search for




 

Influence of Probiotics-Friendly Pig Production on Meat Quality and Physicochemical Characteristics
Korean J. Food Sci. An. 2018;38:403-416
Published online April 30, 2018
© 2018 Korean Society for Food Science of Animal Resources

Sung Yong Chang1,†, Shah Ahmed Belal2,†, Da Rae Kang2, Yang Il Choi3, Young Hoon Kim1, Ho Sung Choe2, Jae Young Heo4,*, and Kawn Seob Shim2,*

1Department of Animal Science, Chonbuk National University, Jeonju 54896, Korea
2Department of Animal Biotechnology, Chonbuk National University, Jeonju 54896, Korea
3Department of Animal Science, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju 28644, Korea
4International Agricultural Development and Cooperation Center, Chonbuk National University, Jeonju 54896, Korea
Correspondence to: Kwan Seob Shim
Department of Animal Biotechnology, Chonbuk National University, Jeonju 54896, Korea
Tel: +82-63-270-2609 Fax: +82-63-270-2614 E-mail: ksshim@jbnu.ac.kr
Jae Young Heo
International Agricultural Development and Cooperation Center, Chonbuk National University, Jeonju 54896, Korea
Tel: +82-63-270-5925 Fax: +82-63-270-5927 E-mail: jyheobio@gmail.com
These authors contributed equally to this work
Received February 5, 2018; Revised March 28, 2018; Accepted March 29, 2018.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Abstract
In this study, the dietary effects of probiotics with a liquid application system on meat quality and physicochemical characteristics of pigs were evaluated. A total of 80 Landrace×Yorkshire×Duroc (LYD) 3-way crossbred pigs (average age 175±5 d) were assigned to a conventional farm and a probiotics farm equipped with a liquid probiotics application system (40 pigs in each farm). The two treatments were: CON (diet without probiotics) and PRO (diet with probiotics). Dietary probiotics decreased shear force in the longissimus muscle compared to the control group (p<0.05). The treatment diet did not affect backfat thickness, carcass weight, meat color, cooking loss, water holding capacity (WHC), and drip loss. Dietary probiotics significantly reduced ash, salinity, and pH (at 5 and 15 d) (p<0.05). There was no significant effect on thiobarbituric acid reactive substance (TBARS) values. Polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) and omega fatty acids (ω3 and ω6) were significantly (p<0.05) higher in the PRO group, whereas monounsaturated fatty acid (MUFA) was decreased. The free amino acid composition, serine, lysine, histidine, and arginine levels were significantly lower in the PRO than in the control group. The treatment group exhibited higher nucleotide compounds (hypoxanthine, inosine, GMP, IMP) than the controls. Also, levels of ascorbic acid and thiamin were significantly different (p<0.05), while minerals were not significantly different between the groups. In conclusion, feeding of probiotics had effects on shear force, ash, salinity, pH, PUFA, and some amino acids which related to taste and flavor without any negative effects on the pigs’ carcass traits.
Keywords : probiotics, meat quality, chemical composition, crossbred pigs


April 2018, 38 (2)