5.:
x: 6.
I;
1m..- .i
1...} . .hufi...$...si
x. v.4". a'..,n\dv.l A.'Ii‘
.T 93...: .Vilf; .all.‘
In ‘3». 12 owl‘lnflfitl .4.
r .w: .. 2433i». .
m: r {a
. . ‘ jug
. ...L..,.~,._.:..;u .134...
:...m.«l.axhwp am” .2...

5. :39.
.13....1:

IM—mm.

3......
H. 5.x; h. . :
.57.! 3.. i.

2...

3...: .
x.....0....... .

 

THESIS

/i ’-
1‘6/ .2
’_/ t .

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

STRATEGIES T0 ELIMINATE ATYPICAL AROMAS
AND FLAVORS IN SOW LOINS

presented by

Jeffrey J. Sindelar

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M.S. degree in Anim_a1 Science

Milk

1 ' "
M jor professor

Date 7/12/02

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

APR 0 32004

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/ClRClDateDue.p65-p. 15

 

STRATEGIES TO ELIMINATE ATYPICAL AROMAS AND FLAVORS IN SOW
LOINS

By

Jeffrey Joseph Sindelar

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
For the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Animal Science

2002

ABSTRACT

STRATEGIES TO ELMINATE ATYPICAL AROMAS AND FLAVORS IN SOW
LOINS

By

Jeffrey Joseph Sindelar

The objective of this study was to eliminate atypical aromas and flavors in
sow loins with marination treatment solutions composed of sodium bicarbonate
and sodium tripolyphosphate. Sow loin sections (n=20) with atypical aromas and
flavors we termed “sow taint” were treated with a solution of sodium
tripolyphosphate (0.25-0.50%) and sodium bicarbonate (0.35-0.70M) and
evaluated for flavor and textural attributes by a trained sensory panel. Response
surface methodology identified four treatment combinations that reduced
(P<0.05) metallic aroma, metal and sour aftertastes, and detectable connective
tissue while improving (P<0.05) muscle fiber tenderness, juiciness, and overall
tenderness. Consumer sensory panel ratings determined that sow loin chops
injected with a 15% solution of sodium tripolyphosphate (0.50%) and sodium
bicarbonate (0.35M) were not different (P>0.05) than loin chops from a marinated
(0.25% sodium tripolyphosphate, 15% injection level) commodity control loin for
flavor, texture, juiciness, and overall acceptability. A solution containing sodium
tripolyphosphate and sodium bicarbonate minimized atypical aromas and flavors
in selected sow loins and may enhance their utilization for value added whole

muscle products.

Copyright by
Jeffrey Joseph Sindelar
2002

This thesis is dedicated to those who have stood behind me pushing, beside me
helping, and in front encouraging.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Dr. Wesley Osburn, my academic advisor, for
accepting me into his program, and providing me the tools to be successful. I
have exponentially gained knowledge about research, teaching, leading, and
learning under your guidance. I can undoubtedly say that I am a better person
from this experience. To my guidance committee: Dr. Al Booren, for all your
experience and knowledge and “open door” approach to all my curiosities,
questions, and concerns; Dr. Ron Bates, for your industry approach and
involvement with my research; and Dr. Rob Tempelman, for your statistical
advice and counseling.

Thanks to my lab mates Deanna Hoflng and Christine Ebeling for their
friendship and help. There are no words that can express my gratitude for them
always been there for me helping me through research and life. This I will miss
the most. To Justin Ransom for taking me under his wing when I first started and
always being supportive especially with meats judging. To the undergraduate
employees Dan Kiesling and Darcelee Popa for all their help. Their contributions
are far more worthy than merely being mentioned here. To my roommates and
friends, for the fun and laughter, who I’m glad are a part of my life.

To the 1999, 2000, and 2001 meat judging teams, I’ve have Ieamed as
much from you as hopefully you have from me. To Tom Forton and Jennifer

Dominquez for your friendships and providing me opportunities to “play”.

To my family, realizing a son far from home in distance will never be far
from loved ones in thought or heart. To my parents, for instilling all the virtues in
me that have helped me in life on countless occasions.

And finally to God, for giving me the strength, courage, and ability to
pursue my dreams and surrounding me with so many great people along the

way.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ..................................................................................... x
List of Figures ................................................................................ .xiii
List of Appendices .......................................................................... .xv

Introduction ...................................................................................... 1
Chapter 1 .......................................................................................... 4
Review of Literature ............................................................................. 4
l. Problems Associated with Sow Meat ................................................... 4
1. Introduction .......................................................................... 4

2. Meat Flavor ......................................................................... 6

3. Tenderness ......................................................................... 7

4. Muscle Color ....................................................................... 9

5. Muscle Size ....................................................................... 10

ll. Utilizing Sow Meat ........................................................................ 11
1. Overview of Sow Meat .................................................... 11

2. Hot-Boning vs. Cold-Boning ............................................. 11

a) Advantages ............................................................. 11

b) Disadvantages .......................................................... 14

Ill. Developing Value Added Products ................................................... 15
1. Sources of Raw Materials ................................................ 15

2. Value Added Technologies ............................................. 15

a) Injection ................................................................. 16

b) Restructuring .......................................................... 17

c) Mechanical Tenderization .......................................... 18

2. Developing Marinated / Enhanced Product .......................... 19

a) Non—Meat Ingredients ................................................ 19

i. Water/ Injection Level ....................................... 20

ii. Sodium Chloride ................................................ 21

iii. Phosphates ...................................................... 22

iv. Sodium Bicarbonate ........................................... 24

3. Challenges for Value Added Products ............................... 25

4. Benefits of Value Added Products .................................... 30

vii

IV. Summary of Literature .................................................................. 31
Chapter 2 ....................................................................................... 33
Materials and Methods ....................................................................... 33

Preliminary Study: Identifying sow loins with atypical aromas and
flavors with electronic nose technology ................ 33

Study l: Determination of percent sodium tripolyphosphate, sodium
bicarbonate concentration, and injection level to minimize
atypical aromas and flavors in sow loins.

I. Experimental Design and Data Analysis ................................ 34
II. Plant Procurement ............................................................. 35
III. Product Procurement ........................................................ 36
IV. Ultimate pH Determination .................................................. 36
V. R-Value Determination Test ................................................. 37
VI. Subjective / Objective Quality Analysis .................................. 38
A. Color - Subjective and Objective ................................. 38
B. Marbling ................................................................ 39
C. Firmness ................................................................ 39
D. 48 Hour Drip Loss .................................................... 39
VII. TBA Analysis ................................................................... 40
VIII. Proximate Composition Analysis ........................................... 40
IX. Marinade Uptake Experiment ............................................... 40
X. Cook Yield Experiment ....................................................... 40
XI. Marination Experiment ........................................................ 40
A. Loin Section Sorting ................................................ 40
B. Marination .............................................................. 41
C. Tumbling ................................................................ 41
XII. Loin Fabrication ................................................................ 42
XIII. Trained Sensory Panel ...................................................... 42

Study ll: Determination of consumer acceptability of marinated loin
chops with atypical aromas and flavors marinated with
tripolyphosphate, and sodium bicarbonate.

I. Experimental Design and Data Analysis ................................. 45
II. Plant Procurement ............................................................ 45
III. Product Procurement ......................................................... 45
IV. Ultimate pH Determination ................................................. 46
V. Subjective I Objective Quality Analysis .................................. 46

A. Color - Subjective and Objective ................................. 46

B. Marbling ................................................................. 46

viii

C. Firmness ................................................................ 46

D. 48 Hour Drip Loss .................................................... 46

VI. TBA Analysis ................................................................... 46

VII. Proximate Composition Analysis .......................................... 47

VIII. Marinade Uptake Experiment .............................................. 47

IX. Cook Yield Experiment ....................................................... 47

X. Marination Experiment ....................................................... 47

A. Loin Section Sorting ................................................. 47

B. Marination .............................................................. 48

C. Tumbling ................................................................ 48

XI. Loin Fabrication ................................................................ 49

XII. Shear Force Determination .................................................. 49

XIII. Consumer Sensory Panel ................................................... 50
References ...................................................................................... 52
Chapter 3 ....................................................................................... 59

Determining Optimum Levels of Phosphates, Sodium Bicarbonate, Salt, and
Pump Percentage that Eliminate Off Flavors in Sow Meat.

I. Abstract ................................................................................... 59
II. Introduction .............................................................................. 60
III. Materials and Methods ................................................................ 62
IV. Results and Discussion ............................................................... 82
V. References .............................................................................. 107
Appendices .................................................................................... 1 1 1
Recommendations for Future Research ............................................. 159

ix

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1: Treatment formulations containing sodium tripolyphosphate (STP)
and sodium bicarbonate (BICARB) for marinating sow loins at varying injection
levels (PUMP) .................................................................................. 67

TABLE 2: Values for initial, target, actual, target %pump and actual % pump
and marinated pH of marinated treatment combinations for sow loins possessing
atypical aroma and flavor (sow taint) and non-tainted control commodity loins
(CNT) ............................................................................................. 78

TABLE 3: Least squares means for rigor determination (R-value and pH
difference), pH, TBA values, purge, and drip loss for sow loins possessing
atypical aroma and flavor (sow taint, ST), and non-tainted control sow loins
(CNT) ............................................................................................. 83

TABLE 4: Least squares means for Subjective color, marbling, and firmness;
Objective color (L*, a*, b*) values; and raw composition for sow loins possessing
atypical aroma and flavor (sow taint, ST), and non-tainted control sow loins
(CNT) ............................................................................................. 84

TABLE 5: Least squares means for moisture, fat, and protein; TBA; and pH of
sow loins possessing atypical aroma and flavor marinated with STP and BICARB
at varying PUMP levels ...................................................................... 87

TABLE 6: Least squares means for trained sensory panel scores for sow loin
chops possessing atypical aroma and flavor marinated with STP and BICARB at
varying PUMP .................................................................................. 88

TABLE 7: Least squares means for Subjective color, marbling, and flnnness;
Objective color (L*, a*, b*) values; raw composition; pH; marinade uptake; and
cook yields for sow loins possessing atypical aroma and flavor (sow taint, ST),
and non-tainted control commodity loins (CNT) ....................................... 96

TABLE 8: Least squares means for lipid oxidation (TBA), pH, cook yield, shear
force and proximate composition for sow loins possessing atypical aroma and
flavor (sow taint, ST), and non-tainted control commodity loins (CNT) marinated
at 15% PUMP with STP and BICARB ................................................... 99

TABLE 9: Least squares means for cook yield and shear force, and scores for
sensory attributes of flavor, texture, juiciness, and overall acceptability of sow
loins possessing atypical aroma and flavor and non-tainted commodity control
(CNT) loins marinated at 15% PUMP with STP and BICARB ..................... 101

APPENDIX 12: Study | Sensory Panel Sample Randomization ................. 131

APPENDIX 13: Study II Classification of loin sections used for treatments and 7
day purge loss values of sow loins possessing atypical aroma and flavor (sow
taint, ST) and non-tainted control commodity loins (CNT) .......................... 132

APPENDIX 15: Study I Least squares means for marination uptake and cook
yields of sow Ioins possessing atypical aroma and flavor (sow taint, ST) ....... 135

APPENDIX 16: Study | Cooking times and yields of marinated treatment
combinations for sow loins possessing atypical aroma and flavor (sow taint, ST)
and non-tainted control commodity loins (CNT) ....................................... 136

APPENDIX 17: Study ll Least squares means for rigor determination (pH
change) for randomly selected sow loins possessing atypical aroma and flavor
(sow taint, ST) .................................................................................. 137

APPENDIX 18: Study II Least squares means for raw composition, pH,
marinade uptake, and cook yields of of sow loins possessing atypical aroma and
flavor (sow taint, ST) and non-tainted control commodity loins (CNT) ........... 138

APPENDIX 19: Study Il Least squares means for lipid oxidation (TBA) of sow
loins possessing atypical aroma and flavor (sow taint, ST). ....................... 139

APPENDIX 20: Study II Least squares means for Subjective color, marbling,
and firmness and Objective color (L*, a*, b*) values of sow loins possessing
atypical aroma and flavor (sow taint, ST) and non-tainted control commodity loins
(CNT) ............................................................................................. 140

APPENDIX 21: Study II Least squares means for drip loss and values for 24 h
purge loss (‘70) and loin temperature of sow loins possessing atypical aroma and
flavor (sow taint, ST) .......................................................................... 141

APPENDIX 22: Study l Least squares means for trained sensory panel scores
for “other" classification of tainted sow longissimus dorsi chops marinated with
sodium tripolyphosphate, sodium bicarbonate with varying injection IeveIs....142

APPENDIX 23: Study l Least squares means for trained sensory panel scores
for “other” classification of tainted sow longissimus dorsi chops marinated with
sodium tripolyphosphate, sodium bicarbonate with varying injection Ievels....143

APPENDIX 24: Study I Least squares means for trained sensory panel scores

for “Flavor" classification of tainted sow longissimus dorsi chops marinated with
sodium tripolyphosphate, sodium bicarbonate with injection levels .............. 144

xi

APPENDIX 25: Study | Least squares means for trained sensory panel scores
for “After Taste” classification of tainted sow longissimus dorsi chops marinated

with sodium tripolyphosphate, sodium bicarbonate with varying injection

levels ............................................................................................. 145

APPENDIX 26: Study I Least squares means for trained sensory panel scores
for “After Taste” classification of tainted sow longissimus dorsi chops marinated

with sodium tripolyphosphate, sodium bicarbonate with varying injection

levels ............................................................................................. 146

APPENDIX 27: Study I Least squares means for trained sensory panel scores
for “Taste” classification of tainted sow longissimus dorsi chops marinated with
sodium tripolyphosphate, sodium bicarbonate with varying injection Ievels....147

APPENDIX 28: Study I Least squares means for trained sensory panel scores
for “Texture” classification of tainted sow longissimus dorsi chops marinated with
sodium tripolyphosphate, sodium bicarbonate with varying injection |evels....148

APPENDIX 29: Study I Least squares means for trained sensory panel scores
for “Aromatics” classification of tainted sow longissimus dorsi chops marinated
with sodium tripolyphosphate, sodium bicarbonate with varying injection

levels ............................................................................................. 149

APPENDIX 30: Study I Least squares means for trained sensory panel scores
for “Aromatic” classification of tainted sow longissimus dorsi chops marinated
with sodium tripolyphosphate, sodium bicarbonate with varying injection

levels ............................................................................................. 150

APPENDIX 31: Study l Least squares means for trained sensory panel scores
for “Aromatic” classification of tainted sow longissimus dorsi chops marinated
with sodium tripolyphosphate, sodium bicarbonate with varying injection

levels ............................................................................................. 151

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1: Principal component analysis (PCA) plot for sow loin samples
with atypical aromas and flavors, samples with no atypical aromas and flavors,
and commodity pork samples .............................................................. 63

FIGURE 2: Principal component analysis (PCA) plot for sow loin samples with
atypical flavors and aromas, with no atypical flavors and aromas, and commodity
pork samples treated with solutions containing STP and BICARB at 15% injection
level ............................................................................................... 65

FIGURE 3: Response surface curves of significant (P<0.05) total and fitted
regression models for metallic and sour aftertaste of marinated sow loin chops
manufactured with 15% injection level (PUMP), 0.25-0.50% sodium
tripolyphosphate (STP), and 035-070 M sodium Bicarbonate (BICARB)......89

FIGURE 4: Response surface curves of significant (P<0.10) total and fitted
regression models for metallic aromatic of marinated sow loin chops
manufactured with 15% injection level (PUMP), 0.25-0.50% sodium
tripolyphosphate (STP), and 035-070 M sodium Bicarbonate (BICARB)......91

FIGURE 5: Response surface curves of significant (P<0.05) total and fitted
regression models for connective tissue and juiciness of marinated sow loin
chops manufactured with 15% injection level (PUMP), 0.25—0.50% sodium
tripolyphosphate (STP), and 035-070 M sodium Bicarbonate (BICARB)......92

FIGURE 6: Response surface curves of significant (P<0.05) total and fitted
regression models for muscle fiber and overall tenderness of marinated sow loin
chops manufactured with 15% injection level (PUMP), 0.25—0.50% sodium
triplyphosphate (STP), and 0.35-0.70 M sodium bicarbonate (BICARB) ........ 93

APPENDIX 11: Study I Trained Sensory Panel Ballot ............................. 130

APPENDIX 32: Response surface curves of significant (P<0.05) total and fitted
regression models for metal aftertaste of marinated sow loin chops manufactured
with 545% injection level (PUMP), 0.25-0.50% sodium tripolyphosphate (STP),
and 035-070 M sodium bicarbonate (BICARB) ...................................... 152

APPENDIX 33: Response surface curves of significant (P<0.10) total and fitted
regression models for sour aftertaste of marinated sow loin chops manufactured
with 5-15% injection level (PUMP), 0.25—0.50% sodium tripolyphosphate (STP),

and 035-070 M Sodium Bicarbonate (BICARB) ..................................... 153

xiii

APPENDIX 34: Response surface curves of significant (P<0.10) total and fitted
regression models for sour aftertaste of marinated sow loin chops manufactured
with 5-15% injection level (PUMP), 0.25—0.50% sodium tripolyphosphate (STP),

and 035-070 M sodium bicarbonate (BICARB) ...................................... 154

APPENDIX 35: Response surface curves of significant (P<0.05) total and fitted
regression models for connective tissue of marinated sow loin chops
manufactured with 5-15% injection level (PUMP), 0.25-0.50% sodium
tripolyphosphate (STP), and 035-070 M sodium bicarbonate (BICARB) ...... 155

APPENDIX 36: Response surface curves of significant (P<0.05) total and fitted
regression models for juiciness of marinated sow loin chops manufactured with
545% injection level (PUMP), 0.25-0.50°/o sodium tripolyphosphate (STP), and
035-070 M sodium bicarbonate (BICARB) ............................................ 156

APPENDIX 37: Response surface curves of significant (P<0.05) total and fitted
regression models for muscle fiber tenderness of marinated sow loin chops
manufactured with 5—15% injection level (PUMP), 0.25-0.50% sodium
tripolyphosphate (STP), and 035-070 M sodium bicarbonate (BICARB) ...... 157

APPENDIX 38: Response surface curves of significant (P<0.05) total and fitted
regression models for overall tenderness of marinated sow loin chops
manufactured with 5-15% injection level (PUMP), 0.25-0.50% sodium
tripolyphosphate (STP), and 035-070 M sodium bicarbonate (BICARB) ...... 158

xiv

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1: Study l Marination Procedures ....................................... 112
APPENDIX 2: Rigor Determination (pH) .............................................. 114
APPENDIX 3: Rigor Determination (R-value) ....................................... 115
APPENDIX 4: pH Determination ........................................................ 117
APPENDIX 5: Objective Color and Subjective Color, Marbling, and

Firmness Analysis ....................................................... 118
APPENDIX 6: TBA Analysis ............................................................. 120
APPENDIX 7: Proximate Analysis ...................................................... 123
APPENDIX 8: Drip Loss Analysis ...................................................... 126
APPENDIX 9: Purge Loss Analysis .................................................... 127
APPENDIX 10: Marinade Uptake / Cooking Yield Procedures .................. 128
APPENDIX 14: Study ll Marination Procedures .................................... 133

XV

INTRODUCTION

Value added products serve an important role in the meat industry. The
term “value added” is defined as any practice that adds marketability or economic
value for the processor while providing convenience, improving eating quality,
and increasing food safety for the consumer (Miller 2000). Value added products
include fresh meats that have been further processed by such methods as
injection/marination, curing, restructuring, tenderization, portion cutting, or
packaging. Meat trimmings or subprimal cuts from carcasses that exhibit poor
quality (color, texture, firmness), and edible by products are raw materials that
may undergo value added processing. Value added principles can be applied to
increase the value of meat obtained from older carcasses (i.e. cow, sow, etc.) in
an effort to improve its usability and value.

Sow meat is primarily utilized in comminuted products such as prerigor
fresh pork sausage. Prerigor or hot-boned meat is removed from the carcass
prior to chilling and before the onset of rigor. Prerigor meat possesses a higher
water holding capacity resulting in higher yields and a more uniform darker color
than cold boned meat that has been chilled and gone through rigor (Van Laack et
al., 1989). Industry feedback (Prochaska et al., 2001) indicates occurrences of
undesirable flavors in sow carcasses. This off flavor or “taint” combined with
decreased tenderness due to more cross linked insoluble collagen normally
associated with older animals (Hedrick et al., 1989), darker muscle color from an

increased concentration of myglobin, and inconsistent muscle size hinders the

use of sow meat for whole muscle meat products. It is well documented that
acceptable tenderness in whole muscle products can. be achieved by use of
mechanical (Cordray et al., 1985; Motycka and Bechtel, 1983), or enzymatic
tenderization (Romans et al., 1994), or cooking methods (Simmons et al., 1985;
Pearson and Gillett, 1996; Harmon et al., 1989).

Undesirable flavor in sow meat is a more challenging issue to address.
Sow meat with undesirable flavors has been observed to possess a combination
of bitter, cardboard-like, and astringent off flavors as well as aromas detrimental
to its acceptability by consumers (Chen and Ho, 1998). Marination, which utilizes
injection or tumbling to disperse a solution of water, salt, and other non meat
ingredients has been used by the meat industry to change a products flavor and
texture profile. The potential exists to utilize marination to combat the problem of
undesirable flavors in sow meat. Research by Kauffman et al. (1998) has
indicated an improvement in flavor by injecting a solution of sodium bicarbonate
and salt in prerigor loins from gilts. Several studies have shown the potential of
phosphates to decrease and mask off flavors in pork. (Boles and Parrish, 1990;
Sutton et al., 1997; and Matlock et al., 1984).

The potential exists to utilize the synergistic effects of phosphates, sodium
bicarbonate, and salt as an effective intervention strategy to reduce or eliminate
undesirable flavors in sow meat. Phosphates increase water holding capacity as
well as providing flavor enhancementand controlling pH (Barbut et al., 1988,
Matlock et al., 1984, Keeton et al., 1984). Sodium bicarbonate offers an increase

in buffering capacity during cooking when flavor volatiles are formed (Mottram,

1998). Salt increases the intensity of flavors (Matlock et al., 1984, Barbut et al.,
1988). The hypothesis is marinating off flavored sow meat with a solution of
sodium bicarbonate, phosphates, and salt will minimize or eliminate the off
flavors and create a consumer acceptable product. Utilizing marination to
produce an acceptable whole muscle product from a sow loin would add value to
lower valued sow meat and result in new uses for it while creating better
marketing opportunities for sow meat.

The first objective of this study was to use a trained sensory panel to
identify an optimum concentration of sodium bicarbonate, phosphate, and
percent marinade solution that would eliminate or reduce off flavors in sow loins.
The second objective was to determine consumer acceptability of enhanced sow
loins treated with sodium bicarbonate and tripolyphosphate. Results of this study
will be transferred to the pork industry to provide guidelines for using sow meat
as a raw material for whole muscle value added pork products.

This thesis is formatted as 3 chapters. Chapter 1 is the review of
literature. Chapter 2 covers detailed materials and methods of the preliminary
study, study I, and study ll. Appendices that explain in detail protocols and
procedures of each experiment are referenced throughout Chapter 2. Chapter 3
is formatted in manuscript style according to the Journal of Meat Science. This
chapter includes and abstract, introduction, materials and methods, results and
discussion, tables, figures, and references inclusive of the preliminary study,

study I, and study ll.

CHAPTER 1

Review of Literature

I. Problems Associated with Sow Meat
Introduction

Meat is defined as intact, manufactured, or processed animal tissues that
are suitable for use as food (Hedrick et al., 1994). Nearly all animal species can
be used as a source of meat, however cattle, hogs, sheep, poultry, and fish
usually prevail as the predominant domestic and aquatic sources. Meat serves
an important role in the human diet. It is an excellent source of protein, iron,
essential B vitamins, and vitamin A (Romans et al., 1994). Meat animal
carcasses can be separated into three specific categories: roasts and steaks,
lean trim, and fat and bone. The American Meat Institute (1991) estimates that
41.0% of a beef carcass is composed of boneless roasts, steaks, and chops;
another 26.7% is lean trim; and 30.5% is fat and bone. Pork and lamb carcasses
have similar percentage categorical composition (Romans et al., 1994).

Primal and subprimal cuts from meat animal carcasses are fabricated into
steaks, chops, and roasts primarily from the middle sections (rib/rack, loin) of
beef, pork, and lamb because they include a larger percentage of tender muscles
(psoas major and longissimus dorsi). Muscle profiling (Jones et al., 2001) has
identified these muscles to be more tender than muscles found in the round/leg
and chuck/shoulder because they possess a lower amount of cross linked

insoluble collagen surrounding muscle fibers. These steaks, chops, and roasts

have very acceptable taste, texture, and tenderness attributes and do not require
additional manufacturing or processing to make them meet or exceed consumer
expectations (Romans et al., 1994).

Primal and subprimal cuts from meat animal carcasses that are 30 months
of age or older from the end sections of beef (round and chuck), pork (ham and
shoulder), and lamb (leg and shoulder) are found to be less desirable. This is
due to greater amounts of connective tissue from increases of collagen cross
linkages that occur as animals get older (Hedrick et al., 1989). This meat is
characterized as having lower value because it is less tender (Hedrick et al.,
1989), juicy, and flavorful. The majority of lower valued meat exists as meat
trimmings produced from fabricating primal and subprimal cuts into retail cuts.
These meat trimmings are either incorporated into sausage products or fresh
ground beef, pork, and lamb which are both lower valued products (Romans et
al., 1994).

The definition of lower value meat also includes primal, subprimal, and
retail cuts that possess marginal quality (inconsistent color, juiciness, and
tenderness) (Miller, 2000). These cuts may be improved using natural aging,
blade or enzymatic tenderizing, or marination. Pale, soft, and exudative (PSE)
pork and dark, firm, and dry (DFD) beef are two examples of meat with marginal
quality. PSE pork has a pale color, a soft texture, and “exudative" or poor water
binding properties. The PSE condition results in a cooked product that is dry and
tough in texture. DFD beef has a dark color, a firm texture, and a dry surface

appearance creating a consumer unacceptable raw meat appearance. Edible

by-products, sometimes referred to as “variety meats”, are also considered lower
valued meat (Romans et al., 1994) since they are used very little in the United
States due to an abundance of animal carcass meat and consumer eating
preference.

Value added technology is important to the meat industry. There is a
need to improve the flavor, tenderness, color, and inconsistent muscle size that
may be associated with lower valued meat. Improving these properties of lower
valued meat may also improve the marketing opportunities for products

manufactured from them.

Meat Flavor

Flavor is an important component of meat that dictates the sensory
qualities of products (Shahidi, 1998). Flavor, described by Mottram (1998), is
comprised of taste and aroma components. Taste is described by attributes that
include juiciness, tenderness, mouth feel, and flavor. Aroma is explicated as
volatile organic compounds in meat and detected by olfactory organs as a smell
(Mottram, 1998). Pork, like all meat, has little flavor or aroma until it undergoes
any type of thermal processing. Heating activates aroma compounds and these
aromas are then released for olfactory sensing (Shahidi, 1998). Raw, fresh pork
is bland, metallic, and slightly salty whereas the characteristic meaty pork type
flavors are found after heating. Chen and Ho (1998) discuss the pathways to

generating pork flavor as follows:

“The reactions involved in pork flavour development are very complex,
and they include the thermal degradation of individual components of pork
muscle, thermal oxidation of lipids, reactions between amino acids and

carbohydrates, and interactions between these various reactions.”

Industry feedback (Prochaska et al., 2001) indicates the presence of
undesirable flavors in an estimated 20-30% of sow carcasses. These off flavors
have been identified as a combination of bitter, cardboard-like, and astringent
(Miller 2000). Although undesirable flavors are not present in all sow carcasses,
there are no technologies readily available to successfully identify and sort
carcasses based on desirable or undesirable flavors. If sow carcasses could be
successfully sorted by desirable and undesirable flavors, more opportunities
would then exist to create value added whole muscle products that would be
consumer acceptable. As a result of not being able to identify sow carcasses that
have undesirable flavors, to provide products that meet consumer acceptability

standards, all sow carcasses are handled as if they possess off flavors.

Tenderness

According to Hedrick et al. (1989), tenderness in meat products has been
investigated more than any other palatability factor. The National Pork Board
(1999) defines tenderness as the average of muscle fiber tenderness (ease of
fiber fragmentation during mastication) and connective tissue tenderness when

connective tissue amount is perceived as low. Hedrick et al. (1989) stated that

muscles from young beef, pork, and lamb are more tender than that from older
sows, cows, and mutton, mainly due to lower amounts of cross linked insoluble
collagen. Additionally, muscles involved with locomotion (i.e. gluteus medius or
biceps femoris) are tougher than muscles surrounding the vertrebral column
which are used for support (i.e. longissimus dorsi or psoas major) because of the
higher amounts of collagen associated with locomotive muscles.

Mechanical or cooking methods can be used to help alleviate tenderness
challenges. Research by Corday et al. (1986) investigated the effects of blade
tenderization on the tenderness of restructured pork steaks made from sow
meat. They concluded that tenderness was improved (P<0.05) in restructured
pork steaks that were mechanically tenderized. In similar work, Huffman et al.
(1981) studied the effectiveness of mechanical tenderization on improving the
tenderness of restructured chops manufactured from sow meat. Results
indicated mechanically tenderized chops had a lower compression value (479 vs.
559 grams of force) than controls.

Meat cookery can also improve tenderness in sow meat. Cooking time
and temperature contribute to the tenderizing and toughening changes in meat
(Cross at al., 1986). Romans et al. (1994) suggests cooking one-inch thick pork
chops 8 to 11 minutes compared to 20 to 25 minutes per pound for leg roasts to
reach an internal temperature of 71°C. The longer cooking time for larger cuts
allows for a more complete breakdown of soluble connective tissue present in
cuts composed of tougher muscle groups. Simmons et al. (1985) found that

tenderness decreased (P<0.05) when the final internal temperature of pork chops

increased from 60°C to 80°C. This was suggested to be a result of lower cook

yields (P<0.05) found in 80°C chops compared to the 60° chops.

Muscle Color

Adams and Huffman (1972) suggested that consumers relate the color of
meat to freshness. The National Pork Board (Baas et al., 2000) states that the
color of pork has an important impact on consumer decisions. Consumers make
meat buying decisions based on their knowledge of what color meat products
have historically been and based on that what they believe the ideal meat color
should be. Based on this information, the National Pork Producers Council
developed guidelines to evaluate and identify the “ideal” color of pork. They
established ideal colors ranging from a pale pinkish gray to white color with a
Minolta L“ value of 61 to a dark purplish red color with a Minolta L* value of 31.
Consumer acceptable pork has been suggested to posses a reddish pink color
with a Minolta L* value of approximately 49 (Baas et al., 2000).

Kauffman and Marsh (1987) stated that as the chronological age of
animals increases, the quantity of myoglobin (a protein pigment) in muscle
increases. This results in darker colored meat. Nold et al. (1999) supported this
statement with research characterizing the color of muscles from boars, barrows,
and gilts. Muscles were found to have a darker color (P<0.001) in gilts (L* 44.54)
compared to barrows (L* 45.61). The darker color found in sow meat is

associated with a higher myoglobin content from an older animal resulting in a

lower L“ color value. This darker color creates a less consumer appealing whole

muscle product (Nold et al., 1999).

Muscle Size

Because sow meat is currently ground for comminuted sausages such as
fresh pork sausage, muscle size has not been a problem. However, this issue
will need to be addressed for sow meat to be used for whole muscle value added
products. Generally, muscles increase in size (diameter, length, width, depth) as
animals increase in weight. Studying the performance, carcass merit, and meat
quality of boars, gilts, and barrows, Grandhi and Cliplef (1996) found the loin eye
area of gilts to be larger (33 cm2) than that of barrows (31cm2). Sows can be
expected to have even larger loin eye areas as they have heavier weight
carcasses (120 to 180 kg). However, this is not always found to be true as sows
can also have much smaller loin eye areas due to large body weight fluctuations
as a result of intensive gestation, farrowing, lactating, and fattening cycles
(Taylor, 1995).

Products from carcasses which have inconsistently sized muscles and are
used for whole muscle meat products result in non uniform portion sizes of retail
products. Consumers can find these products to have greater or fewer servings
per package than desired compared to products from other pork carcasses with
consistently sized muscles. Portion sizing, which is physically reducing the size
of muscle by cutting it into desired portions, or restructuring are two methods to

combat this problem. Huffman et al. (1981) and Cordray et al. (1985) used

10

restructuring to combat this problem by manufacturing restructured chops with

desirable (smaller) size properties from hot processed sow meat.

II. Utilizing sow meat

Overview of Sow Meat

Approximately 98,000,000 hogs were slaughtered in the United States in
federally inspected plants in 2001. These hogs had an average hot carcass
weight of 87 kg producing nearly 771,107,029 kg of pork (USDA, 2001). Of
those hogs slaughtered, 3,000,000 were sows with an average hot carcass
weight of 143 kg constituting 3.1 % of the total hogs slaughtered in the United
States (USDA, 2002). Carcasses from sows are primarily processed into
comminuted products such as pre rigor fresh pork sausage (Huffman et al.,
1981). This process makes use of fat and muscle from the entire carcass.
However, undesirable flavors (Prochaska et al., 2001), lack of tenderness
(Corday et al., 1986), darker muscle color (Nold et al., 1999), and varying muscle
size (Huffman et al., 1981) are problems associated with sow meat that hinder its

ability to be used in whole muscle value added products.

Hot-Boning vs. Cold-Boning
Advantages

Hot-boning is a technique used primarily in the pork industry where
carcasses are fabricated pre-rigor shortly after slaughter with no chilling. In a

pre-rigor state, muscles have not yet gone through permanent actin and myosin

11

filament cross-bridging, have a high level of ATP (energy), and have high pH
relative to preslaughter conditions (Hedrick et al., 1989). There are a number of
advantages and disadvantages to hot-boning. One advantage of hot-boning is
the economic savings from eliminating energy costs associated with carcass
chilling. Pisula and Tyburcy (1996) stated that hot boning allows for a reduction in
cooler space of 50-55% ultimately reducing refrigeration input (energy) by 40-
50%. Hot-boned sow, pork, beef, and lamb carcasses have been shown to have
an increase in water holding capacity (WHC), cook yield, and color unlforrnity due
to a less severe pH decline resulting in less protein denaturation (Honikel and
Reagan, 1987).

Water holding capacity is a measure of a muscle’s ability to retain and
hold water and is determined by the degree of protein denaturation in the muscle
(Hedrick et al., 1989). A high WHO is a desirable characteristic in most
processed meats as it results in higher product yields and improved textural
properties (juiciness, tenderness). Increased levels of protein denaturation result
in a lower WHC. For normal slaughter and fabrication production where
carcasses are subjected to chilling, adenosine triphosphate (ATP) and glycogen
causes muscle pH to fall from approximately 7.4 to ultimate values in the 5.4-5.8
range (Hedrick et al., 1989). This rapid drop in pH combined with decreasing
muscle temperatures during the pH decline, cause denaturation of proteins with a
concomitant decrease in WHC.

Drip loss by suspending meat samples using a hook and string apparatus

and physically measuring fluid loss is one method to determine water holding

12

capacity. In the fresh state, hot-boned pork has a higher WHC with less drip loss
(4.3 vs. 2.8%) than cold boned pork (Reagan, 1983). In constrast, van Laack et
al. (1992) investigated the effects of hot-boning on water holding capacity and
found that drip loss for hot-boned pork was not statistically different when
compared to cold boned pork stored for 1 (2.2 vs. 2.8%), 5 (2.1 vs. 2.0%), or 13
days (0.9 vs. 1.0 %).

Cook yields of meat products with or without the inclusion of non meat
ingredients are investigated to measure differences in cooking loss. Products
manufactured from hot-boned meat are found to have higher yields than those
from cold-boned meat (Pisula and Tyburcy, 1996). Bentley et al. (1988) reported
luncheon loaves formulated with hot-boned meat had improved (P<0.05) cooking
yields (93.0 vs. 90.0%) compared to loaves made with cold-boned meat. Shin et
al. (1992) reported improved (P<0.05) cook yields from hot-boned pork roasts
when comparing the effects of heating rate on palatability and associated
properties of pre- and post rigor muscle.

In contrast to cold-boned carcasses, the breakdown of ATP and glycogen
in hot-boned carcasses causes muscle pH to fall from 7.4 to ultimate pH values
from 6.0 to 6.2 (Honikel and Reagan, 1987). Although the same temperatures
may exist in the muscle after slaughter but before rigor, the change in pH is much
smaller than in cold-boned muscle resulting in a less severe pH decline, less
protein denaturation, and a higher WHC. Since color of fresh meat is affected by

the severity of pH decline and ultimately protein denaturation, a less severe pH

13

decline with less protein denaturation will result in a more uniform color of lean in
the muscle (Honikel and Reagan, 1987).
Disadvantages

Hot-boning pork is currently used in the industry for sausage products and
not whole muscle cuts for a number of reasons. Hot-boned pork has been found
to have an increased muscle shape distortion and a higher incidence of microbial
growth.

Muscle Distortion

Removing warm muscles from a carcass during hot-boning allows for
them to contract more than intact muscles that remain stretched on the carcass
while chilling (Pisula and Tyburcy, 1996). In conventional slaughter, muscles
“stiffen” or go through rigor mortis. Rigor mortis begins after exsanguination and
is the formation of permanent cross-bridges in muscle between actin and myosin
causing stiffening of the muscle (Hedrick et al., 1989). These warm muscles
distort in shape and size since they have not gone through rigor mortis while
stretched on the carcass.

Microbial Growth

Hot-boned pork possesses a higher ultimate pH (6.0-6.2) creating a more
ideal environment for bacteria and microbial growth (Smulders and Eikelenboom,
1987). Choi et al. (1987) studied the effects of hot-boning with various levels of
salt and phosphates on microbial values of preblended pork. Their research
concluded that hot-boned blend treatments had higher mesophilic (P<0.05) and

psychotrophic (P<0.05) counts than cold-boned preblends.

14

Problems of microbial growth and muscle distortion minimize hot-boning
pork production in most commercial settings. The discussed negative quality
characteristics and the concern of producing undesirable products for further
processors and consumers discourage the implementation of hot-boning for

fabrication and use for whole muscle products.

Ill. Developing Value added products

Sources of Raw Materials

As previously discussed, there is an array of different raw materials from
edible by—products, meat trimmings and less tender cuts that can be used to
develop value added products. Each raw material possesses processing
characteristics that determine if it can be used as a raw ingredient for a specific
product. Specific value adding technologies are applied to raw ingredients in an
effort to develop products that meet or exceed consumer acceptability

(appearance and safety) and desirability (tenderness, juiciness, and flavor)

Value Added Technologies

Processing technologies and non-meat ingredients are used to improve
product uniformity (i.e. color, texture), tenderness, and juiciness. The overall
goal of value added products is to increase consumer acceptability and create
renewed interest to buy meat products.

Swart (2000) defines value added as processing steps or technologies

that contribute to the end state of a product which make the improved product

15

valued by customers. Injection, restructuring, mechanical tenderization, tumbling,
mixing, and usage of ingredients such as salt, phosphates, gums, and starches
can improve a product’s value. Products do not have to undergo complex
manufacturing or processing steps such as sectioning and forming or
restructuring to be classified value added. They can be included in this category
by technologies ranging between a slight modification in packaging or creating a
new name for an existing product to producing a restructured and reformed
product.
Injection

Injection technology is used to physically distribute brine (a combination of
salt and water; Romans et al., 1994) or a marinade (a solution of salts,
phosphates, and spices) into whole muscle meat and poultry through needles
that penetrate into the muscle and distribute the brine or marinade under
pressure. Injection is used to improve the juiciness, tenderness, and flavor of a
meat product. Research has shown that injection is an ideal method to distribute
non-meat ingredients such as salt, phosphates, nitrates, cure accelerators,
sweeteners, seasonings, non-meat proteins, starches, gums, water, and
preservatives in meat products. Vote et al. (2000) revealed that injecting beef
strip loins with solutions containing sodium tripolyphosphate, sodium lactate, and
sodium chloride improved tenderness (P<.05), juiciness (P<.05), and cooked
beef flavor (P<.10). Sheard et al. (1999) and Sutton et al. (1997) investigated
injecting pork loins with a marinade consisting of polyphosphates and water to

improve sensory characteristics. They found that polyphosphates improved

16

water holding capacity, and generally produced more tender and juicy chops than
control chops. The benefits of injecting has enabled the pork industry to inject
marinade solutions into fresh pork thus creating the term “enhanced pork”.
Restructuring

Restructured products are manufactured from muscle groups that are
partially or completely comminuted and reformed into the same or different form.
Restructuring uses three basic approaches: chunking and forming, flaking and
forming, and tearing and forming (Pearson et al., 1996). Taking muscles apart,
physically manipulating them, and reforming them into a specific shape has a
number of advantages. Restructured products have a texture that closely
resembles intact meat cuts and are more economical to produce from less tender
muscles and meat trimmings than boneless intact meat cuts. Restructuring also
allows the possibility for specific portion control (Pearson et al., 1996).

From a processors viewpoint, restructuring aids in accurate portion and
compositional control, easier slicing and serving, more accurate predictions of
yields and servings. (Akamittath et al.,1990). However, problems such as color
instability and fat oxidation do exist with this technology. Akamittath et al. (1990)
found that lipid oxidation could be inhibited up to four weeks in restructured
frozen beef steaks, up to six weeks in frozen turkey steaks, and up to eight
weeks in frozen pork steaks with the use of phosphates. Further investigation
discovered color stability (the ability for a product to retain its ideal color) and lipid
oxidation to be highly correlated. In related studies, Schwartz and Mandigo

(1976) further studied the effects of various salt and sodium tripolyphosphate

17

combinations on restructured pork with varying results. Their findings showed
that as salt levels increased (0-2.25%), raw color scores decreased (P<0.05) and
TBA values measuring lipid oxidation increased (P<0.05). As phosphate levels
increased (0-0.5%), raw color scores and TBA (lipid oxidation) values increased
(P<0.05). However, salt and phosphates synergistically produced color scores
higher (P<0.05) than salt or phosphates could alone.
Mechanical Tenderization

Mechanical tenderization is a technology used to improve tenderness of
meat products by destroying connective tissue and muscle fibers (Hedrick et al.,
1989). It is very effective in improving the tenderness of meat from carcasses
with high amounts of connective tissue (Pearson and Gillet, 1996). Huffman
(1981) and Booren et al. (1981) reported improvements in tenderness measured
by compression and Kramer shear respectively by blade tenderizing restructured
pork chops, USDA Good (currently called Select) and Choice beef steaks, and
restructured beef steaks respectively. The advantages of mechanical
tenderization are: improving acceptable tenderness of steaks and chops, creating
a more uniformly tender product, and improving cost effectiveness and ease of
implementation in a plant setting (Hayward et al., 1980).

The effectiveness of value added technologies can vary from one product
to another due to differences in raw ingredient type, the final product desired, and
the overall goals of each individual product. Some product goals may be: is the

product intended for food service or retail, which economic consumer group (low,

18

middle, or high income) may have interest, and what final destination (restaurant,

fast food chain, household, or export market) the product is best suited.

Developing Marinated I Enhanced Product

Marinated or enhanced products are common processing practices for
whole muscle products. Non-meat ingredients including sodium chloride, sodium
phosphates, and spices are used for developing these products. These
ingredients serve important roles to increase flavor, texture, and shelf life of
marinated products (Miller, 2000).
Non-Meat Ingredients

Non-meat ingredients are defined as any type of non-animal based
ingredient that is allowed as an additive in meat products by the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
(Pearson et al., 1996). This list includes water, salt, ascorbates, erythorbates,
sugars, phosphates, starches, gums, carrageenans, and spices just to name a
few. Non-meat ingredients are added to fresh or processed meat to improve
juiciness and/or tenderness, enhance flavor, stabilize or improve color, increase
shelf life, control microbial growth, or increase the water holding capacity of a
product (Miller 2000). Non-meat ingredients are also used to increase protein
content, improve emulsion stability, improve fat binding properties, or improve
slicing characteristics (Pearson et al., 1996). These beneficial properties of non-
meat ingredients allow for increased success in developing value added

products.

19

Water/ Injection Level %

Of all the non meat ingredients, water constitutes the largest usage. Water
plays a significant role in the development of value added products and serves a
number of important functions in meat applications. Water acts as an ideal
dispersing medium for non-meat ingredients that are water-soluble or can be
suspended for subsequent addition into meat (Romans et al., 1994). These
solutions, marinades, or brines can then be added to meat by injection, soaking,
tumbling, chopping, or mixing.

Water, in conjunction with other non-meat ingredients, assists in reducing
cooking loss and maintaining a final cooked product that is moist and juicy by
compensating for moisture lost during thermal processing (Romans et al., 1994).
It also reduces product costs by providing opportunities to have products with
greater water levels than those naturally present in raw meat (Romans et al.,
1994). Water can then be described as a cheap ingredient source ideal for
increasing the profitability of fresh meat products for processors.

However, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food
Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) does regulate the amount of water (and other
non-meat ingredients) that may be added to products. Specific product labeling
must define the amount of solution (including water) added in order for a product
to pass FSIS inspection (Miller 2000). Fresh meat products with up to 10%
added solution must be labeled deep balasted or marinated. Those fresh
products that contain a solution over 10% must be labeled “containing up to” and

the actual percentage of solution listed. These regulations protect consumers

20

from false information and false representation of the contents in the meat
products they are buying.

Interestingly, water has also been suggested to dilute out meat flavor
compounds and provide a decrease in meat flavor. However, the functionality of
water is limited without the use of non-meat ingredients or mechanical actions.
The addition of water as a single ingredient is suggested to result only in
increased package purge (Miller, 2000).

Sodium Chloride

The use of sodium chloride (salt) used in meat products has been used
since the beginning of meat consumption. Salt was first found beneficial (at very
high levels) as a preservative by lowering the water activity in meat and
consequently reducing microbial growth and rancidity that contribute to spoilage
(Romans et al., 1994). Although the addition of salt is self limiting, it is closely
monitored by processors due to concerns of dietary sodium and its relationship to
hypertension (Rust 1987). Further investigation of salt found it to have other
beneficial properties. Rust (1987) states that salt has three primary functions:
preservation, flavor enhancement, and protein extraction for texture and binding
purposes. Miller (2000) and Romans et al. (1994) stated that salt improves water
holding capacity resulting in decreased purge loss and improved cooking yields.

Salt improves water holding capacity by swelling meat proteins up to twice
their normal size. This is accomplished by the chloride ion of salt binding to meat
protein filaments. When bound, the chloride ion lowers the isoelectric point while

increasing ionic strength of meat proteins. This increases the repulsive forces

21

within the protein structure matrix creating an unfolding of the matrix that
subsequently allows for swelling. This swelling provides more protein side
chains to be available for binding water (Lindsay, 1985). Research conducted by
Matlock et al. (1984), Schwartz and Mandigo (1976), and Vote et al. (2000)
report improvements in water holding capacity by using salt in frozen pork
sausage (1.0%), restructured pork (0.75%), and beef strip loins (0.5%)
respectively. These levels were found desirable to maintain acceptable yield and
sensory properties with no bitter, sour, or salty flavors.
Phosphates

Phosphates are compounds manufactured from phosphoric acid where
the acid has been neutralized with sodium, potassium, or calcium alkali metal
ions (Dziezak, 1990). Phosphates can be categorized as orthophosphates with
only one phosphorus atom or polyphosphates composed of two or more
phosphorus atoms (Sofos, 1986). Phosphates used in meat products are
predominately sodium based. The allowable limit for phosphates in meat
products is 0.5% of the finished product weight (USDA, FSIS, 2002).

Townsend and Olson (1987) stated that the primary reason for using
phosphates in meat products is to increase water holding capacity and reduce
purge (amount of released water). This is accomplished by increasing the pH of
meat that results in a shifting of the pH away from the isoelectric point. This pH
shifting increases repulsive forces resulting in an increased ionic strength, an
increased amount of negative charges, and a greater association for water

binding (Trout and Schmidt, 1983). Polyphosphates can further bind water by

22

attaching to a positively charged group in a muscle structure while the chain of
the polyphosphate attracts water molecules resulting in further increasing the
amount of water bound or water holding capacity (Sofos, 1986).

Improved water holding capacity by using phosphates has been well
documented (Sheard et al., 1999; Sutton et al., 1997; Smith et al., 19849; Vote et
al., 1999; Boles and Parrish, 1990). Specifically, Sheard et al. (1999)
investigated the effect of injecting pork loins with polyphosphates on juiciness
and tenderness. Their research found phosphates at 0.3% and 0.5% injection
levels to decrease (P<0.05) cooking loss compared to no injection. However, no
significant differences were found in cooking loss between 0.3% and 0.5%
treatments. Interestingly, their research also showed an increase in tenderness
by increasing phosphates levels from 0% to 0.5%. An increase in tenderness
was hypothesized to be a result of two actions: 1) phosphates weakening the
binding of myosin heads to actin, not allowing the association of actomyosin, thus
resulting in minor expansion of muscle filaments; 2) the higher water content
resulting in a higher water/protein ratio.

Although phosphates have been shown to contribute to higher water
holding capacity properties, they have also been associated with changes in
meat texture and flavor. Miller (2000) suggests that high levels of phosphates
may result in a product that has a soft texture. This soft (mushy) texture could
lead to a product considered unacceptable by consumers.

Phosphates used at high levels have been recognized to impart off flavors

described as soapy or metallic. Craig et al. (1991) investigating the use of

23

phosphates in turkey discovered off flavors to be greater (P<0.05) in samples
with 0.5% compared to those with 0% or 0.3%. Vote et al. (2000) and Smith et
al. (1984) also recognized that off flavors were present in some pork and beef
roasts injected with phosphates. However, Keeton et al. (1984) found no
detectable off flavors in pork from phosphates used at 0.5%.

Interestingly, Sheard et al. (1999) found that pork loins injected with 0.3%
and 0.5% phosphates had a less intensive pork flavor. Sutton et al. (1997)
agreed with this statement suggesting that pork flavor was partially masked by
the addition of 0.4% phosphate in pork roasts. Although not well understood, this
decrease in pork flavor could be a result of the buffering properties of phosphates
controlling the pH of meat proteins proposed by Trout and Schmidt (1983), Miller
(2000), and Dziezak (1990).

Sodium Bicarbonate

Sodium bicarbonate is classified as an alkaline (base) substance that is
used in a variety of applications in foods and food processing. It is the most
common leavening salt used for foaming and gas releasing properties. Sodium
bicarbonate is also quite soluble in water (619 g per 100 ml) and ionizes
completely. It is also known as an excellent buffer and can be used to control pH
(Lindsay, 1985). The buffering and pH controlling properties of sodium
bicarbonate make it an interesting compound to study for use in meat products.

However, limited research has been done with the use of sodium
bicarbonate in meat products. Bechtel et al. (1985) investigated the use of

sodium bicarbonate as a substitute for sodium chloride in frankfurters. Their

24

findings discovered that 1% and 2% added sodium bicarbonate linearly
increased (P<0.05) pH and decreased (P<0.05) free water. This was suggested
to occur due to the buffering ability of sodium bicarbonate. Their work also found
frankfurters with increasing levels (1% and 2%) of sodium bicarbonate to
possess a poorer texture, mouthfeel (P<0.05), and an increase (P<0.05) in off
flavors described as metallic and alkali. Large vacuoles or air spaces were found
in the surfaces of the samples. This agrees with a statement by Lindsay (1985)
proposing that gas released from sodium bicarbonate along with expansion of
trapped air and moisture vapor imparts a characteristic porous structure on
finished products.

Kauffman et al. (1998) investigated the effects of injecting a solution
containing sodium bicarbonate or a combination sodium chloride and sodium
bicarbonate into pork loins pre-rigor and post-rigor in an effort to prevent pale,
soft, and exudative meat. Their results showed that injecting sodium bicarbonate
pre-rigor and post-rigor increased (P<0.05) the final (ultimate) pH between 0.1
and 0.6 units and decreased (P<0.05) drip loss 5.4% and 4.3% respectively.
Interestingly, the sodium bicarbonate + sodium chloride solution had improved
(P<0.05) flavor and juiciness compared with other treatments suggesting that

synergistic effects may have occurred.

Challenges for Value Added Products

Processing technologies can increase the utilization of lower valued

muscles by improving their quality and consistency. Applying specific processes

25

to increase uniformity of color, texture, and tenderness adds value to products.
However, a number of challenges must be addressed when manufacturing value
added products.

Technologies such as restructuring, blade tenderization, marination by
injection, and vacuum packaging can cause adverse problems with customer
acceptance. These technologies may create consumer confusion and concern.
The consumer’s lack of familiarity with value added terminology printed on labels
such as “enhanced" or “injected with a solution containing...", creates confusion
as to what has actually been done to the product. This confusion can develop
into concern as consumers may inquire if value added products compared to
traditional products are still safe and wholesome.

Along with consumer acceptance, the processing industry also faces a
number of challenges with value added products. One of these challenges is
minimizing microbial growth in products where technologies such as injection or
blade tenderization may introduce food borne pathogens. Banks et al. (1998)
investigated what effects injecting fresh pork loins with lactate/sodium
tripolyphosphate had on aerobic plate counts. Research suggests that the
increase in pH from the addition of phosphates in a meat product can increase
the susceptibility of microbial growth, consequently decreasing shelf life. Choi et
al. (1987) conducted similar research investigating the effects of hot boning and
several combinations of salt and phosphate on microbial growth. It was reported
that microbial counts in hot boned preblended pork were significantly higher than

that of cold blended pork regardless of salt and phosphate levels. However,

26

these differences were not imperative as both hot boned and cold boned
microbial counts were within acceptable ranges (less than 105 organisms/g;
(Yanai et al., 1976).

Another challenge of producing value added products is controlling and
extending the shelf life of value added products (Sutton et al., 1997). Lipid
oxidation impacts the shelf life of meat products. Lipid oxidation causes
rancidity, which is one of the most serious flavor problems in meat products
(Pearson et al., 1996) and is common when mechanical machinery is introduced
to product production. Rancidity occurs when fats are oxidized, become free
radicals, and react with a number of pre existing reactants. These products
readily decompose into acids, aldehydes, alcohols, carbonyls, and ketones.
Some of these compounds can then contribute to strong flavors or odors that
contribute to the rancidity of a product (Schmidt, 2000). Schwartz and Mandigo
(1976) investigated the effects of salt, sodium tripolyphosphate, and storage time
on restructured pork concluding that both salt and sodium tripolyphosphates
increased thiobarbituric acid (TBA) values. In similar research, Booren et al.
(1981) discovered that the addition of salt and the use of blade tenderization
when producing section and formed beef steaks also increased TBA values.
This work is also in agreement with Choi et al. (1987) who studied the effects of
hot boning and levels of salt and phosphates on TBA values of preblended pork
during cooler storage. His findings indicated that there were no differences in

TBA values between hot boned and cold boned preblends regardless of

27

phosphate levels. However, the addition of salt (1.5% or 3.0%) was shown to
increase the TBA values in both cold boned and hot boned preblends.

Controlling the development of off flavors is another challenge associated
with value added products. “Fresh” flavor quality or flavors that are recognized
as meat type flavors by consumers are necessary for their acceptance. Off flavor
development is a result of previously discussed lipid oxidation, cooking and
reheating causing warmed over flavor (Craig et al., 1991), and the use of non
meat ingredients such as phosphates or non traditional spices. Warmed over
flavor describes the rapid development of undesirable flavors in cooked meat
during refrigerated storage. Phospholipids present as a result of oxidation of fat
into free radicals contribute to the development of this undesirable flavor
(Hettiarachchy and Gnanasambandam, 2000). Phosphates, salts, and flavorings
are commonly used to combat warmed over flavor and improve palatability
characteristics of meat products (Vote et al., 1999).

However, non-meat ingredients can cause off flavor development.
Phosphates when used at high levels (0.5% wat) commonly produce flavors
identified as soapy or alkaline tasting (Craig et al., 1991). Sutton et al. (1997)
investigated the effects of sodium lactate and sodium phosphate on the physical
and sensory characteristics of pumped loins. This research indicated that using
phosphates and sodium lactate improved tenderness, juiciness, while decreasing
purge loss, and cooking loss. However, phosphates were found to partially mask
pork flavor and produce a soapy and alkaline type taste. Sodium lactate was

found to enhance the soapy and alkaline type taste. Sheard et al. (1999)

28

investigated injecting polyphosphates into pork after cooking and found similar
results of improved juiciness and tenderness but also finding a decrease in
normal pork flavor intensity and an increase in abnormal flavor intensity.

Although using phosphates, sodium lactate, salts, sodium chloride and
spices in meat products have been shown to improve the palatability and sensory
aspects of value added meat products, other challenges still exist. Investigating
the effects of salt and sodium trypolyphosphate on restructured pork, Schwartz et
al. (1976) recognized that salt and sodium trypolyphosphate greatly reduced
(P<0.01) cooking yields (difference between the precooked and cooked weights)
but salt increased (P<0.01) packaging loss (difference between the raw weight at
the time of packaging and the frozen weight prior to cooking) as levels increased
from 0 to 2.25%. Their work also discovered an increase in product stickiness as
salt levels increased from 0 to 2.25% causing meat particles to adhere to the
packaging material. Davis et al. (1977) discovered that blade tenderizing
boneless beef strip loins resulted in greater weight losses during storage and a
decreased overall appearance (a combination of muscle color, freshness of fat,
surface discoloration, and peripheral discoloration). Hayward et al. (1980) and
Davis et al. (1975) both concluded that blade tenderizing beef longissimus
muscles resulted in increased cooking losses. However, Tatum et al. (1977)
found no differences in cooking loss between blade tenderized and non-blade
tenderized beef roasts.

Food safety, shelf life, off flavor development, cooking loss, and packaging

losses are obstacles to overcome when developing value added products.

29

These challenges require special attention by addressing the problem and

developing solutions that will ensure the success of that particular product.

Benefits of Value Added Products
Although there appears to be many challenges associated with the
development or manufacture of value added products, there are several reasons
to continue the effort to develop them. One reason is to utilize lower valued
meat, which can be harder to market. Lower valued meat has a lower value
because there is currently little demand for its use. If value adding technologies
can be applied to lower value meat, the demand for lower valued meat will
increase subsequently increasing the value of it. A second reason is to improve
the uniformity of existing products. Miller (2000) stated that value added products
allow for improvements in quality attributes by having: 1) a more uniform color of
cut surface lean and in some cases an improved “ideal” species (beef, pork,
lamb, poultry) color or appearance; 2) improved tenderness of a product line (i.e.
beef steaks) or improved tenderness uniformity within a product; 3) improved
juiciness of a product line (i.e. pork chops) or improved juiciness uniformity within
a product; and 4) and extended shelf life of a products.
Value added products increase product variety or choice that consumers
can choose from. Isolated soy proteins, gums, and starches can be used to
replace expensive animal protein (Keeton et al., 1984) creating the opportunities

to produce lower-cost extended products. This can become increasingly

30

important when developing meat products that are economically competitive with

other protein sources such as beans.

IV. Summary

The development of value added products is a continual process that aids
in the utilization of under or lower valued meat. The concept of utilizing lower
valued sow meat as the primary raw ingredient to develop value added products
is a novel yet important area of interest for investigation. Research has been
conducted to improve the functionality and textural attributes of raw meat
ingredients for use in value added products. This research has shown through
an array of technologies (i.e. tenderization, restructuring, marination, etc.) that
consumer acceptable value added products can be achieved. These
technologies result in products that possess at least the minimal quality attributes
of tenderness, juiciness, and flavor to be deemed acceptable by consumers.

The presence of off flavors in lower valued pre-rigor sow meat creates a
serious problem (Prochasksa et al., 2001) when trying to attain a consumer
acceptable product. The sporadic occurrence of these off flavors and the lack of
available technology to detect and sort carcasses that possess off flavors forces
processors to grind and heavily season the sow meat. This process successfully
masks off flavors but produces a lower value ground product (i.e. fresh ground
pork sausage).

With the continual acceptance of enhanced or marinated pork products,

marination is theorized to be an excellent technology to distribute salt, water,

31

phosphates, and sodium bicarbonate into sow meat to minimize the presence of
off flavors. These ingredients could have the potential to manipulate the
biological systems in the meat structure to act as a buffer to control pH, a water
binder to create dilution effects, and a flavor enhancer to increase pork type
flavors.

If a marinade containing salt, water, phosphates, and sodium bicarbonate
could successfully mask off flavors found in sow meat, then higher value whole
muscle sow pork products could then be marketed. This technology could create
a new avenue of marketing lower value sow meat and allow processors to

market sow meat as a value added product with a larger return.

32

CHAPTER 2

Materials and Methods

I. Preliminary Study: Identifying sow loins with atypical aromas and

flavors with electronic nose technology.

Principal component analysis (PCA) using an Applied Sensor 3320 was
utilized in preliminary research to determine if differentiation could be achieved
between sow loin chops with atypical flavors and aromas (n=3) and chops with
no atypical flavors and aromas (n=2). A chemical sensor system composed of a
relatively limited number of gas sensors with overlapping sensitivity was used to
span a large range of volatile compounds thus creating unique response patterns
when exposed to different odors. The gas sensors used for this testing were
FE102A for amines and esters, FE103A for aldehydes and alcohols, and
FE105A, M0102, M0111, M0112 which are proprietary sensors.

Three grams in triplicates of each sample were run under the following
conditions: idle 25°C, standby, 60°C for 5 min and incubation, and 60°C for 10
min. PCA was performed using the Applied Sensor 3320 equipped with Senstool
Software (version 2.7.5.27). Results of this study showed that it was possible to
differentiate between sow loin samples with atypical flavors and aromas from
samples with no atypical flavors and aromas by detecting the chemical properties

from vapor emitted by the samples.

33

Based on these results a second preliminary study was conducted to
determine if various combinations of a solution containing sodium
tripolyphosphate (STP) (0.3 and 0.5%; Brifisol 512; BK Giulini Corporation, Simi
Valley, CA), sodium bicarbonate (BICARB) (0.25 and 0.5 M; J.T. Baker,
Phillipsburg, NJ) and salt (1%) at 15% addition (wt/wt) would minimize the
amount of volatile compounds emitted from tainted loin chops. Chops were
analyzed as previously described. Results of this preliminary study indicated that
loin chops treated with a 15% solution of STP (0.30%) and 1% salt (Coded
sample 223) and loin chops treated with a 15% solution of BICARB (0.5M) and
1% salt were similar to non-tainted control loin chops (Coded sample 15). Based
on these results the following parameters were established for the formulation of
marinade solutions for further investigation as a 23 central composite design:
STP at 0.25 and 0.50%, BICARB at 0.35 and 0.7M concentration, and PUMP

(injection level) at 5 and 15% with salt held at a constant of 1.0%.

II. Study l - Determination of percent sodium tripolyphosphate, sodium
bicarbonate concentration, and injection level to minimize

atypical aromas and flavors in sow loins.

Experimental Design and Data Analysis
The experimental design was a 23 central composite rotatable design
(Cochran and Cox, 1957). Parameters for the variables were set as follows:

sodium tripolyphosphate= 0—0.50% (wt/wt), sodium bicarbonate= 0.35-0.70 M,

34

and injection level: 5-15%. Fifteen combination treatments of the three variables
were generated from the central composite design with one treatment
combination (the center point) replicated six times to derive error degrees of
freedom to test for significance (Appendix 1). A second order response surface
regression model was used for simultaneous analysis of two non-meat ingredient
variables (sodium tripolyphosphate, sodium bicarbonate) and one processing
variable (injection level).

For each factor assessed, the variance was separated into linear,
quadratic, and cross product components to assess the adequacy of the second-
order polynomial function and the relative significance of these components. The
significance of the equation parameters for each response variable was
assessed by F-test and the level of significance was determined at P<0.10.

For all other experiments in Study |, main effects were tested for
significance using a mixed-effects model. The significant main effect means
were separated using Satterthwaite approximation (Satterthwaite, 1946)

Plant Procurement

Boneless sow longissimus dorsi muscles (loins) were removed from hot-
boned sow carcasses at Jimmy Dean Foods, Inc., Cordova, TN. These loins
were removed approximately 45 minutes after exsanguination. The loins were
almost completely defatted during early hot-boning stages. The loins were then
conveyored to a skinning area to remove the remaining subcutaneous fat and

then conveyored to a spiral freezer (0°C) (10 minute time period). Loins entering

the spiral freezer had an average internal temperature of 372°C.

35

The loins remained in the spiral freezer (0°C) for 45 minutes where they
were crust frozen to an average internal temperature of 63°C. After leaving the
spiral freezer, loins were evaluated to determine if they had off flavors or not by
trained research personnel. For this evaluation, a 0.64 cm slice was removed
from the loin and microwaved and both smelled and tasted to determine if
undesirable flavors were present. The loins were then individually wrapped in
SaranTM over wrap, and packaged 4 loins per box. This process was completed
within 60 minutes. The boxes were placed in a blast freezer (-17.8°C) and
spaced so they would not be insulated by each other. The boxes were held in
blast freezer for 36 h to reach an internal temperature of —17.8°C then shipped in
insulated coolers packed with dry ice by overnight carrier to the Michigan State
University meat laboratory.

Product Procurement

Sixteen loins with off flavors and 13 loins with no off flavors were sent to
the MSU meat laboratory. Upon arrival (n=29), each loin was randomly
numbered to identify off flavor loins and non-off flavor loins. The SaranTM over
wrap was removed from each loin. A 0.64 cm slice was removed with a band
saw from the posterior end of each frozen loin for off flavor I no off flavor
verification. This was accomplished by microwaving each 0.64 cm sliCe for 30 s
and smelling or tasting of the sample by a trained research and development
personnel. Two additional 0.64 cm slices (10 9 total) were removed with a band
saw from posterior end of each frozen loin for rigor determination. Each loin was

then weighed, vacuum packaged using 30.5 x 40.6 cm bags (Cryovac,

36

Simpsonville, SC), placed on trays, and stored in -10°C freezer. Samples were
stored in -20°C freezer.
Ultimate pH Determination

Upon arrival, samples (10 g) were removed from each loin and diced with
a knife into fine pieces. One gram was weighed and placed into a 50 ml
centrifuge plastic tube. Ten ml of distilled, deionized water was added to each
centrifuge tube. Samples were homogenized with Polytron mixer (PT-35,
Kinematica, AG, Switzerland) on speed setting 2 for 2, 10 s bursts. The pH of
each sample was measured using Accumet pH meter (AB 15, Fisher Scientific,
Co., Pittsburgh, PA) calibrated with phosphate buffers 4.0 and 7.0. After first pH
measurement, samples were allowed to rest in —6.7°C cooler for 10 min. After
the 10 min rest, the pH of samples was remeasured (Appendix 2). All samples
were done in duplicates.
R- Value Determination Test

Ten gram frozen samples were diced with a knife into fine pieces. Two
grams of sample placed in a 50 ml plastic centrifuge tube. Ten ml of 38-40°C 0.6
N Perchloric acid (Appendix 3) was added to a 50 ml plastic centrifuge tube
containing meat sample. Samples were homogenized using a Polytron mixer
(PT-35, Kinematica, AG, Switzerland) on speed setting 4 for 2 bursts of 30 ~s
each while the sample was on ice. Samples were then transferred from 50 ml
plastic centrifuge tube to 30 ml glass centrifuge tube. The samples were then
centrifuged at 40,000 x g for 20 minutes in centrifuge (RC-5 superspeed

refrigerated, Sorvall Co., Norwalk, CT). The tubes were removed from the

37

centrifuge and placed in a bucket of ice for chilling. Each tube was mixed using a
Vortex mixer (American Scientific Products, McGaw Park, IL) for 15 s to ensure
proper mixture. Three aliquots (60 ul each) of supernatant were pipetted into 3
quartz cuvettes. Three ml of 0.1 M phosphate buffer (Appendix 3) was added to
each of the 3 cuvettes containing the supernatant. The cuvettes were covered
with parafilm and inverted 3 times to mix. Cuvettes were then read on
spectrophotometer (Lambda 20, Perkin Elmer, Norwalk, CT) at A250 and A260
wavelengths.
pH Determination

Raw (n=29) and marinated treatment combination (n=15) pH were
determined as described in appendix 4.
Subjective / Objective Quality Analysis

The loins were tempered in 26°C cooler for 18 h. Each loin was weighed
for initial purge loss (Appendix 5). The loins were then separated into 2 equal (in
length) sections by a cross cut at the midline of each loin. The anterior and
posterior ends of each section from each loin were labeled. The following was
removed from the anterior end of the posterior section of each loin: 1) a 0.64 cm
slice (~20 g) for TBA analysis (Appendix 6); A 0.64 cm slice (~20 g) for proximate
analysis (Appendix 7) 2) Two, 2.54 cm chops for subjective color, marbling, and
firmness; objective color (Appendix 5); and drip loss analysis (appendix 8). A 10
minute bloom time was allowed for chops before analyzing for color, marbling,
and firmness. Following the removal of the two chops, each loin section was

weighed for 7 day purge loss (Appendix 9) analysis and vacuum packaged in

38

30.5 x 40.6 cm vacuum bags (Cryovac, Simpsonville, 80) using Mutlivac
(AG800, SeppHaggenmuller KG, Germany) set at 3.0 vacuum, 4.5 bar heat.
A. Color

Two, 2.54 cm chops from the anterior end of the posterior section of each
loin were used for color, marbling, flrrnness, and drip loss. Subjective color was
analyzed by methods described in Pork Quality and Composition (Baas et al,
2000; Appendix 5).

Objective color was measured using a Minolta Chromameter CR-310
(Commission lntemational D’Edairerage (CIE) L*a*b*, Ramsey, NJ). Three
readings were taken and averaged, of each exposed surface of each sample for
L* (lightness), a“ (redness), and b* (yellowness) values.

8. Marbling

Subjective color was analyzed according to National Pork Producers Pork

Quality Standards (Des Moines, IA) (Appendix 5).
C. Firmness

Subjective firmness was determined according to National Pork Producers

Pork Quality Standards (Des Moines, IA) (Appendix 5).
D. 48 Hour Drip Loss

Each loin chop was labeled A (first chop removed from loin) and B
(second chop removed from loin) and weighed. The chops were then suspended
by string and hook method procedures modified from Baas et al. (2000) and
Honikel (1987) for 48 h in 28°C cooler. Chops were reweighed after 48 h and

percent drip loss was calculated (Appendix 8).

39

TBA Analysis

Thiobarbituric acid analysis was conducted on day 1 and day 33 for phase
1 of project to monitor oxidative rancidity. Day 33 was the day the trained
sensory panel evaluated the corresponding samples. Four replicates were run
for each sample according to methods established by Tarladgis et al. (1960) and
Zipser et al. (1962) modified by Rhee (1978). (Appendix 6)
Proximate Composition Analysis

Proximate composition of samples was determined according to AOAC
(2000) procedures found in Appendix 7.
Marinade Uptake Analysis

For this experiment, two, 2.54 cm chops previously used for 48 h drip loss
analysis were utilized. This experiment was done in triplicates according to
procedures from Baas et al. (2000) found in Appendix 10.
Cook Yield Analysis

The experiment was a continuation of the marinade uptake experiment
and was done in triplicates according to procedures from Baas et al. (2000)
found in Appendix 10.
Marination Analysis

A. Loin Section Sorting

Loin sections were sorted into 2 groups: 1) loins with off flavors (32 loin
sections) and 2) loins with no off flavors (26 loin sections). The off flavor group
was separated into 3 sub groups and organized by weight. Three weight groups

were developed for 20 loin sections that were chosen. They were: light weight

40

group of loin sections weighing 0.30 to 0.38 kg (n=8), medium weight group of
loin sections weighing 0.38 to 0.46 kg (n=6), and heavy weight group of loin
sections weighing 0.46 to 0.88 kg (n=6). Loin sections were grouped by size to
minimize tumbling effects during marination.
B. Marination

Marinades were developed at MSU according to formulations developed
using SAS response surface regression analysis (Version 8.2, SAS institute Inc.,
Cary, NC) as shown in Appendix 1. Treatments were randomly assigned to loin
sections. Treatment marinades were manufactured according to procedures
found in appendix 10. The marinades were added into 30.5 x 40.6 cm vacuum
bags (Cryovac Co., Simpsonville, SC) that already contained the appropriate loin
section. Each vacuum bag (n=20) containing loin section and marinade was
vacuum packaged using a Multivac vacuum packager (AGW, SeppHaggenmuller
KG, Germany) with 1.5 vacuum and 3.0 bar heat. The 20 loin sections were
segregated into light (n=8), medium (n=6), 8 heavy (n=6) groups (n=3) so they
would fit into the tumbler.

C. Tumbling

A Lyco vacuum tumbler (model 20, Columbus, Wl) set at 70% with 20 psi.
of vacuum was used. Each group of loin sections (light, medium, heavy) was
tumbled using a 1 minute tumble and 1 minute rest cycle repeated 15 times. The
total actual tumbling time was 15 minutes. Loin sections were then removed

from tumbler and placed in —23.3°C freezer for 18 h.

41

Loin Fabrication

Marinated and non-marinated (controls) frozen loin sections were
fabricated using an electric band saw into 2.54 cm chops for trained sensory
evaluation. Twenty loin sections with treatments (1-15), twelve non treated loin
sections with off flavors, and 12 loin sections with no off flavors were removed
from —23.3°C freezer. Beginning from the anterior end of the posterior section or
posterior end of the anterior section, a 1.27 cm slice (~30 g) was removed for
TBA analysis and marinated proximate composition. (Appendices 6 & 7). Chops
(2.54 cm) were then removed following the location procedures as described
previously from the remainder of the loin sections. Chops (2.54 cm) were
packaged 2 per and 3 per bag to attain at least 25.4 cm2 of chop cut surface per
bag as the loin eye size of a majority of the loin sections was smaller that 12.7
cm2. Chops were packed using 10.2 x 30.5 cm vacuum package bags (Cryovac
Co., Simpsonvile, SC) and vacuum packaged using Multivac vacuum packager
(AG800, SeppHaggenmuller KG, Germany) set at 2.5 vacuum and 7.0 bar heat
with the seal of the bag at least 5 cm from the open end of the bag. After
vacuum packaging, a label (Treatment 1-20) was inserted in the remaining open
ended portion of each bag and an impulse heat sealer (Diagger, Lincolinshire, IL)
was used to enclose tag.
Trained Sensory Panel

A descriptive attribute panel at Texas A&M University was utilized for
phase I of this research project. The panel was trained according to AMSA

(1995) and Meilgard et al. (1991). Each treated pork loin chop was evaluated

42

using Spectrum Universal scale where 0=absence and 15=extremely intense
flavor and aromatic/smell. Texture was evaluated using 8 point universal scale
where 1=extremely dry and 8=extremely juicy for juiciness, 1=extremely tough
and 8=extremely tender for muscle fiber tendemess/overall tenderness and
1=abundant and 8=none for connective tissue. (Appendix 11) Pork loin sections
were removed from the freezer (-17.8°C) and tempered for 18 h in a 4°C cooler.
Pork loin chops were cooked on a Farberware Open-Hearth Electric Broiler to an

internal temperature of 35°C, turned, and brought to an intemal temperature of

70°C (USDA guidelines). Cooking was monitored by a type T stainless steel
thermocouple placed in the geometric center of each pork loin chop and plugged
into a Omega HH21 microprocessor thermometer (Omega Engineering Inc.,
Samford, CT). Records of cook yield and time of treatment group of chops were
determined (Appendix 12). Sample preparation included cutting 1-cm cubes
from the center portion of each pork loin chop. To minimize positional bias and
halo effects, the order of sample preparation was randomized within each
session (Meilgaard et al., 1991 ).

Testing took place in climate controlled, partitioned booths. Three cubes
were placed in a glass custard dish covered with a watch glass and stored in an
Alto Shaam oven set at 489°C until serving. Each sample was served to
panelists through breadbox style domes that separate the food preparation area
from the sensory testing area. Cool incandescent lights with red filters were used
to disguise visual differences between samples. Panelists were instructed to

shake watch glass covered custard dish 3 times, lift the watch glass and sniff,

43

close container, and evaluate for presence of aromatics. Panelists then removed
the watch glass, handled sample cubes with an approved odorless plastic spoon,
and tasted for aromatic, taste, aftertaste, and texture evaluation. Expectorant
cups were provided to prevent taste fatigue as the panelists were instructed not
to swallow the samples. Distilled deionized water, unsalted soda crackers, and
whole ricotta cheese was used to clean the palate between samples. Twelve (10
treatments, 1 control with taint, 1 control without taint) samples were evaluated
on each day for 2 days. Each day was divided into two sessions with 6 samples
in the first and 5 samples in the second session. The panelists were
standardized each day by evaluating 2 warm-up samples and discussing the
results. The first warm-up sample was a sow loin control with no off flavors and
the second was a sow loin control with off flavors. There was around 5 minutes
between each sample and a 15 minute break between sessions. The serving
order of the treatments was randomized by treatment on each sensory day

(Appendix 12).

44

Ill. Study ll - Determination of consumer acceptability of marinated loin
chops with atypical flavor and aromas marinated with

tripolyphosphate, and sodium bicarbonate.

Experimental Design and Data Analysis

For the analysis of consumer sensory panel data, a randomized complete
block design with a mixed-effects model (SAS, 2001) was used. The model
included the random effects of replication (1-3), the fixed main effects of
treatment (Control, TRT 1—4) where TRT1: 0.70M BICARB, 0.50% STP, 15%
PUMP; TRT2: 0.70M BICARB, 0.25% STP, 15% PUMP; TRT3: 0.35M BICARB,
0.50% STP, 15% PUMP; TRT4: 0.30M BICARB, 0.25% STP, 15% PUMP;
Control: 0.25% STP, 15% PUMP, and the random interaction of replication x
treatment, and panelist nested in replication. Treatment means were separated
using Tukey multiple pairwise comparison method (1977) and a Type I error rate
of 5%.

For all other experiments in Study ll, main effects were tested for
significance using a mixed-effects model (SAS, 2001). The significant main
effect means were separated using Tukey multiple pairwise comparision method
(1977). Significance level was determined at P<0.05.

Plant Procurement
Loin selection, handling, and shipping were conducted as previously

described in Study l.

45

Product Procurement

Thirty-four pre-rigor sow loins with off flavors and 6 commodity loins with
no off flavors (to use as controls) were sent to the MSU meat laboratory. Upon
arrival, a 0.64 cm slice was removed from each loin (n=40) with a knife from the
posterior end of each frozen loin for off flavor / no off flavor verification. This was
accomplished by microwaving each 0.64 cm slice for 30 s and smelling or tasting
sample by a trained research and development personnel. Two additional 0.64
cm slices (10 9 total) were removed with a band saw from posterior end of each
frozen loin for rigor determination. Each loin was then weighed, vacuum
packaged using 25.4 x 76.2 cm bags (Cryovac, Simpsonville, SC), placed on
trays, and stored in -10°C freezer. Samples were stored in -20°C freezer.
Ultimate pH Determination

Study I showed that all sow loins were thr.ough rigor. For Study ll, Loins
(n=10) were randomly selected from the total (n=34) for rigor determination and
verification was accomplished by methods previously described in Study l.
pH Determination

Raw (n=34) and marinated treatment combination (n=5) pH’s were
determined as described in appendix 4.
Subjective / Objective Quality Analysis

Twenty-four h purge, 7 day purge, and 48 h drip loss analysis were only

conducted on the sow loins with off flavors (n=34) by methods previously

described in Study l since the commodity pork loin selection and handling

46

process was different from the sow loins. Color, marbling, and firmness was
determined on all loins (n=40) by methods previously described in Study l.
TBA Analysis

Study I showed that all sow loins had no lipid oxidation. For Study ll,
loins (n=17) were randomly selected from the total (n=34) for lipid oxidation
determination and verification was accomplished by methods previously
described in Study l.
Proximate Composition Analysis

Proximate composition of samples was determined according to AOAC
(1995) procedures found in Appendix 7.
Marinade Uptake Analysis

For this experiment, two 2.54 cm chops previously used for 48 h drip loss /
subjective / objective quality analysis were utilized. This experiment was done in
triplicate according to procedures from Baas et al. (2000) found in appendix 10.
Cook Yield Analysis

The experiment was a continuation of the marinade uptake experiment
and was done in triplicate according to procedures from Baas et al. (2000) found
in appendix 10.
Marination Analysis

A. Loin Section Sorting

Sow loin sections with off flavors (n=68) and commodity control loin

sections with no off flavors (n=12) for a total of 80 sections were separated into

40 anterior and 40 posterior section groups. Two anterior and 2 posterior

47

sections were randomly selected for each treatment (Appendix 13) for each
replication (n=3) to form loin section groups. Forty-eight sow loin sections with
off flavors, and 12 commodity control loin sections with no off flavors were used
for the entire experiment.
B. Marination

Optimization for sodium bicarbonate, tripolyphosphate and injection level
was determined by analysis of response surface curves generated by SAS
PROC REG and PROC GPLOT from Study l (Version 8.2, SAS institute Inc.,
Cary, NC). Treatment marinades (n=4) and a control (Appendix 14) were
developed from this evaluation. The control marinade was developed to mimic
current industry usage.

This experiment was replicated 3 times. Treatment marinades were
manufactured according to the procedures found in Appendix 14. Treatment
marinades were randomly assigned to loin section groups with the exception of
the control loin section group. Each group of loin sections (n=4, + 1 control) was
injected by one pass through a Reiser Fomaco automatic injector (model FGM
20/40, Denmark) with conveyor/needle speed set at 12 and pump pressure set at
25-29 psi. The injector was cleaned between each treatment injection. Actual
loin section group injection level was calculated for all loin groups.

C. Tumbling

A Roschermatic vacuum tumbler (model MM-O, D-4500, Osnarbruckl W-

Germany) with 25 psi. of vacuum was used. Each group of loin sections (T1-T4

+ C) was tumbled using a 1 min tumble and 1 min rest cycle repeated 5 times to

48

aid in distributing the marinade. The total actual tumbling time was 5 min. Loin
sections (n=4) were then removed from tumbler, vacuum packaged individually
using 30.5 x 40.6 cm bags (Cryovac, Simpsonville, SC) in a Multivac vacuum
packager (AG800, SeppHaggenmuller KG, Germany) set at 2.5 vacuum and 7.0
bar heat. Loin section were then placed in -23.3°C freezer for 18-20 h.
Loin Fabrication
Frozen treatment marinated loin sections (T1-T4 + C) were fabricated

using an electric band saw into 2.54 cm chops for consumer sensory evaluation.
Beginning from the anterior end of the posterior section or posterior end of the
anterior section, 2.54 cm chops were removed and packaged 2 per bag using
10.2 x 30.5 cm vacuum package bags (Cryovac Co., Simpsonvile, SC) and a
Multivac vacuum packager (AG800, SeppHaggenmuller KG, Germany) set at 2.5
vacuum and 7.0 bar heat. End pieces from each loin section within each
treatment were combined to create composite samples (100-150 g) for marinated
proximate composition and TBA analysis (Appendix 6 & 7).
Shear Force Determination

Two 2.54 cm marinated chops from each treatment (n=5) and each replication
(n=3) were allowed to thaw for 24 h at 4°C. Chops were cooked according to
procedures found in the consumer panel section. Chops were allowed to cool to
room temperature and then were chilled at 4°C overnight. Three, 1.27 cm cores
were taken parallel to the longitudinal axis of the fibers using a drill press-

mounted corer. Cores were sheared perpendicular to the fibers using 3 Warner

49

Bratzler head on a TA-Hdi Texture Analyzer (Texture Technologies Corp.,
Scotsdale, NY). The crosshead speed was set at 3.30 mm/s.
Consumer Sensory Panel

AMSA guidelines (AMSA, 1995) were followed for sample preparation and
presentation to consumer sensory panelists at Michigan State University (East
Lansing, MI) on three consecutive days one week after production. Frozen
marinated chops from 5 treatments were thawed for 24 h at 26°C. One chop
from each treatment was cooked per batch on a Taylor clamshell grill (model
0824 Taylor Co; Rockton, IL). The upper plate was set to 104.4°C and the
bottom plate was set to 102.8°C with a 2.16 cm gap between plates. Five
marinated chops were cooked simultaneously and copper constantan
thermocouples (0.051 cm diameter, 15.2 cm length; Omega Engineering Inc,;
Stamford, CT) were inserted into two chops per batch to monitor temperature
increase during cooking. Final cook temperature of all chops was determined
with small diameter hypodermic probe thermocouples (0.089 cm diameter, 5.72
cm length; Cole-Parmer; Vernon Hills, IL). Chops were cooked to a final internal
temperature of 71°C 1 1.5°C. Chops were then placed in Pyrex® two quart
bowls (n=5). The bowls were placed in an insulated cooler containing a
previously dampened and heated blanket placed at the bottom. The cooler
apparatus was transported to an adjacent building by way of underground tunnel
to the sensory kitchen. Upon arrival, treatment chops were immediately removed

from glass bowls and placed in Pyrex® double broilers with water maintained at

140°C for sample holding. Sample preparation included cutting 1.27 x 1.27 x

50

2.54 cm samples from the center portion of each pork loin chop. To minimize
positional bias, the order of sample presentation was randomized with in each
session (Meilgaard, 1991).

The consumer panel evaluations were conducted as two-hour sessions
between 10 am. and noon on three consecutive days, collecting data from 45 to
47 panelists each day. Expectorant cups were provided to prevent taste fatigue.
Distilled, deionized water and unsalted soda crackers were provided to clean the
palate between samples. Panelists were asked to determine desirability of
juiciness, texture, flavor, and overall acceptability of the pork chops. An 8 point
hedonic scale was used where 1=extremely undesirable and 8=extremely

desirable.

51

References

Adams, J. R., & Huffman, D. L. (1972). Effect of controlled gas atmosphere and
temperature on quality of packaged pork. Journal of Food Science, 37, 869-
872.

Akamittath, J. G., Brekke, C. J., & Schanus, E. G. (1990). Lipid oxidation and
color stability in restructured meat systems during frozen storage. Journal of
Food Science, 55(6), 1513-1517.

AMSA. (1995). Research guidelines for cookery, sensory evaluation, and
instrumental measurements of fresh meat. American Meat Science Association
and National Livestock and Meat Board, Chicago, IL.

AOAC (2000). Meat and meat products. In P. Cunniff (Ed.), Official methods of
analysis of AOAC International (pp. 1-23). Washington, DC: AOAC
lntemational.

Baas, T., Bell, 8., Berg, E., Boyd, D., Cannon, J., Carr, T., Forrest, J., Goodwin,
R., Green, B., Johnson, R., van Laack, R., Mandigo, R., McKeith, F., Meisinger,
D., Miller, R., Moeller, S., Morgan, B., Prusa, K., Schnell, T., Sellers, H.,
Sosnicki, A., Wulf, D. (2000). Meat quality evaluation. In E. Berg (Ed.), Pork
Composition and Quality Assessment Procedures (pp. 21-38). Des Moines,
Iowa: National Pork Board.

Banks, W. T., Wang, C., & Brewer, M. S. (1998). Sodium lactate/sodium
tripolyphosphate combination effects on aerobic plate counts, pH and color of
fresh pork longissimus muscle. Meat Science, 50(4), 499-504.

Barbut, S., Maurer, A. J., & Lindsay, R. C. (1988). Effects of reduced sodium
chloride and added phosphates on physical and sensory properties of turkey
frankfurters. Journal of Food Science, 53(1), 62-66.

Bechtel, P. J., McKeith, F. K., Martin, S. E., Basgall, E. J., 8. Novakofski, J. E.
(1985). Properties of frankfurters processed with different levels of sodium
bicarbonate. Journal of Food Protection, 48(10), 861 -864.

Bentley, D. S., Reagan, J. 0., & Miller, M. F. (1988). The effects of hot-boned fat
type, preblending treatment and storage time on various physical, processing

and sensory characteristics on nonspecific luncheon loaves. Meat Science, 23,
131-138. -

Boles, J. A., & Parrish, F. C. (1990). Sensory and chemical characteristics of
precooked microwave-reheatable pork roasts. Journal of Food Science, 55(3),
618-620.

52

Booren, A. M., Jones, K. W., Mandigo, R. W., & Olson, D. G. (1981). Effects of
blade tenderization, vacuum mixing, salt addition, and mixing time on binding of
meat pieces into sectioned and formed beef steaks. Journal of Food Science,
46, 1678-1680.

Chen J., & Ho, 0. T. (1998). The chemistry of meat flavour. In F. Shahidi (Ed.),
Flavor of Meat, Meat Products, and Seafoods (pp. 61-83). London, UK: Blackie
Academic and Professional.

Choi, Y. l., Kastner, C. L., & Kropf, D. H. (1987). Effects of hot boning and
various levels of salt and phosphate on microbial, TBA, and pH values of

preblended pork during cooker storage. Journal of Food Protection, 50(12),
1 037-1 043.

Cochran, W. G., & Cox, G. M. (1957). Experimental Designs (2nd Edition). New
York: Wiley.

Cordray, J. C., & Huffman, D. L. (1985). Restructured pork from hot processed
sow meat; effect of encapsulated food acids. Journal of Food Protection,
48(1 1), 965-968.

Cordray, J. C., Huffman, D. L., & Jones, W. R. (1986). Restructured pork from
hot processed sow meat: Effect of mechanical tenderization and liquid smoke.
Journal of Food Protection, 48(8), 639-642.

Craig, J., Bowers, J. A., & Seib, P. (1991). Sodium tripolyphosphate and sodium
ascorbate as inhibitors of off-flavor development in cooked, vacuum-packaged,
frozen turkey. Journal of Food Science, 56(6), 1529-1531.

Cross, H. R., Durland, P, R., & Seideman, S. C. (1986). Sensory qualities of
meat. In P. Bechtel (Ed.), Muscle as Food (pp. 279-315) Orlando, Florida:
Academic Press, Inc.

Davis, G. W., Smith, G. C., & Carpenter, Z. L. (1977). Effect of blade
tenderization on storage life, retail case life, and palatability of beef. Journal of
Food Science, 42(2), 334-337.

Dziezak, J. D. (1990). Phosphates improve many foods. Food Technology (pp.
80-92), April 1990, Chicago, Illinois.

Fennema, 0. R. (1985). Water and ice. In 0. R. Fennema (Ed.), Food Chemistry
(2"6 ed., pp. 23-68). New York, New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.

53

Grandhi, R. R., & Cliplef, R. L. (1997). Effects of selection for lower backfat, and
increased levels of dietary amino acids to digestible energy on growth
performance, carcass merit and meat quality in boars, gilts, and barrows.
Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 77(3), 487-496.

Harmon, C. J., Ramsey, C. B., & Davis, G. W. (1989). Effect of cooking method
on consumer acceptance of hot-processed pork loins. Journal of Animal
Science, 68, 143-147.

Hayward, L. H., Hunt, M. C., Kastner, C. L., 8 Kropf, D. H. (1980). Blade
tenderization effects of beef longissimus sensory and instron textural
measurements. Journal of Food Science, 45, 925-930.

Hedrick, H. B., Aberle, E. D., Forrest, J. 0, Judge, M. D., & Merkel, R. A. (1989).
Principles of Meat Science (3rd ed.). Iowa: Kendal/Hunt Publishing Co (pp. 1-
344).

Hettiarachchy, N. & Gnanasambandam, R. (2000). Poultry products. In G. L.
Christen and J. S. Smith (Eds.) Food Chemistry: Principles and Applications
(pp. 392-394), West Sacramento, California: Science Technology System.

Honikel, K. 0. (1987). Critical evaluation of methods detecting water-holding
capacity in meat. In A. Romita, C. Valin, and A. Talyor (Eds.) Accelerated
Processing of Meat (pp. 225-239), London: Elsevier Applied Science.

Honikel, K. 0., & Fischer, C. (1977). A rapid method for the detection of PSE and
DFD porcine muscles. Journal of Food Science, 42(6), 1633-1636.

Honikel, K. 0., & Reagan, J. 0. (1987). Hot boning of pig carcasses: influence of
chilling conditions on meat quality. In A. Romita, C. Valin, and A. Taylor (Eds.),
Accelerated Processing of Meat (pp. 97-110). New York, New York: Elsevier
Applied Science Publishers LTD.

Huffman, D. L., Cordray, J. C., & Ottaviano, N. (1981 ). Meat from sows good for
restructured chops. Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, (pp. 6).

Hultin, H. O. (1985). Characteristics of muscle tissue. In 0. R. Fennema (Ed.),
Food Chemistry (2"‘1 ed., pp. 23-68). New York, New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.

Jones, S. J., & Burson, D. E. (2000). Porcine Myology. Des Moines, Iowa:
National Pork Producers.

Kauffman R. G., & Marsh, B. B. (1987). Quality characteristics of muscle as food.
In J. F. Price & B. S. Schweigert (Eds.), The Science of Meat and Meat
Products (3rd ed., pp. 349-370). Westport, Connecticut: Food & Nutrition Press,
Inc. '

54

Kauffman, R. G., van Laack, R. L. J. M., Russell, R. L., Pospiech, E., Cornelius,
C. A., Suckow, C. E., 8 Greaser, M. L. (1998). Can pale, soft, exudative pork
be prevented by postmortem sodium bicarbonate injection? Journal of Animal
Science, 76, 3010-3015.

Keeton, J. T., Foegeding, E. A., 8 Patana-Anake, C. (1984). A comparison of
nonmeat proteins, sodium tripolyphosphate and processing temperature effects
on physical and sensory properties of frankfurters. Journal of Food Science, 49,
1462-1465.

Lindsay, R. C. (1985). Food additives. In 0. R. Fennema (Ed.), Food Chemistry
(2nd ed., pp. 629-688). New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, Inc.

Matlock, R. G., Terrell, R. N., Savell, J. W., Rhee, K. S., 8 Dutson, T. R. (1984).
Factors affecting properties of precooked-frozen pork sausage patties made
with various NaCl/phosphate combinations. Journal of Food Science, 49, 1372-
1375.

Meilgaard, M., Civille, G. V., 8 Carr, B. T. (1991). Sensory Evaluation
Techniques, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Miller, R. (2000). Functionality of non-meat ingredients used in enhanced pork. In
National Pork Board Pork Quality Facts (pp. 1-10), 1998, Des Moines, Iowa.

Mottram, D. S. (1998). The chemistry of meat flavour. In F. Shahidi (Ed.), Flavor
of meat, meat products, and seafoods (pp. 5-26). London, UK: Blackie
Academic and Professional.

Motycka, R. R., 8 Bechtel, P. J. (1983). Influence of pre-rigor processing,
mechanical tenderization, tumbling method and processing time on the quality
and yield of ham. Journal of Food Science, 48, 1532-1536.

National Pork Producers Council (1999). Color, texture, exudation; color
standards, and marbling standards. Pork Quality Standards. Des Moines, Iowa:
National Pork Board.

Nold, R. A., Romans, J. R., Costello, W. J., 8 Libal, G. W. (1999).
Characterization of muscles from boars, barrows, and gilts slaughtered at 100
or 110 kilograms: differences in fat, moisture, color, water-holding capacity, and
collagen. Journal of Animal Science, 77, 1746-1754.

Pearson, A. M., 8 Gillett, T. A. (1996). Introduction to meat processing, Raw
materials; Sectioned and formed meat products; Sausages; Casings,
extenders, and additives. In Processed Meats (pp. 1-22, 126-143, 144-179,
210-241, 291-310). New York, New York: Chapman and Hall.

55

Pisula, A., 8 Tyburcy, A. (1996). Hot processing of meat. Meat Science, 43(No.
8), $125-$134.

Prochaska, F., Britt, J., Smith, G. (2001). Personal interview.

Reagan, J. 0. (1983). Optimal processing systems for hot-boned pork. Food
Technology (pp. 79-85), May 1983, Chicago, Illinois.

Rhee, K, S. (1978). Minimization of further lipid peroxidation in the distillation 2-
thiobarbituric acid test of fish and meat. Journal of Food Science, 43, 1776-
1778.

Romans, J. R., Costello, W. J., Carlson, C. W., Greaser, M. L., 8 Jones, K. W.
(1994). Beef identification and fabrication, Fresh meat processing, Meat curing
and smoking, Sausages, Structure and function of muscle. The Meat We Eat
(543- 5-96, 643-686, 727-772, 773-886, 887- -904). Danville, Illinois: Interstate
Publishers, Inc.

SAS Institute, Inc. (2001 ). SAS user’s guide, version 8.2. Cary, NC: SAS
Institute.

Satterthwaite, RE. (1946). An approximate distribution of estimates of variance
components. Biometrics Bulletin, (No. 2. pp. 110-114).

Schmidt, K. (2000). Lipids: functional properties. In G. L. Christen and J. S.
Smith (Eds.) Food Chemistry: Principles and Applications (pp. 104-107), West
Sacramento, California: Science Technology System.

Schwartz, W. C., 8 Mandigo, R. W. (1976). Effect of salt, sodium
tripolyphosphate, and storage on restructured pork. Journal of Food Science,
41, 1266-1269.

Shahidi F. (1998). Flavour of muscle foods - an overview. In F. Shahidi (Ed.),
Flavor of Meat, Meat Products, and seafoods (pp. 1-4). London, UK: Blackie
Academic and Professional.

Sheard, P. R., Nute, G. R., Richardson, R. l., Perry, A., 8 Taylor, A. A. (1999).
Injection of water and polyphosphate into pork to improve juiciness and
tenderness after cooking. Meat Science, 51, 371-376.

Shin, H. K., Abugroun, H. A., Forrest, J. C., Okos, M. R., 8 Judge, M. D. (1993).
Effect of heating rate on palatability and associated properties of pre- and post
rigor muscle. Journal of Animal Science, 71, 939-945.

56

Simmons, S. L., Carr, T. C., 8 McKeith, F. K. (1985). Effects of internal
temperature and thickness on palatability of pork loin chops. Journal of Food
Science, 50, 313-315.

SIMS (2000). Sensory computer systems, version 3.3. Morristown, New Jersey.

Smith, L. A., Simmons, S. L., McKeith, F. K., Bechtel, P. J., 8 Brady, P. L. (1984).
Effects of sodium tripolyphosphate on physical and sensory properties of beef
and pork roasts. Journal of Food Science, 49, 1636-1637.

Smulders, F. J. M., 8 Eikelenboom, G. (1987). Accelerated meat processing:
microbiological aspects. In A. Romita, C. Valin, and A. Taylor (Eds.),
Accelerated Processing of Meat (pp. 97-110). New York, New York: Elsevier
Applied Science Publishers LTD.

Sofos, J. N., (1986). Use of phosphates in low-sodium meat products. Food
Technology, (September), 52-69.

Sutton, D. S., Brewer, M. S., 8 McKeith, F. K. (1997). Effects of sodium lactate
and sodium phosphate on the physical and sensory characteristics of pumped
pork loins. Journal of Muscle Foods, 8, 95-104.

Swart, D. (2000). Value-added, what does it mean?
httb.'//deminq.ena. clemson. edu/pub/den/archive/ZOOO. 08/mngO140.html.

Tarladgis, G. G., Wats, B. M., Younthan, M. T., and Dugan, L. Jr. (1960) Journal
of American Oil Chemists, 37, 44-48.

Tatum, J. D., Smith, G. C., 8 Carpenter, Z. L. (1978). Blade tenderization of
steer, cow, and bull beef. Journal of Food Science, 43, 819-822.

Taylor, R. E. (1995). Swine breeds and breeding, Feeding and managing swine.
Scientific Farm Animal Production, (5"1 Edition pp. 412-426, 427-443). Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Townsend, W. E. 8 Olson, D. G. (1987). Cured meats and cured meat products
processing. In J. Price and B Schweigert (Eds.), The Science of Meat and Meat
Products (3rd Edition pp. 431-456). Westport, Connecticut: Food 8 Nutrition
Press, Inc.

Trout, G. R., 8 Schmidt, G. R. (1983). Utilization of phosphates in meat products.
In Proceedings 36‘" Reciprocal Meat Conference, (Vol. 36, pp. 24-27).

USDA Economics and Statistics System. (2002). National Agriculture and

Statistics Service; Livestock Slaughter 12.21.01.
http://usdamannlib.cornell.edu_/.

57

USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service. (2002). http://www.isis.usda.gov/.

Van Laack, R. L. J. M., 8 Smulders, J. M. (1989). Quality of ‘semi-hot’ and cold
boned, vacuum packaged fresh pork as affected by delayed or immediate
chilling. Journal of Food Protection, 52, 650-654.

Van Laack, R. L. J. M., 8 Smulders, J. M. (1992). On the assessment of water
holding capacity of hot- vs cold-boned pork. Meat Science, 32, 139-147.

Vote, D. J., Platter, W. J., Tatum, J. D., Schmidt, G. R., Belk, K.E., Smith, G. C.,
8 Speer, N. C. (2000). Injection of beef strip loins with solutions containing
sodium tripolyphosphate, sodium lactate, and sodium chloride to enhance
palatability. Journal of Animal Science, 78, 952-957.

Yanai, Y., Rosen, B., Pinskey, A., 8 Sklan, D. (1976). Microbiology of Israeli
pickled cheese. Journal of Milk Food Technology, 39, 4-6.

Zipser, M.W., Wats, B. M. (1962). Food Technology, 16(7), 102.

58

CHAPTER 3
STRATEGIES TO ELIMINATE ATYPICAL AROMAS AND FLAVORS IN SOW
LOINS

ABSTRACT

Sow loin sections (n=20) with atypical aromas and flavors we termed “sow
taint” were treated with a solution of sodium tripolyphosphate (0.25-0.50%) and
sodium bicarbonate (0.35-0.70M) and evaluated for flavor and textural attributes
by a trained sensory panel. Response surface methodology determined four
treatment combinations showing optimizing effects that reduced (P<0.05) metallic
aroma, metal and sour aftertastes, and detectable connective tissue while
improving (P<0.05) muscle fiber tenderness, juiciness, and overall tenderness.
Consumer sensory panel ratings determined that sow loin chops injected with a
15% solution of sodium tripolyphosphate (0.50%) and sodium bicarbonate
(0.35M) were not different (P>0.05) than loin chops from a marinated (0.25%
sodium tripolyphosphate, 15% injection. level) commodity control loin for flavor,
texture, juiciness, and overall acceptability. A solution containing sodium
tripolyphosphate and sodium bicarbonate minimized atypical aromas and flavors
in selected sow loins and may enhance their utilization for value added whole

muscle products.

Keywords: Marination, Sow Loins, Sensory Evaluation

59

Introduction

Sow meat is primarily utilized in comminuted products such as prerigor
fresh pork sausage. Prerigor meat possesses a higher water holding capacity
resulting in higher yields and a more uniform darker color than cold boned meat
that has been chilled and gone through rigor (Van Laack et al., 1989). Industry
feedback (Prochaska and associates, 2001) indicated occurrences of
undesirable aromas and flavors found in whole muscle products (i.e., loin) that
have been "hot-boned" or removed from prerigor sow carcasses. These atypical
aromas and flavors, which we have termed “sow taint”, combined with
tenderness challenges due to a greater percentage of cross linked insoluble
collagen (Hedrick et al., 1989), darker muscle color due to increased myglobin
concentration, and inconsistent muscle size hinders the use of sow meat for
whole muscle meat products. Acceptable tenderness in whole muscle products
can be achieved by use of mechanical (Cordray et al., 1985; Motycka and
Bechtel, 1983), enzymatic tenderization (Romans et al., 1994), or cooking
methods (Simmons et al., 1985; Pearson and Gillett, 1996; Harmon et al., 1989).

The sow taint we have identified in meat fabricated from prerigor sow
carcasses possesses a combination of metallic aromas and metallic and sour
aftertastes consumers may find undesirable. Marination, which utilizes injection
and/or tumbling to disperse a solution of water, salt and other non-meat
ingredients has been used by the meat industry to change a products flavor
profile and enhance its textural attributes. The potential exists to utilize

marination to combat the problem of undesirable aromas and flavors that have

60

been reported to occur in a percentage of. prerigor sow carcasses. Research by
Kauffman et al. (1998) indicated an improvement in flavor by injecting a solution
of sodium bicarbonate and salt in hot-boned loins from gilts. Several studies
have shown the potential of sodium tripolyphosphates to decrease or mask off
flavors in pork (Boles and Parrish, 1990; Sutton et al., 1997; and Matlock et al.,
1984).

The synergistic effect of sodium tripolyphosphate, sodium bicarbonate,
and salt may be an effective intervention strategy to reduce or eliminate atypical
aromas and flavors (sow taint) that may occur in hot-boned sow meat.
Phosphates increase water holding capacity as well as provide flavor
enhancement (Barbut et al., 1988, Matlock et al., 1984, Keeton et al., 1984).
Sodium bicarbonate increases buffering capacity during cooking when flavor
volatiles are formed (Mottram, 1998) while salt increases the intensity of flavors
(Matlock et al., 1984, Barbut et al., 1988). Our hypothesis was marinating sow
meat that exhibited atypical aromas and flavors with a solution of sodium
tripolyphosphate, sodium bicarbonate and salt will minimize or mask the
presence of sow taint.

The first objective of this study was to use a trained sensory panel to
identify optimum concentrations of sodium tripolyphosphate, sodium bicarbonate
and percent injection level that may minimize the impact of atypical aromas and
flavors in hot-boned sow loins. The second objective was to determine the
consumer acceptability of these undesirable sow loins when marinated with a

solution of sodium tripolyphosphate and sodium bicarbonate.

61

Materials and Methods

Preliminary Study: Identifying sow loins with atypical aromas and flavors

with electronic nose technology

The range of levels and concentrations of sodium tripolyphosphate (STP)
and sodium bicarbonate (BICARB) and percent injection levels (PUMP) that
minimize the presence of atypical aromas and flavors of sow loins was
determined by electronic nose technology. An Applied Sensor 3320 (Parsippany,
New Jersey) was utilized to determine if tainted sow loin samples (n=3, ST) could
be differentiated from non-tainted samples (n=2, NT). A chemical sensor system
composed of a relatively limited number of gas sensors with overlapping
sensitivity was used to span a large range of volatile compounds thus creating
unique response patterns when exposed to different odors. The primary gas
sensors used for this testing were FE102A for amines and esters, FE103A for
aldehydes and alcohols.

Triplicate samples (3 g) were run with the following test conditions: idle
25°C, 60°C for 5 min and incubation, and 60°C for 10 min. Principal component
analysis was performed using the Applied Sensor 3320 Senstool Software
(Version 2.7.5.27). Results of this study (Figure 1) showed that it was possible to
differentiate between tainted and non-tainted sow loin samples by detecting the

chemical properties from the volatiles emitted by the samples.

62

$620.. 262 .Lomcow 0239‘ .0 >838 9 Same £5...

.380 5:63:52 anmm u on w .3 .319 .0 atom

65.32 Lo>m= .8 com: moEEmm 50. {on EooEEoO u A+V 55E
655: new moEBm ficfibm o: é; moEEmm 50. Bow u 3 3.5352
.905: new mmEEm .woabm 53> $.qu 50. Bow n C BEEF

Asmea E 0n. .9 8.8m

 

   

 

        
   

 
 

mm Czor
8 £29.. 8 C28.

 

8 C29. 3 £29.

 

A

“3253-52
can

 

 

(%szr) zrr 0d Jor seroas

   

News.

m :9.

 

 

625m... 9 C9.
2 Se.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.manmm {on EooEEoo one .8025 one 352m .333.» o: 5:: mo_aEnm .965: one
mnEoLa .moibm 5.3 moi—cum Eo. Bow Low no... 20% finance “cocooEoo 3205.5 2. $50....

63

Based on these results a second preliminary study was conducted to
determine if various combinations of a solution containing STP (0.3 and 0.5%;
Brifisol 512; BK Giulini Corporation, Simi Valley, CA), BICARB (0.25 and 0.5 M;
J.T. Baker, Phillipsburg, NJ) and salt (1%) at 15% addition (wt/wt) would
minimize the amount of volatile compounds emitted from tainted loin chops.
Samples were analyzed as previously described. Results of this preliminary
study (Figure 2) indicated that loin chops treated with a 15% solution of STP
(0.30%) and 1% salt (Coded sample 223) and loin chops treated with a 15%
solution of BICARB (0.5M) and 1% salt were similar to non-tainted control loin
chops (Coded sample 15). Based on these results the following parameters
were established for the formulation of marinade solutions for further
investigation as a 23 central composite design: STP at 0.25 and 0.50%, BICARB

at 0.35 and 0.7M concentration, salt at 1% and PUMP at 5 and 15%.

Study l — Determination of percent sodium tripolyphosphate, sodium
bicarbonate concentration, and injection level to minimize
atypical aromas and flavors in sow loins.

Experimental Design and Data Analysis

Response surface regression using SAS PROC RSREG (Version 8.2,

SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) was used for simultaneous analysis of percent STP,

concentration of BICARB and percent PUMP. The effects of these variables on

the sensory and textural attributes of marinated sow loin chops were

investigated. The experiment was

64

 

Fm "mom
md<05 H:
mM<UE HMNN

 

mHm Hm _
“EM ”0:
H20 "who

 

 

 

E :00.

  

    

$0200 302 00056 00:02 :0 600300 0. 050: 0E?
.990: 0:0 m0E0L0 .0230 00.00.00 50> 00.0E00 :_0_ saw u Cm 0950.5 0 000.0
.2020: 0:0 00E0..0 00:50 00:00:00 0: 5:5 00.0E0m :_0_ 30m ":20 0250.005 N 0020
05.0000 .90: L0: 000: 00.0E00 50. 0000 £095.60 u 090.0: 0:90

Ackmfiwv I: on. :0: 098$

 

0.28.85 5280 u $20.0 .
20388285 5280 u ":0 .

 

8: £0 .

 

 

cam

  
    

3 £00.

 

a

  

8h :00. e: :00. >
0:8 E.
e: :9. 4: C00. 3:8 E. j
3 £00.

 

 

20 £200.
80 E.

mNN CM...

0

 

mum :00.
03 £200.

   

 

 

 

\

\./

0250:5002 =0

 

 

 

 

 

(%3'9) z# Od Jo: same

.35. 6300.5 $3 «0 emu—<05 0:0 «Eb 0550200 0:23.00 5.3 0300... 00.0E00
{on b.00EE00 0:0 .030: 0:0 00:30 00.030 0: 5.3 00.0E00 .0..o>0: 0:0 00:50
00330 505 00.0E00 :_o_ 300 L0: “0.: 20.": 0.0220 E0:00E00 00.05.: "N maze.“—

65

based on a 23 central composite rotatable design (Cochran and Cox, 1957).
Based on preliminary research results, the ranges for the variables were: STP
0.30—0.50%, BICARB 0.35-0.70M, and PUMP 5-15%. Fifteen combinations of
the three variables were generated from the central composite design with one
treatment combination (the center point) replicated six times to assess lack-of-fit
and ensure concentric variance (Table 1).

Total response surface regression equations were determined significant
at P<0.10. The General Linear Models procedure (Version 8.2, SAS Institute
Inc., Cary, NC, 2001).) was used to determine the significance of the equation
parameters for each response variable by F-test and the level of significance at
P<0.10. Regression equations containing these significant parameter estimates
were used to generate response surface curves using PROC G3D (SAS, 2001 ).
Plant Procurement

Sow loins were harvested by hot-boning sow carcasses approximately 45
min after exsanguination during one eight h shift at a commercial sow slaughter
plant. The loins were denuded of all subcutaneous fat during the hot-boning
process. Sow loins (N=16) were determined to have atypical aromas and flavor
(sow taint, ST) by microwave cooking for 30 sec and then performing aroma and
taste evaluations. Normal, non-tainted control sow loins (N=13, CNT) and ST
loins were crust frozen and chilled (average intemal temperature of 63°C). The
loins were wrapped in Saran”, boxed and frozen (-17.8°C). The boxes were
placed in insulated styrofoam coolers, packed with dry ice and shipped by

overnight priority mail to the Michigan State University Meat Laboratory.

66

TABLE 1. Treatment fonnulatlons containing sodium tripolyphosphate (STP) and
sodium bicarbonate (BICARB) for marinating sow loins at varying Injection
levels (PUMP).

TARGETED INGOING LEVELS

 

 

STP BICARB PUMP Marinade 9H9
TRT’ % M' "/0
1 0.30 0.42 7 7.05
2 0.30 0.63 7 7.12
3 0.45 0.42 7 6.88
4 0.45 0.63 7 7.05
5 0.30 0.42 13 7.46
6 0.45 0.63 13 7.48
7 0.45 0.42 13 7.36
8 0.45 0.63 13 7.15
9 0.38 0.53 5 6.82
10 0.38 0.53 15 7.55
11 0.25 0.53 10 7.33
12 0.50 0.53 10 7.17
13 0.38 0.35 10 7.15
14 0.38 0.70 10 7.26
15° 0.35 0.53 10 7.12

 

’Treatment combinations.

9 BRINE pH = pH of marinade solution.

‘ M = Molar concentration.

° 15 = Replicated an additional five times to assess lack-of-fit and ensure concentric variance
(TRT 16-20).

67

Sample Preparation

Upon arrival, two 0.64 cm slices were removed from the posterior end of
each frozen ST and CNT loin for rigor determination. Each loin was individually
weighed, vacuum packaged (Multivac A0800, SeppHaggenmuller KG, Germany)
set at 3.0 psi vacuum and 4.5 bar heat using 30.5 x 40.6 cm bags (Cryovac,
Simpsonville, SC) and tempered in a 26° cooler for 24 h. After tempering, each
loin was individually weighed to determine initial purge loss. Loins were
separated into 2 sections by a perpendicular cut across the length of each loin.
The following samples were removed from the anterior end of the posterior
section of each loin: one 0.64 cm slice for 2-thiobarbituric acid (TBA) analysis;
one 0.64 cm slice for raw proximate composition and pH; two, 2.54 cm chops for
subjective color, marbling, and firmness, objective color, drip loss analysis,
marination uptake, and cook yields.
Rigor Determination (pH)

One gram of frozen sample was placed into a 50 ml centrifuge plastic tube
with ten ml of distilled, deionized water. The samples were homogenized with a
Polytron mixer (PT-35, Kinematica, AG, Switzerland). The initial pH was
measured with an Accumet pH meter (AB 15, Fisher Scientific, Co., Pittsburgh,
PA; calibrated with phosphate buffers 4.0 and 7.0). The samples were placed in
a —6.7°C cooler for 10 min and then pH was remeasured. Differences between
initial and 10 min pH readings were analyzed to determine state of rigor for each

loin.

68

Rigor Determination (R- Value)

Two grams of frozen sample were placed in a 50 ml plastic centrifuge tube
with 10 ml of 38-40°C 0.6 N perchloric acid, homogenized with a Polytron mixer,
transferred to a 30 ml glass centrifuge tube, and centrifuged at 40,000 x g for 20
min (RC-5 Superspeed Refrigerated, Sorvall Co., Norwalk, CT). Each tube was
vortexed (American Scientific Products, McGaw Park, IL) for 15 s. Three aliquots
(60 pl each) of supernatant were pipetted into quartz cuvettes. Three ml of 0.1 M
phosphate buffer was added and the cuvettes read on a spectrophotometer
(Lambda 20, Perkin Elmer, Norwalk, CT) at A250 nm wavelength. Loins were
determined to have completed rigor mortis if R-value readings showed that
nucleotide and derivative concentrations were less than 1.5 pMol/g of meat
(Honikel and Fischer, 1977).
pH Determination

Tempered ST and CNT sow loin (n=29) pH was determined by
homogenizing 1 g of sample with 10 ml of a 5mM sodium iodoacetate and
150mM potassium chloride buffer using a Polytron mixer. The pH was measured
using an Accumet pH meter.

Subjective / Objective Quality Analysis

Sow loins were analyzed for 24 h purge loss by measuring the initial
frozen loin weight, the tempered (24 h) loin weight and dividing that difference by
the frozen weight. Day 7 purge was determined by weighing tempered loin

sections, then reweighing the loin sections after 7 days of vacuum (3.0 psi)

69

packaged (30.5 x 40.6cm bags) refrigerated storage (28°C). the difference
between the two weights were divided by the initial weight and multiplied by 100.
Two 2.54 cm chops were weighed and suspended by the string and hook method
(Baas et al., 2000 and Honikel, 1987) in a 28°C cooler for 48 h drip loss
determination.

A 10 min bloom time was allowed prior to determining objective color and
subjective color, marbling, and firmness. Subjective color, marbling, and
firmness was visually determined by observing the exposed cut lean surface of
each chop and evaluating each attribute where 1 = very light and 6 = very dark,
1= low amount and 10 = high amount, and 1 = soft and 3 = very firm, respectively
(Baas et al, 2000). Objective color was measured using a Minolta Chromameter
CR-310 equipped with a 0.55 Illuminant, a 2° standard observer and 50 mm
diameter orifice (Commission lntemational D’Edairerage (CIE) L*a*b*, Ramsey,
NJ). An average of three readings were taken from the exposed surface of each
chop for L* (lightness), a* (redness), and b“ (yellowness) values based on a 0-
100 scale.

TBA Analysis

Thiobarbituric acid analysis was conducted on day 1 to determine baseline
oxidative rancidity. Two replicates were run for each sample (n= 29) according to
methods established by Tarladgis et al. (1960) and Zipser et al. (1962) modified

by Rhee (1978).

70

Proximate Composition Analysis

Moisture (oven drying), fat (Soxhlet ether extraction), and protein (nitrogen
measurement, Model FP-2000, LECO Co., St. Joseph, M0) were determined
according to AOAC (2000) methods.
Marinade Uptake / Cook Yield Analysis

Six gram samples of ground ST and CNT loin section were placed in a 50
ml centrifuge tube with 10 ml of a 0.6M salt solution. Samples were vortexed,
incubated at 25°C for 25 min, and centrifuged at 800 x g for 20 min. The solute
from each sample was drained for 5 min to determine marinade uptake. These
samples were then analyzed to determine cook yields by incubating the samples
in a water bath set at 80°C for 20 min. The samples were removed from the
water bath and the released fluids allowed to drain for 5 min. Cook yield was
determined by calculating the difference between the initial and cooked weight,
dividing that difference by the initial weight and multiplying by 100 (Baas et al.,
2000)
Marination

Marinades were formulated (Table 1) using a response surface design
(Version 8.2, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) and were randomly assigned to loin
sections (n=20) randomly selected from previously fabricated .ST loins (N=16).
Treatment marinades were manufactured by adding the appropriate amount of
water to 300 ml plastic bottle. STP (Brifisol 512; BK Giulini Corporation, Simi
Valley, CA), BICARB (J.T. Baker, Phillipsburg, NJ), and NaCl were then added

in the above order and thoroughly mixed at 2250 rpm with a 7.62 cm roto mixer

71

bit attached to a drill (SKIL, S-B Power Tool Co., Chicago, IL) for 2 min 30 s, 2
min, and 2 min respectively. Timing did not begin until the entire ingredient was
added.

Randomly selected loin sections were placed into 30.5 x 40.6 cm vacuum
bags and the appropriate marinade treatment added. Each loin section with
added marinade was vacuum packaged with 1.5 psi. vacuum and 3.0 bar heat.
The loin sections were segregated into light (n=8; 0.30-0.38 kg), medium (n=6;
0.40-0.46 kg), and heavy (n=6; 0.47-0.89 kg) groups (n=3) to facilitate uniform
dispersion of the marinades.

A Lyco vacuum tumbler (Model 20, Columbus, WI) set at 24 rpm with 20
psi. of vacuum was used. Each loin sections weight group was tumbled using a
1 min tumble and 1 min rest cycle repeated 15 times. The total tumbling time was
15 min. Loin sections were then removed from tumbler, vacuum packaged and
placed in -23.3°C freezer for 18 h.

Marinated Loin Fabrication

Marinated ST and CNT (0.25% STP, 1.0% NaCl) frozen loin sections were
fabricated using an electric band saw into 2.54 cm chops for trained sensory
evaluation. Beginning from either the anterior end of the posterior loin section or
the posterior end of the anterior loin section, a 1.27 cm slice was removed for
TBA analysis to be conducted during sensory evaluation. A 0.64 cm frozen
sample was removed to determine marinated proximate composition (AOAC,
1995). Loin chops (2.54 cm) were fabricated from the remainder of the loin

sections. Loin chops were vacuum packaged (10.2 x 30.5 cm bags, 2.5 psi

72

vacuum, 7.0 bar heat) to provide a minimum of 25.4 cm2 of loin chop surface
area per bag due to variations in loin eye size. Samples were placed in insulated
coolers, packed in dry ice and shipped by overnight priority mail to the Texas
A8M University Sensory Evaluation Laboratory. Upon arrival, loin chops were
stored in a freezer (-17.8°C) until utilized for sensory evaluation.

Trained Sensory Panel

Pork chops were removed from freezer (-17.8°C) and tempered for 18 h in
a 4°C cooler. Pork loin chops were cooked on a Farberware Open-Hearth
Electric Broiler to an internal temperature of 35°C, turned, and brought to an
internal temperature of 70°C (USDA guidelines). Cooking was monitored by a
type T stainless steel thermocouple placed in the geometric center of each pork
loin chop and plugged into a Omega HH21 microprocessor thermometer (Omega
Engineering Inc., Samford, CT). Sample preparation included cutting 1-cm
cubes from the center portion of each ST and CNT loin chop. To minimize
positional bias and halo effects, the order of sample preparation was randomized
within each session (Meilgaard et al., 1991).

A descriptive attribute panel at Texas A8M University was trained
according to AMSA (1995) and Meilgard et al. (1991). To evaluate each treated
pork chop using Spectrum Universal scale where 0=absence and 15=extremely
intense flavor and aromatic/smell. Texture was evaluated using an 8 point
universal scale where 1=extremely dry and 8=extremely juicy for juiciness,
1=extremely tough and 8=extremely tender for muscle fiber tendemess/overall

tenderness and 1=abundant and 8=none for connective tissue. Testing took

73

place in climate controlled, partitioned booths. Three cubes were placed in a
glass custard dish covered with a watch glass and stored in an Alto Shaam oven
set at 489°C until serving. Each sample was served to panelists through
breadbox style domes that separate the food preparation area from the sensory
testing area. Cool incandescent lights with red filters were used to disguise
visual differences between samples. Panelists were instructed to shake watch
glass covered custard dish 3 times, lift the watch glass and sniff, close container,
and evaluate for presence of aromatics. Panelists then removed the watch
glass, handled sample cubes with an approved odorless plastic spoon, and
tasted for aromatic, taste, aftertaste, and texture evaluation. Expectorant cups
were provided to prevent taste fatigue as the panelists were instructed not to
swallow the samples. Distilled deionized water, unsalted soda crackers, and
whole ricotta cheese was used to clean the palate between samples. Twelve (10
ST chops marinated with various STP, BICARB and PUMP combinations, 1
tainted loin chop control (CT) and 1 non-tainted control (CNT) loin chop
treatment) were evaluated on each day for sensory testing over 2 days. Each
day was divided into two sessions with 6 loin chops evaluated during each
session. The panelists evaluated 2 warm-up chops and discussed the results
prior to evaluating the loin chop treatments. The first warm-up sample was a
CNT loin chop and the second was a CT loin chop with atypical aromas and
flavors. Approximately 5 min was given between each evaluated sample and a
15 min break was given between each session. The serving order of the

treatments was randomized by treatment on each sensory day.

74

Study ll - Determination of consumer acceptability of marinated loin chops
with atypical flavor and aromas marinated with

tripolyphosphate, and sodium bicarbonate.

Experimental Design and Data Analysis

Determining the optimal parameters for marinades containing varying
percentage of STP, concentrations of BICARB, PUMP levels was established
from response surface curves generated by PROC G3D from the response
surface regression analysis performed in Study l (SAS, 2001). Four treatment
marinades (TRT1: 0.70M BICARB, 0.50% STP, 15% PUMP; TRT2: 0.70M
BICARB, 0.25% STP, 15% PUMP; TRT3: 0.35M BICARB, 0.50% STP, 15%
PUMP; TRT4: 0.30M BICARB, 0.25% STP, 15% PUMP) were developed from
the evaluation. Consumer sensory panel responses for flavor, juiciness, texture,
and overall acceptability of tainted sow loin chops marinated with these four
treatment combinations and control were analyzed as a randomized complete
block design using a mixed-effects model (SAS, 2001). The model included the
random main effect of replication, the fixed main effect of treatment, and the
random effects of the interaction of replication x treatment, and panelist nested in
replication. The significant main effect means were separated and least
significant differences were found using Tukey multiple pair wise comparison
method (1977). Significance level was determined at P<0.05. The experiment

was replicated three times.

75

Product Procurement

Thirty-four hot-boned tainted sow loins (ST) and six non tainted
commodity pork loins (CNT) were obtained from a southeast U.S. commercial
slaughter plant over an 8 h production shift and were shipped to the Michigan
State University Meat Laboratory. Loin selection, shipping, and sample removal
were handled in the same manner as previously described in Study I.
Sow Loin Characterization

Study I indicated that all sow loins had completed rigor mortis based on
the harvesting and processing procedures utilized at the plant. For Study ll, ST
loins (n=17), were randomly selected for state of rigor and lipid oxidation
determination by methods described in Study l. Twenty-four h purge, 7 day
purge, 48 h drip loss, and marination uptake/cook yield analyses were conducted
on ST loins (n=34) while objective and subjective color, marbling, firmness, and
proximate composition were determined on all loins (n=40) described in Study I.
Marination

ST loin sections (n=68) and CNT loin sections (n=12) were separated into
40 anterior and 40 posterior sections. Two anterior and 2 posterior sections were
randomly selected from the total number of loin sections for each treatment (TRT
1-4) and control marinade (CNT). Forty-eight ST loin sections (24 anterior and
24 posterior sections), and 12 CNT loin sections (6 anterior and 6 posterior) were

marinated in for this experiment.

76

Treatment marinades were manufactured by adding the appropriate
amount of water to a 75.7 L container, adding STP, BICARB, NaCl in that order
and mixing until each ingredient was completely dissolved with a Rotostat mixer
(Model 80XP63SS, Admix Inc., Londonderry, NH) at 2500 RPM for 7 min, 3 min,
and 3 min respectively. Mixing time did not begin until the entire ingredient
amount was added. Treatment marinades were randomly assigned to ST loin
sections. The CNT loin sections were injected with the CM (0.25% STP and
1.0% salt at 15% PUMP). Loin sections (n=4) for each marinade treatment were
injected by one pass through a Fomaco automatic injector (Model FGM 20l40,
Denmark) with conveyor/needle speed set at 12 and pump pressure set at 25-29
psi. The injection machine was thoroughly cleaned between each treatment
group injection. Treatment marinade pH and loin injection levels are reported in
Table 2.

Loin sections from each treatment marinade were tumbled separately with
a Roschermatic twin arm vacuum tumbler (Model MM-O, D-4500, Osnarbruckl W-
Germany) set at 25 psi. of vacuum and 20 rpm using a 1 min tumble and 1 min
rest cycle repeated 5 times. The total actual tumbling time was 5 min. Treated
loin sections (n=4) were removed from tumbler, vacuum packaged (2.5 psi.
vacuum) individually (30.5 x 40.6 cm bags) and frozen (-23.3°C) for 18-20 h.
Loin Fabrication

Marinated loin sections were fabricated as described in Study l. End
pieces from each loin section within each treatment were combined to create

composite samples for marinated proximate composition and TBA analysis.

77

.8205 5.58.. .c In .... In. 09.2.22 .
0."... _c>e_ 808.5 022 u 0.20.. .2305
.2"... 980 52 .c 0.6. 8.8.... 8.8.3 u 0.2:“. 5005 .

8.8.... $2 .20 a... age; .5ch 52 .022 u .230... e
538.... $9 .2 a... 2%; 950 so. .85 n 5005 c
.8... Eye; 950 so. 05:. u .2Ez_ ..
.:0.0:.0E00 00800: 000000.). .I. bah .

 

 

 

 

00.0 00.0N 000? N0.». 00.0 00.0 0.20 0
00K 5N.0.. 00.09 N00 3.0 nmN v 0
00K 00.: 00.0w 00.0 0N.0 00.N 0 0
NON 00.: 00.09 0N.0 00.0 0N.0 N 0
00K 00.: 00.0.. 0.0 0N.0 0N.0 P 0
SK 0N.0? 00.0w N00 00.? 03‘ 0.20 N
0N.» 00.x... 00.09 00.0 0N.0 00.N v N
00.0 0N.0_. 00.0w 0N.0 _.N.0 QEN 0 N
NNK 0N.0.. 00.0w 0N.0 9N0 0N.N N N
:0 3.9 00.0« 00.0 00.0 00.N _. N
00.0 50.0? 000—. 50.0 2.0 0_..v ._.20 P
00.5 00.0.. 00.0w 00.N F0.N NNN v F
00.» N00? 00.0.. 00.0 00.0 00.N 0 F
N0.» 09.5.. 00.0.. 05.0 00.0 0N.0 N w
50.: NY: 00.0w 00.0 0N.0 0N P F

e. 2. lleml IF IF II II

010 w0<z_m<.2 123a ..<D._.0< 0.230. Emmy—<0. L<DPO< ohmmumflr e._<_._._.rz. chm... mum

 

.320. 0:0. b.0oEE00 03:00 0000.00: 0:0 :53
3000 :00: 0:0 0500 00.030 050000000 050. 300 L0: 0:000:3Eo0 00.500... 03050:.
:0 In 020:...0E 0:0 0E0: .x. 0300 0:0 0E00$ 00.0. .0300 .098 .000. :0: 0030>

HN mam<h

78

Consumer Sensory Panel

AMSA guidelines (AMSA, 1995) were followed for sample preparation and
presentation to consumer sensory panelists at Michigan State University (East
Lansing, MI) on three consecutive days one week after production. Frozen
marinated chops from 4 treatments and 1 control were thawed for 24 h at 2.6°C.
One chop from each treatment (n=5) was cooked on a Taylor clamshell grill
(Model 0824 Taylor Co; Rockton, IL). The upper plate was set to 104.4°C and
the bottom plate was set to 102.8°C with a 2.16 cm gap between plates. Copper
constantan thermocouples (0.051 cm diameter, 15.2 cm length; Omega
Engineering Inc; Stamford, CT) were inserted into two chops to monitor
temperature rise during cooking and five marinated chops were cooked
simultaneously. Final cook temperature of all chops was determined with small
diameter hypodermic probe thermocouples (0.089 cm diameter, 5.72 cm length;
Cole-Farmer; Vernon Hills, IL). Chops were cooked to a final internal
temperature of 71°C 1- 1.5°C. Chops were removed from the grill, placed in
separate Pyrex® two quart bowls with the bowls placed in an insulated cooler
containing a damp and heated blanket at the bottom. The samples were
immediately transported to the Michigan State University Sensory Evaluation
Laboratory. Upon arrival, treatment chops were immediately removed from the

glass bowls and placed in Pyrex® double broilers heated in a water bath

maintained at 140°C for sample holding. Sample preparation included cutting

79

1.27 x 1.27 x 2.45 cm cubes from the center portion of each pork loin chop. The
order of sample presentation was randomized within each session (Meilgaard,
1991)

Consumer panel evaluations (n=45) were conducted in 2 h sessions on
three consecutive days. Expectorant cups were provided to prevent taste
fatigue. Distilled, deionized water and unsalted soda crackers were provided to
clean the palate between samples. Panelists were asked to determine desirability
of juiciness, texture, flavor, and overall acceptability of the pork chops. An 8
point hedonic scale was used where 1=extremely undesirable and 8=extremely
desirable. Data was collected using SIMS (2000) sensory computer software
and comment boxes were provided for each question asked.

Cook Yields / Shear Force Determination / Proximate Composition

Chops were cooked by methods previously described in the consumer
sensory panel section. Marinated ST and CNT loin chop cook yields were
determined by recording the initial weight of two 2.54 cm loin chops, cooking
them to an internal temperature of 71°C, allowing them to cool to room
temperature and reweighing the cooked loin chops. Percent cook yield was
calculated by determining the difference between the initial and cooked loin chop
weight, dividing that difference by the initial weight and dividing by 100. The loin
chops were then placed on plastic trays covered with plastic film and chilled at
4°C for 12 h. Three, 1.27 cm cores were taken parallel to the longitudinal axis of
the fibers using a drill press-mounted corer. Cores were sheared perpendicular

to the fibers using a Warner Bratzler head on a TA-Hdi Texture Analyzer (Texture

80

Technologies Corp., Scotsdale, NY). The crosshead speed was set at 3.30
mm/s. Data was reported in kg of force. Composite samples were collected for

cooked proximate composition.

81

Results and Discussion
Studyl
Rigor Determination (pH and R- Value)

R-value and pH change determination indicated that the completion of
rigor had occurred for both ST (n=16) and CNT (n=13) sow loins. Honikel and
Fischer (1977) reported that postmortem changes can be monitored by adenine
nucleotide level monitoring where value less than 1.5 pMol/g meat sample
indicate the completion of rigor. Adenine nucleotide levels for normal porcine
muscle at 1 h and 24 h postmortem ranged from 3.5 to 8.5 and 1.0 to 2.2
respectively. Adenine nucleotide levels at 24 h were 1.32 and 1.34 uMol/g for ST
and CNT loins respectively, indicating the completion of rigor (Table 3). No
significant differences in pH were observed between initial and 10 min pH for
either ST or CNT loins. Differences in pH between ST and CNT loins were
significant (P<0.05) (Table 3).
pH and TBA Analyses

ST loin (n=16) pH ranged from 5.60 to 6.60 and CNT loin (n=13) pH
ranged from 5.64 to 6.04 (data not shown). No differences were found between
ST and CNT loins for pH nor initial TBA (Table 3).

Subjective / Objective Quality Analyses

No differences were observed for subjective color and firmness between
ST and CNT sow loins (Table 4). However, ST loins were rated significantly
higher (P<0.05) for marbling than CNT loins. No differences were found for

Minolta values for reflectance (L*), redness (a*), and yellowness (b*) between ST

82

.0000. .00.0...0 0.0 000000000 .00.0...0 0...: 0E:_00 0E00 0.5.2, 000025-.

00.0. ._.20 .0. 0000E 00. .0 .000 0000.0 u 5.00..

00.0. ...0 .0. 00008 00. .0 .000 00000.0 u .200.

.8000 .._0 .0 0000 .0000. 000.00 0 00 .000 00000 0.0. E0.. .00. 0.0.... u 000.. 000.

.8000. 000.00 0000x000 E0000> .0 9.00 n .90 02.000 0.0. 800.000 E0.. .00. 0.0.". u 000000..
.900. 0008.0 0000x000 E::00> .0 9.00 N 0.0 02.000 0.0. 000.00 E0.. .00. 0.2”. u $6000...
.2 0N. 00.0. 30.... 0000.. 0000900. .000 .00. 0.2.“. u Emma}

0.9000 000030000000. 0E 00 000000. .00. 0.00 0..3.0.000.0....Nu<0._.Aw

.10 0.00.... or 000 00.0. 0003.00 0000.0...0 u 0000.0...0 I...V

.0000... 00000.00: 00.000000 .0 .00E .0 0:00.: n 0:_0>.m_.v

00.0. 300 .9000 00.0.0.002 u .20..

.000. 300. .00.. 000 0E0.0 00.0.00 0....) 00.0. 300 u .00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E. a... 00.. NS 8... mo... 5... S... .200
2.0 8.. 8.0 $0 8.... 8.0 .8... .0. .020
.0... mm... 3.. mod 8... no... 8... S... .200
0... ~00 8.. no. cod 5.0 good 00.. .5
0.. 0. 0.. 0.. 9.0... 8..» 0.3
.80.. 0.0 .0050 was. .2000 2m: :0 1.0 In 0%
000... 0.00 oz< 0.05.2... 0000.. 20:02.23

 

:20. use. :8
.2000 00.00.00: 000 5.0 ..0.0. 300. .00.. 000 00.0.0 00.9.0 000000000 00.0. 300 .0. 000. 9.0
000 .0050 .00:.0> <0... .10 ..0000.0...0 In 000 000?”: 00.00.5000 .00.. .0. 00000. 00.0000 000.. .0 m._m<...

83

.0..000. .00.0...0 0.0 0.0..000000 .00.0...0 0....) 00.0.00 00.00 0.0..2. 0000.2 .3
00.0. ...20 .0. 00000. 0.... .0 .000 00000.0 n .200 .
00.0. ...0 .0. 00000. 00. .0 .20 00000.0 u .200 o
0.000 20.0
0070 0 00 0000320.. u .0 000 .000000. n .0 0000.00: u H. 0.02, .90... .05. 000.0..000h. .000..00.0.0. 00.00.0000 a
.8000 ...0 .0 0000. 00000.0 .0..000 2.00 0.000020 2.00 000002 0. 00.0.0000 0.000.000005. o
00.0. 2.00 .0..000 00.0.0.-002 u #20 ..
...0.0. 2.00. .0>0.. 000 00.0.0 00.0.00 5.2. 00.0. 2.00 n ...0 a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

00.0 2.0 00.0 00.0 $0 3.... 8.0. 0.0 00.0 .200
0000 .00 ...0. .00 00. 0 00.0... 00.. .000 00... .50
00.0 $0 0.1. 00.0 :3 .0.. 00.0 00.0 00.0 0.200
.000 a... 0.0. 000 00. 0 00.0... 00.0 .000 00... 5.0
I. 0.. 0.. a... l. I IIW 0.... 0.0..
2.0.000 2... 000.052 .0 .0 .0 0002.200. 02:00.02 00.00
290000200 220 500.00 09.0% ol0.zw2000§_g.800

 

40.20. 00.0. .500 .0..000 00.0.0.
.000 000 5.0 40.0. 300. .0>0.. 000 0E00 00.0.50 00.0000000 00.0. 300 .0. 00.000083 :0. 000
000.01.... ...0 V... .0.00 03.0030 00000.... 000 00.300. 00.00 02.00300 .0. 00000. 000000 .000.— "v 0404....

84

and CNT loins (Table 4), however, L* values for CNT loins were slightly lower
indicating a slightly darker lean color.

Twenty-four h purge loss was not significantly different (7.33 vs. 8.57%)
between ST and CNT loins (Table 3). Although the purge values reported are
high, this may be due to the effects of measuring purge loss of frozen meat after
subsequent thawing. Freezing of meat creates ice crystals that may rupture
protein fibers thereby allowing more water to exude from the muscle. Seven day
purge loss for ST and CNT loin section was not significantly different (Table 3).

Drip loss (48 h) ranged from 3.85 and 12.72% for all sow loins (n=26)(data
not shown). No significant differences for drip loss were found between ST and
CNT loin chops (Table 3). The higher purge loss values were also noted by
Reagan (1983) who stated that hot-boned muscle subjected to a temperature of
0°C may have a much higher purge/drip loss than muscle that is conditioned
(some form of conventional chilling) before being frozen.

Proximate Composition / Marination Uptake and Cook Yield Analyses

Raw moisture, fat, and protein composition were not significantly different
between ST and CNT loins (Table 4). Marination uptake values ranged from
22.78 to 62.50% and cook yield values ranged between 81.83 and 117.39%
(Appendix 15). The high degree of variation among samples may be due to the
variation of pork quality (pH) among the samples, thereby influencing water-

holding capacity.

85

Marinated pH, Proximate Composition, and TBA

Marinated ST and CNT sow loin pH (Table 5) ranged from 6.02 to 7.22.
This increase in loin pH was due to the pH of the respective treatment marinades
(Table 1), which ranged from 6.55 to 6.82. Marinated TBA values conducted
during trained sensory panel evaluation indicate that oxidative rancidity did not
contribute to the atypical aromas and flavors required for the development of sow
taint. The low fat content of ST and CNT sow loins (Table 4) limited the amount
of substrate available for lipid oxidation, thus influencing TBA values. The low
TBA values could also be attributed to prerigor processing and the short time
required for fabrication, storage and final analysis.
Trained Sensory Evaluation

Basic flavors, tastes, aftertastes, aromatics, myofibrillar tenderness,
juiciness and connective tissue attributes were evaluated by a trained sensory
panel (Table 6). The effects of BICARB, STP, and PUMP significantly (P<0.05)
affected muscle fiber tenderness, juiciness, overall tenderness, connective
tissue, sour aftertaste, metal aftertaste, and metallic aroma based on response
surface regression analysis. Response surface graphs were generated for these
attributes with factors of PUMP (545%), STP (0.25-0.50%), and BICARB (0.35-
0.70M).

As STP and BICARB increased (0.50% and 0.70M respectively) metallic
aftertaste decreased (Figure 3a and 3b). Both unmarinated ST and CNT loin
chops were rated by panelists (1.50 and 1.43 respectively) as possessing higher

levels of metallic aftertaste. These findings are supported by Chen and

86

TABLE 5. Least squares means for moisture, fat, and protein; TBA; and pH of sow loins

possessing atypical aroma and flavor marinated with STP” and BICARB“ at

 

 

 

 

varying PUMP levels.
MARINATED COMPOSITION
MOISTURE FAT PROTEIN M m:
TRT‘ % %' % mg/kg

1 72.77 3.87 22.73 0.0068 6.02
2 75.72 1.09 21.95 0.0000 6.21
3 75.28 0.54 21.10 0.0013 6.36
4 74.73 0.00 22.03 0.0080 6.43
5 77.77 1.64 20.75 0.0085 6.67
6 73.58 5.48 21.12 0.0193 7.13
7 77.17 0.49 22.49 0.0163 6.68
8 77.46 0.21 22.11 0.0135 7.16
9 76.43 0.50 23.26 0.0018 6.70
10 74.71 2.35 21.66 0.0023 7.17
11 72.14 3.25 23.90 0.0045 6.72
12 75.95 0.00 24.49 0.0060 7.22
13 76.99 0.92 20.73 0.0010 6.40
14 74.62 1.91 21.07 0.0093 6.95
SEM° 0.77 0.60 0.54 0.0055 0.10
15‘ 74.19 2.89 22.94 0.0016 6.65
SEM“ 0.32 0.25 0.22 0.0023 0.04

 

“Treatment combinations. See Table 1.

b STP = Sodium tripolyphosphate.
° BICARB = Sodium bicarbonate.

d PUMP= Percentage of marinade solution injected

° SEM = Standard error of the mean for treatment combinations 1-14.

'15 = Treatment 15 replicated an additional five times to derive error degrees of freedom to test

signifincance (TRT 16-20).

9 SEM = Standard error of the mean for replicated treatment combination.

" pH = pH of marinated sow loins.

87

.050. #20 0cm #0 .2 0:006 05 0o .98 20950 n .200.
.052 38 .238 0253.52 0 0.20. .3; 5005058 20.58: cob 0:36 05 00 5:0 209.80 u .200 .

 

 

.359 26$ .0>0... new 0820 .3320 55, ago. 260 u #0 2 6200.5 8028 30:00.: .0 009:3ch n 0550 6

00005088 «cognac. 020232 .0.. 0:09: 05 0o .98 93:30 u .200 6 6.089003 c.5600 u 930.0 6

.83? E: 8:85:66 .8. o. 288.. .6 8286 .o.mfimo;&_8£ 5280 u 65 .

.900 02000 2 005: m 3.005200 :0 0902—00.. mw “cogmmhh n m_. . 0.0285058 «c0958.; a
«to 00.0 sud 00.0 3.0 and 00.0 .200
00.0 0v; 00.0 «0.0 «50 3.0 00.0 1.20
v0.0 00; v: 3.0 0:. mfiv 0:. 55
o 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 9.0 6.200
0 00.0 05.0 5.0 00.0 «0.0 00.0 or 00.0 00.0 .0F
0 F0 «0.0 00.0 010 3.0 00.0 0v.o 65.00
0 {.0 00.0 50.0 00.0 004‘ 00.0 3 2.0 00.0 3
3.0 mm; and 8.0 $6 006 03. or 00.0 0nd 2
0 0m; 00.0 010 omé 00.0 and or 00.0 00.0 NF
3.0 0m.— 0rd 00.0 00.0 no.0 00.0 or 00.0 00.0 C
00.0 00.0 3.0 00.0 8.». 05¢ 34. 0F 00.0 00.0 or
o 00.0 0rd 000 the 00.0 2.4. 0 00.0 00.0 m
1.0 00.0 00.0 0.0 om.0 and 80 9 00.0 0.3 0
0 mm; 00.0 88 00.0 9.0 9.0 0v «v.0 0v.o n
0v.o 00.0 0rd 05.0 K0 006 2.0 9 00.0 010 0
0N.0 «0.. 50.0 No.5 000 002‘ 3.0 0? $0 00.0 0
0v.o 00.0 5; 0.1. 0N0 no.0 00.0 x. 00.0 010 v
o 00. r 004 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 5 Ned 00.0 0
o {.0 00.0 5.0 v0.v 00.0 «04. n 00.0 00.0 N
«to 3... 00.0 00.0 Ra. 00.0 0:. s «v.0 00.0 v

03.2905. 03.72.05. 0:00 0300; mmwzmwozwh 000200020... ..\o 3 <6
0:.<s_Om< 00.94.500.02 0.5105082 02.502200 4§0>O 0002.050 000.0 040.022 0.230 930.0 3.0 L0...
.13.... 9.3.9 .6 “.0563

ten nah..." 5.! 022.22: .0>0.. new «EOE .3330 053032. 2.2.0 £0. 30. com «Econ .32. beacon .358. .0.— 2308 0225» «age... "0 049k

88

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S...
.8...
s
m o
. m m
8.. v v
u u
3 3
Au... 8 a
1. I.
V V
s .....
.03 m. 8.63”. .3; a
$38.23.. .3” 38:6 . unwsumczwmofso 6”,...
20235.38 .8 .86: was... .2 m : h
. a
. 0N.0 . E0 00... 0a.. . .5 9
3.. 8.. . 8
l0 NV: . W
0 an o . W 3
.0». . 8.. u I.
0 00.. v w
2.... n n
8... m o
v
IIIlIIIIIIIIII v u.
. as m m
I.
I v W...
Sen». 3. m. 3.7%. .80 m.
$24.22 a $28.23.".
on O 0 O 50 O 0 . .
s s. as. as s. : no... u s... an 6.08.22 2:86: 3:28: .86» a."

.6320. 32688.0 52.38 s. 2.93... .23 .55.
22.82.38... 55.08 $36.2... .853... .26. 5.86.... $3 5.3 3:88:55 2.2... so. 38 8.2065 .6
£08.33 500 new 2:82: .2 0.23.: 5.30.52 03...— uca .82 .0063... 23.0.5.0 .0 «2:3 38.30 02.2.03. .0 0030.“.

Ho (1998) who stated that metal or metallic aromas are present in cooked pork.
Sour aftertaste also showed a lower response (0.50) from higher levels of STP
and BICARB (Figure 3c and 3d). This indicates that results from the fitted model
approached the non-tainted control responses (Table 6). This was important as
the term “sour” was often associated throughout the study with describing the
complex atypical aromas and flavors of tainted sow meat. For metallic aroma,
the lower levels of BICARB and the higher levels of STP tended to reduce
sensory panel responses (Figure 4a and 4b).

Connective tissue residual response increased at lower levels of STP and
BICARB (Figure 5a and 5b). This phenomenon could be due to a high injection
level (15%) and collective effects STP, BICARB, and NaCl. Therefore, the
effects of all three ingredients synergistically could result in high responses at
their lower levels. Figure 50 and 5d shows that the highest response for juiciness
was reached at lower BICARB concentrations and higher STP levels. It is
important to note that the response had a small range from 4.87 to 4.92. Muscle
fiber tenderness (Figure 6a and 6b) scores were higher at lower STP levels and
BICARB concentrations. However, there was very little difference in response
when BICARB was increased. This indicates that injection level may play a
larger role in muscle fiber tenderness than STP or BICARB. It appears that a low
amount of STP or BICARB is important for an improvement in muscle fiber
tenderness. However, STP level may have a more important role in this than
BICARB concentration. The higher water level from injection may improve the

perception of

90

 

 

 

 

 

0......
0.. ... w a. o w
a .1...
W. V
.I
.n n
. I 3
.00 .. o v
v u
H
o o
w w
v
5.... v
0.0.8.23 0.2.8.230
2.026... 2:86.... .o. .28.... as... .5... 2.056... 2.0.0.... .6. .86.... .26» .0...
2005.0.

22.3.8.0 55.08 3. 2.5.3... .2... .65. 32.08.0260... 55.08 $8.30... .055...
.0>0. 00:007.. $0.. 5.2. 00.300320... 002.0 £0. :60 00.05.08 .0 0.00820 2:30....
.o. 0.000.: :200050. 00:..— 020 .002 8.....v0. 0:005:20 ho 002:0 000...:0 00.30000 .0 00:0...

91

 

 

 

 

 

$0 ..nn.s.Dn.

 

 

 

82.2.... .o. 3.5... .50... .0...
3
o
N
N
3
3
m
u
s
S
n
. 3
0.07.0200 00... ..... .0
2.00: 02.85.00 .0. .28... .80.. .0....

 

 

SSSNIOIDI‘

 

 

 

 

genus... 0.0
00050.2. .0. .000: .0.0...
. 0.... . 0.0
0
o
N
N
a
3
w.
H.
s
s
. u .0 n
0.0.".0200 0N .. .. .0 _3. a
0:00.... 05.000000 .0. .0002 .80... .0.0

.0050. 22.5.8.0 05.08 = .0..000... .2... 00.0. 32030023...
80.000 $00.00.... .5550. .0>0. 00000—5 $0.. 0...... 00.0.003008 00000 0.0. 2.00 00.05.08 .0 00050.:—
000 0:00.. 0>..000000 .0. 0.0008 00.00050. 00.... 000 .0.0. .037... 8005020 .0 00200 000...:0 0000000". .0 $50....

92

 

 

 

 

 

mud n «0 .

$0 val—230
0000.000: ..0.0>O .0. .0002 .80...

0.... 0.0

.0. 00... 8.. S...
We 2....
9 0......
2....

 

 

00... u .0 .

$0 .u0230
00050000... .00.". 0.0022 .0. .000... 00... 0

SSSNHBONBL 'I'IVUEAO

1%
«0

006

('0
V
M

:0
“2
«-

SSSNHSONSL
MESH 311)an

E»
N
:0

N
".
ls

 

.06

/
.0.»... 0....
9
0......
0....

 

«N6 n «0

$0 rum—230
mmOEOUp—Oh. =EO>° 50h _OUO= _NaO.—.

 
  

N06

 
   

 

 

'3
’2
In

G
. O
M

[E
‘9.
:0
SSENUSONBL 'I'IVHSAO

5

 

. 3.0

. 3.0

 

36 u «0

$mvun..23n.

00050000... .00.... 0.00:... .0. .0005. .0.0...

..00<0.0. 283.8... 0.2.30 :. .0..000... .2... .000. 22.00.3000...
80.000 $006.02. A0550. .0>0. 00000—0. $0. 0...: 005.00.0008 00000 0.0. 2.00 00.05.08 .0 00050000.
..0.0>0 000 .00.. 0.0008 .0. 0.0008 00.00050. 00.... 000 .0.0. .0063... 800.0090 .0 00.000 000.30 00000000 .0 m0:0.0

9
c0

SSSNHSONBL
838k! 311)an

0°.”
I

93

tenderness when defined as a combination of juiciness and muscle fiber
tenderness. It is important to note that all treatment combinations had a higher
response for muscle fiber tenderness than the tainted and non-tainted controls
(Table 6).

Overall tenderness responses were higher at lower STP levels and
BICARB concentrations (Figure 6c and 6d). This again indicates that injection
level may play a larger role than STP or BICARB for overall tenderness to be
improved. The figure also indicates that a low amount of STP or BICARB is
needed for the improvement of overall tenderness. It is also important to note
that all treatment combinations had a higher response for overall tenderness than
the tainted and non-tainted controls (Table 6).

From the interpretation of Figures 3-6, optimum levels were identified for
STP and BICARB that yielded the highest mean responses for the 7 attributes
discussed above. Four STP level and BICARB concentration combinations
(TRT1= 0.50% STP, 0.70 M BICARB; TRT2: 0.25% STP, 0.70 M BICARB;
TRT3= 0.50% STP, 0.35 M BICARB; and TRT4= 0.25% STP, 0.30 M BICARB)
were identified from this interpretation. PUMP was not significant and did not
show visually large improvements in response surface graphs for the 7 attributes.
However, as PUMP increased slightly improved responses were shown for some
of the attributes. Therefore, PUMP was held constant at 15% for all treatments.
Conclusions

Levels approaching optimization of PUMP, STP, and concentrations of

BICARB were determined utilizing response surface regression and a trained

94

sensory panel. Marinade treatments containing STP, BICARB, and NaCl that
would offer the most likelihood of atypical aroma and flavor reduction or
elimination were successfully developed from the trained sensory panel analyses
to more closely investigate the elimination of sow taint. These treatments (TRT1=
0.50% STP, 0.70 M BICARB; TRT2= 0.25% STP, 0.70 M BICARB; TRT3=
0.50% STP, 0.35 M BICARB; and TRT4= 0.25% STP, 0.30 M BICARB) were
utilized in Study ll.
Study II
Rigor Determination (pH), pH, TBA

Results indicate the loins had achieved rigor completion (Appendix 17).
Raw sow loin (n=40) pH ranged from 5.38 to 6.81 (Appendix 18). Of the 40 loins,
1 to 34 represented tainted sow loins and 35 to 40 represented non-tainted
commodity pork controls. No significant differences for pH were found between
tainted and control loin groups (Table 7). The pH for control commodity pork
loins was slightly higher. ST loins (n=17) were randomly selected and evaluated
for lipid oxidation. Day 1 TBA values (Appendix 19) ranged from 0.008 to 0.117
indicating very little lipid oxidation
Subjective / Objective Quality Analyses

Subjective color, marbling, and firmness scores for ST and CNT loin
chops ranged from 3 to 6 (6 point scale), 1 to 4 (10 point scale where each
number symbolizes % fat), 1 to 3 (3 point scale), respectively. Objective L*, a*,

b* values ranged from 33.13 to 55.73, 18.35 to 24.45, and 0.96 to 8.75

95

.Amodvmv EocmEu Ea $38.33..." 229:6 5? 5:28 oEmm £5? memos. 2.

.26. ._.20 .2 names. 9: _o coho 2855 u 2mm s

.36. .5 be mcmoE 05 .o coho Emocfim u 2mm.

29> xooo u >0 ._

.oxmfi: 25:th u as:

.EoEmSmmoE In 3mm n In.

£22m u home a

6.2.0422 n .552 a

.monEE u 2a.". .

.3355. u mmsz .

.o_wom xca 09.0 m :0 3332.2 u .9 new .3959 u R 63529. u h. 923 3%... 3.9 mmmcogmuwb .mcoszEE co_mm_EEoo u
.Soow .._m .o mommy mEmucSm 3:55 {on 98:85 ion. .95sz o. @5288 $559382 u
.26. 350888 6ch 3.53-52 u P20 3

.359 263 32»: new «.505 .moabm 53> 26. Bow u ._.w a

 

mad 0N6 Emo mvd omd no.0 and N90 wné mvd mNd oNd EEwm
ommdow omodm and mvém NON. 2.9mm oomd View oPmNm tum mwd oomd 1.20
00% 3d vod 3.0 and de mmd vwd mud mod 0.20 :d .2wm

ctdop cvodv afim mmdm NYN wads =36 mo._.N cmmév mFN FNN cum;v «Pm

 

as as as as .x. l at 53
30 .22 Ed 55mm 2”. 95.0.2 .9 .m L .Illzmm omm<lz mouoo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ZO_._._.la;On_S_OO >><M umOAOO w>_._.0w_.m0 owkzmfiwmnwxxm—Z m>_._.0wwm3w

 

.920» «So. 5.508506 33:8 3253.5: 3:... .2.» «52 ion» .33: EB
«EOE 30..qu usmmommoq 25 3cm .6» €33 «coo EB .6329. ohm—Em... “IQ ..=o.£moQEoo BE
.6639. «.3 rm .. i 5200 950630 6355.: new .ucafimE :23 953.33% .5. $52: «9:33 “mood C. m...m<...

96

respectively (Appendix 20). Kauffman and Marsh (1987) stated that as
chronological age of animals increases, the quantity of myoglobin in muscle
increases resulting in a darker surface color. Table 7 shows that ST loins were
significantly (P<0.05) darker than CNT loins for both subjective and objective
color (redder and darker). This is in agreement with Nold et al. (1999) who found
muscles from gilts were darker in color compared to barrows. No differences
were found, however, for objective yellowness or subjective marbling or firmness
between ST and CNT loins (Table 7).

Twenty-four h purge loss of ST loins (n=34) ranged between 0 and 6.91%
(Appendix 21). Seven day purge loss for ST loin sections ranged between 0.72
and 9.05% (Appendix 13), while 48 h drip loss ranged from 0.42 to 8.45% for ST
loin chops (Appendix 21). Twenty-four h, 7 day purge, and 48 h drip loss were
not measured for CNT loins. High purge losses could be attributed to high loin
temperatures (2-4°C) upon arrival (Appendix 21). Evidence of purge from the
initial thawing stages of some of the loins was observed and unable to be
captured and included in 24-h purge determination.

Proximate Composition

Raw moisture, fat, and protein composition for ST and CNT loins ranged
between 71.71 to 78.46%, 0.14 to 9.97%, and 20.73 to 26.04% respectively
(Appendix 18). No significant differences were found between the ST and CNT

loins for raw moisture, fat, or protein composition (Table 7).

97

Marination Uptake and Cook Yield Analyses

Marination uptake and cook yield values for all ST and CNT loins is
reported in Table 7. The CNT loins had a significantly higher (P<0.05) marination
uptake and cook yield compared to ST loins. This would suggest that ST sow
loins would not be able to “pick up” and hold as much marinade as the CNT loins.
This could impact the ability of treatment marinades containing STP and BICARB
to minimize atypical aromas and flavors of ST loins, potentially lowering
consumer sensory acceptability scores.
Marinated pH, TBA, Proximate Composition

The pH of composite marinated ST loin samples were higher than
unmarinated raw ST loin pH values (Table 8). ST loins marinated with TRT 1
(0.50% STP, 0.70M BICARB) and TRT 2 (0.25% STP, 0.70M BICARB) had
significantly higher (P<0.05) pH values than ST loins marinated with TRT 3
(0.50% STP, 0.35M BICARB) and TRT 4 (0.25% STP, 0.35M BICARB). The
CNT loins (0.25% STP) had significantly lower (P<0.05) pH values (Table 8).
This could be explained by the percent STP and BICARB concentration present
in each treatment marinade formulation. Townsend and Olson (1987) reported
that STP has an increasing effect on pH. Lindsay (1985) stated that BICARB has
excellent pH buffering properties. Kauffman et al. (1998) had an increase (0.6 to
1.0 units) in pH when they used BICARB in hot-boned and post-rigor pork loins.
This suggests that BICARB and STP may collectively increase pH in compared

to either STP or BICARB alone.

98

.Amodvav ESQ—6 2m $50935 EEoEu 5:5 5:28 2:3 £55, memos. .2
.._.20 new 20:23:50 .5860: 5.— 9.55 9: .6 .95 2555 u 2mm ..
.anmm 23an8 ho In 52552 n In a

.3358 260950 86:56 5. 62 Bow o_.:._€mno_z._.-w u (m... _

.26. Q8558 6.28 8.59-82 u #20 .

665983 .568 n 9205 u

.5585:an 558 u Em .

698...: 5:28 555.: 5 3852?. u 123d ..

.cosznEoo Eons—wot. n km... .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m...o mpd 56 «ad No; and mod wood cimw
.mmdm vbod Nod» bo.ow EN was» .96 Sod £20
.39.. find bod» vm. E as; 3.: and Cod v
BEN Red .mn. E. Em. 5 mm; 8.: bad N 5.0 m
.mndm 15m xbmd... omdm omN mods Ems Cod N
xmmdm 3N4. ENE vm. Fm cm; 5.9. Wms a 56 w

o\o ..\o o\.. o\.. .x. ..\o 95:.
£90k. um“. 9:66.). £99m “mu. 2:665. in 29.
zO_._._mOds_Oo omxooo ZOfiWOQEOO ow._.<z_m<_2
.5556 .2... 0.5 55 .15.. $2 a 3.2.3:. Czo. as... 3.3558 .228
55.3.5: new .95. 5.2 Zoo. 55: new 255 5053a 95532. 25. Bow .8 5:35:50
35:55 v5 35.. .55 .22» 53 in .295 5.525 Ba: 5.— 252: 5.55m 55.. ”a mums.

99

Marinated composite ST loin sample TBA values measured during consumer
sensory panel evaluation (7 d vacuum packaged storage at 2.8°C), ranged from
0.012 to 0.019 indicating that lipid oxidation would have minimal impact on
sensory panel scores. No differences were found between marinated ST loins
and marinated CNT loins (Table 8). The low TBA values may be due to due low
fat intermuscular fat content (Tables 7 & 8), vacuum packaging and short frozen
storage period (7 days) between loin chop fabrication and sensory evaluation.

Marinated proximate composition for composite treatments and control are
shown in Table 8. No significant differences were found between any marinated
treatments for moisture and fat. However, ST loins marinated with TRT 3 were
significantly (P<0.05) higher in protein than the control. No other differences for
protein were observed between treatments.
Cook Yields

Cook yields of sensory chops are reported in Table 9. The loin

source of each of these chops was not known as they were randomly assigned
within each treatment. Cook yields for ST loins marinated with TRT1 were
significantly (P<0.05) higher than all other treatments and the control. TRT 4 loin
chop cook yields were significantly (P<0.05) lower than TRT 1 and CNT loin
chops. CNT loin chops were significantly (P<0.05) lower in cook yields than all
marinated ST loin chops. Marination uptake and cook yield analysis indicated
that CNT loin chops should have had higher cook yields than ST sow loin chops.
This was not the case. A possible explanation for this is that the controls were

marinated with a basic marinade of 0.25% STP and 1.0% salt where all other

100

.Godvm. 2.905: 05 85:85:38 2.8.0.2: 5.3 5:28 9.58 55.3 8:82). 5.

8988 bomcom mono ._.zo ucm AV: 5:25:50 .5850... 5. 9.80:. o... .o 5.5 28:85 u 2mm .
5:38:85 =m.m>o n j<mm>o.

8.39.82. 29.5.88 um 639.83.... 2059.5 "V 8.9.3 0.88 2:08: .50: m :8 men: 89.8.... 5:8: 5:58:00 u mmhsmitk >m0mzmm ..
.028 .6 9. c. 8.389.. mo:.m> 8.0. .805. u «(wzm a

85:0 50. .o 8283 500 u >0 .

.m:_o_ b.0955“. _o..:oo 8.59-52 u #20 8

855933 Eauow n 9305 8

5.8380528... E=_uow u 95 u

528?. 5:29... 28855:. .0 39:80.0: u Egan. a

dozmcfiEoo EoEfio... u km... _.

 

 

 

 

 

 

28 «.8 38 N2. 8... mm. .58
.38 :88 .88 .38 5.28 :88... 88 mm... 8. mLzo
88.8 188 .38 53.8 .88 5.888 on... ma... 8. v
:28 .88 .28 :38 .58 22.5 8.0.... 8... 8. m
2.888 .88 2888 5.88 5.2.... 28.8 Ed 8...... 8. N
.598 .188 28.8 .5888 EN: .888 E... 8... 8. F
l I l Ilwxl as uls.l as .\.| .5:
_.:<mm>o 8326.2 $.3me moan”. 85:8 .5 8:5... Em 8.23..
“885382 Eqwzw 3%

 

...mm<o.m .88 .15 5.; “.55.. $8. .8 8.2.8:. 2.2 fizo. .828 3.35.58 8.52.5:
.58 .55: :5 «:55 .moabnwsgommoa m:_o_ Bow 5 3:32:35 =Eo>o “En 8550...... .9588.

.55: ho 88.5.58 >585» 5.. 5.508 .58 69.8 52.8 .58 2o.» .53 .8 855:. 82258 55.. .m m4m<._.

101

marinade treatments had STP at either 0.25 or 0.50%. and either 0.35 or 0.70M
BICARB with 1.0% salt.

Targeted injection levels (Table 2) were difficult to achieve since the ST
and CNT loin sections (n=4) were considered an extremely small production run
for the size of the automatic injection machine used. Most target injection levels
were within 2.5% after injection, however, control loin batches were nearly 5.0%
over the targeted injection weight. This was due to the conformation of the
commodity control loin sections as they were physically deeper loins creating a
longer amount of time that the injector needles were in the loins during an
injection pass. Extended drain times were required to compensate for
overpumping.

Shear Force Analysis / Proximate Composition

Least squares means for shear force values for composite marinated
treatment and control chops are shown in Table 9. Results from this table show
that ST loin chops marinated with TRT 1 required less force to shear (P<0.05)
compared to chops marinated with other treatment marinades, including CNT loin
chops. However, all shear force values were low indicating that all ST and CNT
loin chops had acceptable tenderness. Sheard et al. (1999) and Sutton et al.
(1997) reported similar findings for loin chops marinated with a solution
containing STP. Least squares means for cooked moisture, fat, and protein
composition are reported in Table 8. TRT 1 and CNT were significantly higher
(P<0.05) for percent moisture than TRT 2, 3, and 4 while TRT 3 was significantly

lower (P<0.05) than TRT 4. For fat, TRT 1 was significantly higher (P<0.05)

102

than TRT 4 and CNT and lower (P<0.05) than TRT 2 and 3. Also, TRT 2 and 3
were significantly higher (P<0.05) than TRT 1, 4, and CNT. TRT 4 was
significantly higher (P<0.05) for protein than all other treatments while TRT 1 and
TRT 2 had significantly less (P<0.05) protein than TRT 3, 4, and CNT loins.
Consumer Sensory Evaluation

Consumer sensory panel least squares means sensory scores (8 point
hedonic scale) for flavor (FLAV), texture (TEXT), juiciness (JUICE), and overall
acceptability (OVERALL) for marinated ST and CNT loin chops are reported in
Table 9. The CNT loin chops were not different (P>0.05) for FLAV compared to
ST loin chops marinated with TRT 3. However, TRT 3 was not different (P>0.05)
than TRT 1 or 2 with small 95% confidence intervals (-0.70, 0.14 & -0.62, 0.22
respectively) indicating no practical, important difference. TRT 4 had a
significantly (P<0.05) lower higher sensory score for FLAV but was not different
than TRT 1 and 2 (-0.27, 0.57 8. -0.19, 0.65 respectively). These results indicate
that TRT 3 was not different than the control (-0.69, 0.14) for FLAV. These
findings are supported by Kauffman et al. (1998) who saw improvements in flavor
by injecting a solution containing BICARB and salt in prerigor loins from gilts.

For TEXT, TRT 4 was significantly (P<0.05) lower than ST loins marinated
with TRT 3 and the marinated CNT loin chops. No differences were observed
(P>0.05) for ST loin chops marinated with either TRT 1, 2 or 3 compared to CNT
loin chops (-0.90, 0.04; -0.80, 0.13; -0.57, 0.36 respectively). Hedrick et al.
(1989) suggested that muscles from young pork are more tender than that from

older pork (sows). Marination with STP and BICARB are thought to be the

103

reason for these results as Sheard et al. (1999) and Sutton et al. (1997) both
found improvements in texture (tenderness) by injecting pork with a marinade
containing STP. Sheard et al. (1999) stated that increasing STP levels from
0.30% to 0.50% improved tenderness. ST loin chops with the TRT 4 marinade
had the lowest TEXT score which contained the lowest percent STP (0.25%) and
BICARB concentration (0.30M).

Treatments 1, 2, 3, & 4 were not different than the control (-0.67, 0.15; -
0.34, 0.48; -0.35, 0.46; -0.76, 0.06 respectively) for JUICE. However, TRT 2 and
3 loin chops were juicier (P<0.05) than TRT 4 loin chops. These observations
indicate that juiciness is a direct result of improved water holding capacity from
the addition of phosphates (Sheard et al., 1999; Sutton, et al., 1997; and Smith et
al., 1984), sodium chloride (Matlock et al., 1984; Schwartz and Mandigo, 1976;
and Vote et al., 2000), and sodium bicarbonate (Bechtel et al., 1985).

Least squares means for OVERALL show that TRT 1, 2, and 4 had
significantly (P<0.05) lower sensory scores than the control. Additionally, TRT 4
had a significantly (P<0.05) lower sensory score than TRT 4. However TRT 3
was not different than the control indicating its similar consumer acceptability
compared to CNT chops.

As an overall observation of the sensory evaluation, it is worthy to note
that although significant differences were observed in this experiment, all sensory
attn'bute responses for all treatments were less than 1 hedonic point from the
control responses. This indicates that none of the treatments yielded extremely

different sensory scores than the control for any of the attributes as supported by

104

consumer sensory panelist comments. These results show that all treatments
showed some type of positive effect to the tainted hot-boned sow loins.
Conclusions

The acceptability of ST sow loins marinated with various combinations of
STP and BICARB was determined. The focus of this research was to
successfully eliminate or reduce atypical aromas and flavors. It has been shown
that tainted sow loins marinated with 0.50% STP and 0.35 M BICARB at 15%
PUMP accomplished this goal as indicated by no observed differences between
ST loin chops marinated with TRT 3 (0.50% STP/0.35 M BICARB at 15% PUMP)
and CNT marinated loin chops (0.25% STP/15% PUMP) for FLAV and
OVERALL. Tenderness and juiciness attributes were not a primary focus of this
research as texture can be improved by other methods such mechanical
tenderization (blade tenderizing) while juiciness was not initially determined to be
a problem. However ST loin chops marinated with TRT 3 showed additional
improvements in texture and juiciness indicated by consumer panel sensory
scores. The potential exists to inject sow meat with atypical aromas and flavors
with a solution of sodium tripolyphosphate, sodium bicarbonate and salt to
minimize or mask the presence of sow taint.
Overall Conclusions

This study concluded that consumer acceptable pork can be produced
from ST sow loins by injecting a marinade of salt, STP (0.50%) and BICARB
(0.70M). Although this study minimized or masked the presence of sow taint,

additional quality problems hinder the use of marinated sow loin chops to be

105

used for applications other than as food service. Sow loins in this study
possessed a wide range of sizes (length, width, loin eye area) and possessed a
much darker lean surface color. These problems would have detrimental effects

for “visual” consumer acceptability if marketed at the retail level.

106

References

AMSA. (1995). Research guidelines for cookery, sensory evaluation, and
instrumental measurements of fresh meat. American Meat Science Association
and National Livestock and Meat Board, Chicago, IL.

AOAC (2000). Meat and meat products. In P. Cunniff (Ed.), Official methods of
analysis of AOAC lntemational (pp. 1-23). Washington, DC: AOAC
lntemational.

Baas, T., Bell, 8., Berg, E., Boyd, 0., Cannon, J., Carr, T., Forrest, J., Goodwin,
R., Green, 8., Johnson, R., van Laack, R., Mandigo, R., McKeith, F., Meisinger,
D., Miller, R., Moeller, S., Morgan, 8., Prusa, K., Schnell, T., Sellers, H.,
Sosnicki, A., Wulf, D. (2000). Meat quality evaluation. In E. Berg (Ed.), Pork
Composition and Quality Assessment Procedures (pp. 21-38). Des Moines,
Iowa: National Pork Board.

Barbut, S., Maurer, A. J., & Lindsay, R. C. (1988). Effects of reduced sodium
chloride and added phosphates on physical and sensory properties of turkey
frankfurters. Journal of Food Science, 53(1), 62-66.

Bechtel, P. J., McKeith, F. K., Martin, S. E., Basgall, E. J., & Novakofski, J. E.
(1985). Properties of frankfurters processed with different levels of sodium
bicarbonate. Journal of Food Protection, 48(10), 861-864.

Boles, J. A., & Parrish, F. C. (1990). Sensory and chemical characteristics of
precooked microwave-reheatable pork roasts. Journal of Food Science, 55(3),
618-620.

Chen J., & Ho, C. T. (1998). The chemistry of meat flavour. In F. Shahidi (Ed.),
Flavor of Meat, Meat Products, and Seafoods (pp. 61 -83). London, UK: Blackie
Academic and Professional.

Cochran, W. G., & Cox, G. M. (1957). Experimental Designs (2"d Edition). New
York: Wiley.

Cordray, J. C., & Huffman, D. L. (1985). Restructured pork from hot processed
sow meat; effect of encapsulated food acids. Journal of Food Protection,
48(1 1 ), 965-968.

Harmon, C. J., Ramsey, C. B., & Davis, G. W. (1989). Effect of cooking method

on consumer acceptance of hot-processed pork loins. Journal of Animal
Science, 68, 143-147.

107

Hedrick, H. B., Aberle, E. D, Forrest, J. 0., Judge, M. D. &Merkel, R. A. (1989).
Principles of Meat Science (3rd ed. ). Iowa: Kendal/Hunt Publishing Co (pp. 1-
344).

Honikel, K. O., & Fischer, C. (1977). A rapid method for the detection of PSE and
DFD porcine muscles. Journal of Food Science, 42(6), 1633-1636.

Kauffman R. G. 8 Marsh, B. B. (1987). Quality characteristics of muscle as food.
In J. F. Price & B. S. Schweigert (Eds. ), The Science of Meat and Meat
Products (3rd ed., pp. 349- -370). Westport, Connecticut. Food & Nutrition Press,
Inc.

Kauffman, R. G., van Laack, R. L. J. M., RussellxR. L., Pospiech, E., Cornelius,
C. A., Suckow, C. E., & Greaser, M. L. (1998). Can pale, soft, exudative pork
be prevented by postmortem sodium bicarbonate injection? Journal of Animal
Science, 76, 3010-3015.

Keeton, J. T., Foegeding, E. A., & Patana-Anake,.C. (1984). A comparison of
nonmeat proteins, sodium tripolyphosphate and processing temperature effects
on physical and sensory properties of frankfurters. Journal of Food Science, 49,
1462-1465.

Lindsay, R. C. (1985). Food additives. an..=R Fennema (Ed.,) Food Chemistry
(2nd ed., pp. 629- -.688) New York, NY. Marcel Dekker Inc.

Matlock, R. G., Terrell, R. N., Savell, J. W.,Rhee,~K. S., & Dutson, T. R. (1984).
Factors affecting properties of precooked-frozen pork sausage patties made
with various NaCl/phosphate combinationsdoumal of Food Science, 49, 1372-
1375.

Meilgaard, M., Civille, G. V., & Carr, B. T. (1991). Sensory Evaluation
Techniques, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Miller, R. (2000). Functionality of non-meat ingredients used in enhanced pork. ln
National Pork Board Pork Quality Facts (pp.‘1-1 0), 1998, Des Moines, Iowa.

Mottram, D. S. (1998). The chemistry of meat flavour In F. Shahidi (Ed.), Flavor
of Meat, Meat Products, and Seafoods (pp. 5426). London, UK. Blackie
Academic and Professional.

Motycka, R. R., & Bechtel, P. J. (1983). influence of pre-rigor processing,

mechanical tenderization, tumbling method and processing time on the quality
and yield of ham. Journal of Food Science-48, 1532-1536.

108

, National Pork Producers Council (1999).. Color, texture, exudation; color
standards, and marbling standards. Pork Quality Standards. Des Moines, Iowa:
National Pork Board.

Nold, R. A., Romans, J. R., Costello, W. J., & Libal, G. W. (1999).
Characterization of muscles from boars, barrows, and gilts slaughtered at 100
l or 110 kilograms: differences in fat, moisture, color, water-holding capacity, and
collagen. Journal of Animal Science, 77, 1746-1754.

Pearson, A. M., & Gillett, T. A. (1996). Introduction to meat processing, Raw
materials; Sectioned and formed meat products; Sausages; Casings,
extenders, and additives. In Processed Meats (pp. 122, 126-143, 144-179,
210-241, 291-310). New York, New York: Chapman and Hall.

Reagan, J. O. (1983). Optimal processing systems for hot-boned pork. Food
Technology (pp. 79-85), May 1983, Chicago, Illinois.

Rhee, K, S. (1978). Minimization of further lipid peroxidation in the distillation 2-
1' thiobarbituric acid test of fish and meat. Journal of Food Science, 43, 1776-
1778.

Romans, J. R., Costello, W. J., Carlson, C. W., Greaser, M. L., 8. Jones, K. W.
(1994). Beef identification and fabrication, Fresh meat processing, Meat curing
and smoking, Sausages, Structure and function of muscle. The Meat We Eat
(543-596, 643-686, 727-772, 773-886, 887-904).-Danville, Illinois: Interstate
Publishers, Inc.

SAS Institute, Inc. (2001). SAS user’s guide, version 8. 2. Cary, NC: SAS
Institute.

Satterthwaite, F .E. (1946). An approximate distribution of estimates of variance
components. Biometrics Bulletin, (No. 2, pp. 110-114).

Schwartz, W. C., & Mandigo, R. W. (1976). Effect of salt, sodium
tripolyphosphate, and storage on restructured pork. Journal of Food Science,
41, 1266-1269.

Sheard, P. R., Nute, G. R., Richardson, R. l., Perry, A., & Taylor, A. A. (1999).
Injection of water and polyphosphate into pork to improve juiciness and
tenderness after cooking. Meat Science, 51, 371-376.

Simmons, S. L., Carr, T. C., & McKeith, F. K. (1985). Effects of internal
temperature and thickness on palatability of pork loin chops. Journal of Food
Science, 50, 313-315.

SIMS (2000). Sensory computer systems, version 3. 3. Morristown, New Jersey.

109

Smith, L. A., Simmons, S. L., McKeith, F. K., Bechtel, P. J., & Brady, P. L. (1984).
Effects of sodium tripolyphosphate on physical and sensory properties of beef
and pork roasts. Journal of Food Science, 49, 1636-1637.

Sutton, D. S., Brewer, M. S., & McKeith, F. K. (1997). Effects of sodium lactate
and sodium phosphate on the physical and sensory characteristics of pumped
pork loins. Journal of Muscle Foods, 8, 95-104.

Tarladgis, G. G., Wats, B. M., Younthan, M. T., and Dugan, L. Jr. (1960) Journal
of American Oil Chemists, 37, 44-48.

Townsend, W. E. & Olson, D. G. (1987). Cured meats and cured meat products
processing. In J. Price and B Schweigert (Eds.), The Science of Meat and Meat
Products (3rd Edition pp. 431-456). Westport, Connecticut: Food & Nutrition
Press, Inc.

Van Laack, R. L. J. M., & Smulders, J. M. (1989). Quality of ‘semi-hot’ and cold
boned, vacuum packaged fresh pork as affected by delayed or immediate
chilling. Journal of Food Protection, 52, 650-654.

Van Laack, R. L. J. M., & Smulders, J. M. (1992). On the assessment of water
holding capacity of hot- vs cold-boned pork. Meat Science, 32, 139-147.

Vote, D. J., Platter, W. J., Tatum, J. D., Schmidt, G. R., Belk, K.E., Smith, G. C.,
8. Speer, N. C. (2000). Injection of beef strip loins with solutions containing
sodium tripolyphosphate, sodium lactate, and sodium chloride to enhance
palatability. Journal of Animal Science, 78, 952-957.

Zipser, M.W., Wats, B. M. (1962). Food Technology, 16(7), 102.

110

APPENDICES

111

APPENDIX 1:

Study I Marination Procedures

 

Marinades were developed at MSU according formulations developed using SAS
response surface regression analysis (Version 8.0, SAS institute Inc., Cary, NC).

Marinade Formulations

Treatment °o pump % P04

Marinade Manufacture

1.

1 7
2 7
3 7
4 7
5 13
6 13
7 13
8 13
9 5
10 15
11 10
12 10
13 -10
14 10
15-20 10

0.30
0.30
0.45
0.45
0.30
0.30
0.45
0.45
0.38
0.38
0.25
0.50
0.38
0.38
0.38

m.
10.00
10.45
15.45
15.45
5.00
5.00
8.18
7.73
20.90
6.23
6.14
11.82
8.63
8.86
61.35

Mole
NaHCO;

0.42
0.63
0.42
0.63
0.42
0.63
0.42
0.63
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.35
0.70
0.53

 

6.41
9.86
6.41
9.62
6.57
9.86
8.18
9.98
8.50
9.51
9.11
8.50
5.61
11.23
58.68

 

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

g NaHCO; % Salt 9 salt

33.17
34.54
34.08
34.54
16.50
16.81
18.36
17.27
54.99
16.36
24.31
23.50
22.72
23.40
159.06

9 water

181.82
186.36
181.82
181.82
186.36
186.36
204.54
188.63
190.91
213.63
204.54
190.91
190.91
190.91

1318.17

Total

 

marinade
wt. (9)

231 .37
241 ,18
237.73
241 .39
214.39
218.00
238.26
223.57
275.26
245.69
244.06
234.68
227.84
234.36
1597.00

Add appropriate amount of water according to treatment from above table to

300 ml plastic volumetric flask.

Add Brifisol 512 sodium phosphate (BK Giulini Corporation, Simi Valley, CA).

Mix with roto mixer bit (3" fan style) on drill (SKIL, S-B Power Tool Co.,

Chicago, IL) at high speed (2250 rpm) for 2 minutes 30 seconds.

Add Sodium Bicarbonate (NaHCOB) powder (J.T. Baker, Phillipsburg, NJ)

Mix with roto mixer bit (3” fan style) on drill (SKIL, S-B Power Tool Co.,
Chicago, IL) at high speed (2250 rpm) for 2 minutes.

. Add food grade Sodium Chloride (NaCI).

7. Mix with roto mixer bit (3” fan style) on drill (SKIL, S-B Power Tool Co.,
Chicago, IL) at high speed (2250 rpm) for 2 minutes.

8. Transfer each marinade into 250 ml plastic bottle, measure pH, and cap.

Marination Procedure

1. Place 6 x 10 inch (15.24 x 25.4 cm) or 10 x 12 inch (25.4 x 30.48 cm) vacuum
bag (Cryovac, Simpsonville, SC) in a 1000 ml plastic volumetric flask and tare
scale. (The larger bags were used to accommodate the larger loin sections.)

2. Place randomly selected loin section in bag, weigh, and add randomly
selected marinade treatment.

3. Vacuum package each loin section with marinade treatment using Multi Vac
AGW (SeppHaggenmuller KG, Germany) set at 1.5 vacuum and 3.0 bar heat.

Tumbling Procedure

Loin sections were segregated into 3 groups according to loin section weight.
The weight groups with appropriate treatments were as follows:

Light group (n=8): T1, T4, T6, T8, T10, T13, T14, T16
Medium group (n=6): T3, T7, T11, T15, T17, T20
Heavy group (n=6): T2, T5, T9, T12, T18, T19

1. Place group of loin sections into Lyco Vacuum tumbler (model 20, Columbus,

WI) at setting 70% for 15 minutes with a 20 psi. vacuum for 15 minutes with a
1 minute rest between each minute of tumbling.

113

APPENDIX 2: Rigor Determination (pH)

 

For this experiment, 10 9 samples removed upon loin arrival were utilized. This
experiment was done to determine if loins had gone through rigor.

1. Dice frozen sample with a knife into fine pieces.

2. Weigh one gram of sample and place into a 50 ml centrifuge plastic tube (do
in duplicates).

3. Add 10 ml of distilled, deionized water to each centrifuge tube.

4. Homogenize sample with Polytron mixer (PT-35, Kinematica, AG,
Switzerland) on speed setting 2 for 2, 10 second bursts. Rinse and blot dry
Polytron bit between each sample.

5. Measure the pH of sample using Accumet pH meter (AB 15, Fisher Scientific,
Co., Pittsburgh, PA) calibrated with buffer 4.0 and 7.0.

6. Allow samples to rest in —6.7°C cooler for 10 minutes.

7. After 10 minute rest, remeasure pH of sample.

114

APPENDIX 3: Rigor Determination (R-value)

 

Honikel, K. O., & Fischer, C. (1977). A rapid method for the detection of PSE and
DFD porcine muscles. Journal of Food Science, 42(6), 1633—1636.

1. Phosphate Buffer

To prepare 0.1 M of phosphate buffer:

Solution A: dissolve 27.8 g of 0.2 M monobasic sodium phosphate into 1 liter
of distilled, deionized water.

Solution B: dissolve 28.39 g of 0.3 M dibasic sodium phosphate into 1 liter of
distilled, deionized water.

0.1 M phosphate buffer: add 39 ml of solution A, 61 ml of solution B, and 100
ml of distilled, deionized water to create 200 ml.

2. Perchloric Acid
To prepare 0.6 N of Perchloric Acid:
Add 5.2 ml of 70% Perchloric Acid to 100 ml of distilled, deionized water.
Refrigerate solution to 3.3-4.4°C.
Procedure:
Preparing control:
1. Add 60 ul of distilled deionized water to cuvette.
2. Add 3 ml of 0.1 M phosphate buffer to cuvette.
3. Cover cuvette with parafilm and invert 3 times to mix.

4. Read on spectrophotometer (Lambda 20, Perkin Elmer, Norwalk, CT) at A250
and A260 wavelengths.

Preparing samples:

1. Weigh 2 g of frozen and diced uniform sample. Place sample in 50 ml plastic
centrifuge tube.

115

. Add 10 ml of refrigerated 0. 6 N Perchloric Acid (3. 3-4. 4°C) to 50 ml plastic
centrifuge tube containing sample.

. Place centrifuge tube into 150 ml beaker of ice.

. Homogenize sample with Polytron mixer (PT-35, Kinematica, AG,
Switzerland) set on speed setting 4 with 2, 30 second bursts while sample is
on ice. Rinse and blot dry Polytron bit between each sample

. Transfer homogenate from 50 ml plastic centrifuge tube to 30 ml glass
centrifuge tube.

. Centrifuge homogenate at 40,000 x g for 20 minutes using RC-5 Super speed
refrigerated centrifuge (Sorvall Co., Norwalk, CT).

. Remove 30 ml tubes from centrifuge and place in a bucket filled with ice.

. Mix each 30 ml tube using Vorex mixer (American Scientific Products, McGaw
Park, IL) for 15 seconds.

. Pipet 3 aliquots (60ul each) of supernatant from each sample and place into 3
quartz cuvettes.

10. Cover cuvette with parafilm and invert 3 times to mix.

11. Read sample on spectrophotometer (Lambda 20, Perkin Elmer, Norwalk, CT)

at A250 and A260 wavelengths.

12. Rinse cuvettes with distilled, deionized water and wipe outside surface of

cuvette dry with chemical wipes between samples.

116

APPENDIX 4: pH Determination

 

1. Buffer Preparation

To prepare buffer used to stop glycolysis:

Buffer Amount Sodium Iodoacetate Potassium Chloride
500 ml 0.529 (5mM) 5.5929 (150mM)
1500 ml 1.56g (5mM) 16.776g (150mM)

Procedure: (done in duplicate)

1. Homogenize 1 gram of uniform sample with 10 ml of buffer in a 50 ml plastic
centrifuge tube with Polytron mixer (PT-35, Kinematica, AG, Switzerland)
set on speed setting 4 with 2, 10 second bursts. Rinse and blot dry Polytron
bit between each sample.

2. The pH was measured using an Accumet Scientific pH meter (AB 15, Fisher
Scientific, Co., Pittsburgh, PA) calibrated using buffers 4.0 and 7.0.

3. The pH meter probe was rinsed with distilled, deionized water between
sample readings.

117

APPENDIX 5: Objective Color and Subjective Color,
Marbling, and Firmness Analysis

 

Baas, T., Bell, 8, Berg, E., Boyd, 0., Cannon, J., Carr, T., Forrest, J., Goodwin,
R., Green, B., Johnson, R., van Laack, R., Mandigo, R., McKeith, F., Meisinger,
D., Miller, R., Moeller, S., Morgan, B., Prusa, K., Schnell, T., Sellers, H.,
Sosnicki, A., Wulf, D. (2000). Meat quality evaluation. In E. Berg (Ed.), Pork
Composition and Quality Assessment Procedures (pp. 26-28). Des Moines,
Iowa: National Pork Board.

National Pork Producers Council (1999). Color, texture, exudation; color
standards, and marbling standards. Pork Quality Standards. Des Moines, Iowa:
National Pork Board.

Sample Preparation

1. Separate loins into 2 equal (in length) sections by a cross cut with a knife at
the midline perpendicular to the length of the loin

2. Remove two, 2.54 cm chops from the anterior end of the posterior section of
the loin with a knife.

3. Label the first chop removed as “A” and the second chop removed as “B”.
4. Allow each chop to bloom for 10 minutes before evaluation.

5 Immediately evaluate each chop after 10 minute bloom time.

Subjective Color, Marbling, Firmness Evaluation
1. Evaluate chop using Pork Quality Standards (1999).

Color is evaluated using a scale of 1 to 6 with: 1 = pale pinkish gray to
white, 2 = grayish pink, 3 = reddish pink, 4 = dark reddish pink, 5 =
purplish red, 6 = dark purplish red.

Marbling is evaluated using a scale of 1 to 10 with the numerical numbers
equaling percent of lipid content.

Firmness is evaluated using a scale of 1 to 3 with: 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 smooth with no distortion of
shape)

118

Objective Color Evaluation using Minolta Chromameter CR-310
(Commission D’Edairerage (CIE) L*a*b*,Ramsey, NJ) Calibration

1. Calibrate Minolta Chromameter CR-310 (Commission International
D’Edairerage (CIE) L*a*b*, Ramsey, NJ). using a standard white tile.

2. Set Minolta Chromameter on L*a*b*, D65 (daylight illuminator), 2° standard

observer, with a 50 mm reading orifice. Take 3 measurements and average
them.

119

APPENDIX 6: TBA Analysis

 

Tarladgis, G. G., Watts, B. M., Younthan, M. T., and Dugan, L. Jr. (1960). Journal
of American Oil Chemists, 37, 44-48.
Zipser, M.W., Wats, B. M. (1962). Food Technology, 16(7), 102.

1. TBA Reagent

Prepare the amount of TBA Reagent needed for your samples according to the
table below:

 

 

Thiobarbituric Acid Distilled Water Mal Vol. Water and Acid
1.4416 g 50 ml 500 ml
0.7208 g 25 ml 250 ml
0.5766 g 20 ml 200 ml
0.2883 g 10 ml 100 ml
0.1442 g 5 ml 50 ml

Dissolve the Thiobarbituric Acid (Eastman Organic Chemicals) in the distilled
water and about 2/3 the total volume of acetic acid. Place flask in sonic
cleaner (several minutes) and shake occasionally until TBA is dissolved. Allow
reagent to come to room temperature then bring to volume. Store in cooler,
may be kept for 2 days.

2. HCI Solution

Make volume as needed; 1:2, HCI : H20 (WV).

3. Antifoam (Thomas®, Swedeboro, NJ)

The use of antifoam may not be necessary depending on the product. Fish and
egg require antifoam while poultry does not. In this study, antifoam was used.

Procedure:

1. Assemble connecting tube (spouts) and graduated cylinders.

2. Turn on condenser water.

3. Add 10 g of thawed and diced sample to 100 ml plastic bottle containing 50

ml distilled water plus 10 ul antioxidant solution (Tenox 5 — food grade
BHA+BHT)

120

Homogenize sample plus solution using Polytron mixer (PT-35, Kinematica,
AG, Switzerland) on speed setting 4 for 1 minute (Homogenized samples
can be held in cooler if needed).

Into 500 ml extraction flasks, add 4, 4 mm glass beads (Fisher Scientific,
Pittsburgh, PA), homogenized meat sample, 2.5 ml HCI solution, 47.5 ml
distilled water, and 2 sprays of antifoam (Note: total volume is 50 ml + 2.5 ml
+ 47.5 ml = 100 ml).

Connect extraction flasks to distilling tubes and tighten heating mantles in
place.

Turn powerstats to line voltage (setting 85) and heat flasks rapidly.
Distill and collect 50 ml of the distillate.

Transfer distillate to 50 ml centrifuge tubes, cap and hold in refrigerator for
TBA reaction. (Can be held for 18 hours).

TBA Reaction / Spectrophotometric Determination

10. Invert each test tube containing the 50 ml distillate and pipette 5 ml into each

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

of 2 tubes labeled “A” and “B”. Prepare 2 blanks by pipetting 5 ml distilled
water into both tubes labeled “A” and “B”.

Add 5 ml of TBA Reagent into each tube containing 5 ml of sample and into
both blanks. Thoroughly mix each tube using Vortex mixer (American
Scientific Products, McGaw Park, IL).

Turn water bath on 100° C.

Place tubes in test tube rack and immerse into boiling water bath (model
9510 PolyScience, Sorvall Co., Niles, IL) for 30 minutes.

Turn Spectrophotometer (Lambda 20, Perkin Elmer, Norwalk, CT) to IDLE
(must warm up 20 min.)

When the tubes are done heating in the water bath cool them in ice for at
least 10 minutes.

Mix each test tube with sample for 10 seconds using Vortex mixer (American
Scientific Products, McGaw Park, IL).

Transfer sample to disposable 4.5 ml cuvette (done in duplicates).

121

18. Turn Spec to ON: Manually adjust wave length to 530 nm for fresh meat
(read samples within 1 hour).

19. Convert % T to optical density and multiply by the constant 7.8 (7.6 for

poultry) to convert to mg malonaldehyde/1000 g of sample, i.e. TBA
Number.

122

APPENDIX 7: Proximate Analysis

 

AOAC (1995). Meat and meat products. In P. Cunniff (Ed.), Official methods of

analysis of AOAC lntemational (pp. 1-23). Washington, DC: AOAC
lntemational.

Sample Preparation (modified from section 983.18 Meat and Meat Products)

1.

Section meat into very small (<1 cm squares) pieces. If already frozen, smash
samples with a hammer to decrease size of sample for ease of grinding.

Add sample to Tekmar grinders (Tekmar Co, Cincinnati, OH) filling grinding
chamber half full.

Then add dry ice to fill up chamber.

Grind 2 to 3 minutes using Tekmar grinder (Tekmar Co, Cincinnati, OH) until
sample is ground into a fine powder. It may be necessary to stop in the
middle of grinding and stir the sample up for uniform grinding.

Transfer finely ground powder to labeled whirl pack bags. Loosely close bag
so that dry ice can evaporate and dissipate. This takes about 2 days. Place in
freezer immediately to prevent melting of powder.

Moisture Analysis

6.

Place a medium weigh boat on scale and zero. This. is to keep the scale
clean. Add paper labeled with sample ID and paperclip. Record the weight
then tare the scale.

Add 2 grams (1 .039) of thoroughly mixed sample to the paper. Once desired
weight is reached record weight and fold over top. Secure by folding and
tucking top. Place flat on tray. Do all samples in triplicate. Do not stack
samples on tray. This will hinder the drying process.

Once tray is full, place in drying oven set at 100°C for 20 - 24 hours.
After drying, place samples using latex gloves or tongs in dessicator to cool
completely before weighing. Once cool, weigh samples and record. This Is
your final weight for moisture and your initial weight for fat analysis. Use the
following formula to determine the percent moisture in your samples:

Moisture (%)= wet sample wt. — drv ample wt. x 100
wet sample wt.

123

Fat Analysis Using Soxhlet Ether Extraction

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

Take samples from moisture analysis and place in extraction tubes. Make
sure that all the samples are below the level where the ether drains off
(curved glass on outside of tube).

Add petroleum ether to clean boiling flasks until about % full. Add 2 to 3 glass
beads as a boiling aid.

Connect the extraction flask to the boiling flask and Soxhlet apparatus. Place
parafilm on the joint. Mount both to the condensing units on top of extraction
flasks using parafilm around joint.

Turn on condensing water so it runs at a steady stream.

Set Rheostats on high and run for 24 hours.

Place ether soaked samples onto a tray in a hood for 2 hours to allow ether
to dissipate.

Place samples in drying oven for 5 to 10 min to remove any possible
moisture then place in dessicator for 1/2 hour to cool.

Weigh and record the weight of the samples. Calculate fat on wet basis with
the following equation:

Fat (%) = dpr sample wt. — extracted sample wt. x 100
wet sample wt.

Protein Analysis

1.

Weigh out approximately 1 gram of powdered meat into the tared crucible.
Write the weight and sample ID on the side of the crucible with pencil.

2. After weighing out samples, dry for 18 to 20 hours in the drying oven at

100°C. This removes moisture that can cause intemal malfunctions with the
Leco Protein Analyzer. Do not reweigh samples. Enter wet weight into
computer.

124

1.

Procedures for the LECO FPflOO Nitrogen Analyzer

Open valves completely on oxygen, helium and compressed air tanks. Make
sure tanks have adequate levels of gas (gauge should read >100psi) and that
the pressure out of the tanks are set at 40 psi.

Press escape on upper left hand corner of touch screen until “front panel”
comes up and then press it. On right hand side of screen a section labeled
“analysis gas” can be found. Push the “on” button to turn gasses on to the
machine. Check to see that your furnace temperature is 1050°F (located on
left part of screen).

Wait about 5 minutes for all gasses to equilibrate then start your leak tests.
Press escape from the front panel located in upper left comer. A screen with
several icons will appear. Press “maintenance”. This will bring up helium leak
test, combustion leak test and ballast leak test icons. Press the helium leak
test. If it passes move onto the combustion leak test. Once finished, start
running blanks. Run a ballast test as it is part of the combustion system.

Run several air blanks through to purge the system. To do this escape from
the “maintenance” section and push the “analyze” icon. On the bottom of the
screen you will see several commands. Push “select ID code”. Toggle the
highlighted line using the arrows to blanks. Then push exit on bottom. Then
push manual weight. This will bring up a touch screen with 0.2000000 on it.
Push the enter button at least 10 times to bring up 10 rows of 0.20000. Then
push analyze. The machine will run through these ten samples. Numbers
should come down to about <.30% protein.

Once blanks are at an acceptable number, run 4 to 5 EDTA samples
(approximately 0.59) to verify machine is operating properly.

Weigh EDTA samples out in the ceramic boats and write the weight on the
side in pencil (at least three decimal places).

Select “manual weight” and put your weight into the machine pushing enter
after each entry. Once weights are entered, push analyze. Follow the
directions on the touch screen. Push your first sample into the chamber about
one half inch so the door doesn’t catch the boat. Push okay on the screen
when it asks you place your sample in the chamber. The next message will
tell you to wait because the system is purging. Then the machine will then tell
you to push the boat into the chamber. The machine will combust and
analyze the sample in approximately 3 minutes.

Analyze samples as described in step 7.

125

APPENDIX 8: Drip Loss Analysis

 

Baas, T., Bell, B., Berg, E., Boyd, 0., Cannon, J., Carr, T., Forrest, J., Goodwin,
R., Green, 8., Johnson, R., van Laack, R., Mandigo, R., McKeith, F., Meisinger,
D., Miller, R., Moeller, S., Morgan, B., Prusa, K., Schnell, T., Sellers, H.,
Sosnicki, A., Wulf, D. (2000). Meat quality evaluation. In E. Berg (Ed.), Pork
Composition and Quality Assessment Procedures (pp. 21-22). Des Moines,
Iowa: National Pork Board.

Honikel, K. O. (1987). Critical evaluation of methods detecting water-holding
capacity in meat. In A. Romita, C Valin, and A. Talyor (Eds.) Accelerated
Processing of Meat (pp. 225-239), London: Elsevier Applied Science.

Sample Preparation (Modified)

1. The two, 2.54 cm chops removed from the anterior end of the posterior
section of each loin used in objective color and subjective color, marbling, and
firmness experiments were used for this experiment. Each loin chop was
labeled A (first chop removed from loin) and B (second chop removed from
loin) and weighed.

2. Weigh each chop.

3. Insert dead lock (or hook) into top portion of chop. Attach string
(approximately 30.48 cm in length) to dead lock. Tie loose end of string to
another dead look. (This end will be used for hanging purposes.)

4. Hang each chop by hooking free dead lock to a rack. Make sure chops are
hang independently and freely.

5. Enclose chop with a plastic bag to reduce environment effects (wind).
6. Allow chops to hang for 48 hours in 28°C cooler.
7. Remove chops from string and dead lock apparatus and reweigh.

8. Percent drip loss is calculated by the following equation:

% drip loss = InitiaI_I chopwt. - 48 Mg chop wt. x 100
Initial chop wt.

126

APPENDIX 9: Purge Loss Analysis

 

1. Loin sections (anterior and posterior) were weighed after sections were
tempered in 26°C cooler for 18 hours.

2. Loin sections were vacuum packaged in 12 x 16 inch (30.48 x 40.64 cm)
vacuum bags (Cryovac, Simpsonville, SC) using Multivac vacuum packager
(AG800, SeppHaggenmuller KG, Germany) set at 3.0 psi. of vacuum and 4.5
barheat

3. Loin sections remained in 26°C cooler for 7 days.

4. Remove loins from vacuum package, blot loins semi-dry with paper towel, and
reweigh.

5. Percent purge loss was determined using the following calculation:

% purge loss = Initial loin wt. — Wt. of loin at dav'l x 100
Initial loin wt.

127

APPENDIX 10: Marinade Uptake I Cooking Yield Procedures

 

Baas, T., Bell, B., Berg, E., Boyd, 0., Cannon, J., Carr, T., Forrest, J., Goodwin,
R., Green, B., Johnson, R., van Laack, R., Mandigo, R., McKeith, F., Meisinger,
D., Miller, R., Moeller, S., Morgan, B., Prusa, K., Schnell, T., Sellers, H.,
Sosnicki, A., Wulf, D. (2000). Meat quality evaluation. In E. Berg (Ed.), Pork
Composition and Quality Assessment Procedures (pp. 23). Des Moines, Iowa:
National Pork Board.

Sample Preparation

For this experiment, two, 2.54 cm chops previously used for 48 hour drip loss
were utilized. This analysis was performed in triplicate.

1. Make sure no external fat is present on chop. If present, remove.

2. Grind loin chop through 6.4 mm (1/4 inch plate) using Kitchen Aid mixer with
grinder attachment (model K5-A, Hobart, Troy, OH).

Reagent Buffer Preparation
1. Dissolve 35 g Sodium Chloride (NaCl) into 1 liter of distilled deionized water.
Marinade Uptake Procedure

1. Weigh and number 50 ml centrifuge tube (without cap). Record the weight of
tubes to the second decimal point (0.01 9).

2. Weigh 6.00 g 1 0.019 of representative sample and place into each centrifuge
tube (done in triplicates).

3. Add 10 ml of reagent buffer to centrifuge tube.

4. Place screw cap on centrifuge tube and shake gently until sample breaks
apan.

5. Mix sample with Vortex mixer (American Scientific Products, McGaw Park, IL)
for 15 seconds.

6. Place centrifuge tubes in a 25°C water bath (model 9510, PolyScience, Niles,
IL) for 30 minutes.

128

7. Remove centrifuge tubes from water bath and centrifuge for 20 minutes at
3000 rpm (800 x 9) using super speed refrigerated centrifuge (RC-5, Sorvall
Co., Norwalk, CT).

8. Remove cap from centrifuge tube and place open side down on cheese cloth
for 5 minutes.

9. Weigh samples and tubes (with screw caps off).
10. Calculate marinade uptake (MU) using following equation:

MU = (Wt. tube 8. meat after 25°C incubation) — (Initial wt. of tube & meat) x 100
6.00 9

Cooking Yield Procedure

11. After final weight determination from marinade uptake experiment (step 9),
loosely cap centrifuge tubes and place in 80°C water bath (model 9510,
PolyScience, Niles, IL) for 20 minutes.

12. Remove centrifuge tubes from water bath and drain cook-out water and
place upside down on cheese cloth for 5 minutes.

13. Chill samples to 20-22°C.

14. Weigh centrifuge tube containing sample to determine cooking yield (CY)
using the following equation:

CY= LWt. of tgbe 8_. meat. after 80°C incubation) - (lnflaiwt. of tube & meat) x100
6.00 g

129

APPENDIX 11: Study l Trained Sensory Panel Ballot

 

Panelist Name Date

 

 

PORK FLAVOR I TEXTURE PROFILE BALLOT
SAMPLE ID #

 

AROMATICS: Aromptig Flavpr flomagp Flavor Aromatlp Elavor Aromatlp Flavor
Cooked Pork Lean / Brothy

Cooked Pork Fat
Cardboard
Painty

Fishy

Soapy

Soda

Metallic
Astringent

Other

TASTES:
Salt

Sour

Bitter

Sweet

AFTERTASTES:

Soapy

Other

TEXTURES

Muscle Fiber Tenderness

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Juiciness

 

 

 

 

Overall Tenderness

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Connective Tissue
FIBER/OVERALL
JUICINESS TENDERNESS CONNECTIVE TISSUE
8. Extremely Juicy 8. Extremely Tender 8. None
7. Very Juicy 7. Very Tender 7. Practically None
6. Moderately Juicy 6. Moderately Tender 6. Traces
5. Slightly Juicy 5. Slightly Tender 5. Slight
4. Slightly Dry 4. Slightly Tough 4. Moderate
3. Moderately Dry 3. Moderately Tough 3. Slightly Abundant
2. Very Dry 2. Very Tough 2. Moderately Abundant
1. Extremely Dry 1. Extremely Tough 1. Abundant

130

APPENDIX 12:

Study l Sensory Panel Sample Randomization

 

 

Replication

Day Evaluated

Treatments Evaluated

 

1

Friday, Dec. 7

Tainted control, Non-tainted control,T10,
T9, T12, T20, T8, T11, T6, T4, T5, T13

 

 

1

 

Tuesday, Dec. 11

 

Tainted control, Non-tainted control, T3,
T1, T7, T2, T14, T15, T16, T17, T18, T19

 

131

 

APPENDIX 13: Study II Classification of loin sections used for treatments and 7 day purge
loss values of sow loins possessing atypical aroma and flavor (sow taint,
ST) and non-tainted control commodity loins (CNT).

 

 

 

 

 

fl 1'33 LOI_N" A/P‘ 1N1: PURGE LOSS 1%2
1 1 22 A T 0.72
1 1 24 A T 2.23
1 1 19 P T 4.61
1 2 7 A T 3.16
1 2 34 A T 2.33
1 2 17 P T 3.73
1 2 25 P T 2.52
1 3 19 A T 2.46
1 3 21 A T 3.65
1 3 20 P T 5.69
1 3 30 P T 4.07
1 4 9 A T 5.45
1 4 10 A T 4.11
1 4 9 P T 7.32
1 4 16 P T 4.30
1 ONT 1 A NT NA'
1 CNT 2 A NT NA'
1 CNT 1 P NT NA'
1 CNT 2 P NT NA'
2 1 23 A T 3.93
2 1 30 A T 4.74
2 1 1 P T 1.94
2 1 13 P T 2.17
2 2 17 A T 2.99
2 2 32 A T 7.55
2 2 6 P T 6.92
2 2 33 P T 8.96
2 3 16 A T 1.66
2 3 33 A T 5.29
2 3 7 P T 2.24
2 3 27 P T 3.13
2 4 3 A T 3.92
2 4 8 A T 2.67
2 4 28 P T 4.31
2 4 29 P T 3.09
2 CNT 3 A NT NA'
2 CNT 6 A NT NA'
2 CNT 4 P NT NA'
2 CNT 6 P NT NA'
3 1 1 A T 3.15
3 1 13 A T 1.12
3 1 3 P T 1.53
3 1 18 P T 2.63
3 2 2 A T 1.79
3 2 12 A T 9.05
3 2 12 P T 4.35
3 2 26 P T 3.35
3 3 20 A T 3.76
3 3 26 A T 3.11
3 3 6 P T 1.96
3 3 10 P T 1.90
3 4 14 A T 4.52
3 4 27 A T 3.35
3 4 31 P T 1.74
3 4 32 P T 4.63
3 CNT 4 A NT NA'
3 ONT 5 A NT NA'
3 CNT 3 P NT NA'
3 CNT s P NT NA'

‘TRT = Marinated Treatment Combination. 1’ LOIN = Corresponding loin section used for treatment combination.
° NP = Anterior or Posterior loin section. ° T/NT = Tainted or non-tainted loin section.
' PURGE LOSS = 7 day purge loss (%). ' NA = Purge loss not measured.

132

APPENDIX 14:

Study ll Marination Procedures

 

Marinade Formulations:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

reatment1 15% pump marinade
lbs g/mL %IM
Water 60.000 27,272.40
Sodium Chloride 4.700 2,135.92 1.00
Sodium Bicarbonate 3.529 1,603.62 0.70
Tripolyphosphate 2.350 1 ,067.96 0.50
Total 70.579 32,074.49
Treatment 2 15% pump marinade
lbs g/mL %IM
Water 60.000 27,272.40
Sodium Chloride 4.600 2,090.47 1.00
Sodium Bicarbonate 3.529 1,603.62 0.70
Tripolyphosphate 1.150 522.62 0.25
Total 69.279 31 ,483.70
reatment 3 15% pump marinade
lbs g/mL %IM
Water 60.000 27,272.40
Sodium Chloride 4.600 2,090.47 1.00
Sodium Bicarbonate 1.764 801.81 0.35
Tripolyphosphate 2.300 1 ,045.24 0.50
Total 68.664 31,204.51
Treatment 4 15% pump marinade
lbs g/mL %IM
Water 60.000 27,272.40
Sodium Chloride 4.500 2,045.03 1.00
Sodium Bicarbonate 1.764 801.81 0.35
Tripolyphosphate 1.120 508.98 0.25
Total 67.384 30,622.82

 

133

 

 

 

 

 

 

Control 15% pump marinade

lbs glmL %IM
Water 60.000 27,272.40
Sodium Chloride 4.350 1,976.86 1.00
Sodium Bicarbonate 0.000 0.00 0.00
Tripolyphosphate 1.100 499.90 0.25
Total 65.450 29,743.75

 

 

Marinade Manufacture

1.

Add appropriate amount of water according to treatment from above table to
75.7 liter (20 gallon) barrel..

Add Brifisol 512 sodium phosphate (BK Giulini Corporation, Simi Valley, CA).

Mix with Rotostat mixer (Model 80XP63SS, Admix Inc., Londonderry, NH) at
2500 rpm for 7 minutes. (begin timing mixing once all phosphate is added)

Add Sodium Bicarbonate (NaHCOB) powder (J.T. Baker, Phillipsburg, NJ)
Mix with Rotostat mixer (Model 80XP63$S, Admix Inc., Londonderry, NH) at
2500 rpm for 3 minutes. (begin timing mixing once all sodium bicarbonate is
added)

Add food grade Sodium Chloride (NaCI).

Mix with Rotostat mixer (Model 80XP63SS, Admix Inc., Londonderry, NH) at
2500 rpm for 3 minutes. (begin timing mixing once all sodium chloride is
added)

Repeat steps for each marinade (n=5).

Marination Procedure

1.

Weigh loin section group to determine initial injection weight. Calculate
targeted injection weight.

Place appropriate loin sections (n=4) onto conveyer.

Reweigh loin section group to determine injected weight and drain or add
additional marinade until targeted injection weight it met.

134

APPENDIX 15: Study I Least squares means for marination uptake and
cook yields of of sow loins possessing atypical aroma
and flavor (sow taint, ST).

 

 

MARINATION
UPTAKE COOK YIELD

LOIN" % %

1 46.44 99.63
2 24.26 62.69
3 28.50 64.26
4 34.69 91.67
5 35.72 92.76
6 26.69 77.61
7 62.50 117.39
6 36.69 92.56
9 32.26 66.44
10 36.26 93.76
11 26.95 64.11
12 33.44 66.17
13 30.61 64.63
14 26.50 65.39
15 22.76 61.63
16 29.76 64.55
SEM” 4.57 3.43

 

‘ LOIN = Sow loins with atypical aroma and flavor (sow taint).
b SEM = Standard error of the means for sow loins with taint.

135

APPENDIX 16: Study I Cooking times and yields of marinated treatment
combinations for sow loins possessing atypical aroma and flavor
(sow taint, ST) and non-tainted control commodity loins (CNT).

 

 

 

 

COOKING ANALYSIS LOIN TRACKING
TIM; mag _l__OIN° SECTIONc
TRT“ min %
1 0:22 74.04 P
2 0:29 71.75 A
3 0:17 81.95 11 A
4 0:22 77.95 3 P
5 0:26 76.61 12 A
6 0:26 73.78 A
7 0:17 60.33 A
6 0:29 76.26 P
9 0:38 70.61 A
10 0:23 76.21 10 A
11 0:29 76.69 6 A
12 0:33 71.26 A
13 0:29 73.73 6 A
14 0:25 77.22 13 A
15 0:15 76.24 16 A
16 0:53 81.83 15 A
17 0:26 76.76 14 A
18 0:18 73.60 2 A
19 0:27 72.26 9 A
20 0:24 76.74 4 p
CN'I" 0:15 74.70 26 P
CNTd 0:27 67.45 29 P
sr° 0:14 64.52 7 P
97° 0:23 70.66 13 P

 

‘ TRT = Treatment combination.

° LOIN = Loin used for treatment combination.

° SECTION = Loin section used where “A”= anterior section and “P"= posterior section.
d CNT = Non-tainted control sow loins.

° ST = Sow loins with atypical aroma and flavor (sow taint).

136

APPENDIX 17: Study II Least squares means for rigor determination (pH
change) for randomly selected sow loins possessing
atypical aroma and flavor (sow taint, ST).

 

LOIN" pH 011:1:b

1 0.035
4 -0.075
7 0.015
10 0.010
15 0.050
19 -0.010
23 0.040
27 0.070
30 0.015
34 0.030

SEM° 0.020

 

a LOIN = Sow loins selected for rigor verification.
b pH DIFF= Differences in pH units between initial and 10 minute pH.
° SEM = Standard error of the means for randomly selected tainted loins.

137

APPENDIX 18: Study Ii Least squares means for raw composition, pH, marinade uptake,

and cook yields of of sow loins possessing atypical aroma and flavor (sow
taint, ST) and non-tainted control commodity loins (CNT).

 

 

 

 

RAW COMPOSITION
ST/CNT‘ MOISTURE FAT PROTEIN pH” Mu° CY“
LOIN 0/0 0/0 0/0 % 0/0

1 ST 76.06 2.29 23.97 5.77 53.22 99.45
2 ST 77.50 1.64 23.56 6.16 63.00 107.64
3 ST 75.60 0.96 24.65 5.93 51.39 99.06
4 ST 74.62 3.56 24.04 5.73 45.39 102.69
5 ST 75.22 2.26 24.43 6.02 48.00 96.63
6 ST 76.67 1.25 22.56 5.51 37.22 99.17
7 ST 76.74 0.94 24.49 5.72 40.22 92.63
6 ST 77.73 1.39 23.35 6.09 71.26 109.17
9 ST 77.63 0.45 22.71 5.47 17.72 63.17
10 ST 76.16 0.14 22.11 5.45 20.76 65.69
1 1 ST 74.10 3.94 23.54 5.76 30.45 93.22
12 ST 76.71 2.96 22.61 5.36 35.56 94.39
13 ST 76.51 0.27 24.43 5.91 29.50 92.06
14 ST 76.43 1.90 23.75 5.65 32.33 99.26
15 ST 71.72 9.97 20.73 5.69 43.69 102.26
16 ST 78.21 1.55 22.23 6.12 44.94 95.69
17 ST 76.21 1.99 24.32 5.65 32.61 96.26
16 ST 76.52 0.95 24.41 5.85 36.67 96.67
19 ST 72.66 5.71 26.04 5.76 46.17 107.69
20 ST 76.67 1.25 24.30 5.55 33.33 104.05
21 ST 76.00 1.66 22.51 5.70 44.94 111.26
22 ST 76.46 1.06 24.59 6.61 56.72 142.17
23 ST 77.16 0.48 24.36 5.56 30.22 100.69
24 ST 77.65 1.13 23.45 5.61 34.72 94.00
25 ST 72.04 9.17 21.23 5.66 52.11 101.11
26 ST 77.31 0.53 24.14 5.73 35.17 96.69
27 ST 72.05 6.73 23.36 5.62 41.69 99.67
26 ST 75.46 1.62 23.96 5.62 34.39 91.94
29 ST 75.40 1.94 24.30 5.66 33.17 94.22
30 ST 75.79 2.14 23.56 5.56 47.33 95.72
31 ST 75.77 1.61 24.29 5.64 46.69 104.69
32 ST 75.42 5.10 21.67 5.56 46.67 97.61
33 ST 76.10 2.32 23.71 5.69 46.00 106.56
34 ST 78.46 1.42 24.04 6.15 61.56 106.67
35 CNT 75.13 3.11 24.30 6.18 56.44 113.11
36 CNT 75.64 2.30 24.36 5.76 31.34 101.11
37 CNT 74.70 1.61 25.16 5.75 43.23 112.44
36 CNT 75.56 1.94 24.70 5.65 74.33 114.06
39 CNT 75.26 2.03 24.52 5.65 78.67 105.06
40 CNT 76.78 1.22 23.63 5.94 62.17 113.76
SEM° 0.19 0.26 0.16 0.03 2.40 2.14

 

" ST/CNT = Sow loins with taint (ST) or non-tainted control commodity loin (CNT).
b pH = Raw pH measurement.

° MU = Marinade Uptake.

“ CY = Cook Yield.

° SEM = Standard error of the means for ST and CNT loins.

138

APPENDIX 19: Study II Least squares means for lipid oxidation (TBA) of
of sow loins possessing atypical aroma and flavor (sow

 

 

taint, ST).
LOIN“ TBAb
1 0.057
3 0.021
5 0.046
7 0.035
9 0.120
11 0.045
13 0.061
15 0.006
17 0.037
19 0.039
21 0.066
23 0.066
25 0.117
27 0.042
29 0.040
31 0.063
33 0.040
SEMb 0.022

 

‘ LOIN = Sow loins with atypical aroma and flavor (sow taint).
" TBA, = 2-Thiobarbituric acid test reported as mg malonaldehyde/kg sample.
° SEM = Standard error of the means for sow loins with taint.

139

APPENDIX 20:

Study II Least squares means for Subjective color, marbling, and

firmness and Objective color (L*, a“, b*) values of sow loins possessing
atypical aroma and flavor (sow taint, ST) and non-tainted control

commodity loins (CNT).

 

 

 

 

 

SUBJECTIVE MEASUREMENTS” OBJECTIVE COLOR°
ST/CNTa COLOR MARBLING FIRMNESS L“ fia“ b“
LOIN

1 ST 5 3 2 41.62 23.23 4.67
2 ST 4 2 2 40.53 21.59 4.56
3 ST 6 1 3 36.56 16.35 2.41
4 ST 4 2 2 46.09 22.94 5.62
5 ST 5 3 3 40.36 20.62 4.21
6 ST 3 2 2 53.74 16.62 5.56
7 ST 4 2 1 45.01 20.15 4. 26
6 ST 5 2 2 40.63 21.96 4. 64
9 ST 3 1 2 45.96 19.20 3. 92
10 ST 3 3 2 47.76 19.74 4.40
11 ST 5 3 2 42.65 24.45 7.24
12 ST 4 2 2 44.42 22.19 6.65
13 ST 5 2 2 41.61 21.55 4.26
14 ST 5 2 2 41.00 22.36 5. 46
15 ST 4 2 3 47.65 23.94 7. 95
16 ST 5 2 2 41.43 21.62 4.99
17 ST 4 2 2 43.53 21.33 4.46
16 ST 4 2 2 42.26 20.69 5.02
19 ST 4 4 3 46.20 20.63 6. 36
20 ST 3 1 2 44.24 20.44 4. 46
21 ST 4 2 2 43.12 20.42 5.70
22 ST 6 2 3 33.12 16.00 3. 02
23 ST 3 1 2 43.45 20.62 5. 31
24 ST 5 2 1 43.20 20.72 4. 67
25 ST 5 4 3 49.63 22.46 6. 75
26 ST 5 1 2 43.92 19.97 4.05
27 ST 4 4 3 47.07 21.68 6.14
26 ST 3 2 2 47.63 20.75 4. 36
29 ST 3 2 2 50.54 20.82 6. 22
30 ST 3 2 2 46.27 20.74 5.13
31 ST 5 2 2 40.40 20.64 3.64
32 ST 6 2 2 55.73 19.91 6.63
33 ST 5 2 2 40.00 22.52 4. 64
34 ST 5 2 2 40.50 20.62 4. 23
35 CNT 4 2.5 2 50.13 19.54 5.06
36 CNT 3 2 2 54.64 19.61 6.49
37 CNT 3 2 3 54.66 20.67 .96

36 CNT 4 2 2 51.99 20.36 6.76
39 ONT 3 3 3 53.55 22.15 7.44
40 CNT 4 2 1 49.69 20.53 5. 29
SEMd 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.64 0.42 0. 20

 

a ST/CNT= Sow loins with atypical aroma and flavor and non-tainted control commodity loins.
bMeasurements according to National Pork Producers Pork Quality Standards (Baas et al., 2000).
c Commission lntemational D’ Edairerage (CIE) L*a “b“ where L'— - lightness, a“

= yellowness on a 0-100 pink scale.

d SEM= Standard error of the means for ST and CNT loins.

140

=redness, and b“

APPENDIX 21: Study II Least squares means for drip loss and values for
24 h purge loss (%) and loin temperature of sow loins
possessing atypical aroma and flavor (sow taint, ST).

 

 

LOINa DRIP Lossb PURGE LOSSc LOIN TEMPERATUREd

°/o 0/0 Co
1 1.10 1.61 2.69
2 0.69 0.83 3.67
3 1.72 2.27 2.22
4 2.09 1.32 2.33
5 1.67 1.56 2.69
6 6.45 4.66 2.56
7 1.96 0.96 2.61
6 1.65 3.31 3.50
9 4.37 2.90 2.61
10 4.48 2.92 2.63
11 1.73 1.92 2.94
12 6.10 3.69 2.33
13 0.42 0.00 2.69
14 2.34 0.66 3.00
15 0.61 0.96 2.67
16 1.04 0.00 2.61
17 1.50 2.81 1.06
16 1.31 0.61 2.44
19 2.61 2.81 2.63
20 5.61 5.39 2.72
21 4.09 1.71 2.44
22 0.41 0.28 2.56
23 5.65 5.16 3.00
24 2.06 1.11 2.50
25 0.67 2.36 2.56
26 2.17 1.09 2.39
27 0.91 0.44 2.76
26 1.61 1.37 2.69
29 1.76 0.00 2.56
30 1.65 3.15 2.56
31 4.64 3.65 2.72
32 7.25 6.91 2.56
33 5.56 2.79 2.67
34 2.38 1.77 3.06
SEM‘ 0.21

 

" LOIN = Sow loins with atypical aroma and flavor (sow taint).

” % DRIP LOSS = Fluid lost from loin chops after 48 h storage (2.8°C; Baas et al., 2000).
° PURGE LOSS = Fluid lost after tempering frozen sow loins (24 h).

d LOIN TEMPERATURE = lntemal loin temp upon arrival to MSU meat laboratory.

° SEM = Standard error of the means for sow loins with taint.

141

.>._0:0.:. :0... u 0. 0:0: 0 0 50:000.. 0: 5.; 000:0 :0_. 260 02:.0P .1. Pm .

 

 

”0.000 E50000 00.02:: E50 9 :0 0000: 0.0 00.000 .0:00 0.00. 00:.0... .. .owhp 0:000:3E00 2.0.500: .0. :00... 05 .0 0:0 0.00:0.0 .1. 2mm 6
000:0 .0..:00 .50. 0: 0:0 .50. .0. :00E 0:. .0 .90 0.00:0.0 u 2mm 6 .099 0:000:3E00 E0500: 0202.000 0 m. o
.8556. o: 5.; 865 so. :8 2.8-82 u 920 . :3; 0:82.858 .5502. 5. :00E 2. .6 5:0 28:80 I .200 ..
.0:0..0:.:E00 208.00; .
0 0 0 8.0 9.0 0 :20 0 3.0 0.2mm
0 0 0 0 00.0 0 0 0 0 L20
0 0 0 0N.0 no.0 0 2.0 0 9.0 Lb
0 0 0 0 m _. .0 0 0 0 0 02mm
0 0 0 0 00.0 0 0 0 0 amp
no.0 00.0 00.0 0 N00 00.0 no.0 0 0 85mm
0 0 0 0 3.0 0 0 0 0 3
0 0 0 0 00.0 0 0 0 0 mp
0 0 0 0 M00 0 0 0 0 NF
0 0 0 0 0N.0 0 0 0 0 P F
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F
0 0 mvd 0 N .. . F 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 3.0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 00.0 0 0N.0 0 0 x.
0 0 0 0 océ 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 00.0 0 0 0 0 m
0 v_..0 0 0 00.0 0N.0 0 0 0 v
0 0 0 0 3.0 0 0 0 0 m
3.0 0 0 0 «0.0 0 0 0 0 N
0 0 0 0 3.0 0 0 0 0 w
.._<$..Z< map—ks. Dm<>zm<m 4<._.m_2 D.0< OwZ>>Omm>rzmam >Ihm<m >0mmm kwm>>w mDOw L»...

0.0.5. 00000? 05.00., 5.! 30:00.00... 05.000 6553:0000... 05.000 5.3 0305.0...
000:0 .200 005.0205. .500 00.50. .0 0000050005 ...050: .0. 200.000 .0000 03:00 0050.: .0. 0:00.: 00.0000 .000.- _ >030 "an x52u00<

142

”0.000 0.2.0000 .00.0>.:0 .:.00 m. :0 00000 0.0 00.000 .0:00 0.00. 00:.0; _.

.b.0:0.:. 00.: u m. .000: u o

000:0 .0..:00 .:.0. 0: 0:0 .:.0. .0. :000. 0:. .0 .000 0.00:0.0 u 2mm 0

..00:...00.. 00 0...... 00000 0.0. 300 00.0.5002 n 0.20.

..:oe.02. 0: 5.3 89.0 so. 38 0250.. u #0 .

.0N.m _. 002.00.00.00 508.00.. .0. 0000. 0.... .0 .000 0.300% n Ewm 0

.80. 0:88.058 .5502. 00.8.80 u 0. o

:0.-. 002.00.00.00 .000..00.. .0. 0000. 0:. .0 .000 0.00:0.0 u 2mm ..

 

 

0000050600 E00000; .
o o o o o o 8.0 A. Email
0 o o o o o 8.0 o _..20
o o o o o o o 0 L0
o o o o 8... 8.0 o o .200
o o o o 3.0 8.0 o o .0.
o o o o 3.0 8.0 o 8.0 .200
o o o o 80 o o o 3
o o o o o 8.0 o o 2
o o o o o 8.0 o o N.
o o o o o 8.0 o o S
o o o o o 8.0 o o o.
o o o o o 8.: o o 0
o o o o o 8.: o o 0
o o o o o o o o ..
o o o o o 8.0 o 00.0 0
o o o o o 8.0 o o 0
o o o o o 8.0 o o v
o o o o o o o o m
o o o o o o o o N
o o o o o o o o .
E02 .6090 20000 .35 00000 52: 000000000 000.020 E00: 0...; LE

.0.0>0_ 00000—0. 00.30., 0...; 30000.00... 0.0.000 6.0000000200... 0.0.000 0...: 00.00000.
00000 .0.00 000000.000. .000 00.0.0. .0 02.000.00.20 ...0:.0.. .0. F.00.000 .0:00 b00000 000.0... .0. 00000. 00.0000 .000.— . >030

"nu Ens—man?

143

5.0020. :0... n m. .0000 u 0 000.500.. 00 5.3 00000 0.0. 300 00.0.0.8 u .5 .

 

”2000 0.2.0000 00.9.0: .500 m. 00 00000 0.0 00.000 .0000 0.00. 000.00.... .8... 002.00.00.00 .00—0.00... .0. 0000. 05 .0 .000 0.005% n 2mm 8

89.80 u 0 .. 80.0. 888558 88.588 88:80 u 0. u

.0..000 .0..000 .50. 00 000 .50. 00. 000.0 0... .0 00.00 200005 u 2mm 8 :34 003.00.00.00 .00—500... .0. 0000. 05 .0 .000 Emacsw u 2mm 8

..coE.mo.= o... 5.3 mnoco SO. 250 8.55-82 n P20 . 0.339.358 2.9569; 0
~08 .08 88 .08 88 8 88 88 98 88 02mm
«8.. 88.. 88 No.8 88 8 8 E8 8.. we... L20
8.. .88 8.8 88 .88 8 88 8.. 8.. 88 L0
.888 88 88 «.8 88 «8.8 8 ~.8 8.8 0.8 300
8.. 8.. .08 8.. 88 N88 8 88 .0.. 8... on.
88 8.8 8.8 .08 8.8 88 888 808 88 88 32mm
88.. 8.. «.8 8.. 88 8 8 «8.8 8.. 00.8 v.
.8. 3.. 88 8... 88 8 8 88 8.. 888 m.
8.. 88.. 88 .8. 888 8 8 88 888 888 N.
.8. 88.... 8 mm. 88 8 8 .08 8.. 88 ..
3.. 2.. 8 mm. 808 8 8 808 8... 88 8.
«8.. 88.. 88 8.. 88 8 88 R8 8.. 88 8
t. 8.. 88 8.0 808 8 8 88 N... 88 8
8... 8.. «.8 8... 888 8 8 «.8 B. 2.8 .
R. 3.. . .8 8.. 88 8 8 .8 0.... 88 8
8.0 3.. 88 8.. 888 8 8 88 m... 38 m
88 ~88 . .8 8.. 88 8 8 88 N... 888 ..
8.. :8 8.8 t... .88 8 8 8 3.. 8.8 8
8... «8.. «.8 88.. 0.8 v.8 8 88 0.... 0...... N
8.. «8.. «.8 .8. 888 8 8 80.8 .0.. 8... .

 

bzw62_m._.w< 03.2.5.2 ..<U=2w...0 (00$ >Q<Om >19". >...Z_<n. Dm<0mom<0 ...<u. men. =0 >I...Om.m\2<w.._ men. :0 LR...

.0.0>0. 00300—0. 5.3 0.000900... 05.000 800000002003 05.000 5.) 0300.008
00000 .0000 00.0.3600. 300 00.0.0. .0 0030050008 =.0>0.“... .0. .0830 .0000 200000 000.03 .0. 00000. 020000 .000. 2.030 #N 502mm“?

144

 

 

_.I»|‘

 

 

88.8820 88... u 8. ”8888 u 8 888.5888 88 5.; 8885 8.8. :8 88.8.8. u .0 .
8.888 5.5888 08.8288 .588 8. 88 88808 8.8 8988 .8888 8.88. 88.8.. ,. .88. 888888.858 88.58.. .8. 8098 85 .8 .85 808850 a 200 a
.8886 .8888 .08. 88 888 .08. .8. 88s 85 .8 8:8 8.8830 n .280 . .88. 888885858 88.5888 88.8380 u 8. 0
888.582. 88 5? 8885 8.8. :88 8285.882 u .20 . :8.-. 888888.858 .8588 .8. 8885 85 .8 8:8 8.8880 n 200 ..
0:030:55 «09509.... 0

8 8.8 «.8 88 8 .«8 8 8.8 .0480

8 .«8 8.8 88.. 8 888 8 8«.. L20

8 8 888 88.. 8 .... 8 88.. L0

8 8.8 888 8.8 8.8 :8 88 «.8 9.280

8 8.8 88 88 888 8.8 «8.8 .88 0.8.

88.8 88 .«8 888 «88 888 .88 888 8.280

8 888 88 :8 8.8 88.8 8 8.8 8.

8 888 8 88.. 888 888 8 «8.. 8.

88 888 888 8«. 88.8 888 8 88.. «.

8 ««.8 8 8«.. .88 8.8 88 88.. ..

8 888 88 88.8 88.8 3.8 8 8... 8.

8 ««.8 88 88 8.8 8.8 8 888 8

8 888 8 888 ««.. 888 8 888 8

8 88 888 .«. ««.8 888 8 8... .

8 .88 88.8 88 8.8 8.8 8 «8.. 8

8 888 8 «8.. 8.8 .88 8 8.... 8

8 8.8 8 888 888 .8. 8 .8. 8

8 :8 88.8 88.. 88.8 88.. 8 3.. 8

8 .88 88.8 :8 888 88.8 8 .8. «

8 8.. 88.8 8.. 88.8 88.8 8 888 .

E82 800 822.008.5028 .502 >5<0 0:00 .0030 08.08 La.

0.30. 00000—0. 003.2, 5.... 0.0000000... 05.000 .0.-0000002005 05.000 5.3 00.00000.
00000 .800 008.0035. 300 00.0.0. .0 0000050030 .800» 00.2.. .0. 800.000 .0000 E00000 000.03 .0. 0000.0 020000 «000.. . >030 "mu 50.3004.

145

 

 

0.888.... 88... u 8. .882 u 8 285.88.. 8 5.3 889.8 ...8. 388 08.8.8. u .0 .
.2000 0.2.0000 .00.0>.0: .500 m. 00 00000 0.0 00.80 .0000 0.00. 000.0. . .. 60.0. 002.00.00.00 .00.0.00.. .0. 0000. 00. .0 .000 0.0000.w u 20w 8
.00000 .0..000 .50. 00 000 .0.0. .0. 0000. 00. .0 .000 0.00006 n 2mm 8 .80. 009.00.00.00 500.00.. 00.02.00... u m. u
..00E.00.. 00 0...: 00000 0.0. 300 00.0.8002 n .20 . :0.-. 002.00.00.00 000000.. .0. 0000. 00. .0 .000 0.00006 u 20w n
0003059500 $05.00... 0

8 8 8 88.8 8.... ...8 .200

8 8 8 .88 88.8 8 .20

8 8 8 8 8.8 8.8 L0

8 8 8 88.8 ..88 8 .200

8 8 8 88.8 8.8 8 08.

8 8 88.8 88.8 8.8 88.8 n.200

8 8 8 .88 8.8 8 ...

8 8 8 8 88.8 8 8.

8 8 8 8 88.8 8 8.

8 8 8 ...8 8 888 ..

8 8 8 8 8 8 8.

8 8 8 8 8.88 8 8

8 8 8 8 88.8 8 8

8 8 8 .88 8.8 8 .

8 8 8 8 88.8 8 8

8 8 8 8 88.8 8 8

8 8 88.8 8 88.8 8 ..

8 8 8 .88 8.8 8 8

8 8 8 .88 8.8 8 8

8 8 8 8.8 8.8 8 .

0.0.. 0:000 ..<2_z< 00022 0058005 20.2010 .0... .0.

0.2.0. 00:00.0. 00.>.0> 0...... 80000.00... 05.000 .30000000...00... 05.000 0...... 00.00.00.
00000 .0..00 000000.000. 2.00 00.0.0. .0 0000050030 =0.00.. .0..<.. .0. 800.000 .0000 ...00000 000.0... .0. 00000. 00.0000 .000. . >030 .00 50208.0(

146

 

 

3.0020. 00.0 n m. .0000 u o ..000..00.. 00 5.3 00000 0.0. 2.00 00.0.0. u .w .

 

 

”0.000 000.0000 .00.0>.0: .060 m. 00 00000 0.0 00.000 .0000 0.00. 000.0. . .. .80. 002.00.00.00 500000.. .0. 0000. 00. .0 .000 20000.0 u .200 8
888.0 .388 ...8. 8.. 8:8 0.8. .8. 888... 85 .8 .8..8 8.88.8.0 u 200 o 80.8. 88.2.8588 285.88.. 88.88.88... u 8. o
..000..00.. 0: 5.2. 00000 0.0. .200 00.0.3002 u .20 . :0.-. 002.00.00.00 50.5000. .0. 0000. 00. .0 .000 0.00003 u 2mm 8
002.00.00.00 .00E.00.. 8

0.6 N..o .Nd ”Nd vmd 8.2mm

and ON... «MN m ..N 3N ...ZO

and o Qua med ovd Lb

.88 ...8 88.8 88.8 ...8 .20

.md de wnfl and o..m 8m.

...8 80.8 08.8 8.8 88.8 ..200

N0... .6. SN QNN o0...” v.

mmd mud m..N med mm... m.

and .06 mvN mm. mud N.

NNd cad mvN NNN mmN ..

omd w... mvd mod mod o.

006 .80.. MVN mm. N06 m

00.0 .06 NEN end mm.” m

wmd and mvd ovN mad 5

and omd NEN NN.N on.” o

00.0 mm... .md omN N0.” m

omd m . .o NEN mod mm... 0

N06 .06 mvd mmN .mN m

N06 36 .md BEN ...m N

end on... mNN mmN ovd .

>0<Ow .mm>>w amt—m 130w ...(m La.

0.30. 00:00.0. 00.30.. 5.... 0.0000503 05.000 050000000300... 05.000 0...... 00.00000.
00000 .0..00 050000.000. 2.00 00.0.0. .0 00..00_..000.0 ..0.00... .0. .02000 .0000 300000 000.00. .0. 00000. 00.0000 .000... . >055 ..N x.ozm00<

147

 

 

.0000 00000. 300.058 30.5.. 20.00.08 u 0 00000000 .0050. 200.058 3.0 ..000000.. 00 5.2. 00000 0.0. 2.00 00.0.0. u .0 .
20.00.08 u . ”0.000 0.0000... .200 w 00 00000 0.0 00.000 .0000 0.00. 000.0. . .. .80. 002.00.00.00 50.0.00... .0. 0000. 00. .0 .000 0.00050 u .200 a
00000 .0..000 .20. 00 000 .20. .0. 0000. 00. .0 .000 0.00080 u 200 0 .80. 002.00.00.00 0.0.0.000 00.02.00”. u 0. 8
..00E.00.. 00 5.2. 00000 0.0.2.00 00.0.0.002 u .20 . :0.-. 002.00.00.00 006.00.. .0. 0000. 0... .0 .000 0.00080 u .200 .
002.00.00.00 .000..00.. .

0...... .0... 03 00... .200

«0.... ~00 «.0 00.0 .20

3.0 0.... 0.... 0.... 8.0

0.0 0.... 0.... 0.... 8.200

5.0 00.... ..N... 00.0 on.

00.0 3.0 and me... A.500

8.0 00.0 mm... 00.0 0.

No.0 00... 00... 00... m.

00.0 ow... 00.0 cm... N.

00.0 00.0 3.0 00.0 ..

No.0 .0... 0.... .0... o.

00.0 R... 00.0 2.... m

00.0 8.0 0.... 0N.0 0

.0... 00.0 0.0 0.0 ..

00.0 2.0 00... K0 0

No... 3.0 mm... 00.0 0

0.... 00.0 3.0 om... v

on... 00.0 00.0 00.0 m

5.0 3... 00.0 00... N

00.0 5.... 00.0 0.... .

0:00.. 02.002200 000200020. 00<mm>o 0002.050 000200020. ”.00.“. 00003.2 La.

0.2.0. 00000—0. 00.05.. 0...... 30000.00... 05.000 .0.-0000000200... 05.000 002. 00.00000.
00000 .200 050000.000. 2.00 00.0.0. .0 0000050020 .3508... .0. .0280 .0000 000000 000.2. .0. 00000. 00.0500 .00.... . 205.0 now 50:00.?

148

332:. :9; u mp 6:0: u o .2253... o: 5? 305 so. 38 3.5m» u .5 .

 

 

6.8.» 5.500% 3202:: .58 9 co “.32 2a «Boom 5:3 065 3&9? .239 383358 2253: ..o. :38 05 .0 Sta 2356 u 2mm 9

.838 u o .. d3; 282358 .5539. 38:3”. u 2 u

.805 .938 3.8 0: new .59 .2 59: «5 do 3:0 235% a 2mm a :3-.. «5:22.58 5253.: 3. camp. 2: .0 5:0 Emucflm u 2mm ..

£55503 0: 5:5 mace—o 50. Bow UQESéOZ u ...ZO . .mcosznEoo «cogmohk -

NFd 3d d «d «d d «d Ed 8d m~d %flwl
9d and d dud vmd d Ed 2d mod 2..» .82
8d 3d d d 9d d and 8d 8d 3d .8
d d Nod 8d 8d d 8d 8d 8d 3d 3%
d d «dd 3d med d 3d 2d 3d Ed on.
8d n d 8d 3d dud d 8d dud 2d and 92mm
d d d d Rd d d 3d «Pd 2d 3
id id d :d :d o d and and SN .2
d d d d mud o d Ed 8d 33 NF
3d 3d d d :d d d Bd mud 8d 2
3d dud d 3d mud d d Bd mud mod 2
d d Ed d :d 0 8d 2d and 3d d
d :d d d 8d d d mmd add :3 d
d d d d mmd o d Ed 8d mud s
3d 9d d d mud d d Add and and o
d dud d d mmd d d 8d mmd 3d d
3d 9d d d mwd d d 8d 8d 8d d
2d d d d and d d 8d 8d and n
d d d d Rd d d Ed dvd «dd N
d 8d d 3d Ed d d 2d 8d mud P

552.52 03.252 .2955 38 {<8 Em: fizz“. om<0mom<o Eu. v80“. ..0 >15sz<3 Eon. ..o L5

.226. 3.30.... 9.3.2, 5.3 22.09.33 5:33 .2usaaonnzonta 83.33 5.3 $33.38
30:0 .80.. 25.3395. 33 6858 .0 5.285320 gauanob? .8 .333 .32. >323» .358. ..2 «:3... «Susan 33.. _ >335 6a 592me

149

 

5302:. no... u 2. ”0:0: u o
”0.08 8.500% 529?: .500 me :0 0300 0.0 02000 .0:00 208 0050:. ..
.305 .0..000 .50. 0: 0:0 .58 .2 :00E 05 .0 3:0 0.0056 n 2mm 5
08.58.. 2 5? 306 50. 38 0253-82 u #20 .

.2258: 9. 5.; 805 so. 38 0253 u 5 .
.oméw 0003050050 52500: .6. 0008 05 .0 6:0 0.005% n 2mm 9
.03. 282368 .858: candida u m. u
:34 0002003800 22502. ..0. 000:. 05 *0 8:0 0.005% n 2mm ..

 

 

0003005800 .00—500:. .
:6 o o o o 3.0 9.6 0 mod :6 3.0 oiww
o o o o o etc 96 o o 9.0 o .._.20
9d o o o o ofio 9.9 o nod o m...o Lb
o o o mod 0 :d 0 5d 56 o o uiwm
o o o m ...o c mmd 0 «0.0 «Cd o c on r
00.0 o 0 mad o 0N.0 o o 0 mod 0 aimw
o o o Fwd o 0N.0 o o o o o E.
o o o di o :20 o o o o o m_.
o o o 9.0 0 mad o o o o 0 NF
0 o o o o o o o c o o w P
o o o o o mNd o o o 3.0 o o—
o o o o o vm... o o o o o m
o o o N—d o mud o o o o o w
o o o o o sud o o o o o x.
o o o o o mné o o o o o m
mNd o 0 3d 0 :d o o o o o m
o o o N _. .o o o o o o o o v
o o o o 0 mod 0 o o o o m
o o o o o mvd o o o o o N
o o o hwd o and o o o o o _.
Dm<0mom<o ._<U=ZMIO mambo FEDS. (OOw szgommxhzmnm .75—ME >._.._<m 130w Hmm>>m mmta «#1...

6.03. 00:00.... 003...? 5.3 80:00.33 8200» 6.2305023... 83.000 5.3 $205.08
30:0 .300 2:53.000. 300 030.8 .0 0030050220 ..030824: .0. £00.00» .052. 300000 0050.: .8 0000:. «20:00 .003 26:5

”on vac—gums:

150

 

 

.5225 :9: u m. 8:8 u : .5258: o: 5.; 8:5 5o. 38 855:: u 5 .
6.3m 82.00% 3302:: .52. m: :o comma Sm $.03 .33 2:3 859.... : .omfi: 30:33:60 5253: ..2 50:. 05 .0 :93 2335 u 2mm :
.8050 65:8 :58 on can .58 :8 :85. 05 no .93 2355 u 2mm : .o~.m_. 20:05:88 E9585 85233: n m: u
.EoEfig 0: 55, 30:0 52 Bow 3.58.52 u ...20 . :3; 2032588 2253.: .6. .59: 05 .0 3:0 2856 u 2mm :
.mcozmcfisoo acoEamobh a

: : : : : : a5mm

: : : : : : Lzo

: : : : : : .5

: : : : 3.: : 52mm

: : : : 3.: : on:

: : : : 2.: 8.: 92mm

: : : : : : 3

: : : : : : 2

: : : : : : N:

: : : : : : z

: : : : : : :F

: : : : : : a

: : : : 8.: : :

: : : : : : N

: : : : 3.: : o

: : : : : : m

: : : : : 8.: v

: : : : : : m

: : : : : 3.: N

: : : : : : 5

E32 Esau. mzammma >xE<w om<>zm<m 5<2_z< wants). LE

63>... 533?. 9.3.9 5.! 223233 8:33 63.335283 52an 5.3 @2553...
32.0 .22. 35.3.93. 30» @858 no 5335320 ..ozana: ..8 .323: .23.. 33:3 .852: ..2 «coo... 09.2...» «30.. . >35 3.» :20:me

151

 

 

 

 

 

 

:m:
. 3.:
w
u
and V
1
V
4..
I.
m...
. w: : u
S
I.
a
. 8.:
:.:umm<o_m m.:u&.m
33:22 .322 3. .255. 33.". 28:3: .82... .3. .23.... 33....

.6305.

28:98.: 52:8 s. 2.3:: :8 .35. 2280823.: 52:8 $8.3”: ..azaa.

.:>o. 9.0.32... .8: ...m 5.3 venue—335.: macs: So. 26: 03:53:. :0 Bmatotm .32:
3.. £23.: 5.3962 :25 an: .23 .m:.:Vn.. «535:9: :0 mafia: aunts: 3.333. "N: x.ozmn.....<

31$VLHEJJV 1V1!"

152

 

 

 

 

2....
S

K... m
H
V
H.
a

.5...
u
S
l.
3

.8...

2.835.: 3.88:
388.2 58 .8 3:2,. :32“. 38:22 58 .8 3:2,. :32...
.3505.

22:58.: 52:8 3. 2.6.8.: :8 ...Fm. 2282......an 52:8 $8.23.: $23...
.30. 533?. {on ...m 5.3 @2303:an 2.2.: 50. 26m 335.2: .0 3.3.3:: Sam
.8. «.308 :23952 .33: an: .22 8...:Vn: 2.35:9» :0 mafia: coat-5 omcoamam "mm x_ozmn.m<

153

. Em
v ::.m a: an: at:

 

 

 

 

 

 

:8 a. E... .
3.: saw...
8.?
~ -.
““F\\u\d\\§\\l ~39 :.:. GW. .36-
‘ \x
“\\\\\w\\ w
\\\\\\\ m .
‘\‘\\\\ 8 a w ,2 :
o
\\\\\\x m
\\ u 3.:
in: 0
K 2.: u «a
mm.onmm<o_m 3&5
285:2 2:52: .2 3:22 82". 28592 2.3:: 3. 3:2,. :82“.

.6565.
2:52:83 52:8 2 2.2.3.: :8 ..fim. 22.82%.an 52:8 $8.22.: ..assa.
.:>:. 20:02:. exam ...m 5.? 3.202355 30...: :.o. 26: 62:55:. :0 222.22: .53

.2 22:08 20.3969. can: as: .22 .:_..:Vn= E2225? :0 32:0 0025: 03033. 3: x.nzwmn.<

OILVWOUV OITIVJBW

154

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

::.:umm<0_m 26320
0300:. 02805.00 50h .0002 003—". 0300:. 02305.30 .05 .0002 003.“—
.2220.

22:58... 52:8 s. 26.2.: :5: .20. 39.82.2320 52:8 2.86.26 62:...
.0>0. 00:00.0. #0 ...m 5.3 00.302002: 000:0 :.0. 300 0200.02: .0 0000.: 02:00:03
.0.— 0_000E 00.00050. 02:..— 000 2013.9... 20005090 .0 002:0 002.50 0000000”. ”mm 02029.0(

BHSSIJ. SAILOBNNOO

155

 

 

 

 

 

 

mm.oumm<o.m m.on0._.w
00050.2. ..00 .0005. 000.". 00050.2. ..00 .000—2 000.“.

‘ .0520.

323.8... 82.80 2 2.6.86 .2... ...30. 0.232.628... 56.08 $606.36

..0200. .0>0. 000002.. :0 ...0 5.3 00.300302». 000:0 :.0. .500 00.05.00. 00 0000.0...—
.00 0.0005 00.00050. 00:: 0:0 .32 $0.90. 0:005:20 00 00200 008.50 00000000 .00 x.ozm00<

SSSNIOIDI‘

156

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ON... ..l. «M

mm.oumm<o_m mmdunfim
0000.0000... .00.“. 0.00:5. .0. .0005. 000.". 0000.0000... .00.“. 0.00:5. .0. .0002 00...“.

.0500. 323.83

05.08 3. 2.6.36 .0.... .800. 82.02.0200... 86.08 0.606.006 .02.... .0>0.

00000—0. $0 ...0 5.3 00.300300... 00000 0.0. 2.00 00.00.00. .0 00050000. .0.... 0.00:0.
.0. 0.0000. 00.00050. 00.... 000 .20. .0370. .000...5.0 .0 00>.:0 000...:0 00000000 Km x.02m00<

SSBNHSONEJ. 838k! 31OSflW

157

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o
A
m
1
1
l.
m
r0.... a
3..
a
N
.4.
s
.2... 3
86004.00 0063.5
mmOF—fiU—ufih =N..0>° 00h .000: 60:.”— mm0=.OUCO.P ..fl..0>o ..Oh .0302 U03."—

3.20.0.

30.3.8... 05.08 0. 2.6.36 0.... .05. 0.2%....0280. :50...» 0.86.006 .055...

.0>0. 00000.0. $0 ...0 5.... 023003000. 00000 0.0. 2.00 00.00.00. .0 00050000. ..0.0>0
.0. 0.0000. 00.00050. 00.... 000 .000. 80.90. «0000.090 .0 002:0 000..:0 00000000 .00 x.ozm00<

SSENHSONSJ. 'I'IVHBAO

158

RECCOMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

The results of this thesis work have indicated the feasibility of developing
marinades composed of sodium tripolyphosphate and sodium bicarbonate that
eliminate detrimental atypical aromas and flavors in tainted sow longissimus
dorsi muscle. When injected into tainted sow loins, these man'ndades were
shown to improve flavor, texture, juiciness, and overall acceptability attributes to
consumer acceptable levels. This processing technology increases the utilization
of tainted sow subprimal cuts for value added whole muscle products. it has also
been shown that pre-rigor sow meat is comparative to butcher pork meat in terms
of composition and quality of raw materials, functionality, and sensory attributes.
Pre-rigor sow meat was actually shown to excel over butcher pork meat for water
holding capacity properties of marination uptake potential and cook yields. Sow
meat, however, does have limitations. Darker muscle color was found to be one
of the most negative attributes of hot—boned sow meat. Future research needs to
address this topic to determine what processing technologies may solve this
problem.

Although this research focused on a processing strategy to eliminate sow
taint, further research needs to investigate deeper into the problem. Future
research efforts need to determine methods to successfully analyze tainted sow
meat for specific volatile flavor and aroma composition to better understand what
volatiles do cause the atypical aromas and flavors identified in this study. With a

better understanding of what identified volatiles cause these atypical flavors and

159

aromas, research could focus on specific processing systems to alleviate sow
taint according to other practices used in similar type situations.

With knowledge gained from this research, eradicating this problem before
sows enter the slaughter/processing system is also an opportunity for research.
Future studies need to investigate the occurrence of sow taint in a slaughter plant
setting and design a reverse tracking system to identify which farm sow herds the
are producing carcasses with atypical aromas and flavors. Upon this discovery,
research needs to investigate gestation cycles of the sows, feeding practices,
conditioning lengths and times, and overall animal welfare practices on the farm
to determine if these factors may be causing the sow taint.

In a final thought, the investigation of sow meat exposes new possibilities
of raw materials to produce value added products. Raw materials such as these
offer advantages of a lower cost meat ingredient with acceptable quality that
could be used to produce a high quality value added product tailored to food

service or possibly retail food segments.

160

 

 

 

A-J

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

ll'lllllllllllllilllfllllfillfllllllll