YIELD AND PALATABILITY OF FIVE STYLES
0F MILD CURED HAMS IN THE 12 TO 'IA-POUND
WEIGHT RANGE

Thesis for Ibo Degree of M. S.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
Dcris M. Dawns
I959

  
     

  

L I B R A R Y
Michigan Sta.
University

YIELD AND PALATABILITY OF FIVE STYLES OF MILD CURED HAMS

IN THE I2 to I4-POUND WEIGHT RANGE

By

Doris M. Downs

A THESIS

Submitted to the Dean of the College of Home Economics
of Michigan State University of Agriculture and
Applied Science in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Institution Administration

I959

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writer appreciates the generous, patient, and in-
valuable guidance and encouragement given by Dr. Pearl J.
Aldrich throughout the preparation of this thesis. For
Professor Katherine M. Hart's interest and encouragement, the
writer is grateful.

The writer extends special thanks to Dr. William D.
Baten for assistance in statistical analyses of the data, to
a faithful taste panel, to Mr. Harry A. McElroy and other
members of the Food Stores staff for generous cooperation
and help in obtaining hams, to meat packers for filling
special ham orders, to Mr. James Stiles for demonstrating
the procedure for boning hams, to Mr. Raymond Bailey for
designing and constructing the measuring device, and to the
management and staff of Yakeley Dormitory for generously

giving of their time and facilities.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. O O I O O I O 0

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . .

LIST OF FIGURES. . . . . . . . .

INTRODUCTION

REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . .

Ham Processing. . . . . .

Curing ingredients.
Smoking . . . . . .
Processing methods.
Packaging, labeling

Recent developments

Preparation and Service .

Methods of cooking.
Oven temperature. .
Internal

Bacterial

METHOD OF PROCEDURE. . . . . . .

Materials Used. . . . . .

Hams. O O O O O O 0

Equipment . . . . .

temperature.

Preliminary Investigations.

Baking. . . . . . .
Determining final

BOnIng. o o o o o 0

Preliminary taste panel

Iii

internal

9

display,

aspects of serving.

storage

temperature.

vi

vii

\OJ-‘kbl

2|

23
23
25
26
28
3|

3|

3!

34
36
36
36
37
40

TABLE OF CONTENTS (contd.)

Prebaking Preparation. . . . . . . . .
Weight data. . . . . . . . . . .
Measurement data . . . . . . . .
Descriptive data . . . . . . . .
Thermometer placement. . . . . .

Baking Process . . . . . . . . . . . .

Handling of Baked Ham. . . . . . . . .
Treatment of ham before chilling
Treatment of chilled ham . . . .

Evaluation of Hams . . . . . . . . . .

Subjective testing . . . . . . .

Statistical analysis . . . . . .
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION. . . . . . . . . . . .
Yield and Cooking Losses . . . . . . .
Sliceable portion. . . . . . . .

Lean scrap . . . . . . . . . . .

Fat scrap. . . . . . . . . . . .

Bone . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fat drip . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nonfat drip. . . . . . . . . . .
Volatile loss. . . . . . . . . .

Total cooking losses . . . . . .

Types of ham . . . . . . . . . .
Palatability . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Aroma. 0 I O O O O O O O O O O 0

iv

4|

ill

42
43
43
44
44
44
45
48
48
as
50
50
56
56
57
58
58
60
6|

62
62
70
7o

TABLE OF CONTENTS (contd.)

Flavor of lean.

Flavor of fat
Color . . . .
Tenderness. .
Texture . . .

Juiciness . .

Cooking Time and Temperatures

SUMMMY O O C O O O O O O 0
LITERATURE CITED . . . . .

APPENDIX 0 O O O O O O O O

72
72
72
73
73
74
74
75
78
83

LIST OF TABLES

Page
Mean percentages of yield and cooking losses of
eight types of hams. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5i
Mean squares and significant differences for
yield and cooking losses of eight types of hams. 5}
Comparisons of yield and cooking losses between
types of ham. (Blank spaces indicate insignifi-
cant differences). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Average taste panel scores for i2-l4 pound
hams O O O O O i O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O 7'

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page
i. Styles of hams studied in this investigation. . . 32
2, Procedure used for boning hams. . . . . . . . . . 38

3. A diagram of bone structure, sliceable portion,
and scrap portions of bone-in style hams. . . . . 39

4. Yield and cooking losses of eight types of ham:

percentages based on trimmed weight of hams prior
to Cook‘ng. O O O O O O O O O O O C O 0 O O O 0 0 55

vii

INTRODUCTION

Cured ham is a popular and versatile meat item in many
food service operations. Choosing wisely among the many avail-
able styles of hams is important and difficult for the opera-
tor who strives to serve food of the highest quality as eco-
nomically as possible.

Many styles of ham are currently available and some‘
meat packers'are planning to put new styles on the market.
The styles differ in the degree of trimming and boning and
in the final shapes in which they are packaged. Several
styles are available both uncooked and precooked: this in-
creases still further the list from which the operator must
make his choice.

in addition to choosing from the available styles of
ham, the food service operator must also decide what weight
range he should select. Some styles of ham are available in
sizes from 6 to over 30 pounds each; other styles are sold
in fairly narrow weight ranges.

To choose wisely the style and kind of ham and to
estimate the amount of edible ham needed for a specific pur-
pose, the food service operator must learn by trial and
error or consult authoritative materials. Presently, little
accurate information is available to guide the buyer.

This study is one phase of an extensive project de-
signed to compare the cooking losses, palatability, slice-

able portion, edible scrap, and waste from various styles of

ham,,both cooked and uncooked, which are widely available.
The different weight ranges of each style and kind will also
be compared and analyzed upon completion of all phases of

the total project.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

During the past fifty years new developments in methods
of breeding, feeding, and slaughtering of hogs have resulted
in increased yield of lean meat from the carcass and better
eating quality of pork cuts (59).

Composition, appearance, flavor, juiclness, and tender-
ness of pork cuts reflect the effect of the diet of the animal.
Hogs fed soybeans when young and fattened on carbohydrate diets
have firm fat (59). Peanut fed hogs, commonly raised in the
South, produce soft, oily hams from which Smithfield hams are
often processed (7, 56, 22).

The effect of feeding of special supplements to meat
animals has been extensively explored. The addition of tocoph-
erol to the feed of hogs has been reported to have little
antioxidant effect on the fat of the slaughtered animal (56).
Hams from animals fed antibiotics, surplus animal fat, or a
combination of the two, did not differ significantly from
controls in color, moisture, fat, chloride, or thiamine con-
tent (20, 22, 34). Jul (3i) reported that hogs fed antibi-
ones produced hams with increased yield and water retention
during canning. Feeding antibiotics to meat animals is still
considered controversial (3). in another study, hogs fed
vitamin 8,2 and blood meal, to supplement their diet of corn,
meat, and bone meal, showed increased weight gains (44).

The introduction of more humane methods for the

slaughter of hogs has done much to eliminate internal bruises

in hams (59), insure more complete bleeding (3), and reduce
contamination of the carcass with dirt during the killing and
dressing.

Frazier (23) suggested the injection of antibiotics
just before slaughter or infusing the carcass or special parts
immediately after slaughter. He believes that antibiotics
thus used would prolong the keeping quality of carcasses at
atmospheric temperatures before they reach the refrigerators.
At the present time the use of antibiotics is permitted only
on poultry. Ayers (3) stressed that meats infused with anti-
biotics pose several questions which will need to be answered
before the use of antibiotics can be considered safe for car-

cass use.
Ham Processing

Important as the advances just described have been in
their effect on table pork in general, other factors may have
made even greater contributions to the improvement of the
eating quality of cured hams. Among these are refinements

in methods for curing, smoking, processing, and packaging.

Curing ingredients
Federal specifications (54,—55) state'that a well-

blended mixture of salt, sugar, sodium nitrate and/or sodium
nitrite (potassium salts may be used), with or without phos-
phates and other permissible minor ingredients, with or

without water, shall be used to cure hams. Each curing

"gradient contributes to the final quality of the ham.

Salt. The primary curing ingredient, salt or sodium chloride,
imparts a characteristic flavor to ham. Salt also improves
the color, helps preserve ham, and affects tenderness, juici-
ness, and yield.

The pink color of ham is produced by the action of
microorganisms which change the muscle hemoglobin to nitric
oxide myoglobin and nitric oxide myochromogen during the
curing process (23). Watts (56) reported that in the presence
of nitrite, salt accelerated the formation of the pink pig-
ment; in the absence of nitrite, salt aided the formation of
a brownish-red color.

Dry salt reduces the water content and can harden and
toughen the fibers (7). Thornton (5i) describes the drying
effect of salt which preserves meat. A dry cured ham vioses
an average of 5 to 7 percent of the original or green weight
(59).

Most mild cured hams are sweet pickle cured with a
formula containing less salt than is necessary for dry cured
hams (59). Sweet pickle cured hams gain an average of 5
percent in cure (59).

Salt may affect the development of rancidity of the
ham fat; the occurrence and/or the degree of rancidity de-
pends on the area of fat with which the salt comes in contact
and the state of the salt, in solution or dry (56). Watts
(56) points out that since salt is not absorbed at the inter-

face between fat and water, dilute solutions may retard

oxidation; however, salt out of solution accelerates rancid-
ity development.

Salt functions as a preservative by preventing or re-
ducing the action of bacteria (59). Jensen (30) stated that
lessening the amounts of salt used in food preservation has
induced changes in microbiological flora. In addition, he
reported that most investigations indicate that salt, in con-
centrations used in food preservation, is not a bactericide
but a preservative which merely inhibits the growth of many
species of bacteria. Experiments have shown that salt is
the most active preservative used in meat-curing solutions
(30). Palatable salt concentrations do not inhibit the food

poisoning staphylococci (32).

S2235. According to Ziegler (59) the flavor of cured ham is
enhanced by sugar, which counteracts the astringent quality
of the salt. Sugar also affects the color, tenderness, and
juiciness, and has a preservative effect on hams. Sugar
furnishes material for bacterial reduction of nitrate to
nitrous acid which helps fix cured meat color (59). Ziegler
(59) reported that curing pickles without sugar had pH values
of 7.3 at the end of 40 days as compared to 5.7 for curing
pickles with sugar. Color fixation was normal and meat was
tender and palatable with the pH between 5 and 6.

Bull (7) reported that sugar counteracts the hardening
effect of salt and helps to increase tenderness in hams.

Sugar also helps to make the meat juicy (59).

Nitrates and nitrites. Combinations of nitrates and nitrites
produce better color stability than either product used alone
(59). Sodium or potassium nitrates and nitrites are permitted
in curing formulae (54, 55).

Nitrate indirectly fixes the color and increases the
permeability of the meat fibers to the water carrying the
curing ingredients (59). Frazier (2}) reported that nitrates
in acid solutions may be bacteriostatic, especially against
anaerobes. However, the effect of nitrates on anaerobes is
controversial (29, 32).

Nitrites are the source of the real color fixative
(23). Hams cured with nitrite alone tend to discolor rapidly
when exposed to light and air (30). When nitrite is converted
from nitrate, the color is more stable (59). Although nitrite
is used primarily to fix the color of cured meat, it also pro-
duces a characteristic flavor (37). Nitrite helps inhibit the

growth of ham souring organisms (56).

Phosphates. Phosphates increase the water absorption ability
of ham (59). Miller (37) listed six phosphates which are per-
mitted in curing formulae.

Ziegler (59) reported less shrinkage in phosphate
treated hams than in controls. Wilson (58) did not find that
phosphate significantly affected ham yield but reported it
did produce firmer hams with less free moisture than the
controls. Miller (37) stated that phosphates helped decrease

the amount of cooked-out juices. Urbin (53) found that yields

of phosphate treated hams, both smoked and unsmoked, were
significantly increased.

No significant differences in aroma, flavor, tenderness,
or texture were noted between phosphate treated and control hams
compared by Urbin (53). Mahon et al (34) reported significantly
higher scores for color, aroma, and saltiness in phosphate
treated hams than in control hams; however, the authors stated
that "differences were so small that not much inference can be
drawn from them."

Phosphates may cause precipitates in the pickle and crys-
tal formation on the finished ham (5}). Urbin (53) found that
crystallization was delayed and less dense on hams cured in
pickle containing calcium sulfate and that precipitation was
delayed by using highly purified salt and demineralized water

in the curing solution.

Minor ingredients. Curing formulae sometimes include sodium
ascorbate and ascorbic acid which accelerate color fixing and
inhibit fading (46, 27. 56). Zielger (59) reported that ad-
justing the pickle solution with ascorbic acid to a pH value
between 5 and 6 helped fix the color and increase tenderness
of hams. With further decrease in pH, the meat became less
tender and palatable and color fixation was impossible. With
pH values between 7 and 8, the cured pork became soft and
gelatinous (59). Watts (56) pointed out that if ascorbic
acid was introduced into meat along with a phenolic antioxi-
dant, it would always inhibit oxidation; but when added alone,

ascorbic acid may accelerate or may inhibit rancidity.

Smoking

The smoking of foods usually has two main purposes:
to add desired flavors and to aid in preservation (23). Smok-
ing may also improve the color, help tenderize, and add to the
desirable appearance of hams (23).

The source and concentration of smoke determine the
flavor of smoked ham. Hickory is the most popular wood for
smoking hams. However, since one particular wood is not gen-
erally available in sufficient quantity, sawdust from a variety
of hardwoods is usually used (37). Although smoked salt, liq-
uid smoke, chemicals, or smoke substitutes are not allowed to
replace smoke in commercial packing houses, there may be some
advantages in their use in curing brines (56). Watts (56)
believes that artifical smokes incorporated in brines could
be dispersed uniformly throughout the meat, thus imparting
the smoked flavor to all parts of the ham. Jensen (30) and
Frazier (23) stated that liquid smoke and smoked salt have
little or no preservative effect on meat.

The preservative effect of woodsmoke is considered to
be due to the condensates from volatile compounds: aldehydes,
organic acids, alcohols, ketones, phenols (creosotes), and
minor constituents (57. 23, 30). Miller (37) stated that
since smoking adds chemicals to the meat, new chemical addi-
tive legislation will probably bring about an investigation
of smoke as an additive- Formaldehyde is one of the most

effective bactericidal compounds of smoke; however, some of

i0

the others may also be germicidal (23, 30). The rate of germi-
cidal action increases with the smoke concentration and tem-
peratures (23). Various studies have shown that pathogenic
bacteria are destroyed in a short time if they are easily
reached by smoke; but a coagulated layer, often formed on the
surface of the meat, makes smoke penetration difficult (30).
Miller (37) found no surviving staphylococcus either in or on
inoculated hams after they were smoked to an internal tempera-
ture of i37°F.

Color formation and fixing temporarily stops during
smoking because reduction of nitrate to nitrite is inhibited
(37). The amount of nitrite in the meat at the beginning of
the smoking operation is reduced sharply, but the nitrate con-
tent does not change. After the meat is smoked, the nitrate
produces more nitrite.

Smoking imparts a desirable appearance to the surface
of hams through a combination of actions (37). The drying
effect and the action of aldehyde-phenol condensed resins on
the surface produces a gloss on the ham (37. 30). Watts (56)
stated that the phenol constituents of smoke may have an anti-
oxidant effect on the surface of hams, although this is not
certain; because of the limited extent of smoke penetration,
the possible antioxidant effects would not protect slices of
hams from oxidation.

Some tendering results from the effect of heat and
salt during smoking (30). Special temperature and humidity

conditions increase the tenderness of hams. The tendering

process consists of subjecting the hams to relatively high
temperatures for extended periods of time which raises the
temperature of the pork above l370F, the level necessary for
the destruction of trichinae (37).

Sweet pickled meats lose 2 to 5 percent of their weight
during smoking which, Ziegler (59) points out, is approximately
the same amount as was gained in curing. Dry cured meats
shrink about 2 percent during smoking (59).

Smoking is customarily accomplished in smokehouses in
which the humidity is controlled by opening and closing venti-
lators (59). A smoking process that rapidly and uniformly
deposits the smoke particles on the meat is referred to as an
electrostatic method (25, 3i, 37). The entire smoking process
takes place in a matter of minutes, during which the meats
pass through an infra-red drying section, the smoking chamber,
and then another drying chamber. The smoked meat has satis-

factory flavor and shrinkage is low.

Processing methods

Commercial ham processing usually consists of curing
by one of four predominant methods (22). Packing companies
follow the same general methods for each style of ham but may
deviate at different stages of processing to obtain special

effects (22).

Types of cure. Fields and Ounker (22) reported that a survey
of representative members of the National Independent Meat

Packers Association and the American Meat Institute showed

I2

that the four principal commercial methods for curing hams
are: (l) sweet pickle, quick cured, tendered hams; (2) sweet
pickle, quick cured, ready to eat hams; (3) sweet pickle, long
cured hams; and (4) the Smithfieid type of dry cured hams.

For sweet pickling the meat is treated with a salt solution,
whereas in the dry curing process the salt is added to the

meat in a dry form (37, 5|, 59).

(l) Sweet pickle, quick cured, tendered hams require
three processing steps: pumping, curing in a cover pickle,
and smoking (22). Pumping to an 8 to lo percent net weight
increase is done by either artery or spray methods. Most
packers prefer the artery method because it is quicker and
assures more uniform distribution of the pickle than the spray
method. The pumped hams soak in a cover pickle for 4 to l5
days at 38°F. The washed, drained, and dried hams are smoked
from l6 to l8 hours to bring the internal temperature to l420F.
This temperature is maintained for one hour (22, 37, 59). The
tenderized hams which are perishable, require storage at 40°F
or below and should be cooked before eating (7, 37). The
American Meat Institute (2) described hams processed by the
above method: I

Cook before eating (uncooked or regular) hams---have

been heated, in compliance with government regulations,

to an internal temperature of at least l37°F. These
hams require thorough cooking before eating (cooked

to an internal temperature of l60°F as registered by

meat thermometer.)

(2) Sweet pickle, quick cured, ready to eat hams are

processed similarly to the tendered hams except that the

I3

I

smoking temperature increases so that the final internal tem-
perature of the ham is not less than l50°F (22, 55). Final
internal temperatures vary from l50 to l65°F (7, 22, 37, 55).
These hams bear tags stating that they are safe to eat without
further cooking (7). Ziegler stated that ready to eat hams

are entirely safe in respect to trichinae (59). Miller (37)
stressed the fact that the mild cured products are not protected
against spoilage under conditions favorable to bacterial growth.
The American Meat Institute (2) described and differentiated

between ready to eat and fully cooked hams:

Ready to eat hams-oin compliance with government regula-
tion, have been heated to an internal temperature of at
least l37°F and then further processed to make them
palatably tender. This processing makes them safe 33
get but the texture and flavor are improved by further
cooking. These hams require slightly less cooking time
per pound than uncooked hams, usually l6-l8 minutes per
pound for a whole ham (unless label specified otherwise),
20‘to 22 minutes per pound for a half ham. "Ready to
Eat" ham should be heated to an internal temperature

of at least l30° to iAOOF.

Full Cooked or Cooked Hams--have been processed to
an internal temperature of l48° to l50°F or above
and may be served without further cooking; or they
may be reheated before service. Heating to an in-
ternal temperature of i250 to i30o F will warm them
sufficiently. Some of the "fully cooked" hams are
available with jelly glaze.

(3) Sweet pickle, long cured hams receive similar
treatment to that given the quick cured, tendered hams, ex-
cept they are left in the cover pickle longer and are smoked
at lower temperatures (22). The hams remain in the cover
pickle for 3 to 6 days per pound of meat. Smoking to an

internal temperature of about l20°F requires 20 to 26 hours.

I4

(4) Dry cured hams are rubbed with a dry curing mix-
ture and then packed in layers with a layer of the dry mixture
between layers of ham. Depending on the weight of the hams
the total time in the cure ranges from forty to sixty-five
days (37). Two kinds of dry cured hams are processed: Smith-
field and Italian. Smithfieid hams, sometimes called Virginia
hams, are rubbed with black pepper after curing and after
smoking (7, 59). The Virginia legislature passed an act
which Specifies that Smithfieid hams must be processed in
Smithfield and come from hogs grown in the peanut belt of
Virginia and North Carolina. Hams processed by the Smithfieid
method, but not in Smithfieid, may be labeled Smithfieid Type
ham. The Italian style ham is the only dry cured ham generally
produced by meat packers in the United States (37). The Italian
ham has the pelvic bone removed before the ham is cured. This
makes it possible to press the ham flat to a thickness of about
2 inches.

Miller (37) states that modern methods of curing ham
provide very little opportunity for bacterial growth. Dunker,
et al (l5) also concluded that commercial curing produces hams
which are generally wholesome from the bacteriological stand-
point. However, ham, particularly tenderized ham, has been
found frequently to be a source of food poisoning organisms
(l8). Lechowich et al (32) found that food-poisoning staphy-
lococci were able to grow vigorously in ground pork muscle
containing palatable combinations of permissible curing in-

gredients. They also reported that staphylococci injected

(5

into hams with the pump pickle survived the curing Operation
but were killed during smoking to l37°F. Ingram (28) noted
that pork cured by dry salting or immersion in brine was
nearly sterile, whereas hams pumped with brine contained
micrococci throughout the tissue. Deskins (l3) found that
bacterial counts of hams processed by one packer were con-
sistently much higher than those of another packer; all hams
examined contained more bacteria per gram in the center slices

than in end slices.

Styles of ham. The American Meat Institute (2) classified hams
in three styles on the basis of the amount of bone they contain
and the completeness of skin and fat trim as described in Federal
Specifications. Federal Specifications (54) also described regu-
lations for cured, canned hams.

(l) Regular bone in hams weigh from 8 to 24 pounds.

The hams are partially or fully skinned, cooked or uncooked,
smoked or unsmoked.

(2) Skinless shankless hams are prepared by removing
the shank and skin from regular hams. Skinless shankless hams
are trimmed of surface fat in excess of I inch in depth. The
hams may be cooked or uncooked, smoked or unsmoked.

(3) The bone and skin are removed from cured hams to
produce boneless and skinless hams. Whole boneless, skinless
hams or major lean muscle portions (not exceeding three pieces)
are encased in rolls. The hams may be cooked or uncooked,

smoked or unsmoked. If the hams are cooked, they may be

placed in the casing before or after cooking.

l6

(4) Canned hams are sweet pickle Quick cured, skinned,
boned, defatted, and may or may not have been smoked before
canning (54). A canned ham is prepared from a whole or from
one to three separate portions. Hams are placed with the
major fibers running parallel with length of the can and with
the butt portion in the wide end of the can. Monosodium
glutamate, gelatin, and other preparations may be added to
the product. The amount of gelatin permitted is speCified
as the amount necessary to solidify juices to prevent lique-
faction at internal ham temperatures ranging from 30 to 65°F
and to give added stability, cohesion, and sliceability to
the finished product. Hams ranging from lg to l4 pounds
may be canned in rectangular, oblong, or pear-shaped cans.
Hams which weigh 4 pounds or less may also be packed in
cylinderlcal or semi-cylindrical cans. The sealed cans of
ham are processed in hot water to bring the temperature
throughout the ham to a minimum temperature of l50°F. Hams
weighing less than 3 pounds are vacuumized and processed "at
such temperatures and for such period of time as will assure
keeping without refrigeration under unusual conditions of
storage and transportation" (54).

Jensen (30) stated that, although destruction of the
microorganisms present in the cans is the fundamental pur-
pose of canning, certain bacterial spores cannot be destroyed
without high temperatures which may ruin the contents of the
can. At a symposium on the microbiology of semi-preserved

meats (4) temperature resistant curves of bacteria were

I7

discussed; stress was placed on considering the nutritive
value, flavor, and water retention of the meat in establishe
ing time-temperature curves for processing. Deibel (l2)
found that streptoccoccus was isolated with relative fre-
quency from pasteurized, refrigerated canned hams and was
often present as virtually a pure culture. Scott (49) stressed
the need for facts regarding the water requirement of micro-
organisms and the effect on it of variables such as tempera-
ture, pH, and nutrient supply. Scott (49) showed that the
water activity of canned hams was not low enough to prevent
growth of staphylococcus or clostridium botulinum. Subject-
ing ham to pressure while it is in the curing pickle has
helped lessen the excess moisture in pasteurized canned ham
(4). Schack (48) suggested that in bacteriological studies
solid pieces of meat should have 90 percent of the inoculum
confined to the surface layers, if the studies are to be

applicable to industrial conditions.

Packaging, labeling, disglay, and storage
The packaging, labeling, display, and storage of

 

cured, processed hams are important in providing the con-

sumer with a high quality product.

Packaging. The main consideration in the packaging of cured
meats is the exclusion of oxygen and light (56). Watts (56)
stated that any type of packaging which reduces contact with
oxygen retards both rancidity and discoloration. She report-

ed that storage of meat in atmospheres containing carbon

l8

dkndde retarded bacterial action as well as oxidative
changes.

Because fading of cured meats is accelerated by visi-
ble light rays, only deeply colored wrappings are very effec-
tive in retarding it; these, however, may create sales resis-
tance (52). Erdman and Watts (l6) found that light and the
type of wrapping material had little effect on oSH losses of
cured meats.

The plastics used for packaging material have been
investigated to make sure that only those which are safe are
used (37). Miller (37) listed various non-toxic plasticizers,
antioxidants, and stabilizers which the Federal meat inspec-
tion program has approved. Ricket et al (45) concluded that
of thirteen packaging materials they tested, three coated
cellophane wrappings and a trithene package proved best for
wrapping and storing cured pork.

According to Ziegler (59), paraffin dip forms an
air-tight coating on hams which prevents shrinkage and mold,
but the exclusion of air causes hams to rot. Coating of
cooked hams with gelatin is permissable if the coating meets
specifications (55). The coating must be edible and must
permit handling and slicing of ham with internal temperatures
from 30 to 60°F. It may be caramelized, mildly flavored or
seasoned with salt, sugar, vinegar, clove, or other conven-
tional ham flavorings.

Ziegler (59) recommended that waxed or greaseproof

'9

paper be used for wrapping hams. The Federal specifications
also emphasized that the paper should be moisture resistant
(55).

According to Jul (3i), much work has gone into the
development of better and less expensive containers for canned
meats. To minimize corrosion problems caused by the extensive
use of phosphates, a method for attaching an aluminum elec-
trode in the can has been developed (3i). Enamel on the
inside of cans keeps hams from sticking to the lining and
helps eliminate discoloration (3i, 37). Some companies spray
the inside of the cans with lard emulsion prior to canning

(3i)-

Labeling. Meat packers who ship meat out of state are in-
spected continuously by the Meat Inspection Service and must
use only those labels and markings that have been previously
approved by the Meat Inspection Service (37). Each label is
required to contain specific labeling information, cannot
contain misleading statements, and must be apprOpriate for
the product for which it is intended.

The label often contains the name of the product, net
weight, name and address of packer and distributor, and the
U.S.D.A. inspection mark (2i, 37). Many hams carry the brand
names of the packers which indicate their own grades for the
product (7). Bull (7) listed larger meat packers' brands
and corresponding grades. Cooking directions and storage

instructions are also often found on ham labels. Esselen (l8)

20

pointed out the need for cooking instructions which take
into consideration the thermal destruction of food-poison-
ing microorganisms with no reduction in food quality.

Labels on canned products carry much the same infor-
mation as that found on the other types of hams. The number
which indicates the place of inspection is sometimes embossed
on the metal container, in which case it may be omitted from
the federal inspection stamp (2i). Canned hams weighing over
3 pounds must be labeled "PERISHABLE: KEEP UNDER REFRIGERATION"
(54)-

Disglay and storage. Erdman and Watts (l6) found that the
storage temperature and light affected the fading of cured
meat. Slight color fading occurring during illumination of
display cases was counteracted by color regeneration when
the cases were darkened. Ramsbottom (43) stated that under
continuous lighting of the intensity frequently observed in
display cases and store aisles, nitrite gives only temporary
color protection. Although display case lighting does not
significantly discolor fresh meats in periods up to three
days, the fading of cured, smoked, and table-ready meat is
noticeable in an hour under the same conditions (56).
Storage temperatures for hams, other than the canned
hams under 3 pounds in weight, are specified in United States
government regulations (54, 55). Canned hams should be
stored, delivered, and handled under refrigeration of 30

to 50°F; mild-cured hams should not attain a temperature in

2i

excess of 40°F. The package for mild-cured ham should be
kept dry and free from condensation and contamination. Canned
ham should not be frozen at any time; mild-cured hams may be

frozen but not for longer than 60 days (2).

Recent developments.

At least three new processing methods, which may apply
to ham products, have been developed or are in the develop-
mental stages. They are irradiation,freeze-dehydration and

di-electric processing.

Irradiation. Radiation preservation of foods involves sub-
jecting foods to ionizing radiations which render the pro-
duct sterile without the use of heat. The process is some-
times called cold sterilization. However, adverse flavor,
odor, color, and texture changes often occur in the irradiated
product. Miller (37) reviewed the studies of the effect of
radiation on trichinae; larvae of the parasite may be killed
by large irradiation doses or sterilized sexually by fairly
low doses. Niven (40) stated that irradiation may, in some
instances, prove more economical than conventional methods
for guaranteeing trichina-free meat. Erdman and Watts (l7)
reported off-odors, which were not objectionable, and color
fading in cured pork irradiated with various doses. However,
when ground pork, mixed with curing salts, sodium-ascorbate,
and liquid smoke, was given a low dose of irradiation and
heated to inactive enzymes, the pork retained good color and

odor for 6 months at room temperature (l7). Miller (37)

22

stated that irradiation is more likely to be used in pasteur-
izing doses to prolong the life of refrigerated meats than
in sterilizing doses to permit room temperature storage.

The microbiological aspects related to radiation preserva-
tion research were reported by Miller (37) and Niven (40).
Spoilage flora of cured meats were found to be much more)
radiation-resistant than the flora of fresh meat. Bacterial
endospores were highly resistant under all conditions tested,
and there appeared to be no reliable method of predicting

the radiation resistance of microorganisms.

Freeze-dehydration. Freeze-dehydrated meat retains its
original volume and form without hardening, rehydrates rapid-
ly to the original moisture content, and is almost indistin-
guishable from fresh meat in its physical characteristics (37).
Color and flavor of freeze-dried pork remain similar to those
of the fresh product; however, Harper (26) reported that the
rehydrated product is generally significantly drier than the
fresh material. The major problem in the dehydration of pork
is the melting of fat at high drying temperatures and the
migration of the fat into the dry porous meat; therefore,

the removal of excess fat from pork products may be necessary
prior to drying (26). Di-electric heating equipment appears

to have potential as a source of heat for quick drying frozen

meats (26).

Di-electric heating. In di-electric heating, sometimes

called high-frequency cooking, the product to be cooked is

23

placed between two plates or poles which very rapidly alter-
nate electric current and cause the product to heat in every
part at the same rate (37). The successful application of

the process depends on designing a unit that assures the even
penetration of microwaves to all parts of the meat, regardless

of uniformity in size and shape (37).
Preparation and Service

The method of cooking,oven temperature, and the final
internal temperature play important roles in controlling pala-
itability and yield of cooked hams and the growth of food poi-
soning bacteria in the cooked product. A comprehensive out-
line of investigations and recommendations show variations in

all three factors (Appendix A.).

Method 21 cooking

The literature contains reports of hams cooked by
moist heat, dry heat, and combinations of moist and dry heat
(Appendix A.). Hams were sometimes cooked in covered con-
tainers.

Because of the lack of precise methods for cooking
hams, a conference was called in l925 for the purpose of
establishing a method of procedure for cooking hams experi-
mentally (47). Results of work by Rountree (47) indicated
that hams could be either boiled or roasted successfully
without previous soaking. Dawson et al (ll) reported edi-

ble yields of 55 Percent when bone-in hams were simmered

24

and 50 percent when hams were boiled and then baked. The
simmered hams received tenderness scores of "slightly tough"
and "moderately tender"; juiciness scores were "dry" and
"slightly dry". The shrinkage of smoked pork cuts Cooked

in water may be lessened if the meat is cooled in the cook-
ing water (9). Meat cooked in water below the boiling point
is juicier, more tender, and more easily sliced than meat
which is boiled (9). The Committee on Preparation Factors,
National Cooperative Meat Investigations (9) expressed the
need for further studies on the effect of the temperature of
the water on the kinds and amounts of cooking losses in meats.
Alexander and Hankins (l) reported that simmered dry-cured
hams were stringy, water-logged, and tough compared to baked
cemmercially cured hams. The simmered hams were also less
juicy than the baked hams.

Rountree (47) recommended roasting ham in a covered
roaster to which a cup of water was added. Cooking losses
from hams thus cooked varied from 20 to 36 percent of the
original weight (47). Staggs (50) concluded that tenderized
hams should be baked in their original wrappings. According
to Lowe (33), results generally indicate that cooking time ,
is longer, but cooking losses are less, nutritive losses are
less, and the meat is more palatable when tender cuts are
cooked in uncovered pans than when meat is covered during
cooking.

Burgoin (8) seared bone-in hams for thirty minutes

in a l50°C oven and then lowered the temperature to l25°C

25

for the remainder of the cooking period. The resulting
cooking losses ranged from 25.2 to 29.l percent. The sear-
ing method is no longer recommended for roasting ham.

Staggs (50) and others (9, 33) used metal skewers for
decreasing the roasting time in various meats, including ham.
The skewers generally shortened cooking time, but also de-
creased tenderness and attractiveness of the meat.

Standard roasting procedures (9, 33) for ham advocate
placing the ham, fat side up, on a rack in an uncovered pan

without the addition of water.

9123 temperature

Lowe (33) stated that, in general, low cooking tempera-
tures result in more uniformly cooked meat and in less cook-
ing losses than do high temperatures. Other studies (38, 50)
of hams cooked at various oven temperatures verify this state-
ment. Cooking directions for hams usually recommend low to
medium oven temperatures (2, 39).

Staggs (50) studied the effect of oven temperature on
the palatability and serving value of tenderized and dry-cured
hams. She found that the hams baked at 250°F and 300°F were
tenderer, had more desirable and intense flavor, and had
greater sliceability and serving value than those baked at
375°F; the differences between hams baked at 250°F and 300°F
were not significant. Staggs concluded that tenderized hams
should be baked at even temperatures from 250 to 300°F. An-

other study (38) reported a 30 percent cooking loss for hams

26

cooked at 450°F as compared to losses of l3 percent for hams
cooked at 250°F.

The National Livestock and Meat Board (39) recommended
cooking hams in 300 to 325°F ovens, stating that there is
less crumbling and falling apart of ham cooked at low tem-
peratures as compared to that cooked at high temperatures.
The American Meat Institute (2) advocated roasting ham at
325°F.

Internal temperature

Meat is cooked to sterilize it (33). The internal
temperature of meat indicates the degree of doneness: various
internal temperatures are recommended and/or reported in the
literature (Appendix A.).

The most frequently reported temperature in ham studies
is 70°C. Rountree (47) was the first to recommend cooking ham
to an internal temperature of 70°C. This recommendation re-
sulted after initial studies showed that hams cooked to 76°C
were judged overdone by three cooks who evaluated the doneness
of hams. Total cooking losses reported for hams baked to 70°C
range from l5.l percent (50) to 29.l percent (8).

Meat packers specify different end cooking temperatures
for hams processed by various methods. The American Meat In-
stitute (2) summarizes the recommendations from packers as
follows: heat cook-before-eating hams to l60°fi,ready-te-eat
hams to l30° to l40°fi,and fully cooked and canned hams to

l25° to l30°F.

27

Several brands of meat thermometers were examined and
all specified the same end temperatures for baking hams. The
designated temperature for tendered hams is l50°F; for cured
hams, the end temperature is l70°F.

Alexander and Hankins (l) and Dawson et al (ll) cooked
hams to internal temperatures of 76°C and l70°F respectively.
Edible portion of bone-in hams ranged from 46 to 62 percent
(ll).

Bacteriological studies include reports of ham and ham
products cooked to 77° and 80°C. McDivitt (35) found that 77°C
did not kill all micrococci present in hams. Deskins (l3)
cooked ham loaf to 80°C and the bacteriological analysis re-
vealed that cooking reduced the number but did not destory all
of the viable cells. Jensen (29) recommended that hams should
be cooked so that the inside of the ham reaches a temperature
of at least 72.2°C.

The internal temperature of meat may continue to rise
after removal from the oven (33). Temperature rises reported
for baked hams ranged from 3 to 6.8°C (Appendix A.). Tempera-
ture increases in boiled hams averaged l0°C (l). Staggs (50)
found that the increase was directly proportional to increased
oven temperatures.

Directions for cooking often state the time of cooking
in terms of minutes per pound. Lowe (33) stated that, at
best, minutes per pound can serve only as a poor guide, for
various reasons including the fact that as the size~of a

piece of meat increases, its weight increases in greater ratio

than its dimensions.

28

Bacteriological asgects g: serving

Temperature control is important in preventing the pro-
duction of poisonous toxins in food and thus in reducing food
poisoning outbreaks. Baughman (5), McDivitt (35), Esselen
(l8), and Jensen (29,30), and others pointed to the frequency
with which ham has been implicated in food poisoning outbreaks.
These outbreaks often involve groups who have eaten food from
institutional kitchens, commercial restaurants, armed forces
units, church suppers, and social gatherings in private homes.
Dack (l0) reported that although methods involved in heating

'quick cured hams during manufacture are designed to kill tri-
chinae and staphylococci, the hams can easily become contami-
nated after leaving the packers. Niven (4i) also reported
that conventional smoking times and temperatures appear suffi-
cient to assure the absence of living staphylococci in the hams
as they leave the smokehouse. The staphylococci produce toxins
rapidly at temperatures between 60 and ll59Faccording to Fraizer
(23) and between 50 to l20°F according to Esselen (l8).

Since warm temperatures are conducive to microorganism
growth and development, adequate refrigeration is a necessary
control in preventing food poisoning. Esselen (l8) stressed
that refrigeration, including freezing, does not rid the pro-
duct of the organisms but merely represses them while the food
is cold. Evans (l9) repeated the rule that ham should never
remain in the temperature zone of 50 to l20°F for an accumu-
lative period of longer than four hours. Prompt and efficient

refrigeration of uncooked and cooked ham was advocated by the

29

work of McDivitt (35), Black (6), and Draim (l4). Slow
cooling or holding ham at room temperatures allows dangerous
incubation; hams cooled at room temperature before refrigera-
ting remained in the danger zone twice as long as those re-
frigerated immediately after cooking. West and Wood (57)
pointed out that food should be so placed in the refrigerator
to permit free circulation of cold air throughout the storage
unit and that the temperature of the refrigerator should be
maintained at 33 to 38°F.

Boning, cutting, and slicing afford chances for con-
tamination of the food by bacteria from the air, utensils,
equipment, and personnel (57). Jensen (29) reported that
most contamination of cooked ham occurs during the slicing
operation and advocated that the safest procedure to follow
is one in which the raw ham is sliced and cooked at 8 to l2
pounds pressure for 30 minutes and served immediately.

Jensen (29) stressed that cooked hams be kept at
l30°F or above when placed on steam tables and that hams
not be held for more than four hours accummulated time, in
the incubation range. West and Wood (57) stated that the
desirable minimum temperature for holding all heated foods
is l50°F and that some investigators favor higher tempera-
tures. The holding time should be as short as possible (29,
57).

The control of staphylococcus food poisoning apparent-
ly lies in the education of the public and food handlers

(5, l0). Dack (l0) stated that one of the difficulties is

3O

educating the public that foods containing food poisoning

microorganisms do not look, taste, feel, or smell different
from safe food. Evans (l9) believes that some consumers and
retailers still interpret the word "cured" as implying that
the ham is a relatively non-perishable product even at room
temperature. 0n the contrary, food-poisoning organisms can
grow readily at temperatures above 50°F in cured hams as

well as in other foods.

METHOD OF PROCEDURE

For a comparison of yield and palatability, five basic
styles of l2 to l4-pound hams, three of them in both uncooked
and precooked state, were baked under controlled conditions.
The standard procedure for the entire project was based on
preliminary investigations in the laboratory and was an adapta-

tion of methods practical for use in food service kitchens.
Materials Used

The styles and sources of hams selected for the study
were determined through consultation with the manager of the
campus food stores and through correspondence with major meat
packing companies. Styles of ham widely available to food
services were selected, and the major pieces of equipment
used in the study were comparable to those generally used in

institutional kitchens.

Hams

 

The five styles of hams selected for the comparison
in this investigation were (i) regular bone-in; (2) skinless
shankless; (3) boned rolled visking packed; (4) splits, visk-
ing packed; and (5) canned pear-shaped (Figure l). The first
three styles were available both uncooked and precooked, mak-

ing a total of eight different types of ham.

Styles. Regular bone-in hams contained the leg bone, shank

bone, and aitch bone. The shank end of the ham was covered

32

panama ccm ooHHOA cocoa
. $.51... IN.

,4‘K... ./

 

 

"eoxomoumcnxmn>

.coaummfiummpcfi mfl:p cw coacsun mama mo nodhpm

 

.H spawns

 

 

 

 

 

 

33

with skin. As the name implies, the skinless shankless
hams had the shank and all of the skin removed.

Boned rolled hams were whole hams which had been boned
and rolled into a cylindrical shape and wrapped in visking.
Each end of the ham was capped with a round metal plate over
which the visking was drawn and clamped together.

The shape and packaging of split style hams closely
resembled that of the boned rolled hams. The split style,
however, did not consist of a whole ham. The visking'was
filled with two or more pieces of small to medium hams or
with one piece from a large ham.

Canned hams were boned and trimmed hams which were
forced into metal containers and processed. Only hams canned
in pear-shaped containers were used in this study: pullman-

shaped canned hams were not available in l2 to l4-pound size.

Kinds: ungggked and_p[ecooked. Three styles of hams, in-
cluding regular bone-in, skinless shankless, and boned rolled,
were purchased both uncooked and precooked. Only precooked
splits were available. The canned hams were also precooked.
Throughout the report of this investigation, the term
uncooked is used to designate hams heated to an internal tem-
perature of i37°F during the processing. The term precooked
is used to refer to all hams heated to a minimum of l50°F dur-
ing processing, as prescribed by Federal Specifications. The
exact internal temperature for hams of the precooked type

from each company was not known.

34

Ten hams of each style were cooked, including ten un-
cooked and ten precooked for styles in which both kinds were
available. During each baking period six hams were cooked
simultaneously. As far as possible, styles in each cooking
period were selected according to a randomized arrangement of
styles and kinds of hams from three purveyors. Cooking per-
iods were scheduled twice weekly, and yield and panel evalua-
tions of the baked hams were conducted on the day following

the baking day.

Equipment

Standard institutional equipment was used when possible
in this study. To facilitate accurate data collection, how-
ever, some of the equipment was built or altered to fit special

specifications.

Weighing and Measuring. A 4.5-kilogram capacity torsion bal-
ance was used to weigh the hams, pans, racks, and drippings
to the nearest gram. A 2-kilogram capacity torsion balance
was used to weigh the fat samples to the nearest 0.i gram for
specific gravity calculations.

A device was designed for measuring the length, width
and depth of each ham. It consisted of two vertical l8-inch
rulers which were numbered from the bottom to the tep. Con-
necting the two vertical rulers was a horizontal 24-inch ruler
with numbers reading from left to right. The left vertical
ruler was secured on a metal foot and could stand alone. The

horizontal ruler could be moved up and down. The right vertical

35

ruler could be moved toward or away from the left ruler. Each
ham was placed fat side up, between the vertical rulers which
were adjusted so that the rulers touched both sides of the

ham at its widest point for measuring the width. The rulers
touched the ham on both ends at the longest point for deter-
mining the length. To measure the thickness of the ham, the
horizontal ruler was lowered until it touched the highest
portion of the ham and adjusted until it met both vertical
rulers at the same inch marking.

Internal ham temperatures were measured by precision
laboratory thermometers which were calibrated in l°C intervals.
Two thermometers were used in each ham: a 6-inch complete
immersion thermometer with a temperature range of 0 to l05°C,
and a l2-inch partial immersion thermometer with a -20°C to

+ll0°C temperature range.

Baking. Each ham was baked in a standard aluminum baking pan,
l8.75 inches long by l2.50 inches wide by 3.75 inches deep.
A l0.5-inch square wire rack, which stood on one-half inch
legs,was placed in each pan. Each pan and rack was coded
with metal rings strung on metal pins which were fastened to
the pan handle and the matching rack. The weight of each
coded pan and rack set was recorded.

A 2-deck Hotpoint roasting and baking oven, Model No.
HJ 225, with an air cushion bottom was used throughout the
study. Special fabrication in each deck included interior
lighting and two single-pane glass windows which facilitated

reading thermometers without opening the oven doors.

36

Boning and slicing. Hams were boned with a professional
boning knife with a 5.5-inch blade. Taste panel slices were
cut l/8-inch thick on a manually operated General slicing

machine, Model No. 225.
Preliminary Investigations

Six regular bone-in style hams, three uncooked and
three precooked, were baked and evaluated before the actual
study was started. The preliminary investigations served to
establish the final internal temperatures and to develop bon-
ing and separation techniques to be used throughout the study.
The taste panel was trained, using samples from the hams

baked during preliminary investigations.

Baking

Each oven was preheated to 325°F with upper and lower
grids on medium and the air vent closed. Because the perman-
ent pan codes were not visible through the windows of the oven,
aluminum foil strips were marked with red wax pencil and folded
over the edge of each pan so that code numbers were easily visi-
ble.

Each ham was placed fat side up on the rack in the bak-
ing pan. Thermometers were placed so that the bulbs were in
the center of the thickest portion of each ham. Three hams

were baked in each oven.

Determining final internal temperatures

Due to conflicting instructions on ham labels and the

37

lack of specific processing temperatures, it was necessary to
establish a standard to use as the final internal temperature
to which to heat the hams for this study. A bacteriologist
was consulted regarding the minimum internal temperatures for
safely cooking hams. As a result of this consultation the
uncooked hams in the preliminary investigation were cooked to
79°C internal temperature and the precooked hams to 66°C.
Because a preference for samples from hams heated to
79°C was indicated by the scores in the preliminary tests,
this was selected as the internal temperature for cooking all
hams in the study. Although in several earlier investigations
(Appendix A.) 70°C was used as the endpoint of cooking, selec-
tion on the basis of panel preference in the preliminary tests

was deemed equally valid.

Boning
A member of the meat division of the Michigan State

University Food Stores demonstrated the technique used to

bone hams for the campus food services (Figure 2). The chilled
hams from the preliminary bakings were then boned under the
supervision of the demonstrator. A diagram of the bone struc-
ture and placement in a ham helped to clarify the boning pro-

cess (Figure 3).

Removing aitch bone. Surplus exterior fat was trimmed away
and the ham was placed on the cutting board with the fat
side down. The fat and lean which covered the aitch bone

were removed so that the bone was exposed. The knife was

econ moa mcw>osom
L

 

 

 

.mgwc maficon pom pom: endomoopm

xcmcn wcH>OEom

L. ..
E.

.N opswwm

39

Skinless Shankicss Style
/\

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regular Bone - in St; Ic

Figure 3. A diagram of bone structure, sliceable portions,
and scrap portions of bone-in style hams.

4O

slipped under the edge of this broad flat bone found near the
surface on the butt and of the ham and worked carefully around
the bone, freeing it from the meat beneath. The free end of
the aitch bone was lifted to expose the Joint between the
aitch bone and the leg bone. This joint was disengaged with

the knife point, and the aitch bone was removed.

Removing the shanks. The shank was grasped in one hand and
moved back and forth until the shank bone and leg bone joint
was loosened. If the shank was not easily freed from the ham,
the knife tip was inserted into the joint to sever the con-

nection and the shank was cut from the ham.

Removing the legfbone. Removal of the aitch bone and the
shank bone exposed both ends of the leg bone. The next step
was the removal of the meat from below the leg bone by placing
the knife blade flat against the bone and cutting along the
full length of the bone. The portion of ham thus removed was
trimmed and the ends squared for slicing.

The knife tip was carefully worked along the bone to
cut connective tissues. When possible, the bone was encircled
with the fingers to help loosen it from the meat. The horse-
shoe portion, which remained after the leg bone was removed,
was trimmed and squared for slicing samples for panel members
to juige. The samples were sliced from the butt end of the

ham.

Preliminary Taste Panel. Slices from three uncooked and three

4i

precooked hams were presented to a panel of seven judges.
Score sheets were discussed (a copy of the score sheet is
in the Appendix).

The judges were asked to cut a 0.50 to 0.75-inch square
sample from the same muscle of each Slice and to chew each
sample until it was completely masticated. They recorded the
number of chews for each sample and also assigned it a numeri-
cal tenderness score. A tenderness table for each judge was
compiled on the basis of the scores and number of chews re-
corded for these samples. The individual tenderness range
cards were used by each judge for scoring samples for tenderness
throughout this investigation. The judges also evaluated the
aroma, flavor of lean, flavor of fat, color, tenderness, tex-

ture, and juiciness of each sample.
Prebaking Preparation

Each ham was assigned a 5-digit number, from a table
of randomly assorted digits. After coding, hams were weighed,

measured, and described prior to baking;

Weight data
The billed weight, initial weight, and the trimmed

weight of each ham were recorded. The weight of the ham was
recorded in pounds and ounces as it appeared on the label.
Some hams lacked billed weights.

The initial weights for the various styles of hams

were determined by a method appropriate for the type of

42

packaging. The wrapper was removed before a bone-in ham was
weighed. The weight of the visking-packed ham in its cover-
ing was recorded. The visking and metal plates were removed
after the ham was baked, and the weight deducted from the
previously recorded weight to determine the initial weight.
Unopened canned ham was weighed, the ham was removed from the
can, and the can was washed, dried, and weighed. The weight

of the ham in the can minus the weight of the empty can equaled
the initial weight.

The trimmed weightdetermination also varied with the
styles. The skin on the bone-in ham was slit with a sharp
knife and pulled from the ham. The weight of the skin was
recorded as trimmings, and was deducted from the initial
bone-in ham weight to give the amount of trimmed ham. The
initial and trimmed weights of visking packed ham were identi-
cal. Three slits were made in the visking on the top side to
prevent irregular breaking during baking. The gelatin and/or
packing fat were scraped from canned ham with a rubber scraper;
the remaining ham weight was the trimmed weight. The difference
between the initial weight and the trimmed weight was recorded

as trimmings.

Measurement 2333

The circumference, width, and thickness of each ham
was measured. When possible, the fat depth was also measured.
The circumference of each ham was determined by a string

which was drawn around the broadest portion of the ham and

43

measured to the nearest l/8-inch. The length, width, and
thickness of each ham was measured to the nearest l/8-inch
with the device described in the equipment section. The
depth of the fat was measured on bone-in and canned hams.

A metal skewer, inserted through the fat layer, was used to
measure the fat to the nearest l/8-inch in five places on
the fat side of the ham: collar, center, left center, right

center, and top.

Descriptive 2233

Notes were made about the general shape and any peculi-
arities of each ham. Sometimes rough sketches were drawn.
The shank length of the regular bone-in style of ham was mea-

sured. The degree of trim was also observed.

Thermometer placement

A 6-inch thermometer was inserted vertically from the
fat side of the ham into the thickest portion of the ham so
that the thermometer bulb was as near the center of the ham
as possible. Because the short thermometers could not be
read until the internal temperature had risen considerably,
a l2-inch partial immersion thermometer, which was too long
to stand vertically in the oven, was inserted diagonally in-
to each ham so that the bulbs of the two thermometers touched.
This arrangement facilitated the recording of internal tem-
peratures throughout the entire baking period. If there was
a discrepancy between the two temperatures, the short ther-

mometer reading was preferred.

44
Baking Process

The internal temperatures of the hams were recorded
at the time they were placed in the 325°F ovens and at 20-
minute intervals until the internal temperatures approached
70°C. The temperatures were then checked every five minutes
until the internal temperatures reached 79°C. The ham was
removed from the oven and allowed to remain in the baking
pan at room temperature for 30 minutes. The temperature of
the ham at the end of the 30-minute cooling period was re-

corded and the thermometers were removed.
Handling the Baked Ham

Part of the yield data was collected before the cooked
hams were refrigerated. The major portion of the data was

collected on the following day.

Treatment 21.222 before chilling

After essential data collection, the hot hams were
placed on coded aluminum trays and refrigerated overnight.
Bone-in and canned hams required slightly different treat-
ment than that given visking-packed hams. Ham drippings
were collected and saved for future examination.

The baking pan containing a cooked bone-in or canned
ham, rack, and drippings was weighed. The hot ham was care-
fully lifted from the baking pan, placed fat side up on the
tray, and refrigerated.

The total weight of each cooked visking-packed ham,

45

rack, and drippings was recorded. With the ham remaining on
the rack in the baking pan, the metal end plates were cut
loose and removed. The visking was slit from one end of the
ham to the other and carefully peeled away from the ham, using
a sharp knife to help free the visking. The ham was allowed
to remain on the rack so that the drippings could fall into
the pan. After the dripping ceased, the ham was placed on

a tray. Any ham which remained on the metal plates and visk-
ing was removed and added to the tray and the tray of ham

and scrap meat was refrigerated. The weight of the visking
and plates was recorded.

The baking pan, the rack, and ham drippings were weighed.
By deducting the pan and rack weight from the total weight, the
weight of the drippings was determined.

Any material remaining on the rack was scraped into the
pan and the rack was removed. The drippings were poured into
graduated cylinders and the pan scraped clean with a rubber
scraper. The cylinders were covered with saran and saved
until the following day when additional drippings from the

refrigerated hams were added.

Treatment 21 chilled Egg

The amount of sliceable ham, the edible fat and lean
scrap, and the inedible portion from each ham was determined
the day after the hams were baked. Total cooking losses were
calculated and recorded. Slices from each ham were evaluated

by the taste panel.

46

Dividing the ham into portiogg. Each ham was lifted from
the cooling tray and any solidified fat drippings or con-
gealed nonfat drippings which adhered to the bottOm of the
ham were scraped into the tray and added to the drippings
previously collected. The ham was then weighed and placed
on a cutting board. Procedures differed for dividing the
various styles of hams into sliceable, edible lean scrap,
edible fat scrap, and inedible portions.

Bone-in hams were boned according to the method de-
scribed under Preliminary Investigations and then were divided
into portions. The horseshoe portion and the portion from be-
low the leg bone were SQuared, trimmed, and counted as slice-
able ham. The bones were cleaned and weighed. The meat re-
moved from bones was placed with the edible scrap; pieces of
gristle were counted as inedible scrap. The edible scrap was
divided into fat and lean, by tearing each piece of scrap
apart so that visible sections of fat could be separated from
lean. One-eighth-inch slices were taken from the butt end of
the horseshoe portion for the panel to evaluate.

Visking-packed and canned hams were each cut crosswise
into thirds. Both ends of the center section were examined
to locate the muscle structure which most nearly resembled
those in the panel slices from the bone-in hams. The slices
for the taste panel were taken from the selected end. The
remainder of the ham was sliced and the slices were sorted
into those which were servable and those which were not

Suitable for sliced portions. The combined weight of the

1+7

servable slices and the panel slices was designated as the
sliceable ham portion. The remaining parts, unsuitable for
sliced servings, were divided into edible fat, edible lean,
or inedible scrap.
The tray containing the drippings from the cooled ham
was weighed and the weight of the empty tray was deducted.
The resulting weight plus the weight of the drippings col-
lected on the cooking day were combined to obtain the total
weight of drippings for each ham. The tray was placed in a
warm oven until the drippings could be easily poured and
scraped into the cylinder containing the original drippings.
If there was not a clear fat and nonfat separation, the cylin-
ders of drippings were placed in hot water until the division
was evident. The total milliliters of drippings and the separ-
ate amounts of fat and nonfat drippings were recorded. The
color, odor, and clarity of the drippings were observed.
Separate weights were determined for the fat drip and
nonfat drip from each ham. About 50 ml. of fat drippings
from each cylinder were poured into a l20 ml. graduated
cylinder. The small cylinder of fat was weighed and the
weight of the empty cylinder subtracted. The resulting weight
was divided by the number of milliliters in the sample of fat
to determine the weight of one milliliter of fat. By multi-
plying the weight of one milliliter of fat by the total mill-
iliters of the fat, the total weight of fat was determined.
The difference between the weights of the total drippings
and the weight of the fat drippings provided the weight of

the nonfat drippings.

48
Evaluation of Hams

The hams were evaluated subjectively by a taste panel.
The panel scores and yield data for the types of hams were

analyzed statistically.

Subjective testing

One slice from each of the six hams was placed on a
coded plate on a tray and presented to each of seven judges.
Each judge received the slice cut from the same relative posi-
tion in each ham. Glasses of water at room temperature were
supplied along with the ham samples. Seats were assigned to
provide an arrangement that discouraged the panelists from
interchanging remarks or facial expressions.

The judges scored each sample for odor, flavor of lean,
flavor of fat, color, tenderness, texture, and juiciness. The
scores were based on a scale ranging from i to 7. A score of
7 indicated excellent quality; a score of l represented un-
acceptable quality. Descriptive terms for each factor were
listed on the score card so that the judges could check the

reasons for the numerical ratings, especially for low ratings.

Siatjstical Analysis

Analyses of variance were used in evaluating the data.
The yield data and the taste panel scores were analyzed accord-
ing to procedures recommended by the statistician of the Agri-
cultural Experiment Station.

The weights of sliceable ham, lean scrap, fat scrap,

49

bone, inedible scrap, total cooking losses, volatile losses,
nonfat drippings and fat drippings for each ham were con-
verted into percentages based on the raw trimmed weight of
the ham. The variations in percentages within the ten repli-
cations and among the eight types of hams were analyzed for
each yield factor. If the differences were significant, the
Studentized range table was used to determine which hams
yielded significantly more or less than other hams.

The analyses of variance for aroma, flavor of lean,
flavor of fat, color, tenderness, texture and juiciness were
based on the average taste panel scores. Because all panel
scores for each palatabillty factor for each ham were averaged,
judges were not included as a source of variance in the analy-

898.

50

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Yield, cooking loss, and palatability data were col-
lected and analyzed statistically to determine whether differ-
ences among eight types of ham were significant. Statistical
results were examined for patterns in differences among the
five basic styles of ham: regular bone-in, skinless shank-
less, boned rolled, splits,and canned pear-shaped. Differences
between results for uncooked and precooked hams were also stud-
ied. Percentages, statistical analyses, and subjective evalua-
tions were considered in the interpretation of results for
each type of ham. Cooking time and temperature data from all

types of hams were compared.
Yield and Cooking Losses

Sliceable portion, lean scrap, fat scrap, inedible
scrap, bone, skin, fat drip, non fat drip, volatile loss,
and total cooking losses were converted from weights to per-
centages (Table l). Analysis of variance revealed highly
significant differences among types of ham for all yield
and cooking loss data except inedible scrap, bone, and skin
(Table 2). Some comparisons in these analyses which did not
show highly significant differences did show differences at
the 5 percent level of significance. Differences in bone
losses were significant at the 5 percent level; inedible
scrap and skin analyses showed no significant differences.

Graphical presentation (Figurell) agreed with the statistical

5i

Table l. Mean percentages of yield and cooking losses of
eight types of ham (based on the trimmed weight
before cooking).

 

 

 

 

 

 

' Re ular bone-in ‘ Skinless shankless
%l . A2 l 2
uncooked precooked uncooked precooked
Sliceable
Portion 40.52 46.28 44.23 44.47
Lean
Scrap I5.07 l2.08 l4.70 l6.82
Fat
Scrap ll.8l l0.56 6.84 6.57
Inedible
Scrap l.l9 0.85 l.l0 l.24
Bone 7.45 8.l3 7.34 7.l6
Skins 2.24 2.06 ---- ----
Gelatin
and Fat* ---- ---- ---- ----
Fat
Drip 7.35 6.09 5.39 3.72
Nonfat
Drip 5.23 4.43 4.l5 4.39
Volatile
Loss ll.35 ll.55 .l6.23 l5.6l
Total Cooking
Losses 23.93 22.07 25.77 23.72

*percentage of initial ham weight

52

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table l. (continued)
=====::::: --——-r~
Bongd rolled Split Canned
l Ce 0
uncooked? precooked precooked pearshape
58.06 6l.66 55.59 7C.83
I4.48 (0.07 I2.83 3.86
5.l0 4.07 4.47 2.l7
---- ---- ---- l0.48
3.20 2.l7 4.05 3.53
6.6l 7.60 7.49 3.8l
l2.53 l4.40 l5.54 I5.78
22.34 24.l7 27.08 23.l2

53

Table 2. Mean squares and significant differences for yield and
cooking losses of eight types of ham*.

W

 

 

Source of Mean Significant Differences#
Variance D.F. Square l% level 5% level only
Sliceable 7 l,l07.5l E>32 C, 0 A2 82 B, A, None

c2>p>A2 B2 8, A,

 

 

c,p) A2 82 8, A,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A2) Al
Lee? 7 l64.ll B2) 0 A2 C2)E A, > A2
Scra
p 82A,8,c,o A2 p>c2
Al Bl CI) Ce) 5
0 A2 C?) E
Fat 7 l07o90 Al>A2>Bl 92 CI 0 02>E Bl>°l
Scrap fi— 82) c,o
s.)o c2) E “"
82)c2)E
CI D C2>E
IrTEdible 3 2% None w" None
Scrap
Bone 3 l.80 None A2)'Bl B2
A2 Al 8| 32
San l .l4 None VT T None
Fatv Drip 7 28.95 A.) B, o 82 E c, c2 A,)A2
-—1=======__. 3,),3 82
B E) c
Al A2 Bl "'""’2 2
A2) 2 E c, 02
B')E CI C2

 

54

Table 2. (Continued)

 

 

W
W—

 

 

 

 

 

Source of Mean Significant Differences}
Variance D.F. Square i % level 5% level only
c,)>8, E
Vol:tile 7 40.57 B, E 82 D)C, A2 A, None
L°88 8, E 82 0 ca 0,
02) A2 A,

in Losses
9 o s, 02 A, 82 E cI A2 B,)lC, A2
-"====——'— —-—-

 

W

# )z Significantly greater than those that follow. Ham types
are listed in order of descending averages. Underlining
denotes no significant difference.

* KEY: A; Regular,-bone-ln, uncooked
A2 Regular bone-in, precooked
B, Skinless shankless, uncooked
82 Skinless shankless, precooked
C, Boned rolled, uncooked
02 .Boned rolled, precooked
D Splits, precooked
E Canned, pear-shaped

Legend:

I00

90

80

7C

60

5O

4O

30

2O

0

 

Type Regular

of bone-in
Pam unckd.
Figure 4.

bone-in
preckd.

Yield and cooking

V Sliceable portion

Lean scrap

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fat scrap

 

Bone

 

Regular Skinless Skinless
shankless shankless
preckd.

unckd.

 

rolled
unckd.

losses of eight types of ham:

- inedible scrap

 

 

___J Volatile loss

“I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

v

 

 

 

Boned Splits
rolled preckd.
preckd.

based on trimmed weight of ham prior to cooking.

 

 

 

 

%

 

 

 

percentages

56

results, which showed no common patterns of yield or cook-
ing losses among the five styles of ham or between uncooked

and precooked hams within a particular style.

Sliceable portion

Differences in the amount of sliceable meat were all

 

significant at the l percent level and placed the styles of

ham in three distinct catagories: canned, visking packed,

and bone-in hams. Canned.pear-shaped hams yielded more
sliceable portion than visking packed and bone-in hams. Visk-
ing packed, boned rolled, and split style hams yielded signifi-
cantly more sliceable ham than regular bone-in and skinless
shankless hams.

In all cases precooked hams yielded higher percentages
of sliceable meat than uncooked hams of the same style; how-
ever, in only one case was this difference significant. Per-
centages of sliceable portions in regular bone-in precooked
and uncooked hams differed significantly at the l percent

level.

Lean GCFEE

Statistical differences in the leap scrap among styles
of ham did not follow an apparent pattern. Canned pear-shaped
ham yielded less lean scrap, at the l percent level of signifi-
cance, than all other hams. The amount of lean scrap, from
precooked skinless shankless ham was significantly greater
than the percentage of lean scrap from splits, precooked

regular bone-in, precooked boned rolled, and canned pear-

57

shaped hams. Differences in the amount of lean scrap from
precooked skinless shankless and the three styles of uncooked
ham were not significant.

The three uncooked types of ham did not yield statis-
tically different amounts of lean scrap; nor did three of
the four precooked types differ at the l percent level of
significance. At the 5 percent level, however, the amount
of lean scrap from cooked split ham was greater than that
from precooked boned rolled hams.

Differences between lean scrap from uncooked and pre-
cooked hams of the same style were significant in two in-
stances. The amount of lean scrap from uncooked regular
bone-in ham was significantly greater, at the 5 percent
level than lean scrap from precooked regular bone-in ham;
at the l percent level, precooked boned rolled ham yielded
significantly more lean scrap than uncooked boned roiled ham.
The amounts of lean scrap from skinless shankless uncooked

and precooked hams did not differ statistically.

at scrap

Percentages of fat scrap placed the hams in three
catagories: bone-in styles, visking-packed styles, and
canned style. Differences in fat scrap among catagories,
however, were not all significant at the same level. Canned
pear-shaped hams produced less fat scrap, significant at the
l percent level, than all other hams. Percentages of fat

scrap from regular bone-in uncooked and precooked ham were

58

significantly greater at the l percent level than fat scrap
from all other types of hams. At the 5 percent level of
significance skinless shankless hams yielded more fat scrap
than visking-packed hams. Differences in fat scrap yields
among visking-packed hams were not significant.

Uncooked hams yielded higher percentages of fat scrap
than did precooked hams of the same style. However, the only

significant difference in fat scrap within a style was found

between uncooked and precooked regular bone-in hams.

Bone

 

The weights of ham bones differed at the 5 percent
level of significance. Precooked regular bone-in hams con-
tained significantly more bone than both uncooked and pre-
cooked skinless shankless hams. Uncooked regular bone-in
hams and skinless shankless hams did not yield significantly
different amounts of bone. No significant differences were
found between precooked and uncooked hams of the same style.
Reasons for the significant differences between the weights
of bones from precooked regular bone-in hams and skinless

shankless hams were not readily apparent.

.2222
Regular bone-in hams produced the largest amount of
fat drip; boned rolled hams produced the least amount of fat
drip. Significant differences in the amount of fat drip
revealed no divisions according to styles or kinds of ham.

In a few instances the ranking and significant differences

 

59

in fat drip resembled those found in the analysis of fat
scrap.

Uncooked regular bone-in hams produced more fat drip,
at the l percent level of significance, than did all other
hams except precooked regular bone-in ham. The difference
between the fat drip from uncooked and precooked regular
bone-in hams was significant only at the 5 percent level.
Precooked regular bone-in ham drip contained significantly
more fat at the l percent level than did drip from visking-
packed, precooked skinless shankless and canned pear-shaped
hams. A similarity was noted between these statistical re-
sults and those from the analysis of fat scrap: in both
instances regular bone-in styles were significantly fatter
than all other styles. 3

Uncooked skinless shankless ham drip contained signifi-
cantly more fat, at the l percent level, than the drip from
canned pear-shaped and boned rolled hams. At the 5 percent
level of significance, fat drip from uncooked skinless
shankless were also greater than those from split and pre-
cooked skinless shankless hams.

Precooked skinless shankless and canned pear-shaped
hams produced significantly more fat drip at the 5 percent
level than the fat drip from precooked boned rolled hams.
The difference between fat drip from split style hams and
precooked boned rolled hams was highly significant. The
least amount of fat drip from all hams came from the pre-

cooked boned rolled hams.

60

Precooked hams produced more fat drip than uncooked
hams of the same style. A similar pattern was found in the
analysis of fat scrap. Differences in fat drip between un-
cooked and precooked regular bone-in hams and between skinless
shankless uncooked and precooked hams were significant at the
5 percent level. Uncooked and precooked boned rolled name

did not produce significantly different amounts of fat drip.

Nonfat,gpip

Percentages of nonfat drip fell into three divisions:
visking packed hams produced the largest amount, bone-in
styles followed, and canned hams yielded the smallest amount
of nonfat drip. No pattern of differences in the amount of
nonfat drip from uncookedand precooked hams was evident.

Nonfat drip did not differ significantly among visk-
ing packed hams. Precooked boned rolled and split hams
produced more nonfat drip than was produced by bone-in or
canned pear-shaped hams, significant at the l percent level.
Uncooked boned rolled hams yielded greater amounts of non-
fat drip, at the l percent level of significance, than did
uncooked skinless shankless or canned pear-shaped hams. Un-
cooked boned rolled hams produced significantly more nonfat
drip, at the 5 percent level only, than the precooked bone-in
styles of ham.

Significant differences in the amount of nonfat drip
did not exist between groups of uncooked and precooked hams

or between uncooked or precooked hams of the same style.

Percentages of nonfat drip were greater for precooked boned
rolled and precooked skinless shankless hams than for cor-
responding uncooked hams. The reverse was found for nonfat
drip from regular bone-in hams: precooked hams produced less

nonfat drip than did uncooked hams.

Volatile Lpgg

All volatile losses showed significant differences at
the l percent level. A pattern of losses among styles or
between uncooked and precooked hams was not found. The
greatest average amount of volatile loss was from uncooked
skinless shankless hams and the least amount was from uncooked
regular bone-in hams. Volatile losses from skinless shank-
less, canned pear-shaped, and split style hams did not differ
statistically from each other or from precooked boned rolled
hams, but were statistically greater than volatile losses from
uncooked boned rolled and from both types of regular bone-in
hams. Volatile loss from precooked boned rolled ham were
significantly greater than those from regular bone-in hams.

Differences in the amount of volatile loss between
groups of uncooked and precooked hams or within styles were
not significant. Uncooked skinless shankless hams produced
higher percentages of volatile loss than did precooked skin-
less shankless hams. Volatile losses were greater for pre-
cooked boned rolled and regular bone-in hams than for un-

cooked hams of the same style.

Total cooking losses

Percentages of fat drip, nonfat drip, and volatile
loss for each ham were combined and the total cooking losses
subjected to an analysis of variance. The results of the
analysis of total cooking losses showed fewer statistical
differences among styles than were found in analyses of
individual loss factors. No pattern of losses was revealed
among styles or between uncooked and precooked kinds of ham.

Precooked split style hams produced the greatest
amount of total cooking loss, which was statistically greater
than losses from any other ham except uncooked skinless shank-
less hams. Total cooking losses from split style hams were
greater at the l percent level than losses from canned pear-
shaped, uncooked boned rolled, and precooked regular bone-in
hams. Differences in total cooking losses from split hams
and losses from precooked boned rolled, uncooked regular
bone—in, and precooked skinless shankless hams were signifi-
cant only at the 5 percent level.

Total cooking losses did not differ significantly
at the l percent level among regular bone-in, skinless shank-
less, boned rolled, and canned pear-shaped hams. Total cook-
ing losses from uncooked skinless shankless hams, however, were
significantly greater, at the 5 percent level, than losses from

uncooked boned rolled and precooked regular bone-in hams.

Types of ham
The yield of each type of ham was considered in relation

63

to the yield of corresponding uncooked and precooked ham of
the same style and in relation to yields of other styles of
ham. Discussion of individual types of ham was aided by
supplementing the tables of yield percentages (Table l) and
analyses results (Table 2) with a table of statistical com-
parisons between all possible pairs of the eight types of

ham in this study (Table 3).

figgular bone-in hams. Uncooked and precooked regular bone-in
hams differed significantly from each other in four yield fac-
tors. Precooked regular bone-in hams produced significantly
more sliceable meat than was removed from uncooked regular
bone-in hams. Uncooked regular bone-in hams yielded signifi-
cantly greater amounts of lean scrap, fat scrap, and fat drip
than precooked regular bone-in hams yielded.

Uncooked regular bone-in hams produced the least amount
of sliceable meat, the most fat scrap and fat drip, next to
the highest percentage of lean scrap, and compared favorably
with six other types of ham in the amount of total cooking
losses. The average percentage of sliceable meat, 40.52,
in uncooked regular bone-in hams was significantly lower
than the amount of sliceable meat from all types of ham ex-
cept the skinless shankless hams. The amount of lean scrap
from uncooked regular bone-in hams was significantly more
than the percentages of lean scrap from precooked boned rolled
hams and from canned pear-shaped hams. Total cooking losses

from uncooked regular bone-in hams, 23.93 percent were not

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

sew tsm< 4¢m< AWN< saw u a m<

sec sso sec ssm< esw< sec 0 w-m<

srwu eswu esm< esw< ssmo mo a N<

s_o s¢m< ¢¢N< ss.o .u a w<

esmm l ssmm sm< tsm< ##mm mm a N<

r s.m ¢s_m sm< tem< .m w N<
IE“? . luv: 4 El. ..< Lump “E. S

we llnn wen sen tuwnl smwn sec .Q a _<
esmo ssmo es.< ¢¢.< **_< sewn up a .<

uu.< lwu_< ss.w .0 s .<

scmm s. lhu_< 4 mm m .K

:wwm se_< r¢_< .m a _<

:.a ¢s_< s_< s¢m< .m< s._<

mowmou «sou a_co a.co aacum amcom nocmueoo
oc.xooo .auo» o..u..o> saccoz can scam and cams ~_aamu._m . awash
lwww (w, luv win» innuunnu

 

 

.wEm: co moaxp costume wumwo_

Amoucucoc».o «cmu_u_cm_mc_ eaau_uc_ mouaam xca.mv

oc.xooo ucm u_o_» co wcom.caoeou

.n m_omh

su__.nanoca co .m>a_ mm sea on coem.e s.ueau_c.cm.m*
ss___nanoca co .oso. a. one we cmcm_c s.ueau_c_cm.m¢s

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

uuaacwicama .uuccmo m noxooumca .mmo_xcacm mmm_c.xm mm

noxooomca .mw__am o umxoooc: .mmm.xcmcm www.c_xm .m

noxoouoca .um.» um._oc nocom mo noxoouoca .c.iocon cn_nmmm.m<
umxoouc: .um.a um__oc nocom .u umxoodc: .c.iucoa cd_nmom .< «>mx

Hr ll l lmunnnnnfluunnnnnnnfll. ll lllllllllli‘ l, 4»
tea .tto . l *to **0 atm ,m d 0
ll samo cu . sewn tswo .##m m a No
Nb tea - l llsor sewn o M;mo
l :tc.o *¢_o i .t#_o. s#_u saw u $1.0
risen cs0 . o al_o
.D r **_0 mm a .U
,o m m l
. i *t m at m #*m u a mm
l so see *Nm ##Nm sso .o w mm
. ##Nu smm #*Nm ##Nm *smu “No a mm
- ssmm *_o smm ¢*_o .o a mm
ss.m ,**_m s*_m sew w w._m
- *so *.m
s m sew .

*_m ¢¢_m *s_o ¢*_m *_m ¢¢_u A _o a .m

 

s_m mm s-_m

66

significantly different from total cooking losses from
other hams.

Precooked regular bone-in hams yielded more sliceable
meat than other bone-in types, the third least amount of lean
scrap, next to the most fat drip and fat scrap, and the low-
est percentage of total cooking losses. Although precooked
regular bone-in hams produced a higher average percentage
of sliceable meat, 46.28, than other bone-in types of ham,
the amount was significantly less than sliceable meat from
visking-packed and canned hams. The amount of lean scrap
which was separated from precooked regular bone-in hams was
significantly greater than that from canned pear-shaped ham
and significantly less than the amount of lean scrap from
precooked skinless shankless hams. The amounts of fat scrap
and fat drip from precooked regular bone-in hams were exceeded
only by fat scrap and fat drip from uncooked regular bone-in
hams. The percentage of total cooking losses from precooked
regular bone-in hams, 22.07, was the lowest in the study; the
amount was significantly different, however, only from the

split style hams.

Skinless snankless hams. Only one significant difference in
average yield and cooking losses was found between uncooked
and precooked skinless shankless hams. Uncooked skinless
shankless hams produced significantly more fat drip than did
precooked skinless shankless hams.

Uncooked skinless shankless hams yielded next to the

e7

lowest amount of sliceable ham, third largest amount of lean
scrap, fat scrap, and fat drip, and next to the highest per-
centage of total cooking losses. The average 44.2} percent
sliceable portion from uncooked skinless shankless hams was
significantly less than the amount of sliceable portion from
visking-packed and canned pear-shaped hams, but did not differ
significantly from the other bone-in types of ham. The per-
centage of lean scrap was significantly greater for uncooked
skinless shankless hams than from precooked boned rolled hams
and canned pear-shaped hams. Average total cooking losses of
25.77 percent from uncooked skinless shankless hams were not
statistically different from other total cooking losses.
Precooked skinless shankless hams yielded third from
the lowest amount of sliceable meat, the most lean scrap, and
the fourth least amount of total cooking losses. The per-
centage of sliceable meat from precooked skinless shankless
hams, 44.47, was significantly less than that from all but
bone-in type hams. The amount of lean scrap from uncooked
skinless shankless hams was significantly greater than that
from Splits, precooked regular boneein, precooked boned rolled,
and pear-shaped hams. Total cooking losses from uncooked skin-
less shankless hams, 23.72 percent, were not significantly

different from total cooking losses from other hams.

goned rolled hams. The only significant difference found in
yield and cooking losses between uncooked and precooked boned

rolled hams was the amount of lean scrap. Uncooked boned

68

rolled hams produced more lean scrap than did precooked boned
rolled hams.

Uncooked boned rolled hams contained the third highest
percentage of sliceable meat, fourth largest amount of lean
scrap, and yielded next to the least amount of total cooking
losses. The 58.06 percent of sliceable meat from uncooked
boned rolled hams was significantly greater than sliceable
meat from bone-in styles and significantly less than slice-
able ham from canned pear-shaped ham. The amount of lean
scrap taken from uncooked boned rolled hams was significantly
more than lean scrap from precooked boned rolled and from
canned pear-shaped hams. Total cooking losses from uncooked
boned rolled hams was 22.34 percent which was significantly
less than those from Split style hams.

Precooked boned rolled hams contained next to the high-
est percentage of sliceable ham and lean scrap and yielded
the third highest percentage of total cooking losses. Pre-
cooked boned rolled hams yielded 6l.66 percent sliceable por-
tion, which was significantly less than that from canned
pear-shaped and significantly more than the sliceable meat
from split and bone-in style hams. The amount of lean scrap
from precooked boned rolled hams was significantly greater
than the amount of lean scrap from canned pear-shaped hams '
and was significantly less than that from precooked skinless
shankless hams. The percentage of total cooking losses from
precooked boned rolled hams, 24.l7,did not differ significantly

from other percentages of total cooking losses.

69

§plit hams. Only precooked split style hams were available
in the l2 to l4-pound weight range. Split hams yielded the
fourth largest percentage of sliceable meat, the fourth low-
est percentage of lean scrap, and the greatest amount of total
cooking losses. Sliceable ham from split hams was 55.59 per-
cent, which was slgnlficantly less than percentages of slice-
able meat from canned pear-shaped and from precooked boned
rolled hams, and was significantly greater than sliceable
yields from bone-in style hams. The percentage of lean scrap
from split hams was significantly more than that from canned
pear-shaped hams and was significantly less than the amount
of lean scrap from precooked skinless shankless hams. Total
cooking losses of 27.08 percent were significantly greater

than total cooking losses from all other hams in this study.

génned pear-shaped ham . Canned pear-shaped hams contained
significantly more sliceable meat and significantly less lean
and fat scrap than other hams and yielded the third least
amount of total cooking losses. The highest percentage of
sliceable portion,70.83, and the lowest percentage of lean
scrap and fat scrap indicate that canned pear-shaped hams
yielded more edible meat than any of the other seven types
of ham. Because these percentages were based on trimmed
weight, they do not take into consideration the amount of
packing gelatin and fat which is purchased with canned pear-
shaped hams. An average of at least one pound of gelatin

and fat was removed from each canned pear-shaped ham prior

70

to baking. The percentage of total cooking losses from canned
pear-shaped hams was 23.l2, which was significantly less than

total cooking losses from split hams.
Palatability

No statistical differences existed among averages for
taste panel evaluations of five styles of ham. Aroma, flavor
of lean, flavor of fat, color, tenderness, texture, and juici-
ness were scored according to a scale of l to 7, or unacceptable
to excellent (Table 4). Average scores of "fair" were given
to all types of ham for aroma, tenderness, juiciness. Scores
ranging from "poor" to "fair" described the panel's evaluation
of the flavor of lean and fat, color, and texture. Panel mem-
bers checked descriptive terms which indicated that, although
similar scores were given for hams of all styles, in some in-

stances the reasons for the scores varied among styles.

m

Although panel members checked all descriptive terms on
the score sheet for the odor of each type of ham, mlldness was
the most frequently observed characteristic for each type of
ham. The odors of several regular bone-in and precooked boned
rolled hams were defined as sharp. Strong and foreign odors
were detected more often in regular bone-in hams than in other
hams. Uncooked boned rolled and canned pear-shaped hams were

occasionally faint in odor.

«cm__ooxu N
noon xco> m
noom m

c_am a

goon n

coca xco> N
_

o.nm~aouumc0 "mucous 0» max

 

I‘l-

 

sgpfl.

 

 

 

0_.¢ mm.¢ .0.¢ om.n 00.: no.¢ .~¢.¢ w¢.¢ mom:

i_u_30

om.n n_.¢ om.m _o.¢ um.m ©_.¢ wm.¢ om.s mczwxmh

on.¢ ¢@.¢ w¢.¢ mm.¢ nm.¢ ww.s 00.: nm.s mom:

icmncmp

so.a mm.¢ o_.e mm.n mm.n mo.s mm.e om.q co_ou

mm.n 00.: _~.m so.¢ sm.n m..s .m.n sm.n co>m.u

one

0n.< m_.¢ ~0.m mm.m @0.¢ .m.¢ mm.¢ mn.¢ co>m.m

cmou

nm.¢ m¢.¢ Nm.¢ sm.¢ mm.¢ mw.¢ om.¢ mm.¢ mEoc<
Bchmcwma nmxooomco, nmxoouoca coxoooca nmxoouoca umxoouc: noxooooua ooxoooc:

m o Null .0 mm .m. we .a Losses

nmccmo u_.aw uo__oc umcom, mom-xcwcm mmm.:.xm c.1mcoo cm.:mmm

5.0.... i. . ‘
Ilse-Ills..-

.mEmc ocsoa q_im. cow specum .mcma mama“ mmmcm>< .a m.cmh

Flavor 31 L312
The flavor of lean ham from five types of ham was

predominately salty, according to taste panel evaluations;
the other three types of ham were mainly mild or typical in
flavor. Precooked regular bone-in and skinless shankless
hams, uncooked and precooked boned rolled hams, and canned
pear-shaped hams often contained salty-flavored lean. The
lean flavor of uncooked regular bone-in hams and uncooked
skinless shankless hams was described frequently as typical,
and occasionally as mild or salty. Split style hams often
contained mild-flavored lean; however, salty flavors were

frequently noted.

Flavor 2: 13;

The flavor of fat in six types of ham often tasted
typical to panel members; fat from the other two types of
ham was often described as salty for one type and rancid for
the other. Uncooked and precooked regular bone-in, uncooked
skinless shankless, uncooked and precooked boned rolled, and
canned pear-shaped hams contained typically-flavored fat.
Fat from precooked skinless shankless hams was frequently
salty. Split hams often contained rancid fat. Rancidity was
also noted several times in fat from regular bone-in, skinless

shankless, precooked boned rolled, and canned pear-shaped hams.

Color
The color of all types of ham was frequently mottled

and/or irridescent. Mottling was noted more often in bone-in

73

and canned hams than in visking-packed hams. Irridescence,
which is caused by refraction of light from fat on the cut
surface of the meat (29), was most frequently observed in
skinless shankless hams, and was also frequently found in
regular bone-in, precooked boned rolled, and split style hams.

Hams were generally light to medium pink color.’

Tenderness

Tenderness scores for the five styles of ham were based
primarily on the number of chews required to completely masti-
eats a standard size sample. Various remarks from the taste
panel helped to describe reasons for the scores. Few comments
about the tenderness of regular bone-in styles were recorded.
Skinless shankless hams were reported as being rubbery, flakey,
and gristly. In some instances boned rolled hams were mushy,
powdery or rubbery. Rubberiness was the most common descrip-
.tion for the tenderness of split hams. Canned pear-shaped hams

were often flakey.

Texture

Descriptions of the texture varied considerably among
hams within types. Terms used to describe texture included
spongy, coarse, stringy, fine, and separation of fiber. Large
pockets and/or streaks of fat were found in samples from all
types of ham. Slices of visking-packed and canned pear-shaped
hams often contained portions which were cut parallel with the

muscle fibers.

74

Juicine§§

Taste panel members occasionally remarked that ham sam-
ples were either too dry to too wet. Samples from all types
of ham were described at least once as being too dry. Slices
of visking-packed and canned hams frequently appeared wet and

felt slippery to panel members.
Cooking Time and Temperatures

The time required to cook five styles of l2 to lA-pound
hams to an internal temperature of 79°C varied considerably
among and within types of ham. The internal temperature of
the hams continued to rise after removal of the hams from the
oven.

The number of minutes per pound required to cook each
ham was calculated. Broad ranges in minutes per pound re-
sulted within and among types of ham. The variations sub-
stantiate the use of thermometers to determine the doneness
of meat. In the interpretation of data from the overall ham
project, an attempt will be made to correlate the measurements
and cooking times and perhaps a pattern for a new method of
predicting cooking time may be developed.

Although all hams remained in the oven until internal
ham temperatures were 79°C, temperatures taken one-half hour
after removal of the hams from the ovens were higher than 79°C.
Final internal temperatures ranged from 80 to 87°C. Internal
temperature rises after removing hams from the oven were also

reported by previous investigators (l, 8, 36, 47, 50).

75

SUMMARY

The yield and palatability of five styles of l2 to l4-
pound hams were evaluated in this initial phase of a project
in which hams in 2-pound weight ranges, from 6 to 22 pounds,
will be investigated. Regular bone-in, skinless shankless,
boned rolled, splits, and canned pear-shaped hams were pre-
pared and cooked according to a standard procedure. Both un-
cooked and precooked regular bone-in hams,skinless shankless
hams, and boned rolled hams were included, making a total of
eight types of hams studied in this phase of the project.

Hams were baked in 325°F ovens to 79°C internal tempera-
ture. 0n the day following the cooking of the hams, sliceable
portion, lean scrap, fat scrap, bone, and inedible scrap weights
were determined. Fat drippings, nonfat drippings, and volatile
losses were also recorded. Seven taste panel members scored
slices from each ham for aroma, flavor of lean, flavor of fat,
color, tenderness, texture, and juiciness.

Statistical analyses disclosed differences which were
attributable to variances among the eight types of ham.- Highly
significant differences were found for all yield and cooking
loss factors except bone, inedible scrap, and skin. Differences
in bone weights were significant only at the 5 percent level.
Significant differences in the percentages of sliceable meat
placed the hams into groupings according to styles of ham.
Canned pear-shaped hams produced more sliceable meat, 70.83

percent of the uncooked trimmed ham, than all other hams.

76

Visking-packed boned rolled and split style hams yielded
significantly greater amounts of sliceable meat than did
regular bone-in or skinless shankless hams. The least average
amount of sliceable ham, #0.52 percent, was from uncooked regu-
lar bone-in hams. Precooked hams yielded higher averages of
sliceable meat than uncooked hams of the same styles; however,
the only significant difference between the amount of slice-
able meat from precooked and uncooked hams was in regular
bone-in style hams.

Canned pear-shaped hams yielded significantly less lean
and fat scrap, 3.88 percent and 2.l7 percent, than all other
hams; otherwise significant differences in scrap meat did not
form clear-cut patterns according to styles or between uncooked
and precooked hams. Uncooked skinless shankless hams yielded
the highest percentage, i6.82, of lean scrap. Uncooked regu-
lar bone-in hams yielded ll.8l percent of fat scrap, which
was significantly higher than fat scrap from any other type
of ham.

Analyses of individual cooking loss factors showed
several highly significant differences among styles of ham.

The analysis of combined cooking losses, however, revealed

only one highly significant difference. Total cooking losses
from split style hams were 27.08 percent, and were statistically
greater than cooking losses from other hams, except uncooked
skinless shankless hams. The least amount of total cooking
losses, 22.07 percent, came from precooked regular bone-in

hams.

77

Taste panel scores did not differ significantly among
types of ham for any palatability factor. Scores for color,
texture, and for the flavor of lean and fat averaged fair to
poor. Average scores of fair were given for aroma, tenderness,
and juiciness.

Cocking time and temperature data were collected but
were not statistically analyzed for this portion of the pro-
ject. Examination of the data showed that the time required
to cook l2 to lA-pound hams to 790C internal temperature and
the rise in temperature after the hams were removed from the

oven varied greatly among and within types of ham.

r. Illlia’l '7 III!!!" III].

I Il;l;.|4\

2.

9.

l2.

I3.

78

LITERATURE CITED

Alexander, L. M. and Hankins, 0. G. Yield and quality
of cooked edible portion of smoked hams. Jour. Am.
Diet. Assn. 28:636. l952.

American Meat Institute, Division of Home Economics,
Smoked ham. 939 East 57th Street, Chicago 37, Illi-
nois. Report no. l2l956. (mimeo.)

Ayers, John C. Microbiological implications in the hand-
ling, slaughtering, and dressing of meat animals.
Advances in Food Research. 6:ll0. l955.

Bacteriology of semi-preserved meats. Food Manufacture.
30:l5. l955.

Baughman, M. D. The occurrence of potential staphylococcus
food poisoning organisms in food of large institutions.
Unpublished M.S. Thesis. Columbus, Ohio, Ohio State
University Library. l952.

Black, Lois C. and Lewis, Martha N. Effect on bacterial
growth of various methods of cooling cooked foods.
Jour. Am. Diet. Assn. 24:399. l948.

Bull, Sleeter, Meat for the table. New York. McGrsw—
Hill Book Co., Inc. l95l.

Burgoin, A. M. Shrinkage and carving waste in cuts of
beef and ham for institutional use.- Unpublished M.S.
Thesis. Ames, Iowa, Iowa State College Library. l929.

Committee on Preparation Factors, National Cooperative
Meat Investigations. Meat and meat cookery. Chicago.
National Live Stock and Meat Board. l942.

Dack, G. M.‘ Food poisoning. Rev. ed. Chicago. Univer-
sity of Chicago Press. l956.

Dawson, E. H., Dochterman, E. F., and Vettel, R. 8. Food
yields in institutional food service. II. Meats and
Poultry. Jour. Am. Diet. Assn. 34:37l. l958.

Deibel, Robert H. Studies on the enterococci from canned
hams. American Meat Institute Foundation.7 939 East
57th Street, Chicago 37, Illinois. Circular no. 35.
l957. '

Deskins, Barbara B. and Hussemann, Dorothy L. Effect of
cooking on bacterial count of ground has mixtures.
Jour. Am. Diet. Assn. 30:l245. l954.

l4.

l5.

I6.

I70

'8'.

I9.

20.

2|.

22.

23.

24.

79

Draim, V. The rate of surface cooling of cooked hams
and chickens and some observations on bacterial growth.
Unpublished M.S. Thesis, Columbus, Ohio, Ohio State
University Library. l948.

Dunker, C. F., Berman, M., Snider, G. 0., and Tubiash,
H. 8. Quality and nutritive properties of different
ltypes of commercially cured hams. III. Vitamin content,
biological value of the protein and bacteriology. Food
Tech. 7:288. I953.

Erdman, A. M. and Watts, 8. M. Effect of storage condi-
tions on loss of color and free sulphydryl groups in
cured meat. Food Tech. ll:l83. l957.

Erdman, A. M. and Watts, 8. M. Radiation preservation of
cured meats. Food Tech. ll:349. l957.

Esselen, W. B. and Levine, A.S. Bacterial food poisoning
and its control, a review. University of Massachusetts,
Amherst, Mass. College of Agriculture Bulletin No. 493.
l957.

Evans, James B., Buettner, L. G., and Niven, C. F. Bacterial
food poisoning. American Meat Institute Foundation. 939
East 57th Street, Chicago 37. Illinois. Circular No. 29.
l957.

Fenton, F., Sheffy, B. E., Naumann, H. 0., Wellington, G. H.,
Hogue, 0., and Mahon, P. The quality of smoked ham as
affected by adding antibiotic and fat to the diet and
phosphate to the cure. II. Objective color. Food Tech.
l0:272. l956.

Ferreira, Joan and McGurk, John. Pork. Extension Food Mar-
keting Program. New York State Colleges of Agriculture
and Home Economics, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
I953.

Fields, M. O. and Dunker, C. F. Quality and nutritive prep-
erties of different types of commercially cured hams.
I. Curing methods and chemical composition. Food Tech.
6:329. l952.

Frazier, W. C. Food microbiology. New York. McGraw-Hill
Book Company, Inc. l958.

.Gillaspie, B. V. Factors influencing shrinkage in cooked

ham: a study of the influence of cooling temperatures.
Unpublished M.S. Thesis. Minneapolis, Minnesota, Uni-
versity of Minnesota Library. l928.

25.

26.

27.‘

28. ..

29. i.

30.

3'0

32.

33.

34.

35.

37.

80

Hanley, J. W., Montgomery, G. L., Rorick, M. 8., and
Brockmann, M. C. A continuous process for smoked

meats. II. EQuipment design and application. Food
Tech. 9:597. l955.

‘Harper, J. C. and Tappel, A. L. Freeze-drying of food
products. Advances in Food Research. 7:l72. l957.

Hollenbeck, C. M. and Monahan, R. Compatability of sodium
-aecorbate and sodium nitrite in meat curing mixtures.
Food Tech. 9:624. l955.

Ingram, M. Internal bacterial taints of cured pork legs.
J. Hyg. 50:l65. l952.

Jensen, L. B. Meat and meat foods. New York. The Ronald
Press Co., l949.

Jensen, L. B., Microbiology of meats. 3rd.ed. Champaign,
Illinois. The Gerrard Press. l954.

Jul. M. Advances in meat canning. Food Manufacture.
32:259. l957.

Lechowich, R. V., Evans, J. B., and Ninen, C. F. Effect
of curing ingredients and procedures on the survival
and growth of staphylococci in and on cured meats.
Applied Micro. 4:360. l956.

Lowe, 8. Experimental cookery from the chemical and
physical standpoint. 4th ed. New York. John Wiley
& Sons, Inc. l955.

//
Mahon, P., Hogue, 0., Leeking, P., Lim, E., and Fenton, $6
The quality of smoked ham as affected by adding anti-
biotic and fat to the diet and phosphate to the cure.
I. Cooking losses, palatability, separable fat, and
shear values. Food Tech. l0:272. l956.

McDivitt, M. E. Studies on the growth of food poisoning
micrococci on cooked ham under conditions of home prepara-
tion and storage. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. Madison,
Wisconsin, University of Wisconsin Library. l952.

McElhinney, E. Z. Shrinkage and carving waste in large
quantity meat cookery: A study to determine the number
of servings obtainable from choice cuts of meat. Un-
published M.S. Thesis, Ames, Iowa, Iowa State College
Library. l927.

Miller, A. R. Meat hygiene.' Second ed. Philadelphia.
Lea and Febiger. l958.

38.

39.

40.

4|.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

8i

National Live Stock and Meat Board. Cooking meat in
quantity. Second ed. Department of Home Economics,
407 S. Dearborn St., Chicago 5, Illinois. l946.

National Live Stock and Meat Board. Meat Manual. Fifth
~ed. Departments of Home Economics and Meat Merchan-
dising. 407 S. Dearborn St., Chicago 5, Illinois.

Niven, C. F. Jr. Microbiological aspects of radiation
preservation of food. Ann. Rev. of Microbiology.
l2:507. l958.

Niven, C. F. Jr. and Evans, J. 8. Popular misconceptions
concerning staphylococcus food poisoning. 7th Research
Conf. Proceed. American Meat Institute, XII. 939
East 57th Street, Chicago 37, Illinois, l955.

Purdy, D. I. Factors influencing shrinkage in cooked ham.
Unpublished M.S. Thesis. Minneapolis, Minnesota, Uni-
versity of Minnesota Library. I926.

Ramsbottom, J. M., Galser, P. A., and Shultz, H. W.‘ How
light discolors meat; what to do about it. Food Eng.
23:l20. l95l.

Rasmussen, O. G., Myers, C. R., Darrow. M. M., and Wilder,
0. H. M. The use of blood meal in livestock feeds.
American Meat Institute Foundation. 939 East 57th
Street, Chicago 37. Illinois. Bulletin no. 39. l958.

Rikert, J. A., Ball, E. 0., and Stier, E. F. Factors
affecting quality of prepackaged meat. II. Color
studies. A. Effect of package characteristics upon
color of product. Food Tech. ll:520. l957.

Rose, 0. and Peterson, R. Non-bacterial reduction of
nitrite in pork. Food Tech. 7:369. l953.

Rowntree, J. E. A study of controlled conditions in
cooking hams. Unpublished M.S. Thesis. Chicago,
Illinois, University of Chicago Library. l925.

Schack, w. R., Greenberg, R. A., Blodgett, G. A., and
Silliker, J. H. Thermal processing characteristics
of canned non-comminuted meats. Food Research.
24:ll2. l959.

Scott, W. J. Water relations of food spoilage micro-
organisms. Advances in Food Research 7:83. l957.

. .‘I’. I'll
III]! I
uj’i Ii.

malhrlllluwll i.1ll.iq -..l.|filflqs.l.. - Alum—q

sin!!!

e
filfiliii .
.4 , Lr'l

50.

5|.

52.

53.

54s

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

82

Staggs, R. A study of the influence of three constant
oven temperatures upon the palatability and cooking
losses of four brands of commercially cured hams.
Unpublished M.S. Thesis. Columbia, Missouri, Uni-
versity of Missouri Library. l939.

Thornton, H. Textbook of meat inspection. Third ed.
London. Bailliere, Tindall and Cos. l957.

Urbain, W. M. and Ramsbottom, J. M. Controlling quality
changes in cured meats by packaging. Food Research.
l3:432. l948.

Urbin, M. C. Effect of phosphates and salt impurities
on cured hams. American Meat Institute Foundation.
939 East 57th St., Chicago 37, Illinois. Circular no.
35. l957.

U. 8. Federal Specification. Ham; cured, canned., PP-H-6la.
U. S. Gov't. Prtng. Off., Washington 25, O. C. Decem-
ber 3, l954.

U. 8. Federal Specification. Ham; cured-cooked (chilled
or frozen). PP-H-63. U. S. Gov't Prtng. Off., Washing-
ton 25, O. C. July l8, l956. .

Watts, B. M. Oxidative rancidity and discoloration in
meat. Advances in Food Research 5:l. l954.

West, B. B. and Wood, L. Food service in institutions.
Third ed. New York. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. l955.

Wilson, G. 0. Research tells about additives. National
Provisioner. l3l:ll2. l954.

Ziegler, P. The meat we eat. Fifth ed. Danville, Illinois.
The Interstate Printers and Publishers. l958.

83

APPENDIX

84

Appendix A. Studies on cooking methods, temperatures, and yields

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

of hams.

Year and Weight Cooking C°°k‘"9
Investigator lbs. Cure Style Method “egg‘““
l925 Rountree (47) l2-l3 dry bone-in Roasted (cov-)

ered, l cup 350
water) boiled, l95
then roasted 2 O
l 26 Purd 421 - ry oone- n Toffee I35
i327 McElhinney (367 l6-26 dry bone- n seared 30 min. 350i
then roasted 2 7
i as smaa re 24E - cry - borréa
l929 Burgoin (8; lI-TF cry bone-in seared 3O minuw—
then roasted
(l cup water) 257*
l6-l8 dry bone-in " 257a
l8-20 dry bone-in " 2 a
T939 Staggs (507 7T4 ave. tefier- bone-in roastid 2 0
l4 ave. ized bone-in roasted 300
l4 ave. " bone-in roasted
l946’Nit‘fT Cive- - - TBone-in roasted gEE}'—".
stock a Meat - - bone-in roasted .450
Board 8
exan er an 2.5’ dry 'EOne-ifi roasted ‘1ET7_"‘
Hankins (l) l0.7 dry bone-in boiled -
ll.4 commer-
cial bone-in roasted 257
il.l tendered bone-in roasted 252
l958 Dawson et al ' 3i total commer-
(ll) cial BRT roasted 325-350
4 “ " bone-in roasted 325
25 " " bone-in simmered -
733 " " bone-in parboiled, -
- boiled, then -
baked 350

 

 

*Temperatures were reported in degrees Centrigrade
**Temperatures were reported in degrees Fahrenheit

Appendix A.

(continued)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

=====l==========:: _fi,_____._(;
Internal Post-cooking Minutes Total Cook- Edible Yield
Temperature Temperature rise per lb. ing Loss Total Sliceable

0C 0C f
70 5 -- 20-36 -- --
-- c- 30 -- -- --

Eo -- -- -- -- --

£0 7 ‘301 M. -- 480:

70 4.9 l8.9 25.2 -- 5l.0

70 503 '2’. 2309 -‘ :ge8

go go I o 2 pl -- 4]
70 2:0 lZZS 2:1: , -- 65.8

0 .8 l .1 2 -- --

a ..'f -- T3 -- --

66** -- -- 30 -- ~-
78 T 756 as -- --
76 lo 22 32 -- --

76 3 39 22.35 -- --

Z6 3 i - 2 2i. 6 -- ~-
77** -- -- -- 62 ~-

-- .. -- -- 45 ..
-- -- -- -- 55 --

mmmdmmm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mmMZHoHDw
.8on mo cowpmnmmom ill
9:8 ll ..
95.3w um omnmoo .ll .. 2 Egg
gnaw l..l .
.ll 95:0 Ho nonszz ,7
E630 iii
opens...» o>wpoo§oo ill mg
i8 finesse ll
pneumocwnaw |.l
imp Ii. moqou
6 xcwm gamma ii...
8 sea Emma
cwwonou nomipm 3mg
shoes.“ ll Hmong» mo»;
. been 32 ll
.d i , .l i::.cs.. ill .- s l
w .25
m waPSm cwwoaom ill names
0 :39. H Hashes. l... _ mg;
a has 38 ._. E... .l:.,. a- - lilii -
m. :wHoMOMIli pfimm nil .
m machpm iii _ . <zcm¢
a ..II N _
8 Punch 2 u
. Ens l M . e i
B . . ill . 11.3-- i ll 2 . 1 ll...
. m poo sup N woo m p m . oo 00 30> poodnoounm
m ”5986me swamp 8an _ is > m _ e. a pal so - t - . ... , lfilllmoeose
m 98“..“ sumac H e m m e a m r 0 N. l
E ill: .
P 0
mm 09mm 02 oHQEmm
omfifl. ill I nili
z<m mom 0 mmoom

 

YIELD AND PALATABILITY OF FIVE STYLES OF MILD CURED HAMS
IN THE l2 to l4-POUND WEIGHT RANGE

By

Doris M. Downs

AN ABSTRACT

Submitted to the Dean of the College of Home Economics
of Michigan State University of Agriculture and
Applied Science in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Institution Administration

I959

Approved by étEEZL4L1;:‘é514é2225z2g‘4;/1{:3

 

 

ABSTRACT

The yield and palatability of five styles of mild
cured hams were investigated as the initial phase of a larger
project. Regular bone-in, skinless shankless, boned rolled,
splits, and canned pear-shaped hams were baked in 325°F ovens
to internal temperatures of 79°C. All styles of hams except
splits and canned pearéshaped hams were available in both
precooked and uncooked states, making a total of eight types
of ham in the study.

Highly significant differences were found among types
of ham for percentages of sliceable portion, lean scrap, fat
scrap, fat drip, nonfat drip, volatile loss, and total cook-
ing losses. Percentages of bones from regular bone-in and
skinless shankless styles differed at the 5 percent level of
significance. Inedible scrap and skin weights were not
significantly-different. Canned pear-shaped hams yielded
the most sliceable portion and the least scrap meat; bone-
in styles yielded the least sliceable portions and relatively
high percentages of scrap meat.

Tastepanel evaluations indicated that the palatability
of hams was not significantly influenced by ham styles. Aver-
age scores for aroma, flavor of fat, flavor of lean, color,
texture, tenderness, and juiciness were fair to poor.

Considerable variation was noted in the cooking periods
and internal temperature rise after the baked hams were re-

moved from the ovens.

A V

l

SITY LIBRARIES

TATE U

ill I Ill
0

31293

ER

062 0573

"I'll