Table 7.
Effect of different fat sources and VE supplementation levels on primal cuts1 of pigs
| Fat source | TW | DCO | SEM | P-value | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VE (ATA), ppm | 11 | 40 | 100 | 200 | 11 | 40 | 100 | 200 | VE2 | Fat | ||
| L | Q | |||||||||||
| Primal cut, kg | ||||||||||||
| Boston butt | 5.39 | 4.68 | 4.88 | 4.93 | 5.36 | 4.63 | 5.07 | 4.58 | 0.233 | – | – | – |
| Picnic shoulder | 5.11 | 5.60 | 5.44 | 4.83 | 4.93 | 5.51 | 5.08 | 5.73 | 0.240 | – | – | –I |
| Loin | 12.96 | 12.37 | 13.15 | 12.41 | 12.07 | 11.83 | 12.51 | 12.51 | 0.442 | – | – | – |
| Spare rib | 2.12 | 2.04 | 1.99 | 1.91 | 1.89 | 2.15 | 2.04 | 1.93 | 0.110 | – | – | – |
| Ham | 12.49 | 12.87 | 12.68 | 12.41 | 12.54 | 12.95 | 12.76 | 13.28 | 0.380 | – | – | – |
| Belly | 9.75 | 9.52 | 9.41 | 9.00 | 10.03 | 9.95 | 9.36 | 9.49 | 0.284 | 0.02 | – | – |
| Primal cut, % live weight | ||||||||||||
| Boston butt | 3.68 | 3.15 | 3.31 | 3.46 | 3.58 | 3.12 | 3.42 | 3.03 | 0.134 | – | – | – |
| Picnic shoulder | 3.49 | 3.78 | 3.69 | 3.41 | 3.28 | 3.73 | 3.43 | 3.79 | 0.152 | – | – | – |
| Loin | 8.88 | 8.35 | 8.92 | 8.74 | 8.08 | 7.98 | 8.45 | 8.28 | 0.302 | – | – | 0.03 |
| Spare rib | 1.45 | 1.38 | 1.35 | 1.35 | 1.26 | 1.45 | 1.38 | 1.28 | 0.080 | – | – | – |
| Ham | 8.54 | 8.69 | 8.60 | 8.71 | 8.39 | 8.75 | 8.62 | 8.79 | 0.238 | – | – | – |
| Belly | 6.66 | 6.43 | 6.38 | 6.32 | 6.70 | 6.71 | 6.32 | 6.28 | 0.161 | 0.02 | – | – |
1Values are average of six replicates. P-value greater than 0.10 was replaced with “–”.
2Linear (L) and quadratic (Q) responses based on dietary VE levels. I Interaction between fat and dietary VE level, P < 0.05.
ATA, α-tocopheryl-acetate.