Fluctuation and criteria of porcine fat firmness

Abstract

Fat quality, in particular, firmness is a main contributor to meat appearance, shelf life, taste, and human health. The current study was conducted to examine the fluctuation and criteria of porcine fat firmness. Several physiochemical methods were performed on 237 porcine perirenal fat samples that were obtained randomly from a commercial market. The relationship between perirenal fat and the middle subcutaneous fat layer was investigated to predict carcass fat quality. Each physiochemical property of the perirenal fat showed considerable variation as a 40-fold difference in firmness was observed between the most extreme samples. Differences between these extremes were 19°C in melting point, 0·0043 for refractive index, and 18 g per 100 g fatty acid methyl esters for saturated fatty acids (SFA) concentration. Strong curvilinear relationships were found between Instron and sensory firmness scores (R=0·90–0·96, no.=24). On the basis of these relationships, classification of the perirenal fats obtained from the commercial market was defined. Fats possessing firmness values of less than 7 N have undesirable fat quality, whereas fat samples with values greater than 16 N were not popular in the market. From these data, we conclude that fats of 7–16 N in firmness value were preferred by consumers. Firmness values of perirenal fat samples correlated significantly with the stearic acid (C18:0) and SFA concentrations of samples of the middle subcutaneous fat layer (r=0·68, 0·57, P<0·01). These results indicate that there are wide fluctuations in the porcine fat quality, and that fats ranging in Instron firmness values between 7 and 16 N are most acceptable to consumers. And, subcutaneous fat may prove to be a valuable indicator of whole body pork fat quality.

The effects of feeding diets containing corn distillers dried grains with solubles, and withdrawal period of distillers dried grains with solubles, on growth performance and pork quality in grower-finisher pigs1

“…As expected, pigs in the D30-0wk treatment had significantly smaller (P = 0.04; Table 4) belly firmness scores, whereas pigs fed the 15% DDGS diets, without or with a withdrawal period, or pigs in the D30-3wk or D30-9wk treatment had similar belly firmness scores compared with pigs fed the control diets. Our results are in agreement with those from previous studies (Averette Gatlin et al, 2002;Nishioka and Irie, 2006). A greater firmness score describes a firmer belly.…”

“…With an increase in C18:2 content or the IV of pork fat, fat firmness is reduced (Averette Gatlin et al, 2002;Nishioka and Irie, 2006). In the current study, C18:2 content and the IV of belly fat increased, but C18:0 content was reduced when pigs were fed increased dietary DDGS.…”

Effects of feeding diets containing increasing content of corn distillers dried grains with solubles to grower-finisher pigs on growth performance, carcass composition, and pork fat quality1

“…As expected, belly firmness was reduced linearly (P < 0.01; Table 5) with increasing DDGS because of the linear increase in the IV of belly fat. Our results are in agreement with results from the previous studies conducted by Whittington et al (1986) and Nishioka and Irie (2006), in which the concentration of UFA, especially C18:2, of pork fat had a linear negative correlation with fat tissue firmness, whereas C18:0 has a positive correlation with fat firmness. Whitney et al (2006) reported that a dietary inclusion rate of up to 20% DDGS did not affect belly firmness, but belly firmness was reduced when pigs were fed diets containing 30% DDGS.…”

Effect of linseed and the combination of conjugated linoleic acid and linseed on the quality and oxidative stability of pig meat and subcutaneous fat

“…Feeding linseed to pigs increases the content of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) in muscle and adipose tissue (α-linolenic, eicosapentaenoic and docosahexaenoic acids), thus improving the nutritional quality of pork (Corino et al 2014). However, the increased concentration of UFA worsens the technological quality of pork in the meat processing industry because of inferior muscle and adipose tissue cohesiveness on cutting, lower fat firmness, and higher susceptibility to rancidity development (Nishioka and Irie 2006). Undesirable effects of UFA limit the use of plant oils and oilseeds in pig diets.…”