Animal

Korean Journal of Agricultural Science. 1 December 2024. 485-496
https://doi.org/10.7744/kjoas.510407

ABSTRACT


MAIN

  • Introduction

  • Materials and Methods

  •   Ethics

  •   Animals, treatments and pre-slaughter conditions

  •   Carcass quality measurements

  •   Pork composition and quality

  •   Behavior observation

  •   Blood profile

  •   Statistical analysis

  • Results

  •   Carcass quality measurements

  •   Pork composition and quality

  •   Behavior observation

  •   Blood profile

  • Discussion

  • Conclusion

Introduction

Lairage acts as a crucial pre-slaughter handling process, offering a rest period to mitigate stress and fatigue caused by transportation and unloading, hence averting the deterioration of meat quality (Hemsworth et al., 2002). Further, lairage conditions may lessen the impact of both short-term or long-term ante-mortem stressors, which affects muscle metabolism, meat color, shelf-life and technological yields (Van der Wal et al., 1999; Gispert et al., 2000). However, poor lairage management (such as stocking density and time) is often accompanied due to economic losses by increased stress (Newman et al., 2014). It has been documented that deficient lairage management escalates the incidence of PSE (pale, soft, exudative) and DFD (dry, firm, dark) conditions, leading to compromised pork quality. Consequently, extensive research has been undertaken to identify the ideal lairage management strategies that could minimize lairage-induced stress.

Lairage stocking density is one of the stressful factors that affects meat quality. When pigs are under high stocking density (HD), it induces stress with aggression and increases fighting behavior in lairage (Turner et al., 2000). Supportably, previous studies have indicated that elevated stocking density boost aggressive behavior with fighting, culminating in inferior pork quality (Ewbank and Bryant, 1972; Driessen et al., 2020). Conversely, numerous studies have suggested that low stocking density (LD) could also foster stress by enhancing aggressive behavior (0.59 and 0.86 m2, respectively) (Moss, 1978; Rabaste et al., 2007). Additionally, stress engendered by unsuitable stocking densities elevates blood lactate and cortisol levels while depleting muscle glycogen reserves, leading to elevated pH values after 24 h and an increased frequency of PSE or DFD meat (Warriss et al., 1998). Therefore, inappropriate lairage stocking density could result in increased skin lesions with stress, detrimentally affecting the pork quality of pig carcasses (Driessen et al., 2020).

Numerous researchers have confirmed that lairage time is a primary source of variation determining pork quality (Costa et al., 2002; 15Dokmanović et al., 2014okmano). Studies have shown that either absent or extremely brief lairage periods (15 - 60 min) can heighten fatigue in pigs, as evidenced by elevated blood cortisol levels and aggressiveness at the slaughter period, higher muscle temperatures (18℃), and increased muscle lactic acid, resulting the PSE meat (Owen et al., 2000; Shen et al., 2006). In contrast, Faucitano (2010) have revealed that extended lairage time augment the risk of DFD meat and carcass weight losses. Also, Guàrdia et al. (2005) has reported that the risk of incidence of DFD meat increases by 12% to 25%, between 3 h to overnight lairage time. In fact, lairage time (resting time) is variable depending on the lairage area size and livestock delivery schedule (Geverink et al., 1996; Gispert et al., 2000). According to the animal slaughter detailed regulations of the Animal and Plant Quarantine Agency of Korea, animals are required for rested for adequate time (5 - 6 h), not to exceed 12 h (Lee et al., 2023). However, there are lack of studies that evaluation of lairage time between 0 - 4 h with 5 - 8 h in Korea.

The interaction between lairage stocking density and time is complex, with a notable dearth of statistical investigations into their combined effects. Given the variety of factors that influence pig stress during lairage, it is imperative to conduct a thorough assessment of the implications of lairage stocking density and time. Thus, this study aims to elucidate the impacts of lairage stocking density and time on pork quality, carcass grading, behavior, and the blood profile in slaughter pigs.

Materials and Methods

Ethics

Chungbuk National University’s Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee in Cheongju, Korea reviewed and approved the protocol of this study (approval no. CBNUA-2185-23-02).

Animals, treatments and pre-slaughter conditions

This study was conducted in the Republic of Korea, during the spring. All of the pigs were reared on the same commercial farms and then transported to the same commercial slaughterhouse. A total of 607 mixed-sex crossbred fattening pigs (Duroc × [Yorkshire × Landrace], LYD) weighing between 115 and 120 kg at live weight were used. Pigs were transported across a distance of 40 km, traveling with 15 journeys, which is the number of cities passed during the transportation. On the day of the slaughter, pigs were moved early in the morning from the farm to the slaughterhouse. At arrival, pigs were transported to lairage pens and rested in different stocking density with different lairage time. Pigs, which were moved in groups were kept together without mixing with other groups. Every pig was slaughtered in accordance with the Livestock Sanitation Management Act’s regulations. Additionally, although there were variations in the slaughter times, all pigs were killed on the same day. Lairage stocking density treatments were as follows: HD (lower than 0.5 m2 / 100 kg pig); ND, normal stocking density (0.5 m2 / 100 kg pig to 0.83 m2 / 100 kg pig); LD (higher than 0.83 m2 / 100 kg pig). Lairage time treatment was as follows: ST, short time (0 to 4 h); LT, long time (4 to 8 h).

Carcass quality measurements

The pig carcasses grade system followed the Korean Pig Carcass Grade System, as shown in Fig. 1 (MAFRA, 2023). An electronic scale was used for 45 min postmortem to measure the weight of the hot carcass weight, which was showed in integer kg units. Backfat thickness was determined by using a left half carcass. Additionally, the length between the 11th and 12th thoracic vertebrae, the first lumbar vertebra, and the last thoracic vertebrae was measured by using a ruler, in order to assess the thickness of the backfat thickness. The formula (backfat thickness [mm] per hot carcass weight [kg]) was used for calculating the hot carcass weight and backfat thickness.

https://cdn.apub.kr/journalsite/sites/kjoas/2024-051-04/N0030510407/images/kjoas_2024_514_485_F1.jpg
Fig. 1.

Korean carcass grading system according to carcass weight and backfat thickness. Adapted from MAFRA (2023).

Pork composition and quality

According to the standard recommendation by the AOAC International (2000), the moisture, protein, and fat content (%) was analyzed. To measure the pH, 50 mL of distilled water was added to 5 g of the left carcass loin. After homogenizing all of the samples for 30 s with a homogenizer, the pH of each sample was measured using an Orion StarTM A211 pH Benchtop Meter (Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., USA), which was calibrated at pH 4, 7, and 10. Left carcass loin was analyzed with a Spectro Colorimeter standardized on a white plate (L*, 89.39; a*, 0.13; b*, -0.51) to determine the meat color. During this period, a white-fluorescent lamp (D65) served as the light source. Color values were featured as L* (lightness), a* (redness), b* (yellowness). Drip loss (DL) was determined by using the filter paper wetness (FPW) test. The weight loss that occurred when suspending a standardized muscle sample (40 - 50 g, or about 30 mm × 60 mm × 25 mm) in an airtight container for 48 h at 4℃ was quantified as DL, and the weight disparities were taken into account. According to Oliveira et al. (2014) methodology, cooking loss (CL) was determined. For determination of CL, a meat sample was divided into 1 × 1 × 1 cm from each animal. Samples were weighed and then kept overnight at 4℃. The samples were continuously cooled to ambient temperature once the sample’s external temperature reached 85℃, and then they were weighed to determine the CL. The weight of the initial sample divided by the weight of the heated sample to calculate the CL value, which showed as a percentage. Following the Koćwin-Podsiadła et al. (2006) methodology, pork quality classes were measured by using light reflectance (L*), DL fluctuations, and pH values evaluated 24 h postmortem (Table 1).

Table 1.

Evaluation of pork quality classes.

Pork quality classz pH24h Drip loss L* value
PSE pork < 6.0 ≥ 5 ≥ 50
RSE pork < 6.0 ≥ 5 42 - 50
RFN pork < 6.0 2 - 5 42 - 50
PFN pork < 6.0 2 - 5 ≥ 50
DFD pork ≥ 6.0 ≤ 2 < 42

PSE, pale, soft, exudative; RSE, reddish-pink, soft, exudative; RFN, red, firm, non-exudative; PFN, pale, firm, non-exudative; DFD, dark, firm, dry.

z Adapted from MAFRA (2023).

Five skilled panelists evaluated the sensory color. Determination of sensory colors grade system is shown in Table 2. Marbling was determined by the Detailed Standards for Livestock Product Grading, as shown in Table 2 (MAFRA, 2023). The intra-measurement co-efficient of variance for pork quality parameters were less than 10%.

Table 2.

Evaluation sensory colors and marbling grading system.

Grade Sensory colors Marblingz
Score 1 Pale Practically devoid
Score 2 Grayish pink Slight
Score 3 Reddish pink Modest
Score 4 Purplish red Slightly abundant
Score 5 Dark Abundant

z Adapted from MAFRA (2023).

Behavior observation

Real-time pig behavior monitoring was conducted using cameras placed on the lairage ceiling. The position of pigs was divided into basic behavior (standing, sitting, and lying) and singularity behavior (aggression, overlap). Description of pig behavior was followed An et al. (2023) methodology. Only recordings with a minimum of 7 pigs in each group that could be clearly seen were examined for the measurement because the compartment group was not always entirely seen by the camera.

Blood profile

Blood samples were obtained as soon as the throat was severed during the exsanguination process, at slaughter. Blood samples were obtained from 10 pigs in each group from jugular vein for the analysis of concentration of cortisol, glucose and lactate. Serum samples were collected and centrifuged at 3,000 × g for 20 min at 4℃. Subsequently, samples were kept in a -20℃ refrigerator until analysis. To measure the serum cortisol concentration levels, cortisol kits (radioimmunoassay Coat-A-Count) were used. Following the manufacturer’s instructions, the concentration of serum glucose was determined by an automatic Kone-lab analyzer. To measure the lactate concentration levels, GM7 Analox analyzer used.

Statistical analysis

Two-way ANOVA was used to analyze the data for the impacts of three distinct lairage stocking density types (HD, ND, LD) with two different types of lairage time types (ST, LT), as well as their interactions, were examined, with litter serving as a covariate. To analysis all of data, the GLM procedure of SAS (Version 9.4, SAS Institute Inc., USA) were used. Tukey’s multiple range test was used to find differences between treatment means. The pooled standard error was used to express the data’s variability. A probability level of p < 0.05 was shown to be statistically significant, and a level of 0.05 ≤ p < 0.10 was thought to have such a tendency.

Results

Carcass quality measurements

Effects of lairage stocking density and time on meat quality measurements are presented in Table 3. As shown in Table 3, backfat thickness was significantly increased (p < 0.05) in HD compared with LD. Also, in carcass grade, LD showed numerically increased incidence of Grade 1+ compared with HD. Furthermore, ST showed numerically increased incidence of Grade 1+ compared with LT.

Table 3.

Effects of lairage stocking density and lairage time on carcass quality.

Items D T SEM p-value
HD ND LD ST LT D T D × T
N 196 171 240 294 313 - - - -
Carcass composition traits
    Hot carcass weight (kg) 87.97 88.06 87.68 88.25 87.56 0.570 0.785 0.146 0.524
    Backfat thickness (mm) 23.37a 22.49ab 21.67b 22.36 22.66 0.539 0.008 0.497 0.634
Carcass grade scorez (%)
    Grade 1+ 34.95 40.11 44.92 40.32 39.84 - - - -
    Grade 1 36.02 33.16 31.02 33.33 33.42 - - - -
    Grade 2 29.03 26.74 24.06 26.34 26.74 - - - -

D, lairage stocking density; T, lairage time; HD, high stocking density (lower than 0.5 m2 / 100 kg); ND, normal stocking density (0.5 m2 / 100 kg to 0.83 m2 / 100 kg); LD, low stocking density (higher than 0.83 m2 / 100 kg); ST, short time (0 to 4 h); LT, long time (4 to 8 h); SEM, standard error of the mean.

z Carcass grade score was determined as follows: 3, grade 1+; 2, grade 1; 1, grade 2.

a, b: Means in a row with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05).

Pork composition and quality

Effects of lairage stocking density and time on pork quality classes are presented in Table 4. As shown in Table 4, water holding capacity (WHC) was significantly higher (p < 0.05) in LD compared with HD. Also, CL was significantly lower (p < 0.05) in LD compared with HD. In pork quality classes, LD showed numerically decreased incidence of PSE pork than MD and HD.

Table 4.

Effects of lairage stocking density and lairage time on pork composition and quality.

Items D T SEM p-value
HD ND LD ST LT D T D × T
Pork composition (%)
    Moisture 73.09 73.13 73.09 73.36 73.41 0.569 0.250 0.916 0.459
    Crude protein 21.44 21.13 21.44 21.45 20.95 0.651 0.799 0.353 0.439
    Crude fat 2.23 2.23 2.23 2.10 2.43 0.231 0.874 0.083 0.496
Pork quality parameters
    pH 5.51 5.55 5.56 5.57 5.51 0.086 0.856 0.384 0.822
    WHC (%) 66.59b 67.27ab 68.58a 67.34 67.62 0.735 0.027 0.642 0.320
    DL (%) 4.74 4.78 4.61 4.85 4.56 0.270 0.797 0.190 0.782
    CL (%) 24.33a 23.80ab 23.41b 23.91 23.78 0.367 0.048 0.655 0.970
    L* value 53.05 52.10 50.93 51.32 52.73 1.284 0.259 0.183 0.829
    a* value 6.69 6.33 6.39 6.39 6.55 0.323 0.487 0.548 0.952
    b* value 5.75 5.64 4.90 5.56 5.30 0.569 0.272 0.584 0.629
Sensory evaluation
    Sensory colorx 2.88 2.79 2.82 2.91 2.76 0.164 0.878 0.264 0.259
    Marblingy 3.21 3.22 3.27 3.26 3.20 0.232 0.963 0.788 0.672
Pork quality classes (%)
    PSE pork 16.67 3.33 3.33 13.33 4.44 - - - -
    RSE pork 3.33 10.00 6.67 4.44 4.44 - - - -
    RFN pork 66.67 63.33 60.00 66.67 62.22 - - - -
    PFN pork 13.33 23.34 30.00 15.56 28.90 - - - -
    DFD pork 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - -

N = 30 pigs per treatment.

D, lairage stocking density; T, lairage time; HD, high stocking density (lower than 0.5 m2 / 100 kg); ND, normal stocking density (0.5 m2 / 100 kg to 0.83 m2 / 100 kg); LD, low stocking density (higher than 0.83 m2 / 100 kg); ST, short time (0 to 4 h); LT, long time (4 to 8 h); SEM, standard error of the mean; WHC, water holding capacity; DL, drip loss; CL, cooking loss; PSE, pale, soft, exudative; RSE, reddish-pink, soft, exudative; RFN, red, firm, non-exudative; PFN, pale, firm, non-exudative; DFD, dark, firm, dry.

x Color score ranged from 1 (pale color) to 5 (dark color).

y Marbling score ranged from 1 (practically devoid) to 5 (abundant).

a, b: Means in a row with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05).

Behavior observation

Effects of lairage stocking density and time on pig behavior is presented in Table 5. As shown in Table 5, LD showed significantly (p < 0.05) lowest sitting behavior compared with MD and HD. Also, HD showed significantly (p < 0.05) highest sitting behavior compared with MD and LD.

Table 5.

Effects of lairage stocking density and lairage time on pig behavior.

Items D T SEM p-value
HD ND LD ST LT D T D × T
Basic behavior (min·h-1)
    Standing 35.54 36.04 34.35 34.98 35.63 1.691 0.596 0.639 0.523
    Sitting 9.83a 5.44b 2.41c 5.46 6.32 1.064 < 0.001 0.325 0.975
    Lying 14.64b 18.53ab 23.24a 19.56 18.04 1.131 0.001 0.349 0.548
Singularity behavior (count·h-1)
    Aggression 2.96 2.64 3.06 2.99 2.79 0.236 0.198 0.318 0.996
    Overlap 1.34 1.67 1.54 1.56 1.48 0.171 0.167 0.542 0.800

N = 30 pigs per treatment.

D, lairage stocking density; T, lairage time; HD, high stocking density (lower than 0.5 m2 / 100 kg); ND, normal stocking density (0.5 m2 / 100 kg to 0.83 m2 / 100 kg); LD, low stocking density (higher than 0.83 m2 / 100 kg); ST, short time (0 to 4 h); LT, long time (4 to 8 h); SEM, standard error of the mean.

a, b: Means in a row with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05).

Blood profile

Effects of lairage stocking density and time on blood profile is presented in Table 6. As shown in Table 6, LD showed significantly (p < 0.05) decreased cortisol concentration compared with HD.

Table 6.

Effects of lairage stocking density and lairage time on blood profile.

Items D T SEM p-value
HD ND LD ST LT D T D × T
Cortisol (ug·dL-1) 3.84a 3.44ab 3.35b 3.58 3.51 0.179 0.021 0.674 0.324
Lactic acid (mmol·L-1) 3.86 3.81 3.99 3.90 3.88 0.192 0.629 0.880 0.339
Glucose (mg·dL-1) 80.97 81.78 80.22 81.13 80.85 0.817 0.177 0.681 0.704

N = 30 pigs per treatment.

D, lairage stocking density; T, lairage time; HD, high stocking density (lower than 0.5 m2 / 100 kg); ND, normal stocking density (0.5 m2 / 100 kg to 0.83 m2 / 100 kg); LD, low stocking density (higher than 0.83 m2 / 100 kg); ST, short time (0 to 4 h); LT, long time (4 to 8 h); SEM, standard error of the mean.

a, b: Means in a row with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05).

Discussion

Before slaughter, pigs endure stress due to the sequential processes they undergo in lairage. Previous research indicates that increased pre-slaughter stress levels during lairage can lead to alterations in body homeostasis and metabolism, manifesting as changes in the physio-metabolic blood profile (hormones, metabolites, and enzymes), which in turn, degrades the quality of both the carcass and pork (Choe et al., 2014; Čobanović et al., 2017; Sommavilla et al., 2017). Thus, determining the optimal lairage stocking density and duration to mitigate stress is paramount for enhancing animal welfare and pork quality.

In this study, we noted an elevation in cortisol concentrations attributable to HD. Cortisol is a biochemical indicator of stress, which has been used to evaluate the stress (Tang et al., 2021). High stocking densities not only reduce available living space but also exacerbate the environmental load on pigs, manifested by the presence of harmful gases and an increased incidence of respiratory and digestive tract diseases (Cornale et al., 2015). According to Dalla Costa et al. (2019), pigs handled with HD record higher serum cortisol concentration compared with LD. Similarly, Song et al. (2023) have demonstrated that pigs in higher stocking densities (lower than 0.5 m2 / 100 kg pig) during lairage experienced elevated cortisol levels compared to those in lower densities (higher than 0.83 m2 / 100 kg pig). Therefore, the results of increased cortisol concentration imply that HD induces stressful conditions before slaughter.

Carcass trait is deemed a significant factor influencing the profitability of pork producers (Alfonso et al., 2010). Notably, backfat thickness exhibits the negative correlation with the total loin meat yield and a positive correlation with intramuscular fat (Hoa et al., 2021). Considering that intramuscular fat contributes to enhanced pork quality, including aspects such as juiciness, tenderness, and flavor, a decreased backfat thickness (ranging from 21 - 25 mm) is advisable (Fortin et al., 2005; Wood et al., 2008; Hoa et al., 2019). In this study, higher stocking density was associated with increased backfat thickness, a finding in alignment with the study by Lee et al. (2023), which demonstrated a decrease in backfat thickness under stress-filled lairage conditions. Similarly, Song et al. (2023) reported that pigs subjected to high stocking densities and elevated temperatures exhibited increased backfat thickness. Čobanović et al. (2020) have reported that the cortisol level was associated with the increase in backfat thickness. Cortisol generally affects fat and protein metabolism by reducing protein synthesis and increasing its breakdown, while promoting fat storage in the presence of insulin (Edwards et al., 2010; Dokmanovic et al., 2015). These reasons explain why the increase in backfat thickness was associated with high cortisol levels in this study. In the current research, we noted a decrease in the incidence of Grade 1+ in conditions of HD. These outcomes indicate that high stocking densities compromise carcass traits due to lairage stress. However, Čobanović et al. (2016) have suggested that there was no significant difference in backfat thickness about stocking density. The difference of results might be attributed to slaughter weight, sex, and environment.

WHC is a paramount quality parameter affecting pork quality, as it reduces weight loss during cutting and storage, and enhances the meat’s water retention capacity during storage (Lawrie, 1980). Additionally, reduced WHC leads to the denaturation of sarcoplasmic proteins, culminating in increased CL in the pork (Warner et al., 2001; Li et al., 2012). Consistently, the findings of our study indicated diminished WHC and increased CL under conditions of HD, corroborating previous research which has shown that elevated pre-slaughter stress degrades WHC and leads to higher CL, thereby diminishing pork quality (Van der Wal et al., 1999; Støier et al., 2001; Aaslyng et al., 2003). Also, previous studies have elucidated that WHC could affect the incidence of PSE pork (Støier et al., 2001; Trevisan and Brum, 2020). When pigs are under stress, the myofibrillar protein reaches the isoelectric point, which minimizes the distance between thick and thin filaments and maximizes approximation between them. It makes it hard to link the filaments and molecules of water, thereby decreasing the WHC. Consequently, compromised WHC alters the reflection of incident light, giving rise to PSE pork (Trevisan and Brum, 2020). As a result, our study’s findings underscore that high stocking densities can degrade the pork quality classes due to increased stress levels.

As lairage provides restricted space, pigs suffer from pre-slaughter stress due to limited rest space availability and insufficient recovery of transport fatigue. Generally, the posture of pigs indicates the discomfort associated with limited rest space availability in the lairage (Urrea et al., 2021). Our study reveals that HD exacerbates sitting behavior while diminishing lying behavior. Sitting behavior usually implies certain discomfort for pigs, which suffer from the limited space availability to settle down and rest (Villa et al., 2009). Also, lying behavior is considered as a comfortable resting area and calmness (Olczak et al., 2015). This finding is corroborated by An et al. (2023), who reported increased sitting and decreased lying behaviors at high stocking densities, and Urrea et al. (2021), who found that low stocking densities were associated with increased lying behavior

In this study, we investigated the effects of lairage stocking density and lairage time on slaughter pigs. However, there were no significant differences in ST and LT on slaughter pigs. Most of previous studies, which have identified the effects of lairage time, evaluated the overnight lairage (over 20 h) compared with ST (0 - 3 h) (Dokmanovic et al., 2017; Salajpal et al., 2005; Choi et al., 2024). Also, according to Lee et al. (2023), who researched the effects of lairage time by path analysis, differences between 6 and 20 h of lairage time could directly affect the cortisol increase. Based on previous studies, the higher differences in lairage time should be considered to identify the optimal lairage time for improving pork quality and animal welfare.

Conclusion

The result of this study suggests the optimal lairage stocking density to improve pork quality and animal welfare. In this study, LD enhanced carcass quality, pork quality, pig behavior, and blood profile. However, there were no significant differences in lairage time. Therefore, LD could be the ideal condition for improving pork quality and animal welfare.

Conflict of Interests

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Acknowledgements

The “Cooperative Research program for Agriculture Science & Technology Development (Project No. PJ016214)” of the Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea, provided support for this work.

References

1

Aaslyng MD, Bejerholm C, Ertbjerg P, Bertram HC, Andersen HJ. 2003. Cooking loss and juiciness of pork in relation to raw meat quality and cooking procedure. Food Quality and Preference 14:277-288.

10.1016/S0950-3293(02)00086-1
2

Alfonso L, Zudaire G, Sarries MV, Viguera J, Flamarique F. 2010. Investigation of uniformity in pig carcass and meat quality traits. Animal 4:1739-1745.

10.1017/S175173111000081922445128
3

An J, Kim Y, Song M, Choi J, Yun W, Oh H, Chang S, Go Y, Song D, Cho H, et al. 2023. Effect of loading density and weather conditions on animal welfare and meat quality of slaughter pigs. Journal of Animal Science and Technology 65:1323-1340.

10.5187/jast.2023.e3438616884PMC11007295
4

AOAC (Association of Official Analytical Chemists) International. 2000. Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International (16th). AOAC International, Washington, D.C., USA.

5

Choe JH, Choi MH, Ryu YC, Lim KS, Lee EA, Kang JH, Hong KC, Lee SK, Kim YT, Moon SS, et al. 2014. Correlations among various blood parameters at exsanguination and their relationships to pork quality traits. Animal Production Science 55:672-679.

10.1071/AN13424
6

Choi M, Lee D, Lee HJ, Nam KC, Moon SS, Jung JH, Jo C. 2024. The impact of overnight lairage on meat quality and storage stability of pork loin. Journal of Animal Science and Technology 66:412-424.

10.5187/jast.2023.e13838628680PMC11016747
7

Čobanović N, Bošković M, Vasilev D, Dimitrijević M, Parunović N, Djordjević J, Karabasil N. 2016. Effects of various pre-slaughter conditions on pig carcasses and meat quality in a low-input slaughter facility. South African Journal of Animal Science 46:380-390.

10.4314/sajas.v46i4.6
8

Čobanović N, Stanković SD, Dimitrijević M, Suvajdžić B, Grković N, Vasilev D, Karabasil N. 2020. Identifying physiological stress biomarkers for prediction of pork quality variation. Animals 10:614.

10.3390/ani1004061432252489PMC7222799
9

Čobanović N, Vasilev D, Dimitrijević M, Teodorović V, Parunović N, Betić N, Karabasil N. 2017. The interactive effects of transportation and lairage time on welfare indicators, carcass and meat quality traits in slaughter pigs. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 85:012049.

10.1088/1755-1315/85/1/012049
10

Cornale P, Macchi E, Miretti S, Renna M, Lussiana C, Perona G, Mimosi A. 2015. Effects of stocking density and environmental enrichment on behavior and fecal corticosteroid levels of pigs under commercial farm conditions. Journal of Veterinary Behavior 10:569-576.

10.1016/j.jveb.2015.05.002
11

Costa LN, Fiego DL, Dall'Olio S, Davoli R, Russo V. 2002. Combined effects of pre-slaughter treatments and lairage time on carcass and meat quality in pigs of different halothane genotype. Meat Science 61:41-47.

10.1016/S0309-1740(01)00160-722063911
12

Dalla Costa FA, Dalla Costa OA, Di Castro IC, Gregory NG, Di Campos MS, Leal GBDM, Tavernari FDC. 2019. Ease of handling and physiological parameters of stress, carcasses, and pork quality of pigs handled in different group sizes. Animals 9:798.

10.3390/ani910079831615059PMC6826851
13

Dokmanovic M, Baltic MZ, Duric J, Ivanovic J, Popovic L, Todorovic M, Markovic R, Pantic S. 2015. Correlations among stress parameters, meat and carcass quality parameters in pigs. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 28:435-441.

10.5713/ajas.14.032225656214PMC4341090
14

Dokmanovic M, Ivanovic J, Janjic J, Boskovic M, Laudanovic M, Pantic S, Baltic MZ. 2017. Effect of lairage time, behaviour and gender on stress and meat quality parameters in pigs. Animal Science Journal 88:500-506.

10.1111/asj.1264927349831
15

Dokmanović M, Velarde A, Tomović V, Glamočlija N, Marković R, Janjić J, Baltić MŽ. 2014. The effects of lairage time and handling procedure prior to slaughter on stress and meat quality parameters in pigs. Meat Science 98:220-226.

10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.06.00324971810
16

Driessen B, Van Beirendonck S, Buyse J. 2020. The impact of grouping on skin lesions and meat quality of pig carcasses. Animals 10:544.

10.3390/ani1004054432218131PMC7222386
17

Edwards LN, Engle TE, Correa JA, Paradis MA, Grandin T, Anderson DB. 2010. The relationship between exsanguination blood lactate concentration and carcass quality in slaughter pigs. Meat Science 85:435-440.

10.1016/j.meatsci.2010.02.01220416836
18

Ewbank R, Bryant MJ. 1972. Aggressive behaviour amongst groups of domesticated pigs kept at various stocking rates. Animal Behaviour 20:21-28.

10.1016/S0003-3472(72)80169-64677165
19

Faucitano L. 2010. Invited review: Effects of lairage and slaughter conditions on animal welfare and pork quality. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 90:461-469.

10.4141/cjas10020
20

Fortin A, Robertson WM, Tong AKW. 2005. The eating quality of Canadian pork and its relationship with intramuscular fat. Meat Science 69:297-305.

10.1016/j.meatsci.2004.07.01122062822
21

Geverink NA, Engel B, Lambooij E, Wiegant VM. 1996. Observations on behaviour and skin damage of slaughter pigs and treatment during lairage. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 50:1-13.

10.1016/0168-1591(96)01069-6
22

Gispert M, Faucitano L, Oliver MA, Guàrdia MD, Coll C, Siggens K, Harbey K, Diestre A. 2000. A survey of pre-slaughter conditions, halothane gene frequency, and carcass and meat quality in five Spanish pig commercial abattoirs. Meat Science 55:97-106.

10.1016/S0309-1740(99)00130-822060909
23

Guàrdia MD, Estany J, Balasch S, Oliver MA, Gispert M, Diestre A. 2005. Risk assessment of DFD meat due to pre-slaughter conditions in pigs. Meat Science 70:709-716.

10.1016/j.meatsci.2005.03.00720416842
24

Hemsworth PH, Barnett JL, Hofmeyr C, Coleman GJ, Dowling S, Boyce J. 2002. The effects of fear of humans and pre-slaughter handling on the meat quality of pigs. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 53:493-501.

10.1071/AR01098
25

Hoa VB, Seo HW, Seong PN, Cho SH, Kang SM, Kim YS, Moon SS, Choi YM, Kim JH, Seol KH. 2021. Back-fat thickness as a primary index reflecting the yield and overall acceptance of pork meat. Animal Science Journal 92:e13515.

10.1111/asj.1351533522042
26

Hoa VB, Seong PN, Cho SH, Kang SM, Kim YS, Moon SS, Choi YM, Kim JH, Seol KH. 2019. Quality characteristics and flavor compounds of pork meat as a function of carcass quality grade. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 32:1448-1457.

10.5713/ajas.18.096531010986PMC6722317
27

Koćwin-Podsiadła M, Krzęcio E, Przybylski W. 2006. Pork quality and methods of its evaluation - A review. Polish Journal of Food and Nutrition Sciences 56:241-248.

28

Lawrie RA. 1980. Developments in Meat Science (Vol. 1). Applied Science Publishers, London, UK.

29

Lee J, Kang D, Shim K. 2023. Effect of lairage time prior to slaughter on stress in pigs: A path analysis. Porcine Health Management 9:55.

10.1186/s40813-023-00350-w38093314PMC10717777
30

Li C, Liu D, Zhou G, Xu X, Qi J, Shi P, Xia T. 2012. Meat quality and cooking attributes of thawed pork with different low field NMR T21. Meat Science 92:79-83.

10.1016/j.meatsci.2011.11.01522613078
31

MAFRA (Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs). 2023. Detailed criteria for grading livestock products. Accessed in https://www.law.go.kr/LSW/admRulLsInfoP.do?admRulSeq=2100000233450#AJAX on 5 November 2024. [in Korean]

32

Moss BW. 1978. Some observations on the activity and aggressive behaviour of pigs when penned prior to slaughter. Applied Animal Ethology 4:323-339.

10.1016/0304-3762(78)90004-4
33

Newman D, Young J, Carr C, Ryan M, Berg E. 2014. Effect of season, transport length, deck location, and lairage length on pork quality and blood cortisol concentrations of market hogs. Animals 4:627-642.

10.3390/ani404062726479004PMC4494428
34

Olczak K, Nowicki J, Klocek C. 2015. Pig behaviour in relation to weather conditions - A review. Annals of Animal Science 15:601-610.

10.1515/aoas-2015-0024
35

Oliveira TFB, Rivera DFR, Mesquita FR, Braga H, Ramos EM, Bertechini AG. 2014. Effect of different sources and levels of selenium on performance, meat quality, and tissue characteristics of broilers. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 23:15-22.

10.3382/japr.2013-00761
36

Owen BL, Montgomery JL, Ramsey CB, Miller MF. 2000. Preslaughter resting and hot-fat trimming effects on the incidence of pale, soft and exudative (PSE) pork and ham processing characteristics. Meat Science 54:221-229.

10.1016/S0309-1740(99)00083-222060692
37

Rabaste C, Faucitano L, Saucier L, Mormède P, Correa JA, Giguèr A, Bergeron R. 2007. The effects of handling and group size on welfare of pigs in lairage and their influence on stomach weight, carcass microbial contamination and meat quality. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 87:3-12.

10.4141/A06-041
38

Salajpal K, Dikić M, Karolyi D, Sinjeri Z, Liker B, Kostelić A, Jurić I. 2005. Blood serum metabolites and meat quality in crossbred pigs experiencing different lairage time. Italian Journal of Animal Science 4:119-121.

10.4081/ijas.2005.3s.119
39

Shen QW, Means WJ, Thompson SA, Underwood KR, Zhu MJ, McCormick RJ, Du M. 2006. Pre-slaughter transport, AMP-activated protein kinase, glycolysis, and quality of pork loin. Meat Science 74:388-395.

10.1016/j.meatsci.2006.04.00722062850
40

Sommavilla R, Faucitano L, Gonyou H, Seddon Y, Bergeron R, Widowski T, Crowe T, Connor L, Scheeren MB, Brown J. 2017. Season, transport duration and trailer compartment effects on blood stress indicators in pigs: Relationship to environmental, behavioral and other physiological factors, and pork quality traits. Animals 7:8.

10.3390/ani702000828208689PMC5332929
41

Song D, Chang S, An J, Park S, Jeon K, Kim H, Cho J. 2023. Effects of different stocking density in lairage of fattening pigs in high temperatures. Korean Journal of Agricultural Science 50:861-867.

10.7744/kjoas.500422
42

Støier S, Aaslyng MD, Olsen EV, Henckel P. 2001. The effect of stress during lairage and stunning on muscle metabolism and drip loss in Danish pork. Meat Science 59:127-131.

10.1016/S0309-1740(01)00040-722062670
43

Tang MH, Shi Y, Jiang XL, Xu H, Ma Y, Zhao B. 2021. A high sensitivity luminescent sensor for the stress biomarker cortisol using four-fold interpenetrated europium-organic frameworks integrated with logic gates. Journal of Materials Chemistry C 9:9643-9649.

10.1039/D1TC01342D
44

Trevisan L, Brum JS. 2020. Incidence of pale, soft and exudative (PSE) pork meat in reason of extrinsic stress factors. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências 92:e20190086.

10.1590/0001-376520202019008633111817
45

Turner SP, Ewen M, Rooke JA, Edwards SA. 2000. The effect of space allowance on performance, aggression and immune competence of growing pigs housed on straw deep-litter at different group sizes. Livestock Production Science 66:47-55.

10.1016/S0301-6226(00)00159-7
46

Urrea VM, Bridi AM, Ceballos MC, Paranhos da Costa MJ, Faucitano L. 2021. Behavior, blood stress indicators, skin lesions, and meat quality in pigs transported to slaughter at different loading densities. Journal of Animal Science 99:skab119.

10.1093/jas/skab11933860321PMC8188811
47

Van der Wal PG, Engel B, Reimert HGM. 1999. The effect of stress, applied immediately before stunning, on pork quality. Meat Science 53:101-106.

10.1016/S0309-1740(99)00039-X22063086
48

Villa PD, Marahrens M, Calvo AV, Di Nardo A, Kleinschmidt N, Alvarez CF, Truar A, Di EF, Otero JL, Müller-Graf C. 2009. Project to develop animal welfare risk assessment guidelines on transport. EFSA Supporting Publications 6:21E.

10.2903/sp.efsa.2009.EN-21
49

Warner RD, Channon H, Hofmeyr C, Can AL, Cottrell J, Bond J, Greaser MG, Kauffman RG. 2001. Water-holding capacity (WHC) of pork: Pre-slaughter stress and protein denaturation. In: Proceedings of the 54th Annual Reciprocal Meat Conference. pp. 148-154. Indianapolis, IN, USA: AMSA.

50

Warriss PD, Brown SN, Edwards JE, Knowles TG. 1998. Effect of lairage time on levels of stress and meat quality in pigs. Animal Science 66:255-261.

10.1017/S1357729800009036
51

Wood JD, Enser M, Fisher AV, Nute GR, Sheard PR, Richardson RI, Hughes SI, Whittington FM. 2008. Fat deposition, fatty acid composition and meat quality: A review. Meat Science 78:343-358.

10.1016/j.meatsci.2007.07.01922062452
페이지 상단으로 이동하기