Pork Quality - Retail Meat Benchmarking - Dr. David Newman, North Dakota State University, from the 2015 World Pork Expo, June 3 - 5, 2015, Des Moines, IA, USA. More presentations at http://www.swinecast.com/2015-world-pork-expo

1. Pork Quality
National Retail Benchmarking Study
Dr. David Newman
World Pork Expo 2015

2. Objectives
-Gather pork quality attributes nationwide
-Provide benchmarking data to producers,
processors, and retailers
– Provide a baseline for current quality variation
– Identify areas of improvement
– Benchmark future industry improvement

4. 1.0 2.0
3.0
4.0 5.0
43 37
31
61 55
49
Minolt
a L*-
Value
COLOR STANDARDS

5. 1.0 2.0 3.0
4.0
5.0 6.0
10.0
MARBLING STANDARDS

6. In Store Data Collection
Full and self-serve cases
– Pork Blade Steaks
– Pork Center-Cut-Loin Chops (En & Non-En)
– Pork Sirloin Chops
Location
– 117 Retail Supermarkets
– 15 Club Stores
– 67 Cities
– 25 States
– 32 Markets
– 51 Store Brands

7. Pork Loin Chop Assessment
Ten packages of each brand assessed in store
Ten packages of each brand purchased
Color-Marbling-Defects-Package Info-Tenderness-
pH-cook loss

8. Results
• 65 Brands of Pork (L S B)
• 117 stores carried center-cut-loin chops
• 5 temp recommendations ranging from 145-
165⁰F
Meat
Cut
Total
Number of
Pkg
Percent of
Pkg Bone-
in
Percent of
Packages
Enhanced
Percent of
Packages Over-
wrapped
Percent of
Packages
MAP
Percent of
Packages
Vacuumed
Blades 863 95.25 40.44 80.07 0.35 19.58
Sirloins 706 22.10 59.21 88.95 2.41 8.64
Loins 6237 47.49 50.87 91.07 4.95 3.98

9. Figure 1. Frequency distribution of subjective color scores for
enhanced and non-enhanced center-cut loin chops.

10. Frequency distribution of Minolta L*

11. Figure 3. Frequency distribution of subjective marbling scores for
enhanced and non-enhanced center-cut loin chops.

12. Figure 4. Shear force frequency distribution of enhanced
and non-enhanced center-cut loin chops.
24.5

13. Implications
• A significant amount of US pork fails to meet
standards associated with good eating quality
• Any attempt to use quality measures to develop
grading or certification standards will depend on
benchmarking the mean and SD

14. Discussion
• Benchmarking is needed. No consistent dataset to
compare against. However:
• Subjective color in store over the past 7 years is
fairly consistent (NPPC 3.12 – 3.52)
• Objective color has decreased (L* 48.07 – 55.39)
over the same time period
L. I. Wright et. al. 2005. Benchmarking value in the pork supply chain: Characterization of US pork in the retail
marketplace.
S. J. Moeller et. al. 2009. Consumer perceptions of pork eating quality as affected by pork quality attributes and
end-point cooked temperature.

15. Discussion
• Some research suggests that pork is bought on
visual acceptance (R. C. Person et. al; M. S. Brewer
et. al) and prior eating satisfaction (M. S. Brewer
et. al)
• Intercept data
• Research also suggests that pork with greater pH
and higher marbling equates to a better eating
experience (S. J. Moeller et. al)

16. Discussion
• Marbling has remained fairly consistent (NPPC 2.37 –
2.52) since 2005.
• Goal = consumer acceptance of higher marbled pork ?
• Research suggests consumers eating experience is better when
pork is higher in marbling (S. J. Moeller et. al)
• Education of consumers and meat case managers
L. I. Wright et. al. 2005. Benchmarking value in the pork supply chain: Characterization of US pork in the retail
marketplace.
S. J. Moeller et. al. 2009. Consumer perceptions of pork eating quality as affected by pork quality attributes and
end-point cooked temperature.

17. • Comparison to existing data
• Taste of Preference Study (Moeller et al., 2010)
• Consumer responses favor pork with:
• Lower WBS
• Greater pH
• Higher IMF
• Pork cooked to a lower temperature