D.D. Boler, A.C. Dilger & E.K. ArkfeldUniversity of Illinois

S.D. Shackelford, D.A. King & T.L. WheelerUSDA-MARC

Consistent, high quality pork will increase positive eating experiences for consumers

Correlating pork quality from the ham, loin, and belly

NPB 14-221

Objectives

• Correlate fresh loin quality with fresh ham quality, processed ham quality, and fresh belly characteristics

• Characterize variation in loin, ham, and belly of pigs selected for – High growth potential / adequate meat quality– High meat quality / adequate growth potential

• Evaluate effects of seasonality on variation in loin, ham, and belly quality

Winter Marketing Program

Barn A (Lean) Barn B (Quality) Barn C (Lean) Barn D (Quality)

February 10 Cut 1 Cut 1 -- --

February 23 Cut 2 Cut 2 Cut 1 Cut 1

March 9 Cut 3 Cut 3 Cut 2 Cut 2

March 23 -- -- Cut 3 Cut 3

Population

Barn A Barn B Barn C Barn D TotalCut 1 304 306 495 307 1412 (33%)

Cut 2 456 464 338 465 1723 (40%)

Cut 3 281 127 261 485 1154 (27%)

Total 1041 (24%) 897 (21%) 1094 (26%) 1257 (29%) 4289 (100%)

N = 4516; n = 4289 (95%)

Gilts = 60% Cut 1 – 26% Cut 2 – 44% Cut 3 – 30%

Barrows = 40% Cut 1 – 44% Cut 2 – 34% Cut 3 – 22%

Materials and Methods

• Hot carcass weight• Fat-O-Meater information• Subjective color, marbling, and firmness on loins• Iodine value determination• VISNIR prediction of SSF and IMF• Ham weight• Objective CIE color on the ham face

Entire Population

Carcass CharacteristicsLean Quality P - values

Cut 1 Cut 2 Cut 3 Cut 1 Cut 2 Cut 3 SEM Genetics Cut Gen. x Cut

HCW, kg 93.8 92.5 92.9 100.2 98.2 94.6 2.42 0.18 0.50 0.35

FD, mm 13.9 12.4 12.7 17.8 17.7 17.2 1.53 <0.01 0.70 0.78

LD, mm 73.5 72.0 71.5 67.9 68.0 67.4 2.81 0.04 0.85 0.93

Lean, % 59.2 60.0 59.7 56.2 56.2 56.4 1.14 <0.01 0.80 0.84

No interactions between genetic line and cutCut did not affect HCW, FD, LD, or estimated leanNo differences among genetics or cuts for HCW

Lean Quality Difference

FD, mm 13.0 17.6 4.6 mm (0.18 in)

LD, mm 72.3 69.1 4.5%

Lean, % 59.6 56.3 3.3 perc. unit

Ham Face Color

Gluteus profundis

Gluteus medius

Correlations (r) of Carcass Characteristics with Ham Quality

HCW BF LD LeanHam wt 0.86 0.29 0.23 -0.18Gluteus medius

L* -0.03 -0.15 0.07 0.15a* 0.02 0.05 0.04 -0.03

b* 0.07 0.08 -0.03 -0.08Gluteus profundis

L* -0.11 -0.17 0.01 0.15a* 0.09 0.09 0.03 -0.07b* 0.03 0.03 -0.03 -0.04

Bold indicates P < 0.05

Correlations with HCW, BF, LD, and lean were significant but weak

Strong relationship (r = 0.86)

100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 30010

15

20

25

30

35

40

Weak relationship (r = 0.01)

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10020

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

CorrelationsH

am w

t

HCW Loin depth

Glu

teus

pro

fund

is L

*

Materials and Methods

• 30 min loin pH• Temperature decline (LD & SM)• Loin ultimate pH (~50% of the population)

• Loin purge loss• Fresh belly dimensions (~50% of the population)

• Fatty acid profiles• Ham processing characteristics

Selected 10% of the Population

Carcass Selection

Subpopulation

Barn A Barn B Barn C Barn D TotalCut 1 34 32 56 34 156 (34%)

Cut 2 46 50 35 47 178 (39%)

Cut 3 30 15 27 54 126 (27%)

Total 110 (24%) 97 (21%) 118 (26%) 135 (29%) 460 (100%)

N = 460 (10.7%)

Barrows = 43%, Gilts = 57%

Muscle Temperature Decline

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 220

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Longissimus

Semimembranosus

Time postmortem, h

Mu

slce

tem

per

atu

re, °

C

Carc

ass

es

in b

last

chill

er

Relationship between loin and ham temperature decline

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Time postmortem, h

Co

rre

lati

on

of

loin

te

mp

era

ture

to

ha

m

tem

pe

ratu

re

Carc

ass

es

in b

last

chill

er

Predictive ability of carcass characteristics on temperature decline

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 220.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

LongissimusSemimembranosus

Time postmortem, h

Co

effi

cie

nt

of

de

term

ina

tio

n f

or

pre

dic

-ti

on

of

mu

scle

te

mp

era

ture

wit

h H

CW

, b

ack

fat

thic

kn

ess a

nd

lo

in m

uscle

de

pth

(R

-sq

ua

red

)

Correlations (r) of Carcass Characteristics with Loin Quality

HCW BF LD LeanLoin wt 0.63 -0.06 0.43 0.20pH, 30 min -0.01 -0.10 0.16 0.14pH, 24 h -0.01 0.19 -0.14 -0.22Color, 1d 0.17 0.38 -0.22 -0.41Marbling, 1d 0.18 0.52 -0.25 -0.54Firmness, 1d 0.29 0.34 0.07 -0.27Purge loss, 20d -0.20 -0.43 0.15 0.43Cook loss, 20d -0.31 -0.38 -0.07 0.31SSF, 20d -0.28 -0.48 0.01 0.42Bold indicates P < 0.05

Correlations with HCW and LD were significant but weak

Correlations (r) of Carcass Characteristics with Loin Quality

HCW BF LD LeanLoin wt 0.63 -0.06 0.43 0.20pH, 30 min -0.01 -0.10 0.16 0.14pH, 24 h -0.01 0.19 -0.14 -0.22Color, 1d 0.17 0.38 -0.22 -0.41Marbling, 1d 0.18 0.52 -0.25 -0.54Firmness, 1d 0.29 0.34 0.07 -0.27Purge loss, 20d -0.20 -0.43 0.15 0.43Cook loss, 20d -0.31 -0.38 -0.07 0.31SSF, 20d -0.28 -0.48 0.01 0.42Bold indicates P < 0.05

As BF increased marbling increased, purge loss decreased, and loins became more tender

Correlations (r) of Fresh Ham Quality with Loin Quality

Ham wt Profundis L* Medius L*Loin wt 0.63 -0.05 0.05pH, 30 min -0.01 0.08 0.07

pH, 24 h -0.04 -0.20 -0.37Color, 1d 0.11 -0.19 -0.32Marbling, 1d 0.06 -0.02 -0.09Firmness, 1d 0.27 -0.09 -0.12L*, 1d -0.04 0.12 0.24L*, 20d -0.14 0.14 0.23SSF, 20d -0.16 0.11 0.13Bold indicates P < 0.05

Fresh loin color (r = 0.24)

25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 7010

20

30

40

50

60

70

Aged loin color (r = 0.23)

25 30 35 40 45 50 55 6020

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

Ham and Loin ColorLo

in L

*, 1

d

Gluteus medius L* Gluteus medius L*

Loin

L*,

20d

Correlations (r) of Fresh Ham Quality with Belly Quality

Ham wt Profundis L* Medius L*Belly wt 0.61 -0.07 0.00

Length 0.33 -0.11 -0.13Width 0.35 0.13 0.22Thickness 0.35 -0.05 -0.01

Flop score 0.29 -0.09 -0.06Bold indicates P < 0.05

As hams became heavier, bellies became longer, wider, thicker, and firmer

Ham wt & Thickness(r = 0.35)

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.0010

15

20

25

30

35

40

Ham wt & Flop (r = 0.29)

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.010

15

20

25

30

35

40

Ham and BellyH

am w

t

Belly thickness

Ham

wt

Belly flop

Correlations (r) of Belly Quality with Loin Quality

Belly wt Length Width ThicknessFlop

ScoreLoin wt 0.31 0.20 0.25 0.06 -0.04

pH, 30 min -0.05 -0.12 0.11 -0.04 -0.06

pH, 24 h 0.08 0.23 -0.17 0.06 0.11Color, 1d 0.27 0.29 -0.05 0.22 0.27Marbling, 1d 0.35 0.31 0.08 0.33 0.43Firmness, 1d 0.25 0.11 0.09 0.22 0.10Purge loss, 20d -0.29 -0.30 0.09 -0.31 -0.31Cook loss, 20d -0.33 -0.20 -0.03 -0.31 -0.26SSF, 20d -0.36 -0.26 -0.04 -0.42 -0.43Bold indicates P < 0.05

Summary

• For pigs raised during the cold season:– Cut did not affect carcass characteristics– No interactions with cut and genetics for carcass

characteristics– Primal weights were positively correlated with

each other– Ham and loin color were only moderately related– As hams became heavier bellies became thicker

and firmer

Thank You!

D.D. Bolerdboler2@Illinois.edu

(217) 300-4847