1

1

Developing a Checklist for Pork Quality

Steven J Moeller Department of Animal Sciences

The Ohio State University 614-688-3686 phone Moeller.29@osu.edu

2

Presentation Overview

ü Define Quality ü Describe Key Indicators of Pork Quality ü Outline Factors Influencing Variation in

Pork Quality ü Identify Steps Producers Can Take to

Improve Pork Quality

3

‘Quality’ can mean many different things

ü Visual appearance ü Flavor & Juiciness ü Lean (% muscle)

ü Wholesomeness ü Nutritional value ü Tenderness

4

What is Pork Quality ü  “Functionality” is a common

term used to describe pork quality ü  Factors that affect consumer

acceptance or demand for pork and pork products

ü  Factors that affect the processing and value-added opportunities for pork and pork products

5

Fresh Pork Quality Indicators

ü Color ü Intramuscular Fat /

Marbling ü Tenderness ü Taste ü Firmness/Wetness ü Water Holding Capacity ü pH

6

Color is dependent on the ratio of red to white muscle cells in a muscle

§ Type I (Red) § Slow twitch § Aerobic § Higher myoglobin content

§ Type II (White) § Fast twitch § Anaerobic § Lower myoglobin content

Globular structure of Myoglobin

§ Myoglobin gives meat its red color

2

7

Pork Color - Consumer Perception at Point of Purchase

NPB Standard 1=Pale, pinkish gray to

white 2=Grayish pink 3=Reddish pink 4=Dark reddish pink 5=Purplish red 6=Dark, purplish red

1 2 3

4 5 6

ü Industry Standards - National Pork Board ü  Subjective Assessment

ü  1 to 6 scoring system

8

“Ideal” Color

q At Purchase q Initial indicator of wholesomeness q Uniformity within packaging

q Eating Quality q Pork that is very pale (Score of 1) in various

studies results in diminished eating quality q  May be due to other, associated properties that go

along with pale color including lower pH, and a tougher product

q Industry Target – Reddish-Pink – Purplish Red

9

Pale and Dark Pork

q Abnormally pale pork §  Generally lower in pH §  Inability to maintain shape §  Surface and package fluid

accumulation §  Poor yield (excess shrink) §  Poor overall palatability

q Extremely dark pork §  Generally greater pH

ü  Reduction in shelf-life ü  Increased risk of Off-flavors

10

Fat / Lipid

Marbling / Intramuscular

Seam / Intermuscular

Subcutaneous / Back fat

q Marbling §  To some consumers this is

a very desirable trait while to others it indicates too many calories.

“Fat = Flavor”

§  We know that flavor is one of the primary reasons a consumer will buy a product.

11

Visual Marbling Scores q Standard industry scoring system

§  Assessed effectively using 1 to 6 scale §  Increments correspond to chemical measurement

of percent intramuscular fat

1 2 3 4

5 6 10 12

IMF (Marbling) and Eating Quality

q  Findings dependent on the study evaluated q JAS (2008) 86:730-737 – Illinois

q No impact of intramuscular fat on eating quality of loins q Recent NPB data

q Major effect is found comparing the extremes, with small effects with 1% incremental increases from a minimum of 1% IMF

q Desired within International Markets

3

13

Pork Firmness

q  Surface texture, feel, appearance

q  Assessed using a three-point scale:

§  1 = Soft – Cut surfaces distort easily and are visibly soft

§  2 = Firm – Cut surfaces tend to hold their shape

§  3 = Very Firm – Cut surfaces tend to be very smooth with no distortion of shape

Inability to maintain shape, rough muscle texture

Smooth muscle texture, muscles maintain shape and integrity

14

Pork Wetness

ü  Appearance of free-water on the pork surface

ü  Assessed on a three-point scale ü  1 = Exudative – Excessive fluid

pooling on cut surfaces or in packages

ü  2 = Moist – Cut surfaces appear moist, with little or no free water

ü  3 = Dry – Cut surfaces exhibit no evidence of free water

Excessive surface water

No free surface water

15

Muscle Composition

q Water 75% (65 to 80) q Protein 18.5% (16 to 22) q Lipid 3.0% (1.5 to 13) q Non-protein nitrogenous substances

1.5% q Carbohydrates 1.0% q Inorganic 1.0%

16

Water Holding Capacity (WHC)

ü Ability to Bind the Water within the Muscle

Kauffman Filter Paper Test - Quantification of the amount of moisture loss

Direct Measurement of Drip Loss

17

A greater pH leads to more water holding capacity

pH 5.4

pH 5.8 --+--+-- -+----+-

--+--+--

+-+--+-- --+-+--+-

--+-+--+-

18

Ultimate pH

ü Measure of the acid-base relationship of pork

ü Valuable association with pork color, wetness, firmness, water-holding capacity, and tenderness

ü Typically measured 24 hours after harvest

ü Higher pH = darker color, low drip loss, more firmness, increased tenderness

4

19

Poor water holding capacity and or low pH can negatively impact:

ü Appearance ü Excessive purge

ü Palatability ü Dry after cooking

ü Value ü Loss in weight ü Discounted or discarded product

20

Pork Tenderness

q Clearly influences the quality of the eating experience q Often found to be the most important consumer

characteristic

q Of particular concern with whole muscle fresh products §  Loin chops, Shoulder muscles, Ham muscles

q Related to muscle function q Related to muscle size and dimension

21

Collagen & Degree of Doneness

22

Critical Control Points for Quality

Transportation

Farm

Genetics Nutrition Facilities & Handling

Packing Plant

Pre-Harvest Harvest Chilling

Post Harvest

Farm Level ~ 50% of variation

Post Farm Gate ~50% of Variation

23

Status of U.S. Genetic Pool ü 90 to 95% of U.S. Production is Commercial

ü Efficiency Focus - Reproduction and Production ü Relatively few Genetic Suppliers –

ü Standard Genetic Improvement Principles ü  Similarity in Breeds & Mating Systems

24

Genetic Challenges: Antagonistic Relationships between Lean Production and Pork Quality

Sign Effect ü  Backfat and Intramuscular fat + Unfavorable ü  % Lean and Intramuscular fat - Unfavorable ü  Loin muscle area & Loin Color) - Unfavorable ü  Loin area & Loin Firmness/Wetness - Unfavorable

5

25

Genetic Implications

ü Genes are the backbone of pork quality ü Genes set the upper limit

ü DNA technology and gene discovery will enhance the rate of progress

26

Nutrition and Pork Quality

27

Fat Quality Issues ü Soft can be a problem within the industry

ü  Belly processing (thin bellies, poor slicing ability) ü Off-flavors and shelf-life implications associated with

feeding certain fats (oxidative rancidity, graying of the product)

ü Feeds containing highly-unsaturated fats ü Change in pig fat saturated:unsaturated ratio

ü Vegetable oil sources (canola, soybean, corn, sunflower) are very high in unsaturated fats

ü Animal fat sources (tallow, choice white grease, lard) are much more saturated

28

Effects of Feeding DDGS to Grow-Finish Pigs on Carcass, and Pork Quality

University of MN – Dr. Jerry Shurson, Extension Educators Meeting, January 2007

29

Fat Quality Characteristics of Market Pigs Fed Corn-Soy Diets Containing

0, 10, 20, and 30% DDGS

Means within a row lacking common superscripts differ (P < .05).

72.0c70.6c68.6b66.8aIodine number

22.4b25.4a,b23.8a,b25.9aAdjusted belly firmness score, degrees

21.3b25.1a,b24.4a,b27.3aBelly firmness score, degrees

2.71b2.84a,b3.00a,b3.15aBelly thickness, cm30%20%10%0 %

72.0c70.6c68.6b66.8aIodine number

22.4b25.4a,b23.8a,b25.9aAdjusted belly firmness score, degrees

21.3b25.1a,b24.4a,b27.3aBelly firmness score, degrees

2.71b2.84a,b3.00a,b3.15aBelly thickness, cm30%20%10%0 %

University of MN – Dr. Jerry Shurson, Extension Educators Meeting, January 2007

30

Muscle Quality Characteristics from Grow-Finish Pigs Fed Diets Containing

0, 10, 20, and 30% DDGS

a 0 = black, 100 = white b 1=pale pinkish gray/white; 2=grayish pink; 3=reddish pink; 4=dark reddish pink; 5=purplish red; 6=dark purplish red c 1 = soft, 2 = firm, 3 = very firm d Visual scale approximates % intramuscular fat content (NPPC, 1999) e Total moisture loss = 11-d purge loss + 24-h drip loss + cooking loss

0.53.33.33.43.4Warner-Bratzler sheer force, kg3.122.121.821.521.4Total moisture losse, %2.618.818.318.518.7Cooking loss, %0.20.70.70.70.724-h drip loss

1.22.5fg2.8g2.4fg2.1f11-d purge loss, %0.25.65.65.65.6Ultimate pH0.61.91.71.91.9Marbling scored

0.52.12.12.02.2Firmness scorec

0.83.13.13.23.2Color scoreb

2.955.555.855.154.3L*a

RMSE30 %20 %10 %0 %Trait

0.53.33.33.43.4Warner-Bratzler sheer force, kg3.122.121.821.521.4Total moisture losse, %2.618.818.318.518.7Cooking loss, %0.20.70.70.70.724-h drip loss

1.22.5fg2.8g2.4fg2.1f11-d purge loss, %0.25.65.65.65.6Ultimate pH0.61.91.71.91.9Marbling scored

0.52.12.12.02.2Firmness scorec

0.83.13.13.23.2Color scoreb

2.955.555.855.154.3L*a

RMSE30 %20 %10 %0 %Trait

University of MN – Dr. Jerry Shurson, Extension Educators Meeting, January 2007

6

31

Feed Withdrawal Prior to Slaughter ü  12 to 18 hours prior to stun and stick is

recommended ü  Benefits include, improved dressing percentage,

fewer problems with evisceration, reduced glycogen stores in the muscle

ü  Concerns occur when feed removal is > 18 hours ü  Carcass shrink occurs ü  Muscle quality may decline

32

Handling and Transport

ü Major factors in Pork Quality Determination ü IT IS THE PEOPLE

ü Who design the facilities (correct or incorrect) ü Who do not know how to properly handle animals

ü STRESS on the Pig will increase the : ü % Downers in the finisher, truck, or packing plant ü % Dead on Arrival ü % PSE and or DFD pork

33

Fatigued Pig Symptoms Normal Pig

Open-Mouth Breathing

Skin Discoloration Refuse to move

Abnormal Vocalization

Muscle Tremors Collapse = Fatigued

Death

Stress

Stress

Stress

Ritter, M., M. Ellis, M. Benjamin, E. Berg, P. DuBois, J. Marchant-Forde, A. Green, P. Matzat, P. Mormede, T. Moyer, K. Pfalzgraf, M. Siemens, J. Sterle, T. Whiting, B. Wolter, and A. Johnson. 2005. The fatigued pig syndrome. Journal of Animal Science. 83(Suppl. 1):258. (Abstr.)

SBU2044 34

Minimizing Incidence of Fatigued Pigs ANIMAL HANDLING IS CRITICAL!

6.8

7

7.2

7.4

Blo

od p

HLight (230 lb)

Heavy (282 lb)

Gentle handling

Aggressivehandling

Hamilton, D. N., M. Ellis, T. M. Bertol, and K. D. Miller. 2004. Effects of handling intensity and live weight on blood acid-base status in finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science. 82:2405-2409.

35

Handling Intensity

2.0

15.0

34.0

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Gentle Handling Aggressive Handling Aggressive Handling

with Paddles with Paddles with Hot Shots

Fatig

ued

Pigs

, %

(Gonyou, 2004) ELANCO Study #AF7CA0101 36

On-farm Handling

ü Health/Stress Management ü Well-lit buildings reduce excitability ü Human-pig interaction on a regular basis (1 to 2

minutes in the pen daily) improves pig response and reduces fear of humans

ü Workers need training in pig handling and they need to held responsible for their actions when handling pigs ü Some people simply should not move pigs

ü Be PREPARED PRIOR to LOADOUT

7

37

Handling in Pens and Alleys

ü In pens ü Mark animals prior to sorting not as you go ü Never use Hot –shots in pens ü Utilize sorting boards

ü You are not stronger than pigs and solid partitions aid sorting

ü Don’t SHOUT or YELL and make unusual noises ü Move slowly and deliberately

38

Handling in Pens and Alleys

ü In alleys ü Move pigs in small groups of 4 to 6 pigs ü Allow pigs to follow the leader ü Avoid 90° turns or manage accordingly ü Avoid Electrical Prod use in Alley

39

Loading Ramps

ü Dual ramp design with open panels between and solid outside walls increase loading efficiency

ü Loading Ramps should have a maximum 20º slope, but 10° is better

ü Use hot-shots only as a last resort and then only on the pig that needs it ü Certainly not every pig ü Certainly only for a short duration ü Never in sensitive areas, eyes, face, ears, vulva,

rectum ü DO NOT SHOUT OR YELL

ü  The people who do things the best don’t need to yell.

40

Loading Decisions

ü Do not load pigs that are fatigued or cannot walk

ü Do not allow individuals who are not following appropriate handling procedures to continue interacting with the pigs ü Take a Stand and Stop if things are not right!

41

What can be done to minimize Transport and Marketing Stressors?

ü Trucker ü Take Responsibility for the pigs well-being

ü Transporting ü Flat deck trucks are preferred

ü Pots have too many steep, internal ramps ü Do not overload

ü Load based on weight of pigs not just number ü Leave immediately following loading to avoid

temperature rise in loaded, stationary trucks

42

Transport Floor Space ü  Utilized 42 loads in spring and fall to determine the effects of

transport floor space on losses at the plant

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

4.26 4.47 4.70 4.97 5.26 5.60

188 179 169 161 152 144

Transport Floor Space

Tran

spor

t Los

ses,

%

Deads Fatigued Injured

pigs/load

ft2/pig

P < 0.001, SEM = 0.43, n = 252

NIAA 250 lbs = 4.26 ft2/pig 300 lbs = 4.79 ft2/pig

Ritter, M. J., M. Ellis, C. R. Bertelsen, R. Bowman, J. Brinkmann, J. M. DeDecker, K. K. Keffaber, C. M. Murphy, B. A. Peterson, J. M. Schlipf, and B. F. Wolter. 2006. Effects of distance moved during loading and transport floor space of market weight pigs on transport losses at the packing plant. Page 137 in Proceedings of the 2006 Midwest Animal Science Meetings, Des Moines, IA. (Abstr.)

a

ab ab

bc

c

c

SBU2044

8

43

Transportation between the farm and plant ü Adjust for Weather Extremes

ü Fewer pigs/load in hot weather ü Use wet sand or wet shavings (> 60 F)

ü Use straw ONLY in Cold weather ü Install water drips or wet animals once loaded ü Open sides of trailer to allow air-flow in

summer and close sides in winter to prevent frost-bite

ü Unload immediately upon arrival to the plant

44

Final Thoughts ü Pork Quality is Important

ü Consumers are more demanding ü Genetics and Nutrition play a role

ü Economics primarily dictates these outcomes ü Producers will work with what is offered

ü On-farm Handling is Critical to Quality and Well-being ü Directly under Producer Control ü Producer Responsibility ü Require National Pork Board Transporter Quality

Assurance and PQA PLUS for all Animal Handlers

45

The End!