THESIS L [BR .4 R Y Michigan Sun: University YIELD AND PALMABILITY OF SIX STYLES OF MILD CURED RAMS IN THE 10’ To 12-20mm WEIGHT RANGE ‘ BY I Roberta H. Atkinson A THESIS Submitted to the Dean of the College of Home Economics of Hidhigan State university of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of ‘MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Institution Administration- 1959 ' / 3‘" ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer wishes to express her gratitude and deep-appreciation to Dr. Pearl J. Aldrich for her guidance, encouragement, and consideration during the preparation of this thesis, and to Dr. William D. Baten for his counsel throughout the statistical analyses of the data. Grate-I ful acknowledgement is also extended to Professor Katherine Hart for her interest in this project. She also wishes to thank Mr. Henry Anderson, Miss Helen Brown, Miss Virginia Charles, Miss Doris Downs, Miss Janet Hall, and Mrs. Dorothy Pardee for their participation on the taste panel, and Mr. Don L: Crews for his encouragement and assistance in the preparation of this manuscript. ' \ iii TABLE OF CONTENTS . Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS................................. iii LIST OF TABLES.................................... vi LIST OF PIGMSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO......OOOOOOOOOOOO v11 INTRODUCTION...................... ........ . ....... 1 REVIEW OF LITERATURE. .......... .. ..... . ........... 3 Factors Affecting Palatability, Yield, and Cocking Losses....................... 3 Effect of cocking methods. ..... ..<.. 4 Effect of diet and cure. ...... ...... 7 Processing... ......... ........... ......... . 8 Curing.............................. ‘ 8 Color development... ......... . ...... 9 Advances in processing.............. 10 Terminology and Federal Regulation......... 12 Terminology............... .......... 12 Federal regulation .................. ° 14 Bacterial Food Poisoning ........ . .......... 14 METHOD OF PROCEDURE.. ............... ... ....... .... 19 Selection of Hans ....... .......; ........... 20 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS (contd.) Kinds of ham available .............. Styles selected ........ . ............ Preparation and Baking of Bams.. ........... Initial weight ......... . ............ Description and measurement of hams. Trimmed weight......... ....... ...... Baking preparation .................. Baking process ............... ....... Treatment after Baking ..................... not hams ............................ Chilled hams...... .................. Bone-in hams...... .......... Visking-wrapped hams and canned hams................ Drippings...... .......... ..... ....... Test Procedures for Evaluation...:.. ....... Cooking losses ...................... Total dripping loss ......... Fat and nonfat dripping 10"...OOOOOOOOOOOOOO Vblatile loss. ..... ......... Statistical analysis ................ Taste testing. ...................... 20 20 21 25 26 26 27 28 30 3O 30 31 34 34 36 36 36 37 37 37 39 TABLE OF CONTENTS (contd.) RESULTS AND DISCUSSION...... ...................... Regular, bone-in... .................. . ..... Skinless and shankless .................... Canned, pear shaped.... ...... . .......... .. Boned, rolled, and tied.............. ..... Canned, pullman..... ...................... Splits .................. . .................. SUMMARY.. ....... ..... ............................ RECOMMENDATIONS.................................. LITERATURE CITED................................. APPENDIX... ..... ' ................................. 41 51 51 52 53 54 55 57 59 60 65 V1 LIST 0! TABLES Table Page 1. Mean squares and significance for yield and cooking losses of baked hams................... 43 2. loan squares and significance for palatability scores of baked hams.... ............ ........... 45 3. Percentage mean values for yield and codking losses of'baked hams based on trimmed weight... 47 4. ,Mean values for palatability scores of baked ’ h”.00000000 ..... 00...... .................. 0... so V11 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Regular bone-in style, uncodked and precodked.. ........ . ............ ‘ ............... 22 2. Skinless and shankless style, uncooked and precooked.. ............. . ...... ........... ..... 22 3. Canned pear-shaped style.._ ..................... 23 4. Boned, rolled, and tied style, uncooked and precooked.......... ...... ....... ............... 23 s. Canned pullman style ...... . .................... 24 6. Split style, uncooked and precooked.. .......... 24 7. Diagram of sliceable portion, edible scrap, and bones in regular bone-in hams.... .............. 29 8. Removing the aitch bone ........................ 32 9. Removing the lower portion of the ham .......... 32 10. Removing the shank bone. . . . ........... . . ....... 35 ll. Removing the femur ......... .... ........ . ....... 35 12. Percentage mean values of sliceable portion and lean scrap for baked hams based on trimmed mightOOOO......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ...... O ...... 4, INTRODUCTION A consumer choosing hams from.the many styles presently available may find it difficult to make a wise selection. Terminology used by the packer to describe the style may be confusing. In addition, information concerning the yield and palatability of the styles is not generally available to the institution purchaser. Since 1940, most packers have processed tenderized mild-cured hams. Although investigations were conducted between 1925 and 1939 on country-style cured hams, only a few reports of data collected from.tenderized mild- cured hams have appeared in the literature. This investigation, comprising one part of a larger project, deals with the effect of’ham style on cooking losses, sliceable and scrap portion, and palatability of’mild-cured hams in the 10 to 12-pound weight range. In the master project these same factors are considered for all styles available in weight ranges from.8 to 22 pounds. The institution consumer may find the data helpful in selecting a style of ham suitable for his needs. REVIEW OB LITERATURE The Committee on Preparation Factors of the Cooperative Meat Investigations (5) in describing roasting of meats, defines a desirable product as one whidh has the least shrinkage or cocking loss: the greatest palatability: the lowest cost per serving: and the greatest ease of manipulation.. They define palatability as the degree to which a product is accept- able, pleasing, agreeable, or satisfying to the palate, with special reference to flavor and tenderness. Factors Affecting Palatability, Yield, and Cooking Losses A new era in meat production studies began when investigations showed that cooking methods markedly influenced the palatability of cooked meat (5). Previously, livestock studies had ended with the dressing of the animal. Since the relationship between preparation procedures and palatability was established, production practices have been put to the "eating test” and the results regarded as an index for probable consumer acceptance. Effect of cooking methods The foundation for the present method of cooking hams was laid between 1925 and 1935 when hams were cured in heavy salt brine for 60-80 days. Staggs (32) aptly stated the problem of present cooking methods when she pointed out that recent developments in processing have altered the methods of preparation and the length of time for cooking hams. The available information has resulted from scientific experimentation on hams of the old type cure and may not be complnmny applicable to the cooking of new process hams. Only Rowntree (28), in an attempt to establish a precise method for cooking hams experimentally, roasted and.boiled hams at various temperatures. She concluded that hams could be roasted sucessfully in the oven at a temperature of 350°? for 30 minutes, then reducing the temperature to 250°? for the remaining cooking time. In addition, in the second part of her experiment, she concluded that hams roasted to an internal temperature of 70°C were thoroughly cooked. Only Purdy (25) reported on a satisfactory method of cooking hams in water to give a standard product and the least shrinkage. The least total loss in weight was sustained by the hams started in'boiling water, reduced at once to a temperature of 1800?, cooked to an interior temperature of 158°P, and left in the broth overnight. She commented that the temperature of the broth and the quality of the individual hams were the determining factors in weight loss of the hams. Gillespie (15) studied the influence of cooking temperatures on shrinkage of cooked hams. The hams were immersed in 180°? water and cooked at that temperature until an internal temperature of 70°C was reached. The hams were left in the liquor for 18 hours, and cooled at various temperatures. She indicated that the temperature of the liquor in which the ham is cooled affects the loss. Minimum weight loss was at 1.6°C, with an increase in weight loss reported at cooling temperatures above and below that point . According to Staggs (32), the influence of three oven temperatures (250°, 300°, and 375°?) on cooking losses and palatability of commercially cured hams showed the following results: An increase in codking losses directly proportional to an increase in oven temperature Amight increase in tenderness and flavor scores with a decrease in oven temperature McElhinney (23) roasted hams at 300°? to an internal temperature of 70°C to determine shrinkage and waste of hams. Her results are included in the summary table (Appendix A). In 1929, Burgoin (4) collected additional data on shrinkage and carving waste of hams weighing 14 to 20-pounds. The hams were boned, roasted in a 150°C oven for 30 minutes, and finished at 125°C to an internal temperature of 700C. According to her results, the 14 to ld—pound hams had the highest percentageuof sliceable meat, and the 18 to 20-pound hams had the smallest percentage. In addition, she found that the fatter hams showed the greatest percentage of total cooking loss. Alexander and Bankins (1) reported on the yield of cooked edible portions of 29 hams. The hams were baked in uncovered pans at 257°Fto an internal tempera- ture of 76°C.. They reported a higher shrinkage percentage in two commercially-cured tenderized hams than in 18 dry- cured hams (Appendix A). Effect of diet and cure Benton and co~workers (13) when adding antio- biotic and fat to the diet and phosphate to the cure of smoked hams, found no significant differences in the color of the cocked or of the uncooked meat attributable to the diets of the pigs, to the curing of the hams, or to interaction of these factors. Because the statistical differences attributable to the diets of the pigs for aroma, flavor, and “chew" scores were so small, the investigators concluded that neither the diet nor the cure resulted in appreciable differences in the qualities of the smdked hams (21). In their investigation of four types of cured hams, Weir and Dunker (34) reported that all four types were considered good in overall desirability. Between the two short brine cured tenderized types, tendered and ready-to-eat, only intensity of fat flavor showed a significant difference out of eight characteristics judged. Saffle (30) found no significant differences between the degree of finish of the carcass, and the taste panel scores or the cooking shrinkage of smoked tenderized hams. Processing At the present time, the most widely used method for processing hams commercially is the sweet pickle or vascular-pumped cure. Curing Jensen (l9) pointed out that during the past twenty-years the curing time has been shortened by pumping the curing solution into the proper artery of a cut of meat. Because the arteries furnish natural path- ways for distribution of curing solutions, the time required for curing is reduced. After the pickle solution is evenly distributed under pressure, hams are placed in vats and immersed in a "cover pickle“ at 36 to 38°F to cure the peripheral tissues. Less salt is used in these cures than in a country-style cure. The same curing process is described by Fields and Dunker (14) in three steps: pumping, curing in cover pickle, and smoking. Ziegler (37) described the smdking.process for tenderized hams. The tenderizing procedure in the snake house requires about 24 hours. During the first 8 hours, the smoke house is heated to 125°?. All drafts are opened to carry off excess moisture, and no smoking takes place. During the next 8-hour period, drafts are closed half way, the temperature is raised to 135°? until the internal temperature of the ham reaches 142°? for un- cooked hams. To produce precooked hams, the internal temperature must be held at 155°? or above at least 2 hours. Color develdpment. Many investigations concerned with the factors related to color development in cured pork products have been published. Rose and Peterson (27) reported that I nitrite, added directly to the ham or formed by reduction of nitrate, is essential to good color development in the curing of pork products. However, in reporting on the problem of meat discoloration by display case lights, Ramabottom, Galser, and Shultz (26) stated that, even in the presence of'SH groups, nitrite gives only temporary 10 color protection under continuous lighting at an intensity frequently observed in display counters and store aisles. Watts Erdman and Wentworth (33) substantiated these conclusions. In describing the interesting irridescent colors sometimes found in sliced ham. Jensen (18) indicated that the peculiar surfaces of the meat fibers caused this mother-of-pearl effect.’ The breaking up of white light by the highly fibrous character of the sliced meat surface produces the structural color. This phenomenon has no sanitary significance. Advances in processing One of the new developments in processing of smoked meats is the continuous system of electrostatic smoking reported by Hanley and co-workers (16). By passing through six infra-red heating chambers the meat rapidly attains an internal temperature of 1200?. The meat is conveyed into an electrostatic smoking chamber and subsequently to an infra-red drying unit The entire process requires 30 minutes. This continuous system produces smoke in such a short time .1;4 and at such a low temperature that no increase in bacterial population is evident. Reports on irradiation of cured pork by Srdman and Watts (11) showed that a high dose of irradiation was necessary to effect sterilization in canned hams. Off odors were detected, ham color faded markedly and irregularly, and free -SH groups decreased both on irradiation and subsequent storage. However. the post-heated irradiated samples of ground pork con— taining cure showed neither bacterial spoilage nor color loss after storage of 170 days at room.temperature. Ryer (29) reported a dosage of 30,000 rep necessary to kill trichina‘by gamma ray irradiation. At 3,000,000 rep sterilization was effected.n Ho radioactivity was induced in foods at sterilization level. Acceptability of irradiated foods varied. Ham samples appeared to be acceptable following treatment at sterilization level and also after storage periods following Ouch irradiation. In his comprehensive report of advances in meat canning, Jul (20) emphasized the need for research 12 in the field of resistance of bacteria, nutritive value, flavor, and water retention of canned hams. He stated that one of the aims of meat research should be to develop temperature resistance curves for bacteria in various meats, and to investigate their relation to the presence of nitrite and other food additives. Terminology and Federal Regulation The American Heat Institute was consulted to determine the types of hams generally available from commercial packers and to clarify the labeling inter- pretation of these types. Terminology In defining the kinds of ham available, the American neat Institute (2) included the following definitions: .ggokebefore-eating Luncooked or rggylar) hams--have been heated in compliance with government regulations, to an internal temperature of at least 137°F. These hams require thorough cooking before eating--(cooked to an internal temperature of 160°! as registered by meat thermometer). Ready-to-eathams-- in compliance with government regu- lations, have‘been heated to an internal temperature of 13 at least 137°? and then further processed to make them palatably tender. This processing makes them safe to eat, but the texture and flavor are improved by further cooking. These hams should be heated to an internal temperature of at least 1300-140°P. Fully cooked or codked hams-- have been processed to an internal temperature of_l40°-150°P or above and may'be served without further cooking: or they may be reheated before serving. Heating to an internal temperature of 125°-130°r will warm them sufficiently. gagged hams-- are completely cooked when purchased. To reheat, bake to an internal temperature of 12$°-130° P. They also define three styles of ham available as follows: Eggglag-Abgge in. Available as cookébefore-eating, ready- to-eat, and fully cooked or cooked. May be purchased whole, cut in half, or as ham slice. §k_i_glessI ghagkless--ham.has bony shank removed and it is skinned and trimmed of excess fat. Available as -cook4before-eating, ready-to-eat, and fully cooked. nggglegs, skinless--nam has been boned and shaped into rolls. Available as cookébefore-eating and fully cooked. fields and Dunker (l4) similarly describe two of the ham.types in their study. referring to them as Type I. Sweet pickle, quick-cured, tendered ham-- which has been heated to 140°? Type II. Sweet pickle, quick-cured, ready-to- eat hams which have been smoked to at least 1550?. 14 Federal regulation Federal specifications for cured-codked hams (35) require that the ham shall be mildly and thoroughly, but not excessively, cured. Smoked hams must be smoked continuously in a dense natural smoke for not less than 3 hours in temperatures not less than llSOF, and then promptly codked or chilled. The ham shall be cooked with moist heat in temperatures and for the time necessary to attain an internal ham temperature of at least 150°F. Federal specifications for cured-uncooked ham require an internal ham temperature of 1370?. Canned hams must be cooked to an internal ham temperature of not less than 150°? (36). .All cans must be labeled with the warning, 'PERISHABLE, KEEP UNDER REFRIGERATION.“ Bacterial Food Poisoning Deck (6) emphasized the danger of food poisoning from rapidly cured hams. He pointed out that many packers are aware of the problem. The method of heating hams during manufacture is designed to be 15 effective against staphylococci so that hams are safe when they leave the packers. However, keeping the hams in a warm kitchen for several hours favors the growth of staphylococci and the production of enterotoxin. In order to control the outbreaks of food poisoning from cured-meat products, educating the public and retailers to the fact that ham is perishable and must be kept under refrigeration is necessary. nae): (6), in describing the unique qualities of staphylococci and their enterotoxin, stated. that the per cent of enterotoxin in toxic material is very small (.05 to 5%). Growing in hams without pro- ducing any signs of spoilage, the staphylococci produce an enterotoxin resistant to heating and freezing and soluble in water and dilute salt sblutions. . Draim (9) baked hams to an internal temperature of 180°F in a 350°F oven. She cooled the hams at various temperatures. Her results showed that the hams cooled at room temperature were in the danger zone for staphylococcus growth (70 to llSoF) three times as long as those refrigerated immediately. The hams 16 refrigerated when the interior temperature readhed 115°? were in the danger zone twice as long as those refrigerated immediately. Immediate refrigeration proved to‘be the most rapid method of cooling both the interior and the surface of the meats. Jensen (l9) emphasized that cooked hams must not be held for a period of more than 4 hours in the incubation temperature range. Because the time within the incubation range is accumulative, the total time within the zone should not be more than 4 hours if the product is refrigerated at intervals. McDivitt (22) in her study on‘boned and rolled hams, reported ham samples stored at 30°C showed rapid cell multiplication between 3 and 18 hours. Inoculated samples stored at refrigerator temperatures gave little evidence of bacterial change and were unchanged in appearance, odor, and color at the end of 14 days. Jensen (19) stated that staphylococci grow most rapidly at temperatures between 68°F and 1150?. During a 4-hour period in foods at this temperature range, these bacteria will secrete enough harmful toxin to cause illness in persons eating the food. He 17 emphasized the importance of cooking ham to an internal temperature of 162°F. According to Niven and Evans (24), cured meats such as prepackaged cold cuts and‘bacon are rarely handled under temperature conditions that would support the growth of staphylococcus. Therefore, the prcblem of staphylococcus food poisoning within the meat industry limits itself largely to hams. Because of their large size, temperature adjustment and control in the ham are difficult to achieve. Also, the American consumer has not yet'become accustamed to the fact that our modern cured hams are perishable. In agreement with Jensen, the;::Lint out that curing salts in the concentrations added to meat ordinarily do not inhibit the growth of staphylococcus. Bsselen and Levine (12), in their summary of available literature, also stressed the fact that tenderized hams is a frequent source of staphylococcus food poisoning. ‘Busseman and Tanner (17) emphasized that the danger of staphylococcus poisoning is not alleviated either'by chilling or, in some cases, by heating food _after it has been allowed to stand at room temperature. 19 METHOD OF PROCEDURE The standardized procedures for this study were established by preliminary investigations preceding the initial phase of this project. The methods used in Part I of the project in which the 12 to lh-pound weight range was studied have been followed as closely as possible in this investigation. Bowns (8) states that preliminary investigations were held for the purpose of establishing the end internal temperature for roasting, developing techniques, and training the tastt panel in evaluating the samples. Because instructions on ham labels varied and processing information was not available, the final internal temperature was difficult to establish. A campus bacter- iologist was consulted to determine the minimum internal temperature which would insure the safety of the hams. Palatability evaluations of hams baked to various internal temperatures were also considered. As a result of these panel preferences and the bacteriological recommendations, the end internal temperature was set at 79°C for all hams. 18 A fraction of the toxin may be destroyed by heating at the boiling point for 30 minutes or more, but there is no reliable way of eliminating the toxin from the food. Baughman (3) points out that staphylococcus food poisoning is a continual threat to all organizations and institutions that handle and prepare food. Investi- gations have shown that a toxic substance produced by certain strains of Micrococcus pyggenes var. aureus causes food poisoning. However, why some staphylococci produce enterotoxin and some do not is still unknown. In fact, relatively little is known about the properties of the toxin. Baughman's study showed that food handlers contaminate food with‘pathogenic staphylococci of varied reactions. The foods in his investigation were of the type that are frequently handled after cooking and‘before serving. He concluded that the control of this type of food poisoning lies in the education of the public, food handlers, and organizations that prepare food for large numbers of people. 20 Selection of Hams Processors were contacted to determine the styles and kinds of ham readily available to the institution consumer. Kinds of ham available Two kinds of ham were obtained for this study. Cured hams, processed to a temperature of 137°F, are referred to as “uncooked“ in this report. However, various labels read, 'ready-to-eat,r ”cockdbefore- eating,” “certified,', or “sucked.“ Hams referred to as ”precooked“ in this studwaere processed to a minimum temperature of 150°F according to Federal specifications. Labels for such hams read 'readyeto-eat,” "fully cooked,“ or “cooked.” styles selected Six styles of hams in the 10 to lZ-pound range were readily available to the institutionflbuyer. Four of these styles were available'both as uncooked and precooked. The two shapes of canned hams were available as precooked. Ten‘hams of each style were'baked. A 21 description of the styles selected and the code letter follows: : uncooked (A1) and precooked (A2). This style of whole ham contains the aitch, femur, and shank bones. All skin except a collar of shank skin is removed. (Figure l) gkinless ggd shggkless: uncooked (31) and precooked (8;). The shank‘bone is removed, and the ham is packaged without skin. (Figure 2) ned lled d t ed: uncooked (DI) and precooked (Dz). The whole ham, commonly referred to as BRT, is boned and shaped into rolls. A visking wrapper with a metal plate at each end retains the cylindrical shape of the roll. (Figure 4) 32115;; .uncooked (F1) and precooked (F2). Boneless pieces from one or more hams are shaped together into a roll. A visking wrapper with metal plate at each end retains the cyclindrical shape of the ham. (Figure 6) gagged hams: pear shaped (C) and pull-an (B). The boned and tri-aed hams or ham pieces are packed into cans. Gelatin is added to replace the air and retain the shape, and the ham is processed. (Figures 3 and 5) Preparation and Baking of Hams Preparation procedures for baking the hams were selected to parallel those of a quantity food service. 22 Regular bone-is style, uncooked and preeeeked tigure 1. Skinless and shankless style, nmcoeked and precocked Figure 2. 23 Figure 3. Canned pear-shaped style ,- ‘ 09:“- Figure 4. Boned, rolled, and tied style, uncooked and - precooked 24 Figure 5. Canned pullman style Figure 6. Split style, uncooked and precooked 25 Methods and equipment were standardized. Appendix B contains a full description of equipment. A variety of brands and styles was included in the six hams pre- pared each baking day to minimize the effect of individual judges as a source of variance. Cured hams were cbtained directly from three major processors and delivered as needed. They were refrigerated at 1 to 4°C until used. All hams were 0. S. No. 1 grade, in a 10 to 12-pound weight range. Initial weight The wrapper was removed from the ham, and the initial weight was recorded in grams for the‘bone-in hams. The visking-wrapped ham weights were recorded in the visking as ham-in-container. After cooking, the initial weight was determined by deducting the weight of the visking case and end plates from the ham-in- container weight. Canned hams were weighed in their containers._ The cans were removed, washed, dried, and weighed. To determine the initial weight of these hams before baking, the container weight was deducted from the weight of hamrin-container (Appendix C). 26 Trimmed Weight The shank skin was removed from the regular bone-in hams with a boning knife. Starting at the narrowest part of the skin covering, the knife was inserted at the shank end of the ham, pointed toward the wide end of the ham, and the skin carefully split until it could be separated and peeled away from the fat layer beneath. The skin was recorded as weight of trimmings and deducted from the initial weight to determine the trimmed ham.weight. For visking-wrapped styles, initial weight and trimmed weight were identical. The gelatin was removed from canned hams, and the ham weight recorded as trimmed weight. The weight of gelatin and loose fat was determined by subtracting trimmed weight from initial weight. Description and measurement of hams Appendix C also shows the arrangement of data recorded for description of each ham before baking. These data, collected for examination upon completion of the entire project, are not included in this report. Circumference was recorded in inches by measuring around 27 the widest part of the ham. Length, thickness, and width of the ham were also measured in inches by a device made of three rulers connected with sliding'bara. The degree of fat trim on the ham was nOted according to the number of lean places exposed on the fat side. A description of the shape of the ham and miscellaneous observations'were also nOted. The fat depth was measured for the bone-in, skinless and shankless, and pear—shaped canned styles. Other styles did not have a surface covering of fat. Measurements were taken at the shank end, center, right center, left center, and butt and of the ham. The shank length was measured on bone- in hams . Baking preparation After the hams had been trimmed, measured, weighed, and described, they were prepared for'baking. Short tube-type thermometers, with calibrations from 0 to 105°C at 1°C intervals, were inserted vertically into the hams to one-half the depth of the thickest portion of the ham. The thermometer bulb was aSnear as possible to the center point of the ham. A long tube-type 28 thermometer, calibrated from.-20 to 150°C at 1°C intervals, was inserted diagonally into the ham to permit low temperature readings when the ham was placed in the oven and during the early stages of cocking. This thermometer was inserted from the curve above the shank end (see Figure 7) with the bulb touching the bulb of the short thermometer. Three slits were made in the covering of the visking-wrapped hams to prevent splitting of the wrapper during baking. Hams were placed with fat side up on square wire racks in labeled roasting pans of known weight. Baking process The hams were baked in a 325°F preheated electric roasting oven with top and‘bottom units on medium setting and dampers closed. Roasting pans were arranged to permit reading of thermometers through glass windows in the oven door. Internal temperature of the hams was» recorded at 20-minute intervals until readings reached 70°C. Five- minute readings were then made until the thermometer 0 registered 79 C when the hams were removed from the oven. 29 —-—-_-- Figure 7. Diagram of sliceable portion, edible scrap, and bones in regular bone-in hams. Skinless- shankless hams have the shank end removed (area to the right of dotted line). 30 Treatment after Baking After the hams were removed from the oven, they were left in the roasting pans on racks to cool for 30 minutes. Hot hams Visking and metal plates were removed from the boned-rolled-tied and the “splits" while the ham rested on the rack in the roasting pan, and the drippings drained into the pan. Bach visking was slit the length of the ham, and the end plates were removed and scraped. The visking was carefully peeled from the entire ham, and any bits of meat clinging to the wrapper were removed. The weight of the visking and end plates was recorded as weight of container. The hams were removed from the roasting pan, placed on labeled aluminum trays of known weight, and refrigerated overnight. Chilled hams The drippings that were clinging to the chilled ham were scraped onto the aluminum tray for weighing. ‘The ham was removed from the tray, weighed, and placed on a cutting board. The bone-in-hams and skinless and 31 shankless hams were boned and sliced, and the edible lean scrap was separated from the excess fat. The visking-wrapped and canned hams were completely sliced and the lean scrap was separated from the excess fat. Bone-in hams. With the ham placed fat side down on the cutting board, the thin meat covering on the outside of the aitch bone was loosened and removed with a boning knife. The tip of the knife was inserted as near to the 'bone as possible, and slowly manipulated around the entire bone, loosening the connective tissue surrounding the aitch bone (Figure 8). The heavy tendons holding the aitchdbone joint in place were severed to permit removal of that bone. The next step was removal of the portion of ham beneath the femur. The boning knife was inserted at the shank end of the femur on the side opposite the original aitch bone position. Following along the femur the entire length of the ham, the knife was used to remove the lower portion of the ham in one piece (Figure 9). This piece was then squared on the ends, trimmed of its excess fat, and set aside to be weighed as a sliceable portion. 32 Figure 8. Removing the aitch bone Figure 9. Removing the lower portion of the ham 33 The shank bone was removed by breaking the joint connecting it with the femur, and severing the tendons and connective tissue around the joint (Figure 10). In removing the femur, the connective tissue and meat surrounding the bone were loosened by the same method used to loosen the aitch bone. The boning knife was carefully'mnnipulated around each end of the bone (Figure 11). The tissue behind and underneath the bone was cut, and the bone removed with as little meat attached as possible. The large section remaining (called the horseshoe portion because of its shape) was squared on the ends. The excess fat was trimmed and‘bits of gristle left from.the bone attachment were removed. This piece ‘was also set aside to be weighed as sliceable portion. Heat, gristle, and fat were removed from the bones. The scrap ham was separated into excess fat. lean usable portion, and inedible trim, Weights for bone-in hams were then recorded for (l) sliceable portion, (2) lean scrap, (3) fat scrap, (4) inedible trim, and (5) bones. For judging, 1/8-inch slices were prepared from the large upper end of the horseshoe sliceable portion 34 in the same sequence each time. Each judge always received his slice from the same relative position in the section. sk -w a ed ams and c ed ams. Visking-wrapped hams and canned hams were cut crosswise in thirds and sliced on a mechanical slicer into l/8—inch slices. After the fatty or gristly slices were put into scrap, the sliceable portions were set aside to be weighed. The scrap ham was separated into excess fat and usable lean scrap. Weights for visking-wrapped hams and canned hams were then recorded for (l) sliceable portion, (2) fat scrap, and (3) lean scrap. Slices for tasting were taken from the center third of these hams. The first slice came from.the point where the eye muscle most nearly resembled that of the regular bone-in style and the remaining slices followed in sequence. Drippings The weight of the roasting pan, rack, and drippings from the ha was recorded. The ham drippings were scraped from each rack into the baking pan, and 35 rigure lo. Raoving t1!e Chink bone Figure ll . moving the fur 36 poured into a 1000 m1. graduate cyclinder, using a rubber spatula to clean the pan completely. The graduate cylinders were covered with Saran wrap and stored at room temperature overnight to allow separation of fat drippings and nonfat drippings. Weight of the coded cooling tray and drippings was recorded. The drippings on the cooling tray were melted and added to the previously collected drippings in the graduate cylinders. The graduate cylinders were placed in warm water for complete.separation of fat and nonfat drippings, and the amount of each was recorded in milliliters. Test Procedures for Evaluation Cooking losses The total cooking loss was calculated by deducting the weight of the chilled cooked ham from the weight of the uncooked trimmed ham. Igtal dripping los . The total dripping loss was recorded as milliliters of nonfat drippings and milli- liters of fat drippings. Description of the drippings 37 included the range of color, odor, and clarity for examination at a later date. Total dripping loss was calculated by adding the grams collected in the baking pan to the amount collected on the cooling tray. Appendix C shows sample calculations. , Pat and nonfat dripping loss. Weight of the fat drippings was calculatedbe multiplying the total milliliters of fat drippings by the specific gravity of the fat drippings. The weight of fat drippings was subtracted from the total dripping loss to determine the weight of nonfat drippings (Appendix C). yplatile loss. The total dripping weight was subtracted from the total cooking loss weight to determine the volatile loss. Statistical analysis Data collected for yield and cooking losses were converted to percentage of trimmed weight. Exceptions were percentage of skin from regular bone-in styles and percentage of gelatin from canned hams which were calculated on the basis of initial weight. Analyses 38 of variance (31) were applied to the data to determine what differences were attributable to ham style (Appendix D). 0f the 6 ham styles selected, 4 had both uncocked (137°?) and precodked (150°!) kinds, giving a total of 10 treatments. Ten replications of each treat- ment were baked; thus data fromxa total of 100 hams were used in the computations. Mean values for yield, cocking losses, and palatability characteristics were tested for significant differences using the Studentized range tdble (10). Percentage values were transformed to angles (31) to weight the small percentages more heavily. Results of analysis by percentages and analysis by angles were approximately equal and the interpretation would not have been changed. Analyses of variance were carried out for each of the following items: Sliceable portion Skin Lean scrap Gelatin and fat Pat scrap rat.drippings Inedible trim Renfat drippings Bone VOlatile losses Total cocking losses Analyses of variance were carried out on average scores for aroma, lean flavor, fat flavor, lean color, 39 tenderness, texture, and Juiciness. Comments of Judges were summarized and applied to interpretation of'the data. Taste testing A.panel of seven Judges was selected from food service operators and laboratory personnel. At two trial panels, judges were instructed in the use of the 7—point score card (Appendix 8). Information on the general nature of the project was given, but Judges were not informed about specific styles they were Judging. The Judges were asked not to discuss their impressions in scoring the samples. A systematic counting of "chews" was used to arrive at a tenderness score. Each Judge was instructed to chew a sample of specified size until it was come pletely masticated. A record was kept of the number of “chews" and the corresponding tenderness score assigned for each sample by each Judge atkthe preliminary trials. These were compiled to set up an individual range for each Judge as a basis for his tenderness score for the following panels. ' Six samples were presented at each panel to 40 each Judge. Tepid drinking water was provided for the Judges. The panels met twice each week on the days after the hams were baked for a period covering two months . 41 RESULTS AID DISCUSSION This study was directed toward an investigation of the effect of ham style on yield and palatability of mild cured ham. The analyses of variance applied to the data indicated that highly significant differences in yield and palatability were attributable to differences in ham styles. Tables 1 and 2 show the mean squares and significance for yield, cooking losses, and palatability ' scores. Differences among averages are listed according to styles in descending order. . Many significant differences were apparent in the data collected for yield and palatability. However, no significant differences among styles were found for inedible scrap, skin, total cocking losses, or Juiciness. very few differences between uncooked (137°?) and pre- cocked (150°!) hams within styles are evident. It is interesting to note that although highly significant differences among styles appeared in fat drippings, nonfat drippings, and volatile losses, the total cocking losses did not show significant differences among averages. 42 Coding for Table 1 Regular bone-in, uncooked Regular bone-in, precooked Skinless and shankless, uncooked Skinless and shankless, precodked Canned pear-shaped Boned, rolled and tied, uncoOked Boned, rolled and tied, precoOked Canned pullman Split, precoOked Split, uncooked 43 Table l. lean squares and significance for yield and cocking losses of baked hams. Treatment D.P. Mean Square Averages* in descending order Sliceable portion 9 2,263,99** D13 PIC D2P2 ) 8132 ) A2A1 Lean scrap 9 305.76" A13182A2) D2223 DIPIC; 0;) C Pat scrap 9 240 .l4** AZA1)9231 ) C ) P23 DZPJDJ Inedible scrap 3 .67 no significance Done 3 2.46* 3132: BzAzBl; A1) A281 Skin 1 .04 no significance Gelatin and fat 1 46.40** c) a Fat drip 9 19.10.. B2 ) A1) 3132 > ch F23 P1131 lonfat drip 9 18.16** P2P1> RIC 31.82th ; ’23 D2151 ) C 5152323 Vblatile losses 9 22.44** E C FlDle) Alhz: E C >D182P20231: '15152‘25231x132 Total cocking losses 9 9.56 no significance * significant at 5% level of probability ** significant at 1%.level of probability greater than grouping that follows « underlining of a group means no significant difference I v 44 Coding for Table 2 Regular bone-in, uncooked Regular bone-in, precooked Skinless and shankless, uncooked Skinless and shankless, precooked Canned pear-shaped Boned, rolled and tied, uncooked Boned, rolled and tied, precodked Canned pullman Split, uncooked Split, precodked 45 Table 2. ,Hean squares and significance for palatability scores of baked hams Mean Averages* in Treatment D.P. Square descending order.(10) Arma 9 1.03". 31A2r132017 £1.3ng B: slazszlrzc; 9235:3713? :s Flavor-lean 9 .79** B1A2B2A1D2C P2: slaplrls; 2 l 1 Flavor fat 9 .63* BlAszAIDJPIB: BIAQC Dz! ) 32) P2 -Color-lean 9 .71* A2A1P13101P23202332A13131D1)CB Tenderness 9 6.67** 31A2A18202D1P2Q3: 31A2)FJ_E Texture 9 l.lO** AlAZBZBl: A1)P2D1D2P13: P2}C: Bl)8 C; A282)£1E C Juiciness 9 .30 no significance * significant at 5%.level of probability ** significant at 1%.level of probability )5 greater than grouping that follows := underlining of a group means no significant difference 46 In addition, total cooking loss averages are very close to the results of previous investigators as shown in Appendix A. From Table 3, showing average percentage values for yield, a division can be noted between'bone-in styles and canned and visking styles. Sliceable portion for canned and visking hams is 18 to 2 times greater than bone-in styles. Lean scrap for the bone-in styles is 28 to 4 times greater than canned and visking hams. Pat scrap for bone-in styles exceeds canned and visking styles by 1% to 5 times. Percentages of yield in this study may be compared with results of other investigations in Appendix A. Comparative values for sliceable portion and lean scrap can be seen in Figure 12. Although average values for total cooking losses did not differ significantly, differences among styles can be seen in the averages for fat drippings, nonfat drippings, and volatile losses. Mean values for palatability characteristics are listed in Table 4. '47 Table 3. Percentage mean values for yield and cooking losses of baked hams based on triued weight (except #) Sliceable ' Lean rat Inedible _ Style Portion Scrap. Scrap Sggap A1 Regular, 33.33 18.71 15.34 1.18 bone-in, uncooked A2 Regular bone-in, precooked 36.06 15.11 14.96 1.48 B1 Skinless, shankless, uncooked 45.12 16.76 7.45 1.02 B2 Skinless, shankless, precodked 44.12 16.59 7.52 1.57 C Canned, pear-shaped 68.58 4.71 4.43 -- Dl Boned, rolled and tied, uncooked 69.71 5.37 2.63 -- D2 Boned, rolled and tied, precooked 66.97 8.87 ' 2.98 -- B Canned, pullman 68.88 6.48 3.10 -- P1 Splits. uncooked 68.78 5.20 2.85 -- r2 Splits, pre- 64.67 8.52 3.20 -- cocked 4- percentage based on initial weight Table 3 . (continued) hBone Skinf‘ Gelatinf‘"rat nonfat Vblatile Total and fat Dpip Dpip ypsses Losses 8.81 2.54 -- 6.51 4.27 11.87 22.65 7.94 2.46 —- 9.03 3.57 11.85 24.45 7.64 -— -- 5.11 3.62 13.29 ‘22.02 8.06 -3 -- 4.87 3.57 13.69 22.43 -- -- 10.95 2.72 3.66 15.90 22.28 -- -- -- 3.15 5.34 13.81 22.30 -- -- -- 2.13 5.59 13.47 21.19 --- -- 7.90 2.27 2.90 16.37 21.54 -- -- -- 2.17 6.12 14.89 23.18 -- -- -- 2.66 7.48 13.48 23.62 49 1° 2.0 . 49 . , 6.0 . Q0 399113: 322331.35“;31233:: .:: I . ' ‘ ' ' ' bone-in ': .2 ...:{3 .1 2'3 I '. {.13.}: “cocked ..e..:.e.°.e.:.o'00..: ::"37 Sliceablg 3 Portion ”gun“ ::-:-:.' :'-'.'I:.'. . .. .° :-:-'. bone-in 3:332:31 3': 21 I Lean [:3 Precooked ‘- :5 - ° °- - -'.° .3 : '. ScraP Skinless .':':':, :‘Jif:$337:-°.}:‘.'.°.".'.'~'33:'-.. I ' . Shankless 23.:o.‘..:.;:.'::.::::':.:1.1'.-.,".;::.o.::..:.:;:J uncooked " ° 1 shankless 3.3"? "‘ 3. ‘ precooked ' j ammo :I =-'. ‘~:-.-‘=:'I‘:-: ::I:-'.I.:= ::.‘I T::-.~.::-:-':2I= * pear- ...‘.... ... 0:... 31:05.00... 0...... o. .... ...: .0..::...e 0. .. ”a shaped ' . as... 53 :i-ésfai'i'Iri-‘r- if: a? 51551153321 J Skinless L"'.3' ‘..-”‘-- ' "5.231 . ' s. ”W... ...'.....~.Q......... {Bilgééd .::: .0.:,'.°..: :..°..::'.::.'..:: :..-'.._:‘_: .0..'. '1 :0 0": :. ': ... .: ”.:.. u 0 ::::l l precooked .:.} 3.3 :; : ... ., °.- 3. . . . 3,; Canned. ..:‘.? :::. : . I..:.o'..s.1.:-.: ::.: :9. £10.32“)... . 5.1. ::......o a... s: o . .:...i” _ P“ 1m“ :'= 1':.=.-'.:‘:'I.':‘ :'.°'-:-‘ :‘o'.'°.-'.°’ :52 ::‘-. split fi::v0:o.l.:°.:f.: .0....'.e ..:0 ... .::.f'.o‘...' o. . .:.:E‘.:o uncooked 0. .::. °. °--.-: ::. :-. .2- . : -: . Split ;.' I.‘-T.':.";.-.j§. :3; '1 :.’.-.'-.; ;.° {733.2 E 3‘ '73. precooked ’3'} :3: 3‘. -.','3: .' 3'33. .:." . , . 3'. '. ‘ . '. ,- Pigure 12. Percentage mean values for sliceable portion and lean scrap of baked hams, based on trimmed weight before cooking. 50 Table 4. Mean Values for palatability scores*of baked hams Style Aroma Flavor Color Tender- Tex- Juici- Lean Pat Lean ness ture ness A1 Regular, bone- -in, uncodked 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.7 4.5 A2 Regular, bone- 5.0 4.8 4.9 4.6 4.6 4.5 4.5 in, precooked 'Bl Skinless and shankless, uncooked 5.1 4.8 4.9 4.5 4.9 4.4 4.2 32 Skinless and shankless, precodked 4.8 4.8 4.7 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.4 C Canned, pear 4.2 4.4 4.3 3.9 4.2 3.6 4.0 D1 Boned, rolled and tied, uncodked 4.7 4.3 4.5 4.5 4.3 4.1 4.5 D2 Boned, rolled and tied, precooked 4.6 4.5 4.2 4.3 4.3 ‘ 4.1 4.2 B Canned, pullman 4.1 4.0 4.4 3.9 3.3 3.9 4.4 P1 Split! 0 uncooked 4.9 4.2 4.4 4.5 3.8 4.0 4.2 ’2 Splits: precooked 4.4 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.2 *Score averages were rounded to the nearest tenth before statistical analysis. Lesbians." noted dine: bosses ed: 0: bebnuos new seamen «098‘ .sisvisas 5h Regular Bone-in, uncooked and Precooked These styles had the lowest percentage of sliceable portion and highest percentage of lean scrap and fat scrap among all styles. The percentage of bone in the regular bone-in hams was significantly higher than the percentage of bone from.regular precooked hams. Regular precooked ham had the highest percentage of fat drippings, differing significantly from regular uncooked ham which was second highest. Bonfat drippings for both these styles were in the middle range, and volatile losses were lowest of all styles. Of the six palatability scores showing signifi- cant differences among averages, regular bone-in appeared in the upper range for all characteristics. Comments of judges indicated that aroma was mild, lean and fat flavors were typical. Skinless and Shankless, uncooked and Precodked The percentage of sliceable portion, although higher than regular‘bone-in styles,'was significantly lower than visking-wrapped and canned styles. The lean 52.: scrap percentage for skinless and shankless styles was approximately equal to the regular bone-in styles. Pat scrap was significantly lower than regular bone-in styles and higher than visking and canned styles. Fat dripping percentage was lower than regular bone-in hams. Percentage of nonfat dripping was lower than regular bone-in uncooked, but higher than regular ‘bone—in precodked. volatile loss percentage was in the medium range when compared with all styles. In data collected for palatability, skinless and shankless scores were in the upper range for all characteristics. Descriptive terms emphasized the mild flavor and aroma of these hams. Judges often mentioned coarseness, stringiness, and fiber separation in des- crflbing the texture of the hams. Canned, Pear Shaped Sliceable portion percentage did not differ significantly from any of the other canned or visking styles. However, it was 18 to 2 times greater than the bone-in style sliceable portion. Percentage of lean scrap was the lowest of all styles; percentage of fat 53 scrap was highest of canned and visking styles but lower than.bone-in styles. This style had a significantly higher percentage of gelatin and fat than the canned pullman style. Very few differences were noted among canned and visking styles for fat drippings and nonfat drippings. volatile losses for canned pear shaped hams were higher than all other styles except canned pulhman. Palatability scores ranked this style low in aroma, fat flavor, lean color, and texture. Lean flavor and tenderness scores ranked with other canned and visking styles in the upper ranges. Comments described aroma as mild and somethmes faint, and lean flavor as mild and frequently excessively salty. Pat flavor was typical. Texture was often described as coarse and stringy. Boned, Rolled, and Tied, Uhcodked and Precooked With the combination of high percentage of sliceable portion, a low percentage of fat scrap, and a high percentage of lean scrap, the yield for these styles is creditable. rat dripping losses and volatile >54 losses were low. Nonfat dripping percentage was in the medium range. Scores showed palatability for these styles ranked with other canned and visking styles which ranked slightly below the bone-in styles. Descriptive terms showed that aroma was mild and lean flavor was mild and salty. Coarse, stringy, and spongy textures were men- tioned. Canned, Pullman In percentages of sliceable portion, lean scrap, and fat scrap, canned pullman ranked with other canned and visking styles. 'It was higher in sliceable portion and lower in lean scrap and fat scrap than bone-in styles. Gelatin and fat percentage in this style was significantly less than that for pear shaped hams. Fat dripping and ' nonfat dripping percentages were lowy‘but volatile losses were highest among all styles. Palatability scores ranked this style lowest of all styles in aroma, lean flavor, lean color, and tenderness. Pat flavor ranked with bone-in styles and with uncodked boned, rolled, and tied hams and uncodked 55 splits. Comments clarify the reasons for these low scores. Although aroma was mild, it was often described as foreign. Lean flavor was objectionably salty.. Every ham baked appeared mottled in color and many were irri- descent. Texture was frequently described as spongy, coarse, and stringy. A rubbery texture was also noted in several hams. Splits, UhcoOked and Precooked Sliceable portion, lean scrap, and fat scrap ranked with other canned and visking styles, with a high percentage of sliceable portion and low percentages of fat scrap and lean scrap. Pat drippings were lowy‘but nonfat dripping percentage exceeded all other styles. Volatile losses were slightly higher for uncooked splits than for pre- coOked split hams. However,‘both split styles were in the middle range of volatile losses, ranking with other canned and visking styles. Palatability scores fell in the middle range for most characteristics. Comments of judged indicated that aroma was mild and often faint. 56 Fat and lean flavor were salty. Texture was sometimes spongy, coarse, or stringy. , 57 SUMMARY The effect of six ham styles on the yield and palatability of mild cured hams was studied by roasting 100 hams in a 325°F preheated oven to an internal temperature of 79°C. Meat from all styles was separated into sliceable portion, lean scrap, fat scrap, and inedible scrap. Cooking losses were calculated as non- fat drippings, fat drippings, and volatile losses. Palatability scores of seven judges were analyzed for aroma, lean flavor, fat flavor, color, texture, tender- ness, and juiciness. Datavere collected from regular bone-in, skinless- - shankless, canned pear-shaped, boned, rolled and tied, canned pullman, and split styles of hams. With the exception of canned hams, the styles included both un- codked and precooked kinds. A pattern of differences, attributable to style, between uncooked averages and precooked averages within styles was not apparent for any yield, cocking loss, or palatability factor. Canned styles and visking styles had a signifi-. cantly higher percentage of sliceable portion than bone-in '58 styles. for the bone-in styles, percentage of sliceable portion was significantly greater for skinless and shank- less hams than for regular bone-in hams. Percentage of lean scrap was significantly greater for bone-in styles than for canned styles and_visking styles. Regular‘bone-in hams, with the highest percentage of fat scrap, differed significantly from skinless and shankless hams. Both bone-in styles had a significantly greater percentage of fat scrap than the canned and visking styles. Percentages of total cooking losses did not differ significantly among the six styles. Subjective evaluation ranked bone-in styles highest for nearly all the palatability factors. Canned styles ranked lowest in most palatability characteristics. No significant differences among the six styles were found for juiciness. 59 RECOMMENDATIONS Interpretation of this investigation is limited by the controlled conditions of this study: roasting 10 to l2-pound mild cured hams at a temperature of 325°? to to an internal temperature of 79°C. The results reported are in no way intended as a recommendation of a method for roasting hams. The methods used were adopted to pro- vide a controlled investigation of the effect of ham style on yield and palatability of mild cured hams. This investigation has pointed out the need for interested support of the processors in clarifying descriptive terminology and instructions for the preparation of hams of different kinds. Comparative studies under controlled conditions would provide the basis for this information. Subsequent studies showing yield and palatability of uncbdked and precooked hams roasted to internal temperatures lower than the 79°C and point used in this study would provide an interesting and useful comparison with the findings of this study. Study of alowervrosstinz temperature for precooked hams would also provide additional data on palatability and yield. 10. 60 LITERATURE CITED Alexander, L. I. and Bankins, o. G. Yield and quality of cooked edible portion of smoked hams. Jour. Am. Diet. Assn. 28: 636-639. 1952. American neat Institute, Division of Home Economics. Smoked ham» Report no. 121956. (mimeo.) Baughman, H. D. The occurrence of potential staphylococcus food'poisoning organisms in foods of large institutions. unpublished H. S. Thesis. Columbus, Ohio, Ohio State university Library. 1952. Burgoin, A. H. Shrinkage and carving waste in cuts of beef and ham for institutional use. unpublished ' M. S. Thesis. Ames, Iowa, Iowa State College Library. 1929. committee on Preparation Factors National Cooperative Meat Investigations. Meat and meat cookery. Chicago, National Live Stock and Heat Board. 1942. Back, G..n. Food poisoning. Rev. ed. Chicago, university of Chicago Press. 1956. Dawson, E. B. Dochterman, E. F. and Vettel, R. 3. Food yields in institutional food service. Jour. Am. Diet. Assn. 34: 371-377. 1958. Downs, D. Yield and palatability of five styles of mild cured Hams in the 12 to l4-pound weight range. unpublished n. S. Thesis. East Lansing, Michigan, .Michigan State university Library. 1959. Draim, V. The rate of surface cooling of cooked hams and chickens and some observations on bacterial growflh. unpublished M. S. Thesis. Columbus, Ohio, Ohio State university Library. 1948. Duncan. D. B. .nultiple range and multiple P tests. Biometrics. 11:1-42. 1955. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. GL Erdman, A. M. and Watts, B. M. Radiation preservation of cured meats. Food Tech. 11: 349-353. 1957. Esselen, W. B. and Levine, A. 8. Bacterial food poisoning and its control, a review. university of Massachusetts, Amherst, Mass. College of Agriculture Bulletin no. 493. 1957. Fenton, F. Sheffy, B. E. Naumann, R. D. Wellington, G. R. Rogue, D. 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. 10: 272-274. 1956. Fields, M. D and Dunker, C. F. Quality and nutritive properties of different types of commercially cured hams. I. Curing methods and chemical composition. Food Tech. 6:329-333. 1952. Gillespie, B. V. Factors influencing shrinkage in cooked ham: A study of the influence of cooling temperatures. unpublished M. S. Thesis. Minneapolis, Minnesota, university of Minnesota Library. 1928. Ranley, J. W. Montgomery, G. L. Rorick, M. S. and Brockmann, M. C. A continuous process for smoked meats. II. Equipment design and application. Food Tech. 9: 597. 1955. Russeman, D. L. and Tanner, F. W.. New aspects of the food poisoning problem. Jour. Am. Diet Assn. 23: 16-21. 1947. Jensen, L. B. .Meat and meat foods. New York, The Ronald Press Co., 1949. Jensen, L. B. Microbiology of Meats. 3rd ed. Champaign, Illinois, The Garrard Press. 1954. Jul, M. Advances in meat canning. Food Mfg. 32: 259-264. 1957. Mahon, P. Rogue, D. Leaking, P. Lin, B. and Fenton, F. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 62~ The quality of mmoked ham as affected by adding antibiotic and fat to the diet and phosphate to the cure. 1. Cooking losses, palatability, separable fat, and shear values. Food Tech. 10: 272-274. 1956. MeDivitt,.M. B. Studies on the growth of food poisoning micrococci on cooked ham under conditions of home preparation and storage. unpublished PhD Thesis. Madison, Wisconsin, university of‘Wisconsin Library, 1952. McElhinney, E. z. Shrinkage and carving waste in large quantity meat cookery: A study to determine the number of servings obtainable from.the choice cuts of meat. unpublished M. S. Thesis, Ames, Iowa, Iowa State Cellege Library. 1927. Riven, C. F. Jr. and Evans, J. B. Popular miscon- ceptions concerning staphylococcus food poisoning. 7th Research Conf. Proceed. American Meat Institute, XII. 1955. Purdy, D. I. Factors influencing shrinkage in cooked ham. unpublished.M. S. Thesis. .Minneapolis, Minnesota, university of Minnesota Library. 1926. Ramibottom, J..M. Galser, P. A. , and Shultz, H. w; Bow light discolors meat: what to do about it. Food Eng. 23: 120. 1951. Rose, D. and Peterson, R. NOn-bacterial reduction of nitrite in pork. Food Tech. 7: 369-372. 1953. Rowntree, J. I. A study of controlled conditions in cooking hams. unpublished M. S. Thesis. Chicago, Illinois, university of Chicago Library. 1925. Ryer, R., Influence of radiation preservation of foods on military feeding. Food Tech. 10: 516-522. 1956. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 63 Saffle, R. L. The effect of different degrees of finish of pork carcasses upon palatability, tenderness, and cooking shrinkage of ham. unpub- lished PhD Thesis. East Lansing, Michigan,.Michigan State university Library. 1958. Snedecor, G. w. Statistical methods. 5th ed. Ames, Iowa, Iowa State College Press. 1956. 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, Univer- sity of Missouri Library. 1939. watts, B. M. Erdman, A. M. and Wentworth, J. Relation of free sulfhydral groups to cured meat color. Jour. Ag. Food Chem. 3: 147. 1955. Weir, C. E. and Dunker, C. F. Quality and nutritive properties of different types of commercially cured hams. II. Organoleptic analysis. Food Tech. 7: 235-236. 1953.. u. S. Federal Specification. Ham; cured-cooked - (chilled or frozen). PP-B-63. July 18, 1956. u. S. Gov't Prtng. Off., washington 25, D. C. u. 8. Federal Specification. Ham; cured, canned. PP-H-6la, December 3, 1954. u. S. Gov't Prtng. Off., washington 25, D. C. Ziegler, P. The meat we eat, 4th ed. (RBVa) Danville, Illinois, The Interstate Printers and Publishers, 1954. .r' r w «:1 Whafiflwullh, ..21.-~m 65 APPRIDIX A. SUMMARY OF DATA OR COOKED RAMS Ro. weight Cooking Investigator Rams in lbs. Style Cure Method Rowntree 1925 (28) -- 12-13 bone-in country roasted Purdy 1926 (25) -- -- bone-in country boiled McBlhinney 1927 (23) 2 -- bone-in country roasted Burgoin 1929 (4) -- 14-16 bone-in country roasted 16-18 bone-in country roasted 18-20 bone-in country roasted Staggs 1939 (32) 16 --' bone-in commer- baked - 30 -- bone-in cially baked 31 -- bone-in cured baked Alexander and Rankine 1952 (1) 18 12-14 ‘bone-in country baked 2 11 bone-in tender- 'baked Srrd‘ 13in Dawson et al 1958 -- -- ‘bone-in -- baked compilation of .- -- bone-in -- baked studies (7) -- -- bone-in -- ‘boiled -- -- bone-in -- boiled at -- -- BRT -- baked Downs 1959 (8) 10 12-14 bone-in rapid roasted 10 12-14 sk & sh rapid ‘ roasted 10 12-14 cnd pear rapid roasted 10 12-14 BRT rapid roasted 10 12-14 Split rapid roasted Atkinson 1959 10 10-12 bone-in rapid roasted 10 10-12 sk a sh rapid roasted 10 10-12 cnd pear rapid roasted 10 10-12 BRT rapid roasted 10 10-12 and pull rapid roasted 10 10-12 Split rapid roasted APPENDIX A. (continued) Oven ‘ Internal Total Sliceable Lean Edible temp. temp. cking Portion Scrap Portion loss 3? iii _ ‘3? % 350:? 70°C 28.0 250 ? 180°? 158°? 4.0 300°? 70°C 26.5 48.5 257°? 121°C' 70°C 25.2 51.0 121°C 70°C 23.9 47.8 121°C 70°C 29.1 46.7 250°? 70°C 15.1 3003? 70°C 21.1 65.78 375 ? 70°C 27.7 257°? 76°C 16.0 77.0 257°? 76°C 22.0 325:? 170°? " ‘ 62.0 325 ? -- 46.0 -- -- 55.0 350°? -- 50.0 350°? 170°? 62.0 325°? 79°C 23.0 43.4 325°? 79°C 24.8 44.4 325°? 79°C 23.1 70.8 325°? 79°C 23.3 59.9 325°? 79°C 27.1 55.6 325°? 79°C 23.6 34.7 325°? 79°C 22.2 44.6 325°? 79°C 22.3 68.6 325°? 79°C 21.8 68.3 325°? 79°C 21.5 68.9 325°? 79°C 23.4 66.7 Broth loss only Listed as ”edible scrap” 67 APPBHDIX B. HAM EQUIPHEBT L13! Boning knife -- Wear-ever professional no. 6117, 58 inch'blade. Graduate cyclinders -- 100 ml, double reading, calibrated at 1 ml. intervals. Graduate cylinders -- 500 m1. Pyrex brand glass, certified, calibrated at 1 m1. intervals, in accordance with specifications of Rational Bureau of Standards. Graduate cylinders -- 1000 m., Pyrex brand glass, certified, calibrated at 1 ml. intervals in accordance with specifications of National Bureau of Standards. Gram scale -- Torsion Balance Co. 2 kg. capacity. Gram scale -- Torsion Balance Co. Style 205, 48 kg. capacity. Kettle -- 10 gallon capacity with spout. Ovens, Institutional 2-deck, Hotpoint and Co. Racks -- wire, 10% inches square. Roasting pans -- 128 x 185 inches, aluminum. Ruler device for measuring length and width of ham. Skewer -- metal, 3 inches long.‘ Slicer -- General Slicing Machine Co., model 225 Thermometers -- 6 inches long (00 to 105°C) calibrated at 1°C intervals. ‘ ' Thermometers -- 12 inches long (-20 to 150°C) calibrated at 1°C intervals. 'Trays -- aluminum, 14 x 18 inches. cooking 11- Ram before 9 Ram after cooking a f APPENDIX C. 68 Sample Data Page Sample Ro. Pan. No. Description of ham before cooking: Circumference Length Thickness Width Degree of trim: Complete ; Good : Fair : Poor Description of shape and other observations: Fat depth: Collar ; Center :Left Center___: Right ;_ Center TOP Weight data pggams Cocking Loss Grams ‘1 lg“. .- _ Calculations l. Billed Wt. __1b. ___oz. 1 total dripping loss (10) 2 Ram in container Baking pan, rack, drip 3 Container = Baking pan, rack 4 Initial Wt. of ham 5. Gelatin And/or fat cooling pan, drip 6 Trimmings 7 Trimmed ham - cooling pan 8 Cooked a chilled ham = total loss 9 Cooking loss 10 Dripping loss 2 - fat drip (ll) 11 fat ' Weight per m1 fat drip 12 nonfat x total ml fat drip 13 Volatile loss (9-10) = fat drip l4 Bone loss 15 Inedible trim 16 Sliceableeham - total 17 Scrap ham-- total 18 lean 19 fat Other remarks and observations: Rot ham weight : 69 APPENDIX D. SAMPLE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE Analysis of variance for Sliceable portion Source of variance Degrees Sum of Mean F Freedom Squares Square Ratio Total 99 23,324.64 -— Treatments 9 20,375.88 2,263.99 69.11** Error 90 2,948.76 732.76 ** significance at the 1%.level ccamm mmsvHo 20. made PI. 6 - m m 1+ 1 u .1 .6. 1 H : 95% moms. .L. Y'I I? Lille awomHHmse. cone moon moon . fives M wood m «we? mood .csmoooenmowm1 bmmawHweH