HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Field, R. A. Articles by Kemp, J. D. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Field, R. A. Articles by Kemp, J. D.

Processing Costs, Market Values, and Consumer Acceptance of Light and Normal Weight Hogs¹

University of Kentucky, Lexington

Abstract

This study evaluated growth, feed conversion, carcass data, consumer acceptance, palatability factors, and packer and retailer opinions of light weight hogs.

Hogs weighing 160 lb. required significantly less feed per hundred lb. of gain at a lower price per lb. of gain than hogs weighing 220 lb. However, the heavier hogs made the faster gains. Packers estimated that procsesing costs were 20% greater for hogs slaughtered under 175 lb. Retailers in general preferred smaller cuts than they were buying. Significantly more consumers considered cuts from the heavier hogs too fat. No differences in tenderness were shown by the Warner-Bratzler shear machine or the taste panel. There was no significant difference in flavor of pork from the two weight groups. Cooking losses in loin roasts from the 220 lb. hogs were significantly higher. Processing costs were higher for light weight hogs, but total wholesale value per hundred lb. live weight was greater for the light weight hogs, thereby offsetting the extra processing costs.

¹ The investigation reported in this paper is in connection with a project of the Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station and is published with approval of the Director.