상세검색
최근 검색어 전체 삭제
다국어입력
즐겨찾기0
표지.JPG
SCOPUS 학술저널

Comparison of Meat Quality and Muscle Fiber Characteristics between Porcine Skeletal Muscles with Different Architectures

Comparison of Meat Quality and Muscle Fiber Characteristics between Porcine Skeletal Muscles with Different Architectures

This study aimed to compare the similarities, physicochemical properties, and muscle fiber characteristics of porcine skeletal muscles. Fourteen types of muscles were collected from nine pig carcasses at 24 h post-mortem and classified by muscle architecture into two main groups, namely parallel and pennate. The muscles were further differentiated into three subtypes per group. These included fan-shaped, fusiform, and strap for the parallel group, and unipennate, bipennate, and multipennate for the pennate group. Parallelfibered muscles, which were composed of larger I, IIA, IIX, and IIXB fibers and a lower density of IIA fibers, showed higher redness and yellowness values than pennate-fibered muscles (p<0.05). However, the relative fiber area was not significantly different between the parallel and pennate groups (p>0.05). In the subtypes of parallel architecture, the strap group showed lower moisture content and higher redness values than the other subtypes and had considerably higher amounts of oxidative fibers (I and IIA; 72.3%) than the fan-shaped and fusiform groups (p<0.05). In the pennate group, unipennate showed comparatively lower moisture content and higher lightness than other pennate subtypes and was composed of smaller I, IIA, and IIX fibers than the bipennate and multipennate groups (p<0.05). Finally, a different trend of muscle clustering by hierarchical cluster analysis was found between physicochemical properties and muscle fiber characteristics. These results suggest that the physicochemical properties and muscle fiber characteristics of porcine skeletal muscles are not significantly dependent on morphological properties but are rather related to the intrinsic properties of the individual muscles.

Introduction

Materials and Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

Conflicts of Interest

Acknowledgements

Author Contributions

Ethics Approval

References

로딩중