4.7 Article

Comparison of histochemical characteristics in various pork groups categorized by postmortem metabolic rate and pork quality

Journal

JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE
Volume 84, Issue 4, Pages 894-901

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.2527/2006.844894x

Keywords

metabolic rate; muscle fiber; pork quality

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the variations in histochemical characteristics of muscle samples segregated according to metabolic rates (MR) and pork quality attributes. A total of 231 crossbred Duroc x (Yorkshire x Landrace) pigs was evaluated. Samples of the LM were taken to evaluate histochemical characteristics, postmortem MR, and meat quality. Samples were classified into fast, normal, and slow MR groups based on muscle pH at 45 min and R-value. Drip loss and lightness (L*) were used to assign samples to 1 of 4 quality classes. Pale, soft, and exudative pork belonging in the fast group had the greatest (P < 0.05) percentage of type IIb fibers, and RSE (reddish-pink, soft, and exudative) pork belonging in the fast group had a similar tendency. Additionally, RFN (reddish-pink, firm, and nonexudative) pork belonging in the normal group showed a lower (P < 0.05) percentage of type IIb fibers than PSE or RSE, regardless of MR, and DFD pork had the lowest (P < 0.05) percentage of type IIb fibers. In general, the fast-glycolyzing PSE pork with the lowest pH at both 45 min and 24 h had greater percentages of type IIb fibers than the fast-glycolyzing RFN pork. There,were more fibertype composition differences between quality classes in pork undergoing a fast rate of metabolism compared with pork undergoing a normal rate of metabolism. It can be concluded that muscle histochemical characteristics are associated with early postmortem MR, the extent of glycolysis, and, thereby, pork quality; however, these effects are limited to the pigs exhibiting a fast glycolytic rate.

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