title: Growth performance and pork fat quality as measured by three methods of pigs fed 20% DDGS and slaughtered using a standard industry split marketing strategy.
abstract: A total of 40 pens containing 22 crossbred barrows (initial BW = 43.07 ± 1.61 kg; PIC 1050 × PIC 337 genetics) were housed in a commercial wean to finish facility. Pens were randomly allotted to dietary treatments in a 2 × 3 factorial arrangement with 2 levels of dried distillers grains with solubles (DDGS; 0% or 20%) and chosen for 1 of 3 marketing cuts removing 4, 8, and 10 animals from each pen. Fat tissue samples were removed from the anterior tip of the jowl and posterior to the sternum on the belly edge 1d postmortem. Fatty acid composition was determined via the Folch method, and iodine values (IV) were calculated from chemical titrations, fatty acid profile (GC IV), and in-plant Bruker near-infrared (NIR) spectroscopy. Pearson's correlation coefficients for IV determination methods were estimated. Inclusion of 20% DDGS did not change ( > 0.05) growth performance, whereas marketing cut affected performance, with the second cut producing the most efficient pigs ( < 0.01). Total SFA and MUFA concentrations were higher ( < 0.01) in belly and jowl fat from pigs fed 0% DDGS. Total PUFA and the PUFA:SFA in belly and jowl fat was higher ( < 0.01) when 20% DDGS was fed. Dried distillers grains with solubles inclusion increased IV in belly and jowl as determined by all 3 methods. Regardless of dietary treatment or fat depot, Pearson correlation coefficients between titration and GC IV, titration and NIR, and GC IV and NIR were 0.46 ( < 0.01), 0.68 ( < 0.01), and 0.43 ( < 0.01), respectively. These correlations suggest methods may rank samples equally but do not provide the same absolute IV. Belly fat had a lower IV ( < 0.01) than jowl fat using titration or GC IV methods, suggesting pigs have varied degrees of physiological maturity at specific fat depots when weight end points are used during the finishing phase. In conclusion, feeding 20% DDGS negatively affected fat quality but not growth performance, and marketing time changed growth performance.
authors.forename: K E
authors.initials: KE
authors.lastname: Shircliff
authors.forename: Z D
authors.initials: ZD
authors.lastname: Callahan
authors.forename: T A
authors.initials: TA
authors.lastname: Wilmoth
authors.forename: C E
authors.initials: CE
authors.lastname: Ohman
authors.forename: R C
authors.initials: RC
authors.lastname: Johnson
authors.forename: B R
authors.initials: BR
authors.lastname: Wiegand
mesh_terms: D000273:Adipose Tissue / Q000737:chemistry*; D000821:Animal Feed / Q000032:analysis*; D000824:Animal Nutritional Physiological Phenomena; D000818:Animals; D001823:Body Composition / Q000187:drug effects* / Q000502:physiology; D001835:Body Weight / Q000502:physiology; D003132:Commerce; D004032:Diet / Q000662:veterinary*; D005227:Fatty Acids / Q000032:analysis; D007455:Iodine / Q000032:analysis; D040541:Marketing; D008460:Meat / Q000032:analysis / Q000592:standards*; D013552:Swine
chemical_list: D005227:Fatty Acids; D007455:Iodine