EDge

FIRST QUARTER 2010

Cutting
Due to the severe economic crisis our industry has been enduring over the last two years, it is plausible to assume that a close collaboration between the many segments of our industry will only be accelerated. That evolution will, in turn, enhance the industrys ability to better develop and implement strategies to sustainably produce the most desirable carcass (raw materials) at the least cost. This issue of Cutting Edge addresses the biological, dietary and pork processing aspects of fat quality and discusses the means to economically balance pig growth rate, feed conversion ratio and lean deposition with desirable carcass fat content and quality.

Pork Fat Quality

As commercial pigs have become leaner over leads to faster oxidation rates (rancidity). the past 20 years, fat quality has become one Soft fat can also lead to product appearance of the key traits defining overall carcass value. issues with sausage and can lead to reduced Fat quality has received heightened awareness yields in emulsion products like bologna (14). over the past few years as feed prices have Generally, soft fat produces reduced product increased, resulting in least-cost formulated workability and appearance with an diets using ingredients that may compromise increased propensity for rancidity to develop. fat quality. Many factors can contribute to fat composition (and quality). Some of these Biology of Fat factors include: genetics, diet, leanness/ An understanding of fat chemistry is fatness, growth rate, age/body weight, gender essential to understanding basic fat quality. and anatomical fat location (7,15). Of these Fat is composed of fat (triglycerides = factors, diet is the key factor that we can use glycerol + fatty acids), water, and protein. to quickly influence fat Fatty acids can be quality, as the non-diet classified into three Fat quality has factors are less feasible categories based received heightened on their chemical to alter substantially to awareness over the past structures (or improve fat quality. This few years as feed prices saturation level): 1) issue of Cutting Edge saturated fatty acids addresses the biological, have increased, resulting - no double bonds; dietary and commercial in least-cost formulated 2) mono-unsaturated aspects of fat quality and diets using ingredients fatty acids - one means to control them in that may compromise double bond; and 3) production systems. polyunsaturated fatty fat quality. acids - two or more Effect of Fat Quality on double bonds. The Pork Products Fat quality can be best defined by the firmness saturation of fatty acids dictates the melting of the fat. Soft fat often leads to fat layer point of a fat (firmness), with a highly separation in loins and may be partially saturated fat having a higher melting point responsible for muscle separation in the ham (firmer) than an unsaturated fat. and shoulder (10). Soft fat in bellies has been Dietary fats and carbohydrates are the implicated in causing reduction in slicing yields; sources of long chain fatty acids for however, most large-scale commercial slice synthesis of fats in mammals (13). Dietary yield studies do not indicate that slice yield is fats are readily converted to carcass fat and decreased by soft fat. It is generally agreed carcass fat formed in this manner takes upon that soft fat causes problems with product the general characteristics of the dietary fat appearance when packaged (9). Soft fat can (soft dietary fat = soft carcass fat). Dietary lead to bacon that has an oily/wet appearance carbohydrates are converted to body fat that may often be transparent, offers no slice through a process called de novo fatty definition when packaged under vacuum, and acid synthesis, forming predominantly

Andrzej A. Sosnicki, PhD. Director, Performance Validation Program

For additional information about the results reported here, please contact Neal Matthews, neal.matthews@pic.com and Steve Jungst, Steve.jungst@pic.com

Never s t op improving

Table 1. Heritability Estimates of Fatty Acids

Adapted from Suzuki et al.(18)

Figure 1. Effect of Fatness on Iodine Value

Adapted/calculated from Scott et al.(16)

Heritability Estimates Heritability Estimates Fatty Acid C14:0 C16:0 C16:1 C18:0 C18:1 C18:2 Melting point OSF 0.07 0.50 0.20 0.54 0.26 0.44 0.56 ISF 0.15 0.30 0.36 0.51 0.28 0.32 0.61 INMF 0.18 0.79 0.22 0.51 0.44 0.39 ITMF

90.00

0.32 0.20 0.40 0.36 0.44 -

Iodine Value

0.09

82.50

75.00

67.50

OSF = outer subcutaneous fat; ISF = inner subcutaneous fat; INMF = inter-muscular fat; ITMF = Intramuscular fat.

60.00

saturated and monounsaturated fatty acids (13), which yield a firmer carcass fat. Although dietary carbohydrates are used to synthesize fatty acids, most mammals, including the pig, are not able to incorporate a double bond past the 9 position in a de novo synthesized fatty acid (13). Thus, pigs can only form saturated and monounsaturated fatty acids from carbohydrates and require the essential fatty acids (polyunsaturated fatty acids, such as linoleic acid) from a fat source in the diet to incorporate polyunsaturated fatty acids into the fat of the carcass (13). Dietary fat additions will alter or even shut down de novo fat synthesis (13). Thus, as the percentage of fat is increased in the diet, de novo fatty acid synthesis is further inhibited, resulting in less saturated fat deposition (softer). Furthermore, as the fatty acid profile of dietary fat becomes less saturated (softer), pig body (and carcass) fat also becomes less saturated (softer). Metrics of Fat Firmness The current standard measure of fat firmness is iodine value. Iodine value is a measure of the unsaturation of fats and is expressed in terms of the amount of iodine absorbed by a fat sample. Basically, the iodine value (IV) determines the unsaturation level of the fat through the number of double bonds in the fatty acids.

fat and often dictates its iodine value. Many companies use the bend/bar/flex method of assessing firmness of bellies or loins, which involves draping the belly/loin over a bar and assessing the firmness by measuring the amount of droop over the bar. Minolta colorimeter readings can be used to assess fat color because higher levels of linoleic acid should give the fat a more yellowish color. Within the pork industry, subjective firmness assessments have also been used to assess firmness of products such as loins, bellies, and butts. These subjective measures are normally user-defined and unique to the plant/company in which they are developed. Genetic Effects on Fat Firmness Pig genotype has been shown to have an effect on fat firmness by numerous researchers (2,5,12,16,18). Heritability estimates (i.e. proportion of the total phenotypic variation in a population for a trait that is attributable to the additive effect of the genes) have been reported for several fatty acids, indicating there is genetic variation for fatty acid composition and fat quality (Table 1). Some of the fatty acids (C16:0, C18:0, C18:1, and C18:2) and the melting point of fat have been found to have low (i.e. <0.20), moderate (i.e. 0.20-0.40) or high (i.e. >0.40) heritabilities (18). Although differences between genotypes exist, most of the difference due to fat firmness between genotypes can be attributed to fatness of the genotype (12).

Saturated fat = low iodine value = firm fat Unsaturated fat = high iodine value = soft fat
Most commonly in the pork industry, iodine value is determined by direct chemical methods (i.e. Hanus method), fatty acid analysis [IV = (C16:1*0.95)+(C18: 1*0.86)+(C18:2*1.73)+(C18:3*2.62)+(C20:1*0.79)], or through Near Infra-Red (NIR) methods. The fatty acid analysis method is currently the most common method of analysis, but NIR analysis will likely become more prevalent in the future due to reduction in labor intensity and speed of sample determination. Other objective measures of fat firmness may include assessing the linoleic acid content (C18:2) of fat, because it is the most prevalent polyunsaturated fatty acid in pork

Table 2. Genotype Effects on Leaness and Fat Firmness

Trait
Adapted/calculated from Scott et al.(16)

LXLW 134.93 39.48 65.22

Hybrid 132.03 29.22 69.69

Carcass weight, kg Backfat thickness, mm Iodine Value

**Adapted/calculated from Lo Fiego et al. (12).

Trait Carcass weight, kg Lean percentage, % Iodine Value

LW 68.5 54.3 61.8

Duroc 67.3 56.0 66.0

Hampshire 71.8 56.8 66.0

**Adapted/calculated from Barton-Gade (2).

Figure 2. Effect of Backfat Thickness on IV

Adapted/calculated from: Ellis and McKeith (8)

67.0 8mm 65.3 12mm 16mm

63.5

61.8

60.0

Typically as the degree of fatness increases, the fat becomes more saturated or firmer. For example, it was found that the difference between lean and obese pigs (selected for either lower or higher levels of backfat thickness derived from the same population of pigs) had a dramatic effect on fatty acids, which equates to around 9 IV units difference (16; Figure 1). Other research has also found similar results when comparing genetic lines having different fatness/leanness levels (2,12; Table 2) or when assessing the effect of backfat on iodine value (8; Figure 2). Furthermore, some reports have indicated that faster growing animals have firmer fat (7). The difference in fat firmness between most modern genetic lines should be minimal, assuming comparisons are made on animals with similar backfat levels (or % lean), live weights, and/or nutritional planes. Other Non-Nutrition Effects on Fat Firmness Anatomical location of the fat can also influence its firmness. This has been demonstrated when comparing fat from the jowl and backfat, or even when comparing the individual fat layers of backfat (1,3; Figure 3). Gender can also have an effect on fat quality, which is to be expected because gilts are typically leaner than barrows and, as previously mentioned, leaner animals generally have softer fat. The difference between barrows and gilts for iodine value is typically1-2 IV units. Research has evaluated the effect of age or body weight on fatty acid composition. It has been shown that from 70 to 220 days of age, saturated fatty acids increase and unsaturated fatty acids decrease, implying fat becomes firmer as a pig gets older (15). Reports have indicated improvements in fat firmness up to the 250 to 265-lb. range (1,11). Correa et al., (7) indicated little difference in fatty acid composition at weights of 236, 254, or 276 lbs., but data from Lo Fiego et al., (12) indicated that fat firmness was improved up to 350 lbs. Nutritional Effects on Fat Firmness Pig diets are one of the most important factors in ensuring or changing the fatty acid profile from the standpoint that

the diet can be altered more readily than non-dietary influences on fat quality. The importance of nutrition can probably be best exemplified by the volume of research that is conducted concerning dietary influences of fat quality vs. the research assessing non-dietary effects on fat quality. This literature is replete with research evaluating dietary fat sources, inclusion levels of fat sources, and feed ingredients that can potentially affect fat quality (i.e. fat sources, DDGS, CLA or ractopamine). For the most part, these studies agree with the previously mentioned general fat biology principles as related to dietary fat (i.e. as the percentage of fat is increased in the diet, de novo fatty acid synthesis is further inhibited, resulting in less saturated/softer fat and as the fatty acid profile of dietary fat becomes less saturated/softer, carcass fat becomes less saturated/softer). The iodine value product (IVP) concept (6) is based on these principles and is calculated using the formula: IVP = (iodine value of the feed source fat) X (% of fat in the feed source) X 0.10. Table 3 contains IVPs of some selected dietary ingredients. Formulas have been developed that estimate the iodine value of carcass fat based on the iodine value product of the diet. The following equation developed by PIC

Iodine Value

Table 3. Iodine Value Product of Selected Feed Ingredients

Ingredient
Feed Ingredients Corn Soybean meal Wheat Peanut meal Corn distillers grain Bakery product Common Fat Sources Beef tallow Choice white grease Lard Poultry fat Restaurant grease Alternative Fat Sources Corn oil Soybean oil Coconut oil Palm oil

Iodine Value of the fat

125 130 125 92 125 86 44 60 64 78 75 125 130 10 50

% Fat
3.9 3.0 1.6 6.5 7.9 7.3 99.0 99.0 99.0 99.0 99.0 99.5 99.5 99.5 99.5

Iodine Value Product

49 39 20 60 99 63 436 594 634 772 743 1244 1294 100 498

Figure 3. Effect of Fat Location on Iodine Value

90.00

Iodine Value

Inner Backfat Layer

Middle Backfat Layer

Outer Backfat Layer

80.00 70.00 60.00 50.00

Adapted from Apple et al. (1)

90.00

Iodine Value

80.00 70.00 60.00 50.00

Backfat

Jowl

Adapted from Benz et al. (3)

EDge

Cutting

can be used to estimate carcass fat firmness based on dietary IVP: Predicted Fat IV = 0.32 (IVP) + 52.4 (4). The IVP concept can be useful in managing pork fat quality through diet formulations that take in account IVP of the dietary ingredients used. Nutritional manipulation can be very instrumental in managing fat firmness; however, nonnutritional factors may interact with or counteract dietary manipulations to change fat quality. For example, a diet

change could be made to decrease iodine value, but slower growth rates due to heat stress or health challenges could cause carcass fat iodine values to increase due to the slower growth rate. Dried Distiller Grains and Fat Quality The volume of literature concerning the use of DDGS has grown exponentially over the past few years due to the increased availability and cost effectiveness of least-cost diet formulations with DDGS. A comprehensive review of the literature indicates that DDGS have a negative effect on fat firmness, but as expected the negative effects are dependent on the level of DDGS and length of time the DDGS are fed (17). It is our contention that the degree of the negative effects may be dependent on the complete diet formulation as well as other factors. For instance, other ingredients may be added that have further detrimental effects on fat firmness. Figure 4 contains IVPs for late finishing diets from three university trials that we calculated from diet compositions. This figure clearly illustrates that although the diets use similar levels of DDGS, the effect on fat quality may be different as a result of other dietary ingredients influencing the IVP. Table 4 contains diets formulated by PIC to illustrate the effect of increasing DDGS in diets without confounding ingredients. As expected, IVP is increased as the DDGS level is increased and diet cost is decreased; however, the IVP level obtained with 30% DDGS is very similar to that obtained with a corn-soy diet with 4% added choice white grease. Conclusions Within modern pig genetics, small differences in fat quality will be observed if the genotypes have similar leanness levels, body weights and nutritional planes. The focal point of nutrition should be on the complete diet and not individual ingredients within the diets. Efforts to manage fat quality should be aligned with the expectations set forth by pork processors. Pork processors should develop independent monitoring strategies based on economics within their own system and provide feedback to producers.

Table 4. Diet Comparisons

Diet Corn, % SBM, % DDGS, % CWG, % Vit., Min., AAs, & Other,% Diet Cost, $/T Diet Cost, $/pig Iodine Value Product (IVP) Estimated Carcass Fat IV Corn-soy 84.00 13.30 0 0 2.70 $146.13 $42.28 39.55 65.06 10% DDGS 75.85 11.50 10 0 2.65 $140.23 $40.57 47.18 67.50 20% DDGS 67.80 9.65 20 0 2.55 $134.03 $38.77 54.84 69.95 30% DDGS 59.64 7.85 30 0 2.51 $128.87 $37.28 62.45 72.38 4% CWG 77.83 15.45 0 4 2.72 $166.67 $48.22 62.72 72.47

*** Diets were formulated on 10-30-09. All diets were formulated for a 150 lb. pig. Diet cost per pig was calculated with the following assumptions: the diet for the 150 lb. pig would be representative of the entire wean-finish period (12-285 lbs.) and pigs would have a similar wean-finish feed efficiency (2.20) on each of the diets. IVP was calculated with the formula of Christensen, 1962 (IVP = IV of oil in the ingredient x % of oil in the ingredient x 0.10) and estimated carcass fat IV was calculated using the equation of Boyd et al., 1997 (Predicted Fat IV = 0.32(IVP) + 52.4).

Figure 4. Comparison of IVP from Late Finishing DDGS Diets

100.0

Iodine Value Product of Diet

6% choice white grease in all diets

83.8
Decreased soy oil additions with increasing DDGS addition

Study 1 Linear. (Study 1) Study 2 Linear. (Study 2) Study 3 Linear. (Study 3)

67.5

51.3
Key Point: 20% DDGS is not always 20% DDGS!!

35.0 0

1% choice white grease in both diets

% DDGS

15

23

30

Selected Key References

1. Apple et al., 2009. J. Anim. Sci. 87:1423-1440. 2. Barton-Gade, 1987. Livest. Prod. Sci. 16:187-196. 3. Benz et al., 2007. KSU Swine Day Report. 4. Boyd et al., 1997. PIC USA T&D Technical Memo 153. 5. Cameron and Enser, 1991. Meat Sci. 29:295-307. 6. Christensen, 1962. Thesis, KGL. Vet.-og Landbohojsk., Kobenhavn, p88. 7. Correa et al., 2008. Meat Sci. 80:550-554. 8. Ellis and McKeith, 1999. NPPC Fact Sheet #04422. 9. Enser et al., 1984. J. Sci. Food Agric. 35:1230-1240. 0. Hansen, 2001. CFIA Swine Nutrition Conference, pp 21-32. 1 11. Garca-Macas, et al., 1996. Anim. Sci. 63:487-496. 12. Lo Fiego et al., 2005. Meat Sci. 69:107-114. 13. Mayes, P.A., 1996. In: Harpers Biochemistry. 24th Ed. pp109-244. 14. NPPC, 2000. Pork Composition & Quality Assessment Procedures. p32. 15. Nrnberg et al., 1998. Livest. Prod. Sci. 56:145-156. 16. Scott et al., 1981. J. Anim. Sci. 53:977-981. 17. Stein, H. H. and G. C. Shurson, 2009. J. Anim. Sci. 87:1292-1303. 18. Suzuki et al., 2006. J. Anim. Sci. 84:2026-2034.

2009 PIC. All rights reserved.