Margit Dall Aaslyng, mdag@DTI.dk
1) Observational study (nine farms) => guidelines 2) Designed study to validate one of the guidelines
Guidelines
Loading at the farm directly from the pens or with short time in the pick-up facilities The number of entire male pigs versus non-entire male pigs in the pens at the
slaughterhouse is of minor importance
Entire male pigs can be mixed with pigs from other producers Short time in lairage for pens with unrestful pigs
14 entire male pigs/0 female pigs 10 entire male pigs/4 female pigs 7 entire male pigs/7 female pigs 4 entire male pigs/10 female pigs 0 entire male pigs/14 female pigs
5 different farms, two of each pen-type per farm Screening every 5 minutes (laying/not laying)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Aggression
Rest index
Rest index = ∑(numberpigs laying ) *100 number of pigs *number of observations
x0/14 x4/10 x7/7 x10/4 x14/0
0.40.50.60.70.80.9
Hvileindex 1 - Type
Number of entire male pigs/female pigs
0/14 4/10 7/7 10/4 14/0
Rest index
1 2 3 4 5
0.40.50.60.70.80.9
Hvileindeks 1 - Fold
Fold 1 Fold 2 Fold 3 Fold 4 Fold 5
Rest index
• 10 seconds per LDTD-MS/MS analysis
• 2880 samples per working day of 8 hours (360 per hour)
• Less than 40 minutes from sampling to analytical result
• Price: 1€ per sample
• Robust analytical system
Limit of detection
Limit of quantification
Skatole 0.02 µg/g 0.05 µg/g
Androstenone 0.05 µg/g 0.1 µg/g
Want to know more? Please ask my colleagues:
sst@dti.dk bwgl@dti.dk
How to set the sorting limits?
= ?
WHO?
The experts?
A huge consumer variation exists!
Pork chops, raw data, 25-75% fractiles
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Liking score
Forbrugere
Consumers
Gammons, UK consumers, raw data 1.18 μg/g skatole
8.7 μg/g androstenone
Christensen, Nielsen & Aaslyng, FQAP 2018
Consumer liking Skatole and androstenone in a random sample
Model 1:
Mixed effect logistic regression
Model 2:
Bivariate normal log scaling of skatole and androstenone
Model 3:
Expected[Risk(dislike)]
What is the risk that a consumer has a negative experience (dislike) when eating pork from entire male pigs?
0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00 6,00 7,00 8,00 9,00
0,00 0,10 0,20 0,30 0,40 0,50 0,60 0,70 0,80
Androstenone
Skatole
I do not like it at all I really like it
Dislike Like
Christensen, Nielsen & Aaslyng, FQAP 2018
Sorting limit AND Sorting limit SKA Limit for dislike
% discarded
Risk of dislike – entire male pigs Risk of dislike – castrates
0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00 6,00 7,00 8,00 9,00
0,00 0,10 0,20 0,30 0,40 0,50 0,60 0,70 0,80
Androstenone
Skatole
More or less intensive boar taint
16,000,000 pigs slaughtered
8,000,000 entire male pigs slaughtered
4% sorting = 320,000 carcasses with boar taint 84 kg/carcass
26,880,000 kg!
Which level of skatole and androstenone should be used in experiments?
How should the masking effect be evaluated?
Smoke can mask!
How much smoke is neccessary?
Which levels of boar taint/skatole and androstenone can be masked?
For whom should it be masked?
Aaslyng & Koch, Food Research International, 2018
Smoking periods:
0, 10, 20, 40, 80 min
Meat from carcasses with 0.60 μg/g SKA and 3.6 μg/g AND Fat from carcasses with 0.57 μg/g SKA and 2.4 μg/g AND
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-1,2 -1 -0,8 -0,6 -0,4 -0,2 0 0,2 0,4 0,6
Smoked flavour
PC1 Score
80 min
0 min
0 min 10 min 20 min10 min
20 min
40 min 40 min
80 min
Smokedflavour
PC1 score
(The lower the PC1 score, the more intense boar taint)
1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Female pigs Entire male pigs
Smoking periods: 10, 30, 60 min
Aaslyng & Koch, Food Research International, 2018
Up to 0.61 μg/g SKA Up to 5.8 μg/g AND
Triangel test
9 μg/g A 0.9 μg/g S
Max 10%
Theoretical calculation
Diluted at least 18 times
Diluted at least 10 times (the fat part) Diluted at least twice (the meat part)
Recommendation
Model experiment - screening
Pulled pork Stew
Odour is more masked than flavour Use a high concentration of the spices
Use strong spices such as cinnamon, chilli, oregano, thyme, mint, ginger and paprika
Fully or partially masked
Combine with other strategies e.g. a complex serving
Recommandations
Trained assessors Consumers Trained assessors Consumers
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Hangris L Urin_Pissoir L Gødning L Sved L Skarp L Hangris S Urin_Pissoir S Gødning S Sved S Skarp S
Androstenon Skatol
F-values - ham F-values - toast
SKA
AND
No effect of skatole and
androstenone on consumer
liking in sandwich or toast
Castrate
EM1 EM2
EM3
EM4
Boar odour
Boar flavour
Trained panel Consumer panel
Liking(0-15)
Castrate EM1 EM2 EM3 EM4
Dilution Smoke Masking Complexity Fermentation Temperature
√ √ √
√ √ √
√ √
√
Minced, diluted and perhaps smoked, masked e.g. in pulled pork
Smoked (bacon), masked (e.g. ready to eat pork chops) or served in a meal (bacon on burger) Smoked (ham), masked (ready to eat stew) or served as a ham-cheese toast
At the same carcass weight and meat percentage, the fore-end is larger, and the ham is smaller in entire male pigs compared with castrates and female pigs.
Entire male pigs have a higher meat percentage than castrates. The
yield of the middle (belly and loin) is therefore higher in male pigs
than in castrates.
Scenarios!
Scenario 1:
• 2% discarded carcasses (0.25 μg/g skatole, no sorting on androstenone)
• No effect of protein content or eating quality
• The carcass is sold as fore-end, middle and ham Scenario 2:
• 4.5% discarded carcasses (0.25 μg/g skatole, 5 μg/g androstenone)
• Protein content and eating quality have an economic value in a small part of the production
• The middle part is sold as belly and back (180 mm back) Scenario 3:
• 18% discarded carcasses (0.25 μg/g skatole, 2 μg/g androstenone)
• Protein content and eating quality have an economic value in a significant part of the production
• The middle part is sold as belly and back (180 mm back) Cost: 3.96 Euro/entire male pig
Cost: 3.36 Euro/entire male pig
Cost: 9.80 Euro/entire male pig
A great thanks to the team behind all the results
Dennis Brandborg Nielsen
Eli Olsen
Anette Granly Koch
Camilla Bejerholm
Jonna Andersen
Rune H. Christensen Lone K. Johansen
All the boar taint sensitive sensory assessors and all the technicians in the chemical laboratory Lene Meinert
Susanne Støier
Birgitte Lund
Peter Vorup
Lena Sloth Jens P. Teilmann
Troels Hansen Louise Hofer
Per Brockhoff
Please visit www.boartaint.dk
This work has been funded by the Danish Pig Levy Fund
and further supported by the Ministry of Environment and Food of Denmark
