| Literature DB >> 25049866 |
Y X Li1, M M Cabling1, H S Kang1, T S Kim1, S C Yeom1, Y G Sohn1, S H Kim1, K C Nam1, K S Seo1.
Abstract
This study was performed to determine the influence of pig breed and gender on the ultimate pH and physicochemical properties of pork. The correlations between pH and pork quality traits directly related to carcass grade, and consumer's preference were also evaluated. The pH and meat grading scores for cold carcasses of 215 purebred pigs (Duroc, Landrace, and Yorkshire) from four different farms were obtained. Meat quality parameters of the pork loin were analyzed. Duroc and female animals were more affected compared to other breeds and male pigs. Duroc animals had the highest ultimate pH, carcass back fat thickness, marbling scores, yellowness, and fat content (p<0.05). Landrace pigs had the highest color lightness and cooking loss values (p<0.05). Among all trait parameters, marbling scores showed the highest significant differences when evaluating the impact of breed and gender on meat quality characteristics (p<0.001). Ultimate pH was positively correlated with carcass weight (0.20), back fat thickness (0.19), marbling score (0.17), and color score (0.16) while negatively correlated with cooking loss (-0.24) and shear force (-0.20). Therefore, pork samples with lower ultimate pH had lower cooking loss, higher lightness, and higher shear force values irrespective of breed.Entities:
Keywords: Carcass Grade; Correlation; Meat Quality; Pork; Pure Breed; pH
Year: 2013 PMID: 25049866 PMCID: PMC4093505 DOI: 10.5713/ajas.2012.12622
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Asian-Australas J Anim Sci ISSN: 1011-2367 Impact factor: 2.509
Summary statistics of the characteristics of musculuslongissimus lumborum et thoracis meat samples
| Trait (No. A) | ALL (215) | DD (98) | LL (45) | YY (72) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| pHu | 5.66±0.15 | 5.69±0.16 | 5.58±0.08 | 5.57±0.1 |
| CW | 81.56±10.41 | 82.57±9.86 | 81.16±12.08 | 75.55±8.52 |
| C_bf | 13.99±6.7 | 14.7±7.14 | 13.44±4.98 | 10.27±5.45 |
| MS | 2.33±0.94 | 2.55±0.9 | 2.00±0.93 | 1.55±0.6 |
| Meat color | 4.01±.68 | 4.07±0.5 | 3.93±1.01 | 3.82±0.85 |
| Lightness (L) | 48.08±4.84 | 47.21±4.33 | 51.26±5.18 | 47.39±4.86 |
| Redness (a) | 4.00±1.56 | 4.13±1.35 | 3.76±1.85 | 3.71±2.06 |
| Yellowness (b) | 12.58±1.97 | 12.89±1.53 | 12.17±2.54 | 11.45±2.53 |
| CL | 21.88±4.22 | 21.39±3.63 | 23.95±5.46 | 20.92±3.79 |
| Moisture | 71.41±1.91 | 70.85±2.02 | 72.19±1.39 | 72.26±1.4 |
| CF | 3.02±1.5 | 3.4±1.62 | 2.67±1.2 | 2.1±0.89 |
| Prosolu | 39.58±2.53 | 39.29±2.1 | 39.51±2.71 | 40.38±2.86 |
| MCL | 2.26±0.58 | 2.16±0.55 | 2.35±0.61 | 2.48±0.54 |
Data are presented with the standard error (SE).
pHu = Ultimate pH, CW = Carcass weight (kg), C_bf = Carcass backfat thickness (mm), MS = Marbling score (1 to 5), CL = Cooking loss (%), CF = Crude fat (%), Prosolu = Soluble sarcoplasmic protein (mg/g), MCL = Maximum compressive load (kg/f); DD = Duroc, LL = Landrace, YY = Yorkshire, No.A = Number of animals.
Least square means demonstrating the effect of breed on meat characteristics
| Trait | Breed
| Average SE | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Duroc | Landrace | Yorkshire | |||
| pHu | 5.71[ | 5.61[ | 5.62[ | 0.12 | 5.98 |
| C_bf | 14.20[ | 11.31[ | 13.46[ | 0.03 | 3.49 |
| MS | 2.30 | 1.34 | 1.70 | 0.76 | 11.42 |
| Meat color | 4.13 | 3.85 | 3.93 | 0.15 | 1.53 |
| Lightness (L) | 47.83 | 45.61 | 49.58 | 0.67 | 8.44 |
| Redness (a) | 4.00 | 3.51 | 3.62 | 0.34 | 0.69 |
| Yellowness (b) | 13.05 | 11.57 | 12.34 | 0.42 | 3.01 |
| CL | 21.94 | 19.39 | 22.34 | 0.67 | 4.87 |
| Moisture | 71.13 | 71.58 | 71.58 | 0.31 | 0.99 |
| CF | 3.32 | 2.36 | 2.93 | 0.27 | 3.39 |
| Prosolu | 39.64 | 40.32 | 39.48 | 0.57 | 0.56 |
| MCL | 2.14 | 2.41 | 2.26 | 0.11 | 1.48 |
Least square means in the same row with different superscript letters differ significantly (
p≤0.05,
p≤0.01, and
p≤0.001).
Least square mean values showing the effect of gender on meat characteristics
| Trait | Gender
| Average SE | F-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||
| pHu | 5.62 | 5.68 | 0.025 | 4.60 |
| C_bf | 14.16 | 11.82 | 0.64 | 8.26 |
| MS | 2.12 | 1.44 | 0.13 | 17.48 |
| Meat color | 3.88 | 4.06 | 0.105 | 1.95 |
| Lightness (L) | 47.97 | 47.38 | 0.56 | 0.68 |
| Redness (a) | 3.91 | 3.51 | 0.29 | 1.15 |
| Yellowness (b) | 12.05 | 12.58 | 0.355 | 1.3 |
| CL | 71.27 | 71.59 | 0.265 | 0.98 |
| Moisture | 21.18 | 21.27 | 0.56 | 0.01 |
| CF | 3.08 | 2.66 | 0.23 | 2.23 |
| Prosolu | 39.25 | 40.38 | 0.5 | 2.46 |
| MCL | 2.34 | 2.2 | 0.09 | 1.13 |
Least square mean values in the same row with different superscript letters differ significantly (
p≤0.05,
p≤0.01, and
p≤0.001).
Pearson correlation between the traits of meat samples from all breeds
| Trait | X1 | X2 | X3 | X4 | X5 | X6 | X7 | X8 | X9 | X10 | X11 | X12 | X13 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pHu (X1) | − | 0.10 | 0.03 | − | −0.05 | 0.15 | 0.07 | − | |||||
| CW (X2) | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.06 | − | 0.12 | − | 0.08 | |||||
| C_bf (X3) | −0.06 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.06 | − | 0.07 | −0.04 | ||||||
| MS (X4) | −0.01 | −0.05 | 0.07 | 0.06 | −0.07 | − | −0.09 | − | |||||
| Meat color (X5) | 0.02 | 0.11 | −0.03 | 0.05 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.22 | −0.09 | |||||
| Lightness (L) (X6) | −0.08 | 0.07 | 0.03 | −0.14 | 0.05 | ||||||||
| Redness (a) (X7) | 0.15 | −0.01 | 0.14 | −0.11 | −0.17 | ||||||||
| Yellowness (b)(X8) | −0.10 | − | − | − | |||||||||
| CL (X9) | 0.09 | −0.06 | 0.14 | ||||||||||
| Moisture (X10) | − | 0.23 | |||||||||||
| CF (X11) | −0.16 | − | |||||||||||
| Prosolu (X12) | 0.03 | ||||||||||||
| MCL (X13) |
Significant correlations are shown in bold (p≤0.05).