HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Bkiskey, E. J. Articles by Grummer, R. H. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Bkiskey, E. J. Articles by Grummer, R. H.

A Comparison of Certain Physical and Chemical Characteristics of Eight Pork Muscles^{1, 2,}

University of Wisconsin³, Madison

Abstract

Certain chemical and physical characteristics of the gluteus accessorius (ham) gluteus medius(ham), biceps femoris(ham), rectus femoris(ham), longissimus dorsi(loin), serratus ventralis(Boston-butt) terres major(picnic shoulder) and pectoralis profundus(belly) were compared in this study. Extreme (significant) variations in pH, expressible H₂O, glycogen, myoglobin, fat (%) and total H₂O (%) were exhibited between the various pork muscles. Those muscles which exhibited relatively high ultimate pH values, showed lower initial glycogen accumulations, lower ultimate expressible water quantities and greater myoglobin concentrations. These characteristics were compared with each muscle on the basis of the appearance of the chilled ham; and it was found that the appearance of the gluteus medius muscle is an especially good indicator of the water-binding characteristics of the biceps femorisand longissimus dorsi(two of the largest single muscles in the pork carcass). The total H₂O and myoglobin concentration did not vary significantly within each muscle regardless of the appearance of the chilled ham.

The significant correlations and variations between muscles suggest a moderately strong interrelationship of these characteristics in regulating the appearance and water-binding properties of pork muscles in general.

¹ Published with the approval of the Director of the Wisconsin Agricultural Experiment Station.

² This investigation was supported, in part, by a research grant (RG-5725) from the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health and by partial support from Armour and Company.

³ Departments of Animal Husbandry and Biochemistry, co-operating.