1 / 38

Pork Quality

Pork Quality. Prepared By: Dr. Elisabeth Huff Lonergan Iowa State University. What is Pork Quality ?. Summation of those attributes that make pork desirable as a human food. Pork Quality. Processing Characteristics Sensory Characteristics Safety Nutritional Value Animal Welfare

studs
Download Presentation

Pork Quality

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Pork Quality Prepared By: Dr. Elisabeth Huff Lonergan Iowa State University

  2. What is Pork Quality? • Summation of those attributes that make pork desirable as a human food.

  3. Pork Quality • Processing Characteristics • Sensory Characteristics • Safety • Nutritional Value • Animal Welfare • Sustainability

  4. Processing Characteristics • Water-Binding Capacity • Uniformity • Structure • Texture

  5. Sensory Characteristics • Appearance • Color • Tenderness • Aroma • Juiciness • Flavor

  6. Pork Quality Attributes Marbling Color Drip Loss Firmness Tenderness

  7. Marbling • Evaluated on the cut surface of the loin eye • Subjective score of the amount of visible fat in the loin eye • Can affect flavor and juiciness

  8. Marbling Standards Marbling scores correspond to intramuscular lipid content. 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 10.0

  9. Ideal Pork Color • Measured or evaluated on the cut surface of the loin eye or ham • ideal • Reddish-pink • Range • Pale-pinkish gray • Dark red

  10. Objective Color Measurement

  11. Color Standards 1.0 Pale pinkish gray to white 61* 4.0 Dark reddish pink 43* 5.0 Purplish red 37* 2.0 Grayish pink 55* 3.0 Reddish pink 49* 6.0 Dark purplish red 31* Minolta L* values use D65 daylight light source & measured on day one.

  12. Firmness • Evaluated on the cut surface of the loin eye • Firm chops retain shape • Soft chops deform easily and sag • Better eating quality and processing characteristics are associated with firmer chops

  13. Drip Loss (Water Holding Capacity) • Ability of meat to retain its water during the application of external forces • Affects • Appearance • Juiciness • Brine retention • Typical Range (24 hours) • < 0.5% to 10% • 0.5-1% average

  14. PSE, RFN & DFD PSE Pale pinkish gray, very Soft and Exudative. Undesirable appearance and excessive shrinkage. RFN Reddish pink, Firm and Non-exudative. This ideal quality has desirable color,firmness and water- holding capacity. DFD Dark purplish red, very Firm and Dry. Firm and sticky surface, high water- holding capacity.

  15. Color & Drip Loss Relationship PSE RFN DFD Color & Drip Loss Relationship

  16. pH • Measure of the relative acidity of meat • Related to: • Color • Drip loss • Firmness

  17. Postmortem pH decline pH 7.2 Living Muscle 12-24 hours postmortem pH 5.5 - 5.8 pH of Meat Postmortem Conversion of Muscle to Meat

  18. glycolysis 10 reactions aerobic pathway O2 anaerobicpathway O2 Sarcolemma Aerobic Metabolism Glycogen Cell Glucose 3 ATP 2 Pyruvate Lactic Acid Circulatory System

  19. glycolysis 10 reactions anaerobicpathway Sarcolemma Glycogen Cell Glucose pH drops 3 ATP 2 Pyruvate Lactic Acid Circulatory System

  20. Postmortem pH decline Extent and rate of pH decline affects quality Slow steady decline to an ultimate pH of 5.8 or greater may predict higher quality pork

  21. pH • pH decline - limited extent • Slow, limited pH decline • Darker colored pork • Higher water-holding capacity • Caused by a limited amount of glycogen at exsanguination pH Time After Exsanguination

  22. pH • Normal rate of pH decline • Low Ultimate pH -extended pH decline • Lower water-holding capacity • Greater “glycolytic potential” • “RN” Gene (Napole gene)

  23. pH • pH decline-rapid rate • Rapid, early pH decline can cause Pale, Soft, and Exudative (PSE) pork Genetics and Handling (both live animal and carcass) are the most common causes of PSE

  24. Economic Value of HAL Gene

  25. pH Decline and Pork Color DARK NORMAL PALE

  26. Improving Meat Quality • Genetics set the foundation and the limit for meat quality improvement • genetics account for 10 to 50% of the variation in meat quality traits

  27. Genetic Variability in Meat Quality • Differences between breeds or genetic lines • Variation within breeds or genetic lines • Major gene effects • Halothane gene, Napole gene, etc.

  28. Trait Characteristics

  29. Genetic Correlations

  30. Meat Quality and Production Traits • Increase IMF • more BF, less LMA • no effect on pH and color • Higher pH • Limited effects on growth and BF • usually darker color

  31. Differences Between Genetic Lines • Based on producer Checkoff funded research • NBS Sire Progeny Tests • Terminal Line Evaluation • Quality Lean Growth Modeling • Maternal Line Evaluation

  32. NBS Progeny Test, 1991-2000 Breed Sires Progeny Berkshire 81 619 Chester White 43 315 Duroc 93 696 Hampshire 65 465 Landrace 62 478 Poland China 40 283 Spotted 40 280 Yorkshire 108 787 Total 532 3923

  33. Breed Differences: Summary • Berkshire and Duroc - best pH, color, marbling • Yorkshire - average on most, low marbling • Landrace - below average on most traits • Hampshire - poorest on pH, color, drip and cook loss

  34. Animal Differences Within a Breed Name Breed EPD for IMF Great Dane Duroc 0.25 (%) Changer Duroc -0.16 Difference in progeny 0.41% Cambridge York 0.11 Interstate York -0.02 Difference in progeny 0.13%

  35. Stunning Genetics On-Farm Handling Nutrition Transportation Carcass Handling Pre-Slaughter Handling

  36. Ideal Pork Quality • Color • Reddish-pink • Drip Loss • < 0.5% • Ultimate pH • 5.6 - 6.2 • Marbling • Equivalent to 2.5- 4% intramuscular fat

More Related