3 research outputs found

    Evidence of decreased muscle protein turnover in gilts selected for low residual feed intake

    Get PDF
    The objective of this study was to evaluate the contribution of muscle protein turnover (synthesis and degradation) to the biological basis for genetic differences in finisher pigs selected for residual feed intake (RFI). Residual feed intake is defined as the difference between expected feed intake (based on the achieved rate of BW gain and backfat depth of individual pigs) and the observed feed intake of the individual pig. We hypothesized that protein turnover would be reduced in pigs selected for low RFI. Twelve gilts from a line selected for 7 generations for low RFI and 12 from a contemporary line selected for 2 generations for high RFI were paired by age and BW and fed a standard corn–soybean diet for 6 wk. Pigs were euthanized, muscle and liver samples were collected, and insulin signaling, protein synthesis, and protein degradation proteins were analyzed for expression and activities. Muscle from low RFI pigs tended to have less μ- and m-calpain activities (P = 0.10 and 0.09, respectively) and had significantly greater calpastatin activity and a decreased μ-calpain:calpastatin activity ratio (P \u3c 0.05). Muscle from low RFI pigs had less 20S proteasome activity compared with their high RFI counterparts (P\u3c 0.05). No differences in insulin signaling intermediates and translation initiation signaling proteins [mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathway] were observed (P \u3e 0.05). Postmortem proteolysis was determined in the LM from the eighth generation of the low RFI pigs versus their high RFI counterparts (n = 9 per line). Autolysis of μ-calpain was decreased in the low RFI pigs and less troponin-T degradation product was observed at 3 d postmortem (P \u3c 0.05), indicating slowed postmortem proteolysis during aging in the low RFI pigs. These data provide significant evidence that less protein degradation occurs in pigs selected for reduced RFI, and this may account for a significant portion of the increased efficiency observed in these animals

    Survival of Clostridium perfringens, Staphylococcus aureus and Salmonella enterica in alternatively cured bacon during cooking and process deviations

    No full text
    Pork bellies were injected with four different alternative curing brines. The bellies were inoculated on the surface and at a depth of 1 cm with multiple strains of Clostridium perfringens, Staphylococcus aureus and Salmonella enterica. The bellies were processed using either a standard process cycle or an interrupted process cycle to simulate a process deviation. Additionally, laboratory simulation of the same cycles was conducted where surface inoculated pork belly samples (22 ± 1 g) were processed in a circulating water bath. Microbiological populations were determined at the beginning, mid-point and end of the cycles, and the change in population was calculated for each bacterium at each time point, by comparing the population to the initial inoculated population. Irrespective of the brine or process cycle, the populations of all of the inoculated bacteria on both the surface and interior samples had decreased by the end of the process. There was no difference in the reductions in bacterial populations for all of the inoculated bacteria by brine type or by sample location (P>0.30). There were differences in the microbial population reductions for C. perfringens attributable to the processing cycle (P<0.001), with less population reductions associated with the standard cycle when compared to the interrupted cycle. However, no differences (P>0.10) were observed in the population reductions between the two processing cycles for either S. aureus or S. enterica.This is a manuscript of an article published as Cruzen, Shannon M., Hayriye Cetin-Karaca, Rodrigo Tarté, Joseph G. Sebranek, and James S. Dickson. "Survival of Clostridium perfringens, Staphylococcus aureus and Salmonella enterica in alternatively cured bacon during cooking and process deviations." Meat Science 184 (2022): 108687. doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2021.108687. Posted with permission. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License
    corecore