Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Remole, Hannah M
• Htoo, John K
• Mendoza, S M
• Bradley, Casey L
• Dilger, Ryan N
• Dilger, Anna C
• Harsh, Bailey N

Titel

Effects of supplemental methionine sources in finishing pig diets on growth performance, carcass characteristics, cutting yields, and meat quality

Ist Teil von

• Translational animal science, 2024-05, Vol.8, p.txae088

Ort / Verlag

US: Oxford University Press

Erscheinungsjahr

2024

Quelle

EZB Electronic Journals Library

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• Abstract Supplemental methionine (Met) is widely used within the swine industry; however, data are limited regarding the effect of Met sources on carcass cutability and meat quality. The objective was to determine the effects of L-Met (LM, 99%), DL-Met (DLM, 99%), or calcium salt of DL-Met hydroxyl analog (MHA, 84%) in finishing pig diets on carcass characteristics and meat quality. At 9 weeks of age, pigs (N = 240) were allocated to 60 single-sex pens for a four-phase finishing trial that lasted 104 d. Pigs were fed a common grower diet until day 56 where pens were randomly allotted to one of the three experimental diets. For the remaining 7 wk of the finisher phase, pigs (BW = 79.9 ± 0.80 kg) were fed diets containing LM, DLM, or MHA, with the supplemental Met source providing 25% of standardized ileal digestible (SID) Met + cysteine (Cys) requirement based on 65% bioefficacy for MHA in comparison with LM or DLM. One pig per pen was slaughtered at the study conclusion (on day 104), and the left sides of carcasses were fabricated into subprimal cuts to determine carcass-cutting yields. Loin quality including proximate composition and shear force were measured. Hot carcass weight was not different (P = 0.34) between treatments (LM 104.5 kg; DLM 103.0 kg; MHA 101.5 kg), moreover, loin eye area was not different (P = 0.98) between treatments (LM 52.65 cm²; DLM 52.49 cm²; MHA 52.81 cm²). Boneless carcass-cutting yield was not different (P = 0.56) between treatments (LM 54.97 kg; DLM 54.82 kg; MHA 54.52 kg). Loin pH was not different (P = 0.24) between treatments (LM 5.45; DLM 5.48; MHA 5.45). However, drip loss tended to be reduced (P = 0.11) by the DLM treatment (5.58%) compared with LM (7.03%) and MHA (6.68%) treatments. Shear force was not different (P = 0.85) between treatments (LM 3.03 kg; DLM 3.06 kg; MHA 3.10 kg). However, cook loss tended to be reduced (P = 0.06) by the DLM treatment (16.20%) compared with LM (18.18%) and MHA (18.50%) treatments. These data suggest that only minimal differences in carcass cutability and meat quality can be attributed to Met source in finishing pig diets when using 65% bioefficacy for MHA relative to L-Met or DL-Met. Supplemental methionine source (L-Met, DL-Met, or MHA) can be fed in finishing pig diets with little impact on growth performance, cutting yields, fresh loin, and belly quality when using 65% bioefficacy for MHA relative to L-Met or DL-Met. This lack of differences indicates there would be little advantage or disadvantage for carcass yield and quality to using one Met source over another. Lay Summary Methionine supplementation is common in commercial growing-finishing pig diets because of the high Met requirements of pigs coupled with low Met concentrations in industry-typical corn–soybean diets. Supplementary Met is commonly supplied as: DL-Met (99% pure), L-Met, or a DL-methionine hydroxyl analog (MHA). As methionine sources may be processed differently within the body, data are limited regarding the effect of Met sources on carcass cutability and meat quality. Therefore, our goal was to investigate the use of supplemental methionine sources on growth performance, cutting yields, and meat quality. A total of 240 pigs were fed one of the three diets that differed in methionine source (L-Met, DL-Met, or MHA). Pigs were fed treatment diets for the last 7 wk leading up to slaughter. Methionine source did not alter overall (days 1 to 104) growth performance or performance during phases 3 and 4 (days 56 to 104). Only minimal differences in carcass-cutting yields and meat quality were observed between methionine sources, when using 65% bioefficacy for MHA relative to L-Met or DL-Met. The lack of differences indicates there would be little advantage or disadvantage for carcass yield and quality to using one Met source over another.