looc

Be-579

(M)nalmad oor provve aers.rree alternative breeds Iberian and Mangalitza with traditional Danish pig breeds it

reedind in theangali

ould begh-quaegi, 20

Meat Science 95 (2013) 2735

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Meat Sc

e lsduced and meat quality has been examined (Ramirez & Cava, 2007;Ventanas, Ventanas, Jurado, & Estevez, 2006). However, large controlledstudies with crossbreeds between several different breeds including alarge number of pigs have to the authors' knowledge not previouslybeen carried out.

Sensory analyses by trained panels have been applied extensivelyto evaluate sensory quality of pork (Aaslyng, Bejerholm, Ertbjerg,Bertram, & Andersen, 2003; Bejerholm & Aaslyng, 2003; Cannata etal., 2010; Lee et al., 2012; Lonergan et al., 2007; Meinert, Andersen,Bredie, Bjergegaard, & Aaslyng, 2007; Moeller et al., 2010). Tender-

et al., 2003; Meinert et al., 2007; Mottram, 1985). Combining sensoryevaluations and consumer studies gives a picture of the preference ofthe consumers in comparison with the evaluation by the professionalsensory panel, which is very important in order to satisfy the con-sumers' demands (Aaslyng et al., 2007; Bryhni et al., 2003; Norman,Berg, Heymann, & Lorenzen, 2003). However, sensory analysis by atrained panel in combination with a holistic consumer study, in whichthe consumers are asked to evaluate meat based on emotions and asso-ciations, has not frequently been performed (Kubberod, Ueland,Rodbotten, Westad, & Risvik, 2002).ness is one of the most important attributes foof pork, but also juiciness, avour and absenportant for the general impression of the mal., 2007; Bredahl, Grunert, & Fertin, 1998; Mmuscular fat (IMF) and the composition of th

Corresponding author. Tel.: +45 87158353; fax: +E-mail address: HanneC.Bertram@agrsci.dk (H.C. Ber

0309-1740/$ see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. Allhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.04.02602; Estevez, Morcuende,nas, & Cava, 2003). InndDuroc have been pro-

Andersen, & Aaslyng, 2008; Tikk et al., 2007; Whiteld, 1992). Differ-ences in the aroma composition can be determined by gas chromatog-raphymass spectrometry (GCMS) (Estevez, Morcuende, Ventanas,& Lopez, 2003; Estevez, Morcuende, Ventaprevious studies crossbreeds between Iberian a1. Introduction

Through many years of controlled buniformmeat quality has been achieveAlternative breeds like Iberian and Mdesirable eating quality traits which cin order to possibly produce unique hiucts (Ender, Nurnberg, Wegner, & Ser 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

g of pigs, a high but alsoDanish pork production.tza are known to haveof interest to introducelity gourmet meat prod-

to inuence the sensory attributes related to texture, particularly ten-derness. Hence, knowledge about fat content is of interest when evalu-ating meat quality (Cannata et al., 2010; Eikelenboom, HovingBolink, &vanderWal, 1996; Lonergan et al., 2007). In addition, fatty acid compo-sition is known to inuence the composition of aroma compoundsformed during cooking and reheating of pork (Aaslyng & Schafer,2008; Estevez, Morcuende, Ventanas, et al., 2003; Tikk, Haugen,Eating quality is possible to produce pork with attractive sensory attributes.GCMSFatty acid composition

the different crossbreeds. CoIn conclusion, by crossing thSensory and consumer evaluation of porkbetween Danish Landrace, Yorkshire, Dur

Ida K. Straadt a, Margit D. Aaslyng b, Hanne Christinea Aarhus University, Dept. of Food Science, Research Centre Aarslev, Kirstinebjergvej 10, DKb Technological Institute, Danish Meat Research Institute, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark

a b s t r a c ta r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 12 November 2012Received in revised form 5 April 2013Accepted 5 April 2013

Keywords:Sensory prolingMeat textureEmotions

Iberian (I) and Mangalitzacompared with the traditioated the fried loins. Gas chrocomposition was determinefound in odour, appearancenative crossbreeds had imcrossbreeds obtained positialmost 60% of the consum

j ourna l homepage: www.r the overall acceptancece of off-avour are im-eat quality (Aaslyng etoeller et al., 2010). Intra-e fatty acids are known

45 87154812.tram).

rights reserved.ins from crossbreeds, Iberian and Mangalitza

rtram a,2 Aarslev, Denmark

boars were crossed with Duroc (D) and Landrace/Yorkshire (LY) sows andcrossbreed DLY. The sensory attributes were analysed, and consumers evalu-tography (GC) aroma analysis was performed on the fried meat, and fatty acidn the loin and the subcutaneous fat, respectively. No marked differences wereavour/taste between the alternative crossbreeds and DLY; however, the alter-ed textural properties. Consumer evaluation revealed that the alternativessociations compared with DLY, and MD was ranked best or second best byNo pronounced differences were found in the aroma compounds betweenlations were found between the fatty acid composition and sensory attributes.

ience

ev ie r .com/ locate /meatsc iHence, the aim of the present study was to investigate if it is pos-sible to produce gourmet pork products, with desirable sensory attri-butes, by crossing pig breeds traditionally used in the Danish pigproduction with the alternative breeds Iberian and Mangalitza. Porkloins from the resulting crossbreeds were evaluated by a trained sen-sory panel and by consumers, which were asked to evaluate the meatbased on emotions. Furthermore, the aroma compounds and fattyacid composition were analysed. The study was conducted by raising

28 I.K. Straadt et al. / Meat Science 95 (2013) 2735a large number of pigs (n = 100) under identical and controlledconditions.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Animals and sampling

The meat included in the present study was derived from the tra-ditional crossbreed between Duroc boars and Landrace/Yorkshiresows (DLY) and four alternative crossbreeds derived from crossingsbetween pure non Iberian and pure Mangalitza boars and Duroc andLandrace/Yorkshire sows, respectively (ID, ILY, MD, MLY) (Straadt,Aaslyng, & Bertram, 2011). Thus, ID crosses were 50% Iberian and50% Duroc, ILY crosses were 50% Iberian, 25% Landrace, and 25%Yorkshire, MD crosses were 50% Mangaliza and 50% Duroc, and MLYwere 50% Mangalitza, 25% Landrace, and 25% Yorkshire. The cross-breed slaughter pigs were produced on a conventional Danish farmand fed ad libitum with conventional feed consisting of barley,wheat and soy (8.3 MJDE/kg, 16.4% protein and 3.6% fat) (DanishAgro, Karise, Denmark). The pigs were slaughtered at a live weight ofapproximately 110 kg at 8 different slaughter days with 1016 pigson each day. The day after slaughter, the depth of the subcutaneousfat was determined manually in mm at the last rib. Furthermore, sam-ples for determination of intramuscular fat (IMF) content and fattyacid composition were taken at the hip end of the loin, vacuum packedand frozen. Samples for colour measurements were excised approx.7 cm from the hip end of the loin. The remaining loin (longissimusdorsi) was vacuum-packed and aged for further 3 days at 5 C beforefreezing and storage at 20 C until use for sensory analysis. Onehundred animals were included in the present study with 20 animals(10 females and 10 castrates) from each of the ve crossbreeds (n =100), except for the consumer study in which ve randomly chosenanimals were used from each of the ve crossbreeds (n = 25).

2.2. pH

The pH was determined 22 h after slaughter (Knick PortamesspH-meter no. 751, Berlin, Germany) between 4th and 5th lumbarvertebrae.

2.3. Colour

Colour was measured on the day after slaughter using a MinoltaChroma Meter CR-400 (Osaka, Japan) with CIE lab colour system: a

(redgreen), b (yellowblue) and L (lightness) after 1 h of blooming(Honikel, 1998).

2.4. Sensory analysis performed by a trained panel

The sensory attributes were analysed using a trained sensorypanel consisting of 9 assessors, one male and eight females agedbetween 51 and 69 years and with 2 to 20 years of experience inassessing meat. The analysis was performed as an accredited sensoryproling analysis. Before the assessment, the assessors were trainedfor three sessions. In the rst session, the attributes were developedby consensus between the assessors. In the second training session,references were used for the avour attributes to enhance agreementbetween assessors as referenced below. In the last training session,selected samples were assessed in triplicate and agreement and dis-agreement between the assessors were discussed.

Chops of 2 cm thickness were fried on a pan smeared with a thinlayer of grape seed oil at 170 C. The chops were turned every 2 minuntil a core temperature of 6568 C was reached. The chops wereserved on pre-heated plates with a three digit number in a randomized

order; however all assessors received the samples in the same order.The following attributes were assessed on a 15 cm unstructuredline scale going from no intensity to very high intensity, with an an-chor of 1 cm from each side. The references are given in brackets.Fried pork odour (the odour of the surface of a pork chop fried athigh versus low pan temperature), piggy odour (the odour of meltedpig fat), brown surface, meat colour on the cutting surface, degree ofcooking, fried meat avour (reference as for odour), piggy avour(reference as for odour), sweet taste (sucrose), nutty avour(hazelnuts), oily/fatty avour, acidic taste (apple-acetic cider, 10% di-luted in water), metallic taste (copper coins), bitter taste (85% bitterdark chocolate), chewing resistance, crunchy bres, juiciness after 5chews, brousness, crumbliness, tenderness and acidic aftertasteafter 1015 s.

In sensory assessment, 1416 samples were assessed in each of 7sessions that were performed on consecutive days. Cross-breeds andgenders were represented in all sessions in a balanced design with arandomized serving order within session. The samples were servedto all assessors in the same order.

2.5. Consumer study

Five loins from each crossbreed were used for a consumer study(n = 25). The chops were fried using the same procedure as for thesensory prole. The consumers were recruited in a canteen mainlyused by ofce employees. A total of 44 consumers, 28 females and16 males between 26 and 69 years each assessed one piece of achop from each of the ve crossbreds. They were asked to evaluatehow well they found that the samples tted each of the followingattributes: harmonic, complex, well-known, delicious, boring, tradi-tional, summer-like, Nordic and fullness. No further instructionswere given on how to dene the attributes and if they asked, theywere told, that it should be their own intuitive denition of theword. Each attribute was evaluated on a 15 cm scale going fromnot at all to very much. Following the evaluation, they wereasked to range all ve samples from best to worst.

2.6. Aroma analysis

2.6.1. Sample preparation and headspace collectionBefore aroma analysis the meat was thawed overnight at 4 C. From

each of the pigs included in the study two chops of 2 cmwithout fat andbones were sliced (n = 100). The Tefal frying pan was preheated for10 min reaching a temperature of 210 C and the chops were fried forapproximately 10 min, turning them every 2 min. The chops werefried until a core temperature of 70 C was reached, and the chopsreached a maximum surface temperature of 250 C. After frying, the 2chops were cut into pieces of 1 1 1 cm and approximately 30 gwas transferred to a conical sample ask. The conical ask wasequipped with a gas washing bottle glass insert, allowing gas to bepurged through the sample material. A trap with 200 mg Tenax(35/60 mesh and 200 mg Carbograph 5 T, Markes International Limit-ed, Llantrisant, UK) was connected to the conical ask and the samplewas equilibrated for 10 min at 40 C, and subsequently the headspacewas purged with nitrogen (60 mL/min) for 15 min at 40 C. All glass-ware was heated at 200 C for 2 h before use.

2.6.2. Gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GCMS)GCMS analysis was performed by use of a thermal desorption

system (Ultra-UNITY, Markes International Limited) tted with acold trap (U-TIIGCP, Markes International Limited). The Tenax trapwas thermally desorbed at 240 C for 10 min, and the volatilescryofocused on the cold trap (10 C), and subsequently desorbedfrom the cold trap at 250 C for 5 min with an outlet split ratio of10:1. The thermal desorption system was coupled to a gas chromato-graph (Finnigan Trace GC Ultra, Thermo, Waltham, Massachusetts, US)

equipped with a 30 m 0.25 mm column (DB-Wax, J&W Scientic,

different for most of the alternative crossbreeds. Differences werefound for two of the three colour parameters between DLY and the al-ternative crossbreeds. The alternative crossbreed had lowor signicant-ly lower values for L, and conversely signicantly higher values for a,indicating that the pork loins from the alternative crossbreeds aredarker and have a more reddish colour than DLY.

3.2. Sensory evaluation of pork loins by a trained panel

Results from the sensory evaluation of odour, appearance, avour,texture and aftertaste of the fried loins from the ve crossbreeds(n = 100) are displayed in Table 2. An overview of the sensory databy PCA analysis is shown in Fig. 1a and c, from which it is apparentthat the rst two principal components (PC1 and PC2) explain 94% ofthe variance. The fried loins from DLY are in the negative directionalong the PC1, whereas the loins from the alternative crossbreeds

Table 1Meat quality parameters for the loins from the ve crossbreeds (means) (n = 100). DLY:Duroc boar crossed with Landrace/Yorkshire sow, ID: Iberian boar crossed with Durocsow, ILY: Iberian boar crossedwith Landrace/Yorkshire sow,MD:Mangalitza boar crossedwith Duroc sow, and MLY: Mangalitza boar crossed with Landrace/Yorkshire sow.

DLY ID ILY MD MLY SEM p-Value

pH 5.7 5.7 5.6 5.7 5.6 0.05 0.049Subcutaneous fat (mm) 21.8b 32.0a 30.4a 33.1a 33.1a 1.85 b0.001IMF (%) 1.7c 2.8a 1.9bc 2.3ab 2.2abc 0.21 b0.001ColourL 51.8a 48.2b 50.3ab 49.2b 50.1ab 0.92 0.004a 5.8b 7.4a 7.6a 7.6a 7.8a 0.33 b0.001b 4.0ab 3.9b 4.7a 4.3ab 4.7a 0.29 0.008

Means within a row with different superscript letters (ac) differ signicantly (p b 0.05).Signicant p-values (b0.05) are shown in bold.

Piggy 3 2.7 3 2.3 2.8 0.7 0.503Sweet 3.1 3.3 3.1 3.3 3.1 0.4 0.193Nutty 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 0.5 0.705Oily/fatty 2.1 2.4 2.2 2.4 2.1 0.3 0.158Acidic 6.4 5.3 5.9 5.6 5.5 0.6 0.069Metallic 3.6 3.2 3.4 3.2 3.4 0.8 0.139Bitter 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.8 0.8 0.703

TextureChewing resistance 6.8a 4.9b 5.6ab 4.6b 5.5b 0.7 b0.001Crunchy bres 6.6a 5.7b 6.0ab 5.7b 5.9ab 0.9 0.029Juiciness 7.6 7.3 6.7 7.4 6.7 0.7 0.195Fibrousness 4.0b 2.3a 2.7a 2.3a 2.5a 0.6 b0.001Crumbliness 4.8b 6.5a 6.5a 6.7a 6.8a 0.7 0.006Tenderness 7.3b 9.7a 8.8ab 10.0a 9.1a 0.8 b0.001

AftertasteAcidic 5.5a 4.4b 5.0ab 4.8ab 4.7ab 0.8 0.016

Means within a rowwith different superscript letters (ab) differ signicantly (p b 0.05).

29I.K. Straadt et al. / Meat Science 95 (2013) 2735Folsom, California, US) with a lm thickness of 0.25 m by a transferline maintained at 140 C. The GC programme was as follows: 35 Cfor 5 min, from 35 C to 110 C at 10 C/min, from 110 C to 230 C at20 C/min and 230 C for 10 min. The GC was directly connected to asingle quadrupole mass spectrometer [Finnigan Trace dual-stage quad-rupole (DSQ), Thermo] operated at 70 eV and in scanmode over anm/zrange of 33650 (1 scan s1). Helium was used as carrier gas at aow rate of 1.1 mL min1. Compounds suggested by the MS database(NIST, 1998) were veried by comparison of the relative retentionindices (RIs) andMS of authentic reference compounds. Authentic com-pounds were supplied by Sigma-Aldrich chemicals (Sigma-Aldrich Inc.,Steinheim, Germany) or by SAFC (St. Louis, MO, US). Linear retentionindex (LRI) was based on a series of n-alkanes. The peak areas weremanually integrated using the Excalibur software and normalised tothe weight of the sample.

2.7. Intramuscular fat (IMF) content and fatty acid composition

IMF content and fatty acid composition were measured on a 5 cmmeat sample at the hip end of the loin. Fatty acid composition wasfurthermore measured in the subcutaneous fat from the same meatsample. The IMF fat content was measured using a gravimetric method(ANF-004-08, DMRI, Roskilde, Denmark) based on NMKL no. 131(1989). The analysiswas performed in duplicate. Fatty acid compositionwas determined as described by Meinert et al. (2007). Briey, fatfrom the minced meat or from the subcutaneous fat was extractedwith dichloromethane/methanol followed by solvent evaporation.Fatty acids were identied on GC by comparison with standards ofpure fatty acids and were quantied by the conversion of peak area asa percentage of the total peak area. The limit of detection was 0.05%for C14C17 and 0.1% for C18C22. The limit of quantication was 0.2%.

2.8. Statistics

Data from the sensory assessment was analysed by an analysis ofvariance (Proc Mixed) with the crossbreed, sex and the interactionas xed effects and assessor, assessor crossbreed and litter withincrossbreed as random effects. Consumer data was analysed in an anal-ysis of variance (ProcMixed)with the crossbreed as xed effect and theconsumer as random effect (SAS statistical system ver. 9.2, SAS InstituteINC, Cary, NC, USA). The meat quality parameters, fatty acid composi-tion and aroma compounds were analysed by linear mixed-effectsmodel t bymaximum likelihood by application of the R statistical soft-ware, version 2.14.2 (Department of Statistics, University of Auckland,Auckland, NZ; http://www.r-project.org). Data were analysed withthe crossbreed as xed effect and the replicates of the crossbreed asrandom effect. Data are presented as means standard errors of themeans (SEM). For testing correlation between two variables, Pearsoncorrelations were performed by the R statistical software.

Multivariate data analysis was carried out usingmean-centred data.Sensory and consumer evaluation data were analysed by principalcomponent analysis (PCA) and partial least squares regression (PLS).The PLS analysis was performed with the evaluation by the sensorypanel as x-variables and the consumer test as y-variables. Cross valida-tionwas performedwithve cross validation groups, one for each of thedifferent crossbreeds. The analyses were carried out by using theSIMCA-P 13.0.0.0 software (Umetrics, Ume, Sweden).

3. Results

3.1. Raw meat quality parameters

A range of rawmeat quality parameters were measured; pH, subcu-taneous fat, IMF and colour (Table 1). Subcutaneous fat thickness andIMF were higher for the alternative crossbreeds compared with the

traditional DLY crossbreed, and both parameters were signicantlygenerally are in the positive direction along PC1, but also a grouping

Table 2Sensory evaluation of the fried pork loins from the ve crossbreeds (means) (n = 100).DLY: Duroc boar crossed with Landrace/Yorkshire sow, ID: Iberian boar crossed withDuroc sow, ILY: Iberian boar crossed with Landrace/Yorkshire sow, MD: Mangalitza boarcrossedwith Duroc sow, andMLY:Mangalitza boar crossedwith Landrace/Yorkshire sow.

DLY ID ILY MD MLY SEM p-Value

OdourFried pork 7.6 6.8 7 6.8 7.1 0.5 0.089Piggy 1.7ab 1.8ab 2.1a 1.8ab 1.6b 0.5 0.030

AppearanceBrown surface 8.3 6.9 7.5 7.6 7.8 0.6 0.075Meat colour 5 5.3 5.7 5.4 5.4 0.7 0.291Degree of cooking 8.4 7.8 8.1 8 8.2 0.8 0.337

FlavourFried meat 6.9 6.6 6.8 6.4 6.6 0.5 0.572Signicant p-values (b0.05) are shown in bold.

of ID andMD in the positive direction of PC2 and ILY andMLY along thenegative direction of PC2 is apparent. Hence, the alternative crossbreedsdiffer from the traditional DLY crossbreed; however, a differencebetween the alternative crossbreeds is also apparent, and it is relatedto the dam and not the sire. The loins from the alternative crossbreedswere in general more tender (p b 0.001) and had a higher level ofcrumbliness (p = 0.006) comparedwith the traditional DLY crossbreed(Table 2). Furthermore, the loins from the alternative crossbreedstended to have less acidic avour (p = 0.07) and acidic aftertaste(p = 0.016), less brousness (p b 0.001), less crunchy bres (p =0.029) and a lower chewing resistance (p b 0.001) when comparedwith DLY. The difference between the alternative crossbreeds is primar-ily related to ID and MD tending to be more juicy (p = 0.192) andtender than ILY and MLY; however, the difference is not statisticallysignicant.

3.3. Consumer test

A consumer study was performed on fried loins from a subset of theve crossbreeds (n = 25). PCA shows that 84% of the variance can beexplained by the rst two principal components, and most apparent isthat MD is distinct from the other crossbreeds (Fig. 1b and d). Of thenine emotional associations evaluated by the consumers, four werefound to be signicantly affected by the crossbreeds (Table 3). Thefried loins from MD were found to be signicantly more harmonic(p = 0.038) and delicious (p = 0.008) compared with DLY. Further-more, MD together with DLY was found to be generally moresummer-like and has more fullness when compared to the other three

crossbreeds. The consumers were asked to rank the loins from best toworst, and from Fig. 2, it is apparent that MD was ranked as best bymore than 30% of the consumers, and more than 20% found MD to besecond best. MD was also ranked worst by fewer consumers than theother crossbreeds.

3.4. Correlation between sensory prole and consumer response

A PLS regression was performed between the evaluation by the sen-sory panel (n = 100) as x-matrix and the consumer test (n = 25) asy-matrix (Fig. 3), from which it is apparent that 88% of the variancecan be explained by the rst two principal components. Most apparentis that MD is correlated with the sensory attribute tenderness, and alsowith the emotional association delicious and harmonic. DLY is placedopposite in the plot and is primarily correlated with the sensoryattributes chewing resistance and brousness, and the emotional asso-ciation boring. Intriguingly, when examining the sensory attribute ten-derness in the subset of loins (n = 25) applied in the consumer study,the tenderness of DLY is considerably higher, and onlyMD is signicant-lymore tender than all the other crossbreeds (Table 4), when comparedto tenderness evaluated by the sensory panel including all loins fromthe crossbreeds (n = 100) (Table 2).

3.5. Aroma analysis

By application of GCMS analysis, 17 aroma compounds wereidentied: carbon disulphide, dimethyl sulphide, dimethyl disulphide,octane, acetone, 2-butanone, isopropyl alcohol, 2-methylbutanal, 3-

f them tr ev

30 I.K. Straadt et al. / Meat Science 95 (2013) 2735Fig. 1. PCA score (a) and loading (c) plots showing the means of the sensory prole o(d) plots showing the means of the consumer evaluation of a subset of fried pork loins fro(PC1 and PC2) explain 86 and 8% of the variance, respectively, whereas for the consume

avour; and AT, aftertaste.fried pork loins from the ve crossbreeds (n = 100), and PCA score (b) and loadinghe ve crossbreeds (n = 25). For the sensory prole the rst two principal componentsaluation, PC1 and PC2 explain 63 and 21% of the variance, respectively. O, odour; F,

Table 3Consumer evaluation of a subset of fried pork loins from the ve crossbreeds (means)(n = 25). DLY: Duroc boar crossedwith Landrace/Yorkshire sow, ID: Iberian boar crossedwith Duroc sow, ILY: Iberian boar crossed with Landrace/Yorkshire sow, MD: Mangalitzaboar crossedwith Duroc sow, andMLY: Mangalitza boar crossedwith Landrace/Yorkshiresow.

DLY ID ILY MD MLY SEM p-Value

Harmonic 6.8b 6.8b 6.3b 8.2a 7.3ab 0.5 0.038Complex 6.3 6.3 7.4 6.0 6.6 0.4 0.165Well-known 8.0 8.2 8.2 8.1 8.5 0.6 0.214Delicious 6.5b 6.1b 6.1b 8.3a 6.1b 0.5 0.008Boring 6.9 5.4 5.9 5.6 5.8 0.6 0.280Traditional 7.6 8.1 7.4 8.2 7.6 0.5 0.612Summer-like 6.6a 5.8ab 5.0b 6.4a 5.7ab 0.5 0.035Nordic 7.1 6.6 6.7 7.1 6.3 1.3 0.720Fullness 7.4ab 6.0c 6.9ab 7.8a 6.2bc 0.6 0.024

Means within a rowwith different superscript letters (ab) differ signicantly (p b 0.05).Signicant p-values (b0.05) are shown in bold.

31I.K. Straadt et al. / Meat Science 95 (2013) 2735methylbutanal, hexanal, heptanal, octanal, nonanal, 2,5-dimethyl-pyrazine, 2,6-dimethylpyrazine, trimethylpyrazine and 2-pentyl-furan.Two of these compounds were found to be signicantly different whencomparing the alternative crossbreeds with DLY (data not shown).Acetone (p = 0.009) was found to be lower and isopropyl alcohol(p b 0.0001)was found to be higher, in the alternative crossbreeds com-pared to DLY.

3.6. Fatty acid composition of IMF and subcutaneous fat and correlationto sensory attributes

A range of different fatty acids were identied in the IMF and thesubcutaneous fat in the loins from the ve crossbreeds, and the com-position of many of the fatty acids varied signicantly when compar-ing the alternative crossbreeds with the DLY. The amount of saturatedfatty acids (SFAs) was in general higher in the alternative cross com-pared with DLY, while the amount of polyunsaturated fatty acids(PUFAs) in general was lower in the alternative cross comparedwith DLY. This trend was observed both in the meat and in the subcu-taneous fat (Tables 5 and 6).

In Table 7, the Pearson correlations between IMF and sensory at-tributes, fatty acids in the loins and IMF, and fatty acids in loins andsensory attributes are displayed. For IMF, there are signicant, posi-tive correlations with oily/fatty avour and tenderness, and converse-ly signicant, negative correlations with all other sensory attributesdisplayed, except for the attributes juiciness and crumbliness, whereno signicant correlations were found. For the signicant correlationsbetween IMF and the fatty acids, all the correlations with the saturat-ed fatty acids (SFAs) and monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFAs) wereFig. 2. Consumer ranking of the subset of fried pork loins from the ve crossbreeds (n = 25).positive, whereas all the correlations with polyunsaturated fatty acids(PUFAs) were negative. Steric acid (C18:0) is not signicantly corre-lated with any of the sensory attributes, while all other fatty acidsare either positively or negatively correlated with some of the sensoryattributes displayed. Oily/fatty avour and juiciness are the only sen-sory attributes displayed that in most cases are not signicantly cor-related with the fatty acids.

From Table 5, it is apparent that the alternative crossbreeds havehigher levels of the SFA myristic acid C14:0 and palmitic acid (C16:0)in the IMF of the loins as compared to DLY. Intriguingly, myristic acidC14:0 and palmitic acid (C16:0) are also the SFAs that have signicant,positive correlations with the sensory attributes crumbliness andtenderness, which are the most apparent sensory attributes related tothe alternative crossbreeds (Table 2). Conversely, all other signicantcorrelations between C14:0 and palmitic acid (C16:0) and the sensoryattributes displayed are negative, hence, negative correlations withacidicavour, chewing resistance, crunchy bres,brousness and acidicaftertaste, which are the sensory attributeswith the lowest score for thealternative crossbreeds (Table 2). A similar pattern is seen for MUFA,which tends to be high in the alternative crossbreeds (Table 5), andtends to be positively correlated with the sensory attributes crumbli-ness and tenderness and negatively correlated with the attributeschewing resistance and brousness. Finally, PUFA tends to be lower inthe alternative crossbreeds, compared to the DLY (Table 5), and oppo-site to SFA and MUFA, PUFA tends to be negatively, signicantly corre-lated with the attributes crumbliness and tenderness, and converselytends to be positively correlated with all other sensory attributes.

4. Discussion

4.1. Raw meat quality parameters and sensory evaluation of pork loinsby a trained panel

From meat quality examinations comparing the alternative cross-breeds to the traditional DLY crossbreed, it is apparent that the alterna-tive crossbreeds had higher levels of IMF, and the layer of subcutaneousfat was thicker. In fact, the layer of subcutaneous fat was about 10 mmthicker in the alternative crossbreeds when compared with the tradi-tional DLY (Table 1). Hence, the alternative crossbreeds were consider-ably fatter than the traditional DLY crossbreed. These ndings are ingood agreement with the fact that the pure breeds Mangalitza andIberian have a high IMF content and a thick subcutaneous fat layer(Ender et al., 2002; Estevez, Morcuende, & Lopez, 2003; Ventanas,Ventanas, Tovar, Garcia, & Estevez, 2007; Ventanas et al., 2006). A sub-cutaneous fat thickness of around 32 mm, aswas found for the ID cross-breed in the present study, has also been found for an ID crossbreed in aprevious study (Ramirez & Cava, 2007).

From the colour measurements, it was apparent that the rawmeatfrom alternative crossbreeds had a darker and more reddish colourwhen compared with DLY. This nding is intriguing, as a darker andmore reddish meat colour is generally considered to be more attrac-tive (Chen, Guo, Tseng, Roan, & Ngapo, 2010; Norman et al., 2003).However, the sensory panel did not perceive a difference in the colourof the fried pork loins (Table 2). Hence, when the meat was cooked,the colour difference was no longer apparent.

The evaluation by the sensory panel of the fried pork loins fromthe ve crossbreeds did not show large differences in odour, appear-ance or avour. However, the attributes acidic avour (p = 0.069)and acidic aftertaste (p = 0.016) tended to be lower or were signi-cantly lower in the alternative crossbreeds, when compared with theDLY (Table 2). This could not be ascribed to a pH difference as no sig-nicant differences in pH were found between the different cross-breeds (Table 1). Textural properties were the sensory attributesthat differed most between the alternative crossbreeds and the DLY.The loins from the alternative crossbreeds were in general found to

have less chewing resistance, and less crunchy bres, to be less

32 I.K. Straadt et al. / Meat Science 95 (2013) 2735brous andmore crumbly and tender. Hence, the alternative crossbreedswere found to have the most attractive sensory attributes, when com-pared to the DLY.

4.2. Consumer response and sensory prole

Evaluation of pork has been performed in many studies by sensoryproling by a trained panel or in consumer tests; both in individualstudies or in combination (Aaslyng et al., 2003; Aaslyng et al., 2007;Bejerholm & Aaslyng, 2003; Bredahl et al., 1998; Bryhni et al., 2003;Cannata et al., 2010; Lee et al., 2012; Lonergan et al., 2007; Meinertet al., 2007; Moeller et al., 2010; Norman et al., 2003). By applyingsensory analysis by a trained panel, a professional and objectiveassessment of the pork quality is achieved. For consumers, on theother hand, the acceptability of food is very much related to emotions.By applying questionnaires related to emotions in consumer tests,

Fig. 3. PLS score (a) and loading (b) plots showing themeans of the sensory prole (n = 100) and the consumer evaluation (n = 25) of the fried pork loins from the ve crossbreeds. Therst two principal components (PC1 and PC2) explain 58 and 30% of the variance, respectively. O, odour; F, avour; and AT, aftertaste. Grey boxes show attributes assessed by thesensory panel, and magenta circles show emotional evaluations by the consumers.

Table 4Sensory evaluation of tenderness of fried pork loins from the ve crossbreeds, whichwere used in the consumer study (means) (n = 25). DLY: Duroc boar crossed withLandrace/Yorkshire sow, ID: Iberian boar crossed with Duroc sow, ILY: Iberian boarcrossed with Landrace/Yorkshire sow, MD: Mangalitza boar crossed with Duroc sow,and MLY: Mangalitza boar crossed with Landrace/Yorkshire sow.

DLY ID ILY MD MLY SEM p-Value

Tenderness 8.6b 9.0b 8.7b 10.6a 8.8b 0.8 b0.001

Means within the row with different superscript letters (ab) differ signicantly(p b 0.05).The signicant p-value (b0.05) is shown in bold.

Table 5IMF fatty acid composition (% of total fatty acids) of the pork loins from the ve cross-breeds (means) (n = 100). DLY: Duroc boar crossed with Landrace/Yorkshire sow, ID:Iberian boar crossed with Duroc sow, ILY: Iberian boar crossed with Landrace/Yorkshiresow, MD: Mangalitza boar crossed with Duroc sow, and MLY: Mangalitza boar crossedwith Landrace/Yorkshire sow.

DLY ID ILY MD MLY SEM p-value

C14:0 1.12c 1.25ab 1.18bc 1.28a 1.29a 0.03 b0.001C16:0 24.21c 25.21ab 24.52bc 25.58a 25.73a 0.32 b0.001C17:0 0.23 0.20 0.21 0.23 0.21 0.01 0.061C18:0 11.73ab 12.04ab 11.49b 11.70ab 12.40a 0.30 0.025SFA 37.25b 38.72ab 37.42b 38.8ab 39.68a 0.58 b0.001C16:1 (9) 3.23b 3.62ab 3.40ab 3.77a 3.53ab 0.15 0.005C18:1 (9) 41.95 43.09 42.25 42.80 42.15 0.49 0.108C18:1 (11) 4.16b 4.36ab 4.29b 4.61a 4.27b 0.11 0.00220:1 (11) 0.66ab 0.72a 0.64b 0.70ab 0.68ab 0.03 0.040MUFA 49.99b 51.78a 50.57ab 51.88a 50.63ab 0.59 0.006C18:2 (9, 12) 8.66a 6.54b 8.14a 6.28b 6.60b 0.44 b0.001C18:3 (9, 12, 15) 0.37a 0.31bc 0.35ab 0.26d 0.30c 0.01 b0.00120:2 (11, 14) 0.28a 0.24b 0.22bc 0.21bc 0.20c 0.01 b0.00120:3 (8, 11, 14) 0.23 0.21 0.23 0.22 0.21 0.01 0.23320:4 (5, 8, 11, 14) 1.58a 1.06b 1.59a 1.18bc 1.17bc 0.14 b0.00122:4 (7, 10, 13, 16) 0.28a 0.20b 0.25ab 0.22b 0.20b 0.02 b0.00122:5(7, 10, 13, 16, 19)

0.31a 0.23b 0.29ab 0.24b 0.25ab 0.02 0.005

PUFA 11.59a 8.31b 10.78a 8.07b 8.46b 0.71 b0.001

SFAs, saturated fatty acids; MUFAs, monounsaturated fatty acids; and PUFAs,polyunsaturated fatty acids.Means within a row with different superscript letters (ad) differ signicantly (p b 0.05).Signicant p-values (b0.05) are shown in bold.

additional information about meat preference and acceptability of thefood product can be achieved (Audebert, Deiss, & Rousset, 2006; King,Meiselman, & Carr, 2010; Kubberod et al., 2002). Hence, in the presentstudy, the consumerswere not asked to evaluate themeat by traditionalsensory parameters, but instead amore holistic approachwas applied in

ID, ILY and MLY and the traditional DLY, although DLY tended to becorrelated with the emotional association boring together with thesensory attributes chewing resistance and brousness (Fig. 3). MDwas the crossbreed ranked as best or second best by almost 60% ofthe consumers (Fig. 2); however, it is also evident that more than40% of the consumers found DLY either best or second best. The sensorypanel (n = 100) found that all the alternative crossbreeds, except ILY,were signicantly more tender than DLY (Table 2), whereas only MDwas signicantly more tender than all the other crossbreeds in the sub-set of loins applied in the consumer study (n = 25) (Table 4). Hence, inthe subset for the consumer study, the tenderness of DLYwas consider-ably higher, and in the range of ILY andMLY, and not signicantly lowerthan ID, ILY and MLY. This partly explains the less clear distinctionbetween the DLY and the alternative crossbreeds ID, ILY and MLY inthe consumer test, compared to the sensory analysis carried out bythe trained panel.

4.3. Fatty acid composition of IMF and subcutaneous fat

The fatty acid composition of IMF of the pork loins and subcutane-ous fat for the DLY crossbreeds is generally in good agreement withprevious ndings in commercial pigs or pure lines of Landrace andYorkshire (Verbeke, Van Oeckel, Warnants, Viaene, & Boucque,1999; Sellier, Maignel, & Bidanel, 2010) and DLY crossbreeds (Oh etal., 2008). For the ID crossbreed, also similar compositions of fattyacid in the IMF of the loins and the subcutaneous fat have beenfound in other ID crossbreeds (Carrapiso, Bonilla, & Garcia, 2003;Ramirez & Cava, 2007).

Table 6Fatty acid composition (% of total fatty acids) of the subcutaneous fat of the ve cross-breeds (means) (n = 100). DLY: Duroc boar crossed with Landrace/Yorkshire sow, ID:Iberian boar crossed with Duroc sow, ILY: Iberian boar crossed with Landrace/Yorkshiresow, MD: Mangalitza boar crossed with Duroc sow, and MLY: Mangalitza boar crossedwith Landrace/Yorkshire sow.

DLY ID ILY MD MLY SEM p-Value

C14:0 1.13b 1.17ab 1.14b 1.20ab 1.24a 0.03 b0.001C16:0 23.86c 24.73b 24.34bc 25.53a 25.82a 0.19 b0.001C17:0 0.40a 0.32b 0.30b 0.35ab 0.33ab 0.03 0.006C18:0 12.46c 13.16bc 13.02bc 13.83ab 14.33a 0.30 b0.001SFA 37.94c 39.6b 39.03bc 41.12a 41.94a 0.47 b0.001C16:1 (9) 2.22 2.08 2.03 2.07 2.05 0.10 0.327C18:1 (9) 41.56b 43.24a 44.08a 42.06b 41.89b 0.39 b0.001C18:1 (11) 2.68 2.74 2.71 2.70 2.62 0.07 0.591MUFA 47.26b 49.19a 49.89a 47.84b 47.54b 0.45 b0.001C18:2 (9, 12) 11.99a 8.95b 8.86b 8.82b 8.40b 0.33 b0.001C18:3 (9, 12, 15) 0.95a 0.70b 0.71b 0.69b 0.67b 0.03 b0.001C20:1 (11) 0.82c 1.14a 1.08ab 1.03ab 0.98b 0.04 b0.001C20:2 (11, 14) 0.55a 0.55a 0.52ab 0.49bc 0.44c 0.02 b0.001PUFA 13.61a 10.22b 10.09b 9.99b 9.51b 0.38 b0.001

SFAs, saturated fatty acids; MUFAs, monounsaturated fatty acids; and PUFAspolyunsaturated fatty acids.Means within a row with different superscript letters (ac) differ signicantly (p b 0.05).Signicant p-values (b0.05) are shown in bold.

r th

33I.K. Straadt et al. / Meat Science 95 (2013) 2735which the consumers were asked to evaluate the meat based on emo-tional terms.

The ndings in the consumer study were to some degree in agree-ment with the evaluation by the sensory panel (Fig. 1). However, MDwas found to correlate with the emotional associations harmonic anddelicious together with the sensory attribute tenderness. In contrast,no clear distinction was found between the alternative crossbreeds

Table 7Pearson correlations between IMF, IMF fatty acid composition and sensory attributes foIMF (%) Oily/fatty(F)

Acidic(F)

Chewingresistance (T)

Crb

IMF (%) () 0.28 0.37 0.35

SFAC14:0 0.57 0.15 0.25 0.31 C16:0 0.44 0.13 0.23 0.25 C17:0 0.19 0.07 0.17 0.05C18:0 0.37 0.16 0.17 0.02 SFA 0.47 0.17 0.24 0.18

MUFAC16:1 (9) 0.24 0.04 0.07 0.34 C18:1 (9) 0.53 0.03 0.08 0.22 C18:1 (11) 0.01 0.09 0.03 0.33 20:1 (11) 0.29 0.14 0.18 0.21 MUFA 0.50 0.00 0.09 0.33

PUFAC18:2 (9, 12) 0.74 0.14 0.27 0.40C18:3 (9, 12, 15) 0.42 0.03 0.24 0.5120:2 (11, 14) 0.26 0.20 0.11 0.3720:3 (8, 11, 14) 0.40 0.10 0.08 0.0720:4 (5, 8, 11, 14) 0.75 0.14 0.17 0.2522:4 (7, 10, 13, 16) 0.50 0.04 0.21 0.2822:5 (7, 10, 13, 16, 19) 0.60 0.02 0.08 0.22PUFA 0.75 0.12 0.24 0.38

SFA, saturated fatty acids; MUFA, monounsaturated fatty acids; and PUFA, polyunsatuF, avour; AT, aftertaste; and T, texture.Signicant correlations (p b 0.05) are shown in bold.4.4. Sensory analysis and aroma

A range of different aroma compounds were identied in the friedpork loins. The ndings are somewhat in agreement with previousstudies, although generally, fewer compounds were identied in thepresent study (Estevez, Morcuende, Ventanas, et al., 2003; Meinert,Schafer, Bjergegaard, Aaslyng, & Bredie, 2009; Meinert et al., 2007).

e ve crossbreeds (n = 100).

unchyres (T)

Juiciness(T)

Fibrousness(T)

Crumbliness(T)

Tenderness(T)

Acidic(AT)

0.25 0.04 0.36 0.19 0.37 0.35

0.24 0.09 0.38 0.33 0.32 0.310.23 0.18 0.37 0.30 0.25 0.270.02 0.11 0.14 0.20 0.09 0.240.19 0.18 0.09 0.08 0.00 0.130.26 0.20 0.30 0.25 0.19 0.25

0.15 0.10 0.34 0.26 0.34 0.210.14 0.08 0.21 0.18 0.25 0.120.07 0.18 0.28 0.22 0.32 0.150.09 0.13 0.21 0.11 0.20 0.060.17 0.13 0.31 0.25 0.35 0.18

0.33 0.05 0.47 0.39 0.42 0.340.29 0.06 0.54 0.43 0.53 0.350.32 0.27 0.50 0.54 0.36 0.240.05 0.15 0.17 0.22 0.11 0.010.24 0.04 0.32 0.24 0.27 0.220.26 0.14 0.40 0.37 0.30 0.290.16 0.03 0.32 0.30 0.26 0.170.31 0.07 0.46 0.38 0.40 0.31

rated fatty acids.

2007). The improved textural attributes in the crossbreeds are inagreement with that the pure breeds Mangalitza and Iberian are con-

Audebert, O., Deiss, V., & Rousset, S. (2006). Hedonism as a predictor of attitudes ofyoung French women towards meat. Appetite, 46, 239247.

of pork chops in Taiwan. Meat Science, 85, 555559.

34 I.K. Straadt et al. / Meat Science 95 (2013) 2735sidered to give rise to improved sensory meat quality as a result oftheir high IMF content and their fatty acid composition (Ender et al.,2002; Estevez, Morcuende, & Lopez, 2003;). However, the presentstudy is the rst to conrm that applying the alternative breeds Iberi-an and Mangalitza in crossbreeding with traditional commercialbreeds gives rise to crossbreeds with improved sensory attributes,which were also found to be partly related to the fat content andfatty acid composition. PUFAs are the fatty acids which in generalhave the highest correlations with the sensory attributes, with severalcorrelations between PUFA and the textural attributes higher than0.40. PUFAs are generally negatively correlated with positive sensoryattributes (crumbliness and tenderness) and positively correlatedwith negative sensory attributes (e.g. chewing resistance andbrousness), and since the alternative crossbreeds generally haveless PUFA, this may be the most important factor for the fatty acidcomposition contributing to the improved textural properties forthe alternative crossbreeds. However, as the fatty acid compositionis determined as percentage, the total fat content may inuence theobserved correlations. The reason for this can be ascribed to the factthat the contribution from phospholipids to IMF decreases with in-creasing fat content and thereby affects the proportion of theOnly a few of the aroma compounds varied signicantly between thedifferent crossbreeds, which is in agreement with the fact that in gen-eral, the sensory panel found no signicant differences for the odouror the avour attributes. The content of pyrazines, furans and sul-phides did not differ between the crossbreeds, which can explainthe absence of differences in fried meat avour, as these compoundsare known to be important for this avour (Meinert et al., 2007). Ithas been found that differences in fatty acid composition give riseto the formation of different volatile compounds (Aaslyng & Schafer,2008; Tikk et al., 2007; Whiteld, 1992). However, no differenceswere seen in the content of the fatty acid degradation products (thelong chain aldehydes), meaning that even though differences wereobserved in the fatty acid composition between the different cross-breeds, these differences were not sufcient to induce changes inthe composition of avouring compounds and thereby in the avourof the meat. Furthermore, as generally fewer compounds were iden-tied in the present study compared with other studies, this can partlyexplain why hardly any differences between the crossbreeds were iden-tied. The aroma compounds found to differ between Iberian and aYork-shire Yorkshire lean pig in a previous study (Estevez, Morcuende,Ventanas, et al., 2003) were not detected in the present study.

4.5. Inuence of fat content and fatty acid composition onsensory attributes

From the present study, it is apparent that IMF content and themajor part of the fatty acids in the loin are correlated with most ofthe textural attributes and to some degree with the avour attributesacidic avour and acidic aftertaste of the loins from the crossbreeds(Table 7). These ndings are in agreement with a previous study, inwhich a positive correlation was found between IMF and tenderness(Eikelenboom et al., 1996). Furthermore, palmitic acid (C16:0) wasfound to be positively correlated with tenderness, and conversely,linoleic acid (C18:2) and linolenic acid (C18:3) were negatively corre-lated to tenderness (Eikelenboom et al., 1996) as in the present study.Likewise, in another study, it was found that IMF and fatty acid com-position in pork loin inuence tenderness in the pH range 5.55.8, butnot at higher or lower pH (Lonergan et al., 2007). Moderate, positivecorrelations were found between IMF and tenderness and betweenseveral MUFA and tenderness, and moderate, negative correlationswere found between several PUFA and tenderness (Lonergan et al.,remaining other fatty acids.Eikelenboom, G., HovingBolink, A. H., & vanderWal, P. G. (1996). The eating quality ofpork. 2. The inuence of intramuscular fat. Fleischwirtschaft, 76, 559560.

Ender, K., Nurnberg, K., Wegner, J., & Seregi, J. (2002). Laboratory investigations ofMangalitza meat and fat. Fleischwirtschaft, 82, 125128.

Estevez, M., Morcuende, D., & Lopez, R. C. (2003). Physico-chemical characteristics ofM-longissimus dorsi from three lines of free-range reared Iberian pigs slaughteredat 90 kg live-weight and commercial pigs: A comparative study. Meat Science, 64,499506.

Estevez, M., Morcuende, D., Ventanas, S., & Cava, R. (2003). Analysis of volatiles in meatfrom Iberian pigs and lean pigs after refrigeration and cooking by using SPMEGCMS. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 51, 34293435.

Honikel, K. O. (1998). Reference methods for the assessment of physical characteristicsof meat. Meat Science, 49, 447457.

King, S. C., Meiselman, H. L., & Carr, B. T. (2010). Measuring emotions associated withfoods in consumer testing. Food Quality and Preference, 21, 11141116.

Kubberod, E., Ueland, O., Rodbotten, M., Westad, F., & Risvik, E. (2002). Gender specicpreferences and attitudes towards meat. Food Quality and Preference, 13, 285294.

Lee, S. H., Choe, J. H., Choi, Y. M., Jung, K. C., Rhee, M. S., Hong, K. C., Lee, S. K., Ryu, Y. C., &Kim, B. C. (2012). The inuence of pork quality traits andmuscle ber characteristicsBejerholm, C., & Aaslyng, M. D. (2003). The inuence of cooking technique and coretemperature on results of a sensory analysis of pork Depending on the rawmeat quality. Food Quality and Preference, 15, 1930.

Bredahl, L., Grunert, K. G., & Fertin, C. (1998). Relating consumer perceptions of porkquality to physical product characteristics. Food Quality and Preference, 9, 273281.

Bryhni, E. A., Byrne, D. V., Rodbotten, M., Moller, S., Claudi-Magnussen, C., Karlsson, A.,Agerhem, H., Johansson, M., & Martens, M. (2003). Consumer and sensory investi-gations in relation to physical/chemical aspects of cooked pork in Scandinavia.Meat Science, 65, 737748.

Cannata, S., Engle, T. E., Moeller, S. J., Zerby, H. N., Radunz, A. E., Green, M. D., Bass, P. D.,& Bell, K. E. (2010). Effect of visual marbling on sensory properties and qualitytraits of pork loin. Meat Science, 85, 428434.

Carrapiso, A. I., Bonilla, F., & Garcia, C. (2003). Effect of crossbreeding and rearingsystem on sensory characteristics of Iberian ham. Meat Science, 65, 623629.

Chen, M. T., Guo, H. L., Tseng, T. F., Roan, S. W., & Ngapo, T. M. (2010). Consumer choice5. Conclusion

In conclusion, when crossing the traditional Danish breed Durocand the crossbreed Landrace/Yorkshire with the alternative breedsIberian and Mangalitza the pork loins from the resulting crossbreedsdid generally not differ in odour, appearance or avour/taste whencompared with the traditional DLY crossbreed; however, a sensorypanel found that the alternative crossbreeds had improved texturalproperties. The consumers generally had a preference for the alterna-tive crossbreeds, particularly for the alternative crossbreed MD,which was considered to be best or second best by almost 60% ofthe consumers. Hence, the results of the present study suggest thatby applying alternative breeds in the Danish pig production it is pos-sible to produce pork with more attractive sensory attributes.

Acknowledgement

The authors wish to thank the Danish Ministry of Food, Agricul-ture and Fisheries through the project New gourmet pork productsobtained through molecular understanding of alternative pig breedsand high pressure technology (project no. 3304-FVFP-08-K-21-04),and the Pig Levy Fund for nancial support. Furthermore, MianneT. Darr is thanked for assistance at the slaughterhouse and BirgitteFoged for performing the GCMS analyses. Finally Maiken Baltzer,Jonna Andersen and Camilla Bejerholm are thanked for assisting inthe sensory analysis.

References

Aaslyng, M. D., Bejerholm, C., Ertbjerg, P., Bertram, H. C., & Andersen, H. J. (2003).Cooking loss and juiciness of pork in relation to raw meat quality and cookingprocedure. Food Quality and Preference, 14, 277288.

Aaslyng, M. D., Oksama, M., Olsen, E. V., Bejerholm, C., Baltzer, M., Andersen, G., Bredie,W. L. P., Byrne, D. V., & Gabrielsen, G. (2007). The impact of sensory quality of porkon consumer preference. Meat Science, 76, 6173.

Aaslyng, M. D., & Schafer, A. (2008). The effect of free fatty acids on the odour of porkinvestigated by sensory proling and GCOMS. European Food Research andTechnology, 226, 937948.on the eating quality of pork from various breeds.Meat Science, 90, 284291.

Lonergan, S. M., Stalder, K. J., Huff-Lonergan, E., Knight, T. J., Goodwin, R. N., Prusa, K. J.,& Beitz, D. C. (2007). Inuence of lipid content on pork sensory quality within pHclassication. Journal of Animal Science, 85, 10741079.

Meinert, L., Andersen, L. T., Bredie, W. L. P., Bjergegaard, C., & Aaslyng, M. D. (2007).Chemical and sensory characterisation of pan-fried pork avour: Interactionsbetween raw meat quality, ageing and frying temperature. Meat Science, 75,229242.

Meinert, L., Schafer, A., Bjergegaard, C., Aaslyng, M. D., & Bredie, W. L. P. (2009). Com-parison of glucose, glucose 6-phosphate, ribose, and mannose as avour precursorsin pork; the effect of monosaccharide addition on avour generation.Meat Science,81, 419425.

Moeller, S. J., Miller, R. K., Aldredge, T. L., Logan, K. E., Edwards, K. K., Zerby, H. N.,Boggess, M., Box-Steffensmeier, J. M., & Stahl, C. A. (2010). Trained sensory percep-tion of pork eating quality as affected by fresh and cooked pork quality attributesand end-point cooked temperature. Meat Science, 85, 96103.

Mottram, D. S. (1985). The effect of cooking conditions on the formation of volatileheterocyclic-compounds in pork. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 36,377382.

NMKL no. 131 (1989). Fat. Determination according to SBR (SchmidBondzynskiRatslaff)in meat and meat products. Oslo, Norway: Nordic Committee on Food Analysis, 6.

Norman, J. L., Berg, E. P., Heymann, H., & Lorenzen, C. L. (2003). Pork loin color relative tosensory and instrumental tenderness and consumer acceptance. Meat Science, 65,927933.

Oh, H. S., Kim, H. Y., Yang, H. S., Lee, J. I., Joo, Y. K., & Kim, C. U. (2008). Comparison ofmeat quality characteristics between crossbreeds. Korean Journal for Food Scienceof Animal Resources, 28, 171180.

Ramirez, R., & Cava, R. (2007). Carcass composition and meat quality of three differentIberian Duroc genotype pigs. Meat Science, 75, 388396.

Sellier, P., Maignel, L., & Bidanel, J. P. (2010). Genetic parameters for tissue and fattyacid composition of backfat, perirenal fat and longissimus muscle in Large Whiteand Landrace pigs. Animal, 4, 497504.

Straadt, I. K., Aaslyng, M. D., & Bertram, H. C. (2011). Assessment of meat quality byNMRAn investigation of pork products originating from different breeds.Magnet-ic Resonance in Chemistry, 49, S71S78.

Tikk, K., Haugen, J. E., Andersen, H. J., & Aaslyng, M. D. (2008). Monitoring of warmed-over avour in pork using the electronic nose Correlation to sensory attributesand secondary lipid oxidation products. Meat Science, 80, 12541263.

Tikk, K., Tikk, M., Aaslyng, M. D., Karlsson, A. H., Lindahl, G., & Andersen, H. J. (2007).Signicance of fat supplemented diets on pork quality Connections betweenspecic fatty acids and sensory attributes of pork. Meat Science, 77, 275286.

Ventanas, S., Ventanas, J., Jurado, A., & Estevez, M. (2006). Quality traits in musclebiceps femoris and back-fat from purebred Iberian and reciprocal Iberian Duroccrossbred pigs. Meat Science, 73, 651659.

Ventanas, S., Ventanas, J., Tovar, J., Garcia, C., & Estevez, M. (2007). Extensive feedingversus oleic acid and tocopherol enriched mixed diets for the production of Iberiandry-cured hams: Effect on chemical composition, oxidative status and sensorytraits. Meat Science, 77, 246256.

Verbeke, W., Van Oeckel, M. J., Warnants, N., Viaene, J., & Boucque, C. V. (1999).Consumer perception, facts and possibilities to improve acceptability of healthand sensory characteristics of pork. Meat Science, 53, 7799.

Whiteld, F. B. (1992). Volatiles from interactions of Maillard reactions and lipids. CriticalReviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 31, 158.

35I.K. Straadt et al. / Meat Science 95 (2013) 2735

Sensory and consumer evaluation of pork loins from crossbreeds between Danish Landrace, Yorkshire, Duroc, Iberian and Mangalitza1. Introduction2. Materials and methods2.1. Animals and sampling2.2. pH2.3. Colour2.4. Sensory analysis performed by a trained panel2.5. Consumer study2.6. Aroma analysis2.6.1. Sample preparation and headspace collection2.6.2. Gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GCMS)

2.7. Intramuscular fat (IMF) content and fatty acid composition2.8. Statistics

3. Results3.1. Raw meat quality parameters3.2. Sensory evaluation of pork loins by a trained panel3.3. Consumer test3.4. Correlation between sensory profile and consumer response3.5. Aroma analysis3.6. Fatty acid composition of IMF and subcutaneous fat and correlation to sensory attributes

4. Discussion4.1. Raw meat quality parameters and sensory evaluation of pork loins by a trained panel4.2. Consumer response and sensory profile4.3. Fatty acid composition of IMF and subcutaneous fat4.4. Sensory analysis and aroma4.5. Influence of fat content and fatty acid composition on sensory attributes

5. ConclusionAcknowledgementReferences