Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Food Science and Technology logoLink to Journal of Food Science and Technology
. 2020 Mar 12;57(8):3024–3030. doi: 10.1007/s13197-020-04335-3

Effect of sex on carcass yield and meat quality of guinea pig

Luana Barbosa Freire de Figueiredo 1, Rafael Torres de Souza Rodrigues 1, Macio Fabricio Santos Leite 1, Glayciane Costa Gois 2,✉, David Hans da Silva Araújo 2, Maria Gracileide de Alencar 1, Thamys Polynne Ramos Oliveira 1, Acácio Figueirêdo Neto 3, René Geraldo Cordeiro Silva Junior 4, Mário Adriano Ávila Queiroz 1
PMCID: PMC7316944  PMID: 32624605

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of sex on carcass yield and meat quality of guinea pig (Cavia porcellus). Twenty animals (10 males and 10 females) Criollos, with initial body weight of 286 ± 4.26 g and 2 months of age were distributed in a completely randomized design. The guinea pigs fed a diet based on vegetables and concentrate in a roughage:concentrate ratio of 80:20. After 60 days, animals were slaughtered and their carcasses and meat were evaluated. Males had higher slaughter weight, total weight gain, hot carcass weight, cold carcass weight, cold carcass yield, meat weight, meat yield, leg weight, loin + flank weight and front weight (P < 0.05). Females showed higher carcass chilling loss, liver yield, cooking loss and protein and ash content in meat (P < 0.05). The use of male guinea pigs for meat production provides higher yields of carcasses, meat and commercial cuts, and lower losses during carcass chilling and meat cooking.

Keywords: Animal protein alternative, Cavia porcellus, Gender, Meat production

Introduction

Guinea pig (Cavia porcellus) is a rodent mammal, from the Andean zone of Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia (Sánchez-Macías et al. 2018). It plays a prominent role as an experimental model for medical research and as a pet, and is also used for meat production (Barba et al. 2018; Balaguer et al. 2019). In addition, guinea pig has high proliferation and rapid growth and is fed mainly with forage, not competing directly with humans for food resources such as corn and wheat (Lucas et al. 2018; Balaguer et al. 2019). Thus, guinea pig production becomes a low-cost economic alternative to meet the growing needs for animal protein mainly in some Asian and African developing countries, where their potential as a new protein source is great (Sánchez-Macías et al. 2016).

There is a growing interest in the commercial use of guinea pig for meat production as it has high protein content (about 20%) and low cholesterol and sodium content, which is nutritionally interesting (Sánchez-Macías et al. 2018). This meat is consumed mainly in Andean countries, Latin American countries, and sub-Saharan Africa (Kouakou et al. 2013).

Peru has the largest population of guinea pigs in Latin America (Pascual et al. 2017). The annual consumption of guinea pig meat in Peru is approximately 16.500 tons, which comes from the slaughter of approximately 65 million animals produced by a breeding herd of approximately 22 million animals, mainly in family livestock systems (Chirinos 2013). In a market study carried out in Satipo Province, Peru, it was observed that the annual supply of 140 tonnes of guinea pig meat did not meet local demand, with a deficit of 36% (Bazán et al. 2014).

Despite the great potential for consumption of guinea pig meat, information on the edible portion is limited (Sánchez-Macías et al. 2016; Flores-Mancheno et al. 2017; Lucas et al. 2018; Balaguer et al. 2019), mainly in relation to the effect of sex on carcass traits and meat quality (Guerrero et al. 2011; Mota-Rojas et al. 2012; Tandzong et al. 2015; Barba et al. 2018; Ordoñez et al. 2019). However, these studies did not evaluate carcass and meat yields after chilling and cooking processes, respectively. These characteristics are affected by body composition, which in turn is directly influenced by sex (Dikeman, 2013). Thus, due to the need to increase the production yield of guinea pig meat to meet the growing demand, further studies are needed.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of sex on carcass traits and meat quality of guinea pig.

Materials and methods

Declaration of animal rights

This research followed the rules of the National Council for Animal Experimentation Control (CONCEA, Brazil) and was approved by the Ethics Committee on Animal Use (CEUA) of the Federal University of Vale do São Francisco (UNIVASF), with protocol number 0005/280918.

Location, animals and experimental design

The experiment was conducted in the Agricultural Sciences Campus of UNIVASF, Petrolina, State of Pernambuco, Brazil.

Twenty Criollo guinea pigs (10 males and 10 females), with initial body weight of 286 ± 4.26 g and 2 months of age, were randomly selected from the UNIVASF experimental farm. The experimental design was completely randomized with two treatments (male and female).

Animals were previously identified with rings, weighed, separated by sex (males and females) and distributed in collective pens (2 m2) equipped with a central feeder and Nipple drinker. Guinea pigs were confined for 60 days, preceded by 15 days for adaptation to the facility and diet. The bottom of the pens was lined with wood shavings, which were changed three times a week. The pens had a net coverage to provide adequate ventilation. The pens were protected from the weather in a 4-meter-high shed with coconut straw roof and no walls for air circulation.

Guinea pigs were given a diet of fruits, vegetables, elephant grass (Pennisetum purpureum) and standard commercial concentrate containing ground whole corn, soybean meal, wheat bran, dehydrated alfalfa, calcite limestone, sodium chloride and mineral vitamin complex (Nutricobaia Ration—Presence Nutrição Animal, Paulínia-SP, Brazil), in a roughage:concentrate ratio of 80:20. Diet was offered daily at 08h00 and 15h00, allowing 10% leftovers. Water was offered ad libitum.

Slaughter, carcass processing and cutting

The animals were fasted for 16 h and transported to the Slaughterhouse of the UNIVASF, where they were immediately slaughtered. The slaughter of guinea pigs was carried out without prior stunning by beheading using guillotine according to the Brazilian Good Practice Guide for Euthanasia of Animals (CFMV, 2013), as required by the CEUA of the UNIVASF. The head was discarded and the front paws were cut at the level of the carpometacarpal joint and the hind paws at the tarsometatarsal joint. Then the skin and viscera were removed manually.

Carcasses were weighed on a precision scale for determination of hot carcass weight (HCW) and hot carcass yield (HCY; HCY = (HCW/SBW) × 100). Liver, kidneys and heart were weighed, and their respective yields were calculated in relation to SBW.

Carcasses were transferred to a cold room at ± 4 °C and chilled for 24 h. After this period, carcasses were weighed to obtain cold carcass weight (CCW), cold carcass yield (CCY; CCY = (CCW/SBW) × 100) and chilling loss (chilling loss; CL = [(HCW − CCW)/HCW] × 100. Carcasses were separated manually with a knife in the following sections: shoulder, front quarter, loin and leg (Fig. 1). The shoulder was obtained by separating the scapula joints. The front quarter comprised the neck, chest and ribs. The loin was obtained by separating the lumbar vertebrae plus the flank. The leg comprised the pelvic limbs. The cuts were weighed and their yields calculated in relation to the CCW. The cuts were packaged in polyethylene bags and stored at − 20 °C until laboratory analysis.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Guinea pig carcass cuts

Laboratory analysis

The pH of the meat was measured using a previously calibrated benchtop pH meter (Marconi® MA-552, Piracicaba-SP, Brazil) after homogenization of 2.5 g loin sample in 25 mL distilled water using a vortex.

Color measurement was performed on the lateral sides of the legs. Samples were exposed to oxygen for 30 min prior to reading (Miltenburg et al. 1992). Color measurements were taken at three different points of the cut using the CIELAB system, which considers the coordinates L*, a* and b* responsible for the lightness (black/white), red content (green/red) and yellow content (blue/yellow), respectively, using a MINOLTA CR-400 colorimeter (Konica® Minolta, Osaka, Japan) calibrated on a white tile using the illuminant C 10° for standard observation.

Water holding capacity (WHC) was obtained by the pressure method with filter paper. Loin samples (0.5 g) were placed on 10 × 10 cm2 filter paper (Whatman #1) between two plexiglass plates. The set was pressed with a weight of 5 kg (71.12 psi) for 5 min. Then the samples were weighed again (Wierbicki and Deatherage 1958; Honikel and Hamm 1994).

Cooking loss was determined using the legs, which were weighed and cooked in a digital water bath (SolidSteel, Uberlândia-MG, Brazil) at 170 °C until the internal temperature of the leg reached 72 °C. The legs were then cooled to room temperature and weighed again. Cooking loss was calculated as the weight difference.

Shear force (SF) was determined according to the methodology described by Wheeler et al. (1995). Samples of 1 cm3 cooked leg were obtained and placed in a texturometer (Texture Analyzer TA-XPLUS-30, Godalming, United Kingdom) equipped with a Warner–Bratzler shear blade, with the fibers in the opposite direction to the blade. The settings used were pretest speed = 2.0 mm/s, trigger force = 5.0 g, speed test = 2.0 mm/s, return speed = 5.0 mm/s, test distance = 46.0 mm, load cell capacity = 10 kg and force filter = 10 Hz.

For proximate composition analysis, the shoulder was thawed at 4 ± 1 °C for 24 h and boned. Then, the meat obtained was minced manually with a knife. Moisture, ash and protein values were obtained using the methodology described by the Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC 2016; methods 985.41, 920.153 and 928.08, respectively). Total lipids were determined in an extraction apparatus (ANKOM TX-10, Curitiba—PR, Brazil) according to the methodology proposed by the American Oil Official Method Chemists’ Society (AOCS 2017).

Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses were run using the Statistical Analysis System (SAS 9.1) software, using the PROC GLM, with a significance level of 5%, according to the following statistical model: Y = μ + α + e, where: Y = evaluated parameter, μ = overall mean, α = sex effect, and “e” = random error.

Results

Male guinea pigs presented higher values (P < 0.05) of SBW, total weight gain, HCW, CCW, CCY, and meat weight and yield (Table 1). Females presented higher values (P < 0.05) of chilling loss (Table 1). There was no effect (P > 0.05) of sex on IBW, HCY and bone weight (Table 1).

Table 1.

Weight and yield of carcass and meat of male and female guinea pigs (Cavia porcellus)

Variables Sex SEM P value
Female Male
Initial body weight (g) 282.6 289.4 5.74 0.4134
Slaughter body weight (g) 487.2 522.2 8.08 0.0067
Total weight gain (g) 204.6 232.8 9.28 0.0457
Hot carcass weight (g) 211.7 237.2 5.41 0.0037
Cold carcass weight (g) 205.0 230.5 5.31 0.0032
Hot carcass yield (%) 43.45 45.37 0.65 0.0540
Cold carcass yield (%) 42.08 44.09 0.65 0.0444
Chilling loss (%) 3.17 2.30 0.22 0.0103
Meat weight (g) 113.92 139.11 4.36 0.0007
Bone weight (g) 48.16 46.51 1.96 0.5607
Meat yielda (%) 55.40 60.34 1.05 0.0039
Open in a new tab

SEM Standard error of mean

a% carcass weight

Male guinea pigs had higher values (P < 0.05) of leg weight, loin + flank weight and front weight compared to females (Table 2). In relation to edible viscera, female liver yield was higher compared to males (Table 2). The weights of the shoulder, liver, kidneys and heart and the yields of the leg, loin + flank, front, shoulder, kidneys and heart did not differ (P > 0.05) between treatments (Table 2).

Table 2.

Weight and yield of carcass cuts and edible viscera of male and female guinea pigs (Cavia porcellus)

Variables Sex SEM P value
Female Male
Leg (g) 58.80 65.38 1.58 0.0089
Loin + flank (g) 39.81 47.56 1.78 0.0067
Front quarter (g) 59.55 71.19 1.78 0.0002
Shoulder (g) 45.46 49.15 1.71 0.1373
Lega (%) 29.15 28.00 0.38 0.0518
Loin + flanka (%) 19.45 20.61 0.68 0.2436
Front quartera (%) 29.08 30.92 0.62 0.0512
Shouldera (%) 22.14 21.49 0.47 0.3326
Liver (g) 12.85 11.94 0.51 0.2224
Kidneys (g) 5.08 5.83 0.30 0.0913
Heart (g) 1.52 1.62 0.08 0.3916
Liverb (%) 2.60 2.33 0.09 0.0467
Kidneysb (%) 1.05 1.11 0.04 0.3285
Heartb (%) 0.30 0.32 0.015 0.3443
Open in a new tab

SEM Standard error of mean

a% carcass weight

b% slaughter body weight

Female guinea pigs had higher values (P < 0.05) of cooking loss and protein and ash content in meat compared to males, which in turn had higher (P < 0.05) fat content (Table 3). Values of pH, WHC, L*, a*, b*, SF and moisture did not differ (P > 0.05) between males and females (Table 3).

Table 3.

Physicochemical characteristics and proximate composition of meat of male and female guinea pigs (Cavia porcellus)

Variables Sex SEM P value
Female Male
pH 6.24 6.22 0.02 0.5027
Water holding capacity (%) 62.00 52.00 3.43 0.0541
Lightness intensity (L*) 56.29 57.40 0.76 0.3196
Red intensity (a*) 8.45 8.46 0.46 0.9903
Yellow intensity (b*) 2.96 2.80 0.48 0.8156
Cooking loss (%) 20.51 17.05 0.86 0.0090
Shear force (kgf/cm2) 1.32 1.27 0.05 0.5370
Moisture (g/100 g) 75.6 74.7 0.48 0.2047
Protein (g/100 g) 24.8 22.7 0.41 0.0015
Fat (g/100 g) 2.97 4.51 0.23 0.0002
Ash (g/100 g) 4.71 3.93 0.15 0.0022
Open in a new tab

SEM Standard error of mean

Discussion

The anabolic action of testosterone plays a very important role for uncastrated male animals to have greater weight gain in less time and based on greater muscle deposition (López and Ramos, 2015). According to Cuenca and Peñaranda (2016), normal testosterone levels cause nitrogen retention in the cell, providing anabolism of muscle fibers. Higher weight gain values in males corroborate the results reported by Zuñiga-Galindo et al. (2018), who also reported higher values of weight gain (248.7 vs. 187.8 g), SBW (545.8 vs. 496.2 g) and HCW (271.4 vs. 246.4 g) in male Dunkin Hartle guinea pigs with an average age of 5 weeks compared to females. Similarly, Tandzong et al. (2015) also observed higher weight gain (464.8 vs. 442.8 g), SBW (556.0 vs. 529.2 g) and HCY (41.8 vs. 39.9%) in 8-week-old male guinea pigs compared to females.

Female carcasses presented higher chilling loss. This result could be related to the lower fat content in female meat, which could prevent carcass weight loss during chilling in the cold room. The low fat in female meat could also have contributed to the higher values of cooking loss in female meat compared to males. Chilling loss is inversely related to the degree of carcass finishing, since the fat cover protects the carcasses during the chilling period, reducing the losses (Campos et al. 2019). In our study, the fat cover, firmly attached to the musculature, was not separated from the carcass and, therefore, was part of the meat fat composition.

Higher values of leg weight, loin + flank weight and front weight in males may be related to their higher slaughter and carcass weights. Similarly, Palmay et al. (2015) also reported higher values of shoulder weight (14.47 vs. 14.46 g), leg (40.0 vs. 38.5 g) and ribs (36.6 vs. 32.5 g) in 3-month-old male guinea pigs compared to females.

There is little information on the weight and yield of edible viscera of guinea pigs. Liver, kidney and heart constitute a significant proportion of the animal and therefore represent a very useful source of protein, vitamins and minerals for consumers (Sánchez-Macías et al. 2018). In the present study, females presented higher liver yield, corroborating the findings of Miégoué et al. (2018) in a study with guinea pigs fed Panicum maximum and Pennisetum purpureum, in which female liver presented higher weight and yield (17.0 g and 3.37%) when compared to male liver (12.3 g 3.22%).

Meat pH is an indicator of quality that can affect its physicochemical properties. The results of this research are within the standard established by the Peruvian Technical Standard for Guinea Pig meat (NTP 201.058, INDECOPI 2006), which suggests the pH range between 5.5 and 6.4 as being suitable for consumption.

Another important feature of meat quality is its color, which is given by the myoglobin pigments in the muscles. Myoglobin is a protein and, like all proteins, is susceptible to change in response to external environmental conditions. Changes in pH and/or temperature may cause protein denaturation, which may alter its structure and functionality (Neethling et al. 2017). In our study, there was no effect of sex on the instrumental color parameters of guinea pig meat. Mota-Rojas et al. (2012) in a study on the effect of stunning methods (neck dislocation and electrical stunning) on meat color of male and female guinea pigs detected differences for this variable due to interaction between stunning method and sex, with L* intensity variations between 22.12 and 24.02, values that were lower than those observed in the present study.

The values observed in our study for L* were higher than those observed in studies with sheep meat (40.1; Cirne et al. 2018); beef (40.0; Akram et al. 2019); chicken (44.4; Santos et al. 2017) and deer (37.6; Maggiolino et al. 2019), and resemble those found for pork (52.1; Rossi et al. 2013) and rabbits (55.4; Kozioł et al. 2015).

The protein content found in guinea pig meat was very similar to that of other species (beef—25 g/100 g; chicken—25 g/100 g; pork—25 g/100 g; sheep—24 g/100 g; goat—23 g/100 g; Mazhangara et al. 2019). However, it was higher than the values described in previous studies with guinea pig meat of different genetic groups (Criollo—19.4 g/100 g %; Andean—18.6 g/100 g; and Peruvian—17.8 g/100 g; Flores-Mancheno et al. 2017; Inti—19,1 g/100 g and Inka—20,36 g/100 g; Sánchez-Macías et al. 2018). This difference could be related to discrepancies in slaughter age, animal diets, sex, sampling site in the carcass and carcass processing method (with or without skin, for example). The higher protein content in female meat compared to males corroborates a previous study, which found that female guinea pigs fed 8 and 10% Manihot esculenta leaves in the diets had higher protein content (22.4 and 16.6 g/100 g, respectively) in the shoulder cut compared to males (13.9 and 13.6 g/100 g, respectively; Tandzong et al. 2015).

As fat content in meat is inversely proportional to protein content, lower meat fat content in females was a consistent result. The lipid content of a muscle varies according to its anatomical position. The low fat levels in the shoulder meat observed in the present study differ from the results reported by Tandzong et al. (2015), who found 13.8 g/100 g fat in female guinea pig shoulder and 10.15 g/100 g in male guinea pigs, and from those verified by Flores-Mancheno et al. (2017) in a study comparing the proximate composition of Criollo, Andean and Peruvian guinea pig meat, in which the fat values obtained were 7.93, 7.66 and 8.56 g/100, respectively.

Conclusion

Male guinea pig is more recommended than female guinea pig for meat production because of its higher growth and yield of carcasses, cuts and meat, and lower chilling loss and cooking loss. Guinea pig meat, regardless of sex, can be considered tender, with low fat and high protein content.

Footnotes

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Luana Barbosa Freire de Figueiredo, Email: luana15figueiredo@gmail.com.

Rafael Torres de Souza Rodrigues, Email: rafaeltsrodrigues@gmail.com.

Macio Fabricio Santos Leite, Email: marciozootecnia.granja@gmail.com.

Glayciane Costa Gois, Email: glayciane_gois@yahoo.com.br.

David Hans da Silva Araújo, Email: davidhans10@hotmail.com.

Maria Gracileide de Alencar, Email: gracileide_alencar@hotmail.com.

Thamys Polynne Ramos Oliveira, Email: polynne_oliveira@hotmail.com.

Acácio Figueirêdo Neto, Email: acacio.figueiredo@univasf.edu.br.

René Geraldo Cordeiro Silva Junior, Email: rene.cordeiro@univasf.edu.br.

Mário Adriano Ávila Queiroz, Email: mario.queiroz@univasf.edu.br.

References

  1. Akram MB, Munir F, Khan MI, Shoaib M, Khalid S. Effect of pre-freezing aging temperatures on quality attributes of beef Rumps. SSR Inst Int J Life Sci. 2019;5:2205–2210. doi: 10.21276/SSR-IIJLS.2019.5.2.1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. AOAC . Official methods of analysis of AOAC international. In: Latimer GW Jr, editor. Association of official analytical chemists. 20. Washington D.C: AOAC; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  3. AOCS . Official methods and recommended practices of the American Oil Official Method Chemists’ Society. 7. Urbana: AOCS; 2017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Balaguer CM, Capilla AC, Delgado VAZ, Sánchez-Macías D. A comparison of the growth performance, carcass traits, and behavior of Guinea pigs reared in wire cages and floor pens for meat production. Meat Sci. 2019;152:38–40. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2019.02.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Barba L, Sánchez-Macías D, Barba I, Rodríguez N. The potential of non-invasive pre- and post-mortem carcass measurements to predict the contribution of carcass components to slaughter yield of guinea pigs. Meat Sci. 2018;140:59–65. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.02.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bazán AL, Laimes AC, Palomino PG, Babilon AF. Estudio de mercado para cuyes de carne y reproductores, en el ámbito urbano de la provincia de Satipo. Prospec Univ. 2014;11:26–36. doi: 10.26490/uncp.1990-7044.2014.1.272. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Campos FS, Carvalho GGP, Santos EM, Araújo GGL, Gois GC, Rebouças RA, Magalhães ALR, Oliveira JS, Voltolini TV, Carvalho BMA, Perazzo AF. Characteristics of carcass and non-carcass components of lambs fed diets containing silages of forages adapted to the semi-arid environment. South Afr J Anim Sci. 2019;49:119–130. doi: 10.4314/sajas.v49i1.14. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. CFMV . Federal Council of Veterinary Medicine. CFMV, Brasilia: Brazilian Good Practice Guide for Euthanasia of Animals; 2013. p. 62. [Google Scholar]
  9. Chirinos CAV (2013). Incremento del volumen de venta de la carne de cuy (Cavia porcellus) en el distrito de Ite debido al fortalecimiento de su cadena productiva. 2013. 137f. Tesis. Universidad Nacional Jorge Basadre Grohmann. Tacna - Perú. http://repositorio.unjbg.edu.pe/handle/UNJBG/1643
  10. Cirne LGA, Silva Sobrinho AG, Oliveira EA, Jardim RD, Varela Junior AS, Carvalho GGP, Jaeger SMPL, Bagaldo AR, Almeida FA, Endo V, Moreno GMB, Valença RL. Physicochemical and sensory characteristics of meat from lambs fed diets containing mulberry hay. Ital J Anim Sci. 2018;17:621–627. doi: 10.1080/1828051X.2017.1408435. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Cuenca CDA, Peñaranda ADM (2016) Efecto de la extirpación de las espículas del glande del cuy como técnica de esterilización reproductiva y su influencia en agresividad y ganancia de peso en comparación con un método químico (alcohol yodado 2%). 2016. 69 f. Tesis. Universidad de Cuenca, Facultad de ciencias agropecuárias. Cuenca– Ecuador. https://dspace.ucuenca.edu.ec/bitstream/123456789/24782/3/1.TESIS%20CUYES.pdf
  12. Dikeman M. Animal growth and empty body composition. In: Kerth CR, editor. The science of meat quality. Oxford: Wiley; 2013. [Google Scholar]
  13. Flores-Mancheno CI, Duarte C, Tello IPS. Caracterización de la carne de cuy (Cavia porcellus) para utilizarla en la elaboración de un embutido fermentado. Rev Ci Agric. 2017;14:39–45. doi: 10.19053/01228420.v14.n1.2017.6086. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Guerrero JEA, Pármo LF, González AH. Efecto del sexo y de la castración en el comportamiento productivo y la calidad de la canal de cuyes (Cavia porcellus) Vet Zootec. 2011;5:20–25. [Google Scholar]
  15. Honikel KO, Hamm R. Measurement of water holding capacity and juiceness. In: Pearson AM, Dutson TR, editors. Quality attributes and their measurement in meat, poultry and fish products. New York: Blackie Academic & Professional; 1994. pp. 125–161. [Google Scholar]
  16. Indecopi (2006) Instituto Nacional de Defensa de la Competencia y de la Protección de la Propiedad Intelectual. Norma técnica peruana, NTP 201.058. Carne y productos carnicos. Definiciones, Clasificación y requisitos de las carcasas y carne de cuy (Cavia porcellus). Lima, Peru. 14p
  17. Kouakou NDV, Grongnet JF, Assidjo NE, Thys E, Marnet PG, Catheline D, Legrand P, Kouba M. Effect of a supplementation of Euphorbia heterophylla on nutritional meat quality of Guinea pig (Cavia porcellus L.) Meat Sci. 2013;93:821–826. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.11.036. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Kozioł K, Maj D, Bieniek J. Changes in the color and pH of rabbit meat in the aging process. Med Wet. 2015;71:104–108. [Google Scholar]
  19. López CAA, Ramos PAC. Rendimiento y contenido graso de cuyes (Cavia porcellus) mejorados, sacrificados a la octava y duodécima semana de edad. Rev Inv Cult. 2015;4:20–32. [Google Scholar]
  20. Lucas JR, Balcázar S, Tirado O, Rodríguez A. El pH de la carne de cobayo (Cavia porcellus) para consumo humano en los Andes centrales del Perú. Rev Vet. 2018;29:65–67. doi: 10.30972/vet.2912793. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Maggiolino A, Pateiro M, Serrano MP, Landete-Castillejos T, Domínguez R, García A, Gallego L, Palo P, Lorenzo JM. Carcass and meat quality characteristics from Iberian wild red deer (Cervus elaphus) hunted at different ages. J Sci Food Agric. 2019;99:1938–1945. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.9391. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Mazhangara IR, Chivandi E, Mupangwa JF, Muchenje V. The potential of goat meat in the red meat industry. Sust. 2019;11:1–12. doi: 10.3390/su11133671. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Miégoué E, Tendonkeng F, Ngouopo NM, Tene LAM, Ntsafack P, Pamo ET. Physiological features of Pennisetum Purpureum or Panicum Maximum consumption in Guinea pigs (Cavia Porcellus) Int J Zool Res. 2018;1:5–19. [Google Scholar]
  24. Miltenburg GA, Wensing T, Smulders FJ, Breukink HJ. Relationship between blood hemoglobin, plasma and tissue iron, muscle heme pigment, and carcass color of veal. J Anim Sci. 1992;70:2766–2772. doi: 10.2527/1992.7092766x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Mota-Rojas D, Trujillo-Ortega ME, Becerril-Herrera M, Roldan-Santiago P, González-Lozano M, Guerrero-Legarreta I. Effect of the sacrifice method on critical blood variables and biochemistry consequences of the guinea pig meat (Cavia porcellus) Rev Cient. 2012;22:51–58. [Google Scholar]
  26. Neethling NE, Suman SP, Sigge GO, Hoffman LC, Hunt MC. Exogenous and endogenous factors influencing color of fresh meat from ungulates. Meat Muscle Biol. 2017;1:253–275. doi: 10.22175/mmb2017.06.0032. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Ordoñez GM, Pereyra GS, Gallardo ZL, Cortéz BL. Effect of dietary sacha inchi pressed cake as a protein source on guinea pig carcass yield and meat quality. Pak J Nutr. 2019;1:1–7. doi: 10.3923/pjn.2019. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Palmay J, Hernández C, Barba I, Remache R, Nuez AM, Argüello A, Castro N, Sánchez-Macías D (2015) Comparison between a method based upon the anatomical structure and a method based upon standardized butchering practice of guinea pig carcass. ADSA-ASAS Joint Annual Meeting. J Anim Sci, 98(S2). https://m.jtmtg.org/abs/t/63398
  29. Pascual M, Cruz DJ, Blasco A. Modeling production functions and economic weights in intensive meat production of guinea pigs. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2017;49:1361–1367. doi: 10.1007/s11250-017-1334-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Rossi R, Pastorelli G, Cannata S, Tavaniello S, Maiorano G, Corino C. Effect of long term dietary supplementation with plant extract on carcass characteristics meat quality and oxidative stability in pork. Meat Sci. 2013;95:542–548. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.05.037. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Sánchez-Macías D, Castro N, Rivero M, Argüello A, Delanuez AM. Proposal for standard methods and procedure for guinea pig carcass evaluation, jointing and tissue separation. J Appl Anim Res. 2016;1:65–70. doi: 10.1080/09712119.2015.1006234. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Sánchez-Macías D, Maggi LB, Delanuez AM, Paredes JP. Guinea pig for meat production: a systematic review of factors affecting the production, carcass and meat quality. Meat Sci. 2018;143:165–176. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.05.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Santos VM, Dallago BSL, Racanicci AMC, Santana AP, Bernal FEM. Effects of season and distance during transport on broiler chicken meat. Poultry Sci. 2017;96:4270–4279. doi: 10.3382/ps/pex282. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Tandzong MLC, Mbougueng PD, Womeni HM, Mweugang NN. Effect of cassava leaf (Manihot esculenta) level in guinea—pigs (Cavia porcellus) meal on the physico-chemical and technological properties of Its meat scientific research publishing. Food Nutr Sci. 2015;6:1408–1421. doi: 10.4236/fns.2015.615146. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Wheeler TL, Shackelford SD, Koohmaraie M (1995) Standardized warner bratzler shear force procedures for meat tenderness measurement. Clay Center: Marc USDA, 7p. https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/30400510/protocols/shearforceprocedures.pdf
  36. Wierbicki E, Deatherage FE. Determination of water—holding capacity of fresh meats. J Agric Food Chem. 1958;6:387–392. doi: 10.1021/jf60087a011. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Zuñiga-Galindo IC, Navarro-Hernandez JA, Carlin-Valderrabano SC, Sanchez-Lemus JC, Juarez-Rodriguez I, Vargas-Estrada D. Effect of ractopamine hydrochloride on growth promotion in guinea pigs (Cavia porcellus) Turkish J Vet Anim Sci. 2018;42:103–109. doi: 10.3906/vet-1709-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Food Science and Technology are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES