4.7 Article

The effect of pig genetics on palatability, color and physical characteristics of fresh pork loin chops

Journal

MEAT SCIENCE
Volume 61, Issue 3, Pages 249-256

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0309-1740(01)00190-5

Keywords

pig genetics; pork quailty

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The objective of this study was to characterize the quality attributes of pork derived from pigs of the following backgrounds: Duroc, Pietrain (Halothane negative, NN), Pietrain (Halothane positive, nn), Berkshire, Hampshire (rn +), Hampshire (RN-), and a synthetic line. A 10-member panel was trained to evaluate visual appearance of uncooked lean and fat, and flavor and texture of cooked chops. Hunter L*, a*, and b* values, hue angle, cookloss and Warner-Bratzler shear force were also determined. Visual color differences occurred due to genetic background. Chops from Duroc, Berkshire, Pietrain-nn, and the synthetic line were least pink, Chops from Berkshire carcasses appeared to have the most marbling in the lean and those from Pietrain-nn pigs appeared to have the least, Chops from Pietrain-nn and Hampshire-rn + carcasses had the highest a* values while chops from Duroc, Pietrain-NN, and Hampshire-RN- carcasses had the lowest. Cook loss from chops from Duroc carcasses was lower than that from Hampshire rn +, Pietrain-NN and synthetic line carcasses. Shear force was highest for chops from Pietrain-nn and Hampshire-rn + carcasses. Chops from Hampshire-RN- carcasses were most juicy followed by those from Hampshire-rn+, Pietrain-NN, Berkshire and Duroc carcasses. Shear force was positively correlated with abnormal flavor intensity, metallic taste, and chewiness (r = 0.72, 0.94, and 0.69, respectively), and negatively correlated with sweetness (r = -0.73). Overall. genetic background had significant effects on many of the quality characteristics evaluated. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

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