**Background:** Modern pig production increasingly emphasizes sustainability, animal welfare, and meat quality alongside growth efficiency. Cereal grains constitute 60–85% of pig feed, yet the impact of different grain types—particularly from organic production—on production outcomes and meat quality remains underexplored. This study investigated whether the type of grain (barley, triticale, or rye) as the primary feed component differentially affects growth performance, carcass characteristics, meat quality, and fatty acid profiles in growing-finishing pigs.
**Methods:** The 100-day experiment involved 72 crossbred pigs (Polish Large White × Polish Landrace) with an initial body weight of 30.0 ± 0.5 kg, assigned to three groups (24 animals each). Each group was housed in six pens (two gilts and two barrows per pen). Diets differed only in the primary cereal: Group I—barley, Group II—triticale, Group III—rye. All cereals were organically produced. Pigs received starter (30–55 kg BW, 35 days), grower (56–87 kg BW, 35 days), and finisher (78–115 kg BW, 30 days) diets balanced for energy, protein, amino acids, minerals, and vitamins. Feed intake was controlled per pen; individual body weights were recorded at days 1, 35, 70, and 100. After slaughter, carcass traits, meat quality indices, cholesterol content, and fatty acid composition in longissimus lumborum muscle and backfat were analyzed. Apparent ileal digestibility coefficients (AIDC) were determined using silica as a marker. Statistical analysis used one-way ANOVA with Duncan's test; significance was set at p < 0.05.
**Key Results:** Triticale-based diets produced the highest average daily gain (ADG) over the whole period (851 g vs. 823 g for barley and 806 g for rye; p = 0.034), with significant differences between triticale and rye groups. Daily feed intake and feed conversion ratio did not differ significantly among groups, though a tendency toward lower feed intake was observed in the rye group during the finisher period (p = 0.063). AIDC of crude protein (78.1% triticale, 77.5% barley, 73.8% rye; p = 0.035), ether extract (82.3%, 81.1%, 79.9%; p = 0.041), nitrogen-free extracts (92.1%, 91.5%, 89.3%; p = 0.047), and NSP (21.9%, 21.4%, 18.2%; p = 0.035) were significantly higher in triticale and barley groups compared to rye. Carcass meatiness did not differ, but backfat thickness was significantly greater in the rye group (2.05 cm) compared to triticale (1.94 cm; p = 0.046). Cholesterol content in meat, backfat, and liver was lowest in the rye group (meat: 0.52 mg/g vs. 0.66 barley and 0.64 triticale; p = 0.044). Meat from rye-fed pigs had the highest lightness (L* = 55.51; p = 0.037) and best water-holding capacity (G-H cm² = 7.37 vs. 7.96 barley and 7.93 triticale; p = 0.045). Fatty acid analysis revealed that triticale-fed pigs had the lowest SFA (39.93% vs. 43.43% rye; p = 0.036), highest MUFA (53.27%; p = 0.029) and PUFA (6.61%; p = 0.042), and the most favorable lipid quality indices (AI: 0.49, TI: 1.21, h/H: 2.17; all p < 0.05). Rye-fed pigs had the highest SFA (43.43%) and least favorable indices (AI: 0.57, TI: 1.41, h/H: 1.87). Similar trends were observed in backfat, though only SFA (p = 0.031) and MUFA (p = 0.038) reached significance.
**Clinical Implications:** This study demonstrates that the choice of cereal grain in pig feed can significantly influence both production efficiency and meat quality characteristics relevant to human nutrition and food technology. Triticale and barley support better growth performance and produce meat with a more health-promoting fatty acid profile (lower SFA, higher PUFA, better AI/TI/h/H ratios), which may benefit consumers seeking healthier pork options. Conversely, rye produces meat with lower cholesterol, higher SFA content, and superior water-holding capacity—traits that enhance oxidative stability and shelf life, making it more suitable for traditional, dry-cured, or long-matured meat products. These findings support the concept of sustainable, locally-adapted pig production where grain selection can be aligned with specific end-product goals. However, as the authors note, further research is needed on the effects of grain type on meat palatability changes during storage.