4.5 Article

The relationship between acidification (pH) and meat quality traits of polish white breed pigs

期刊

EUROPEAN FOOD RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 247, 期 11, 页码 2813-2820

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00217-021-03837-4

关键词

Pigs; Acidity pH; Meat quality; Pork

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Republic of Poland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study shows a close relationship between pH values and quality characteristics of meat, with variations in pH impacting water-holding capacity, tenderness, color, and other properties of the meat.
The paper presents the results of a study on the relationship between acidification (pH) and standard quality characteristics of the meat of Polish Large White x Polish Landrace pig crossbreds. The meat for the study was obtained from 184 F-1 Polish Large White x Polish Landrace fatteners from a herd free of the stress-sensitivity gene. The obtained results were analysed in groups formed according to the meat's measured pH(45) values (<= 6.3; 6.3-6.7; > 6.7) and pH(u) values (<= 5.3; 5.3-5.6; > 5.6). Increasing measured pH(45) values were paralleled by greater water-holding capacity and plasticity, lower drip loss, darker colour L* as assessed visually and with equipment, and greater content of muscle pigments (P < 0.01) of the evaluated meat. Higher pH(u) values had a more pronounced impact on WHC, free drip loss, tenderness, water content, and colour parameters: a*, b*, chroma C* (P < 0.01), and hue angle h(o) (P < 0.05). The obtained simple correlations between pH(45) and pH(u) acidity and meat-quality characteristics indicate that the measured pH(45) value was correlated more closely than ultimate acidification (P < 0.01) with visually assessed colour intensity, tactilely assessed meat hardness, colour lightness L* (P < 0.01), hue angle h(o) (P < 0.05), and muscle pigment content. On the other hand, pH(u) was more strongly correlated with water-holding capacity, drip loss, meat tenderness as well as water and protein content (P < 0.01).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据