how to mitigate the effects of feeding corn ddgs …department/deptdocs.nsf/all/lr...how to mitigate...

How to Mitigate the Effects

of Feeding Corn DDGS on

Carcass and Pork Quality

Eduardo Beltranena©

Malachy Young, Jennifer Aalhus, Michael Dugan, Neil Campbell, Matt Oryschak, and Ruurd Zijlstra

Agriculture and Rural Development

Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development ©

Feeding DDGS Mainly Affects …

1. Dressing percentage

2. Fat hardness

3. Pork quality,

↓fat content


1. 0, 0, 0, 0, 0%

2. 30, 30, 30, 30, 30%

3. 30, 30, 30, 20, 20%

4. 30, 30, 30, 20, 10%

5. 30, 30, 30, 20, 0%

Corn DDGS Withdrawal Rates

D21

D42

D56 D70 D98 Marketing


Corn DDGS Withdrawal Rates on Dressing

77

78

79

80

Dress, %

0,0% 30,30% 20,20%

20,10% 20,0%

P < 0.0001,

SEM 0.15

bc

ab

c

d

a

• Reduction in dressing:

– For each 10% DDGS

dressing declined 0.4%

– Loss dressed weight

represented $0.50/pig

– Withdrawal strategies

mitigated the problem

%


Effects on Fat Hardness

• Corn DDGS 10-12% fat, unsaturated linoleic acid

• Feeding DDGS increases iodine value

• Asia is Canada’s most attractive pork market

• Packers’ greatest concern is loin firmness

– Bacon slices may stick and gel together

– Sausage may appear oily, runny

– Reduced pork shelf life

• Genotype and gender

exacerbate the problem



on Backfat Hardness

60

70

80

90

Backfat Hardness

0,0% 30,30% 20,20%

20,10% 20,0%

P < 0.0001,

SEM 2.25

bc

c

b

a

bc

Du

rom

ete

r u

nit

s



on BELLY Tissue Composition

0

200

400

600

Belly S,T Spare ribs

0,0% 30,30% 20,20% 20,10% 20,0%

g/kg

P = 0.0187, SEM 10.87

P = 0.0350, SEM 11.54

bc a ab abc

c

a a ab a b


Corn DDGS Withdrawal

on Belly Measurements

0

20

40

60

80

100

Angle, d Distance, cm Thick, mm Fat area, %

0,0% 30,30% 20,20% 20,10% 20,0%

P < 0.0001

SEM 3.53

c

b

c

a

c

b

c

b

c

a

c

b

a

b b b

a

b

a

P < 0.0001

SEM 1.11

P = 0.0479

SEM 0.08

P = 0.2182

SEM 0.08

Gender P ≤ 0.0004


Corn DDGS Withdrawal Rates on

% Belly Fatty Acid Composition

0

10

20

30

40

50

C16:0 c9-16:1 C18:0 c9-18:1 c11-18:1 C18:2n-6 C18:3n-3 C20:4n-6

0,0% 30,30% 20,20% 20,10% 20,0%

a

d

c

d

b

c b

P = 0.0001

SEM 0.24

c

a b

c

b

c

b

a b b b b

c a

b b

c b

d

a

b b c

c a b b b

P < 0.0001

SEM 0.09

P = 0.0003

SEM 0.27

P < 0.0001

SEM 0.47

P < 0.0001

SEM 0.42

P < 0.0001

SEM 0.03

Gender P < 0.05, except C18:0, c9-18:1

P = 0.0003

SEM 0.27 a

c b b b

P < 0.0001

SEM 0.01

a

c

a

b b b



Belly Fatty Acid Composition, %

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

SFA MUFA PUFA n-6 n-3 n-6/n-3 IV

0,0% 30,30% 20,20% 20,10% 20,0%

a

d

c

d

b

c b

c a

b b b

d

a b b c

d

a b b

c

P < 0.0001

SEM 0.42

P < 0.0001

SEM 0.03

P < 0.0001

SEM 0.18

P < 0.0001

SEM 0.57 Gender P < 0.06

a

c b b b

P < 0.0001

SEM 0.57

a

d

b b c

P < 0.0001

SEM 0.46

d

a b b

c

P < 0.0001

SEM 0.44


Corn DDGS Withdrawal Rate on

Loin Fatty Acid Composition, %

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

C16:0 c9-16:1 C18:0 c9-18:1 c11-18:1 C18:2n-6 C20:4n-6 IV

0,0% 30,30% 20,20% 20,10% 20,0%

a

a

b

c

b

c

P < 0.0001

SEM 0.26

b

a

c

d

b

c

d

a

d

b

c

a

c

P < 0.0001

SEM 0.54

a

b

P < 0.0001

SEM 0.54

P < 0.0001

SEM 0.06

c

c

b

c

b

c

b

P = 0.0002

SEM 0.09

b b

a

b b

P = 0.0188

SEM 0.21

a

c

b

c

b

b

c

b

P < 0.0001

SEM 0.46

d

a a

b b

c c

P < 0.0001

SEM 0.46

c

a a

b b

c

a

b

Gender P < 0.05 except c9-18:1, c11-18:1 P < 0.01 except c9-16:1


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LAnumbering.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Oleic-acid-skeletal.svg

Processed Pork Products

Agriculture and Rural Development

Food Processing Centre, Leduc, AB



on Ham Physical Properties

• The fat content in

ham was too low to

notice differences in

texture or color

• No differences were

noted by consumers

on ham sensory

attributes



Breakfast Sausage Shear Force

• Kramer Shear Force

– 30% DDGS trend to

require less force to

shear than both

control or 20,0%

DDGS

– The 20,0% DDGS

showed similar shear

force values as the

control

The hardness of breakfast sausages made from pork harvested from hogs finished with

different levels of DDGS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Regular, D1 Regular, D8

Sausage Type/ Days of Storage

Ha

rd

ne

ss

(N

)

T1

T2

T5


Corn DDGS Withdrawal Rates on Sensory

Evaluation of Breakfast Sausage

• Appearance and

Colour of 30% Fat

Sausages

– Comments were that

30% DDGS sausages

were pale compared

with controls

– Panelist reported no

difference between

20,0% DDGS and

control.


Corn DDGS Withdrawal Rates on Sensory

Evaluation of Breakfast Sausage

• Texture of 30% Fat

Sausages

– Consumers disliked

the texture of 30%

corn DDGS sausages,

– Too mushy !!

– Panelist reported no

difference between

20,0% DDGS and

control


Conclusions

Processed Pork Products

• Processed pork products containing >15% fat

were not affected by the inclusion of pork fat

containing an altered fatty acid profile due to corn

DDGS feeding up to 30% dietary inclusion

• Withdrawal of DDGS in the late finishing phase

mitigated changes in texture, appearance and

colour in breakfast sausages made with this pork


Corn DDGS Withdrawal

Rates on Carcass Traits

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Carc, kg BF, mm Loin, mm Yield, % Index

0,0% 30,30% 20,20% 20,10% 20,0%

SEM 0.35

SEM 0.23

SEM 0.30

P < 0.0527,

SEM 0.14

SEM 0.002

bc c ab

abc a

Gender P = 0.0002



on BUTT Tissue Composition

0

200

400

600

Lean Bone Subcut fat Intermusc fat

0,0% 30,30% 20,20% 20,10% 20,0%

g/kg

SEM 9.60

SEM 1.48

SEM 8.22 P = 0.0012,

SEM 4.52

b a

b b b

Gender P = 0.0063



on PICNIC Tissue Composition

0

200

400

600

Lean Bone Subcut fat BC fat Intermusc fat

0,0% 30,30% 20,20% 20,10% 20,0%

g/kg

P = 0.0269, SEM 9.17

SEM 2.87

SEM 6.80

SEM 0.95

P = 0.0019

SEM 4.25

b

a ab

a a

b a

b b b

Gender P < 0.0001



on LOIN Tissue Composition

0

200

400

600


0,0% 30,30% 20,20% 20,10% 20,0%

g/kg

SEM 8.33

SEM 2.69

SEM 7.69

SEM 0.56

P = 0.0097

SEM 2.35

b a

b b b



on HAM Tissue Composition

0

200

400

600


0,0% 30,30% 20,20% 20,10% 20,0%

g/kg

SEM 7.25

SEM 1.58

SEM 7.17

SEM 0.35

P = 0.0368,

SEM 1.59

b a

b b b



Lean Cuts Tissue Composition

0

200

400

600

Lean Bone Subcut fat BC fat Inter fat Dissect fat

0,0% 30,30% 20,20% 20,10% 20,0%

g/kg

SEM 7.45

SEM 1.71

SEM 6.42

SEM 8.35

b a b b b SEM 0.29

P = 0.0002,

SEM 2.22

excluded


http://www.baconlove.net/images/pork_cuts.gif

Retail Appearance


Corn DDGS Withdrawal Rates on Subjective

Loin Retail Appearance over 3 days

0

2

4

6

8

Retai l

Appearance

Marbl ing Score Lean Colour

Score

Percent

Surface

Discolouration

Colour of

Discolouration

0,0% 30,30% 20,20% 20,10% 20,0%

SEM 0.16

P = 0.0388

SEM 0.17

SEM 0.10

a

b

a b

c c

Gender P < 0.0001 for lean colour and marbling scores

P = 0.0075

SEM 0.11

P < 0.0001

SEM 0.07

b

c

a c

b

c

a

b

a

b

c

b

c

a

c

b b

Day P < 0.05 except for lean colour score


Corn DDGS Withdrawal Rates on Objective


0

20

40

60

80

L* Chroma Hue

0,0% 30,30% 20,20% 20,10% 20,0%

P = 0.0001

SEM 0.94

a b

a

b c

Gender P ≤ 0.0354 L* and hue

P = 0.0001

SEM 0.30

P < 0.0001

SEM 1.00

a

b

a b b b

a

b

c

a

b

a a

b c

Day P < 0.005 except chroma


Corn DDGS Withdrawal Rates on Objective


0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Metmyoglobin, % Myoglobin, % Oxymyoglobin, %

0,0% 30,30% 20,20% 20,10% 20,0%

P = 0.0099

SEM 0.01

a a

b b

c c

P = 0.0297

SEM 0.03

P < 0.2355

SEM 0.02

a

b

b a a a

b a

b

Day P < 0.0001


Conclusions

1. Withdrawal of corn DDGS from finisher for the last ~3 wks corrected the ↓dressing %

2. Withdrawal of corn DDGS from finisher diet for the last ~3 wks lessen fat softness

3. Withdrawal of corn DDGS from finisher diet for the last ~3 wks reduced fat, restored marbling

4. Processing to reduce the oil content of corn DDGS will lessen effects on fat softness, but …will it be less $ feasible to feed ?


Acknowledgements


how to mitigate the effects of feeding corn ddgs …department/deptdocs.nsf/all/lr...how to mitigate...

Documents