Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T02:55:30.084Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies on the muscles of meat animals. II. Differences in the ultimate pH and pigmentation of longissimus dorsi muscles from two breeds of pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

R. A. Lawrie  and
D. P. Gatherum
R. A. Lawrie
Affiliation:
Low Temperature Research Station, Cambridge
D. P. Gatherum
Affiliation:
Low Temperature Research Station, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Longissimus dorsi muscles from twenty Landrace and twenty Large White pigs of accurately known history, which had been reared under identical conditions at a Progeny Testing Station, and killed at similar weights, were sampled for ultimate pH and colour at the levels of the 5th, 7th, 9th, 11th, 13th and 15th thoracic, and of the 1st, 3rd, 5th and 6th lumbar, vertebrae.

2. The mean ultimate pH at all ten locations in Landrace muscles was invariably lower than at corresponding locations in Large White muscles, the difference being minimal at the level of the 15th thoracic vertebra, but being highly significant overall.

3. The scatter of ultimate pH values was markedly different between the breeds at the levels of the 5th and 9th thoracic, and of the 1st and 6th lumbar, vertebrae.

4. The mean colour at all locations, except 1st and 5th lumbar vertebrae, was higher in Large White muscles than at corresponding locations in Landrace muscles: the difference was especially marked at the level of the 5th thoracic vertebra.

5. Only in longissimus dorsi muscles from Landrace pigs were there significant correlations between ultimate pH and colour.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 58 , Issue 1 , February 1962 , pp. 97 - 102
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1962

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Callow, E. H. (1937). Annu. Rep. Fd Invest. Bd., Lond., p. 48.Google Scholar
Henry, M., Billon, J. & Haouza, G. (1955). Rev. Path. Gen. Comp. no. 669, 857.Google Scholar
Henry, M., Romani, J.-D. & Joubert, L. (1958). Rev. Path. Gen. Phys. Clin. no. 696, 355.Google Scholar
Lawrie, R. A. (1953). Biochem. J. 55, 305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrie, R. A. (1960). J. Comp. Path. 70, 273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrie, R. A., Gatherum, D. P. & Hale, H. P. (1958). Nature, Lond., 182, 807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ludvigsen, J. (1954). Beretn. Forsøgslab. Kbh. no. 272.Google Scholar
Ludvigsen, J. (1955). Beretn. Forsøgslab. Kbh. nos. 278, 279, 282.Google Scholar
Ludvigsen, J. (1957). Acta endocr., Copenhagen, 26, 406.Google Scholar
Scaife, J. (1955). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 6, 467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wismer-Pedersen, J. (1959). Food Res. 24, 711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wismer-Pedersen, J. & Briskey, E. J. (1961). Nature, Lond., 189, 318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar