly tive of the published literature. yield were accounted for, IC barrows still displayed a Trimmed ham (+ 0.62% units; P = 0.01), bone-in 1.24% unit improvement (P < 0.001) in carcass cutting Boston butt (+ 0.45% units; P < 0.001), and bone-in yield compared with PC barrows (Table 1). Overall, picnic (+ 0.39% units; P < 0.01) of IC barrows made the average effect of immunological castration was up a greater percentage of side weight than PC barrows. representative of the individual studies included in Although not statistically significant, IC barrows also the summary with differences attributable to study exhibited an advantage in whole ham (+ 0.24% units; experimental factors. In control-fed (no DDGS) IC P = 0.30), trimmed loin (+ 0.33% units; P = 0.13), and and PC barrows slaughtered 5 wk after second dose sparerib yield (+ 0.12% units; P = 0.06) compared of Improvest, Tavárez et al. (2014) reported a mag- with PC barrows. Cutability advantages of IC barrows nitude of difference in bone-in carcass cutting yield were amplified when comparing the magnitude of dif- of 2.54% units. However, this magnitude of difference ference in trimmed versus whole (subcutaneous fat decreased considerably (0.32% units) when barrows included) primals. Trimmed hams of IC barrows com- were fed 30% DDGS and slaughtered after longer in- prised a greater (P < 0.0001) percentage of the whole tervals (7 wk) between second dose of Improvest and ham than PC barrows (86.05% vs. 84.37%) likely a slaughter (Tavárez et al., 2014). Lowe et al. (2014) result of decreased fat trim. This finding is in line with reported control-fed (no RAC) IC barrows demon- previous studies demonstrating compositional differ - Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/1/1/77/4636611 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 10 April 2018 Carcass yield and value of Improvest pigs 81 Table 2. Average fixed effects of whole and trimmed primals weights of carcasses from immunologically castrated barrows categorized by hot carcass weight Hot carcass weight, kg Item Light < 90.9 kg) Average (90.9- 97.7 kg) Heavy ( > 97.7 kg) SED P-value Studies, n 2 3 4 Carcasses, n 108 225 178 a b c HCW, kg 88.07 92.54 102.66 0.95 < 0.0001 a b c Chilled side wt, kg 43.05 44.49 50.10 0.74 < 0.0001 b b a Estimated lean, % 54.77 55.78 50.91 0.91 < 0.001 3 a ab b Lean cutting yield, % 71.56 71.15 70.33 0.34 < 0.01 4 a a b Carcass cutting yield, % 87.44 87.51 85.98 0.51 < 0.01 a b c Whole ham, kg 10.51 10.93 11.97 0.20 < 0.0001 a b a % chilled side wt 24.60 25.58 23.95 0.51 < 0.01 a b c Trimmed ham, kg 9.13 9.65 10.14 0.16 < 0.001 b a c % chilled side wt 21.56 22.51 20.47 0.52 < 0.01 a a b Trimmed loin, kg 9.70 10.29 11.13 0.32 < 0.001 a b a % chilled side wt 22.07 22.97 21.69 0.53 0.02 a b b Boston butt, kg 3.83 4.24 4.26 0.12 < 0.001 b a c % chilled side wt 9.15 9.86 8.62 0.15 < 0.0001 a a b Picnic shoulder, kg 4.62 4.62 5.54 0.13 < 0.0001 % chilled side wt 10.49 10.78 10.85 0.25 0.12 a a b Spareribs, kg 1.58 1.57 1.90 0.09 < 0.01 % chilled side wt 3.74 3.62 3.76 0.19 0.76 a b b Natural fall belly, kg 6.87 7.38 7.81 0.25 < 0.001 a b a % chilled side wt 15.29 16.00 15.22 0.34 < 0.01 Sources include Boler et al. (2011a, 2012, and 2014), Lowe et al. (2014, 2016b), Tavárez et al. (2014), and Harris (2014). Greatest reported. Lean cutting yield = [(whole ham + trimmed loin + Boston butt + picnic + spareribs)/chilled side wt] × 100. Carcass cutting yield = [(lean cutting yield components + natural fall belly)/chilled side wt] × 100. a-c Means within row lacking common superscripts differ ( P < 0.05). ences in the ham between IC and PC barrows at equal IC barrows transition compositionally toward PC bar- carcass weights (Boler et al., 2012). Conversely, natu- rows. Tavárez et al. (2016) did not show differences in ral fall bellies of PC barrows (15.80%) comprised a HCW of IC barrows slaughtered at different lengths greater (P = 0.05) percentage of side weight than those after second dose of Improvest because the objective from IC barrows (15.50%). of that study was to show effects of age and time af- Both carcass and lean cutting yield of IC barrows ter second dose of Improvest, independent of carcass decreased as HCW increased, with IC barrows slaugh- weight. Similarly, in a study designed to mimic com- tered at light and average HCW having a 1.46% unit mercial production practices with pigs selected for advantage (P < 0.01) in carcass cutting yield com- slaughter on ending live weight and segregated into pared with heavy HCW IC barrows (Table 2). This 3 marketing groups, Lowe et al. (2014) reported both advantage is further illustrated by the substantial re- IC and PC barrows slaughtered in the second and third duction (-3.86% units; P < 0.001) in estimated lean (barn-dump) marketing groups had reduced lean cut- percentage of heavy HCW IC barrows compared with ting yields compared with barrows slaughtered in the light and average HCW IC barrows. Despite these re- first marketing group. ductions in cutting yield, when pooled across HCW Not surprisingly, the weight of all primals from IC groups, IC barrows still exhibited a greater carcass barrows increased as HCW increased. However, when and lean cutting yield than PC barrows (Table 1). The primals were expressed as a percentage of side weight, reduction in the yield of trimmed cuts from heavy IC it appears that Improvest influenced the allometric barrows compared with light IC barrows agrees with growth rate of the primals in relation to growth rate other observations that as the interval between second of the entire pig. Although trimmed ham weight and dose of Improvest and slaughter increased, IC bar- HCW of IC barrows increased concurrently, the per- rows got older and heavier in most studies (Boler et al., centage of trimmed ham decreased as HCW increased 2012; Tavárez et al., 2014). Therefore added carcass (P = 0.01), possibly due to the increased fat deposi- weight may be a result of increased fat deposition as tion of heavier IC barrows. Findings of Tavárez et al. Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/1/1/77/4636611 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 10 April 2018 82 Harsh et al. Table 3. Average fixed effects of Improvest [immunologically castrated barrows (IC)– physically castrated bar - 1,2 rows (PC)] on ham cut-out values from a summary of previously reported data Item IC PC Effect IC- PC 95% CI SED P-value Inside, kg 1.78 1.72 0.06 (-0.01, 0.11) 0.06 0.13 % chilled side wt 3.74 3.63 0.11 (0.02, 0.18) 0.04 0.04 % trimmed ham 17.96 17.97 -0.01 (-0.24, 0.22) 0.11 0.91 Outside, kg 2.46 2.36 0.10 (0.01, 0.19) 0.09 0.06 % chilled side wt 5.18 4.98 0.20 (0.10, 0.31) 0.05 < 0.01 % trimmed ham 24.91 24.60 0.31 (0.02, 0.60) 0.14 0.09 Knuckle, kg 1.40 1.35 0.05 (0.00, 0.10) 0.02 0.03 % chilled side wt 2.95 2.84 0.11 (0.06, 0.17) 0.03 < 0.001 % trimmed ham 14.18 14.05 0.13 (-0.08, 0.35) 0.10 0.20 Lite butt, kg 0.37 0.33 0.04 (0.02, 0.06) 0.01 < 0.001 % chilled side wt 0.77 0.69 0.08 (0.02, 0.12) 0.02 < 0.01 % trimmed ham 3.73 3.43 0.30 (0.05, 0.54) 0.12 0.02 Inside shank, kg 0.72 0.68 0.04 (0.01, 0.06) 0.01 < 0.01 % chilled side wt 1.54 1.46 0.08 (0.03, 0.13) 0.02 < 0.01 % trimmed ham 7.40 7.22 0.18 (0.03, 0.33) 0.07 0.02 Ham bones, kg 1.29 1.22 0.07 (0.01, 0.12) 0.03 0.03 % chilled side wt 2.68 2.56 0.12 (0.03, 0.20) 0.04 0.01 % trimmed ham 13.19 12.90 0.29 (0.00, 0.59) 0.14 0.05 Sources include Boler et al. (2011a, 2012, and 2014), Lowe et al. (2014, 2016b), Tavárez et al. (2014), and Harris (2014). Outer shank not included. Table 4. Average fixed effects of ham carcass cutout (2014) support this observation, showing an increase from immunologically castrated barrows categorized of approximately 6 mm in 10th–rib back fat depth of 1,2 by hot carcass weight IC barrows slaughtered at heavy (102 kg) HCW com- pared with light (87 kg) HCW. Hot carcass weight, kg Light Average Heavy Subprimal Yield ( < 90.9 (90.9- ( > 97.7 Item kg) 97.7 kg) kg) SED P-value a a b Inside, kg 1.65 1.70 1.85 0.05 < 0.001 Ham Subprimal Yields. Trimmed hams of IC bar- % chilled side wt 3.83 3.79 3.68 0.12 0.22 rows comprised a greater percentage (P < 0.0001) of % trimmed ham 17.95 17.75 18.08 0.43 0.75 whole ham weight than PC barrows, indicating less a a b Outside, kg 2.24 2.34 2.57 0.07 < 0.001 required fat trim. Given the increase (P = 0.01) in % chilled side wt 5.23 5.22 5.11 0.14 0.48 percentage of trimmed ham of IC barrows (21.36%) % trimmed ham 24.49 24.73 24.96 0.39 0.16 compared with PC barrows (20.74%), all ham com- b b Knuckle, kg 1.27a 1.37 1.45 0.04 < 0.0001 ponent pieces for IC barrows also made up a greater % chilled side wt 2.98 3.07 2.88 0.08 0.09 (P ≤ 0.01) percentage of side weight than PC barrows. % trimmed ham 13.89 14.33 14.12 0.34 0.32 These differences are further amplified when compo- Lite butt, kg 0.37 0.33 0.38 0.04 0.43 nent pieces are evaluated as a percentage of trimmed % chilled side wt 0.81 0.71 0.78 0.07 0.30 ham weight (Table 3). The outside, lite butt, shank and % trimmed ham 4.06 3.46 3.73 0.39 0.20 Inside shank, kg 0.68 0.74 0.72 0.03 0.06 ham bones of IC barrows all made up a greater per- a a b % chilled side wt 1.57 1.65 1.46 0.07 0.03 centage of trimmed ham compared with ham compo- % trimmed ham 7.43 7.75 7.15 0.24 0.09 nents from PC barrows. a b Ham bones, kg 1.19 – 1.32 0.02 < 0.01 The weight of insides, outsides, and knuckles all % chilled side wt 2.76 – 2.66 0.07 0.19 increased (P < 0.001) when IC barrows were market- % trimmed ham 13.29 – 13.18 0.22 0.61 ed at heavier weights (Table 4). However, inside and Sources include Boler et al. (2011a, 2012, and 2014), Lowe et al. outside hams comprised a lesser proportion of side (2014, 2016b), Tavárez et al. (2014), and Harris (2014). weight, numerically, as HCW of IC barrows increased. Outer shank not included. Loin Subprimal Yields. The Canadian back loin Greatest reported. (+ 0.28% units; P = 0.02), tenderloin (+ 0.04% units; a,b Means within row lacking common superscripts differ ( P < 0.05). P < 0.01), and sirloin (+ 0.07% units; P < 0.01) of IC barrows each comprised a greater percentage of side Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/1/1/77/4636611 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 10 April 2018 Carcass yield and value of Improvest pigs 83 Table 5. Average fixed effects of Improvest [immunologically castrated barrows (IC)– physically castrated barrows 1,2 (PC)] on loin cut-out values from a summary of previously reported data Item IC PC Effect IC- PC 95% CI SED P-value Fat back, kg 2.67 3.05 -0.38 (-0.74, -0.02) 0.14 0.04 % chilled side wt 5.39 6.11 -0.72 (-1.36, -0.09) 0.25 0.03 Canadian back, kg 3.73 3.60 0.13 (-0.02, 0.28) 0.07 0.09 % chilled side wt 8.02 7.74 0.28 (0.05, 0.50) 0.11 0.02 % trimmed loin 34.90 34.28 0.62 (0.05, 1.20) 0.29 0.04 Tenderloin, kg 0.48 0.46 0.02 (-0.01, 0.04) 0.01 0.18 % chilled side wt 1.02 0.98 0.04 (0.01, 0.05) 0.01 < 0.01 % trimmed loin 4.51 4.43 0.08 (-0.04, 0.19) 0.06 0.18 Sirloin, kg 0.85 0.82 0.03 (-0.01, 0.08) 0.02 0.13 % chilled side wt 1.80 1.73 0.07 (0.02, 0.12) 0.02 < 0.01 % trimmed loin 7.99 7.83 0.16 (-0.04, 0.35) 0.09 0.11 Backribs, kg 0.78 0.78 0.00 (-0.05, 0.04) 0.02 0.91 % chilled side wt 1.63 1.64 -0.01 (-0.06, 0.04) 0.02 0.79 % trimmed loin 7.38 7.51 -0.13 (-0.34, 0.09) 0.10 0.23 Backbones, kg 1.96 1.93 0.03 (-0.09, 0.15) 0.05 0.63 % chilled side wt 4.02 3.96 0.06 (-0.08, 0.20) 0.06 0.36 % trimmed loin 18.44 18.37 0.07 (-0.40, 0.54) 0.22 0.76 Sources include Boler et al. (2011a, 2012, and 2014), Lowe et al. (2014, 2016b), Tavárez et al. (2014), and Harris (2014). Excluded minor pieces include hip bone, blade bone, and minor trim. weight than the same cuts from PC barrows (Table 5). Table 6. Average fixed effects of loin carcass cutout Canadian back loins of IC barrows yielded an even values from immunologically castrated barrows cat- 1,2 greater (0.62% unit; P = 0.04) advantage over PC bar- egorized by hot carcass weight rows when evaluated as a percentage of trimmed loin. Hot carcass weight, kg Improvements in lean cuts from the loin are further val- Average idated by the reduced (P = 0.03) percentage of fat back Light (90.9- Heavy from IC barrows (5.39%) compared with PC barrows Item ( < 90.9 kg) 97.7 kg) ( > 97.7 kg) SED P-value (6.11%). No differences were found in the percentage Fat back, kg – – – – – % chilled side wt – – – – – of backrib and backbone between IC and PC barrows. a a b Canadian back, kg 3.41 3.55 3.90 0.13 < 0.01 Canadian back, tenderloin, sirloin and backrib a b a % chilled side wt 7.97 8.38 7.76 0.26 0.03 weights increased (P ≤ 0.03) as IC barrows were mar- % trimmed loin 34.85 34.01 35.19 0.84 0.41 keted at heavier weights (Table 6). Both Canadian a b c Tenderloin, kg 0.42 0.45 0.51 0.01 < 0.0001 back loins and sirloins of average HCW IC barrows % chilled side wt 1.00 1.02 1.02 0.05 0.74 made up a greater percentage of side weight than light % trimmed loin 4.38 4.49 4.58 0.19 0.28 or heavy HCW IC barrows. a b b Sirloin, kg 0.74 0.88 0.87 0.04 < 0.001 Shoulder Subprimal Yields. As a percentage of a b a % chilled side wt 1.77 1.99 1.72 0.06 < 0.01 side weight, boneless Boston butt (+ 0.39% units; P a b ab % trimmed loin 7.67 8.57 7.79 0.21 < 0.01 a a b < 0.001), boneless picnic (+ 0.16% units; P = 0.01), Backribs, kg 0.73 0.70 0.83 0.06 0.03 and cushion (triceps brachii, + 0.10% units; P = 0.02) % chilled side wt 1.72 1.57 1.66 0.12 0.35 were greater for IC barrows than PC barrows (Table 7). % trimmed loin 7.66 6.77 7.65 0.66 0.41 a b Backbones, kg 1.79 – 2.00 0.06 0.02 Interestingly, the picnic bones of IC barrows were % chilled side wt 4.33 – 4.05 0.14 0.08 0.10% units greater than PC barrows as a percentage % trimmed loin 18.84 – 18.43 0.54 0.47 of side weight (P ≤ 0.01), but there was no difference in neck bone percentage. Both jowls and clear plates Sources include Boler et al. (2011a, 2012, and 2014), Lowe et al. (2014, 2016b), Tavárez et al. (2014), and Harris (2014). made up a lesser (P ≤ 0.02) percentage of side weight Excluded minor pieces, including hip bone, blade bone, and minor trim. for IC barrows than PC barrows, similar to the effects Greatest reported. observed in other high fat carcass components. a-c Means within row lacking common superscripts differ ( P < 0.05). As IC barrows were marketed at heavier weights, weights of bone-in Boston butt, and bone-in picnic in- creased linearly (P < 0.0001). Picnic shoulder compo- nents (boneless picnic and cushion) increased in weight Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/1/1/77/4636611 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 10 April 2018 84 Harsh et al. Table 7. Average fixed effects of Improvest [immunologically castrated barrows (IC)– physically castrated barrows 1,2 (PC)]on shoulder cut-out values from a summary of previously reported data Item IC PC Effect IC- PC 95% CI SED P-value Boneless Boston butt, kg 3.89 3.71 0.18 (0.03, 0.34) 0.07 0.02 % chilled side wt 8.15 7.76 0.39 (0.19, 0.59) 0.09 < 0.001 % bone-in Boston butt 92.26 92.31 -0.05 (-0.45, 0.35) 0.19 0.79 Boneless picnic, kg 3.85 3.74 0.11 (-0.04, 0.27) 0.08 0.15 % chilled side wt 8.09 7.93 0.16 (0.04, 0.29) 0.06 0.01 % bone-in picnic 75.37 75.88 -0.51 (-1.64, 0.61) 0.55 0.36 Cushion, kg 1.15 1.11 0.04 (0.00, 0.07) 0.01 0.02 % chilled side wt 2.42 2.31 0.11 (0.02, 0.19) 0.04 0.02 % bone-in picnic 22.37 22.49 -0.12 (-0.99, 0.72) 0.41 0.75 Jowl, kg 1.25 1.34 -0.09 (-0.19, 0.00) 0.05 0.06 % chilled side wt 2.61 2.81 -0.20 (-0.32, -0.08) 0.06 < 0.01 Neck bones, kg 1.02 1.00 0.02 (-0.06, 0.10) 0.04 0.63 % chilled side wt 2.09 2.05 0.04 (-0.03, 0.11) 0.03 0.25 Clear plate, kg 0.95 1.03 -0.08 (-0.20, 0.03) 0.05 0.15 % chilled side wt 1.89 2.07 -0.18 (-0.33, -0.04) 0.07 0.02 Picnic bones, kg 0.91 0.85 0.06 (-0.02, 0.14) 0.04 0.15 % chilled side wt 1.89 1.79 0.10 (0.05, 0.16) 0.03 < 0.01 % bone-in picnic 17.33 16.81 0.52 (-0.11, 1.17) 0.30 0.10 Sources include Boler et al. (2011a, 2012, and 2014), Lowe et al. (2014, 2016b), Tavárez et al. (2014), and Harris (2014) Bnls picnic includes cushion. as HCW of IC barrows increased, comprising a numeri- Table 8. Average fixed effects of shoulder carcass cut- cally lesser percentage of bone-in picnics. This is likely a out values from immunologically castrated barrows result of a concomitant increase in picnic bone percent- categorized by hot carcass weight age. Of the primary fat components from the shoulder, Hot carcass weight, kg jowls comprised a greater (P = 0.02) percentage of side Light Average Heavy weight and clear plate weight increased (P < 0.01) as IC ( < 90.9 (90.9- ( > 97.7 barrows were marketed at heavier weights (Table 8). Item kg) 97.7 kg) kg) SED P-value a b b Boneless Boston butt, kg 3.55 3.90 3.94 0.13 < 0.01 b c a % chilled side wt 8.29 8.73 7.82 0.19 < 0.01 Belly Quality Attributes % bone-in Boston butt 92.41 92.11 92.43 0.45 0.75 3 a a b Boneless picnic, kg 3.52 3.53 4.15 0.09 < 0.0001 Because bellies are currently one of the most valu- % chilled side wt 8.13 7.89 8.23 0.16 0.15 able primal pieces of pork carcasses in the U.S., it is % bone-in picnic 75.81 76.59 74.78 0.75 0.08 imperative to understand the effects of Improvest on Cushion, kg 1.11 1.12 1.18 0.06 0.27 belly quality attributes. One disadvantage associated % chilled side wt 2.55 2.48 2.37 0.17 0.21 with increased leanness in pigs is a potential for wider, a ab b % bone-in picnic 23.75 23.95 21.33 1.37 0.04 thinner bellies (Boler et al., 2012; Kyle et al., 2014). a a b Jowl, kg 1.10 1.06 1.39 0.06 < 0.0001 Meat quality characteristics of IC barrows are often a a b % chilled side wt 2.55 2.36 2.76 0.12 0.02 a b compared with both PC barrows and gilts. Two stud- Neck bones, kg 0.86 – 1.04 0.03 < 0.001 ies (Boler et al., 2014; Lowe et al., 2016b) meeting % chilled side wt 2.08 – 2.10 0.06 0.70 a b the criteria for inclusion included all 3 sex classes (IC Clear plate, kg 0.73 – 0.97 0.05 < 0.01 % chilled side wt 1.75 – 1.95 0.09 0.08 barrows, PC barrows, and gilts) and were included in a b Picnic bones, kg 0.75 – 0.95 0.02 < 0.0001 the belly and loin quality analyses. a b % chilled side wt 1.80 – 1.92 0.14 < 0.01 Natural fall bellies of IC barrows (15.50%) com- a b % bone-in picnic 16.82 – 17.47 0.17 < 0.01 prised a lesser (P = 0.05) percentage of chilled side weight Sources include Boler et al. (2011a, 2012, and 2014), Lowe et al. than bellies from PC barrows (15.80%). No difference (2014, 2016b), Tavárez et al. (2014), and Harris (2014). was observed in belly width or iodine value among IC Greatest reported. barrows, PC barrows, and gilts (Table 9). No difference Bnls picnic includes cushion. a-c in belly length was observed either. Bellies of IC barrows Means within row lacking common superscripts differ ( P < 0.05). were thinner than PC barrows, but thicker than gilts (3.55 vs. 3.83 & 3.22 cm respectively; P < 0.0001). Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/1/1/77/4636611 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 10 April 2018 Carcass yield and value of Improvest pigs 85 Processing Attributes Table 9. Average fixed effects of Improvest [immuno - logically castrated barrows (IC)– physically castrated No processing differences were observed between barrows (PC) and gilts] on belly quality attributes IC and PC barrows for initial (green) weight, pump Item IC Gilt PC SED P-value weight, pump uptake, and cooked weight of bellies Length, cm 63.55 62.93 63.35 0.93 0.74 (Table 11). When expressed as a percentage of cooked Width, cm 24.53 24.28 23.93 0.98 0.11 weight, commercial slicing yield of bacon from IC b a c Thickness, cm 3.55 3.23 3.83 1.43 < 0.0001 barrows decreased (P < 0.001) 3.43% compared with Belly iodine value 65.27 68.35 65.02 3.24 0.59 commercial slicing yield of bacon from PC barrows. Sources include Boler et al. (2011b, 2012), Kyle et al. (2014), Lowe et al. Because there were no studies that evaluated bacon (2014, 2016b), Tavárez et al. (2014, 2016), and Harris (2014). slicing yield in which IC barrows had a HCW in the Greatest reported. average (90.9 to 97.7 kg) category, slicing yield was Calculated as IV value = C16:1 × (0.95) + C18:1 × (0.86) + C18:2 (1.732) only compared between IC and PC barrows in the light + C18:3 × (2.616) + C20:1 × (0.785) + C22:1 × (0.723) (AOCS,1998). a–c (< 90.9 kg) and heavy ( > 97.7 kg) HCW categories. Means within row lacking common superscripts differ ( P < 0.05). Bellies from PC barrows had greater (P ≤ 0.01) bacon slicing yield than bellies from IC barrows in both HCW Table 10. Average fixed effects of belly quality from categories. No slicing yield differences (P = 0.26) were immunologically castrated barrows categorized by hot observed between IC barrows in the light and heavy carcass weight HCW categories. When effect of weight was eliminated Hot carcass weight, kg by selecting pigs at equal ending live weights, Kyle et Light Average Heavy al. (2014) reported IC barrows had decreased slicing ( < 90.9 (90.9- ( > 97.7 yields compared with PC barrows and gilts. Item kg) 97.7 kg) kg) SED P-value In the light HCW category, PC barrows had a Length, cm 62.35 62.25 64.65 0.85 0.01 4.4% unit advantage (P < 0.01) in bacon slicability Width, cm 24.33 23.80 25.03 0.63 0.15 3 a a b compared with IC barrows. However, in the heavy Thickness, cm 3.25 3.33 3.80 0.08 < 0.0001 Belly iodine value 68.10 64.39 64.46 2.05 0.16 HCW category, that advantage (P = 0.01) in slicing 1 yield was reduced to 2.9% units. This translates to a Sources include Boler et al. (2011b, 2012), Kyle et al. (2014), Lowe et al. (2014, 2016b), Tavárez et al. (2014, 2016), and Harris (2014). 1.5% unit improvement in bacon slicing yield of IC Greatest reported. barrows in the heavy HCW category compared with Thickness is the average of 8 measurements collected along the belly, light HCW IC barrows (Fig. 1). This observation par- where location 1 to 4 is from the anterior to posterior position of the dorsal edge allels the findings of other individual studies evaluat - and location 5 to 8 is from the anterior to posterior position of the ventral edge. ing the effects of Improvest on belly quality and bacon Calculated as IV value = C16:1 × (0.95) + C18:1 × (0.86) + C18:2 (1.732) slicing attributes of heavy weight pigs. In a study of + C18:3 × (2.616) + C20:1 × (0.785) + C22:1 × (0.723) (AOCS,1998). a,b Means within row lacking common superscripts differ ( P < 0.05). the effects of time after second dose of Improvest and age at slaughter, Tavárez et al. (2016) reported no dif- Table 11. Average fixed effects of Improvest [immu - ference in bacon slicing yield of IC barrows compared nologically castrated barrows (IC)– physically cas- with PC barrows and gilts when slaughtered at 24 wk trated barrows (PC)] on belly processing attributes of age and held to heavier weights (100 kg) represen- tative of current U.S. marketing practices. Item IC PC Effect IC- PC SED P-value As HCW of IC barrows increased, bellies in- Initial wt, kg 5.45 5.55 -0.10 0.12 0.44 creased in initial (green) weight, pump weight, and Pump wt, kg 6.15 6.22 -0.07 0.14 0.62 Pump uptake, % 12.76 12.12 0.64 0.32 0.06 cooked weight (Table 12). Because natural fall belly Cooked wt, kg 5.51 5.65 -0.14 0.13 0.32 weight of IC barrows also increased with HCW, pro- Slicing Yield, % 84.24 87.66 -3.42 0.81 < 0.001 cessing attribute findings are likely attributable to in- creased weight gain. Similarly, Tavárez et al. (2016) Sources include Boler et al. (2011b, 2012), Kyle et al. (2014), Lowe et al. (2014, 2016b), Tavárez et al. (2014, 2016), and Harris (2014). reported processing characteristics, in a population of heavy weight pigs, were most related to absolute Although belly length of IC barrows increased lin- weight of bellies. Hot carcass weight of IC barrows early (P = 0.01) with HCW, HCW had no effect on had no effect on pump uptake of bellies. belly width (Table 10). However, belly thickness did increase (P < 0.0001) as IC barrows were marketed Loin Quality Attributes at heavier weights. Iodine value was numerically less for IC barrows in the average (64.39 units) or heavy Historically, loins have been the primal used to (64.46 units) HCW category compared with IC bar- determine total carcass quality. Therefore it is impor- rows in the light (68.10 units) HCW category. tant to evaluate loin quality parameters. The effect of Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/1/1/77/4636611 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 10 April 2018 86 Harsh et al. Figure 1. Effect of hot carcass weight on commerical bacon slicing yield of immunologically castrated (IC) barrows and physically castrated (PC) bar - rows. Data are depicted as least squared means ± SEM, and means lacking common superscripts (a,b; indicating differences in sex and HCW) differ (P < 0.05). Table 12. Average fixed effects of processing attri - Hot carcass weight had no impact (P ≥ 0.14) on butes of bellies from immunologically castrated bar- shear force, cook loss percentage, or drip loss of IC bar- rows categorized by hot carcass weight rows. There were no instrumental color differences as HCW of IC barrows increased. However, loins tended Hot carcass weight, kg (P = 0.06) to get darker (decreased L* value) as the HCW Average of IC barrows increased. As HCW increased among IC Light (90.9- Heavy Item ( < 90.9 kg) 97.7 kg) ( > 97.7 kg) SED P-value carcasses, loin chops became subjectively darker and a b c Initial wt, kg 4.90 5.21 5.76 0.16 < 0.0001 more marbled (Table 14). Subjective marbling findings a b c Pump wt, kg 5.55 5.87 6.51 0.17 < 0.0001 were confirmed as extractable lipid of loins increased (P Pump uptake, % 13.11 12.67 13.17 0.62 0.69 = 0.03) with HCW. A concurrent reduction in IC barrow a a b Cooked wt, kg 4.92 5.22 5.86 0.17 < 0.0001 loin moisture occurred as HCW increased. Sources include Boler et al. (2011b, 2012), Kyle et al. (2014), Lowe et al. (2014, 2016b), Tavárez et al. (2014, 2016), and Harris (2014). Estimated Value Proposition Greatest reported. a-c Means within row lacking common superscripts differ ( P < 0.05). By applying the average value of each cutout to a whole carcass basis and multiplying the result by the Improvest on loin quality was one of the first meat price per kg, a total dollar value for each primal was quality attributes to be evaluated after Improvest was determined on a per carcass basis. This allowed for approved (Pauly et al., 2009; Batorek et al., 2012). the comparison of carcass values between IC and PC Accordingly, there is a larger body of available lit- barrows at equal carcass weights. Using prices aver- erature. Subjective quality was evaluated using color, aged over a 5-yr period, the cutability advantage of IC marbling, and firmness standards as set by the National barrow carcasses compared with PC barrow carcasses Pork Producers Council (NPPC, 1991; 1999). resulted in a $3.08 increase in lean cuts value when There were no differences in shear force (tender - HCW was held constant (Fig. 2). Bellies from IC bar- ness), cook loss percentage, ultimate pH, or instrumental rows were thinner and had reduced bacon slicability color measurements between IC and PC barrows (Table compared with bellies of PC barrows. This resulted 13). Loin chops from IC barrows were less marbled and in a decreased value of $0.64 per IC barrow carcass. less firm, subjectively, than those from PC barrows, but When combined ($3.08- $0.64) these values resulted were similar to chops from gilts. Similarly, PC barrows in an additional $2.44 in carcass value of IC barrows had the greatest percentage (P = 0.03) of extractible lipid compared with equal weight PC barrow carcasses (2.39%). There were no differences (P = 0.84) in extract- (Table 15). Results from the 2 other pricing scenarios ible lipid between IC barrows (2.01%) and gilts (2.08%). show that IC barrows had an increased value of $3.13/ Although the moisture content of loins from IC barrows carcass using the best year (2014) primal pricing and and gilts was greater than PC barrows, there was no dif- $2.08/carcass increase using the worst year (2015) pri- ference in percent drip loss between IC and PC barrows. mal pricing compared with PC barrows. Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/1/1/77/4636611 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 10 April 2018 Carcass yield and value of Improvest pigs 87 Table 13. Average fixed effects of Improvest [immuno - Table 14. Average fixed effects of quality attributes of logically castrated barrows (IC)– physically castrated loins from immunologically castrated barrows catego- 1 1 barrows (PC) and gilts] on loin quality rized by hot carcass weight Hot carcass weight, kg Effect Effect IC vs. IC vs. Light Average Heavy Item IC Gilt PC Gilt PC SED P-value ( < 90.9 kg) (90.9- ( > 97.7 kg) pH 5.59 5.55 5.60 -0.04 0.01 0.05 0.60 Item 97.7 kg) SED P-value 3 a a b Instrumental color pH 5.51 5.53 5.66 0.03 < 0.001 L* 48.52 48.03 48.25 -0.49 -0.27 0.90 0.69 Instrumental color a* 6.89 6.75 7.13 -0.14 0.24 0.46 0.31 L* 49.36 48.91 47.38 0.94 0.06 b* 3.67 3.59 3.79 -0.08 0.12 0.45 0.72 a* 5.62 5.53 6.28 0.44 0.22 Subjective quality b* 3.59 3.46 3.63 0.47 0.88 Color 2.83 2.93 3.01 0.10 0.18 0.25 0.24 Subjective quality a a b a a b Marbling 1.74 1.59 2.07 -0.15 0.33 0.22 < 0.01 Color 2.44 2.45 3.26 0.17 < 0.0001 a ab b a a b Firmness 2.52 2.53 2.72 0.01 0.20 0.14 < 0.01 Marbling 2.09 2.07 1.48 0.15 < 0.001 Loin composition Firmness 2.45 2.61 2.54 0.12 0.11 a ab b Moisture, % 74.61 74.33 74.12 -0.28 -0.49 0.50 0.02 Loin composition a ab b b b a Fat, % 2.01 2.08 2.39 0.07 0.38 0.31 0.03 Moisture, % 74.76 75.16 74.18 0.26 0.01 ab b a ab a b Drip loss, % 2.78 3.14 2.56 0.36 -0.22 0.28 0.04 Fat, % 1.86 1.62 2.19 0.18 0.03 Cook loss, % 21.04 21.11 20.73 0.07 -0.31 1.36 0.83 Drip loss, % 2.91 2.92 2.54 0.23 0.19 WB Shear force, kg 2.92 – 2.91 – -0.01 0.08 0.82 Cook loss, % 22.14 21.32 22.92 2.07 0.24 WB Shear force, kg 3.01 2.86 2.88 0.44 0.14 Sources include Pauly et al. (2009), Boler et al. (2011a, 2012, and 2014), Lowe et al. (2014, 2016b), Tavárez et al. (2014, 2016), Harris Sources include Pauly et al. (2009), Boler et al. (2011a, 2012, and (2014), and Elsbernd et al. (2016). 2014), Lowe et al. (2014, 2016b), Tavárez et al. (2014, 2016), Harris Greatest reported. (2014), and Elsbernd et al. (2016). 3 2 Minolta Colorimeter, D65 illuminant. L*, greater value indicates a Greatest reported. lighter color; a*, greater value indicates a redder color; b*, greater value Minolta Colorimeter, D65 illuminant. L*, greater value indicates a indicates a more yellow color. lighter color; a*, greater value indicates a redder color; b*, greater value Evaluated according to National Pork Producers Council standards for indicates a more yellow color. color and marbling (NPPC, 1999) and firmness (NPPC, 1991). Evaluated according to National Pork Producers Council standards for Warner-Bratzler shear force was conducted on chops aged 14 to 21 d color and marbling (NPPC, 1999) and firmness (NPPC, 1991). postmortem. Warner-Bratzler shear force was conducted on chops aged 14 to 21 d a,b Means within row lacking common superscripts differ ( P < 0.05). postmortem. a,b Means within row lacking common superscripts differ ( P < 0.05). Using the 5-yr primal pricing average, carcasses from IC barrows slaughtered within the average HCW category (90.9- 97.7 kg) had an added value of $2.53 more per carcass compared with carcasses of IC bar- rows in the light HCW category. Using the best and worst case primal pricing scenarios, carcasses of IC barrows slaughtered within the average HCW catego- ry were worth up to $3.10 more and as little as $1.96 more than carcasses of IC barrows in the light HCW category. When comparing the value of IC barrow car- casses within the average HCW category and above, there was a loss in primal value of carcasses from Figure 2. Effect of Improvest on value of carcasses from immuno - logically castrated (IC) barrows compared with physically castrated bar- heavy IC barrows. This resulted from the extra cost to rows (PC). Lean cuts include Boston butt, picnic shoulder, trimmed loin, the packer for purchasing heavier carcasses. Using the spareribs, and whole ham. 5-yr average primal price, IC barrow carcasses in the heavy HCW category were projected to return a loss of $9.46/carcass compared to carcasses in the average Conclusion HCW category. The economic analysis of data gener- ated in this review revealed that IC barrow carcasses Improvest increased carcass cutting yield by weighing between 90.9 to 97.7 kg had greater primal 1.24% units and lean cutting yield by 1.39% units value to packers than carcasses weighing below or compared with PC barrows. However, this cutability above that range. advantage decreased as IC barrows were slaughtered Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/1/1/77/4636611 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 10 April 2018 88 Harsh et al. Table 15. Effects of Improvest [immunologically castrated barrows (IC)– physically castrated barrows (PC)] on added primal value Three price scenarios: 5 yr avg. value, 2011 to 2015 Best yr value, 2014 Worst yr value, 2015 Primal IC PC Effect IC PC Effect IC PC Effect Chilled carcass wt, kg 92.44 92.44 – 92.44 92.44 – 92.44 92.44 – Bone in Boston, $ 18.47 17.60 0.87 23.58 22.46 1.13 15.86 15.11 0.75 Picnic shoulder, $ 15.21 14.67 0.54 20.07 19.36 0.71 11.21 10.82 0.40 Whole ham, $ 39.07 38.69 0.38 51.88 51.38 0.50 30.27 29.98 0.29 Trimmed loin, $ 47.11 46.30 0.81 54.54 53.60 0.93 40.10 39.41 0.69 Natural fall belly, $ 42.40 43.04 -0.64 44.53 45.20 -0.67 37.54 38.10 -0.57 Spareribs, $ 11.32 10.83 0.49 12.21 11.68 0.53 12.11 11.58 0.53 Total added value from primals $2.44 $3.13 $2.08 Harris, E. K. 2014. Effects of dried distillers grains with solubles at heavier weights. On average, packers can expect an (DDGS) feeding strategies on growth performance, nutrient increase of $2.44 in total value from IC barrow car- intake, body composition, and lean and fat quality of im- casses compared with PC barrow carcasses. Over a munologically castrated pigs harvested at 5, 7, or 9 weeks 5-yr period encompassing a worst and best year pri- after second Improvest dose. 1-371. PhD Diss. University of Minnesota, St. Paul. mal pricing scenario, the value of an IC barrow car- Herrick, R. T., M. A. Tavárez, B. N. Harsh, M. A. Mellencamp, D. D. cass was still between $2.08 and $3.13 greater than a Boler, and A. C. Dilger. 2016. Effect of immunological castration PC barrow carcass. management strategy on lipid oxidation and sensory characteris- tics of bacon stored under simulated food service conditions. J. LITERATURE CITED Anim. Sci. doi:10.2527/jas.2016-0366 Kyle, J. M., B. M. Bohrer, A. L. Schroeder, R. J. Matulis, and D. D. AOCS. 1998. Official methods and recommended practices of AOCS. Boler. 2014. Effects of immunological castration (Improvest) Am. Oil. Chem. Soc., Champaign, IL. on further processed belly characteristics and commercial ba- Batorek, N., M. Candek-Potokar, M. Bonneau, and J. Van Milgen. 2012. con slicing yields of finishing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 92:4223–4233. Meta-analysis of the effects of immunocastration on production doi:10.2527/jas.2014-7988 performance, reproductive organs and boar taint compounds in Lowe, B. K., G. D. Gerlemann, S. N. Carr, P. J. Rincker, A. L. Schroeder, pigs. Animal 6:1330–1338. doi:10.1017/S1751731112000146 D. B. Petry, F. K. McKeith, G. L. Allee, and A. C. Dilger. 2014. Boler, D. D., L. W. Kutzler, D. M. Meeuwse, V. L. King, D. R. Effects of feeding ractopamine hydrochloride (Paylean) to physi- Campion, F. K. McKeith, and J. Killefer. 2011a. Effects of in- cal and immunologically castrates (Improvest) in a commercial creasing lysine on carcass composition and cutting yields of setting on carcass cutting yields and loin quality. J. Anim. Sci. immunologically castrated male pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 89:2189– 92:3715–3726. doi:10.2527/jas.2013-7515 2199. doi:10.2527/jas.2010-3640 Lowe, B. K., M. F. Overholt, G. D. Gerlemann, S. N. Carr, P. J. Rincker, Boler, D. D., D. L. Clark, A. A. Baer, D. M. Meeuwse, V. L. King, A. L. Schroeder, D. B. Petry, F. K. McKeith, G. L. Allee, and A. F. K. McKeith, and J. Killefer. 2011b. Effects of increasing ly- C. Dilger. 2016a. Ham and belly processing characteristics of im- sine on further processed product characteristics from immu- munologically castrated barrows (Improvest) fed ractopamine nologically castrated male pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 89:2200–2209. hydrochloride (Paylean). Meat Sci. 112:103–109. doi:10.1016/j. doi:10.2527/jas.2010-3641 meatsci.2015.10.019 Boler, D. D., J. Killefer, D. M. Meeuwse, V. L. King, F. K. McKeith, Lowe, B. K., K. A. Kroscher, M. A. Tavárez, F. K. McKeith, A. L. and A. C. Dilger. 2012. Effects of slaughter time post-second Schroeder, and A. C. Dilger. 2016b. Effects of feeding rac- injection on carcass cutting yields and bacon characteristics of topamine to physically castrated barrows, immunologically immunologically castrated male pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 90:334–344. castrated barrows, and gilts on carcass characteristics, cutting doi:10.2527/jas.2011-4071 yields, and fresh meat quality. Prof. Anim. Sci. 32:346–356. Boler, D. D., C. L. Puls, D. L. Clark, M. Ellis, A. L. Schroeder, P. D. doi:10.15232/pas.2015-01466 Matzat, J. Killefer, F. K. McKeith, and A. C. Dilger. 2014. Effects Meyer, S. 2005. Optimal selling strategies and comparing packer ma- of immunological castration (Improvest) on changes in dressing trices. In: Proceedings of the Iowa Pork Regional Conferences. percentage and carcass characteristics of finishing pigs. J. Anim. http://www.ipic.iastate.edu/presentations/MeyerIPRC05.pdf. Sci. 92:359–368. doi:10.2527/jas.2013-6863 (Accessed 1 February 2016. ) Dunshea, F. R., J. R. D. Allison, M. Bertram, D. D. Boler, L. Brossard, NAMP. 2007. The Meat Buyer’s Guide: Beef, Lamb, Veal, Pork, and R. Campbell, J. P. Crane, D. P. Hennessy, L. Huber, C. deLange, Poultry. North American Meat Processors Assoc. John Wiley & N. Ferguson, P. Matzat, F. McKeith, P. J. U. Moraes, J. Noblet, Sons. Hoboken, NJ. N. Quiniou, and M. Tokach. 2013. The effects of immunization National Pork Producers Council (NPPC). 1991. Procedures to evalu- against GnRF on nutrient requirements of male pigs: A review. ate market hogs. 3rd ed. NPPC, Des Moines, IA. Animal 7:1769–1778. doi:10.1017/S1751731113001407 National Pork Producers Council (NPPC). 1999. Pork quality standards. Elsbernd, A. J., J. F. Patience, and K. J. Prusa. 2016. A comparison of NPPC, Des Moines, IA. the quality of fresh and frozen pork from immunologically castrat- ed males versus gilts, physical castrates, and entire males. Meat Sci. 111:110–115. doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2015.07.003 Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/1/1/77/4636611 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 10 April 2018 Carcass yield and value of Improvest pigs 89 Pauly, C., P. Spring, J. V. O’Doherty, S. Ampuero Kragten, and G. Tavárez, M. A., B. M. Bohrer, R. T. Herrick, M. A. Mellencamp, R. J. Bee. 2009. Growth performance, carcass characteristics and Matulis, M. Ellis, D. D. Boler, and A. C. Dilger. 2016. Effects of meat quality of group-penned surgically castrated, immuno- time after second dose of immunization against GnRF (Improvest) castrated (Improvac) and entire male pigs and individually independent of age at slaughter on commercial bacon slicing penned entire male pigs. Animal 3:1057–1066. doi:10.1017/ characteristics of immunologically castrated barrows. Meat Sci. S1751731109004418 111:147–153. doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2015.09.005 Sauvant, D., P. Schmidely, J. J. Daudin, and N. R. St-Pierre. 2008. USDA. USDA Market News. 2017. National daily pork report Meta-analyses of experimental data in animal nutrition. Animal FOB plant. https://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/lm_pk602. 2:1203–1214. doi:10.1017/S1751731108002280 txt (Accessed 18 March 2016.) Tavárez, M. A., B. M. Bohrer, M. D. Asmus, A. L. Schroeder, R. J. USDA. AMS, Livestock & Seed Program, Livestock & Grain Market Matulis, D. D. Boler, and A. C. Dilger. 2014. Effects of immu- News. 2016. Weekly national carlot meat report. https://www.ams. nological castration and distiller’s dried grains with solubles on usda.gov/mnreports/lsddb.pdf (Accessed 18 March 2016.) carcass cutability, and commercial bacon slicing yields of bar- USDA. LMR Data Mart. 2017. http://mpr.datamart.ams.usda.gov. rows slaughtered at two time points. J. Anim. Sci. 92:3149–3160. (Accessed 18 March 2016.) doi:10.2527/jas.2013-7522 Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/1/1/77/4636611 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 10 April 2018 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Translational Animal Science Oxford University Press

A summary review of carcass cutability data comparing primal value of immunologically and physically castrated barrows

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/a-summary-review-of-carcass-cutability-data-comparing-primal-value-of-mMuJVKEFCE

References (49)

eISSN
2573-2102
DOI
10.2527/tas2016.0009
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

A summary review of carcass cutability data comparing primal value of immunologically and physically castrated barrows B. N. Harsh,* B. Cowles,† R. C. Johnson,‡ D. S. Pollmann,§ A. L. Schroeder,† A. C. Dilger,* and D. D. Boler* *Department of Animal Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana 61801; †Zoetis, Kalamazoo, MI 49007; ‡Independent consultant, Des Moines, IA 50266; and §DSP Consulting LLC, Alpine, UT 84004 ABSTRACT: The objectives were to 1) assess treatment averages of 851 IC and PC barrow carcasses. cutability, quality, and value of carcasses from immu- Lean cutting yield of IC barrows was 1.41 units great- nologically castrated (IC) barrows compared with er (P < 0.0001) than PC barrows (70.97 vs. 69.56%). carcasses from physically castrated (PC) barrows and Similarly, CCY of IC barrows was 1.29 units greater 2) evaluate the effect of hot carcass weight (HCW) on (P < 0.001) compared with PC barrows (87.27 vs. cutability and value of IC barrows summarizing U.S. 85.98%). As HCW of IC barrows increased, both CCY data. Lean cutting yield (LCY) was defined as: LCY = and LCY declined (P < 0.01), with light IC barrow car- [(whole ham + trimmed loin + Boston butt + picnic + casses having a 1.43 unit advantage in CCY compared spareribs)/chilled side wt] x 100. Carcass cutting yield with heavy IC barrow carcasses (P < 0.01). Natural fall (CCY) was determined using the following equation: bellies of PC barrows comprised a greater (P < 0.05) CCY = [(lean cutting yield components + natural fall percentage of side weight than those from IC barrows belly)/chilled side wt] x 100. To evaluate the effects of (15.81 vs. 15.50%). A reduction in belly primal value HCW of IC barrows on carcass cutting yields, IC bar- was confirmed by a 3.43 unit reduction in the com- rows were grouped by HCW: light ( < 90.9 kg), average mercial bacon slicing yields of IC barrows. However, (90.9- 97.7 kg), or heavy ( > 97.7 kg). Differences in the belly yield and slicing yield differences were mini- value of the carcass components for IC and PC barrow mized when IC barrows were marketed at a heavier carcasses were calculated using a 5 yr average of meat weight. Using carcass cutout estimates determined in prices from the USDA Agriculture Marketing Service the summary as the foundation for value calculations, and the carcass cutting yield estimates generated from lean cuts of IC barrow carcasses were worth $2.66 to this summary. Data were analyzed using the MIXED $3.80 more than PC barrow carcasses. Therefore, after procedure of SAS with fixed effects of Improvest treat- adjustment for the reduction in belly primal value, the ment or HCW group. Study was included as a random primal value of an IC barrow carcass was $2.08 to effect. This review allowed for a summarization of the $3.13 greater than a PC barrow carcass. Key words: belly quality, cutability, gonadotropin-releasing factor, Improvest, pork © 2017 American Society of Animal Science. This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) Transl. Anim. Sci. 2017.1:77–89 doi:10.2527/tas2016.0009 INTRODUCTION tion (Improvest, Zoetis Inc., Kalamazoo, MI, GnRF analog-diphtheria toxoid conjugate) provides an ef- For any technology to gain industry-wide adoption, fective alternative to physical castration for reducing it must provide value to all segments of the industry and boar odor of intact male pigs while improving lean have minimal associated risks. Immunological castra- deposition compared with physically castrated (PC) barrows. The effects of immunological castration on growth performance (Dunshea et al., 2013), carcass Corresponding author: dboler2@illinois.edu cutability (Boler et al., 2011a, 2012) and belly quality Received September 1, 2016. (Kyle et al., 2014; Tavárez et al., 2016) have been well Accepted November 29, 2016. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/1/1/77/4636611 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 10 April 2018 78 Harsh et al. documented in a number of studies. However, because To ensure relevance to U.S. packers, only stud- experimental objectives differed among research stud- ies using U.S. cutting standards were included in ies, true differences in cutability and other carcass traits the carcass cutting yield analyses. For inclusion in between IC and PC carcasses are not clear. Production the bacon processing characteristics analysis, bellies factors such as diet (Tavárez et al., 2014), interval be- must have been commercially processed under the tween second Improvest injection and slaughter (Boler supervision of the USDA Food Safety and Inspection et al., 2012; Tavárez et al., 2016), marketing group Service. Hams fabricated to meet the specification of a (Lowe et al., 2014), and the use of ractopamine hydro- NAMP #401 (NAMP, 2007) were designated as whole chloride (Lowe et al., 2014; 2016b) all affect cutting hams. Trimmed hams were those fabricated to meet yield, belly characteristics, and meat quality attributes the specification of a NAMP #402 ham, skinned and of immunologically castrated (IC) barrows. Herrick et trimmed of excess fat. Skin and fatback (subcutane- al. (2016) demonstrated belly quality of IC barrow car- ous fat along the lateral portion of the loin) on bone-in casses is particularly dependent on HCW. However, the loins were designated as whole loins. Trimmed loins effect of HCW on cutability of other carcass compo- were those fabricated to meet the specification of a nents, as well as meat quality traits, has not been char- NAMP #410 loin. Bone-in Boston butt was designated acterized. Although comprehensive meta-analyses have as skinned, clear plate-removed shoulders fabricated been conducted to determine the average effects of im- to meet the specification of a NAMP #406. Modified, munological castration on live performance (Dunshea skinned NAMP #405 were designated as a bone-in et al., 2013) and elimination of boar odor compounds picnic. Bone-in picnics that were further fabricated (Batorek et al., 2012), these reviews have not evalu- were designated as a boneless picnic shoulder (NAMP ated the effects on carcass cutability, quality, and value. #405A) and cushion (triceps brachii; NAMP #405B). Therefore, the objectives of this work were to assess the Because ending live weights varied from study to carcass value of IC barrows compared with PC barrows study as a result of differences in study BW endpoints and to evaluate the effect of hot carcass weight (HCW) and objectives, emphasis was placed on percentage of on IC barrow carcass cutability and value. chilled side weight each component comprises as well as the magnitude of difference between IC and PC bar - MATERIALS AND METHODS rows for each component. Lean cutting yield (LCY) and carcass cutting yield (CCY) were calculated using A comprehensive summary provides a quantitative, the following equations: statistical approach to the summarization of previous Bone in LCY= [(Boston butt + picnic shoul- literature and scientific findings (Sauvant et al., 2008). der + trimmed loin + whole ham + spareribs) / By compiling the results of studies, statistical power (chilled side weight)] × 100 increases enabling more precise estimates of the mag- nitude of effect and confidence limits (Sauvant et al., 2008). As a result, the information provided provides Bone in CCY= [(Lean cutting yield greater understanding of the previous results through components + natural fall belly) / (chilled side a more comprehensive overview which ultimately al- weight)] × 100 lows for consensus to be drawn. A total of seven studies matched the pre-defined in- Study Selection Criteria clusion criteria for evaluating the effects of Improvest Although comprehensive summaries allow for the on carcass cutability and primal yields. These studies aggregation of multiple studies, an analysis may not include Boler et al. (2011a, 2012, and 2014), Lowe et al. necessarily include all previous findings. Determining (2014, 2016a, 2016b), Tavárez et al. (2014), and Harris which studies match summary objectives is of critical (2014). Within the belly quality characteristic evaluation, importance (Sauvant et al., 2008). Ultimately, using 7 studies were used: Boler et al. (2011b, 2012), Kyle et al. specific pre-defined inclusion criteria allows for ap- (2014), Lowe et al. (2014, 2016b), Tavárez et al. (2014, propriate industry application of the results. Pigs in all 2016), and Harris (2014). Loin quality summaries were the studies included in this review were administered conducted using 8 studies: Pauly et al. (2009), Boler et Improvest according to United States label require- al. (2011a, 2012, and 2014), Lowe et al. (2014, 2016b), ments at the time they were administered. To mirror Tavárez et al. (2014, 2016), Harris (2014), and Elsbernd current industry feeding practices, studies in which et al. (2016). Some studies included more than 1 experi- dried distillers grains with solubles (DDGS) as well rac- ment and data meeting criteria for cutability and belly topamine hydrochloride (RAC) was fed were included. analyses were included in both analyses. Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/1/1/77/4636611 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 10 April 2018 Carcass yield and value of Improvest pigs 79 Treatment Analyses (IC Barrows vs. PC Barrows) multiplied by the corresponding cutout price and con- Because immunological castration is a technology verted to value per kg. To provide a fair comparison of designed to provide an alternative to physical castra- the added value of Improvest to packers, equal carcass tion, the most relevant comparison in the U.S. pork weights for IC and PC barrows were used. To address industry for the IC barrow carcass cutting yields and fluctuation in pricing structures, a 5 year average of belly characteristics, is with PC barrows. Overall, this primal prices (2011 to 2015) was used for an average analysis allowed for a summarization of the treatment value calculation with 2 other scenarios during that averages for total 851 carcasses. time period highlighting the best (2014) and worst (2015) overall pricing for a single year. Hot Carcass Weight Analyses Statistical Analyses Marketing finished pigs in groups, or cuts has become a common strategy to maximize the number Data were analyzed using 2 different analysis of pigs meeting a target BW at the time of slaughter strategies to address the 2 objectives of the study. The (Meyer, 2005). The current labeled marketing period first objective was to evaluate the average effect of for male pigs treated with Improvest is from 3 to 10 immunological castration on carcass value, cutability, wk (21 to 70 d) after the second dose of Improvest. belly quality, and loin quality compared with physi- This time period allows for the reduction of boar odor cal castration. The second objective was to assess the compounds and ensures slaughter before boar odor effects of slaughtering immunologically castrated bar - compounds reappear. This flexible marketing window rows at different hot carcass weights. enables producers to use a variety of different mar - Data sets were analyzed using the MIXED pro- keting strategies. After the second Improvest dose, the cedure in SAS (SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC). The model weight of IC barrows continues to increase and tran- for comparing IC barrow carcasses with PC barrow sition, compositionally, toward greater fat deposition carcasses included fixed effects of castration method (Lowe et al., 2014). with treatment means from each study as the experi- The effect of IC barrow HCW on carcass cutability mental unit. Study was included as a random variable and belly characteristics in relation to packer-derived to account for differences in the production factors revenue is not well defined. To analyze the effect of evaluated. To assess the effects of HCW on IC bar - HCW, carcasses of IC barrows were categorized as row carcasses, the model included hot carcass weight light (< 90.9 kg), average (90.9 to 97.7 kg) or heavy ( > category as a fixed effect. Similarly, treatment means 97.7 kg). Carcass weight bins were fit to the available served as the experimental unit and study was in- data with the average HCW category encompassing the cluded as a random effect. Least square means were average HCW (93.2 kg) that was used for cutout value separated using PDIFF option with a Tukey-Kramer estimations in the 2016 USDA carlot report (USDA. adjustment for multiple comparisons. Differences in AMS, Livestock & Seed Program, Livestock, & Grain means were determined significant at P ≤ 0.05. For er - Market News, 2016). In total, this resulted in a sum- ror reporting of all evaluated variables, standard error marization of the treatment averages for 491 carcasses. of the difference (SED) was used instead of standard error of the mean to limit the influence of very large and very small studies on the overall results. Value Calculations The carcass cutout estimates resulting from the RESULTS AND DISCUSSION current review were used as a basis for the economic analysis of packer revenue for Improvest carcasses. The majority of studies comparing IC and PC bar- These data provided the foundation for determining rows were ended at a constant age for comparison of differences in the primal value of IC and PC barrow different lengths of time after second dose of Improvest carcasses. Corresponding price data for pork cutouts (Boler et al., 2012; Tavárez et al., 2014; Tavárez et al., were obtained from USDA daily pork cutout and 2016). Although ending live weights (ELW) of IC bar- primal values (USDA. USDA Market News, 2017). rows were not statistically different (P = 0.13) from PC Historical pricing figures can be verified using the barrows, the ELW of IC barrows was 3.12 kg heavier USDA mandatory reporting data mart application (129.21 vs. 126.09 kg) than PC barrows. Hot carcass (USDA. LMR Date Mart, 2017). Within this applica- weights were not different (P = 0.99) between IC and tion, all pricing is on a century weight basis ($/100 lbs PC barrows (96.26 vs. 96.25 kg). Dressing percentage of product) and the value of each cutout was provided of PC barrows was 1.9% units greater than IC barrows. as value per lbs. Therefore, pork cutout weights were This supports the numerical differences in ELW and Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/1/1/77/4636611 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 10 April 2018 80 Harsh et al. Table 1. Average fixed effects of Improvest [immunologically castrated barrows (IC)– physically castrated barrows (PC)] on whole and trimmed primal cut-out values from a summary of previously reported data Item IC PC Effect IC- PC 95% CI SED P-value Studies, n 7 6 Carcasses, n 511 320 HCW, kg 96.26 96.25 0.01 (-3.27, 3.31) 3.57 0.99 Chilled side wt, kg 46.22 46.19 0.03 (-1.97, 2.03) 2.15 0.98 Estimated lean, % 53.18 52.60 0.58 (-0.40, 1.55) 0.47 0.29 Lean cutting yield, % 70.89 69.50 1.39 (0.88, 1.90) 0.24 < 0.01 Carcass cutting yield, % 86.80 85.56 1.24 (0.62, 1.85) 0.31 0.02 Whole ham, kg 11.49 11.38 0.11 (-0.26, 0.50) 0.41 0.56 % chilled side wt 24.67 24.43 0.24 (-0.23, 0.71) 0.23 0.34 Trimmed ham, kg 9.85 9.56 0.29 (-0.02, 0.60) 0.33 0.11 % chilled side wt 21.36 20.74 0.62 (0.13, 1.12) 0.24 0.05 Trimmed loin, kg 10.65 10.47 0.18 (-0.23, 0.60) 0.48 0.40 % chilled side wt 22.19 21.86 0.33 (-0.11, 0.78) 0.22 0.19 Boston butt, kg 4.21 4.02 0.19 (0.03, 0.36) 0.18 0.05 % chilled side wt 9.14 8.69 0.45 (0.19, 0.69) 0.12 0.01 Picnic shoulder, kg 5.11 4.93 0.18 (-0.06, 0.42) 0.26 0.17 % chilled side wt 10.76 10.38 0.38 (0.14, 0.63) 0.12 0.02 Spareribs, kg 1.79 1.71 0.08 (-0.03, 0.18) 0.11 0.18 % chilled side wt 3.71 3.59 0.12 (0.00, 0.24) 0.06 0.10 Natural fall belly, kg 7.58 7.69 -0.11 (-0.39, 0.17) 0.31 0.45 % chilled side wt 15.50 15.80 -0.30 (-0.61, 0.01) 0.15 0.10 Sources include Boler et al. (2011a, 2012, and 2014), Lowe et al. (2014, 2016b), Tavárez et al. (2014), and Harris (2014). Lean cutting yield = [(whole ham + trimmed loin + Boston butt + picnic + spareribs)/chilled side wt] × 100. Carcass cutting yield = [(lean cutting yield components + natural fall belly)/chilled side wt] × 100. lack of difference in HCW observed in this review and strated similar cutability to RAC-fed PC barrows. previous studies, with dressing percentage differences Furthermore, Lowe et al. (2014) reported RAC-fed IC likely attributable to increased testicle, reproductive barrows had greater carcass cutting yields than RAC- tract and intestinal weights of IC barrows compared fed PC barrows, suggesting additive effects of the with PC barrows (Boler et al., 2014). RAC and Improvest technologies. Lowe et al. (2014) reported carcass cutout data as a percentage of HCW by multiplying the weight of cuts by 2 and dividing Whole and Trimmed Primal Yield by the HCW. Although the total percentages reported Immunologically castrated barrows exhibited a in that study are less than reported in this review, the 1.39% unit advantage (P < 0.0001; SED 0.30) over PC overall magnitude of differences are still representa - barrows in lean cuts (LCY). When differences in belly tive of the published literature. yield were accounted for, IC barrows still displayed a Trimmed ham (+ 0.62% units; P = 0.01), bone-in 1.24% unit improvement (P < 0.001) in carcass cutting Boston butt (+ 0.45% units; P < 0.001), and bone-in yield compared with PC barrows (Table 1). Overall, picnic (+ 0.39% units; P < 0.01) of IC barrows made the average effect of immunological castration was up a greater percentage of side weight than PC barrows. representative of the individual studies included in Although not statistically significant, IC barrows also the summary with differences attributable to study exhibited an advantage in whole ham (+ 0.24% units; experimental factors. In control-fed (no DDGS) IC P = 0.30), trimmed loin (+ 0.33% units; P = 0.13), and and PC barrows slaughtered 5 wk after second dose sparerib yield (+ 0.12% units; P = 0.06) compared of Improvest, Tavárez et al. (2014) reported a mag- with PC barrows. Cutability advantages of IC barrows nitude of difference in bone-in carcass cutting yield were amplified when comparing the magnitude of dif- of 2.54% units. However, this magnitude of difference ference in trimmed versus whole (subcutaneous fat decreased considerably (0.32% units) when barrows included) primals. Trimmed hams of IC barrows com- were fed 30% DDGS and slaughtered after longer in- prised a greater (P < 0.0001) percentage of the whole tervals (7 wk) between second dose of Improvest and ham than PC barrows (86.05% vs. 84.37%) likely a slaughter (Tavárez et al., 2014). Lowe et al. (2014) result of decreased fat trim. This finding is in line with reported control-fed (no RAC) IC barrows demon- previous studies demonstrating compositional differ - Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/1/1/77/4636611 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 10 April 2018 Carcass yield and value of Improvest pigs 81 Table 2. Average fixed effects of whole and trimmed primals weights of carcasses from immunologically castrated barrows categorized by hot carcass weight Hot carcass weight, kg Item Light < 90.9 kg) Average (90.9- 97.7 kg) Heavy ( > 97.7 kg) SED P-value Studies, n 2 3 4 Carcasses, n 108 225 178 a b c HCW, kg 88.07 92.54 102.66 0.95 < 0.0001 a b c Chilled side wt, kg 43.05 44.49 50.10 0.74 < 0.0001 b b a Estimated lean, % 54.77 55.78 50.91 0.91 < 0.001 3 a ab b Lean cutting yield, % 71.56 71.15 70.33 0.34 < 0.01 4 a a b Carcass cutting yield, % 87.44 87.51 85.98 0.51 < 0.01 a b c Whole ham, kg 10.51 10.93 11.97 0.20 < 0.0001 a b a % chilled side wt 24.60 25.58 23.95 0.51 < 0.01 a b c Trimmed ham, kg 9.13 9.65 10.14 0.16 < 0.001 b a c % chilled side wt 21.56 22.51 20.47 0.52 < 0.01 a a b Trimmed loin, kg 9.70 10.29 11.13 0.32 < 0.001 a b a % chilled side wt 22.07 22.97 21.69 0.53 0.02 a b b Boston butt, kg 3.83 4.24 4.26 0.12 < 0.001 b a c % chilled side wt 9.15 9.86 8.62 0.15 < 0.0001 a a b Picnic shoulder, kg 4.62 4.62 5.54 0.13 < 0.0001 % chilled side wt 10.49 10.78 10.85 0.25 0.12 a a b Spareribs, kg 1.58 1.57 1.90 0.09 < 0.01 % chilled side wt 3.74 3.62 3.76 0.19 0.76 a b b Natural fall belly, kg 6.87 7.38 7.81 0.25 < 0.001 a b a % chilled side wt 15.29 16.00 15.22 0.34 < 0.01 Sources include Boler et al. (2011a, 2012, and 2014), Lowe et al. (2014, 2016b), Tavárez et al. (2014), and Harris (2014). Greatest reported. Lean cutting yield = [(whole ham + trimmed loin + Boston butt + picnic + spareribs)/chilled side wt] × 100. Carcass cutting yield = [(lean cutting yield components + natural fall belly)/chilled side wt] × 100. a-c Means within row lacking common superscripts differ ( P < 0.05). ences in the ham between IC and PC barrows at equal IC barrows transition compositionally toward PC bar- carcass weights (Boler et al., 2012). Conversely, natu- rows. Tavárez et al. (2016) did not show differences in ral fall bellies of PC barrows (15.80%) comprised a HCW of IC barrows slaughtered at different lengths greater (P = 0.05) percentage of side weight than those after second dose of Improvest because the objective from IC barrows (15.50%). of that study was to show effects of age and time af- Both carcass and lean cutting yield of IC barrows ter second dose of Improvest, independent of carcass decreased as HCW increased, with IC barrows slaugh- weight. Similarly, in a study designed to mimic com- tered at light and average HCW having a 1.46% unit mercial production practices with pigs selected for advantage (P < 0.01) in carcass cutting yield com- slaughter on ending live weight and segregated into pared with heavy HCW IC barrows (Table 2). This 3 marketing groups, Lowe et al. (2014) reported both advantage is further illustrated by the substantial re- IC and PC barrows slaughtered in the second and third duction (-3.86% units; P < 0.001) in estimated lean (barn-dump) marketing groups had reduced lean cut- percentage of heavy HCW IC barrows compared with ting yields compared with barrows slaughtered in the light and average HCW IC barrows. Despite these re- first marketing group. ductions in cutting yield, when pooled across HCW Not surprisingly, the weight of all primals from IC groups, IC barrows still exhibited a greater carcass barrows increased as HCW increased. However, when and lean cutting yield than PC barrows (Table 1). The primals were expressed as a percentage of side weight, reduction in the yield of trimmed cuts from heavy IC it appears that Improvest influenced the allometric barrows compared with light IC barrows agrees with growth rate of the primals in relation to growth rate other observations that as the interval between second of the entire pig. Although trimmed ham weight and dose of Improvest and slaughter increased, IC bar- HCW of IC barrows increased concurrently, the per- rows got older and heavier in most studies (Boler et al., centage of trimmed ham decreased as HCW increased 2012; Tavárez et al., 2014). Therefore added carcass (P = 0.01), possibly due to the increased fat deposi- weight may be a result of increased fat deposition as tion of heavier IC barrows. Findings of Tavárez et al. Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/1/1/77/4636611 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 10 April 2018 82 Harsh et al. Table 3. Average fixed effects of Improvest [immunologically castrated barrows (IC)– physically castrated bar - 1,2 rows (PC)] on ham cut-out values from a summary of previously reported data Item IC PC Effect IC- PC 95% CI SED P-value Inside, kg 1.78 1.72 0.06 (-0.01, 0.11) 0.06 0.13 % chilled side wt 3.74 3.63 0.11 (0.02, 0.18) 0.04 0.04 % trimmed ham 17.96 17.97 -0.01 (-0.24, 0.22) 0.11 0.91 Outside, kg 2.46 2.36 0.10 (0.01, 0.19) 0.09 0.06 % chilled side wt 5.18 4.98 0.20 (0.10, 0.31) 0.05 < 0.01 % trimmed ham 24.91 24.60 0.31 (0.02, 0.60) 0.14 0.09 Knuckle, kg 1.40 1.35 0.05 (0.00, 0.10) 0.02 0.03 % chilled side wt 2.95 2.84 0.11 (0.06, 0.17) 0.03 < 0.001 % trimmed ham 14.18 14.05 0.13 (-0.08, 0.35) 0.10 0.20 Lite butt, kg 0.37 0.33 0.04 (0.02, 0.06) 0.01 < 0.001 % chilled side wt 0.77 0.69 0.08 (0.02, 0.12) 0.02 < 0.01 % trimmed ham 3.73 3.43 0.30 (0.05, 0.54) 0.12 0.02 Inside shank, kg 0.72 0.68 0.04 (0.01, 0.06) 0.01 < 0.01 % chilled side wt 1.54 1.46 0.08 (0.03, 0.13) 0.02 < 0.01 % trimmed ham 7.40 7.22 0.18 (0.03, 0.33) 0.07 0.02 Ham bones, kg 1.29 1.22 0.07 (0.01, 0.12) 0.03 0.03 % chilled side wt 2.68 2.56 0.12 (0.03, 0.20) 0.04 0.01 % trimmed ham 13.19 12.90 0.29 (0.00, 0.59) 0.14 0.05 Sources include Boler et al. (2011a, 2012, and 2014), Lowe et al. (2014, 2016b), Tavárez et al. (2014), and Harris (2014). Outer shank not included. Table 4. Average fixed effects of ham carcass cutout (2014) support this observation, showing an increase from immunologically castrated barrows categorized of approximately 6 mm in 10th–rib back fat depth of 1,2 by hot carcass weight IC barrows slaughtered at heavy (102 kg) HCW com- pared with light (87 kg) HCW. Hot carcass weight, kg Light Average Heavy Subprimal Yield ( < 90.9 (90.9- ( > 97.7 Item kg) 97.7 kg) kg) SED P-value a a b Inside, kg 1.65 1.70 1.85 0.05 < 0.001 Ham Subprimal Yields. Trimmed hams of IC bar- % chilled side wt 3.83 3.79 3.68 0.12 0.22 rows comprised a greater percentage (P < 0.0001) of % trimmed ham 17.95 17.75 18.08 0.43 0.75 whole ham weight than PC barrows, indicating less a a b Outside, kg 2.24 2.34 2.57 0.07 < 0.001 required fat trim. Given the increase (P = 0.01) in % chilled side wt 5.23 5.22 5.11 0.14 0.48 percentage of trimmed ham of IC barrows (21.36%) % trimmed ham 24.49 24.73 24.96 0.39 0.16 compared with PC barrows (20.74%), all ham com- b b Knuckle, kg 1.27a 1.37 1.45 0.04 < 0.0001 ponent pieces for IC barrows also made up a greater % chilled side wt 2.98 3.07 2.88 0.08 0.09 (P ≤ 0.01) percentage of side weight than PC barrows. % trimmed ham 13.89 14.33 14.12 0.34 0.32 These differences are further amplified when compo- Lite butt, kg 0.37 0.33 0.38 0.04 0.43 nent pieces are evaluated as a percentage of trimmed % chilled side wt 0.81 0.71 0.78 0.07 0.30 ham weight (Table 3). The outside, lite butt, shank and % trimmed ham 4.06 3.46 3.73 0.39 0.20 Inside shank, kg 0.68 0.74 0.72 0.03 0.06 ham bones of IC barrows all made up a greater per- a a b % chilled side wt 1.57 1.65 1.46 0.07 0.03 centage of trimmed ham compared with ham compo- % trimmed ham 7.43 7.75 7.15 0.24 0.09 nents from PC barrows. a b Ham bones, kg 1.19 – 1.32 0.02 < 0.01 The weight of insides, outsides, and knuckles all % chilled side wt 2.76 – 2.66 0.07 0.19 increased (P < 0.001) when IC barrows were market- % trimmed ham 13.29 – 13.18 0.22 0.61 ed at heavier weights (Table 4). However, inside and Sources include Boler et al. (2011a, 2012, and 2014), Lowe et al. outside hams comprised a lesser proportion of side (2014, 2016b), Tavárez et al. (2014), and Harris (2014). weight, numerically, as HCW of IC barrows increased. Outer shank not included. Loin Subprimal Yields. The Canadian back loin Greatest reported. (+ 0.28% units; P = 0.02), tenderloin (+ 0.04% units; a,b Means within row lacking common superscripts differ ( P < 0.05). P < 0.01), and sirloin (+ 0.07% units; P < 0.01) of IC barrows each comprised a greater percentage of side Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/1/1/77/4636611 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 10 April 2018 Carcass yield and value of Improvest pigs 83 Table 5. Average fixed effects of Improvest [immunologically castrated barrows (IC)– physically castrated barrows 1,2 (PC)] on loin cut-out values from a summary of previously reported data Item IC PC Effect IC- PC 95% CI SED P-value Fat back, kg 2.67 3.05 -0.38 (-0.74, -0.02) 0.14 0.04 % chilled side wt 5.39 6.11 -0.72 (-1.36, -0.09) 0.25 0.03 Canadian back, kg 3.73 3.60 0.13 (-0.02, 0.28) 0.07 0.09 % chilled side wt 8.02 7.74 0.28 (0.05, 0.50) 0.11 0.02 % trimmed loin 34.90 34.28 0.62 (0.05, 1.20) 0.29 0.04 Tenderloin, kg 0.48 0.46 0.02 (-0.01, 0.04) 0.01 0.18 % chilled side wt 1.02 0.98 0.04 (0.01, 0.05) 0.01 < 0.01 % trimmed loin 4.51 4.43 0.08 (-0.04, 0.19) 0.06 0.18 Sirloin, kg 0.85 0.82 0.03 (-0.01, 0.08) 0.02 0.13 % chilled side wt 1.80 1.73 0.07 (0.02, 0.12) 0.02 < 0.01 % trimmed loin 7.99 7.83 0.16 (-0.04, 0.35) 0.09 0.11 Backribs, kg 0.78 0.78 0.00 (-0.05, 0.04) 0.02 0.91 % chilled side wt 1.63 1.64 -0.01 (-0.06, 0.04) 0.02 0.79 % trimmed loin 7.38 7.51 -0.13 (-0.34, 0.09) 0.10 0.23 Backbones, kg 1.96 1.93 0.03 (-0.09, 0.15) 0.05 0.63 % chilled side wt 4.02 3.96 0.06 (-0.08, 0.20) 0.06 0.36 % trimmed loin 18.44 18.37 0.07 (-0.40, 0.54) 0.22 0.76 Sources include Boler et al. (2011a, 2012, and 2014), Lowe et al. (2014, 2016b), Tavárez et al. (2014), and Harris (2014). Excluded minor pieces include hip bone, blade bone, and minor trim. weight than the same cuts from PC barrows (Table 5). Table 6. Average fixed effects of loin carcass cutout Canadian back loins of IC barrows yielded an even values from immunologically castrated barrows cat- 1,2 greater (0.62% unit; P = 0.04) advantage over PC bar- egorized by hot carcass weight rows when evaluated as a percentage of trimmed loin. Hot carcass weight, kg Improvements in lean cuts from the loin are further val- Average idated by the reduced (P = 0.03) percentage of fat back Light (90.9- Heavy from IC barrows (5.39%) compared with PC barrows Item ( < 90.9 kg) 97.7 kg) ( > 97.7 kg) SED P-value (6.11%). No differences were found in the percentage Fat back, kg – – – – – % chilled side wt – – – – – of backrib and backbone between IC and PC barrows. a a b Canadian back, kg 3.41 3.55 3.90 0.13 < 0.01 Canadian back, tenderloin, sirloin and backrib a b a % chilled side wt 7.97 8.38 7.76 0.26 0.03 weights increased (P ≤ 0.03) as IC barrows were mar- % trimmed loin 34.85 34.01 35.19 0.84 0.41 keted at heavier weights (Table 6). Both Canadian a b c Tenderloin, kg 0.42 0.45 0.51 0.01 < 0.0001 back loins and sirloins of average HCW IC barrows % chilled side wt 1.00 1.02 1.02 0.05 0.74 made up a greater percentage of side weight than light % trimmed loin 4.38 4.49 4.58 0.19 0.28 or heavy HCW IC barrows. a b b Sirloin, kg 0.74 0.88 0.87 0.04 < 0.001 Shoulder Subprimal Yields. As a percentage of a b a % chilled side wt 1.77 1.99 1.72 0.06 < 0.01 side weight, boneless Boston butt (+ 0.39% units; P a b ab % trimmed loin 7.67 8.57 7.79 0.21 < 0.01 a a b < 0.001), boneless picnic (+ 0.16% units; P = 0.01), Backribs, kg 0.73 0.70 0.83 0.06 0.03 and cushion (triceps brachii, + 0.10% units; P = 0.02) % chilled side wt 1.72 1.57 1.66 0.12 0.35 were greater for IC barrows than PC barrows (Table 7). % trimmed loin 7.66 6.77 7.65 0.66 0.41 a b Backbones, kg 1.79 – 2.00 0.06 0.02 Interestingly, the picnic bones of IC barrows were % chilled side wt 4.33 – 4.05 0.14 0.08 0.10% units greater than PC barrows as a percentage % trimmed loin 18.84 – 18.43 0.54 0.47 of side weight (P ≤ 0.01), but there was no difference in neck bone percentage. Both jowls and clear plates Sources include Boler et al. (2011a, 2012, and 2014), Lowe et al. (2014, 2016b), Tavárez et al. (2014), and Harris (2014). made up a lesser (P ≤ 0.02) percentage of side weight Excluded minor pieces, including hip bone, blade bone, and minor trim. for IC barrows than PC barrows, similar to the effects Greatest reported. observed in other high fat carcass components. a-c Means within row lacking common superscripts differ ( P < 0.05). As IC barrows were marketed at heavier weights, weights of bone-in Boston butt, and bone-in picnic in- creased linearly (P < 0.0001). Picnic shoulder compo- nents (boneless picnic and cushion) increased in weight Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/1/1/77/4636611 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 10 April 2018 84 Harsh et al. Table 7. Average fixed effects of Improvest [immunologically castrated barrows (IC)– physically castrated barrows 1,2 (PC)]on shoulder cut-out values from a summary of previously reported data Item IC PC Effect IC- PC 95% CI SED P-value Boneless Boston butt, kg 3.89 3.71 0.18 (0.03, 0.34) 0.07 0.02 % chilled side wt 8.15 7.76 0.39 (0.19, 0.59) 0.09 < 0.001 % bone-in Boston butt 92.26 92.31 -0.05 (-0.45, 0.35) 0.19 0.79 Boneless picnic, kg 3.85 3.74 0.11 (-0.04, 0.27) 0.08 0.15 % chilled side wt 8.09 7.93 0.16 (0.04, 0.29) 0.06 0.01 % bone-in picnic 75.37 75.88 -0.51 (-1.64, 0.61) 0.55 0.36 Cushion, kg 1.15 1.11 0.04 (0.00, 0.07) 0.01 0.02 % chilled side wt 2.42 2.31 0.11 (0.02, 0.19) 0.04 0.02 % bone-in picnic 22.37 22.49 -0.12 (-0.99, 0.72) 0.41 0.75 Jowl, kg 1.25 1.34 -0.09 (-0.19, 0.00) 0.05 0.06 % chilled side wt 2.61 2.81 -0.20 (-0.32, -0.08) 0.06 < 0.01 Neck bones, kg 1.02 1.00 0.02 (-0.06, 0.10) 0.04 0.63 % chilled side wt 2.09 2.05 0.04 (-0.03, 0.11) 0.03 0.25 Clear plate, kg 0.95 1.03 -0.08 (-0.20, 0.03) 0.05 0.15 % chilled side wt 1.89 2.07 -0.18 (-0.33, -0.04) 0.07 0.02 Picnic bones, kg 0.91 0.85 0.06 (-0.02, 0.14) 0.04 0.15 % chilled side wt 1.89 1.79 0.10 (0.05, 0.16) 0.03 < 0.01 % bone-in picnic 17.33 16.81 0.52 (-0.11, 1.17) 0.30 0.10 Sources include Boler et al. (2011a, 2012, and 2014), Lowe et al. (2014, 2016b), Tavárez et al. (2014), and Harris (2014) Bnls picnic includes cushion. as HCW of IC barrows increased, comprising a numeri- Table 8. Average fixed effects of shoulder carcass cut- cally lesser percentage of bone-in picnics. This is likely a out values from immunologically castrated barrows result of a concomitant increase in picnic bone percent- categorized by hot carcass weight age. Of the primary fat components from the shoulder, Hot carcass weight, kg jowls comprised a greater (P = 0.02) percentage of side Light Average Heavy weight and clear plate weight increased (P < 0.01) as IC ( < 90.9 (90.9- ( > 97.7 barrows were marketed at heavier weights (Table 8). Item kg) 97.7 kg) kg) SED P-value a b b Boneless Boston butt, kg 3.55 3.90 3.94 0.13 < 0.01 b c a % chilled side wt 8.29 8.73 7.82 0.19 < 0.01 Belly Quality Attributes % bone-in Boston butt 92.41 92.11 92.43 0.45 0.75 3 a a b Boneless picnic, kg 3.52 3.53 4.15 0.09 < 0.0001 Because bellies are currently one of the most valu- % chilled side wt 8.13 7.89 8.23 0.16 0.15 able primal pieces of pork carcasses in the U.S., it is % bone-in picnic 75.81 76.59 74.78 0.75 0.08 imperative to understand the effects of Improvest on Cushion, kg 1.11 1.12 1.18 0.06 0.27 belly quality attributes. One disadvantage associated % chilled side wt 2.55 2.48 2.37 0.17 0.21 with increased leanness in pigs is a potential for wider, a ab b % bone-in picnic 23.75 23.95 21.33 1.37 0.04 thinner bellies (Boler et al., 2012; Kyle et al., 2014). a a b Jowl, kg 1.10 1.06 1.39 0.06 < 0.0001 Meat quality characteristics of IC barrows are often a a b % chilled side wt 2.55 2.36 2.76 0.12 0.02 a b compared with both PC barrows and gilts. Two stud- Neck bones, kg 0.86 – 1.04 0.03 < 0.001 ies (Boler et al., 2014; Lowe et al., 2016b) meeting % chilled side wt 2.08 – 2.10 0.06 0.70 a b the criteria for inclusion included all 3 sex classes (IC Clear plate, kg 0.73 – 0.97 0.05 < 0.01 % chilled side wt 1.75 – 1.95 0.09 0.08 barrows, PC barrows, and gilts) and were included in a b Picnic bones, kg 0.75 – 0.95 0.02 < 0.0001 the belly and loin quality analyses. a b % chilled side wt 1.80 – 1.92 0.14 < 0.01 Natural fall bellies of IC barrows (15.50%) com- a b % bone-in picnic 16.82 – 17.47 0.17 < 0.01 prised a lesser (P = 0.05) percentage of chilled side weight Sources include Boler et al. (2011a, 2012, and 2014), Lowe et al. than bellies from PC barrows (15.80%). No difference (2014, 2016b), Tavárez et al. (2014), and Harris (2014). was observed in belly width or iodine value among IC Greatest reported. barrows, PC barrows, and gilts (Table 9). No difference Bnls picnic includes cushion. a-c in belly length was observed either. Bellies of IC barrows Means within row lacking common superscripts differ ( P < 0.05). were thinner than PC barrows, but thicker than gilts (3.55 vs. 3.83 & 3.22 cm respectively; P < 0.0001). Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/1/1/77/4636611 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 10 April 2018 Carcass yield and value of Improvest pigs 85 Processing Attributes Table 9. Average fixed effects of Improvest [immuno - logically castrated barrows (IC)– physically castrated No processing differences were observed between barrows (PC) and gilts] on belly quality attributes IC and PC barrows for initial (green) weight, pump Item IC Gilt PC SED P-value weight, pump uptake, and cooked weight of bellies Length, cm 63.55 62.93 63.35 0.93 0.74 (Table 11). When expressed as a percentage of cooked Width, cm 24.53 24.28 23.93 0.98 0.11 weight, commercial slicing yield of bacon from IC b a c Thickness, cm 3.55 3.23 3.83 1.43 < 0.0001 barrows decreased (P < 0.001) 3.43% compared with Belly iodine value 65.27 68.35 65.02 3.24 0.59 commercial slicing yield of bacon from PC barrows. Sources include Boler et al. (2011b, 2012), Kyle et al. (2014), Lowe et al. Because there were no studies that evaluated bacon (2014, 2016b), Tavárez et al. (2014, 2016), and Harris (2014). slicing yield in which IC barrows had a HCW in the Greatest reported. average (90.9 to 97.7 kg) category, slicing yield was Calculated as IV value = C16:1 × (0.95) + C18:1 × (0.86) + C18:2 (1.732) only compared between IC and PC barrows in the light + C18:3 × (2.616) + C20:1 × (0.785) + C22:1 × (0.723) (AOCS,1998). a–c (< 90.9 kg) and heavy ( > 97.7 kg) HCW categories. Means within row lacking common superscripts differ ( P < 0.05). Bellies from PC barrows had greater (P ≤ 0.01) bacon slicing yield than bellies from IC barrows in both HCW Table 10. Average fixed effects of belly quality from categories. No slicing yield differences (P = 0.26) were immunologically castrated barrows categorized by hot observed between IC barrows in the light and heavy carcass weight HCW categories. When effect of weight was eliminated Hot carcass weight, kg by selecting pigs at equal ending live weights, Kyle et Light Average Heavy al. (2014) reported IC barrows had decreased slicing ( < 90.9 (90.9- ( > 97.7 yields compared with PC barrows and gilts. Item kg) 97.7 kg) kg) SED P-value In the light HCW category, PC barrows had a Length, cm 62.35 62.25 64.65 0.85 0.01 4.4% unit advantage (P < 0.01) in bacon slicability Width, cm 24.33 23.80 25.03 0.63 0.15 3 a a b compared with IC barrows. However, in the heavy Thickness, cm 3.25 3.33 3.80 0.08 < 0.0001 Belly iodine value 68.10 64.39 64.46 2.05 0.16 HCW category, that advantage (P = 0.01) in slicing 1 yield was reduced to 2.9% units. This translates to a Sources include Boler et al. (2011b, 2012), Kyle et al. (2014), Lowe et al. (2014, 2016b), Tavárez et al. (2014, 2016), and Harris (2014). 1.5% unit improvement in bacon slicing yield of IC Greatest reported. barrows in the heavy HCW category compared with Thickness is the average of 8 measurements collected along the belly, light HCW IC barrows (Fig. 1). This observation par- where location 1 to 4 is from the anterior to posterior position of the dorsal edge allels the findings of other individual studies evaluat - and location 5 to 8 is from the anterior to posterior position of the ventral edge. ing the effects of Improvest on belly quality and bacon Calculated as IV value = C16:1 × (0.95) + C18:1 × (0.86) + C18:2 (1.732) slicing attributes of heavy weight pigs. In a study of + C18:3 × (2.616) + C20:1 × (0.785) + C22:1 × (0.723) (AOCS,1998). a,b Means within row lacking common superscripts differ ( P < 0.05). the effects of time after second dose of Improvest and age at slaughter, Tavárez et al. (2016) reported no dif- Table 11. Average fixed effects of Improvest [immu - ference in bacon slicing yield of IC barrows compared nologically castrated barrows (IC)– physically cas- with PC barrows and gilts when slaughtered at 24 wk trated barrows (PC)] on belly processing attributes of age and held to heavier weights (100 kg) represen- tative of current U.S. marketing practices. Item IC PC Effect IC- PC SED P-value As HCW of IC barrows increased, bellies in- Initial wt, kg 5.45 5.55 -0.10 0.12 0.44 creased in initial (green) weight, pump weight, and Pump wt, kg 6.15 6.22 -0.07 0.14 0.62 Pump uptake, % 12.76 12.12 0.64 0.32 0.06 cooked weight (Table 12). Because natural fall belly Cooked wt, kg 5.51 5.65 -0.14 0.13 0.32 weight of IC barrows also increased with HCW, pro- Slicing Yield, % 84.24 87.66 -3.42 0.81 < 0.001 cessing attribute findings are likely attributable to in- creased weight gain. Similarly, Tavárez et al. (2016) Sources include Boler et al. (2011b, 2012), Kyle et al. (2014), Lowe et al. (2014, 2016b), Tavárez et al. (2014, 2016), and Harris (2014). reported processing characteristics, in a population of heavy weight pigs, were most related to absolute Although belly length of IC barrows increased lin- weight of bellies. Hot carcass weight of IC barrows early (P = 0.01) with HCW, HCW had no effect on had no effect on pump uptake of bellies. belly width (Table 10). However, belly thickness did increase (P < 0.0001) as IC barrows were marketed Loin Quality Attributes at heavier weights. Iodine value was numerically less for IC barrows in the average (64.39 units) or heavy Historically, loins have been the primal used to (64.46 units) HCW category compared with IC bar- determine total carcass quality. Therefore it is impor- rows in the light (68.10 units) HCW category. tant to evaluate loin quality parameters. The effect of Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/1/1/77/4636611 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 10 April 2018 86 Harsh et al. Figure 1. Effect of hot carcass weight on commerical bacon slicing yield of immunologically castrated (IC) barrows and physically castrated (PC) bar - rows. Data are depicted as least squared means ± SEM, and means lacking common superscripts (a,b; indicating differences in sex and HCW) differ (P < 0.05). Table 12. Average fixed effects of processing attri - Hot carcass weight had no impact (P ≥ 0.14) on butes of bellies from immunologically castrated bar- shear force, cook loss percentage, or drip loss of IC bar- rows categorized by hot carcass weight rows. There were no instrumental color differences as HCW of IC barrows increased. However, loins tended Hot carcass weight, kg (P = 0.06) to get darker (decreased L* value) as the HCW Average of IC barrows increased. As HCW increased among IC Light (90.9- Heavy Item ( < 90.9 kg) 97.7 kg) ( > 97.7 kg) SED P-value carcasses, loin chops became subjectively darker and a b c Initial wt, kg 4.90 5.21 5.76 0.16 < 0.0001 more marbled (Table 14). Subjective marbling findings a b c Pump wt, kg 5.55 5.87 6.51 0.17 < 0.0001 were confirmed as extractable lipid of loins increased (P Pump uptake, % 13.11 12.67 13.17 0.62 0.69 = 0.03) with HCW. A concurrent reduction in IC barrow a a b Cooked wt, kg 4.92 5.22 5.86 0.17 < 0.0001 loin moisture occurred as HCW increased. Sources include Boler et al. (2011b, 2012), Kyle et al. (2014), Lowe et al. (2014, 2016b), Tavárez et al. (2014, 2016), and Harris (2014). Estimated Value Proposition Greatest reported. a-c Means within row lacking common superscripts differ ( P < 0.05). By applying the average value of each cutout to a whole carcass basis and multiplying the result by the Improvest on loin quality was one of the first meat price per kg, a total dollar value for each primal was quality attributes to be evaluated after Improvest was determined on a per carcass basis. This allowed for approved (Pauly et al., 2009; Batorek et al., 2012). the comparison of carcass values between IC and PC Accordingly, there is a larger body of available lit- barrows at equal carcass weights. Using prices aver- erature. Subjective quality was evaluated using color, aged over a 5-yr period, the cutability advantage of IC marbling, and firmness standards as set by the National barrow carcasses compared with PC barrow carcasses Pork Producers Council (NPPC, 1991; 1999). resulted in a $3.08 increase in lean cuts value when There were no differences in shear force (tender - HCW was held constant (Fig. 2). Bellies from IC bar- ness), cook loss percentage, ultimate pH, or instrumental rows were thinner and had reduced bacon slicability color measurements between IC and PC barrows (Table compared with bellies of PC barrows. This resulted 13). Loin chops from IC barrows were less marbled and in a decreased value of $0.64 per IC barrow carcass. less firm, subjectively, than those from PC barrows, but When combined ($3.08- $0.64) these values resulted were similar to chops from gilts. Similarly, PC barrows in an additional $2.44 in carcass value of IC barrows had the greatest percentage (P = 0.03) of extractible lipid compared with equal weight PC barrow carcasses (2.39%). There were no differences (P = 0.84) in extract- (Table 15). Results from the 2 other pricing scenarios ible lipid between IC barrows (2.01%) and gilts (2.08%). show that IC barrows had an increased value of $3.13/ Although the moisture content of loins from IC barrows carcass using the best year (2014) primal pricing and and gilts was greater than PC barrows, there was no dif- $2.08/carcass increase using the worst year (2015) pri- ference in percent drip loss between IC and PC barrows. mal pricing compared with PC barrows. Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/1/1/77/4636611 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 10 April 2018 Carcass yield and value of Improvest pigs 87 Table 13. Average fixed effects of Improvest [immuno - Table 14. Average fixed effects of quality attributes of logically castrated barrows (IC)– physically castrated loins from immunologically castrated barrows catego- 1 1 barrows (PC) and gilts] on loin quality rized by hot carcass weight Hot carcass weight, kg Effect Effect IC vs. IC vs. Light Average Heavy Item IC Gilt PC Gilt PC SED P-value ( < 90.9 kg) (90.9- ( > 97.7 kg) pH 5.59 5.55 5.60 -0.04 0.01 0.05 0.60 Item 97.7 kg) SED P-value 3 a a b Instrumental color pH 5.51 5.53 5.66 0.03 < 0.001 L* 48.52 48.03 48.25 -0.49 -0.27 0.90 0.69 Instrumental color a* 6.89 6.75 7.13 -0.14 0.24 0.46 0.31 L* 49.36 48.91 47.38 0.94 0.06 b* 3.67 3.59 3.79 -0.08 0.12 0.45 0.72 a* 5.62 5.53 6.28 0.44 0.22 Subjective quality b* 3.59 3.46 3.63 0.47 0.88 Color 2.83 2.93 3.01 0.10 0.18 0.25 0.24 Subjective quality a a b a a b Marbling 1.74 1.59 2.07 -0.15 0.33 0.22 < 0.01 Color 2.44 2.45 3.26 0.17 < 0.0001 a ab b a a b Firmness 2.52 2.53 2.72 0.01 0.20 0.14 < 0.01 Marbling 2.09 2.07 1.48 0.15 < 0.001 Loin composition Firmness 2.45 2.61 2.54 0.12 0.11 a ab b Moisture, % 74.61 74.33 74.12 -0.28 -0.49 0.50 0.02 Loin composition a ab b b b a Fat, % 2.01 2.08 2.39 0.07 0.38 0.31 0.03 Moisture, % 74.76 75.16 74.18 0.26 0.01 ab b a ab a b Drip loss, % 2.78 3.14 2.56 0.36 -0.22 0.28 0.04 Fat, % 1.86 1.62 2.19 0.18 0.03 Cook loss, % 21.04 21.11 20.73 0.07 -0.31 1.36 0.83 Drip loss, % 2.91 2.92 2.54 0.23 0.19 WB Shear force, kg 2.92 – 2.91 – -0.01 0.08 0.82 Cook loss, % 22.14 21.32 22.92 2.07 0.24 WB Shear force, kg 3.01 2.86 2.88 0.44 0.14 Sources include Pauly et al. (2009), Boler et al. (2011a, 2012, and 2014), Lowe et al. (2014, 2016b), Tavárez et al. (2014, 2016), Harris Sources include Pauly et al. (2009), Boler et al. (2011a, 2012, and (2014), and Elsbernd et al. (2016). 2014), Lowe et al. (2014, 2016b), Tavárez et al. (2014, 2016), Harris Greatest reported. (2014), and Elsbernd et al. (2016). 3 2 Minolta Colorimeter, D65 illuminant. L*, greater value indicates a Greatest reported. lighter color; a*, greater value indicates a redder color; b*, greater value Minolta Colorimeter, D65 illuminant. L*, greater value indicates a indicates a more yellow color. lighter color; a*, greater value indicates a redder color; b*, greater value Evaluated according to National Pork Producers Council standards for indicates a more yellow color. color and marbling (NPPC, 1999) and firmness (NPPC, 1991). Evaluated according to National Pork Producers Council standards for Warner-Bratzler shear force was conducted on chops aged 14 to 21 d color and marbling (NPPC, 1999) and firmness (NPPC, 1991). postmortem. Warner-Bratzler shear force was conducted on chops aged 14 to 21 d a,b Means within row lacking common superscripts differ ( P < 0.05). postmortem. a,b Means within row lacking common superscripts differ ( P < 0.05). Using the 5-yr primal pricing average, carcasses from IC barrows slaughtered within the average HCW category (90.9- 97.7 kg) had an added value of $2.53 more per carcass compared with carcasses of IC bar- rows in the light HCW category. Using the best and worst case primal pricing scenarios, carcasses of IC barrows slaughtered within the average HCW catego- ry were worth up to $3.10 more and as little as $1.96 more than carcasses of IC barrows in the light HCW category. When comparing the value of IC barrow car- casses within the average HCW category and above, there was a loss in primal value of carcasses from Figure 2. Effect of Improvest on value of carcasses from immuno - logically castrated (IC) barrows compared with physically castrated bar- heavy IC barrows. This resulted from the extra cost to rows (PC). Lean cuts include Boston butt, picnic shoulder, trimmed loin, the packer for purchasing heavier carcasses. Using the spareribs, and whole ham. 5-yr average primal price, IC barrow carcasses in the heavy HCW category were projected to return a loss of $9.46/carcass compared to carcasses in the average Conclusion HCW category. The economic analysis of data gener- ated in this review revealed that IC barrow carcasses Improvest increased carcass cutting yield by weighing between 90.9 to 97.7 kg had greater primal 1.24% units and lean cutting yield by 1.39% units value to packers than carcasses weighing below or compared with PC barrows. However, this cutability above that range. advantage decreased as IC barrows were slaughtered Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/1/1/77/4636611 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 10 April 2018 88 Harsh et al. Table 15. Effects of Improvest [immunologically castrated barrows (IC)– physically castrated barrows (PC)] on added primal value Three price scenarios: 5 yr avg. value, 2011 to 2015 Best yr value, 2014 Worst yr value, 2015 Primal IC PC Effect IC PC Effect IC PC Effect Chilled carcass wt, kg 92.44 92.44 – 92.44 92.44 – 92.44 92.44 – Bone in Boston, $ 18.47 17.60 0.87 23.58 22.46 1.13 15.86 15.11 0.75 Picnic shoulder, $ 15.21 14.67 0.54 20.07 19.36 0.71 11.21 10.82 0.40 Whole ham, $ 39.07 38.69 0.38 51.88 51.38 0.50 30.27 29.98 0.29 Trimmed loin, $ 47.11 46.30 0.81 54.54 53.60 0.93 40.10 39.41 0.69 Natural fall belly, $ 42.40 43.04 -0.64 44.53 45.20 -0.67 37.54 38.10 -0.57 Spareribs, $ 11.32 10.83 0.49 12.21 11.68 0.53 12.11 11.58 0.53 Total added value from primals $2.44 $3.13 $2.08 Harris, E. K. 2014. Effects of dried distillers grains with solubles at heavier weights. On average, packers can expect an (DDGS) feeding strategies on growth performance, nutrient increase of $2.44 in total value from IC barrow car- intake, body composition, and lean and fat quality of im- casses compared with PC barrow carcasses. Over a munologically castrated pigs harvested at 5, 7, or 9 weeks 5-yr period encompassing a worst and best year pri- after second Improvest dose. 1-371. PhD Diss. University of Minnesota, St. Paul. mal pricing scenario, the value of an IC barrow car- Herrick, R. T., M. A. Tavárez, B. N. Harsh, M. A. Mellencamp, D. D. cass was still between $2.08 and $3.13 greater than a Boler, and A. C. Dilger. 2016. Effect of immunological castration PC barrow carcass. management strategy on lipid oxidation and sensory characteris- tics of bacon stored under simulated food service conditions. J. LITERATURE CITED Anim. Sci. doi:10.2527/jas.2016-0366 Kyle, J. M., B. M. Bohrer, A. L. Schroeder, R. J. Matulis, and D. D. AOCS. 1998. Official methods and recommended practices of AOCS. Boler. 2014. Effects of immunological castration (Improvest) Am. Oil. Chem. Soc., Champaign, IL. on further processed belly characteristics and commercial ba- Batorek, N., M. Candek-Potokar, M. Bonneau, and J. Van Milgen. 2012. con slicing yields of finishing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 92:4223–4233. Meta-analysis of the effects of immunocastration on production doi:10.2527/jas.2014-7988 performance, reproductive organs and boar taint compounds in Lowe, B. K., G. D. Gerlemann, S. N. Carr, P. J. Rincker, A. L. Schroeder, pigs. Animal 6:1330–1338. doi:10.1017/S1751731112000146 D. B. Petry, F. K. McKeith, G. L. Allee, and A. C. Dilger. 2014. Boler, D. D., L. W. Kutzler, D. M. Meeuwse, V. L. King, D. R. Effects of feeding ractopamine hydrochloride (Paylean) to physi- Campion, F. K. McKeith, and J. Killefer. 2011a. Effects of in- cal and immunologically castrates (Improvest) in a commercial creasing lysine on carcass composition and cutting yields of setting on carcass cutting yields and loin quality. J. Anim. Sci. immunologically castrated male pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 89:2189– 92:3715–3726. doi:10.2527/jas.2013-7515 2199. doi:10.2527/jas.2010-3640 Lowe, B. K., M. F. Overholt, G. D. Gerlemann, S. N. Carr, P. J. Rincker, Boler, D. D., D. L. Clark, A. A. Baer, D. M. Meeuwse, V. L. King, A. L. Schroeder, D. B. Petry, F. K. McKeith, G. L. Allee, and A. F. K. McKeith, and J. Killefer. 2011b. Effects of increasing ly- C. Dilger. 2016a. Ham and belly processing characteristics of im- sine on further processed product characteristics from immu- munologically castrated barrows (Improvest) fed ractopamine nologically castrated male pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 89:2200–2209. hydrochloride (Paylean). Meat Sci. 112:103–109. doi:10.1016/j. doi:10.2527/jas.2010-3641 meatsci.2015.10.019 Boler, D. D., J. Killefer, D. M. Meeuwse, V. L. King, F. K. McKeith, Lowe, B. K., K. A. Kroscher, M. A. Tavárez, F. K. McKeith, A. L. and A. C. Dilger. 2012. Effects of slaughter time post-second Schroeder, and A. C. Dilger. 2016b. Effects of feeding rac- injection on carcass cutting yields and bacon characteristics of topamine to physically castrated barrows, immunologically immunologically castrated male pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 90:334–344. castrated barrows, and gilts on carcass characteristics, cutting doi:10.2527/jas.2011-4071 yields, and fresh meat quality. Prof. Anim. Sci. 32:346–356. Boler, D. D., C. L. Puls, D. L. Clark, M. Ellis, A. L. Schroeder, P. D. doi:10.15232/pas.2015-01466 Matzat, J. Killefer, F. K. McKeith, and A. C. Dilger. 2014. Effects Meyer, S. 2005. Optimal selling strategies and comparing packer ma- of immunological castration (Improvest) on changes in dressing trices. In: Proceedings of the Iowa Pork Regional Conferences. percentage and carcass characteristics of finishing pigs. J. Anim. http://www.ipic.iastate.edu/presentations/MeyerIPRC05.pdf. Sci. 92:359–368. doi:10.2527/jas.2013-6863 (Accessed 1 February 2016. ) Dunshea, F. R., J. R. D. Allison, M. Bertram, D. D. Boler, L. Brossard, NAMP. 2007. The Meat Buyer’s Guide: Beef, Lamb, Veal, Pork, and R. Campbell, J. P. Crane, D. P. Hennessy, L. Huber, C. deLange, Poultry. North American Meat Processors Assoc. John Wiley & N. Ferguson, P. Matzat, F. McKeith, P. J. U. Moraes, J. Noblet, Sons. Hoboken, NJ. N. Quiniou, and M. Tokach. 2013. The effects of immunization National Pork Producers Council (NPPC). 1991. Procedures to evalu- against GnRF on nutrient requirements of male pigs: A review. ate market hogs. 3rd ed. NPPC, Des Moines, IA. Animal 7:1769–1778. doi:10.1017/S1751731113001407 National Pork Producers Council (NPPC). 1999. Pork quality standards. Elsbernd, A. J., J. F. Patience, and K. J. Prusa. 2016. A comparison of NPPC, Des Moines, IA. the quality of fresh and frozen pork from immunologically castrat- ed males versus gilts, physical castrates, and entire males. Meat Sci. 111:110–115. doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2015.07.003 Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/1/1/77/4636611 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 10 April 2018 Carcass yield and value of Improvest pigs 89 Pauly, C., P. Spring, J. V. O’Doherty, S. Ampuero Kragten, and G. Tavárez, M. A., B. M. Bohrer, R. T. Herrick, M. A. Mellencamp, R. J. Bee. 2009. Growth performance, carcass characteristics and Matulis, M. Ellis, D. D. Boler, and A. C. Dilger. 2016. Effects of meat quality of group-penned surgically castrated, immuno- time after second dose of immunization against GnRF (Improvest) castrated (Improvac) and entire male pigs and individually independent of age at slaughter on commercial bacon slicing penned entire male pigs. Animal 3:1057–1066. doi:10.1017/ characteristics of immunologically castrated barrows. Meat Sci. S1751731109004418 111:147–153. doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2015.09.005 Sauvant, D., P. Schmidely, J. J. Daudin, and N. R. St-Pierre. 2008. USDA. USDA Market News. 2017. National daily pork report Meta-analyses of experimental data in animal nutrition. Animal FOB plant. https://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/lm_pk602. 2:1203–1214. doi:10.1017/S1751731108002280 txt (Accessed 18 March 2016.) Tavárez, M. A., B. M. Bohrer, M. D. Asmus, A. L. Schroeder, R. J. USDA. AMS, Livestock & Seed Program, Livestock & Grain Market Matulis, D. D. Boler, and A. C. Dilger. 2014. Effects of immu- News. 2016. Weekly national carlot meat report. https://www.ams. nological castration and distiller’s dried grains with solubles on usda.gov/mnreports/lsddb.pdf (Accessed 18 March 2016.) carcass cutability, and commercial bacon slicing yields of bar- USDA. LMR Data Mart. 2017. http://mpr.datamart.ams.usda.gov. rows slaughtered at two time points. J. Anim. Sci. 92:3149–3160. (Accessed 18 March 2016.) doi:10.2527/jas.2013-7522 Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/1/1/77/4636611 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 10 April 2018

Journal

Translational Animal ScienceOxford University Press

Published: Feb 1, 2017

There are no references for this article.