Pork loin quality is not indicative of fresh belly or fresh and cured ham quality1,2,3

Abstract

The objective was to characterize the relationship between fresh loin quality with fresh belly or fresh and cured ham quality. Pigs raised in 8 barns representing 2 seasons [cold ( = 4,290) and hot ( = 3,394)] and 2 production focuses [lean ( = 3,627) and quality ( = 4,057)] were used. Carcass characteristics and other meat quality data were collected on 7,684 carcasses. All of the carcasses were evaluated for HCW, LM depth, tenth rib fat depth, leg (ham primal) weight, instrumental color on the gluteus medius and gluteus profundus of the ham face, and subjective loin quality. Instrumental loin color and ultimate pH (≥ 22 h postmortem) were collected on the ventral side of loins along with dimensions and firmness scores of fresh bellies from 50% of the carcasses. Ten percent of the boneless loins and fresh hams were evaluated for slice shear force (SSF) or cured ham characteristics. Correlation coefficients between traits were computed using the CORR procedure of SAS and considered significantly different from 0 at ≤ 0.05. Temperature decline, beginning at 31 min postmortem and concluding at 22 h postmortem, for the longissimus dorsi and semimembranosus muscles were evaluated on 10% of the carcasses. Ultimate loin pH was correlated with dimensional belly characteristics ( ≥ |0.07|; < 0.0001) fresh ham instrumental color ( ≥ |0.03|; ≤ 0.05), and semimembranosus ultimate pH ( = 0.33; < 0.0001). Further, ultimate loin pH was correlated ( ≤ 0.01) with pump retention ( = 0.087) and cooked yield ( = 0.156) of cured hams. Instrumental L*on the ventral surface of the loin was related to L* on both muscles of the ham face ( ≤ 0.0001). Even though significant relationships between the loin, belly, and ham were detected, the variability in belly and ham quality explained by variability in loin quality was poor (≤ 22.09%). Compositional differences between the loin and belly may have contributed to those poor relationships. Additionally, differences in temperature declines during chilling between the loin and ham likely contributed to the weak nature of relationships. Equilibration of longissimus dorsi temperature to ambient cooler temperature occurred at 14 h postmortem ( = 0.0005), yet the semimembranosus had not equilibrated with ambient (equilibration bay) temperature ( < 0.0001) at 22 h postmortem. Using loin quality to draw conclusions about fresh belly and fresh and cured ham quality may be misleading.

A preliminary investigation on the effects of a hot water shrink tunnel and chill tank following vacuum packaging on commercial pork quality and bacteria growth

“…Loin quality parameters (Table 1) are within the range of parameters previously reported for commercial pork (Arkfeld et al, 2016). Loin quality parameters were not different (P > 0.13) among treatment (shrink tunnel vs. control), with the exception of purge loss.…”

Effect of hot carcass weight on loin, ham, and belly quality from pigs sourced from a commercial processing facility1,2,3

“…Data were collected on 7,684 carcasses at the production facility (n = 7,684, the number of carcasses on which at least 1 observation was recorded; 100% data collection was not achieved for any specific trait, leading to the discrepancy in total number of observations for each quality trait; Table 1) and HCW was recorded on 7,576 pigs. Commercial pigs evaluated in this study are described in detail by Arkfeld et al (2016b) and represented typical U.S. production practices with differences in sex, marketing group, season (hot vs. cold), and production focus (lean growth vs. meat quality). Pigs from barns A, B, C, and D were slaughtered over a 7-wk period in February and March (cold season).…”

“…On wk 3, 5, and 7, marketing groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively, were marketed from barns C and D. Marketing schedules during the hot season followed the same pattern as the cold season, with barns E and F having their first groups marketed during wk 1 and barns G and H having their first groups marketed during wk 3. This allowed for direct comparison of first marketing groups with second marketing groups and second marketing groups with third marketing groups by removing the uncertainty caused by day of slaughter (Arkfeld et al, 2016b). To assess the effect increasing carcass weights would have on pork quality, 2,800 pigs with carcass weights between the mean HCW for this study (95 kg) and the predicted 2030 carcass weight of 104 kg were evaluated ( Fig.…”

Variability of Fresh Pork Belly Quality Evaluation Results Depends on Measurement Locations

“…Belly is classified as an element with high fat content, although its market and consumption value have been rising fastest among all primal cuts in the last quarter of a century (Arkfeld et al 2016;Costa-e-Silva et al 2017). This is partially due to the fact that meat content (muscle share) in belly has doubled over the last 40 years (Trusell et al 2011).…”

“…The belly presents many difficulties during basic surface measurements, even when using advanced equipment (Berg et al, 2002;Marcoux et al 2003), and unfortunately, it is not justified rationally to refer general carcass measures to all cuts (Uttaro and Zawadski 2010;Arkfeld et al 2016). Additionally, it should be emphasized that pork quality evaluation at an early stage of slaughter or just after slaughter is not an easy task and should be based on inexpensive or rapid analysis for subsequent segregation to enable further processing and distribution (Flores and Toldrá 2014).…”