Skip to main content
Log in

The Application of GC–MS and Chemometrics to Categorize the Feeding Regime of Iberian Pigs in Spain

  • Original
  • Published:
Chromatographia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

GC–MS and chemometric analysis of subcutaneous fat has been studied to classify three different feeding regimes of Iberian pigs. Nineteen fatty acids present in 57 fat samples were identified and quantified. Principal component analysis was employed for the preliminary study of the data structure. Discriminant analysis was used to classify samples into the three categories on the basis of the fatty acid profiles. Using a leave-one-out cross-validation procedure, only one fat sample from a pig fed with commercial feed, which simulated the fatty acid profile from free range animals, was incorrectly classified as having been fed on acorns and pasture. Using external validation, all of the samples were correctly classified. The most decisive fatty acids for distinguishing between groups, when using discriminant analysis were C16:1, C18:1, C17:0 and C18:0 for the first discriminant function, and C18:3, C14:0, C15:0, C22:0, C16:1 and C22:1 for the second discriminant function, ordered from the highest to the lowest coefficient. Some of the fatty acids important in distinguishing between groups are not the ones used by Spanish legislation to classify pigs in the different feeding categories. The results in this paper demonstrate the potential of statistical data treatment in the classification of animal feeding regimes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lopez-Bote CJ (1998) Meat Sci 49:S17–S27. doi:10.1016/S0309-1740(98)00072-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ruiz J, Cava R, Antequera T, Martin L, Ventanas J, Lopez-Bote CJ (1998) Meat Sci 49:155–163. doi:10.1016/S0309-1740(97)00136-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Rey AI, Lopez-Bote CJ, Arias RS (1997) Anim Sci 65:515–520

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Cava R, Ruiz J, LopezBote C, Martin L, Garcia C, Ventanas J, Antequera T (1997) Meat Sci 45:263–270. doi:10.1016/S0309-1740(96)00102-7

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Daza A, Rey AI, Ruiz J, Lopez-Bote CJ (2005) Meat Sci 69:151–163. doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2004.06.017

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Rey AI, Daza A, Lopez-Carrasco C, Lopez-Bote CJ (2006) Meat Sci 73:66–74. doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2005.10.018

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Muriel E, Ruiz J, Ventanas J, Antequera T (2002) Food Chem 78:219–225. doi:10.1016/S0308-8146(01)00401-0

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Andres AI, Cava R, Mayoral AI, Tejeda JF, Morcuende D, Ruiz J (2001) Meat Sci 59:39–47. doi:10.1016/S0309-1740(01)00050-X

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Wood JD, Richardson RI, Nute GR, Fisher AV, Campo MM, Kasapidou E et al (2004) Meat Sci 66:21–32. doi:10.1016/S0309-1740(03)00022-6

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Sundrum A (2001) Livest Prod Sci 67:207–215. doi:10.1016/S0301-6226(00)00188-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Morel PCH, McIntosh JC, Janz JAM (2006) Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 19:431–437

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Boletin Oficial del Estado (2004) 283

  13. Niñoles L, Clemente G, Ventanas S, Benedito J (2007) Meat Sci 76:102. doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2006.10.018

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Petron MJ, Muriel E, Tejeda JF, Ventanas J, Antequera T (2006) J Sci Food Agric 86:1040–1045. doi:10.1002/jsfa.2452

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Petron MJ, Antequera T, Muriel E, Tejeda JF, Ventanas J (2004) Meat Sci 66:295–300. doi:10.1016/S0309-1740(03)00102-5

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Petron MJ, Tejeda IF, Muriel E, Ventanas J, Antequera T (2005) Meat Sci 69:129–134. doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2004.06.014

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Ventanas S, Estevez M, Tejeda JF, Ruiz J (2006) Meat Sci 72:647–655. doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2005.09.011

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Rey AI, Isabel B, Cava R, Lopez-Bote CJ (1998) Can J Anim Sci 78:441–443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Tejeda JF, Antequera T, Ruiz J, Cava R, Ventanas J, Garcia C (1999) Food Sci Technol Int 5:229–233. doi:10.1177/108201329900500305

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Pastorelli G, Magni S, Rossi R, Pagliarini E, Baldini P, Dirinck P et al (2003) Meat Sci 65:571–580. doi:10.1016/S0309-1740(02)00250-4

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Petron MJ, Muriel E, Timon ML, Martin L, Antequera T (2004) Meat Sci 68:71–77. doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2004.01.012

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was partially supported by Spain’s Ministry of Science and Technology, within the framework of Project CTQ2004-01220 and Project BQU 2001-3615-C02/01. We are grateful to V. Valcárcel and M.J. Ayora for their help with the statistical studies. SLV also wishes to thank the Regional Government of Andalusia for granting a PhD fellowship. The authors wish to acknowledge to “Turcañada, S.L.” for providing the samples from Types 1 and 2.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Miguel Valcárcel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

López-Vidal, S., Rodríguez-Estévez, V., Lago, S. et al. The Application of GC–MS and Chemometrics to Categorize the Feeding Regime of Iberian Pigs in Spain. Chroma 68, 593–601 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1365/s10337-008-0752-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1365/s10337-008-0752-x

Keywords

Navigation