TABLE 2.
Effects of the different diets on meat quality of finishing pigs
| Characteristic | Result fora: |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| CON | MS | PMS | |
| Lightness (L*) | 49.72 ± 0.52 b | 50.28 ± 1.14 ab | 51.31 ± 0.86 a |
| Redness (a*) | 9.55 ± 1.37 | 10.15 ± 0.41 | 9.30 ± 0.80 |
| Yellowness (b*) | 2.73 ± 2.47 | 1.82 ± 0.20 | 1.89 ± 0.77 |
| Drip loss (%) | 4.20 ± 0.36 | 3.33 ± 0.92 | 3.67 ± 1.46 |
| Water holding capacity (%) | 2.80 ± 0.10 B | 3.10 ± 0.35 B | 4.33 ± 0.40 A |
| Marbling score | 1.83 ± 0.29 b | 2.33 ± 0.29 a | 2.50 ± 0.00 a |
CON, control group; MS, mulberry silage group; PMS, paper mulberry silage group. The data were evaluated by one-way ANOVA, and the difference between the average values was evaluated by Duncan’s test. Values are the mean ± standard deviation. Different small letters indicate significant difference (P < 0.05), and the presence of the same small letters or no letters indicates no significant difference (P > 0.05). Different capital letters indicate extremely significant difference (P < 0.01), and the presence of the same capital letters or no letters indicates no significant difference (P > 0.05). One sample was randomly selected from each replicate in the same treatment (i.e., 4 samples per treatment [n = 4]).