Theriogenology
Volume 67, Issue 1 , Pages 178-184, 1 January 2007

Comparison of meat composition from offspring of cloned and conventionally produced boars

  • S.C. Walker

      Affiliations

    • ViaGen Inc., 12357-A Riata Trace Parkway, Suite 100, Austin, TX 78727, USA
  • ,
  • R.K. Christenson

      Affiliations

    • U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Roman L. Hruska U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, Clay Center, NE 68933, USA
  • ,
  • R.P. Ruiz

      Affiliations

    • Eurofins Scientific Inc., 345 Adams Avenue, Memphis, TN 38103, USA
  • ,
  • D.E. Reeves

      Affiliations

    • Department of Population Health, College Of Veterinary Medicine University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA
  • ,
  • S.L. Pratt

      Affiliations

    • Clemson University, Animal and Veterinary Sciences, Clemson, SC 29634, USA
  • ,
  • F. Arenivas

      Affiliations

    • ViaGen Inc., 12357-A Riata Trace Parkway, Suite 100, Austin, TX 78727, USA
  • ,
  • N.E. Williams

      Affiliations

    • ViaGen Inc., 12357-A Riata Trace Parkway, Suite 100, Austin, TX 78727, USA
  • ,
  • B.L. Bruner

      Affiliations

    • ViaGen Inc., 12357-A Riata Trace Parkway, Suite 100, Austin, TX 78727, USA
  • ,
  • I.A. Polejaeva

      Affiliations

    • ViaGen Inc., 12357-A Riata Trace Parkway, Suite 100, Austin, TX 78727, USA
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +1 512 401 5900; fax: +1 512 401 5919.

published online 17 November 2006.

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.

Keywords: Pigs, Cloning, Meat composition, Cloned offspring, Food safety

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 15.00 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Mention of trade names or commercial products in this article is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

PII: S0093-691X(06)00500-0

doi:10.1016/j.theriogenology.2006.09.025

Theriogenology
Volume 67, Issue 1 , Pages 178-184, 1 January 2007