Share This Article:

Effect of Breed and Sex on Pork Meat Sensory Evaluation

Abstract Full-Text HTML Download Download as PDF (Size:246KB) PP. 599-605
DOI: 10.4236/fns.2014.57070    6,580 Downloads   8,093 Views   Citations

ABSTRACT

This work had an objective to evaluate the sensory quality of two categories of pork meat from a commercial pork meat and a selected meat from the Portuguese black pork (Preto Alentejano breed). Sixteen animals were used, 8 females and 8 males from each breed. Animals had 80 - 100 kg of live weight. The longissimus muscle between the 5th thoracic vertebra and the 10th lumbar vertebra was used in the analysis. Sensory analysis was performed by a trained taste panel of 10 elements, in 5 sessions. All evaluation conditions were standardized, and the attributes studied were odor intensity, toughness, juiciness and flavor intensity. The taste panel found differences mainly between breeds. The panellists scored Preto Alentejano meat as being juicier, tenderer, and with richer taste than Commercial meat. The higher juiciness score of Preto Alentejano meat was probably attributable to the higher intramuscular fat content compared with Commercial meat. The Commercial pork was characterized mainly by high toughness.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Cite this paper

Rodrigues, S. and Teixeira, A. (2014) Effect of Breed and Sex on Pork Meat Sensory Evaluation. Food and Nutrition Sciences, 5, 599-605. doi: 10.4236/fns.2014.57070.

References

[1] Matos, C.A.P. (2000) Recursos Genéticos Animais e Sistemas de Exploração Tradicionais em Portugal. Archivos de Zootecnia, 49, 363-383.
[2] Ibañez, F.C. and Barcina, Y. (2001) Análisis Sensorial de Alimentos. Métodos y Aplicaciones. Journal of Animal Science, 63, 102-113.
[3] Arnold, G.M. and Williams, A.A. (1986) The Use of Generalised Procrustes Techniques in Sensory Analysis. In: Piggot, J.R., Ed., Statistical Procedures in Food Research, Elsevier, London, 233-253.
[4] Stone, H. and Sidel, J.L. (2004) Sensory Evaluation Practices. Academic Press Inc., Tragon Corporation, Redwood City, 408 p.
[5] Gower, J.C. (1975) Generalized Procrustes Analysis. Psychometrika, 40, 33-51.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02291478
[6] Dahl, T. and Naes, T. (2004) Outlier and Group Detection in Sensory Panels Using Hierarchical Cluster Analysis with the Procrustes Distance. Food Quality and Preference, 15, 195-208.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(03)00058-2
[7] Qannari, E.M., MacFie, H.J.H. and Courcoux, P. (1999) Performance Indices and Isotropic Scaling Factors in Sensory Profiling. Food Quality and Preference, 10, 17-21.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(98)00033-0
[8] Wu, W., Guo, Q., de Jong, S. and Massart, D.L. (2002) Randomisation Test for the Number of Dimensions of the Group Average Space in Generalised Procrustes Analysis. Food Quality and Preference, 13, 191-200.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(02)00024-1
[9] NP-ISO-8586-1 (2001) Norma Portuguesa ISO 8586-1. Análise Sensorial. Guia Geral para a Selecç ão, Treino e Controlo dos Provadores. Parte 1: Provadores Qualificados.
[10] Rodrigues, S. and Teixeira, A. (2009) Effect of Sex and Carcass Weight on Sensory Qaulity of Goat Meat of Cabrito Trnasmontano. Journal of Animal Science, 87, 711-715.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2527/jas.2007-0792
[11] Jonsäll, A., Johansson, L., Lundström, K., Andersson, K.H., Nilsen, A.N. and Risvik, E. (2002) Effects of Genotype and Rearing System on Sensory Characteristics and Preference for Pork (M. Longissimusdorsi). Food Quality and Preference, 13, 73-80.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(01)00060-X
[12] Cameron, N.D., Warris, P.D., Porter, S.J. and Enser, M.B. (1990) Comparison of Duroc and British Landrace Pigs for Meat and Eating Quality. Meat Science, 27, 227-247.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0309-1740(90)90053-9
[13] Wood, J.D., Jones, R.C.D., Francombe, M.A. and Wheleham, O.P. (1986) The Effects of Fat Thickness and Sex on Pig Meat Quality with Special Reference to the Problems Associated with Over-Leanness. 2. Laboratory and Trained Taste Panel Results. Animal Production, 43, 535-544.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003356100002749
[14] Edwards, S.A. (2005) Product Quality Attributes Associated with Outdoor Pig Production. Livestock Production Science, 94, 5-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livprodsci.2004.11.028
[15] Lloveras, M.R., Goenaga, P.R., Irureta, M., Carduza, F., Grigione, G., Garcia, P.T. and Amendola, A. (2008) Meat Quality Traits of Comercial Hybrid Pigs in Argentina. Meat Science, 79, 458-462.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2007.10.033
[16] Persson, J. and Stina, F.M. (1986) Carcass Properties as Related to Sensory Properties of Pork. Springer-Verlag Ibérica, Barcelona, 180 p.
[17] Enfált, A.C., Lundström, K., Hansson, I., Johansson, S. and Nyström, P.E. (1997) Comparison of Non-Carriers and Heterozygous Carriers of the RN Allele for Carcass Composition, Muscle Distribution and Technological Meat Quality in Hampshire-Sired Pigs. Livestock Production Science, 47, 221-229.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(96)01409-1
[18] Jonsäll, A., Johansson, L. and Lundström, K. (2001) Effects of Red Clover Silage and RN Genotype on Sensory Quality of Prolonged Frozen Stored Pork (M. Longissimusdorsi). Food Quality and Preference, 11, 371-376.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(00)00010-0
[19] Jonsäll, A., Johansson, L., Lundström, K., Andersson, K.H., Nilsen, A.N. and Risvik, E. (2002) Effects of Genotype and Rearing System on Sensory Characteristics and Preference for Pork (M. Longissimusdorsi). Food Quality and Preference, 13, 73-80.
[20] Wood, J.D., Nute, G.R., Richardson, R.I., Whittington, F.M., Southwood, O., Plastow, G., Mansbridge, R., da Costa, N. and Chang, K.C. (2004) Effects of Breed, Diet and Muscle on Fat Deposition and Eating Quality in Pigs. Meat Science, 67, 651-667.
[21] Rodrigues, S. and Teixeira, A. (2013) Use of Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA) to Test the Effects of Sex and Carcass Weight on Sensory Quality Evaluations of Terrincho Lamb Meat. Meat Science, 93, 485-488.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.10.011

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2019 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.