Loading…
Comparison of meat composition from offspring of cloned and conventionally produced boars
This study compares the meat composition of the offspring from boars produced by somatic cell nuclear transfer ( n = 4) to that of the offspring from conventionally produced boars ( n = 3). In total, 89 commercial gilts were artificially inseminated and 61 progressed to term and farrowed. All of the...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Theriogenology 2007, Vol.67 (1), p.178-184 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Subjects: | |
| Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c528t-ea755fc410c527f984ccadac1d7ba6f949e1c82ff0045d473ad28ed54049923c3 |
|---|---|
| cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c528t-ea755fc410c527f984ccadac1d7ba6f949e1c82ff0045d473ad28ed54049923c3 |
| container_end_page | 184 |
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 178 |
| container_title | Theriogenology |
| container_volume | 67 |
| creator | Walker, S.C. Christenson, R.K. Ruiz, R.P. Reeves, D.E. Pratt, S.L. Arenivas, F. Williams, N.E. Bruner, B.L. Polejaeva, I.A. |
| description | This study compares the meat composition of the offspring from boars produced by somatic cell nuclear transfer (
n
=
4) to that of the offspring from conventionally produced boars (
n
=
3). In total, 89 commercial gilts were artificially inseminated and 61 progressed to term and farrowed. All of the resulting piglets were housed and raised identically under standard commercial settings and slaughtered upon reaching market weight. Loin samples were taken from each slaughtered animal and shipped offsite for meat composition analysis. In total, loin samples from 404 animals (242 from offspring of clones and 162 from controls) were analyzed for 58 different parameters generating 14,036 and 9396 data points from offspring of clones and the controls, respectively. Values for controls were used to establish a range for each parameter. Ten percent was then added to the maximum and subtracted from the minimum of the control range, and all results within this range were considered clinically irrelevant. Of the 14,036 data points from the offspring of clones, only three points were found outside the clinically irrelevant range, two of which were within the range established by the USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, Release 18, 2005; website:
http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/. The only outlier was the presence of Eicosadienoic acid (C20:2) in one sample which is typically present in minute quantities in pork; no reference data were found regarding this fatty acid in the USDA National Nutrient Database. In conclusion, these data indicated that meat from the offspring of clones was not chemically different than meat from controls and therefore supported the case for the safety of meat from the offspring of clones. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2006.09.025 |
| format | article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68365192</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0093691X06005000</els_id><sourcerecordid>68365192</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c528t-ea755fc410c527f984ccadac1d7ba6f949e1c82ff0045d473ad28ed54049923c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkM-rEzEQgIMovlr9F3QP4m3XyY_NbsCLlPdUeOBBH-gppMmkpuwmNdk-6H9vSgvizVOYmW8yMx8hbyl0FKh8v--WX5hD2mFMU9qdOgYgO1AdsP4JWdFxUC1nnD4lKwDFW6nojxvyopQ9AHAp6XNyQwcKSol-RX5u0nwwOZQUm-SbGc3S2JpKJSyh5nxOcy34csgh7s6InVJE15joKhgfMZ45M02n5pCTO9pa2yaTy0vyzJup4KvruyYPd7ffN5_b-6-fvmw-3re2Z-PSohn63ltBocaDV6Ow1jhjqRu2RnolFFI7Mu8BRO_EwI1jI7pegFCKccvX5N3l3zr-9xHLoudQLE6TiZiORcuRy55WdE0-XECbUykZva43zSafNAV9Vqv3-l-1-qxWg9JVbW1_fZ1z3M7o_jZfXVbgzQXwJmmzq071wzcGlAOlTEg-VOLuQmD18Rgw62IDxqosZLSLdin83y5_AG2PnvM</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>68365192</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of meat composition from offspring of cloned and conventionally produced boars</title><source>ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Walker, S.C. ; Christenson, R.K. ; Ruiz, R.P. ; Reeves, D.E. ; Pratt, S.L. ; Arenivas, F. ; Williams, N.E. ; Bruner, B.L. ; Polejaeva, I.A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Walker, S.C. ; Christenson, R.K. ; Ruiz, R.P. ; Reeves, D.E. ; Pratt, S.L. ; Arenivas, F. ; Williams, N.E. ; Bruner, B.L. ; Polejaeva, I.A.</creatorcontrib><description>This study compares the meat composition of the offspring from boars produced by somatic cell nuclear transfer (
n
=
4) to that of the offspring from conventionally produced boars (
n
=
3). In total, 89 commercial gilts were artificially inseminated and 61 progressed to term and farrowed. All of the resulting piglets were housed and raised identically under standard commercial settings and slaughtered upon reaching market weight. Loin samples were taken from each slaughtered animal and shipped offsite for meat composition analysis. In total, loin samples from 404 animals (242 from offspring of clones and 162 from controls) were analyzed for 58 different parameters generating 14,036 and 9396 data points from offspring of clones and the controls, respectively. Values for controls were used to establish a range for each parameter. Ten percent was then added to the maximum and subtracted from the minimum of the control range, and all results within this range were considered clinically irrelevant. Of the 14,036 data points from the offspring of clones, only three points were found outside the clinically irrelevant range, two of which were within the range established by the USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, Release 18, 2005; website:
http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/. The only outlier was the presence of Eicosadienoic acid (C20:2) in one sample which is typically present in minute quantities in pork; no reference data were found regarding this fatty acid in the USDA National Nutrient Database. In conclusion, these data indicated that meat from the offspring of clones was not chemically different than meat from controls and therefore supported the case for the safety of meat from the offspring of clones.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0093-691X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-3231</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2006.09.025</identifier><identifier>PMID: 17109945</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Animal Husbandry - methods ; Animals ; boars ; Case-Control Studies ; Cloned offspring ; clones ; Cloning ; cloning (animals) ; Cloning, Organism - veterinary ; Consumer Product Safety ; Female ; Food safety ; loins (meat cut) ; Male ; Meat - analysis ; Meat composition ; Nuclear Transfer Techniques - veterinary ; nutrient content ; nutrient databanks ; Pigs ; pork ; progeny ; reference standards ; somatic cell cloning ; Swine - genetics ; Swine - physiology ; USDA National Nutrient Database</subject><ispartof>Theriogenology, 2007, Vol.67 (1), p.178-184</ispartof><rights>2006 Elsevier Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c528t-ea755fc410c527f984ccadac1d7ba6f949e1c82ff0045d473ad28ed54049923c3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c528t-ea755fc410c527f984ccadac1d7ba6f949e1c82ff0045d473ad28ed54049923c3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>315,786,790,4043,27956,27957,27958</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17109945$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Walker, S.C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Christenson, R.K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ruiz, R.P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reeves, D.E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pratt, S.L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arenivas, F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Williams, N.E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bruner, B.L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Polejaeva, I.A.</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of meat composition from offspring of cloned and conventionally produced boars</title><title>Theriogenology</title><addtitle>Theriogenology</addtitle><description>This study compares the meat composition of the offspring from boars produced by somatic cell nuclear transfer (
n
=
4) to that of the offspring from conventionally produced boars (
n
=
3). In total, 89 commercial gilts were artificially inseminated and 61 progressed to term and farrowed. All of the resulting piglets were housed and raised identically under standard commercial settings and slaughtered upon reaching market weight. Loin samples were taken from each slaughtered animal and shipped offsite for meat composition analysis. In total, loin samples from 404 animals (242 from offspring of clones and 162 from controls) were analyzed for 58 different parameters generating 14,036 and 9396 data points from offspring of clones and the controls, respectively. Values for controls were used to establish a range for each parameter. Ten percent was then added to the maximum and subtracted from the minimum of the control range, and all results within this range were considered clinically irrelevant. Of the 14,036 data points from the offspring of clones, only three points were found outside the clinically irrelevant range, two of which were within the range established by the USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, Release 18, 2005; website:
http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/. The only outlier was the presence of Eicosadienoic acid (C20:2) in one sample which is typically present in minute quantities in pork; no reference data were found regarding this fatty acid in the USDA National Nutrient Database. In conclusion, these data indicated that meat from the offspring of clones was not chemically different than meat from controls and therefore supported the case for the safety of meat from the offspring of clones.</description><subject>Animal Husbandry - methods</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>boars</subject><subject>Case-Control Studies</subject><subject>Cloned offspring</subject><subject>clones</subject><subject>Cloning</subject><subject>cloning (animals)</subject><subject>Cloning, Organism - veterinary</subject><subject>Consumer Product Safety</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Food safety</subject><subject>loins (meat cut)</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Meat - analysis</subject><subject>Meat composition</subject><subject>Nuclear Transfer Techniques - veterinary</subject><subject>nutrient content</subject><subject>nutrient databanks</subject><subject>Pigs</subject><subject>pork</subject><subject>progeny</subject><subject>reference standards</subject><subject>somatic cell cloning</subject><subject>Swine - genetics</subject><subject>Swine - physiology</subject><subject>USDA National Nutrient Database</subject><issn>0093-691X</issn><issn>1879-3231</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2007</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNkM-rEzEQgIMovlr9F3QP4m3XyY_NbsCLlPdUeOBBH-gppMmkpuwmNdk-6H9vSgvizVOYmW8yMx8hbyl0FKh8v--WX5hD2mFMU9qdOgYgO1AdsP4JWdFxUC1nnD4lKwDFW6nojxvyopQ9AHAp6XNyQwcKSol-RX5u0nwwOZQUm-SbGc3S2JpKJSyh5nxOcy34csgh7s6InVJE15joKhgfMZ45M02n5pCTO9pa2yaTy0vyzJup4KvruyYPd7ffN5_b-6-fvmw-3re2Z-PSohn63ltBocaDV6Ow1jhjqRu2RnolFFI7Mu8BRO_EwI1jI7pegFCKccvX5N3l3zr-9xHLoudQLE6TiZiORcuRy55WdE0-XECbUykZva43zSafNAV9Vqv3-l-1-qxWg9JVbW1_fZ1z3M7o_jZfXVbgzQXwJmmzq071wzcGlAOlTEg-VOLuQmD18Rgw62IDxqosZLSLdin83y5_AG2PnvM</recordid><startdate>2007</startdate><enddate>2007</enddate><creator>Walker, S.C.</creator><creator>Christenson, R.K.</creator><creator>Ruiz, R.P.</creator><creator>Reeves, D.E.</creator><creator>Pratt, S.L.</creator><creator>Arenivas, F.</creator><creator>Williams, N.E.</creator><creator>Bruner, B.L.</creator><creator>Polejaeva, I.A.</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2007</creationdate><title>Comparison of meat composition from offspring of cloned and conventionally produced boars</title><author>Walker, S.C. ; Christenson, R.K. ; Ruiz, R.P. ; Reeves, D.E. ; Pratt, S.L. ; Arenivas, F. ; Williams, N.E. ; Bruner, B.L. ; Polejaeva, I.A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c528t-ea755fc410c527f984ccadac1d7ba6f949e1c82ff0045d473ad28ed54049923c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2007</creationdate><topic>Animal Husbandry - methods</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>boars</topic><topic>Case-Control Studies</topic><topic>Cloned offspring</topic><topic>clones</topic><topic>Cloning</topic><topic>cloning (animals)</topic><topic>Cloning, Organism - veterinary</topic><topic>Consumer Product Safety</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Food safety</topic><topic>loins (meat cut)</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Meat - analysis</topic><topic>Meat composition</topic><topic>Nuclear Transfer Techniques - veterinary</topic><topic>nutrient content</topic><topic>nutrient databanks</topic><topic>Pigs</topic><topic>pork</topic><topic>progeny</topic><topic>reference standards</topic><topic>somatic cell cloning</topic><topic>Swine - genetics</topic><topic>Swine - physiology</topic><topic>USDA National Nutrient Database</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Walker, S.C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Christenson, R.K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ruiz, R.P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reeves, D.E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pratt, S.L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arenivas, F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Williams, N.E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bruner, B.L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Polejaeva, I.A.</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Theriogenology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Walker, S.C.</au><au>Christenson, R.K.</au><au>Ruiz, R.P.</au><au>Reeves, D.E.</au><au>Pratt, S.L.</au><au>Arenivas, F.</au><au>Williams, N.E.</au><au>Bruner, B.L.</au><au>Polejaeva, I.A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of meat composition from offspring of cloned and conventionally produced boars</atitle><jtitle>Theriogenology</jtitle><addtitle>Theriogenology</addtitle><date>2007</date><risdate>2007</risdate><volume>67</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>178</spage><epage>184</epage><pages>178-184</pages><issn>0093-691X</issn><eissn>1879-3231</eissn><notes>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2006.09.025</notes><notes>ObjectType-Article-1</notes><notes>SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1</notes><notes>ObjectType-Feature-2</notes><notes>content type line 23</notes><abstract>This study compares the meat composition of the offspring from boars produced by somatic cell nuclear transfer (
n
=
4) to that of the offspring from conventionally produced boars (
n
=
3). In total, 89 commercial gilts were artificially inseminated and 61 progressed to term and farrowed. All of the resulting piglets were housed and raised identically under standard commercial settings and slaughtered upon reaching market weight. Loin samples were taken from each slaughtered animal and shipped offsite for meat composition analysis. In total, loin samples from 404 animals (242 from offspring of clones and 162 from controls) were analyzed for 58 different parameters generating 14,036 and 9396 data points from offspring of clones and the controls, respectively. Values for controls were used to establish a range for each parameter. Ten percent was then added to the maximum and subtracted from the minimum of the control range, and all results within this range were considered clinically irrelevant. Of the 14,036 data points from the offspring of clones, only three points were found outside the clinically irrelevant range, two of which were within the range established by the USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, Release 18, 2005; website:
http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/. The only outlier was the presence of Eicosadienoic acid (C20:2) in one sample which is typically present in minute quantities in pork; no reference data were found regarding this fatty acid in the USDA National Nutrient Database. In conclusion, these data indicated that meat from the offspring of clones was not chemically different than meat from controls and therefore supported the case for the safety of meat from the offspring of clones.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>17109945</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.theriogenology.2006.09.025</doi><tpages>7</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0093-691X |
| ispartof | Theriogenology, 2007, Vol.67 (1), p.178-184 |
| issn | 0093-691X 1879-3231 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68365192 |
| source | ScienceDirect Journals |
| subjects | Animal Husbandry - methods Animals boars Case-Control Studies Cloned offspring clones Cloning cloning (animals) Cloning, Organism - veterinary Consumer Product Safety Female Food safety loins (meat cut) Male Meat - analysis Meat composition Nuclear Transfer Techniques - veterinary nutrient content nutrient databanks Pigs pork progeny reference standards somatic cell cloning Swine - genetics Swine - physiology USDA National Nutrient Database |
| title | Comparison of meat composition from offspring of cloned and conventionally produced boars |
| url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-09-21T21%3A20%3A19IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20meat%20composition%20from%20offspring%20of%20cloned%20and%20conventionally%20produced%20boars&rft.jtitle=Theriogenology&rft.au=Walker,%20S.C.&rft.date=2007&rft.volume=67&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=178&rft.epage=184&rft.pages=178-184&rft.issn=0093-691X&rft.eissn=1879-3231&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2006.09.025&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E68365192%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c528t-ea755fc410c527f984ccadac1d7ba6f949e1c82ff0045d473ad28ed54049923c3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=68365192&rft_id=info:pmid/17109945&rfr_iscdi=true |