Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 1, 2026

Exploring the Longissimus Muscle: Unraveling its Correlation with Meat Quality in Bos indicus and Crossbred Bulls
Published on: July 12, 2024
Evaluation of meat quality from 3 turkey genotypes reared with or without outdoor access
1Department of Animal Science, Ondokuz Mayis University, Samsun, Turkey. msarica@omu.edu.tr
Abstract:
To evaluate color [lightness (L*), redness (a*), and yellowness (b*)], water-holding capacity (WHC), and pH values, and for proximate analysis of breast and thigh meats from slow-growing (Bronze; B), fast-growing (Hybrid; H), and medium-growing (crosses; H × B) turkey genotypes raised with or without outdoor access, 36 turkeys (2 females and 2 males from each replicate) per housing system or 12, 16, and 8 turkeys per B, H, and H × B genotype, slaughtered at 17 and 21 wk of age, respectively, were used. Therefore, data were analyzed as a factorial arrangement (2 × 3 × 2 × 2) of treatments. All birds were provided with the same starter, grower, and finisher feeds. Muscle samples were collected at 12 h postmortem for evaluation of meat quality and proximate analysis. Outdoor access increased the a* value and protein content of the breast muscle (P < 0.05) and the b* value of the thigh muscle (P < 0.01). The B and H genotypes had higher (P < 0.01) L* values for the breast meat than did the H × B genotype, whereas the B genotype had lower a* (P < 0.01) and pH (P < 0.01) values for the breast meat or a higher (P < 0.05) pH value for the thigh muscle compared with the H genotype. The breast meat of the B genotype was more yellow (P < 0.01) than that of the H and H × B genotype. Thigh meat from the H genotype had a higher L* value and a lower a* value than did thigh meat from the other genotypes (P < 0.01). Thigh meat from the H × B genotype was higher in protein and lower in fat than was thigh meat from the B and H genotypes, respectively (P < 0.05). No interaction effect of housing system and genotype was observed on the parameters studied (P > 0.05). These results show that housing system did not affect the main quality parameters (pH, water-holding capacity, and L* values) of either muscle, and that genotype created more differences in terms of these parameters.
Related Concept Videos
Optimal Foraging
Background and Environment Affect Phenotype
An example of how genetic background affects phenotype can be seen in horses. The Extension gene in horses is responsible for their coat color. A wild-type gene (EE) produces black pigment in the coat, while a mutant gene (ee) produces red pigment. A...

