Table 3.

Effects of different dietary starch sources on the meat quality of finishing pigs

Items	Treatment			P-valuec
	TS	CS	PS	ANOVA	Linear	Quadratic
pH45 min	6.13 ± 0.07b	6.28 ± 0.04ab	6.31 ± 0.03a	0.042	0.019	0.042
pH24 h	5.50 ± 0.03	5.53 ± 0.02	5.54 ± 0.04	0.967	0.794	0.967
L* 45 min	43.35 ± 0.71	44.97 ± 0.54	44.00 ± 0.51	0.181	0.474	0.181
a* 45 min	16.68 ± 0.72	17.09 ± 0.52	18.28 ± 0.48	0.206	0.096	0.206
b* 45 min	2.21 ± 0.34	2.47 ± 0.32	2.11 ± 0.28	0.698	0.814	0.698
L* 24 h	55.36 ± 0.60	56.25 ± 0.79	55.55 ± 0.76	0.657	0.854	0.657
a* 24 h	16.46 ± 0.19	16.04 ± 0.32	16.57 ± 0.29	0.361	0.764	0.361
b* 24 h	2.66 ± 0.24	2.72 ± 0.29	3.01 ± 0.29	0.529	0.289	0.529
Marbling scores	2.44 ± 0.13b	2.70 ± 0.16ab	3.04 ± 0.15a	0.028	0.007	0.028
Drip loss, %	3.22 ± 0.16a	2.84 ± 0.13ab	2.73 ± 0.11b	0.043	0.016	0.043
Shear force, N	38.39 ± 1.96a	34.63 ± 2.71ab	31.09 ± 1.02b	0.049	0.016	0.050

Values are mean ± SEM, n = 8

^a,bMeans in the same row with different superscripts differ (P < 0.05)

Abbreviations: TS, tapioca starch; CS, corn starch; PS, pea starch; L*, lightness; a*, redness; b*, yellowness

^cThe P values indicate the effects of different dietary starch sources with different amylose/amylopectin ratios by one-way ANOVA and polynomial contrasts- linear and quadratic analyses, respectively