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 10Cut 1 -- February 23Cut 2 Cut 1 March 9Cut 3 Cut 2 March 23-- Cut 3

4. Population Barn ABarn BBarn CBarn DTotal Cut 13043064953071412 (33%) Cut 24564643384651723 (40%) Cut 32811272614851154 (27%) Total1041 (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 LeanQuality P - values Cut 1Cut 2Cut 3Cut 1Cut 2Cut 3SEM Genetics Cut Gen. x Cut HCW, kg 93.892.592.9100.298.294.62.420.180.500.35 FD, mm 13.912.412.717.817.717.21.53<0.010.700.78 LD, mm 73.572.071.567.968.067.42.810.040.850.93 Lean, % 59.260.059.756.2 56.41.14<0.010.800.84 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 LeanQualityDifference FD, mm13.017.64.6 mm (0.18 in) LD, mm72.369.14.5% Lean, %59.656.33.3 perc. unit

7. Ham Face Color Gluteus profundis Gluteus medius

8. Correlations (r) of Carcass Characteristics with Ham Quality HCWBFLDLean Ham wt 0.860.290.23-0.18 Gluteus medius L* -0.03-0.150.070.15 a* 0.02 0.050.04 -0.03 b* 0.070.08 -0.03 -0.08 Gluteus profundis L* -0.11-0.17 0.01 0.15 a* 0.09 0.03-0.07 b* 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)Weak relationship (r = 0.01) Correlations Ham wt HCWLoin depth Gluteus profundis L*

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 ABarn BBarn CBarn DTotal Cut 134325634156 (34%) Cut 246503547178 (39%) Cut 330152754126 (27%) Total110 (24%) 97 (21%) 118 (26%) 135 (29%) 460 (100%) N = 460 (10.7%) Barrows = 43%, Gilts = 57%

13. Muscle Temperature Decline Carcasses in blast chiller

14. Relationship between loin and ham temperature decline

15. Predictive ability of carcass characteristics on temperature decline

16. Correlations (r) of Carcass Characteristics with Loin Quality HCWBFLDLean Loin wt 0.63-0.060.430.20 pH, 30 min -0.01-0.10 0.160.14 pH, 24 h -0.01 0.19-0.14-0.22 Color, 1d 0.170.38-0.22-0.41 Marbling, 1d 0.180.52-0.25-0.54 Firmness, 1d 0.290.340.07-0.27 Purge loss, 20d -0.20-0.430.150.43 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 HCWBFLDLean Loin wt 0.63-0.060.430.20 pH, 30 min -0.01-0.10 0.160.14 pH, 24 h -0.01 0.19-0.14-0.22 Color, 1d 0.170.38-0.22-0.41 Marbling, 1d 0.180.52-0.25-0.54 Firmness, 1d 0.290.340.07-0.27 Purge loss, 20d -0.20-0.430.150.43 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 Carcass Characteristics with Loin Quality HCWBFLDLean Loin wt 0.63-0.060.430.20 pH, 30 min -0.01-0.10 0.160.14 pH, 24 h -0.01 0.19-0.14-0.22 Color, 1d 0.170.38-0.22-0.41 Marbling, 1d 0.180.52-0.25-0.54 Firmness, 1d 0.290.340.07-0.27 Purge loss, 20d -0.20-0.430.150.43 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 estimated lean increased, color became paler and marbling decreased

19. Correlations (r) of Carcass Characteristics with Ham Quality HCWBFLDLean Inside 0.53-0.160.320.25 Semimembranosus pH u 0.16 0.05-0.05-0.06 L* -0.12-0.14 0.03 0.14 Adductor pH u 0.180.10 -0.07 -0.11 L* -0.050.00-0.08-0.03 Bold indicates P < 0.05 Correlations between carcass characteristics and the inside ham were significant but weak

20. Correlations (r) of Carcass Characteristics with Ham Quality HCWBFLDLean Outside 0.55 -0.07 0.180.12 Semitendinosus pH u 0.14 0.048-0.073-0.07 L* -0.040.05-0.09-0.08 Biceps femoris pH u 0.14 0.04-0.08-0.06 L* 0.020.01 0.11 0.03 Bold indicates P < 0.05 Correlations between carcass characteristics and the outside ham were significant but weak

21. Correlations (r) of Carcass Characteristics with Ham Quality HCWBFLDLean Knuckle 0.51 -0.06 0.250.14 Vastus lateralis pH u 0.13 -0.00-0.04-0.01 L* -0.14 -0.05 -0.10 0.01 Rectus femoris pH u 0.07-0.04-0.000.03 L* 0.02-0.05-0.070.02 Bold indicates P < 0.05 Correlations between carcass characteristics and the knuckle were significant but weak

22. Correlations (r) of Carcass Characteristics with Belly Quality HCWBFLDLean Belly wt0.840.68 -0.04 -0.61 Length 0.550.46-0.15-0.45 Width 0.420.170.08-0.12 Thickness 0.560.67 -0.04 -0.59 Flop score 0.470.71-0.11-0.66 Bold indicates P < 0.05 As HCW increased bellies became heavier, larger, and firmer

23. Correlations (r) of Fresh Ham Quality with Loin Quality Ham wtProfundis L*Medius L* Loin wt 0.63-0.050.05 pH, 30 min -0.010.080.07 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 -0.040.120.24 L*, 20d -0.140.140.23 SSF, 20d -0.160.110.13 Bold indicates P < 0.05

24. Fresh loin color (r = 0.24)Aged loin color (r = 0.23) Ham and Loin Color Loin L*, 1d Gluteus medius L* Loin L*, 20d

25. Correlations (r) of Fresh Ham Quality with Belly Quality Ham wtProfundis L*Medius L* Belly wt 0.61-0.07 0.00 Length 0.33-0.11-0.13 Width 0.350.130.22 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

26. Ham wt & Thickness(r = 0.35)Ham wt & Flop (r = 0.29) Ham and Belly Ham wt Belly thickness Ham wt Belly flop

27. Correlations (r) of Belly Quality with Loin Quality Belly wtLengthWidthThickness Flop Score Loin wt 0.310.200.250.06 -0.04 pH, 30 min -0.05 -0.120.11 -0.04-0.06 pH, 24 h 0.080.23-0.170.060.11 Color, 1d 0.270.29-0.050.220.27 Marbling, 1d 0.350.310.080.330.43 Firmness, 1d 0.250.110.090.220.10 Purge loss, 20d -0.29-0.30 0.09 -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

28. 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

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