Pork Quality - High Quality Pork Increases Positive Consumer Eating Experiences - Dr. Dustin Boler, University of Illinois, 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. D.D. Boler, A.C. Dilger & E.K. Arkfeld
University of Illinois
S.D. Shackelford, D.A. King & T.L. Wheeler
USDA-MARC
Consistent, high quality pork will increase
positive eating experiences for consumers
Correlating pork quality from the ham, loin, and
belly
NPB 14-221

2. 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

3. 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

4. Population
Barn A Barn B Barn C Barn D Total
Cut 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%

5. 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

6. Carcass Characteristics
Lean 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 cut
Cut did not affect HCW, FD, LD, or estimated lean
No 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

7. Ham Face Color
Gluteus profundis
Gluteus medius

8. Correlations (r) of Carcass
Characteristics with Ham Quality
HCW BF LD Lean
Ham wt 0.86 0.29 0.23 -0.18
Gluteus medius
L* -0.03 -0.15 0.07 0.15
a* 0.02 0.05 0.04 -0.03
b* 0.07 0.08 -0.03 -0.08
Gluteus profundis
L* -0.11 -0.17 0.01 0.15
a* 0.09 0.09 0.03 -0.07
b* 0.03 0.03 -0.03 -0.04
Bold indicates P < 0.05
Correlations with HCW, BF, LD, and lean were significant but weak

9. Strong relationship (r = 0.86)
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
100 150 200 250 300
Weak relationship (r = 0.01)
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
0 20 40 60 80 100
Correlations
Hamwt
HCW Loin depth
GluteusprofundisL*

10. 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

11. Carcass Selection

12. Subpopulation
Barn A Barn B Barn C Barn D Total
Cut 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%

13. Muscle Temperature Decline
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Muslcetemperature,°C
Time postmortem, h
Longissimus
Semimembranosus
Carcassesinblastchiller

14. Relationship between loin and ham
temperature decline
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Correlationoflointemperaturetoham
temperature
Time postmortem, h
Carcassesinblastchiller

15. Predictive ability of carcass
characteristics on temperature decline
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516171819202122
Coefficientofdeterminationforpredictionof
muscletemperaturewithHCW,backfatthickness
andloinmuscledepth(R-squared)
Time postmortem, h
Longissimus
Semimembranosus

16. Correlations (r) of Carcass
Characteristics with Loin Quality
HCW BF LD Lean
Loin wt 0.63 -0.06 0.43 0.20
pH, 30 min -0.01 -0.10 0.16 0.14
pH, 24 h -0.01 0.19 -0.14 -0.22
Color, 1d 0.17 0.38 -0.22 -0.41
Marbling, 1d 0.18 0.52 -0.25 -0.54
Firmness, 1d 0.29 0.34 0.07 -0.27
Purge loss, 20d -0.20 -0.43 0.15 0.43
Cook loss, 20d -0.31 -0.38 -0.07 0.31
SSF, 20d -0.28 -0.48 0.01 0.42
Bold indicates P < 0.05
Correlations with HCW and LD were significant but weak

17. Correlations (r) of Carcass
Characteristics with Loin Quality
HCW BF LD Lean
Loin wt 0.63 -0.06 0.43 0.20
pH, 30 min -0.01 -0.10 0.16 0.14
pH, 24 h -0.01 0.19 -0.14 -0.22
Color, 1d 0.17 0.38 -0.22 -0.41
Marbling, 1d 0.18 0.52 -0.25 -0.54
Firmness, 1d 0.29 0.34 0.07 -0.27
Purge loss, 20d -0.20 -0.43 0.15 0.43
Cook loss, 20d -0.31 -0.38 -0.07 0.31
SSF, 20d -0.28 -0.48 0.01 0.42
Bold indicates P < 0.05
As BF increased marbling increased, purge loss decreased, and loins became more
tender

18. Correlations (r) of Fresh Ham Quality
with Loin Quality
Ham wt Profundis L* Medius L*
Loin wt 0.63 -0.05 0.05
pH, 30 min -0.01 0.08 0.07
pH, 24 h -0.04 -0.20 -0.37
Color, 1d 0.11 -0.19 -0.32
Marbling, 1d 0.06 -0.02 -0.09
Firmness, 1d 0.27 -0.09 -0.12
L*, 1d -0.04 0.12 0.24
L*, 20d -0.14 0.14 0.23
SSF, 20d -0.16 0.11 0.13
Bold indicates P < 0.05

19. Fresh loin color (r = 0.24)
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
25 35 45 55 65
Aged loin color (r = 0.23)
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
25 35 45 55 65
Ham and Loin Color
LoinL*,1d
Gluteus medius L* Gluteus medius L*
LoinL*,20d

20. 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 -0.13
Width 0.35 0.13 0.22
Thickness 0.35 -0.05 -0.01
Flop score 0.29 -0.09 -0.06
Bold indicates P < 0.05
As hams became heavier, bellies became longer,
wider, thicker, and firmer

21. Ham wt & Thickness(r = 0.35)
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00
Ham wt & Flop (r = 0.29)
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Ham and Belly
Hamwt
Belly thickness
Hamwt
Belly flop

22. Correlations (r) of Belly Quality with
Loin Quality
Belly wt Length Width Thickness
Flop
Score
Loin 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 0.11
Color, 1d 0.27 0.29 -0.05 0.22 0.27
Marbling, 1d 0.35 0.31 0.08 0.33 0.43
Firmness, 1d 0.25 0.11 0.09 0.22 0.10
Purge loss, 20d -0.29 -0.30 0.09 -0.31 -0.31
Cook loss, 20d -0.33 -0.20 -0.03 -0.31 -0.26
SSF, 20d -0.36 -0.26 -0.04 -0.42 -0.43
Bold indicates P < 0.05

23. 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

24. Thank You!
D.D. Boler
dboler2@Illinois.edu
(217) 300-4847