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

Presentation Overview
Define Quality
Describe Key Indicators of Pork Quality
Outline Factors Influencing Variation in
Pork Quality
Identify Steps Producers Can Take to
Improve Pork Quality

Quality can mean many different things

Wholesomeness
Nutritional value
Tenderness

Visual appearance
Flavor & Juiciness
Lean (% muscle)

What is Pork Quality

Functionality is a common
term used to describe pork
quality
Factors that affect consumer
acceptance or demand for
pork and pork products
Factors that affect the
processing and value-added
opportunities for pork and
pork products

Color is dependent on the ratio of red

to white muscle cells in a muscle

Fresh Pork Quality Indicators

Color
Intramuscular Fat /
Marbling
Tenderness
Taste
Firmness/Wetness
Water Holding Capacity
pH

Type I (Red)
Slow twitch
Aerobic
Higher myoglobin content
Myoglobin gives meat
its red color

Type II (White)
Fast twitch
Anaerobic
Lower myoglobin
content
Globular structure
of Myoglobin

Pork Color - Consumer Perception at

Point of Purchase

Ideal Color

Industry Standards - National Pork Board

qAt Purchase

Subjective Assessment
1 to 6 scoring system

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

qInitial indicator of wholesomeness

qUniformity within packaging

qEating Quality
qPork 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

qIndustry Target Reddish-Pink Purplish Red

6
7

Subcutaneous /
Back fat

Fat / Lipid

Pale and Dark Pork

qMarbling

qAbnormally pale pork

Generally lower in pH
Inability to maintain shape
Surface and package fluid
accumulation
Poor yield (excess shrink)
Poor overall palatability

To some consumers this is

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

qExtremely dark pork

We know that flavor is one

of the primary reasons a
consumer will buy a
product.

Generally greater pH
Reduction in shelf-life
Increased risk of Off-flavors

Marbling /
Intramuscular

Seam /
Intermuscular

Visual Marbling Scores

10

IMF (Marbling) and Eating Quality

qStandard industry scoring system

Assessed effectively using 1 to 6 scale
Increments correspond to chemical measurement
of percent intramuscular fat

q Findings dependent on the study

evaluated
qJAS (2008) 86:730-737 Illinois
q No impact of intramuscular fat on eating quality of loins

qRecent NPB data

1

q Major effect is found comparing the extremes, with small

effects with 1% incremental increases from a minimum of
1% IMF

10

qDesired within International Markets

11

12

Pork Firmness
q Surface texture, feel,
appearance
q Assessed using a threepoint scale:

Pork Wetness
Inability to maintain shape,
rough muscle texture

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 Smooth muscle texture, muscles
maintain shape and integrity
distortion of shape

Appearance of free-water
on the pork surface
Assessed on a three-point
scale
1 = Exudative Excessive fluid
pooling on cut surfaces or in
packages
2 = Moist Cut surfaces appear
moist, with little or no free water
3 = Dry Cut surfaces exhibit no
evidence of free water

Excessive surface water

No free surface water

13

14

Muscle Composition

Water Holding Capacity (WHC)

qWater
75% (65 to 80)
qProtein
18.5% (16 to 22)
qLipid
3.0% (1.5 to 13)
qNon-protein nitrogenous substances
1.5%
qCarbohydrates 1.0%
qInorganic
1.0%

Ability to Bind the Water within the Muscle

Kauffman Filter Paper Test Quantification of the amount of moisture loss

15

A greater pH leads to more water

holding capacity

16

Ultimate pH
Measure of the acid-base
relationship of pork
Valuable association with
pork color, wetness,
firmness, water-holding
capacity, and tenderness
Typically measured 24
hours after harvest
Higher pH = darker color,
low drip loss, more firmness,
increased tenderness

--+-+--+pH 5.4 +-+--+---+-+--+pH 5.8

Direct Measurement of Drip Loss

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

17

18

Poor water holding capacity and

or low pH can negatively impact:

Pork Tenderness
qClearly influences the quality of the eating
experience

Appearance
Excessive purge

qOften found to be the most important consumer

characteristic

Palatability

qOf particular concern with whole muscle fresh

products

Dry after cooking

Value

Loin chops, Shoulder muscles, Ham muscles

Loss in weight
Discounted or discarded product

qRelated to muscle function

qRelated to muscle size and dimension
19

20

Collagen & Degree of Doneness

Critical Control Points for Quality
Farm Level ~ 50%
of variation

Farm

Genetics

Nutrition

Facilities & Handling

Transportation
Post Farm Gate
~50% of Variation

Packing Plant

Pre-Harvest

Harvest

Chilling

Post Harvest
21

22

Genetic Challenges: Antagonistic

Relationships between Lean Production and
Pork Quality

Status of U.S. Genetic Pool

90 to 95% of U.S. Production is Commercial
Efficiency Focus - Reproduction and Production

Relatively few Genetic Suppliers

Standard Genetic Improvement Principles
Similarity in Breeds & Mating Systems

23

Sign
Backfat and Intramuscular fat
% Lean and Intramuscular fat
Loin muscle area & Loin Color)
Loin area & Loin Firmness/Wetness

Effect

+ Unfavorable
Unfavorable
- Unfavorable
- Unfavorable

24

Nutrition and Pork Quality

Genetic Implications
Genes are the backbone of pork quality
Genes set the upper limit

DNA technology and gene discovery will

enhance the rate of progress

25

26

Effects of Feeding DDGS to Grow-Finish

Pigs on Carcass, and Pork Quality

Fat Quality Issues

Soft can be a problem within the industry
Belly processing (thin bellies, poor slicing ability)
Off-flavors and shelf-life implications associated with
feeding certain fats (oxidative rancidity, graying of the
product)

Feeds containing highly-unsaturated fats

Change in pig fat saturated:unsaturated ratio
Vegetable oil sources (canola, soybean, corn, sunflower) are
very high in unsaturated fats
Animal fat sources (tallow, choice white grease, lard) are much
more saturated

University of MN Dr. Jerry Shurson,

Extension Educators Meeting, January 2007

27

28

Fat Quality Characteristics of Market Pigs

Fed Corn-Soy Diets Containing
0, 10, 20, and 30% DDGS

Belly thickness, cm

0%

10%

20%

30%

3.15a

3.00a,b

2.84a,b

2.71b

Muscle Quality Characteristics from

Grow-Finish Pigs Fed Diets Containing
0, 10, 20, and 30% DDGS
Trait

0%

10 %

20 %

30 %

RMSE

L*a

54.3

55.1

55.8

55.5

2.9

Color scoreb

3.2

3.2

3.1

3.1

0.8

Firmness scorec

2.2

2.0

2.1

2.1

0.5

scored

Marbling

Belly firmness score, degrees

27.3a

24.4a,b

25.1a,b

21.3b

Adjusted belly firmness score,

degrees

25.9a

23.8a,b

25.4a,b

22.4b

Iodine number

66.8a

1.9

1.9

1.7

1.9

0.6

Ultimate pH

5.6

5.6

5.6

5.6

0.2

11-d purge loss, %

2.1f

2.4fg

2.8g

2.5fg

1.2

24-h drip loss

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.2

18.7

18.5

18.3

18.8

2.6

21.4

21.5

21.8

22.1

3.1

3.4

3.4

3.3

3.3

0.5

Cooking loss, %
Total moisture

68.6b

70.6c

72.0c

losse,

Warner-Bratzler sheer force, kg

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
a

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

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

29

University of MN Dr. Jerry Shurson, Extension Educators

Meeting, January 2007

30

Feed Withdrawal Prior to Slaughter

12 to 18 hours prior to stun and stick is
recommended

Handling and Transport

Major factors in Pork Quality Determination

Benefits include, improved dressing percentage,

fewer problems with evisceration, reduced glycogen
stores in the muscle

Concerns occur when feed removal is > 18 hours

IT IS THE PEOPLE
Who design the facilities (correct or incorrect)
Who do not know how to properly handle animals

STRESS on the Pig will increase the :

% Downers in the finisher, truck, or packing plant
% Dead on Arrival
% PSE and or DFD pork

Carcass shrink occurs

Muscle quality may decline

31

Fatigued Pig Symptoms

32

Minimizing Incidence of Fatigued Pigs

ANIMAL HANDLING IS CRITICAL!

Normal Pig
Stress

Open-Mouth Breathing
Skin Discoloration
Refuse to move

7.4

Stress
Blood pH

Light (230 lb)

Abnormal Vocalization
Muscle Tremors
Collapse = Fatigued
Stress

7.2

Heavy (282 lb)

Gentle handling

Aggressive
handling

6.8

Death

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.

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

33

34

Handling Intensity
40

34.0

Fatigued Pigs, %

35
30

Health/Stress Management
Well-lit buildings reduce excitability
Human-pig interaction on a regular basis (1 to 2
minutes in the pen daily) improves pig response and
reduces fear of humans
Workers need training in pig handling and they need to
held responsible for their actions when handling pigs

25
20

15.0

15
10
5

On-farm Handling

2.0

Some people simply should not move pigs

0
Gentle Handling
with Paddles

Aggressive Handling
with Paddles

(Gonyou, 2004)

Aggressive Handling

Be PREPARED PRIOR to LOADOUT

with Hot Shots

35 #AF7CA0101
ELANCO Study

36

Handling in Pens and Alleys

Handling in Pens and Alleys

In pens

In alleys

Mark animals prior to sorting not as you go

Never use Hot shots in pens
Utilize sorting boards

Move pigs in small groups of 4 to 6 pigs

Allow pigs to follow the leader
Avoid 90 turns or manage accordingly
Avoid Electrical Prod use in Alley

You are not stronger than pigs and solid partitions aid
sorting

Dont SHOUT or YELL and make unusual noises

Move slowly and deliberately

37

38

Loading Ramps

Loading Decisions
Do not load pigs that are fatigued or
cannot walk
Do not allow individuals who are not
following appropriate handling
procedures to continue interacting with
the pigs

Dual ramp design with open panels between and solid

outside walls increase loading efficiency
Loading Ramps should have a maximum 20 slope,
but 10 is better
Use hot-shots only as a last resort and then only on
the pig that needs it
Certainly not every pig
Certainly only for a short duration
Never in sensitive areas, eyes, face, ears, vulva,
rectum

Take a Stand and Stop if things are not right!

DO NOT SHOUT OR YELL

The people who do things the best dont need to yell.
39

What can be done to minimize Transport

and Marketing Stressors?

40

Transport Floor Space

Utilized 42 loads in spring and fall to determine the effects of
transport floor space on losses at the plant

Take Responsibility for the pigs well-being

Transporting
Flat deck trucks are preferred
Pots have too many steep, internal ramps

Do not overload
Load based on weight of pigs not just number

Leave immediately following loading to avoid

temperature rise in loaded, stationary trucks

Transport Losses, %

3.0

Trucker

Deads

2.5

ab

2.0

ab

1.5

Fatigued

2
NIAA 250 lbs = 4.26 ft /pig
300 lbs = 4.79 ft2/pig

bc

1.0

Injured

P < 0.001, SEM = 0.43, n = 252

0.5

0.0

ft2/pig

4.26

4.47

4.70

4.97

5.26

5.60

pigs/load

188

179

169

161

152

144

Transport Floor Space

SBU2044

41

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.
42 of the 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
Midwest Animal Science Meetings, Des Moines, IA. (Abstr.)

Transportation between
the farm and plant

Final Thoughts

Adjust for Weather Extremes

Pork Quality is Important

Consumers are more demanding

Fewer pigs/load in hot weather

Use wet sand or wet shavings (> 60 F)

Genetics and Nutrition play a role

Use straw ONLY in Cold weather

Install water drips or wet animals once loaded

Open sides of trailer to allow air-flow in
summer and close sides in winter to prevent
frost-bite
Unload immediately upon arrival to the plant

43

Economics primarily dictates these outcomes

Producers will work with what is offered

On-farm Handling is Critical to Quality and

Well-being
Directly under Producer Control
Producer Responsibility
Require National Pork Board Transporter Quality
Assurance and PQA PLUS for all Animal Handlers

44

The End!

45