4.7 Article

Developmental changes of carcass composition, meat quality and organs in the Jinhua pig and Landrace

Journal

ANIMAL
Volume 3, Issue 3, Pages 468-473

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1751731108003613

Keywords

Jinhua pigs; Landrace; carcass composition; meat quality; organ weight

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The present study was aimed to compare the developmental changes of carcass composition, meat quality characteristics and organ weight in pigs of different breeds. Six pigs (sex balance) of each breed were slaughtered at 35, 80 and 125 days of age, respectively. The carcass was chilled and the left carcass side was dissected into bone, lean meat, fat and skin; additionally, organ weight and meat quality parameters were observed. Carcasses of the Jinhua pig were lighter (P < 0.001), contained less lean meat percentage (P < 0.01) and more carcass fat percentage (P < 0.05) than did carcasses of the Landrace. L*-values were lower in Jinhua pigs than in Landrace at 125 days of age (P < 0.05), but the Jinhua pig had higher a*-values compared with Landrace at the age of 80 days (P < 0.01) and 125 days (P < 0.01), respectively. In addition, Jinhua pigs showed lower colour scores (P < 0.05), higher intramuscular fat (IMF) percentage (P < 0.05), less marbling scores (P < 0.05) and lower drip loss (P < 0.05) than Landrace. For organ weight, Jinhua pigs had higher relative heart weight at the age of 80 days (P < 0.05) and 125 days (P < 0.001), and higher relative liver weight at 125 days of age (P < 0.01) than that of Landrace. In addition, the relative kidney weight was heavier (P < 0.001) in the Jinhua pig than in the Landrace during the whole experiment. These results indicated that developmental changes of carcass composition, meat quality parameters and organ weight displayed breed differences. Jinhua pigs were fatter than Landrace but the former had better quality characteristics in the meat.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available