Table 3.

Summary of studies investigating the effects of marketing weight on pork quality (changes per 10 kg marketing weight increase)¹

Reference	Marketing wt, kg	L*	a*	b*	Initial pH	Ultimate pH	Drip loss, %	WBSF2, kg
Beattie et al. (1999)	92, 105, 118, 131	0.52	−0.02	0.18	–	−0.01	0.22	−0.05
Bertol et al. (2015) 3	100, 115, 130, 145	−0.23	0.23	–	−0.05	0.01	0.34	–
Bertol et al. (2015) 4	100, 115, 130, 146	0.04	0.16	–	−0.04	–	0.08	0.14
Cisneros et al. (1996)	100, 115, 130, 145, 160	–	–	–	−0.01	−0.02	0.29	−0.08
Durkin et al. (2012)	120, 130, 140, 150, 160, 170	−0.14	0.34	0.10	−0.02	−0.01	0.27	0.01
Leach et al. (1996)	110,125,140	−1.23	0.30	−0.14	−0.01	–	−0.35	0.24
Latorre et al. (2004)	116, 124, 133	−2.48	–	−0.24	–	–	–	0.11
Moon et al. (2003)	95, 105, 115, 125	–	–	–	–	−0.04	0.21	–
Piao et al. (2004)	100, 110, 120, 130	1.15	1.18	0.42	–	0.02	−4.75	−0.04
Virgili et al. (2003) 5	144,182	−0.01	0.10	−0.17	−0.01	−0.05	–	0.16
Virgili et al. (2003) 6	144,182	–	–	–	–	–	−0.34	–
Weatherup et al. (1998)	92,103,113,125	0.17	0.12	0.20	–	−0.01	0.30	–
Average7		−0.25	0.30	0.05	−0.02	−0.01	−0.11	0.06

¹Generated by simple linear regression analyses by EXCEL.

²Warner-Bratzler Shear Force.

³Ham was evaluated.

⁴Longissimus dorsi was evaluated.

⁵Semimembranosus was evaluated.

⁶Resulted due to 20.7% drip loss in 100 kg pigs; no differences in methodology present.

⁷Study by Piao et al. (2004) was excluded from calculation for drip loss effect due to the abnormally high value reported (greater than 3 standard deviations from the mean of all values).