Comparison of different methods for measuring water holding capacity and juiciness of pork versus on-line screening methods.

Meat science

PubMedID: 22062025

Van Oeckel MJ, Warnants N, BoucquƩ CV. Comparison of different methods for measuring water holding capacity and juiciness of pork versus on-line screening methods. Meat Sci. 1999;51(4):313-20.
The extent to which water holding capacity (WHC) techniques: filter paper press method, drip loss and filter paper method, are related to the sensory juiciness appreciation of pork was studied. Additionally four on-line methods: pH1, FOP1 (light scattering), PQM1 (conductivity) and DDLT (Double Density Light Transmission), were evaluated for their ability to predict WHC and juiciness scores. One-hundred and twenty samples of m. longissimus thoracis et lumborum, from animals of different genotypes, were involved in this study. Only WHC results, determined by the filter paper press method, were significantly correlated with juiciness scores (r=-0.24). The results of the filter paper method, either by weighing or visual judging, could not be predicted by the on-line methods. The results of the filter paper press method (F.p.p.-RZ) and drip loss were slightly better correlated with DDLT (respectively, r=0.56 and 0.45) than with PQM1 (r=0.51 and 0.36), FOP1 (r=0.48 and 0.34) and pH1 (r=0.41 and 0.34), although the standard error of estimate of the linear regressions was similar for the four on-line methods. Unfortunately, the on-line techniques incorrectly predicted several WHCs. Juiciness was slightly or not related to the on-line methods. The DDLT technique, which is analogous to the CGM (Capteur Gras/Maigre), an officially accepted carcass grading apparatus in France and Belgium, is as good or better than the classical on-line instruments: pH, FOP and PQM, in predicting WHC.