Journal of Animal Science and Technology

Korean Society of Animal Sciences and Technology (한국축산학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of Physicochemical and Sensory Properties of Branded Pork by Feeding Probiotics and Crossbred between Korean Native and Wild Pigs

생균제 급여와 재래돼지와 멧돼지의 교배에 의해 브랜드화 된 돈육의 물리화학적 및 관능적 특성 비교

  • Jin, S.K. (Department of Animal Resources Technology, Jinju National University) ;
  • Kim, I.S. (Department of Animal Resources Technology, Jinju National University) ;
  • Kim, S.J. (Department of Animal Resources Technology, Jinju National University) ;
  • Jeong, K.J. (Department of Animal Resources Technology, Jinju National University) ;
  • Ko, B.S. (Department of Animal Resources Technology, Jinju National University) ;
  • Nam, Y.W. (Department of Animal Resources Technology, Jinju National University) ;
  • Moon, Sung-Sil (Sunjin Meat Research Center)
  • 진상근 (진주산업대학교 동물소재공학과) ;
  • 김일석 (진주산업대학교 동물소재공학과) ;
  • 김수정 (진주산업대학교 동물소재공학과) ;
  • 정기종 (진주산업대학교 동물소재공학과) ;
  • 고병순 (진주산업대학교 동물소재공학과) ;
  • 남영욱 (진주산업대학교 동물소재공학과) ;
  • 문성실 ((주)선진 기술연구소)
  • Published : 2007.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study was carried out to investigate the physicochemical and sensory properties of branded pork by feeding probiotics and crossbred between Korean native and wild pigs. Crude protein contents showed in order of Brand A>Brand B>control (P<0.05), while crude fat contents showed Brand A to be lower (P<0.05) than control and Brand B. The pH of Brand B was significantly higher (P<0.05) than control and Brand A. Cooking loss (%) showed Brand A to be lower (P<0.05) than control, but there was not different between Brand A and Brand B. Lightness value showed Brand B to be lower (P<0.05) than control and Brand A. Brand A had the highest (P<0.05) springiness value. For fatty acid profile among branded pork loins, the saturated fatty acid (SFA) content was highest (P<0.05) for Brand A, but lowest (P<0.05) for Brand B. Brand B had the highest (P<0.05) unsaturated fatty acid (USFA) and essential fatty acid (EFA), USFA : SFA ratio, EFA : SFA ratio, and EFA : USFA ratio. Essential amino acid contents of Brand B was higher (P<0.05) than control and Brand A.

시중에 유통 중인 브랜드 돈육의 품질 특성을 조사하기 위해 3개 브랜드[대조구(LY×D), 브랜드 A(LY×D, 생균제 급여, 무항생제), 브랜드 B(재래돼지×멧돼지, 맥강과 한약재 급여)] 등심육을 구매하여 물리화학적 및 관능적 특성을 분석하였다. 조지방 함량은 브랜드 A가 브랜드 B에 비해 유의적으로 낮게 나타났다(P<0.05). 조회분 함량은 대조구>브랜드 A>B 순이었으며(P<0.05), 조단백질 함량은 브랜드 A>B>대조구 순으로 나타났다(P<0.05). 등심의 pH는 브랜드 B가 대조구와 브랜드 A에 비해 높았다(P<0.05). 가열감량은 브랜드 A가 대조구에 비해 낮았으며(P<0.05), 반면에 육의 명도는 브랜드 B가 대조구와 브랜드 A에 비해 낮았다(P<0.05). 조직적 특성 중 육의 탄력성은 브랜드 A가 가장 높게 나타났다(P<0.05). 포화지방산 함량은 브랜드 A가 가장 높았고(P<0.05), 반면에 불포화지방산, 필수지방산, 불포화지방산/포화지방산, 필수지방산/포화지방산 및 필수지방산/불포화지방산 비율은 브랜드 B가 가장 높았다(P<0.05). Glutamic acid, valine 및 Iosleucine 함량은 브랜드 B가 브랜드 A에 비해 높게 나타났다(P<0.05). 필수아미노산 함량의 경우 브랜드 B>대조구>브랜드 A 순이었다(P<0.05). Aspartic acid, alanine, tyrosine, phenylalanine, serine 및 glycine 함량은 브랜드 A가 대조구와 브랜드 B에 비해 높게 나타났다(P<0.05). Lysine, histidine 및 arginine 함량은 브랜드 B가 대조구와 브랜드 A에 비해 높게 나타났다(P<0.05). 관능검사 결과, 육의 풍미, 색 및 기호성은 재래돼지×멧돼지 교잡하여 맥강과 한약재를 급여한 브랜드 B가 가장 좋은 것으로 평가되었다(P<0.05). 이상의 결과를 종합해 볼 때 재래돼지×멧돼지 교잡하여 맥강과 한약재를 급여한 브랜드 B가 대조구와 브랜드 A에 비해 육의 명도 및 탄력성을 제외한 대부분의 분석 항목에서 우수한 것으로 나타났다.

Keywords

References

  1. AOAC. 1969. Official methods of analysis. 17th ed, Association Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International, Ch.45 pp. 82
  2. AOAC. 1990. Official methods of analysis. 15th ed, Association Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC, pp. 931
  3. AOAC. 2000. Official methods of analysis. 17th ed, Association Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International, Ch.4 pp. 5
  4. Bendall, J. R. and Swatland, H. J. 1988. A review of the relationships of pH with physical aspects of pork quality. Meat Sci. 24:85-126 https://doi.org/10.1016/0309-1740(88)90052-6
  5. Choi, S. C. and Youn, G. Y. 2002. Quantification analysis on the buying behavior of functional fresh meat. Kor. J. Agri. Manage. & Policy. 29:659-674
  6. Department of Health 1994. Nutritional aspects of cardiovascular disease. Report on health and social subjects No. 46. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office
  7. Enfalt, A. C., Lundstrom, K., Hansson, I., Lundeheim, N. and Nystrom, P. E. 1997. Effects of outdoor rearing and sire breed (Duroc or Yorkshire) on carcass composition and sensory and technological meat quality. Meat Sci. 45:1-15 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(96)00101-5
  8. Flores, M., Alasnier, C., Aristoy, M. C., Navarro, J. L., Gandemer, G. and Toldra, F. 1996. Activity of aminopeptidase and lipolytic enzymes in five skeletal muscles with various oxidative patterns. J. Sci. Food Agric. 70:127-130 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0010(199601)70:1<127::AID-JSFA475>3.0.CO;2-9
  9. Han, S. I. and Choi, S. C. 2002. The promotion of consumption on fresh-meat brand. Kor. J. Agri. Manage. & Policy. 29:298-315
  10. Isabel, B., Lopez-Bote, C. J., Hoz, L., Timón, M., Gracia, C. and Ruiz, J. 2003. Effects of feeding elevated concentrations of monounsaturated fatty acids and vitamin E to swine on characteristics of dry cured hams. Meat Sci. 64:475-482 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(02)00225-5
  11. Jeremiah. L. E., Gibson, J. P., Gibson, L. L., Ball, R. O., Aker, C. and Fortin, A. 1999. The influence of breed, gender, and PSS (Halothane) genotype on meat quality, cooking loss, and palatability of pork. Food Research International. 32:59-71
  12. Kim, Y. B., Rho, J. H., Richardson, I. and Wood, J. 2000. Comparison of physicochemical properties of pork from 4 different pig breeds. J. Anim. Sci. & Technol. (Kor). 42:195-202
  13. Lee, M. H., Kim, T. W., Han, I. M., Kang, Y. S., Jin, S. K. and Kim, I. S. 2005. Consumer's purchase behaviors and perception of branded pork in Gyengnam. Kor. J. Food Sci. Anim. Resour. 25:271- 276
  14. Maribo, H., Olsen, E. V., Patricia, B. G., Anders J. N. and Anders, K. 1998. Effect of early post- mortem cooling on temperature, pH fall and meat quality in pigs. Meat Sci. 50:115-129 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(98)00022-9
  15. Rossi, V., Denoyer, C. and Berdague, J. L. 1995. Effect of storage in air on cooked beef meat: analysis of desorbed volatile compounds. Sci. Alim. 15:381-392
  16. SAS. 1999. SAS/STAT Software for PC. Release 6.11, SAS Institute, Cary, NC. USA
  17. Sather, A. P., Jones, S. D. M., Tong, A. K. W. and Murray, A. C. 1991. Halothane genotype by weight interactions on pig meat quality. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 71:645-658 https://doi.org/10.4141/cjas91-080
  18. .Warriss, P. D., Brown, S. N., Nute, G. R., Knowles, T. G., Edwards, J. E., Perry, A. M. and Johnson, S. P. 1995. Potential interactions between the effects of preslaughter stress and post-mortem electrical stimulation of the carcasses on meat quality in pigs. Meat Sci. 41:55-68 https://doi.org/10.1016/0309-1740(94)00055-C
  19. Wood, J. D., Richardson, R. I., Nute, G. R., Fisher, A. V., Campo, M. M. and Kasapidou, E. 2003. Effect of fatty acids on meat quality: a review. Meat Sci. 66:21-32 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(03)00022-6
  20. Yang, S. J., Kim, Y. K., Hyon, J. S., Moon, Y. H. and Jung, I. C. 2005. Amino acid contents and meat quality properties on the loin from crossbred black and crossbred pigs reared in Jejudo. Kor. J. Food Sci. Ani. Resour. 25:7-12
  21. Yoo, Y. C. 1998. Studies on the consumer's purchase behavior of brand pork. M.S. thesis, Korea Univ., Seoul, Korea
  22. Meat journal. 2006. 돈육브랜드 지원 및 육성대책. 8월호, pp 52-62

Cited by

  1. Proximate Composition and Physico-chemical Characteristics of Berkshire Pork by Gender vol.27, pp.2, 2007, https://doi.org/10.5851/kosfa.2007.27.2.137