THE ROLE OF SUCROSE IN CURED HAM

Thai: for flu Degree of M. S.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY.
Arthur James Goembel
1962

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

 

ABSTRACT
THE ROLE OF SUCRDSE IN CURED HAM

By Arthur James Goembel

The current investigation was carried out to determine the effect of
sucrose on color, flavor, palatability and shrinkage losses in comminuted
meat and intact hams. A trained taste panel was selected to evaluate the
products. The panel was selected after subjecting the prospective members
to a series of tests. The absolute thresholds for saltiness, sweetness,
and sweetness in a brine solution were determined. After determination
of the absolute thresholds, additional tests were conducted utilizing the
triangle test and the ranking test. Those individuals who exhibited the
greatest degree of consistency during the testing period were selected for
panel work.

The first part of the investigation dealt with the use of sucrose in
ground ham. In a preliminary test with 1.8 percent NaCl,1evels of sucrose
varying from 0.50 to 4.00 percent sucrose were studied. Samples were
evaluated by a consumer type taste panel. Results indicated that a level
of 1.00 percent sucrose was significantly preferred over the other levels
tested. Testing was continued using a series of 3 replications (A, B, C),
which were carried out using levels of NaCl from 1.0 to 5.0 percent and
levels of sucrose from 1.0 to 4.0 percent at 1.0 percent intervals. After
submitting the samples to the trained taste panel for rating on a 9 point
hedonic scale, the data were analyzed statistically by the Box-Wilson
method (1951). This method predicted that the maximum panel acceptance
would occur with a combination of 2.50 percent NaCl and 1.10 percent su-

crose. Testing the different combinations of NaCl and sucrose with a taste

Arthur James Goembel

panel over a narrower range indicated that somewhat higher levels of both
components were preferred.

A study for the determination of the optimum combination of brown
sugar and NaCl in ground ham was also undertaken. Results of this trial
indicated that a level of 3.0 percent NaCl and 2.0 percent brown sugar
was preferred over the other levels studied. Increasing the levels of
brown sugar did not appear to have any effect on the cooking losses. A
comparison of white and brown sugar was also carried out using the optimum
levels of each component that had been determined from previous tests.
Results indicated that there was no significant difference between white
and brown sugar from the standpoint of panel scores or cooking losses.
Although the two types of sugar seem to be equally useful for curing meats,
white sugar appears to be more desirable due to its availability, lower
cost and ease of handling.

After determination of the optimum combination of NaCl and sucrose
'in ground ham, work was initiated to determine optimum levels of these
components in intact hams. Paired hams were used, in which the right ham
of each pair was artery pumped with a brine containing various concentra-
tions of NaCl and sucrose, while the left pair mate was injected with a
brine containing the same amount of NaCl only. The hams were cured for 7
days in a 36-40°F. cooler. They were then smoked in an air conditioned
smokehouse to an internal temperature of 143°F. Samples were evaluated
using the paired comparison test. Results of the panel testing indicated
that a level of 2.5 percent NaCl and 1.25 percent sucrose was preferred
over the other levels tested.

Shrinkage losses during curing, smoking and cooking were recorded.

Losses during curing at a level of 2.5 percent NaCl and 2.0 percent sucrose

Arthur James Goembel

were significantly higher than the 2.5 percent NaCl control. Other than
this, there were no significant differenc&;in losses during curing, smok-
ing and cooking between treated and control hams.

Color evaluation by a 3 member panel was carried out to determine if
any difference existed between treatments. Results of this study indicated
that no significant difference existed between the sucrose-containing hams
and the non-sucrose-containing hams. Several hams exhibited two-toning,
but this probably was not due to curing practices.

Chemical analyses of NaCl and sucrose was carried out on the Semimem-
branosus and Biceps femoris muscles. Results of these tests indicated
that a difference in the uptake of NaCl and sucrose existed between the
two nascles. In all instances, the §§mimembranosus muscle had a greater
concentration of both components than the Biceps femoris. The calculated
levels of NaCl and sucrose were not attained in the two muscles studied,
in that the concentration of NaCl was higher and the concentration of su-
crose was lower than the calculated levels of addition.

Although present day practices by most meat packers utilize low
levels of sucrose in brine, the results of this study indicated that in-
creased levels of sucrose in comminuted meat and intact hams tended to
increase ham flavor and palatability. However, sucrose did not appear to

exert any effect on shrinkage losses.

THE ROLE OF SUCRDSE IN CURED HAM

By

ARTHUR.JAMES GOEMBEL

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER.0F SCIENCE

Department of Food Science

1962

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author wishes to express his appreciation to Dr. A. M. Pearson

for his timely advice and supervision during this investigation, and his

suggestions and patience during preparation of the manuscript.

To the Sugar Research Foundation, Fifty-Two wall Street, New York,

New York, the author is indebted for the grant which made this study

possible.
Acknowledgments are due to Mrs. Dora Spooner for her aid in the pro-

cessing of the data, and to Mrs. Joan Suden for her assistance in the

chemical analysis of the samples.

The author acknowledges Mrs. Beatrice Eichelberger for her excellent

preparation of this manuscript. Special gratitude is due to his parents,
iMr. and Mrs. Donald N. Goembel, for their continued encouragement and

understanding throughout this study.

ii

TABLE OF

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . .

REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . .

Curing methods . . . . . . .

Saltiness in cured meat products

Sugar in meat products . . .

CONTENTS

Ante-mortem feeding of sucrose to

Sugar in other products . . .
Fruits and vegetables .
Milk products . . . . .

Taste panel methodology . . .

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE . . . . . .

Taste panel selection . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sweetness and saltiness threshold tests .
Sweetness threshold in a brine solution .

Ranking procedure . . .
Triangle test . . . . .
Final panel selection .

Study of sucrose in ground ham

Preliminary study of 1.8% NaCl and

sucrose to ground ham .

Preparation of ground ham .

Curing . . . . . .

Cooking and panel presentation

Statistical analysis

Optimum NaCl and sugar levels in cured

varying

Preparation of ground ham . . . . . .

Curing .

Cooking and panel presentation

Determination of cooking losses . . .
The natural sweetness level of meat .

Statistical analysis

Optimum levels of NaCl and brown sugar in cured ham

iii

Page

11

12
12
13

13

18

18
18
19
19
19
19

19

19
19
20
20
22

22
22
22
22
22
22
23

23

 

 

Q
a I u
. O I
A I I ~
0 6 I c
‘ O I n
. I . .
u n n _.
. l .
n s . . .

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
Comparison of white sugar and brown sugar . . . . . . . 23

Study of sucrose in intact hams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Procurement and cutting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Curing and smoking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Cooking and taste panel presentation . . . . . . . . . . 25
Shrinkage losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Losses during curing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Losses during smoking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Losses during cooking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Color evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Chemical tests 0 O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O 0 O O O O O O 27
Statistical analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

RESst AND DISCUSSION 0 O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 29
Taste panel selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Study of sucrose in ground ham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Preliminary study of 1.8 percent NaCl and varying amounts
of sucrose in ground ham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Optimun levels of sucrose in cured ham . . . . . . . . . 33
Optimum levels of brown sugar in cured ham . . . . . . . 35
Comparison of white sugar and brown sugar in cured ham . 37

A study of sucrose in intact hams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ’ 38
Optimum levels of sucrose in intact hams . . . . . . . . 38

Shrinkage losses during curing, smoking and cooking . . 41

curing losses 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 41

Smoking losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Cooking losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Color evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Chemical analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
LITERAUURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

APPEND IX 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 5 3

iv

Table

II.

III.

IV.

VI.

VII.

VIII.

IX.

XI.

XII.

LIST OF TABLES

Sugar content of cured meat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Range of threshold levels of sweetness, saltiness and
sweetness in a brine solution for selected panel members .

Threshold levels of the 4 basic tastes as reported in the
literature 0 O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

The effect of varying the levels of sucrose upon the
flavor Of cured hm O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Optimum NaCl and sucrose levels for trials A, B, and C as
determined by the Box-Wilson method . . . . . . . . . . . .

Optimum levels of NaCl and sucrose for maximum panel score.

Optimum levels of NaCl and brown sugar for maximum panel

score 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O C O O O O O O 0

Cooking losses of ground ham at optimum levels of NaCl and
brwn S ugar C O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

A comparison of white and brown sugar for preference . . .
A comparison of cooking losses between white and brown sugar

Effect of various levels of sucrose on taste panel scores
of Biceps femoris and Semimembranosus muscles in cured hams

A comparison of yields after curing between sucrose-
containing hams and not-sucrose-containing hams . . . . . .

Page

29

3O

32

33

34

36

36

37

39

41

LIST OF FIGURES
Page

Figure l. Hedonic flavor evaluation score card . . . . . . . . . 21

Figure 2. Score card for the paired comparison test . . . . . . . 26

vi

Table

A.

LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES

Panel selection - sweetness threshold . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Panel selection - salt threshold . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Panel selection - sweetness threshold in 1.4 percent brine
SOlution O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 55

Panel selection - rank correlation by judges . . . . . . . 56

Panel selection triangle taste tests . . . . . . . . . . 57

Analysis of variance of preliminary study of 1.8 percent
NaCl and varying levels of sucrose in ground ham. . . . . . 58

Analysis of variance of sucrose levels at 1.0 percent NaCl
in gromd hm O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O 59

Analysis of variance of sucrose levels at 2.0 percent NaCl
in ground hm O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 60

Analysis of variance of sucrose levels at 3.0 percent NaCl
in ground hm O O O O I O O O O O O I I O O O O O O C I O O 61

Analysis of variance of sucrose levels at 4.0 percent NaCl
in g r omd hm C C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 6 2

Analysis of variance of sucrose levels at 5.0 percent NaCl
in gromd hm O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 63

Analysis of variance of Optimum sucrose levels at each level
of NaCl in ground ham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Analysis of variance of Optimum levels of brown sugar at
each level of NaCl in ground ham . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Analysis of variance of a comparison between white sugar
and brm sugar 0 O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 66

Paired t-test of 2.5 percent NaCl vs. 2.5 percent NaCl + 0.5
percent sucrose in the Semimembranosus muscle of intact hams 67

Paired t-test of 2.5 percent NaCl vs. 2.5 percent NaCl + 0.5
percent sucrose in the Biceps femoris muscle of intact hams 68

Paired t-test of 2.5 percent NaCl vs. 2.5 percent NaCl + 1.25
percent sucrose in the Semimembranosus muscle of intact hams 69

Paired t-test of 2.5 percent NaCl vs. 2.5 percent NaCl + 1.25
percent sucrose in the Biceps femoris muscle of intact hams 70

vii

BB.

BB.

CC.

CC.

LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES (continued)

Paired t-test of 2.5 percent NaCl vs. 2.5 percent NaCl + 2.0

Page

percent sucrose in the Semimembranosus muscle of intact hams 71

Paired t-test of 2.5 percent NaCl vs. 2.5 percent NaCl + 2.0

percent sucrose in the Biceps femoris muscle of intact hams
Shrinkage losses during curing and smoking of paired hams .

(continued) Shrinkage losses during curing and smoking of
Paired hms O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O

Shrinkage losses during curing and smoking of randomized

hams O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O I O O I O O O 0

(continued) Shrinkage losses during curing and smoking of
rand” iz ed hms O O O C O O O C O I O O O O O O O O O O C 0

(continued) Shrinkage losses during curing and smoking of
randmiz ed bums O O O O O O I O I O O I O I O O O O O O O 0

Cooking losses of cured and smoked ham slices . . . . . . .

Cooking losses of Semimembranosus and Adductor muscles of
Paired has 0 O O O O O C C O I O O O O O O O C O O I O O 0

Cooking losses of Semimembranosus and Adductor muscles of
rand quiz ed hms O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

(continued) Cooking losses of Semimembranosus and Adductor
‘muscles of randomized hams . . . . . . . . . .’. . . . . .

Cooking losses of ground ham at Optimun levels of NaCl'and
brown sugar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A comparison of cooking losses between white sugar and
brown sugar 0 I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Chemical analyses of the Semimembranosus and Biceps femoris
muscles of intact hams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(continued) Chemical analyses of the Semimembranosus and
Biceps femoris muscles of intact hams . . . . . . . . . . .

Chemical analyses of Biceps femoris and Adductor muscles in
intact hams O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

(continued) Chemical analyses of Biceps femoris and Adductor

musc1es in intact hams O O O O O O O C O O C O O O O C O 0

viii

87

INTRODUCTION

Although a large part of the consumer's food dollar is spent on
fresh meats, cured meat products comprise a significant proportion of the
meat consumed in this country. Since cured meats give variety to the
diet, the demand that they enjoy remains quite constant. Fields and Dun-
ker (1952) reported that approximately 10.5 billion pounds of hog carcass
meat are obtained annually from U.S. inspected packing plants. Of this
amount, approximately 3.5 billion pounds are cured.

It is difficult to pin point an exact date when meat curing actually
began. Smoking and salting of meats were ancient practices even in the
time of Homer (1000 B.C.). Just how this practice originated is not
definitely known. Cured meats were usually unevenly cured, quite salty
and dry until about 30 years ago. Before that time, the curing of meat
was thought to be an art. However, with new innovations . meat curing
today has evolved from an art to a science.

It has been estimated that the amount of sugar used annually in meat
curing is in the order of 50,000,000 to 60,000,000 pounds. Sugar has
traditionally been a constituent in curing mixtures for such items as
bologna, fresh pork sausage, corned beef, pressed luncheon meats, picnic
shoulders, bacon and ham. However, the importance of sugar in the meat
curing process is not completely understood. The sugar content of most
cured meats is quite low. In fact, it may be completely absent from com-
‘mercial curing mixtures.

IMoulton and Lewis (1940) felt that sugar played an important role
in the development of flavor and color in cured meats. Recent studies
by Mills et a1. (1960) utilizing the levels of sugar commonly used by the

-1-

meat packing industry indicated that sugar had little or no. effect on
flavor and color as judged by a laboratory panel. However, no attempts
were made to determine the effect of higher sugar levels.

The current investigation was undertaken to detenmine the effect Of
sugar on cured ham. In order to do this, the following objectives were

carried out:

(1) Selection and training of a taste panel for evaluation of
flavor and palatability Of the products.

(2) Determination of the levels of NaCl and sucrose giving
Optimum acceptability in a comminuted meat product.

(3) Determination of the levels of NaCl and sucrose giving
maximum acceptability in intact hams.

(4) Determination of shrinkage losses during curing, smoking, and

cooking to observe the effect of sucrose.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

CuripgiMethods

According to the American Meat Institute Foundation (1960), the
primary components generally used in curing mixtures are NaCl, NaN03,
NaN02, and sugar. Sodium chloride makes up the largest proportion of the
cure and is responsible for the preservative action. Jensen (1945) re-
ported that the function Of NaCl lies in its selective and inhibitive
action towards the bacteria reSponsible for spoilage. The bacteriostatic
action of NaCl is accomplished by dehydration, yet some workers (Green-
wood pp 21., 1940 and Moulton and Lewis, 1940) claim that the curing
mixture also aids in the establishment Of the prOper flora for color de-
velopment. Jensen (1945) stated that both NaN03 and NaN02 are color
fixatives which are acted on by the reducing bacteria to produce the
stable pink-colored nitric oxide-myoglobin complex.

Jensen (1949) described the four basic methods used in meat curing,
which include the dry cure, pickle cure, artery cure, and chopped or com-
minuted meats. Dry curing is carried out by rubbing the product with the
proper amounts of a mixture containing NaCl, nitrate, nitrite, and sugar
and permitting these ingredients to penetrate the tissue. The pickle
cure is made by dissolving the ingredients in water to form a brine. The
meat is soaked in the brine until the process of diffusion has resulted
in the curing agents permeating throughout the meat. A great deal of
time is required for this process. During the past decade, the time re-
quired for curing has been greatly reduced by pumping the cure in the
'meat by way of the vascular system. Here, the curing solution is pumped
into the arteries which furnish an excellent pathway for the distribution

-3-

-4-

of the ingredients throughout the tissue. The curing of comminuted meats
is used primarily in the production of bologna, frankfurters, and other
table ready meats. This method involves chopping the meat and thoroughly
'mixing it with the curing ingredients, thus resulting in a relatively
rapid cure. It usually utilizes other seasonings in addition to those
previously mentioned.
Although most hams are artery pumped by commercial processors, a
small amount of Speciality hams are still dry cured. These are found pri-
marily in the southern part of the United States and are known as country
cured hams or, in some areas, Smithfield hams. Fields pp El. (1952) com-
pared 3 types Of commercially cured hams and the Smithfield ham. The 3
types of commercially cured hams that were studied were: (1) sweet pickle,
quick-cured, tendered, which is pumped with a 70° brine, cured 10 days,
and smoked to an internal temperature of 60°C.; (2) sweet pickle, quick-
cured, ready to eat, which is similarly treated, but smoked to an internal
temperature Of 68-74°C.; and (3) sweet pickle, long-cured, which is
immersed in a pickle for 3-4 days per pound of meat and smoked to an in-
ternal temperature of 49°C. It was found that all three commercially
cured products were similar in composition. However, the Smithfield ham
was decidedly drier and contained more soluble nitrogen, more non-protein
nitrogen, a higher level of free fatty acids and a higher peroxide number.
In a study by Wier and Dunker (1953), the organoleptic acceptance of
hams cured with the 4 types of curing methods was Observed. They reported that
hams cured by the Smithfield method had a more pronounced salty flavor in both
the lean and fat, were less tender, and exhibited a darker, less attractive

color. The three commercial methods were comparable in composition and

-5-

were milder in flavor. Hoagland pp 31. (1947) also studied 3 curing
methods; artery curing, dry curing, and brine curing. They reported that
artery pumped hams showed the least shrinkage during curing and smoking,
followed by brine cured and with the largest shrinkage from the dry cured
hams. Losses of protein by all three methods were negligible.

It was reported by Skelly pp El. (1960) that dry cured, aged hams
are not uniform in quality. Shrinkage losses during aging may be as high
as 30 percent. They investigated the use of partial pumping for the pro-
duction of cured hams. It was observed that the partially pumped hams
had a greater concentration of salt. Furthermore, the dry cured hams
appeared sounder and were scored significantly higher for desirability
from the standpoint of saltiness, overall satisfaction, and flavor. There
was also no difference in tenderness between the partially pumped and the
dry cured hams.

Investigations by Kemp pp 51. (1961) on aged, dry cured hams have
shown that shrinkage increased with time of aging. After 12 months of
aging, studies on flavor, saltiness and tenderness indicated that no
further improvement occurred. They stated that a maximum internal temper-
ature of 110°F. is required for prOper formation of color and aroma during
aging.

In a study by DUDker.££.§l~ (1953) comparing typical short commer-
cial cures with the Smithfield type, it was shown that 811 hams were
excellent sources of thiamine, niacin, and riboflavin. The Smithfield
hams were exceptionally high in niacin since they were Obtained exclusively
from hogs fed a high peanut diet. Other than this, all hams were compar-
f vitamin content, biological value of protein

able from the standpoint O

and bacteriological soundness. Rice pp 51. (1947) reported that the

 

losses of vitamins during sweet pickle curing were negligible. However,
in the production of boiled hams, they observed losses of 30-40 percent
of the thiamine and 20-30 percent of the niacin. They concluded that
less cooking is required for cured and smnked hams so that losses are

significantly lower during this process.

Saltiness in Cured Meat Products

Since saltiness in cured meat products has long been a source of
complaint by English importers Of Wiltshire bacon, Grant and Gibbons
(1948) studied the factors influencing the salt content. They found that
the chloride ions were bound by the tissues while the sodiun ions remained
in the outer tissue fluids along with the excess NaCl. They stated that
on storage of cured pork, bacterial action together with the autolytic
enzymes break down the muscle tissue, and the chloride ions are released.
The chloride ion then re-unites with the sodium ion to form NaCl. This
‘makes the meat more salty. These investigators then concluded that milder
cures should be used in order to produce more acceptable Wiltshire sides
for the British market.

Investigations by Miller and Ziegler (1939) showed that there was a
definite relationship between length of curing and thickness of ham.
Thus, a higher NaCl content was obtained by longer curing periods per
unit of meat. Wistreich pp El. (1959) reported that accumulation of NaCl
increased with an increase in temperature and brine concentration. More
recent studies by Wistreich pp 31. (1960) have substantiated these results.
In addition, it was shown that the accumulation of NaCl in pork muscle

“varied linearly with concentration, but logarithmically with time.

Sugar in Meat Products

In a study by Mighton (1936) the average sugar content of cured

meats was determined.

The results are suumarized in Table 1.

He states

that the amount of sugar actually incorporated in most cured meats is

probably too low to impart a definitely sweet taste to the product, but

it may serve to soften the brashness of the salt.

Bacon represented an

exception, as the cooked product contains a higher percentage of agar,

and has a sweet taste.

Since this study was conducted over 25 years ago when long curing

was common, it is possible that the levels of sugar found may be differ-
ent today. In fact, Mills and Wilson (1960) state that detectable levels

of sugar in smoked ham is about 0.50-0.75 percent.

Table 1. Sugar content of cured meats.

Sugar at these levels

(Expressed asgpercent sucrose)

 

Product Maximum Minimun Ave rage
Commercial boiled hams 0.71 0.26 0.55
Regular boned hams 0.64 0.25 0.42
Pork butts 0.89 0.18 0.60
Canned spiced ham 3.20 1.15 1.68
Canned corn beef 0.20 0.03 0.10
Picnics 0.47 0.07 0.28
Frankfurters 1.65 0.41 1.26
Bologna 1.88 0.19 1.11
Bacon, raw 0.93 0.30 0.72
Bacon, cooked 3.28 0.96 2.32

 

 

 

 

___-_r

m

2' 'w

'w’.

 

 

butts and comparing sucrose, dextrose and honey to a non-sugar control,
it was Observed that the control cuts and those containing sucrose faded,
whereas, those containing dextrose and honey retained their color. They
concluded that the sample containing sucrose faded because enough of the
sucrose had not been inverted to establish reducing conditions. In a
similar experiment by Oesting pp 31. (1935) with intact pork butts, it
was observed that dextrose exhibited greater penetration of the meat and
produced a more stable color under ordinary light. Sucrose did not pene-
trate as deeply and the color faded more rapidly.

Kraybill (1955) reported that the hydrolysis of sucrose to its respect-
ive reducing sugars begins about 10 days after the onset of curing. He
suggested that dextrose be used in curing because it is more rqaidly fer-
‘mented than sucrose by many organisms. He further stated that dextrose
insures better reducing conditions at the start of cure and would be
particularly helpful in short cures. Biester and Wood (1925) have shown
that dextrose is less sweet than sucrose, and therefore, a greater quan-
tity would be required to attain the same level of sweetness.

In a comparison of sucrose and dextrose in bacon, Lewis g£_§l, (1935)
showed that as the reducing sugar content was increased, if the tempera-
ture was held constant, a shorter time was required to produce a given
degree of brownness. They further stated that as the reducing sugar was
increased a lower temperature was required to produce the same degree of
brownness, if the time was held constant. They concluded that higher
concentrations Of reducing sugars would result in less shrinkage and
cooking losses. It was observed, however, that if both time and tempera-

ture were held constant, bacon containing a high level of reducing sugar

-10-

yielded a charred, dark, unattractive product. They proposed that dex-
trose should not make up more than half of the added sugar.

.Moulton and Lewis (1940) stated that the disappearance of sugar is
a direct result of bacterial action. They concluded that sugar serves
as a readily available source of food for the bacteria, and thereby pre-
ferentially prevents bacterial breakdown of the meat protein. Greenwood
.gpmgl, (1940) observed that dextrose, mannose, and sucrose produced sig-
nificant color changes in the blood pigments, oxymyoglobin and nitric
oxide myoglobin. They correlated these color changes with the growth of
the microorganisms utilizing the sugars. They stated that microbial
growth aided in the establishment of reducing conditions which are needed
for color development. Jensen (1945) agreed with the above workers, but
added that the beneficial effects of the sugar and microorganisms can be
offset by the production of undesirable colored pigments, if the concen-
tration of sugar and the number of microorganisms are not kept within
certain limits.

Niven (1960) disagreed with the former authors. He stated that in
order to have proper color development a low oxidation-reduction potential
must be exerted. Sugar, as such, exerts no effect on the oxidation-re-
duction potential when added to the brine, so he concluded that sugar has
no effect upon color develOpment. He later pointed out that sugar is of
more importance in fermented sausages where it is metabolized by the
bacteria.

In a recent study by Mills pp 2l~ (1960) the possibility of artifi-
cial sweetners in meat curing was investigated. The cyclamates, particu-

larly the sodium salt, have been utilized as non-caloric sweetening agents

in many foods. At the present time cyclamates are used primarily in

 

['1'
4
L-

-11-

diabetic foods. IMills and others studied one such cyclamate which is

sold under the trade name of SUCARYL. They stated that is is 30—35 times
as sweet as sucrose and is readily soluble in water. They reported that
SUCARYL could be used as a substitute for sucrose or could be used in con-
junction with it. They suggested that there may be a faster penetration
of the meat because a smaller molecule is involved and the solution has

a lower viscosity and density. Other than the research done by Mills 35
gl,, very little work has been done in this area, so that the merits of

cyclamates have not been fully proven.

Antedmortem Feeding of Sucrose to Animals

Recently the effect of ante-mortem feeding of sugar on the quality
of meat has been studied by a number of investigators. Madsen (1943)
found that when pigs were fed 1 to 3 kg. of sugar the day before slaugh-
ter, the meat and the liver contained increased amounts of glycogen. He
also reported that the flavor of the meat was improved.

Gibbons and Rose (1950) found that ante~mortem feeding of sugar to
pigs increased the weight of the liver, as well as the glycogen reserves
in the liver and muscle tissue. The authors point out that the glycogen
in the muscle is broken down to yield lactic said after slaughter. The
pH Of the muscle tissues of animals not fed sugar varied from 6.0 to as
high as 6.6, while that of pigs fed sugar was about 5.3. They reported
that the color of cured meat from the sugar fed animals appeared to be
better and more stable, but after smoking, the color differences were
less apparent. However, the low pH meat was less subject to spoilage by
bacteria. These investigators concluded that the quality of unsmoked

lfliltshire sides could be improved by antedmortem feeding of sugar to pigs.

 

-12-

In a later study by Wilcox gt a1. (1953), feeding sugar resulted in
an increase in dressing percentage and a greater sugar content in the
tissues. The liver from pigs fed sugar 3-14 days before slaughter showed
an improvement in flavor. When beef cattle were fed sugar 3-12 days prior
to slaughter, there was a slight increase in dressing percentage and also
an increase in the weight of the liver. In addition, there was an in-
crease in the sugar content of the liver and muscle. Furthermore, they
observed that the keeping time of the cuts of beef was increased. No
significant effect was found on the tenderness, flavor or palatability of

either pork or beef.

I§ggar in other Products

Fruits and Vegetables: A great deal has been said about the impor-
tance of sugar in cured meats. However, it should be pointed out that
sugar also plays an important role in other food products. Investigations
by weckel g£_§l, (1961) with canned peas have shown that added sugar in
the brine increased the flavor significantly. In addition, the drained
weight increased with the higher sugar level. In an earlier study (Weekel
£31., 1960) with whole kernel corn, it was observed that the addition
of sugar to the brine significantly increased consumer flavor preference.
The use of increased levels of sucrose resulted in an increase of the
saluble and total sclids of the corn, but had no effect on the alcohol-
insoluble solids.

In a comparison of corn syrup and sucrose in Freestone peaches, Pang-
born 3; EL- (1959) reported that the all-sucrose packs were preferred sig-

nificantly over the packs containing corn syrup and sucrose and the packs

containing corn syrup alone.

 

-13-

Leonard £5 31. (1960) observed that the addition of sucrose and
NaCl to tomato juice enhanced the flavor when citric acid was added to
lower the pH, and to thereby facilitate heat sterilization. These in-
vestigators concluded that sucrose tended to cover up the acidity of the
citric acid, and the NaCl counteracted the sweetness.

Milk Products: Recent investigations by Finnegan and Sheuring (1962)
with chocolate ice cream have shown that higher levels of sugar are pre-
ferred. Consumer preference studies with 718 individuals indicated that
a 19 percent sugar mix was preferred significantly over the typical 13
percent formula. Consumers stated that a richer, creamier, more delect—
able chocolate flavored product was obtained. However, consumers were
not willing to pay 5¢ per pint extra for the preferred product. Earlier
work by Nickerson and Pangborn (1961) demonstrated that increased levels
of sugar increased the viscosity of the cream, but the increased sugar

content resulted in a softer product.

Taste Panel Methodology

iMan has devised many complex and intricate instruments to measure
and detect minute differences in compounds. However, he has yet to devel-
Op an instrument that can compare to the sensory apparatus located in his
oral cavity. Arthur D. Little Inc. (1958) stated that both the taste
buds and olfactory centers are highly develOped in that thousands of tiny
receptors are concentrated in a particular area. Because of this, tastes
and odors can be differentiated quite readily. King (1937) reported that
there are 6 basic tastes. They are sweet, sour, salt, and bitter. In a

study of taste relationships, Pangborn (1960) suggested that flavors in

foods consist of a mixture of tastes and odors accompanied by a variety

 

-14-

of oral sensations. She stated that a flavor formula is made up of 2 or
more of the basic tastes, but the specific action or the interaction of
one taste with another is not completely understood.

iMuch has been written about the organoleptic evaluation of food pro-
ducts. Hening (1949) stated that there are, at present, no adequate means
of evaluating the flavor of food resulting from various methods of pre-
paration, processing and conditions of storage. Since fine flavor is a
major goal in the development of food products and determines their
acceptability as well as commercial value, considerable effort is being
expended in the development of better methods for organoleptic examination
of food stuffs.

.Arthur D. Little (1958) has proposed several methods of evaluation.
They are the trained expert, the small expert taste panel, the untrained
selected taste panel, and the large scale consumer-type taste panel. A
great deal of controversy has arisen over which method gives the most
valid results. Thurstone (1950) stated that a large scale untrained taste
panel is best for preference work, whereas, a small group of expert tast-
ers des'best suited to determine differences. He stated that an expert
taster has his place, but should function to supplement other laboratory
analysis. ‘Wbrk by Boggs and Hanson (1949) is in complete agreement with
the previous study. They suggested that a small trained taste panel
should be used primarily for detecting differences in odor, flavor and
texture and should not be used in consumer preference or acceptance stu-
dies. Investigations by Hening (1949) have shown that small panels con-
sisting of 6-10 people are of great value in the evaluation of food

products and in determining differences between samples.

 

-15-

The literature is filled with procedures used in the selection and
training of taste panels. Hall gt a1. (1959) prOposed the use of the
identification test in which the judge is asked to identify a Specific
taste. This appears to be another name for the determination of absolute
threshold, since the judges are asked to indicate when they first observe
a taste. These investigators also suggested using the two sample differ-
ence test and triangle test in measuring the amount of difference that
may exist and also in testing the judges reliability.

Investigations by Girardot £5 a1. (1952) have shown that candidates
can be eliminated on their lack of sensitivity to flavors involved and
to some extent on their poor flavor memory and slow recovery from stimu-
lation. They stated that selection of panelists should be made on their
ability to discern differences between samples and their ability to re-
produce qualitative judgements. They stated that some candidates will
do well on one type of product and poorly on another, and thus, limita-
tions in some areas are unavoidable. Knowles and Johnson (1941) observed
that individuals vary somewhat in their taste thresholds from time to
time. This includes differences during a day and differences from day
to day. They also reported that smoking also appeared to affect the
ability of subjects to distinguish certain tastes. These inrestigators
stated that although there are apparent limitations in this procedure,
taste panelists should be selected on the basis of threshold tests.

Sather and Calvin (1960) recently studied the effect of the number
of samples presented to a taste panel at one session. Four products;
canned peaches, canned green beans, broiled hamburger patties and tomato

juice were tested. It was observed that for mild products up to 20 sam-

ples may be included in one test period with no decrease in a judges'

 

-16-

ability to discriminate flavor preferences.

McLean gt 31. (1959) reported that the addition of water to ground
cured ham has proven a satisfactory method of removing flavor from aged
Smithfield type cured shoulders and from ham cured by current commercial
practices. Extracts of such meat were used in the selection of a taste
panel to evaluate flavor production in experimental ham curing. They
recommended this method for its practicability and high degree of sensi-
tivity.

Investigations by Dawson and Dochterman (1951) indicated that the
triangle and paired tests were comparable in their preciseness, but the
triangle test inSpired more confidence in results because of the oppor-
tunity to eliminate judges who cannot duplicate samples. 0n the other
hand, Filipello (1956) feels that the paired test is more efficient in
determining differences. He points out that the triangle method has been
used as a classical test by many investigators and the feeling towards
the test has been that it is a "cure all".

Studies by Arthur D. Little Inc. (1958) have shown that the ranking
test and hedonic scale test are useful both in laboratory testing and
consumer preference studies. The ranking technique is one of the fastest
methods used and allows testing of multiple samples. In - actuality, it
is a type of paired test since one sample is compared against another.
However, the authors state that the paired test has the disadvantage of
lacking precision and showing inconsistencies when sample differences
are small. These investigators describe the hedonic scale as a type of
rating in which a product is evaluated on a predesignated factor. It has

the advantage of enabling a larger nunber of samples to be judged. It

-17-

differs from the ranking method in that the samples are evaluated separ-
ately and are not compared. These investigators stated that both methods
can be easily analyzed statistically.

Hopkins (1947) in a study carried out by a laboratory panel of 23
persons, found that the numerical system ranging from 1-10 works equally
as well as the hedonic scale. When analyzed statistically, it was found
that palatability of bacon could be assessed quite accurately. It has
been observed by Peryam and Pilgrim (1957) and Guilford (1954) that the
runmmical ranking system and hedonic tests can be affected by certain
factors. These include the position effect, contrast effect, contamina-
tion effect and error of central tendency. DeSpite these limitations,

the above authors stated that both methods appear to give valid results.

 

 

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

Taste Panel Selection

In studying the effect of sucrose on cured hams, first consideration
was given to selection of a taste panel. The members of the taste panel
were selected from the staff and graduate students in the Michigan State
university Meats Laboratory. Selection was based on their ability to
detect levels of sweetness and saltiness, independently and in combina-
tion together. The panel was selected after subjecting the prospective
members to the following tests: (1) absolute salt threshold, (2) absolute
sweetness threshold, (3) sweetness threshold in a brine solution, (4)
ranking procedure, and (5) triangle test.

Sweetness and Saltiness Threshold tests: The detection threshold
for both salt and sugar was carried out using distilled, deionized water
containing various concentrations of the solute under consideration. In
the case of salt, the concentration was varied from 0 to 1.00 percent at
intervals of 0.1 percent, while the sugar levels tested ranged from 0 to
2.50 percent at intervals of 0.25 percent. The samples were given to the
judges in 3/4 oz. portion cups arranged in order of increasing concentra-
tion, except that a random assignment of additional cups containing only
water was made in each series to serve as a check for discernment. Each
judge was asked to record the nunber of the sample in which he could first
detect the solute. Then he continued tasting until he could definitely
identify the solute in question. In all cases, the judges were not in-
formed as to the substance being tested. The threshold tests for both
salt and sugar were replicated three times in order to select the judges

who exhibited the greatest degree of consistency.

-13-

 

-19-

Sweetness Threshold in a Brine Solution: The panel was also tested
on their ability to detect sweetness in a brine solution. Levels of su-
crose varying from 0-2.50 percent at intervals of 0.25 percent were
incorporated in a brine solution containing 1.4 percent NaCl. Threshold
determinations were carried out using the procedure previously described
for salt and sugar. This test was replicated twice.

Ranking Procedure: The rank.method was used for all three factors;
sweetness, saltiness, and sucrose incorporated in a brine solution. The
judges were given six samples at one time. They were asked to rank the
samples from highest to lowest according to their intensity.

Triangle Test: Once the absolute threshold for sweetness and salti-
ness had been determined for the judges, the next task was to see if they
could detect small differences in concentration at or near the threshold
level. In each case, panel members were given three samples; two of
which were the same and one different. The panel members were asked to
select the different sample.

Final Panel Selection: The panel was selected on the basis of the
basis of the preliminary tests. Those members who could consistently de-
tect changes in sweetness and saltiness were chosen for taste panel work.
A total of 16 people were tested, and 8 panel members were selected from

this group.

Study of Sucrose in Ground Ham
Preliminary study of 1.8 percent NaCl and Varying Amounts of Sucrose to
Ground Ham.

Preparation of Ground Ham: Four pairs of hams were obtained from
180-240 lb. hogs that were slaughtered in the Michigan State university

abattoir. The hams were completely boned out and the excess fat was re-

-20-

‘moved. The meat was ground four times through a 1/8" plate to insure
proper mixing. It was then placed immediately in Cry-O-Vac bags, a
vacuum was drawn, and the bags were sealed. The meat was frozen and
stored in a -20°F. freezer until removed and used.

Curing: The ground ham.was thawed for approximately 4 hours before
the curing ingredients were added. The proportion of curing ingredients
in the mixture was calculated to give the desired concentration in terms
of percentage weight of meat. The curing ingredients consisted of 1.8
percent NaCl, varying amounts of sucrose from 0.5 to 4.00 percent, and
2 oz. NaN03 and 1 oz. NaN02 per 100 lbs. of meat. The nitrate and nitrite
were dissolved in 25 ml. of distilled water to insure prOper distribution
of the cure throughout the meat. Five hundred grams of meat was weighed
out to the nearest 0.1 gramm The meat and curing ingredients were mixed
three minutes with a Sunbeam electric kitchen mixer. After mixing, the
meat was placed in 1000 m1. beakers and allowed to cure for 4 days in a
36-40°F. cooler.

Cooking and Panel Presentation: The meat was cooked in a 250°F.
electric oven to an internal temperature of 185°F. The samples were ran-
domized and submitted to a consumer type taste panel composed of 16 mem-
bers who evaluated the meat for flavor acceptability on the 9 point hedonic
scale as described by Peryam.and Pilgrim (1957). Figure 1 shows the score
card used for this test. The judges were asked to rate each sample in-
dependently and not compare One with the other. The consumer-type panel
was used instead of the trained panel in the preliminary study, since an

overall consumer reaction to sugar levels appeared desirable during the

initial phases of this investigation.

 

-21-

Preference Test

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Name Plate No. Date

Code Code Code Code
Like Like Like Like
extremely extremely extremely extremely
Like Like Like Like
very much very much very much very much
Like Like Like Like
moderately 'moderately 'moderately ‘moderately
Like Like Like Like
slightly slightly slightly slightly
Neither like Neither like Neither like Neither like
nor dislike nor dislike nor dislike nor dislike
Dislike Dislike Dislike Dislike
slightly slightly slightly slightly
Dislike Dislike Dislike Dislike
moderately moderately ‘moderately moderately
Dislike Dislike Dislike Dislike
very much very much very much very much
Dislike Dislike Dislike Dislike
extremely extremely extremely extremely

Comments: Comments: Comments: Comments:

Figure l.

Hedonic flavor evaluation score card.

 

-22-

Statistical Analysis: The data obtainedweme analyzed by analysis
of variance and the differences between means was tested by Duncan's stu-

dentized multiple range test as described by Snedecor (1956).

Optimum NaCl and Sugar Levels in Cured Ham

Preparation of Ground Ham: Twelve pairs of hams were obtained,
prepared and ground as previously described.

Curing: A series of three replications (A, B, C) were carried out
to determine the optimum levels of each component in ground ham. Levels
of NaCl were 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, and 5.0 percent. The levels of sucrose
studied were 0, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, and 4.0 percent. Nitrate and nitrite were
added as previously described. The meat was mixed 3 minutes, placed in
1000 ml. beakers, and was allowed to cure 3 days in a cooler at 36-40°F.

Cooking and Panel Presentation: After curing, the meat was cooked
in a 275°F. electric oven to an internal temperature of 185°F. Five same
ples were presented to the judges at each session of the panel in a'random
order. The trained 8 member panel rated each sample on the 9 point hedonic
scale for flavor acceptability as previously described.

Determination of Cooking Losses: The ground meat was weighed on re-
'moval from the cure before cooking. After cooking to an internal temper-
ature of 185°F., the samples were removed from the oven and were allowed
to drain. The drained samples were weighed and cooking losses were deter-
mined.

The Natural Sweetness Level Meat: Determination of the level of
glucose in the meat before curing was achieved by the method described
by Folin and wu (1920). The levels of glucose were eXpressed in terms

of milligram percent. This was done in order to establish the natural

-23-

content of sugar in the hams before the addition of sucrose.

Statistical Analysis: The mean rating of all judges for each sample
was used as the score for the particular percentage of NaCl and sucrose
in the statistical treatment. The data were then statistically analyzed, ‘-"
using the method described by Box and Wilson (1951) for predicting the

optimum combination of components to give the maximum panel score.

Optimum Levels of NaCl and Brown Sugar in Cured Ham

Since many meat packers feel that a more flavorful product is ob-
tained by using brown sugar instead of white sugar, a study was undertaken
utilizing #13 dark brown sugar. Levels of brown sugar similar to those
studied in the previous experiment were used in this study. The levels
of brown sugar used were 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, and 4.0 percent. The levels of
NaCl studied were 1.0, 2.0, 3.0,:4;0 and 5.0 percent. Essentially the
same procedures were used for curing, cooking, taste panel presentation,

and determination of cooking losses.

Comparison of White Sugar and Brown Sugar

A comparison of white and brown sugar was also studied. Three levels
of NaCl and two levels of white and brown sugar were used. The NaCl levels
used were 1.0, 3.0, and 4.0 percent. The levels of white and brown sugar
studied were 0.5 and 2.0 percent. Essentially the same procedures of
curing, cooking, presentation to the taste panel, and determination of

cooking losses were used as described earlier.

Study of Sucrose in Intact Hams
Previous work with comminuted meat indicated that a level of 2.5
percent NaCl and 1.1 percent sucrose was Optimum. Therefore, additional

work was carried out in order to ascertain the optimum levels of NaCl and

sucrose applicable to intact hams.

 

-24-

Procurement and Cutting: Fifteen pairs of hams were obtained as
previously explained. Prior to cutting the carcasses, the femoral arter-
ies in the hams were dissected out and a length of string was tied to
them so that they could be used for artery pumping. Unless both hams of
a pair could be used for pumping, they were discarded.

Curing and Smoking: The level of NaCl studied was 2.5 percent be-
cause predictions from previous studies using the Box-Wilson method (1951)
indicated that this level gave Optimum results. The levels of sucrose
on the basis of final concentration in the ham were 0.5, 1.25, and 2.0
percent. Following this, a study utilizing higher levels of NaCl and
sucrose was undertaken. The levels of NaCl used were 3.0 and 3.5 percent.
The levels of sucrose studied were 2.0 and 3.5 percent. The nitrate and
nitrite levels were the same as those used earlier. The hams were paired
so that one of each pair was pumped with a brine containing the desired
level of NaCl and sucrose, while the other ham was pumped with a brine
containing NaCl only. The hams were pumped to 110 percent of their green
weight to give the desired concentration of brine in the cured ham.

The hams were cured in a 36-40°F. cooler for 7 days. They were
washed in cool running water for 35 minutes, placed in stockinettes, and
allowed to drip dry before being placed in the smokehouse. The hams were
then placed in an air conditioned smokehouse and smoked acccording to the

following schedule:

Time DH Bulb Wet Bulb R.H.
°F. °F.
5 hours 120 100 49

7 hours 160 132 45

 

-25-

They were smoked to an internal temperature of 143°F., which re-
quired approximately 12 hours. The hams were removed from the smokehouse
and were held in a cooler at 38°F. until removed for taste panel prepara-
tion.

Cookinggand Taste Panel Preparation: Three center cut slices weigh-
ing approximately 600 grams each were cut from each ham. Two of the
slices were used for taste panel evaluation, while the other slice was
used for chemical analysis. The two slices were cooked to an internal
temperature of 170°F. in a 300°F. electric oven, which required approxi-
mately 45 minutes. After removal from the oven, the Semimembranosus and
Biceps femoris muscles were dissected out of each slice. These muscles
were cut into sample size pieces, and presented to the panel in a random
order. Preference was determined by using the paired comparison test.
The judges received the samples in pairs, e.g. right Biceps femoris vs.
left Biceps femoris. They were asked to indicate which sample they pre-
ferred. If a preference existed, the degree of preference was scored on
a 9 point scale ranging from none to extreme. Figure 2 shows the score

card used in evaluation of the samples.

Shrinkage Losses

The losses incurred during curing, smoking, and cooking were recorded.
The data obtained includes shrinkage losses from the 15 pairs of hams
used in this study together with 54 pairs of hams from two related stu-
dies.

Losses During Curing: The weights of the hams were recorded to the
nearest 0.05 lb. before pumping. After the 7 day curing period, the hams
were reweighed prior to being washed. Shrinkage losses during curing were

calculated by dividing the weight after curing by the green weight.

 

-25-

SCORE SHEET

Flavor Preference

Name Plate No. Date

 

Instructions
1. You will receive samples by pairs.

2. Determine by overall flavor acceptability any preference which you
might have for a particular sample. Put the code nunber of the
preferred sample over the number of the other sample. For example:
if you prefer A over B, write A/B

3. If you do not have a flavor preference for either sample, place a
check in the box opposite None.

4. If in your judgment a flavor preference exists, place a check in one
of the other eight boxes opposite or between the terms which best
describe the degree of preference.

Preferred sample number/other sample number
Difference in

preference _L__ __/__ __/___ ___/__ _L__ __l__
None . . . . . . < ) < > < ) < ) < ') < )
. . ( ) ( > ( > < > < ) < >
Slight . . . . < > < ) c > < > ( > < >
. . . . . < )‘ < > < > < > < > < >
Moderate . . . . < > < ) ( ) c > < > < >
. . c > ( > < ) < > < > < >
Large . . . . < > < > < > < ) < > < )
. < > < > < > < ) < > < >
Extreme . . . < > ( > < > < > < > < )

 

Figure 2. Score card for the paired comparison test.

 

-23-

amount of glucose was determined. The amount of sucrose was obtained by
difference by subtracting the amount of glucose before inversion from the
total amount of glucose in the sample after inverting. Determination of
glucose was made by the procedure described by Folin and Wu (1920).
Statistical Analysis: Data obtained from the taste panel were ana-
lyzed using the t-distribution test as described by Snedecor (1956).
Analysis of variance was used to determine the significance of shrinkage

losses occurring during curing, smoking and cooking.

-27-

Losses During Smoking: After the hams had been smoked and placed
in the cooler they were held until they reached an internal temperature
of 38°F. The stockinettes were removed and the weights were recorded to
the nearest 0.05 lb. To calculate the shrinkage during smoking, the
smoked weight was divided by the cured weight.

Losses During Cooking: Two slices from each ham, weighing approxi-

 

mately 600 grams each, were weighed to the nearest 0.1 g. before cooking.
After cooking in the oven, the slices were allowed to drain and were re-
weighed. In the case of the two related studies, the Biceps femoriST.
and Adductor muscles were removed in their entirety and cooked at 200°F.
until an internal temperature of 170°F. was reached. After cooking, the
pieces were allowed to drain and were reweighed. Cooking losses were
determined by difference and expressed as percentage.

Color Evaluation: Before being cooked, slices of the hams used for
taste panel evaluation were judged for color by a 3 member panel. Color
acceptability of the paired samples was observed and rated visually. The
observations were based on the amount of two-toning of the muscles, dis-
tribution of the cure throughout the lean tissue,the absence of cure
pockets, and the lightness and darkness of the lean tissue.

Chemical Tests: The Semimembranosus and.§iceps femoria muscles were
dissected from the slices of ham that were not cooked. Each muscle was
ground 5 times to insure prOper mixing. Chemical tests for the determin-
ation of NaCl in the lean tissue were carried out by the Volhard method
as described in the A. O. A. C. (1958). Determination of sucrose was
carried out by first determining the amount of glucose in the sample.

Then by inverting the :sucr'os'e‘g in“: the“ Temple :srwith HGT: lthe .etotal.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Taste Panel Selection

It is recognized that any individual serving on a sensory differ-
ence panel should be able to recognize the four basic taste factors --
sweetness, saltiness, sourness, and bitterness. Although all four of
these taste senses are important, in this study consideration was given
entirely to sweetness and saltiness. In all, 16 candidates were tested
and 8 were selected for panel work. (see appendix tables A, B, C, D, E)
From the data collected, the average threshold level for each taste fac-

tor was determined. The results are summarized in table II.

Table II. Range of threshold levels of sweetness, saltiness and
sweetness in ab‘rine solution for selected panel members

 

Taste .Detection Identification
(percent) (percent)
Sweetness 0.25 - 0.50 0.50 - 0.75
Saltiness 0.20 - 0.30 0.20 - 0.30
Sweetness in brine 0.50 - 0.75 0.75 - 1.00

 

From the table, it is observed that the threshdld level for salti-
ness is lower than for sweetness. This is explained by the fact that
NaCl when placed in distilled water dissociates completely into Na+ and
C1-. The cation is responsible for the stimulation. Sucrose on the
other hand, does not dissociate in distilled water and therefore it requires
a greater concentration to produce a response. It was found that the
taste panel candidates were not only able to detect saltiness at a low

concentration, but could identify saltiness at the same level. This was

-29-

 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Taste Panel Selection

It is recognized that any individual serving on a sensory differ-
ence panel should be able to recognize the four basic taste factors --
sweetness, saltiness, sourness, and bitterness. Although all four of
these taste senses are important, in this study consideration was given
entirely to sweetness and saltiness. In all, 16 candidates were tested
and 8 were selected for panel work. (see appendix tables A, B, C, D, E)
From the data collected, the average threshold level for each taste fac-

tor was determined. The results are sunmarized in table II.

Table II. Range of threshold levels of sweetness, saltiness and
sweetness in abrine solution for selected panel members

 

Taste _Detection Identification
(percent) (percent)
Sweetness 0.25 - 0.50 0.50 - 0.75
Saltiness 0.20 - 0.30 0.20 - 0.30
Sweetness in brine 0.50 - 0.75 0.75 - 1.00

 

From the table, it is observed that the threshbld level for salti-
ness is lower than for sweetness. This is explained by the fact that
NaCl when placed in distilled water dissociates completely into Na+ and
01-. The cation is reSponsible for the stimulation. Sucrose on the
other hand, does not dissociate in distilled water and therefore it requires
a greater concentration to produce a response. It was found that the
taste panel candidates were not only able to detect saltiness at a low
concentration, but could identify saltiness at the same level. This was

-29-

-30-

not true in the case of sucrose, where the average detection level varied
from 0.25 to 0.50 percent and the identification level ranged from 0.50

to 0.75 percent. It was also observed that the sweetness threshold at
both the detection and identification levels was increased when sucrose
was incorporated in a brine solution. Apparently, the NaCl tends to

mask the sweetness of the sucrose. Detenmination of the absolute thresh-
old in panel selection appears to give a good indication of an individual's
sensitivity. It has been used by many workers in the flavor field for

this purpose. King (1937) in a study on taste thresholds summarized the
findings of other workers. Table III presents his summary.

Table III. Threshold levels of the 4 basic tastes as reported in the
literature. Ki 1937

 

Taste Moles / Liter

Sweet 0.0004 - 0.1024M
Salt 0.0008 - 0.2048M
Sour 0.0002 - 0.0128M
Bitter 0.0002 - 0.0128M

 

On expressing the thresholds reported by King as percentages, his re-
sults agree quite closely with the data collected in this study, in that
salt could be detected at a lower concentration than sucrose. However,

King pointed out that many variables must be taken into consideration when
thresholds are being determined with a panel. King indicated that panelists
will vary from day to day as far as their threshold is concerned, and that
the state of mind, health, time of day, temperature of solution, and other

factors all have a direct bearing on the results.

-31-

After the thresholds for sweetness and saltiness had been determined
for the candidates, testing was continued at or slightly below the thresh-
old levels. The triangle and rank tests were used. The primary reason
for these tests was to determine a candidate's sensitivity and consis-
tency. Those candidates exhibiting the greatest amount of consistency
throughout the tests were selected. (appendix tables D and E) The aver-
age "r" value for the judges in ranking sweetness was .881, while the
corresponding "r" value for saltiness was .785. This indicates that the
judges were a little more sensitive to small changes in concentration of
sucrose than salt. The average "r" value for ranking sweetness in a
brine solution was .768. It appears that the candidates had a more diffi-
cult thme ranking sweetness in brine than in making a similar ranking in
a straight sucrose solution. This is believed to be due to the salt
masking the sweetness of the sucrose.

Results of the rank test were verified by using the triangle test.
(appendix table E) In all, 14 tests were given to the candidates. These
included 5 for sweetness, 5 for saltiness, and 4 for sweetness in a brine
solution. In some cases, candidates were not able to take part in all
tests. Therefore, those who completed the 14 tests were considered for

taste panel work. Candidates who scored 85 percent or better on the tests

were selected for the panel. The panel consisted of 6 men and 2 women.

Study of Sucrose in Ground Ham

Preliminary study of_l.8 percent NaCl and varying amounts of sucrose

 

ingground ham: .A preliminary study was initiated using a level of 1.8

percent NaCl and levels of sucrose from 0.0 to 4.0 percent. Investiga-

tions by Mills .‘E g. (1960) with gromd ham and later with intact hams

 

-32-

had shown that this level of NaCl was the average amount found in most
commercially cured hams. These same workers reported the sucrose content
of hams varied from 0.50 to 0.75 percent. The purpose of the current
trial was to study the effects of different levels of sucrose on the
flavor of cured ham. After submitting the samples to a 16 member con-
sumer-type taste panel, the means were calculated. The results are
summarized in table IV.

Table IV. The effect of varying the levels of sucrose upon the flavor
of cured ham

 

Percent sucrose 'Mean panel score
0.0 5.3
0.5 6.4
1.0 6.6
1.5 5.6
2.0 5.6
2.5 5.4
3.0 5.0
3.5 4.8
4.0 5.1

 

Statistical analysis of the data showed the sample with 1.0 percent
sucrose to be preferred over the 3.0 and 4.0 percent levels (P-< .01) and
over the 0.0 and 2.5 percent levels (P‘< .05). The sample containing
0.5 percent sucrose was preferred over the 3.0 percent level (P‘< .01)
and over the 3.5 and 4.0 percent levels (P'< .05). Thus, results indi-

cate that the optimum level of sucrose was approximately 1.0 percent.

-33-

Optimum+Levels of NaCl and Sucrose in Cured Ham

Results from the preliminary study indicated that comminuted ham
was an acceptable product from the standpoint of flavor and palatability.
Therefore, a study was carried out to determine the optimum levels of
NaCl and sucrose in ground ham. In all, three trials (A, B, C) were con-
ducted using levels of NaCl from 1.0 to 5.0 percent, and sucrose levels
from 0.0 to 4.0 percent at intervals of 1.0 percent. The results of the
3 trials were analyzed using the BOXHEWilson method (1951) to predict
the Optimum combinations of NaCl and sucrose that would produce maximum
panel scores. To do this, the average score' from all judges was used
as the score for the particular percentage Of NaCl and sucrose in the
statistical treatment. The results Of the 3 trials are summarized in
Table V.

Table V. Optimum NaCl and sucrose levels for trials A, B, and C as
determined by the Box:»Wilson method

 

 

***
Trial Percent NaCl Percent sucrose
A , 2.50 1.10
B 1.46 0.08
C 2.60 1.14

 

The results indicate that there is close agreement between series A
and 0. prever, the B series disagrees with the previous two studies.
In viewing the panel results for series B more closely, it was Observed
that many of the panel members were very inconsistent in their scoring.

For example, during a single day of panel evaluation, which consisted of

-34-

a morning and afternoon session 60 percent of the panelists exhibited a
complete reversal of their preference rating. Since the panelists were
more consistent for the A and C series and inconsistent for the B series,
it is believed that the results of the latter series is not valid.

After the Optimum combination of NaCl and sucrose was predicted by
the Box:»Wilson method, it appeared advisable to test the predicted com-
bination by using each NaCl level in combination with its Optimum level
of sucrose. Thus, the levels of sucrose which gave the maximum panel
score at each level of NaCl were combined and tested against each other.
Thus, the combination of NaCl and sucrose which would give the highest
score was ascertained. The results of this trial are sunmarized in Table

VI.

Table VI. Optimum levels of NaCl and sucrose for maximum panel score.

 

 

Levels1
Average panel
NaCl Sucrose score
1.0 0.5 5.53
2.0 1.5 6.47
3.0 2.0 7.67
4.0 2.0 6.93
5.0 2.0 5.87

 

I expressed as percent by weight.

The highest panel score occurred at 3.0 percent NaCl and 2.0 percent
sucrose. The mean score for this combination was significantly preferred
over the other levels tested (P'< .01). It appears that the optimum

level of sucrose is about 2.0 percent. This is higher than the level

-35-

predicted by the Box -Wilson method and is also higher than that used in
most commercial brines. Ziegler (1958) states that in many commercial
practices, 25-30 pounds of sugar are utilized in 100 gallons of brine.
Mills and Wilson (1960) reported that the detectable level of sucrose in
ham is between 0.50 and 0.75 percent. This would correspond to about 50
to 75 pounds per 100 gallons of pump pickle. The authors further state
that this concentration is higher than that usually employed by commer-
cial practices. Therefore, it appears that industrial practices are

considerably lower than those found to give the optimum panel score.

Optimum.Levels of NaCl and Brown Sugar in Cured Ham

Brown sugar was widely used by the meat packing industry prior to
World War II, but during the war it was replaced by the more readily
available white sugar and has never regained its former pOpularity.
Since brown sugar has a characteristic flavor quite different from white
sugar, it appeared advisable to study the effect of brown sugar on cured
ham flavor. The levels of NaCl studied were 1.0 to 5.0 percent, while
the brown sugar levels utilized were 0.0 to 4.0 percent. Both components
*were varied at 1.0 percent intervals. After completion Of these tests,
the levels of brown sugar giving maximum acceptability scores at each
level of NaCl were then tested against each other to obtain the optimum
combination Of each component in ground ham. The results of this trial
are presented in Table VII.

The maximum score of 7.38 occurred at 3.0 percent NaCl and 2.0 per-
cent brown sugar. This level was preferred over 1.0 percent NaCl and
0.5 percent brown sugar and 2.0 percent NaCl and 3.0 percent brown sugar

(P < .05). Although no significant difference was observed at either the

-36-

Table VII. Optimum levels Of NaCl and brown sugar for maximum panel

 

 

 

score
Levelsc Average
NaCl Brown sugar panel score
1.0 0.5 5.94a
2.0 3.0 6.25a
3.0 2.0 7.38b
4.0 3.0 6.69
5.0 3.0 6.50

 

aSamples so marked are significantly different (P‘< .05) from sample
marked b.

bSee (a) above.
CExpressed as percent by weight.
4.0 or 5.0 percent level of salt, panel members indicated that the higher
levels of NaCl and brown sugar were saltier, and lacked the palatability
and flavor that the preferred sample exhibited.

Cooking losses were also recorded for each level of NaCl and brown
sugar. Table VIII summarizes the data collected from this study.

Table VIII. Cooking losses of ground ham at Optimum levels of NaCl and
brown sugar

 

 

Levels Wt. before Wt. after Percent
NaCl Brown sugar cooking cooking, Loss loss
(a) (g) (g)
1.0 0.5 , 782.0 643.3 138.7 17.74
2.0 3.0 811.0 672.4 138.6 17.06
3.0 2.0 823.0 667.2 156.3 18.98
4.0 3.0 817.0 660.7 156.3 19.10

5.() 3.0 835.0 677.7 157.3 18.84

-37-

The results of this study fail to show any significant difference
in cooking losses between the levels tested. The largest cooking losses
occurred using 4.0 percent NaCl and 3.0 percent brown sugar. Thus, in-
creasing the levels Of sucrose did not appear to have any effect on the

cooking losses of ground ham.

Comparison of White Sugar and Brown Suggp

Previous work with brown sugar in ground ham had indicated that an
acceptable product was produced. Therefore, it appeared advisable to
determine if any preference existed between white and brown sugar. A
study was initiated using the Optimum levels of each component that had
been determined from previous studies. The levels of NaCl studied were
1.0 and 3.0 percent, while the levels of sugar utilized were 0.5 and 2.0

percent. The results of this study are presented in Table IX. This

Table IX. A comparison of white and brown sugar levels for preference

 

 

Levels1 Average
NaCl Sugar panel score
1.0 0.5 white 6.44
1.0 0.5 brown 6.81
3.0 2.0 white 6.81
3.0 2.0 brown 6.81

IIexpressed as percent by weight.

study indicated that no significant difference in preference existed be-
tween white and brown sugar. This was true from the standpoint of juici-
HESs, flavor and palatability.

Cooking losses between treatments were recorded and are summarized

in Table X.

-33-

Table X. A comparison of cooking losses between white and brown sugar

 

 

Levels Wt. before Wt. after Percent
NaCl Spgar cooking cooking, Loss loss
(a) (g) (g)
1.0 0.5 white 783.5 667.1 116.4 14.86
1.0 0.5 brown 784.0 672.8 111.2 14.18
3.0 2.0 white 824.5 680.0 144.5 17.53
3.0 2.0 brown 822.5 681.1 141.4 17.19

 

The differences in cooking losses between ground ham containing
white and brown sugar were not statistically significant. Although the
losses appear to increase directly with NaCl, increasing the level of
sugar does not appear to exert any significant influence on the losses
during cooking.

Although there does not appear to be any difference in preference
between white and brown sugar as far as flavor and palatability are con-
cerned, there are definite advantages in utilizing white sugar in meat
curing. White sugar is more readily available and less expensive. White
sugar is much easier to handle, since brown sugar becomes hard and packed
during storage and is difficult to dissolve. Thus, there are distinct
advantages in utilizing white sugar in meat curing. This is probably
the reason vflur so little brown sugar is used by the meat packing industry

today.

.A;Study of Sucrose in Intact Hams
Optimum levels of sucrose in intact hams: After the determination
(hf Optimum combinations of NaCl and sucrose in ground ham, the next task

Was to apply these findings to a study concerning intact hams. Previous

-39-

studies had indicated that levels between 2.0 and 3.0 percent NaCl and
1.1 and 2.0 percent sucrose were optimum from the standpoint of flavor
acceptability. Therefore, an investigation was undertaken to determine
the optimum level of sucrose in combination with 2.5 percent NaCl. The
levels of sucrose studied were 0.50, 1.25, and 2.00 percent. Paired
hams were used for this study so that one of each pair was pumped with
sucrose, whereas, the pair mate served as a control with NaCl only.
Taste panel evaluation was carried out using the paired comparison
test as previously described. The Biceps femoris and Semipembranosus
muscles were both used for panel testing. The results of the tests for
the two muscles at each level of sugar were treated statistically using
the studentized t-distribution test. The results are presented in
Table XI.
Table XI. Effect of various levels of sucrose on taste panel scores of

Biceps femoris and Semimembranosus muscles in cured ham
Mean

 

Level of sucrose1 ‘ taste panel

(percent) IMuscle score t- values
0.50 Biceps femoris .195 .443
0.50 Semimembranosus .857 2.007
1.25 Biceps femoris 1.740 4.600**
1.25 Semimembranosus .860 2.028*
2.00 Biceps femoris .595 1.320
2.00 Semimembranosus .132 .234

 

1All levels of sucrose were tested in combination with 2.5 percent NaCl.
*Significant at (P-< .05)
**Significant at (P‘< .01)

-40-

For both muscles, taste panel results indicated that the ham.con-
taining 2.5 percent NaCl and 1.25 percent sucrose was significantly pre-
ferred over its pairamate control containing no added sugar. For the
Semimembranosus muscle, the difference between the ham containing 0.50
percent sucrose and the control without sucrose was not statistically
significant, but the difference approached significance at the 5 percent
level. Comments from panel members indicated that the samples contain-
ing high levels of sucrose were too sweet and lacked true ham flavor.
Results suggest that 2.0 percent sucrose was high enough to mask the
saltiness of the product, but at the same time did not contribute a sen-
sation of sweetness. No differences were observed from the standpoint
of juiciness and tenderness, in that both treatments were quite acceptable.

A level of 1.25 percent sucrose appeared to be ideal for pumping
hams. When this amount was exceeded in a 2.5 percent brine, a supersatur-
ated solution was produced. Thus, difficulty was experienced during
pumping, in that some of the ingredients tended to settle out. If the
brine was heated above 170°F., the ingredients would remain in solution,
but a different set of conditions was set up during curing, so this prac-
tice was not generally followed.

A trial utilizing high levels of NaCl and sucrose was undertaken to
(ietermine if any advantage could be achieved from the standpoint of flavor
61nd palatability. The levels studied were 3.0 percent NaCl and 2.0 per-
Iaent sucrose, and 3.5 percent NaCl and 3.5 percent sucrose. Evaluation
(hf the samples was carried out using the triangle test. Panel members
Werre presented three samples, two of which were the same and one which

W843 different. They were first asked to select the different sample.

-41-

Then, they were asked to indicate which they preferred, the like sample
or the unlike sample. Taste panel members experienced a great deal of
difficulty in selecting the different sample at 3.0 percent NaCl and 2.0
percent sucrose. Therefore, no significant difference was observed be-
tween the control and treated samples. However, panel members were able
to select the different sample quite readily at the 3.5 percent NaCl and
3.5 percent sucrose level. At this level, panelists indicated a definite
preference for the sample containing sucrose. They stated that the con-
trol was too high in salt. This clearly demonstrates that sucrose tends
to counteract the brashness of high salt levels.

It does not appear to be advantageous to use high levels of NaCl
and sucrose in cured hams, as the product is too salty and unpalatable.
In addition, a great deal of difficulty is experienced in pumping, since
a supersaturated solution is produced under these conditions.

Shrinkgge losses during_guringi smoking, and cookipg:

Curing losses -- Losses in weight during curing were recorded and
analyzed (Appendix U). A summary of the yields after curing are presented
in Table XII.

TIable XII. A comparison of yields after curing between sucrose-containing
hams and non-sucrose containing hams

 

 

 

___ Level Control1 Treated1
(percent) (percent) (percent)
__¥, NaCl Sucrose
2.5 0.50 106.89 107.30
2.5_ 1.25 ‘ 105.18 105.77
2.5 (2.00 105.84 105.73*
3.0 2.00 106.22 105.21
3.5 3.50 106.28 105.99

 

1PIJmped originally to 110 percent green weight.
*Si-gnificant at (P < .05).

 

n
\
n
o o
a
u
c
a
a

. 0 '

_ a

u o

l I ' .

a o o

 

-42-

There appeared to be no significant difference between levels of
2.5 percent NaCl and 0.50 percent sucrose and 2.5 percent NaCl and 1.25
percent sucrose when compared to their controls. However, losses at 2.5
percent NaCl and 2.0 percent sucrose were significantly higher than those
of the 2.5 percent control (P‘< .05). Shrinkage losses at the higher
levels of NaCl and sucrose showed little difference between the control
and treated hams. With the limited number of hams, the differences in
shrinkage were not great enough to produce significance.

Losses during curing were also recorded for the two large scale
studies, which were conducted in COOperation with the Agricultural Econo-
mics department. The work reported herein will be confined to losses
during curing, smoking, and cooking, while the acceptability studies will
be reported at a later date. There did not appear to be any significant
difference between levels of NaCl and sucrose as far as shrinkage during
curing was concerned. There was more difference within than between
treatments.

There are many factors that could affect shrinkage losses during
curing. One of the most important factors is the state of the arterial
system of the ham. If the system is damaged, Obviously the distribution
‘of the brine would be poor. Pumping pressure may also effect the shrink-
zage, in that poor control or variation in pumping pressure may result in
Clifferent rates of penetration and give different brine concentrations.
12f the pressure is too high, rupturing of the arteries or capillaries
Imay occur and cure pockets may be the result. If the pressure is too low
Penetration of the brine into the tissues may not be achieved and much

of? it will be lost during the curing period. In order to minimize the

-43-

amount of variation, a pumping pressure of 45 pounds per square inch was
maintained during this study. Another factor influencing shrinkage dur-
ing curing may be the temperature of the curing room. If the temperature
is too high, evaporation losses may be increased. However, if the temp-
erature is maintained at too low a temperature, poor curing may result.
Moulton and Lewis (1940) observed that bacterial spoilage also increased
if the temperature was raised above 40°F. In order to promote optimum
curing, a temperature of 38-40°F. was maintained in the curing room during
this study.

Smoking losses -- The shrinkage losses during smoking were recorded
and analyzed (Appendix U). Results indicated that no differences existed
between the treated and control hams. When various levels of sucrose
were compared, 2.5 percent NaCl and 1.25 percent sucrose resulted in sig-
nificantly less losses during smoking than the 2.5 percent NaCl and 0.5
percent sucrose (P‘< .05).

Losses during smoking were also recorded for the two large scale
studies. In all, 136 hams were used for determining smoking losses. NO
significant differences in losses during smoking were found to exist be-
tween different levels of sucrose and NaCl. There appeared to be more
'variation within than between treatments. The average yield after smoking
for the sucrose-containing hams was 100.39 percent, compared to 100.98
percent for the non-sucrose-containing hams.

Cooking losses -- The cooking losses of paired ham slices were re-
ccxrded and analyzed (Appendix W). No difference existed between the sam-
Plee containing sucrose and the control. Results of the two large scale

Stladies also indicated that no statistically significant differences

-44-

existed between the various levels of NaCl and sucrose as far as cooking
losses were concerned. Again, there appeared to be more difference
within than between treatments. A possible explanation of some of the
variation may be due to the fact that the ham pieces were not the same
size and thus, the smaller pieces would tend to have higher shrinkage

losses.

Color Evaluation

The paired ham.slices were rated by a 3-member color evaluation
panel before cooking. On the basis of the scores obtained, no differ-
ence existed between treatments. In general, most pairs of hams had
excellent distribution of cure, with no cure pockets or nitrite burn.
Some of the hams were two-toned, but results of other research (Wilson
._§d_1., 1959) would suggest that the two-toning Observed can not be attri-
buted completely to curing practices. Studies by Wilson‘gpngl. (1959)
have shown that ham muscles differ significantly in their myoglobin con-
centration and that the degree of two-toning in hams was closely related
to the amount of myoglobin in the darker colored muscles, rather than
the concentration in the lighter colored muscles. In addition, these
investigators also Observed significant differences in two-toning occurred
between breeds. Of the breeds studied, the Poland China eXhibited the
greatest degree of two-toning, while the Chester White showed the least.

The same authors suggest that the concentration of myoglobin and the de-

gree of two-toning in hams are heritable characteristics.

Chemical Analysis

Samples Of ham for chemical analysis were taken from the Semimembran-

 

osus and Biceps femoris muscles of paired hams. In the large scale study,

-45-

samples were taken from the Biceps femoris and égdpgppp muscles. The
results of these tests (Appendix BB) indicated that, in general, the
levels of NaCl in the tissues were higher and the sucrose levels were
lower than the calculated levels Of addition. Several factors might be
responsible for the differences between the calculated and actual levels
of these ingredients found by analysis. Unquestionably, the state of
the arterial system may play a role in NaCl and sucrose deposition. If
an obstruction were present, or a rupture occurred during pumping, the
brine would not be able to uniformly penetrate the tissue, and isolated
areas or cure pockets would be formed with considerable variation in the
concentration of ingredients.

In addition, there appeared to be a difference in the degree of
deposition of NaCl and sucrose in the muscle tissues. This was clearly
demonstrated by the variation in concentration of these two curing ingre-
dients in the muscles analyzed during this study. Without exception, the
Semimembranosus muscle had a greater concentration of NaCl than the
Biceps femoris muscle. The average concentration of NaCl in the Semimem-
branosus for 36 hams, in which a calculated level of 2.50 percent NaCl
'was added, actually showed an average analysis of 3.09 percent. However,
for the same hams the Biceps femoris muscle analyzed 2.69 percent NaCl.
In the case of sucrose, the differences were not as great, but again the

Semimembranosus muscle had a higher concentration than the Biceps femoris

 

tnuscle. At a calculated level of 1.50 percent sucrose, the average con-
czentration for 15 hams actually analysed 1.26 and 1.04 percent for the
Ehgmimeppranosus and Biceps femoris muscles, reSpectively. Thus, it is
exrident that there is considerable variation in the uptake of NaCl and

Sucrose by different muscles.

-46-

Another explanation for the variation in concentration from the cal-
culated may be that NaCl penetrates the tissues easier. The low concen-
tration of sucrose found in the tissue might be explained by the fact
that sucrose does not exert as great an osmotic pressure as NaCl, and
therefore, does not penetrate as rapidly or completely. In addition,
sucrose may not be bound as tightly to the tissues as NaCl, and thus,
more may be lost during curing.

A further possibility for the variation in concentration of NaCl
and sucrose might be the occurrence of bacterial degradation of the su-
crose during curing. Greenwood ppugl. (1940) and Moulton and Lewis (1940)
stated that the disappearance of sucrose was a result Of its being meta-
bolized by bacteria. This may be of importance in long cured hams, but
with the curing practices commonly used today, it may not be too impor-
tant, since inversion or fermentation probably does not take place in
such a short time. As a 7-day curing period was used in the current
study, it is quite possible that some inversion could have occurred. In
fact, bacterial inversion of the added sucrose appears to be the best
explanation for the lowered levels found in these muscles. In order to
resolve the question as to the fate of the added sucrose, analyses at

‘various intervals following pumping would be a useful technique.

SUMMARY

The Optimum combination of NaCl and sucrose in ground ham as pre-
dicted by the Box-Wilson method consisted of 2.5 percent NaCl and 1.1
percent sucrose. Further verification of these results by panel testing
over a narrower range indicated that somewhat higher levels of both com-
ponents were preferred in a comminuted product.

There did not appear to be any difference between white sugar and
brown sugar as far as palatability, flavor and cooking losses were con-
cerned. However, white sugar appears to be more applicable to curing
mixtures due to its availability, costs involved and ease of handling.

Investigations using intact hams at a level of 2.5 percent NaCl and
with various levels of sucrose showed that the taste panel preferred 1.25
percent sucrose over levels of 0.50 and 2.00 percent sucrose. It was
observed that if the amount of sucrose exceeded 1.25 percent in a 2.5
percent brine, a supersaturated solution was obtained, thus causing
difficulty in pumping. Therefore, pumping hams with high levels of NaCl
and sucrose presents some Operational problems.

There does not appear to be any difference in shrinkage losses during
curing, smoking and cooking between sucrose containing and non-sucrose
containing hams. An exception was observed for hams pumped with 2.5
percent NaCl and 2.0 percent sucrose, where the treated hams had greater
shrinkage than their control pair mates. Results from the large scale
tests also indicated that no significant differences due to variation in
tsucrose levels existed in shrinkage losses. There appeared to be more

\rariation within than between treatments.

-47-

-43-

NO color differences were observed between treated and control hams.
The hams exhibited excellent distribution of cure throughout. No cure
pockets or nitrite burn was observed. A number of hams were two-toned,
but this was probably not due to the curing process.

The results of the chemical analysis demonstrated that a difference
in the uptake of NaCl and sucrose existed between the Semimembranosus

and Biceps femoris muscles. In all instances, the Semipembranosue muscle

 

had a greater concentration of both components than the Biceps femoris

 

muscle. The calculated levels of addition for NaCl and sucrose were not
achieved in the muscles studied, in that the muscles had higher concen-
trations of NaCl and lower concentrations of sucrose.

Although present day practices by most meat packers utilize low
levels of sucrose in brine, the results Of this study indicated that in-
creased levels Of sucrose in comminuted meat and intact hams tended to
increase ham flavor and palatability. However, it appears that sucrose

does not exert any effect on shrinkage losses.

LITERATURE CITED

Allen, A. V. and T. N. Blumer. 1951. The effect of various combinations
of salt and sugar on the development of rancidity in cured bacon.
Proc. 43rd Ann. Meeting of Amer. Soc. of Animal Prod. 10:1030 (Abstract)

American Meat Institute Foundation. 1960. The Science ppreat and Meat
Products. W. H. Freeman and Company. San Francisco, Calif.

Assoc. Offic. Agr. Chemists. 1955. Official Methods pf_Analysis. 8th ed.
Assoc. Offic. Agr. Chemists, Washington 4, D. C.

Biester, F. W. and L. C. WOod.: 1925. Comparative sweetness of sugars.
J. Chem. Soc. 127:2308.

Blumer, T. N., D. E. Brady, F. H. Smith and L. N. Tucker. 1948. The role
of sugar in the production Of southern style hams. Proc. 40th An.
Meeting of Amer. Soc. Animal Prod. J. Animal Sci. 7:517.

Boggs, M;.M. and H. L. Hanson. 1949. Analysis Of foods by sensory differ-
ence tests. Adv. Food Res. Vol. 2:220.

Box, G. E. P. and K. B. Wilson. 1951. On the experimental attainment of
optimum conditions. J. Royal Statistical Society. B 13:1.

Brady, D. E., F. H. Smith, L. N. Tucker and T. N. Blumer. 1949. Charac-
teristics of country-style hams as related to sugar content of curing
mixture. Food Res. 14:303.

Cecil, S. R. and J. G. Woodroof. 1954. Effect Of storage temperatures on
the aging of country-style hams. Food Technol. 8:216.

Cook, W. H. and W. H. White. 1940. Canadian Wiltshire bacon. II. Chloride,
nitrate, and nitrite content of bacon and pickle. Can. J. Res., D.18:135.

Dawson, E. H. and E. F. Dochterman. 1951. A comparison Of sensory methods
of measuring differences in food qualities. Food Technol. 5:79.

,JDunker, C. F., M; Berman, G. G. Snider and H. S. Tubish. 1953. Quality
and nutritive prOperties of different types of commercially cured hams.
III. Vitamin content, biological value of protein, and bacteriology.
Food Technol. 7:288.

Fields, M. D. and C. F. Dunker. 1952. The quality and nutritive properties
of different types of commercially cured hams. I. Curing methods and
chemical decomposition. Food Technol. 6:329.

Filgipello, F. 1956. A critical comparison of the two sample and triangle
binomial designs. Food Res. 2:235.

F'intnegan, E. J. and J. J. Sheuring. 1962. Consumer preference for sugar
levels in ice cream and frozen desserts. Food Technol. 16:72.

FOIJin, O. and H. Wu. 1920. Sugar analysis of bloodand urine. J. Biol.
Chem. 41:367.

-50-

Gibbons, M. E. and D. Rose. 1950. The effect of antemortem treatment of
pigs on quality of Wiltshire sides. Can. J. of Res. F 28:438.

Girardot, N. F., D. R. Peryam, and R. Shapiro. 1952. Selection of sensory
taste panels. Food Technol. 6:140.

Grant, G. S. and N. E. Gibbons. 1948. Canadian Wiltshire bacon. XXVII.
Chloride shift in cured pork. Can. J. of Res. 26:1.

Greenwood, D. A., W. L. Lewis, W. M. Urbain and L. B. Jensen. 1940. The
heme pigments of cured meats. IV. Role of sugars in color of cured
‘meats. Food Res. 5:625.

Guilford, J. P. 1954. Psychometric Methods. 2nd ed. McCraw-Hill, New
York, N.Y.

Hall, B. A.,'M. G. Tarver and J. G. McDonald. 1959. A method for screen-
ing flavor panel members and its application to a two sample differ-
ence test. Food Technol. 13:699.

Hening, J. C. 1949. Operation of a routine testing group in a small
laboratory. Food Technol. 3:162.

Hoagland, R., O. G. Hankins, N. R. Ellis, R- L. Hiner and G. G. Snider.
1947. Composition and nutritive value of hams as affected by method
of curing. Food Technol. 1:540.

Hopkins, J. W. 1947. Precision of assessment of palatability of foodstuffs
by laboratory panels. II. Saltiness of bacon. Can. J. Of Res. 25 F:29.

Ingram, M. 1949. Salty falvor in bacon. J. Soc. Chem. Ind. 68:356.

Jensen, L. B. 1945. Microbiology p£_Meats. 2nd ed. The Garrard Press.
Champaign, I11.

Jensen, L. B. 1949. Meat and Meat Foods. The Ronald Press Company. New
York, N.Y.

Kemp, J. D., W. G. Moody and J. L. Goodlett. 1961. The effects of smoking
and smoking temperatures on shrinkage, rancidity development, keeping
quality and palatability of dry cured hams. Food Technol. 15:267.

King, F. B. 1937. Obtaining a panel for judging flavor in foods. Food
Res. 2:207.

Ifinowles, D. and P. E. Johnson. 1941. A study to the sensitiveness of
prOSpective food judges to primary tastes. Food Res. 6:207.

Kraybill, H. R. 1955. Sugar and other carbohydrates in meat processing.
Adv. in Chem. Series. 12:83.

-51-

Leonard, 3., B. S. Luh, and R. M. Pangborn. 1960. Effect of sodium
chloride, citric acid, and sucrose on pH and palatability of canned
tomatoes. Food Technol. 14:433.

Lewis, W. L., L. Swartz and H. V. Griffen. 1935. Why do some bacons fry
browner than others? Inst. Amer. Meat Packers. Proc. Operating and
Chem. Sections Bul. SR-20.

Lewis, W. L., R. B. Oesting and G. W. Beach. 1936. Preliminary report
on the place of sugar in curing meat. Inst. Amer. Meat Packers.
Dept. Res.

Little, Arthur D. Inc. 1958. Food Research and Food Acceptance. Reinhold
Publishing Corporation. New York, N.Y.

Madsen, J. 1943. Researches into the keeping quality of pork after feeding
sugar-containing foodstuffs. Nordis Jordbrugsforskning 5:340.

RkLean, Re A., A. M. Gaddis, F. G. Suggs and P. F. Crowe. 1959. Evaluation
of flavors in meat by use Of aqueous extracts. Food Technol. 13:286.

Mighton, C. J. 1936. The sugar content of cured meats. Inst. Amer. Meat
Packers Proc. Operating and Chem. Sections. Bul. 22-8.

Miller, R. C. and P. T. Ziegler. 1939. Salt content of cured ham, Food
Res. 4:55.

Mills, F., C. E. Weir and G. D. Wilson. 1960. The effect of sugar on the
flavor and color Of smoked hams. Food Technol. 14:94.

Mills, F. and G. D. Wilson. 1960. Is sugar needed in ham curing today?
A-M.I.F. Circ. No. 62.

Moulton, R. C. and W. L. Lewis. 1940. Meat Through the Microscope. 2nd
ed. Institute of Meat Packing. The University of Chicago, Chicago,
Ill.

Nickerson, T. A. and R- M. Pangborn. 1961. The influence of sugar in ice
cream. Effect on physical properties. Food Technol. 15:105.

Niven, C. F. 1960. Some prejudices and outmoded beliefs in meat curing.
A;M.I.F. Circ. No. 56.

Oesting, R. B., G. W. Beach, and W. L. Lewis. 1935. A study of curing
pork butts with cane and corn sugar. Inst. Amer. Meat Packers. Proc.
Operating and Chem. Sections. Expt. 47-7-6-1.

Pangborn, Re M. 1960. Taste interrelationships. Food Res. 25:245.
Pangborn, R. M., S. Leonard, M. Simone and B. S. Luh. 1959. Freestone

peaches. I. Effect of sucrose, citric acid and corn syrup on consumer
preference. Food Technol. 13:444.

-52-

Peryam, D. R., F. J. Pilgrim. 1957. Hedonic scale method of measuring
food preferences. Food Technol. 11:9.

Rice, E. E., J. F. Beuk; and J. F. Fried. 1947. Effect of commercial V
curing, smoking, storage, and cooking Operations upon vitamin content
of pork hams. Food Res. 12:239.

Sather, L. A. and L. D. Calvin. 1960. The effect of number of judgments
’ in a test on flavor evaluations for preference. Food Technol. 14:613.

Skelly, G. C., Jr., J. D. Kemp and W. Y. Varney. 1960. Effects of partial
pumping on the shrinkage, rancidity development and palatability of
aged hams. Food Technol. 14:446. ‘

Snedecor, G. W. 1956. Statistical Methods. 5th ed. The Iowa State College
Press, Ames, Iowa.

Thurstone, L. L. 1950. Methods of food tasting experiments. Proc. of the
2nd Conf. on Research. A.M.I.F. 2:85.

weckel, K. D., B. Strong, G. E. Garnatz, and M; Lyle. 1960. The effect
of added levels of sugar on consumer acceptance of whole kernal corn.
Food Technol. 14:369.

Weckel, K. G., W. D. Mathias, G. F. Garnatz and'M. Lyle. 1961. Effect Of
added sugar on consumer acceptance of canned peas. Food Technol. 15:241.

Weir, C. E. and C. F. Dunker. 1953. Quality and nutritive properties of
different types of commercially cured hams. II. Organoleptic analysis.
Food Technol. 7:235.

Wilcox, E. B., D. H. Greenwood, L. S. Galloway, M; B. Merkley, W. Benns,
J. A. Bennet, and L. E. Harris. 1953. The effect of feeding sucrose
to beef cattle and swine onuthe dressing percentage and quality of
meat. J. Animal Sci. 12:24.

Wilson, G. D., I. D. Ginger, B. S. Schweigert and W. J. Aunan. 1959. A
study of the variation of myoglobin concentration in "two-toned" hams.
J. Animal Sci. 18:1080.

Wistreich, H. E., R. E. MOrse and L. J. Kenyon. 1959. Curing ham: A study
Of sodium chloride accumulation. 1. Methods, affect of temperature,
cations, muscles, and solution concentration. Food Technol. 13:441.

Viistreich, H. E., R. E. MOrse, and L. J. Kenyon. 1960. Curing of ham: A
study of sodium chloride accumulation. II. Combined effects of time,
solution concentration, and solution volume. Food Technol. 14:549.

Ziegler, P. T. 1958. The Meat E Eat. 5th ed. The Interstate Printers
and publishers. Danville, Ill.

APPENDIX

-53-

Appendix A. Panel selection - sweetness threshold

 

Candidate Detection1 Identification1
(7.) (‘ZL
l 0.50 0.50
2 0.50 0.50
3 0.50 0.75
4 1.00 1.00
5 0.25 0.25
6 0.50 0.75
7 0.50 1.00
8 0.25 0.25
9 0.50 0.50
10 0.50 0.75
11 0.75 1.00
12 0.50 0.75
13 1.00 1.00
14 0.75 0.75
15 0.50 0.50
16 0.25 0.50
Average 0.55 0.672

 

1percent sucrose

-54-

Appendig B. Panel selection - salt threshold

 

Candidate Detectionl Identificationl

(7.) (7.)

1 0.2 0.2
2 0.2 0.2
3 0.3 0.3
4 0.2 0.2
5 0.2 0.2
6 0.3 0.3
7 0.4 0,4
8 0.2 0.2
9 0.1 0.1
10 0.2 0.2
11 0.2 0.2
12 0.1 0.1
13 0.2 0.2
14 0.2 0.2
15 0.3 0.3
16 0.2 0.2

 

1percent NaCl

Appendix C.

-55-

Panel selection - sweetness threshold in 1.4 percent brine

 

 

solution.
Candidate Detection1 Identification1
CZ») (7.)

l .75 1.00

2 .50 .75

3 .75 .75

4 .50 .75

5 1.00 1.50

6 .75 1.00

7 .50 .50

8 .75 1.00

9 .75 .75

10 1.00 1.00
11 .50 .75

12 .50 .50
13 .75 1.00

14 .75 1.00

15 .50 .75

16 .50 .50
Average 0.5-0.75 0.75-1.00

 

1

percent sucrose

-56-

Appendix D. Panel selection - rank correlation by judges

Average "I" value

 

Candidate Sugar Salt Brine
l .97 .91 .83
2 .93 .87 .77
3 .83 .49 .49
4 .92 .92 .87
5 .84 .93 .84
6 .77 .49 .77
7 .84 .97 .93
8 1.00 .97 .92
9 .91 .84 .83

10 .83 .83 .77
ll .84 .49 .49
12 .77 .92 .77
13 .93 .77 .49
14 .97 .49 .83
15 -83 .84 .92
16 .92 .83 .77

Average .881 .785 .768

-57-

Appendix E. Panel selection - triangle taste tests

 

 

Number
of Number Percent
Candidate tests correct correct
1 14 13 92.86*
2 14 11 78.57
3 14 13 92.86*
4 l4 14 100.00*
5 8 7 87.50
6 14 12 85.71*
7 8 4 50.00
8 8 5 62.50
9 6 2 33.33
10 8 6 75.00
11 14 14 100.00*
12 14 8 57.14
13 14 13 92.86*
14 14 13 92.86*
15 14 12 85.71*
l6 14 11 78.57

*selected for panel work

-53-

Appendix F. Analysis of variance of preliminary study of 1.8 percent
NaCl and varying levels of sucrose in ground ham

 

 

Treatment1
Panelist 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 / 3.5 4.0
l 5 5 7 6 7 8 7 8 7
2 6 8 8 3 8 4 4 3 4
3 8 8 7 6 6 8 5 6 7
4 7 6 6 8 5 4 5 7 6
5 6 8 7 8 7 5 5 4 4
6 5 6 7 6 4 4 4 5 5
7 3 7 3 3 4 3 3 2 2
8 4 6 8 6 4 2 4 3 4
9 6 7 8 8 7 7 8 7 5
10 6 7 7 4 8 5 6 6 6
ll 2 4 3 4 3 7 l 1 5
12 3 6 4 6 4 6 5 2 3
13 9 8 8 7 6 6 4 4 3
14 6 7 8 7 8 8 8 8 7
15 4 5 6 5 2 6 6 7 8
16 5 4 8 4 7 4 5 4 6
X 5.3 6.4 6.6 5.6 5.6 5.4 5.0 5.0 4 8

 

2
C.T. a 1%?— = 4422.25

Total SS = 4914.00 C.T. - 491.75

SS between treatments -.Zl&%%LQQ - C.T. = 45.00

SS between judges =.fll§%§i99.- C.T. - 199.53

F =- ——g-g§ - 2.73M

**Highly significant ;"
percent sucrose

-59-

Appendix G. Analysis of variance of sucrose levels at 1.0 percent NaCl
in_ground ham

Sucrose level

 

Paneligt 0.0 1:0 2.0 3.0 4.0
l 7 7 4 2 3
2 8 7 6 7 4
3 7 5 4 5 3
4 8 7 6 7 9
5 8 9 7 5 3
6 8 7 8 7 8
7 7 6 7 6 7
8 8 8 7 8 8
9 7 6 7 6 4

10 7 6 6 7 6
ll 9 8 5 5 3
12 7 5 9 8 7
13 8 9 6 4 3
l4 8 9 8 7 8
15 5 6 4 2 l
16 8 8 9 9 8
17 6 7 5 3 4
18 8 7 5 4 3
l9 7 7 6 4 4
20 7 6 6 4 4
21 6 8 7 8 9
22 6 5 5 7 7
X 7.27 6.95 6.23 5.68 5.27

 

2
C.T. - 122%— - 4341.0

Total 8.3. I 4709.0 - C.T. = 368.0

8.3. between treatments -.&§%%2.- C.T. - 62.0

8.8. between tasters -.£Z&2§.- C.T. - 158.0
5

15 50
F=_'__ II . **
1.76 8 80

'**High1y significant
percent sucrose

-60-

Appendix H. Analysis of variance of sucrose levels at 2.0 percent NaCl
in ground ham 1.

 

 

 

Treatment1
Panelist 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
1 6 6 6 7 3
2 8 7 7 6 6
3 9 8 7 8 6
4 6 6 7 4 5
5 7 7 6 4 4
6 4 7 5 6 3
7 8 7 8 7 6
8 9 8 9 9 8
9 7 7 8 7 8
10 8 7 7 5 4
ll 8 9 9 7 8
12 7 7 6 4 3
13 8 8 8 7 7
14 7 8 9 6 4
15 5 5 6 6 4
16 8 8 7 7 7
l7 5 6 6 7 8
18 5 6 6 5 4
19 7 8 7 7 2
20 7 6 6 5 8
21 8 6 4 7 3
X 7.00 7.00 6.86 6.24 6.29

 

2
C.T. - 4.16—3.211— - 4404

Total 5.3. - 4662 - C.T. - 258

8.8. between treatments =.2§%%§ - C.T. - 89

8.3. between panelists =.Zg§Z§ - C.T. - 111
5

- 22.25

F .725

- 30.69**

**Highly significant
percent sucrose

-61-

Appendix 1. Analysis of variance of sucrose levels at 3.0 percent NaCl
inpground ham

 

 

Treatment1
Panelist 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
l 6 6 7 7 4
2 7 8 7 6 4
3 6 8 7 4 3
4 9 9 7 8 7
5 4 6 6 7 4
6 6 6 4 8 7
7 6 6 7 6 5
8 4 4 7 7 5
9 5 5 6 8 3
10 6 7 6 6 5
ll 8 8 8 9 7
12 7 6 7 2 3
13 7 6 7 6 7
14 6 7 9 5 5
15 7 6 8 8 9
16 8 8 8 6 4
17 8 9 7 6 5
18 7 6 5 7 8
l9 7 6 8 8 9
20 8 8 8 6 6
21 6 8 8 7 6
22 6 6 7 7 6
X 6.55 6.77 7.00 6.55 5.55

 

2
C.T. =- £1111)— - 4621.5

Total 5.3. I 4863.0 - C.T. I 241.5

8.3. between treatments =.lQ%%Z§ - C.T. = 27.3

8.3. between tasters I gééglag - C.T. I 77.9

6 83
F I _.°_..._ 3 4.21%???
1.62

¥*Highly significant
percent sucrose

-62-

Appendix J. Analysis of variance of sucrose levels at 4.0 percent NaCl
ingground ham

 

 

 

Treatments1
Panelist 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
l 7 4 8 6 7
2 7 9 9 9 8
3 4 5 8 6 6
4 5 4 7 6 3
5 4 4 3 5 3
6 3 6 5 7 5
7 9 8 8 9 6
8 8 7 7 7 6
9 8 6 6 4 2
10 7 8 9 6 7
11 7 8 6 5 4
12 7 7 8 8 7
13 6 7 7 6 6
l4 6 6 7 6 7
15 3 6 6 3 6
l6 8 8 6 9 7
l7 7 7 6 5 4
18 3 3 6 6 7
l9 6 7 8 5 4
20 9 8 8 7 7
21 7 6 8 4 7
22 4 4 8 8 6
23 3 l 4 5 5
it 6.00 6.04 6.87 6.17 5.65
C.T. - 707 2 = 4346.5
115
Total S.S. I 4703.0 - C.T. I 356.5
S.S. between treatments I.lQQ%%§eQ.- C.T. I 18.40
S.S. between tasters I.§Z§g§i9.- C.T. = 180.10
5
F - ieéQ - 2.56*
1.80
'*

I)ifference between treatments significant at 5 percent level

1percent sucrose

-63-

Appendix K. Analysis of variance of sucrose levels at 5.0 percent NaCl
in ground ham

 

 

Treatment1
Pane1i§t~ 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
l 4 7 5 6 4
2 6 7 8 5 4
3 6 7 7 6 8
4 2 4 5 5 4
5 3 3 3 4 3
6 2 4 3 6 4
7 4 7 7 6 6
8 5 6 4 4 5
9 6 5 8 6 5
10 5 5 5 6 6
ll 1 2 5 3 5
12 5 7 6 4 3
13 8 6 7 8 6
l4 5 4 6 5 3
15 6 4 7 5 5
l6 6 8 6 7 3
l7 7 7 5 3 6
18 3 4 7 5 7
l9 7 7 9 8 9
20 6 5 3 6 3
i 4.85 5.45 5.80 5.40 4.95

 

2
C.T. -.S%%%l— - 2798.4

Total S.S. I 3081.0 - C.T. I 282.6

S.S. between treatments =.§§g£l;9 - C.T. I 12.2
20

S.S. between panelists I.léZQZiQ - C.T. I 143.2
5

F _ 3.05

1.68 I 1.82

percent sucrose

-64-

Appendix L. Analysis of variance of Optimum levels at each level of
NaCl in ground ham

 

 

Treatment

NaCl 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Panelist Sucrose 0.5 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.0
l 5 3 9 8 6
2 6 7 8 6 7
3 7 7 8 6 6
4 7 7 8 6 6
5 3 6 8 5 4
6 5 6 8 8 6
7 7 6 7 6 4
8 6 5 9 8 5
9 6 8 7 7 8
10 6 6 7 7 7
ll 4 7 6 6 3
12 6 8 8 8 7
l3 3 6 8 9 7
l4 6 7 7 7 7
15 6 8 7 7 5

i 5.53 6.47 7.67 6.93 5.87

 

2
C.T. = 487 - 3162.25
75

Total S.S. I 3307.0 - C.T. I 144.75

S.S. between treatments ..&§Q%%;Q - C.T. I 43.25

S.S. between panelists -.12%£Z=Q - C.T. - 21.15

10 81
F-_._&_- . *1“
1.33 8 13

**difference between treatments significant at 1 percent level

-65-

Appendix M. Analysis of variance of optimum levels of brown sugar at
each level of NaCl in ground ham

 

 

Treatment

NaCl 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Panelist B. sugar 0.5 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0
1 5 8 7 8 9
2 6 8 7 7 5
3 7 6 8 8 7
4 6 7 7 6 6
5 7 6 8 6 7
6 7 9 8 6 5
7 9 4 8 8 7
8 4 4 7 5 7
9 7 6 8 6 5
10 6 6 6 7 7
11 4 8 7 6 7
12 5 9 6 7 6
13 7 4 8 8 5
14 7 4 7 8 9
15 4 5 8 6 7
16 1 6 8 5 5

i 5.94 6.25 7.38 6.69 6.50

 

2
C.T. --1§§%1— - 3432.2

Total S.S. I 3582.0 - C.T. I 149.8

S.S. between treatments I.22%%&.- C.T. I 18.70

S.S. between panelists n.11%1§ - C.T. I 23.40

F ..fl;§§.. 2,51*
1 79

*difference between treatments significant at 5 percent level

-66-

Appendix N. Analysis Of variance of a comparison between white sugar
and brown sugar

 

 

 

 

White Brown White Brown Brown

NaCl 1.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 4.0

Panelist Sucrose 0.5 0.5 2.0 2.0 2.0
l 6 6 7 7 7
2 8 7 7 7 6
3 6 5 7 6 6
4 5 6 5 7 5
5 8 8 6 7 7
6 5 8 9 9 7
7 7 7 8 8 7
8 7 7 8 8 7
9 6 4 7 6 5
10 8 8 7 7 6
ll 7 7 6 5 3
12 6 8 7 5 5
l3 5 6 6 7 4
l4 6 8 7 6 4
15 7 7 6 6 8
16 6 7 6 8 7

i 6.44 6.81 6.81 6.81 5.88

 

2
C.T. --1§§%l— - 3432.0

Total S.S. I 3542.0 ~ C.T. I 110.0

3.3. between treatments I122%%§LQ - C.T. I 11.0

S.S. between panelists I 12%99 - C.T. I 40

*differences between treatments significant at 5 percent level

-67-

Appendix 0. Paired t-test of 2.5 percent NaCl vs. 2.5 percent NaCl + 0.5
percent sucrose in the Semimembranosus muscle of intact happ

 

 

 

Hemp, 0 61 d2
1 4 3.143 9.878
2 3 2.143 4.592
3 -6 6.857 47.018
4 -3 3.857 14.876
5 -4 4.857 23.590
6 2 1.143 33.966
7 -2 2.857 8.162
8 2 1.143 1.306
9 2 1.143 1.306
10 3 2.143 4.592
11 0 .857 .734
12 -4 4.857 23.590
13 0 .857 .734
14 2 1.143 1.306
15 5 4.143 17.164
16 4 3.143 9.878
17 1 .143 .204
18 3 2.143 4.592
19 2 1.143 1.306
20 4 3.143 9.878
21 2 1.143 1.306
22 1 .143 .204
23 4 3.143 9.878
24 2 1.143 1.306
25‘ 2 1.143 1.306
26 2 1.143 1.306
27 2 1.143 1.306
28 2 1.143 1.306
29 2 1.143 1.306
30 1 .143 .204
31 -2 2.857 8.162
32 -4 4.857 23.590
33 -2 2.857 8.162
34 4 3.143 4.878
35 0 .857 .734
36 1 .143 .204
37 1 .143 .204
38 -2 2.857 8.162
39 2 1.143 1.306
40 -2 2.857 8.162
41 -1 1.857 3.448
42 ._g_ 2.143 4.592
Total 36 314.704
Mean .857

 

t I 2.007

-68-

Appendix P. Paired t-test of 2.5 percent NaCl vs. 2.5 percent NaCl + 0.5
percent sucrose in the Biceps femoris muscle of intact hams

 

 

Ham, Treated dI dz
1 I4 -4.195 17.598
2 -2 -2.195 4.818
3 1 .805 .648
4 3 . 2.805 7.680
5 2 -1.805 3.258
6 -1 -1.195 1.428
7 -1 -1.195 1.428
8 -5 5.195 26.988
9 2 1.805 3.258
10 -4 4.195 17.598
11 -1 1.195 1.428
12 6 5.805 33.698
13 2 1.805 3.258
14 -4 4.195 17.598
15 2 1.805 3.258
16 3 2.805 7.680
17 -3 3.195 10.208
18 3 2.805 7.680
19 -2 2.195 4.818
20 3 2.805 7.680
21 3 2.805 7.680
22 0 .195 .380
23 0 .195 .380
24 6 5.805 33.698
25 -1 1.195 1.428
26 -2 2.195 4.818
27 -1 1.195 1.428
28 -1 1.195 1.428
29 0 .195 .380
30 6 5.805 33.698
31 3 2.805 7.680
32 3 2.805 7.680
33 -2 2.195 4.818
34 2 1.805 3.258
35 -1 1.195 1.428
36 0 .195 .380
37 -1 1.195 1.428
38 -2 2.195 4.818
39 1 .805 .648
40 -1 1.195 1.428
41 _-_4__ 4.195 17.598
Total 8 317.490
Mean .195

t = .443

Appendix Q.

-69-

Paired t-test of 2.5 percent NaCl vs. 2.5 percent NaCl + 1.25
percent sucrose in the Semimembranosus muscle of intact hams

 

 

 

Egg, Treated 781 d
l -2 2.86 8.18
2 4 3.14 9.86
3 4 3.14 9.86
4 2 1.14 1.30
5 -5 5.86 34.34
6 3 2.14 4.58
7 2 1.14 1.30
8 -2 .86 8.18
9 -3 3.86 14.90
10 2 1.14 1.30
12 3 2.14 4.58
13 2 1.14 1.30
14 2 1.14 1.30
15 4 3.14 9.86
16 4 3.14 9.86
17 -2 2.86 8.18
18 2 1.14 1.30
19 -2 2.86 8.18
20 2 1.14 1.30
21 -4 4.86 23.62
22 4 3.14 9.86
23 1 .14 .20
24 O .86 .74
25 2 1.14 1.30
26 2 1.14 1.30
27 -4 4.86 23.62
28 -4 4.86 23.62
29 2 1.14 1.30
30 4 3.14 9.86
31 -5 5.86 34.34
32 5 4.14 17.14
33 O .86 .74
34 4 3.14 9.86
35 0 .86 .74
36 -2 2.86 8.18
37 0 .86 .74
38 O .86 .74
39 -2 2.86 8.18
40 5 4.14 17.14
41 l .14 .20
42 2 1.14 1.30
43 4 3.14 9.86
44 0 .86 .74
45 4 3.14 9.86
46 4 3.14 9.86
47 -4 4.86 23.62
48 -4 4.86 23.62
49 6 5.14 26.42
50 ._2_ 1.14 1.30
Total 43 440.40

__ Meen .860
t I 2.028*

5*significant at 5 percent level

-70-

Appendix R. Paired t-test of 2.5 percent NaCl vs. 2.5 percent NaCl + 1.25
percent sucrose in the Biceg femorisjrpuscle of intactJhams

 

 

Ham Treated dI d2
1 3 1.26 1.59 -
2 3 1.26 1.59
3 2 .26 .68
4 2 .26 .68
5 -2 3.74 13.98
6 5 3.26 10.63
7 2 .26 .68
8 3 1.26 1.59
9 -4 5.74 32.59

10 0 1.74 3.03

11 4 2.26 5.11

12 2 .26 .68

13 4 2.26 5.11

14 4 2.26 5.11

15 4 2.26 5.11

16 6 4.26 18.15

17 4 2.26 5.11

18 2 .26 .68

19 -4 5.74 32.59

20 4 2.26 5.11

21 6 4.26 18.15

22 2 .26 .68

23 l .74 .55

24 1 .74 .55

25 -3 4.74 22.47

26 3 1.26 1.59

27 6 4.26 18.15

28 l .74 .55

29 -2 3.74 13.99

30 2 .26 .68

31 -2 3.74 13.99

32 2 .26 .68

33 2 .26 .68

34 2 .26 .68

35 1 .74 .55

36 2 .26 .68

37 -2 3.74 13.99

38 -2 3.74 13.99

39 2 .26 .68

40 4 2.26 5.11

41 5 3.26 10.63

42 _3 1.26 1.59

43 -2 3.74 13.99

44 4 2.26 5.11

45 3 1.26 1.59

46 3 1.26 1.59

47 -2 3.74 13.99

48 2 .26 .68

49 .;1_ 2.74 7.51

Total 85
¥ Mean 1 . 7
t = 4.60**

 

5"*Significant at 1 percent level.

-71-

Appendix S. Paired t-test of 2.5 percent NaCl vs. 2.5 percent NaCl + 2.0
percent sucrose in the Semimembranosus muscle of intact ham;

 

 

Ham Treated (If d2
1 2 1.868 3.489
2 2 1.868 3.489
3 2 1.868 3.489
4 2 1.868 3.489
5 -2 2.132 4.545
6 -2 ‘2-132 4.545
7 -4 3.868 14.961
8 2 1.868 3.489
9 -2 2.132 4.545

10 3 2.868 8.225

11 2 1.868 3.489

12 6 5.868 34.433

13 2 1.868 3.489

14 6 5.868 34.433

15 2 1.868 3.489

16 -3 3.132 9.809

17 -1 1.132 1.281

18 -4 4.132 17.073

19 -4 4.132 17.073

20 0 .132 .174

21 3 2.868 8.225

22 4 3.868 14.961

23 4 3.868 14.961

24 2 1.868 3.489

21 -3 3.132 9.809

22 5 4.868 23.697

23 4 3.868 14.961

24 2 1.868 3.489

25 -1 1.132 1.281

26 -2 2.132 4.545

27 -3 3.132 9.809

28 -4 4.132 17.073

29 2 1.868 3.489

30 -1 1.132 1.281

31 -1 1.132 1.281

32 1 .868 .753

33 -6 6.132 37.601

34 -2 2.132 4.545

35 5 4.868 23.697

36 -2 2.132 4.545

37 -6 6.132 37.601

38 _-_5_ 5. 132 26. 337

Total 5 446.30
_ Mean D . 132

 

t I .234

-72-

Appendix T. Paired t-test of 2.5 percent NaCl vs. 2.5 percent NaCl + 2.0
percent sucrose in JtIhe Biceps femoris muscle of intact hams

 

 

Ham Tpeated 61 dz
1 4 3.405 11.594
2 -3 3.595 11.594
3 4 3.405 11.594
4 4 3.405 11.594
5 4 3.405 11.594
6 o .595 .354
7 2 1.405 1.974
8 4 3.405 11.594
9 3 2.405 5.784

10 2 1.405 1.974

11 -2 2.595 6.734

12 4 3.405 11.594

13 4 3.405 11.594

14 2 1.405 1.974

15 0 .595 .354

16 2 1.405 1.974

17 3 2.405 5.784

18 -4 4.595 21.114

19 -1 1.595 2.544

20 2 1.405 1.974

21 0 .595 .354

22 -2 2.595 6.734

23 o .595 .354

24 3 2.405 5.784

25 2 1.405 1.974

26 o .595 .354

27 -2 2.595 6.734

28 -3 -3.595 12.924

29 -2 2.595 6.734

30 -4 4.595 21.114

31 3 2.405 5.784

32 1 .405 .164

33 -1 -.595 .354

34 2 1.405 1.974

35 3 2.405 5.784

36 3 2.405 5.784

37 -4 4.595 21.114

38 -2 2.595 6.734

39 -2 2.595 6.734

40 -2 2.595 6.734

41 -7 7.595 57.684

42 _gg_ 4.595 21.114

Total 25 348.308
____g Mean D . 595

 

-73-

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

mm.me e-.eo- om.w- oe.e- om.e- oe.oN oe.o~ o-.- on.m- o-.e- NN-

mm.mo- ee.eoa oe.m- ee.n- n~.ea oo.e- om.e- n~.e- o-.m- ne.e- HNH

eo.ee em.no- om.m- em.m- o~.e- oe.m- oo.n- om.e- oe.m- o-.m- em-

mm.eoe me.moH oe.e- oo.m- oo.n- ee.m- n~.m- oo.e- ow.m- om.e- e-

ma.ee oe.mo- oe.- oo.e- n-.m- o~.e- on.ei om.e- o-.m- on.m- m-

ee.ee me.mo- o~.n- oe.e- me.m- oe.e- m~.ea oe.e- oe.n- no.8- e-H

no.8e ee.mo- om.e- oe.e- me.na no.8- oe.e- m~.eH o-.mn ne.m- e-

Ho.Ho- e-.eo- om.m- oo.m- oe.e- ea.m- oo.mn 00.8- ne.m- oe.e- n-

mm.mo- om.~o- o~.ei oe.mi oe.e- oe.m- o-.eH ne.e- oe.mH m~.na e-H

mm.eo- ne.mo- o~.e- oo.m- oo.ne oe.nH me.n- no.8- n-.e- on.e- m-

me.ee ee.oo- om.- oe.mi ow.m- o~.e- om.e- no.4- oo.me om.m- --

mm.ee He.ee om.n- om.e- o-.e- oe.e- oo.e- oe.wa oe.na oe.e- H-

me.mo- an.-o- oe.e- oo.eH on.e- ow.ea ne.e- om.e- e-.ee me.m- o-

He.ee a8.~o- o-.e- om.e- oe.e- o-.m- mm.mn oe.m- n-.-H mw.e- eo-

-e.eo- oo.oo- oh.e- 80.4- oe.e- oh.e- nN.e- om.n- me.n- oo.e- moi

eo.-o- me.~o- oe.mH on.n- me.en om.e- n-.n- me.e- n-.mH o-.m- Noe

nm.me He.mo- oe.e- om.m- me.m- on.e- me.ei ne.e- m-.n- m~.m- eo-

eo.~o- He.mo- oa.e- o~.e- mm.e- mm.e- om.m- mu.m- me.e- 06.8- sea

m~.ee e~.~o- oa.- oe.m- ow.ma o~.ea oe.ea om.e- oo.me oe.m- 0-x

eo.ee oe.oo- ee.e- oo.ni ee.e- ou.e- oo.e- 05.83 om.e- oo.m- on-» enoneen eo.~
em.me ne.we ee.n- oe.e- oe.ea ow.n- om.e- om.e- oe.na ow.ee oe-w + ,u
ee.me ee.we om.ei ou.n- ee.m- o~.e- om.e- oo.e- oe.e- oe.mH o-H-» -enz en.~
ne.~o- o-.moi om.ma om.ei m-.e- o-.e- oe.e- n~.e- o-.nn ee.m- moi

ao.-oa ee.mo- oe.m- 06.6- 85.6- o-.n- m~.n- m~.n- me.m- me.m- No-

ee.eo- ee.~o- oe.e- om.e- m~.ea oo.me oo.mn mm.w- oe.m- mm.ea -oi onenene gem.-
eo.ee He.ee om.e- oe.e- om.e- oo.w- ne.w- me.m- oo.e- oo.e- wnm +
me.we oo.moa 06.4- oe.e- oe.en n~.n- o~.e- on.m- 08.43 oo.e- mN- Honz an.~
ea.we Ne.ee om.e- o~.n- o~.e- o-.e- m~.m- ne.e- oe.eH n~.m- -mo-

mn.~o- ~n.me on.e- oe.e- oo.n- n~.e- mm.m- on.ei me.m- ne.e- m-m-

ee.ee me.ee oe.e- oe.ea ne.e- m~.e- mm.m- mm.e- oe.m- oo.m- m-no- eneneen em.o
ee.ee me.em ow.m- om.e- n~.n- oo.8n om.n- oo.e- m-.e- mm.e- m-eo- +
em.me me.ee oe.m- oe.eH oo.n- mw.m- om.m- mN.e- m-.e- me.e- m-e- -onz en.~

e e Ann-V Annie Ann-v Ann-V Ann-v Ann-V Ann-V Ann-V
Nw-uHH muaoo Np.uua H.uaOU p-uuH H.unoo p uuH .ucoo Nv-uufi H-ucoo .oz unusummna
flHmwh udmouom ufiwHGS Umxofim US H03 VOHSU US Hw3 v0 85m ufiwww3 Gmwhw HHGQ
ens

 

mama poufimmwmo mnaxoem pamrwme501wmanse mOmmOH mexawusm

ob NHWGQQQV

. . .
v . . . . - - - . u . , _ < - . . , . - . . . - . . . .
- . - — r . - , . . , . , . . . 4 . . . , . . . < . _
A o . - — . - . - . . « . » . . . - . . . . . . ~ , . . . 3
o . . . . . . a . - . . . , o u - . . ~ . . . n - 4 . < n . o
. u - o u .. a u . o - - » ~ 0 a - r . . - ~ - . - . I - I 0 ~ .
v o g . . u g - n e . . , . . 4 . . . . . ‘ _ _ _ ‘ _ ‘ . . V
. . . . . . ~ 0 0 ~ - 6 ~ 0 v . u . - - ~ - . - . . v - . . . ‘ '
u o q o a 3 a n a - a - a - . ~ ‘ 1 n ~ \ v . . , - . - . , 1 I
. . o - 1 . o - . . o u n u w . ~ - . . - — . . . . . . , . ' I
r a
D
n a o

 

.74-

Omonosm + HumzN
Omouosm on + HUMZH

amouosm Nn.m

 

 
  
 

 

 

m~.nm 0H.Hoa o¢.~a mn.ma on.mH o¢.oH oH.¢H me.ma om.mH oNH +
64.nm wH.w¢ o~.mH om.mH oo.oH m~.¢H oa.na oe.mH mn.mH mNH Humz Nm.m
mmonoam No.~
mm.wm o¢.HoH A.ma mo.~a mn.ma om.mH om.qH m~.ma oo.~H «Na .+
mN.wm wH.mm mm.ma om.mH o~.mH om.ea om.mH 0H.¢H mn.ma mNH Husz No.m
.e .e 3.:- 33 3.5 Ann: Ann-JV, Ann: Ann-V Ann-v
Ne-uHH H.unoo Np-uHH .udoo Nv-UHH 1kusoo U-uHH .uaoo Ne-HHH .uaoo .Oz unusumoua
mHOHh unwoumm us “03 wa¥ofim newwm3.emhso us H03 to saw us HO3 ammnw name
an:

 

Aposawuaoou new: confine mo wwwxoem pamIMdHHso,wmausp mommoa O mxsqusm

 

.= newem w

-75-.

 

 

o¢.AoA om.MA oo.¢A oo.mA oh.mA A qu
mo.AoA mA.¢A oo.mA o¢.mA oo.qA A mMA «mousse No.~
wo.AoA oo.¢A om.¢A om.mA mm.MA A omA +
An.OOA 0A.¢A oo.mA o¢.mA oo.¢A A mMA Aomz No.~
mm.m¢ mn.¢A om.mA o¢.oA om.¢A A waA
ma.mm o~.¢A o~.mA oo.oA om.¢A m ¢¢A omouosm No.A
Am.wm om.¢A oq.mA n~.oA mn.¢A A qu _+
mm.ooA ow.nA On.oA o¢.NA mn.mA A OMA Aomz $0.N
no.NOA ow.¢A ow.mA oo.oA om.¢A m OMA
oo.o0A 0A.mA oo.¢A om.¢A oA.mA A ¢MA Omouosm No.0
mm.ooA mm.mA om.oA mn.oA o~.mA M mmA .+
nn.moA om.¢A oA.mA o¢.mA oo.¢A A mmA Aumz No.N
wA.mm om.mA mn.¢A OA.mA mn.mA m wmA
oo.mm nw.¢A mw.mA om.oA oo.mA A emA OmOHOSm $0.m
N~.NoA oA.mA om.mA 0A.oA oh.¢A m AnA +
mm.m0A on.mA m¢.¢A oo.¢A mN.mA m NmA Aumz xm.A
m~.~0A o¢.mA om.mA om.qA oA.mA m onA
«A.mOA ow.¢A oo.mA mn.mA mm.¢A A mmA amouosm No.~
om.m0A mn.¢A o¢.mA om.mA oo.¢A A mmA +
an.AOA mN.¢A mA.mA om.mA oo.¢A M mmA Aomz Nm.A
NA.mm oo.~A o¢.NA om.MA oA.~A m qu
m¢.moA oo.mA om.mA mN.¢A om.NA A mmA omouosm No.A
ow.wm oo.mA oo.¢A om.¢A mA.MA A AmA +
Aw.ooA o¢.NA 0N.mA mo.MA om.NA m RNA Aomz Nm.A
Am.AoA m¢.nA om.oA mn.oA nN.mA A oeA
mn.AoA mm.¢A oA.mA o¢.mA oo.¢A m oqA amouosm No.o
mm.AoA om.mA oo.oA oo.oA oA.mA A NMA +
oo.~oA mn.mA om.oA om.oA mm.mA m AmA Aomz Nm.A
N .mnA .mnA .mnA .mnA .02 “Ann uaoawwona
eAOAh uaoonum uAmAmz erOEm uAona_pou:o unwsz pagesm unwA03.paouw an:

 

 

mans nONAwoeamu mulwmAxOmw new wmAuno waAusw mommOA uwwwmwamm .b xmwcwmmw

-76-

 

 

om.AoA om.¢A ow.mA oA.eA on.¢A AomA
mo.AoA oo.mA om.mA mm.oA mn.¢A MueA smouonm No.A
mo.wm oo.mA om.oA mn.oA ou.mA MNMA +
Am.nm mo.~A oo.MA om.¢A oo.mA MmMA Aomz No.m
An.~oA mN.MA oA.¢A mm.¢A om.~A Mqu
mm.om mw.~A ow.mA oo.¢A mN.MA AN¢A mmouonm $0.0
«A.na om.nA om.oA oq.NA m~.mA AAeA +
oo.ooA cw.¢A oh.mA m~.oA ow.¢A AwmA Aomz go.m
mo.ooA o¢.¢A ow.¢A mn.mA om.¢A MnnA
A~.wm mn.mA mo.¢A om.mA oo.¢A AooA mmouonm No.m
a¢.mm mm.MA mn.¢A om.mA o¢.¢A quA +
oo.ooA on.MA om.¢A mn.¢A om.MA ANnA Aomz Nm.~
wwrmoA o¢.mA oo.dA m~.¢A om.NA AndA
mm.nm o~.¢A om.mA oo.oA 0A.mA mAqA smououm No.~
A~.mm oq.mA on.¢A o¢.mA oo.¢A AoqA +
w~.nm o~.mA oA.¢A om.¢A om.mA MomA Aomz Nn.~
oo.ooA om.MA o~.¢A oh.¢A om.mA MmmA
«A.noA m~.¢A oo.¢A on.¢A om.MA AnmA Ononosm No.A
AA.om oo.MA on.¢A oo.mA mA.¢A MnmA +
mm.moA oo.¢A nN.mA mm.mA 0A.¢A AAmA Aomz No.~
no.m0A om.mA mm.¢A o¢.¢A oA.MA Mqu
mm.um oA.¢A oo.mA ow.mA o¢.¢A AmmA amouusm wo.o
0A.nm ow.AA om.~A m~.mA o¢.~A MNmA +
¢~.nm oA.qA oo.mA oo.oA om.¢A ammA Aomz Nm.~
ow.mm o~.mA om.¢A mn.mA om.¢A Aqu
mo.wm oo.mA oA.oA oo.OA o~.mA Aqu omOHOum fic.m
m¢.oa om.mA om.¢A o¢.nA oo.¢A MmmA .+
mA.mm mm.mA oo.oA om.mA o~.mA MomA Aumz No.m
N .mnA .mAA .mnA .mAA .oz “Add unusummua
pAOAh unmoumm newAms_pOxoem quAoa mouse quAms museum uswA 3 Omaha sum

 

ApossAusooM new; pONAEOmeH mo wmwxomw edmstAuso wdAnsp mommoA wwmstHmw .b xmwammm<

-77-

 

 

 

AnmsaAuaoov we“; nouAmwusmu mo manomw.psm waAHOO wnAnsp mommoA o wanHAm

 

«o.mm om.¢A om.mA m~.oA on.¢A AmmA
a~.mm oo.qA om.¢A mm.mA 0A.¢A MooA mmouosm No.m
oq.om o¢.mA om.¢A om.mA oa.mA AmmA +
mm.mm oo.¢A co.mA mm.mA OA.¢A AomA Aomz No.m
mm.mm oo.¢A oo.mA OA.0A ON.¢A awaA qu
oo.ooA oo.mA 0A.¢A om.¢A oo.MA MmmA smouosm No.N
mN.ooA om.~A oA.mA oo.¢A 0N.~A mamA +
ow.OOA oo.~A o¢.mA ow.mA om.NA ANNA Aomz No.m
N .mAA .mAA .mnA .mnA .oz HAma. usuamwmua
eAOAh unmoumm uAmAma pox08m quAoB emusu quAoa mamasm unmaos sumac awm

 

-73-

.moOAAm can mo mquAma pocAAeOom

Omouonm + AumzN
mGOAm AomzA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AA.oA on.mA o.woA o.m0A o.me o.m¢c o.m¢oA o.~mn <aomA omouosm Nm.m
mm.AA wN.a o.ooA o.mN o.NoN o.~mc o.Now o.NoN <umNA + Aumz Nm.m
on.oA 0N.NA o.mNA o.moA o.mmo o.ow¢ o.~wn o.Aom ¢NA Omouusm No.~
mn.m~ NN.NN o.ANA o.¢wA o.a¢m o.¢~o c.0NN o.wow <umuA .+ Aomz No.m
mm.AN m¢.o~ o.¢oN o.a- o.oom o.mom o.¢NNA o.NMAA meaeoA

.Am.o~ o¢.AN m.o¢A. o.m¢A o.mmm A.mum m.¢¢m o.ANo mum

am.- «N.m~ m.o¢A o.~mA m.om¢ o.om¢ o.Nmo o.wom 41m

AA.om ow.om m.mNA w.omm N.mAm o.~mm o.m¢o w.woN maomuw

mw.m~ No.mm m.mNA m.w- o.mA¢ o.mo¢ ¢.m¢m w.Amo <uomnw

mm.mm Ao.mu «.mmA «.moA o.ANo A.mwd ¢.ko n.umo muoqnw

mm.m~ Am.- m.mwA e.mmA 0.0Ao ¢.Amo m.mow o.m¢m aaoeaw «mousse No.~
NA.oN mo.m~ m.¢o~ o.nm~ m.wNm o.nAo o.~wN o.onm mucuAuw +
oo.m~ Am.m~ o.NmA o.Aou o.mmn o.¢mo o.owm o.mmw mnOaAuw Aomz Nm.~
mm.- wm.w~ o.mo~ o.Aom o.oww o.AAm o.mmAA o.~NNA m<nmoA

«0.0m mw.~N o.owm o.o~m o.oow o.oAAA o.o¢NA o.om¢A m<u~oA

mn.A~ mw.AN o.wNm o.mmm o.¢mAA o.mNMA o.NNmA o.moNA m<uAOA smouosm Nm~.A
«A.oA N~.oA o.moA o.mo~ o.¢moA o.mmoA o.mmmA o.ooNA mdummm +
m¢.A~ em.~N o.¢m~ o.wm~ o.Amm o.AooA o.mmAA o.¢mNA m<umNA Aomz Nn.~
mm.wA NN.mA o.maA o.NAN o.m~m o.~¢a o.¢NoA o.mmAA aunOA

AN.¢A 0A.NA o.om o.mw o.mmm o.m~¢ o.¢mm o.mAm mummAA

NA.MA om.mA o.¢m o.ow o.omm o.¢A¢ o.oA¢ c.0om mummAA

aA.NN AN.mA m.NAA m.¢mA m.¢om o.w¢m o.Nom m.~mo mummoA

oa.o~ ¢¢.o~ o.N~A m.NMA ¢.ow¢ m.mmm o.woo o.Ano aanOA

NA.mN mo.¢~ m.AMA o.wAA o.A¢m o.mnm m.-m o.Am¢ mumooA

mm.m~ No.mm o.mAA a.o~A m.a~m m.nom m.¢¢¢ ¢.¢m¢ ¢uMoOA mmouonm Nm.o
am.wA Am.~m o.Nm o.AMA q.o~¢ ¢.N~¢ o.mAm o.mmm mumoAA +
oo.oA mm.- q.ow o.ANA o.mm¢ m.o~¢ o.o¢m m.A¢m <umoAA Aumz Nm.~

N N .m .w .w .w .w .w

Nw-uua A.uaoo NwtuHH A.uaoo Ne-AHH A.uaoo Ne.uue A.mnoo .oz Hmmm1. u:m&umoufi

mmOA unmouom mmoA wdAxooo wanooo HOHWMI .wdAxooo muOmmA 8mm

name 63 new-.8:

 

mOOAAm.ewA poxomw new means no mOmmOA wsAxoou

 

.3 xApaOQQ<

_/9-

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix X. Cooking losses of Semimembranosus and Adductor muscles of
paired hams
Weight weight

Ham beforp cooking after1 cooking Cooking lossz Percpnt lossz

pair No. Cont. Trt d Cont. Trt d Cont. Trt d Cont. Trt d

g. g. g. g. g. g. "/e 7.

106 982 807 821 638 161 169 16.40 20.94
107 862 895 697 686 165 209 19.14 23.35
108 1191 972 966 783 225 189 18.89 19.44
109 1402 1325 1152 1098 250 227 17.83 17.13
110 1142 1374 916 1124 226 250 19.79 18.20
111 1191 990 985 819 206 171 17.30 17.27
112 864 891 686 715 7178 176 20.60 19.75
113 946 1081 762 888 184 193 19.45 17.85
114 1368 1391 1165 1156 203 235 14.84 16.89
115 948 885 772 658 226 227 22.65 25.64
116 1214 1045 1006 816 208 229 17.13 21.91
117 1010 1167 788 943 222 224 21.98 19.19
118 976 780 710 589 266 191 27.25 24.49
119 794 993 626 774 168 219 21.16 22.05
120 735 928 587 718 148 210 20.14 22.63
121 881 993 693 790 188 203 21.34 20.44
122 1525 1235 1257 976 268 259 17.57 20.97

 

1
2

2.5% NaCl.
2.5% NaCl +~2.0% sucrose.

.980-

Cooking losses of Semimembranosus and Adductor muscles of

Appendix Y.
; paired hams

 

 

Ham weight Weight Cooking Cooking
Treappent gpair NO. before cooking after cooking loss loss
g. g. g. %

1.5% NaCl 131R 1028.0 876.0 152.0 14.79
+ 137L. 1155.5 968.0 187.5 16.23
0.0% sucrose 140R 1001.5 774.0 227.5 22.72
146L 1340.0 980.0 360.0 26.87

1.5% NaCl 127R 1069.5 905.8 163.7 15.31
+ l3lL 1028.0 876.0 152.0 14.79
1.0% sucrose 132L 1346.0 1064.0 277.0 20.58
149R 1077.0 748.5 278.5 25.86

1.5% NaCl 153R 1236.3 955.5 208.8 16.89
+ 153L 1361.5 1095.5 266.0 19.54
2.0% sucrose 159L 1508.0 1260.0 302.0 20.03
156R 1749.0 1509.0 240.0 13.72

1.5% NaCl 152R 1554.0 1211.5 342.5 22.04
+' 151R 1661.0 1460.3 200.7 12.08
3.0% sucrose 154L 1680.5 1280.0 400.5 22.83
158R 1518.0 1253.0 265.0 17.46

2.0% NaCl 129L 1559.5 1280.6 278.9 17.88
+~ 133R 1439.0 1166.5 272.5 18.94
0.0% sucrose 134L 1391.0 1153.0 237.5 17.07
150R 1688.0 1346.0 292.0 17.30

2.0% NaCl 130L 1336.0 1075.0 261.0 19.54
+' 143L 1481.0 1196.7 284.3 19.20
1.0% sucrose 144R 1471.5 1178.5 293.0 19.91
148L 1421.5 1140.5 281.0 19.77

2.0% NaCl 135L 1360.5 1117.5 245.0 17.98
+. 136L 1571.0 1365.3 205.7 13.09
2.0% sucrose 139L 1460.5 1170.0 290.5 19.89
149L 1358.0 1113.0 245.0 18.04

2.0% NaCl 130R 1678.0 1463.0 215.0 12.81
+ 138R 1343.0 1153.0 190.0 14.15
3.0% sucrose 144L 1518.0 1178.5 339.5 22.36
145L 1135.0 917.5 217.5 19.16

2.5% NaCl 129R 1410.5 1271.0 139.5 9.89
+ 132R 1287.0 1044.5 242.5 18.84
(3.0% sucrose 133L 1346.0 1069.0 277.0 20.58
145R 984.9 801.0 183.9 18.69

-31-

Appendix Y. Cooking losses of Semimembranosus and Adductor muscles of
paired hams (continued)

 

Ham weight Weight Cooking Cooking
Treatment pair No. before cooking after cooking loss loss
g. g. g. %
2.5% NaCl 151L 1413.0 1243.0 170.0 12.03
+ 157R 1614.3 1235.0 379.3 23.50
1.0% sucrose 157L 1428.0 1179.0 249.0 17.44
159R 1113.1 900.0 213.0 19.14
2.5% NaCl 136R 1443.5 1294.0 149.5 10.36
+ 140L 1508.0 1273.0 235.0 15.58
2.0% sucrose 141R 1529.0 1188.0 341.0 22.30
147L 1307.5 1136.0 171.5 13.12
2.5% NaCl 152L 1571.0 1391.7 179.3 11.13
+ 154R 1560.0 1222.0 337.8 21.65
3.0% sucrose 160L 1398.0 1132.0 266.0 19.02
155R 1135.0 917.5 217.5 19.16
3.0% NaCl 138L 1429.0 1241.0 188.0 13.16
-+ 141L 1214.5 899.7 314.8 25.92
0.0% sucrose 142L 1227.0 958.0 269.0 21.92
147R 1493.3 1236.0 257.3 17.23
3.0% NaCl 135R 1225.0 926.0 299.0 24.41
+' 137R 1598.0 1444.0 134.0 9.64
1.0% sucrose 142R 1697.5 1433.5 264.0 15.55
150L 1621.0 1148.0 479.0 29.44
3.0% NaCl 127L 1128.0 944.0 184.0 16.31
+' 134R 1147.0 930.0 217.0 18.92
2.0% sucrose 139R 1422.5 1143.0 279.5 19.65
148R 1481.9 1332.0 149.9 10.12
3.0% NaCl 156L 1456.0 1261.0 195.0 13.39
+» 158L 1160.0 914.0 246.0 21.12
3.0% sucrose 160R 1423.0 1142.0 281.0 19.75
155L 1578.0 1420.0 158.0 10.01

 

-82..

Appendix Z. Cooking losses of ground ham at Optimum levels of NaCl and
Brown sugar

 

 

Levels1 Weight weight Percent
NaCl Brown sugar before cooking after cooking Loss loss
g. g. g.' %

1.0 0.5 782.0 643.3 138.7 17.74

2.0 3.0 811.0 672.4 138.6 17.06

3.0 2.0 823.5 667.2 156.3 18.98

4.0 2.0 817.0 660.7 156.0 19.10

5.0 2.0 835.0 677.7 157.5 18.84

 

1Expressed as percent by weight.

-83..

Appendix AA. A comparison of cooking losses between white sugar and
brown sugar

1

 

 

Levels weight weight Percent
NaCl Sugar before cooking after cooking. Loss loss
. g. go go ‘79
1.0 0.52 783.5 667.1 116.4 14.86
1.0 0.53 784.0 672.8 111.2 14.18
3.0 2.02 824.5 680.0 144.5 17.53
3.0 2.03 822.5 681.1 141.4 17.19
4.0 2.03 841.0 682.1 158.9 18.90

 

1Expressed as
2White sugar.
3Brown sugar.

percent by weight.

~84-

Appendix BB. Chemical analyses of the Semimembranosus and Biceps femoris
muscles of intact hams

 

 

 

Treatment - Semimembranosus Biceps femoris
Ham No. NaCl Sucrose NaCl Sucrose
% % % %
2.5% NaCl Y-l-O-L 3.21 --- 2.59 ---
+~ Y-40-L 2.88 --- 2.56 --—
0.0% sucrose Y-50-L 2.70 --- 2.62 ---
H-L 2.97 --- 2.57 ---
105-E4L 3.00 --- 2.78 ---
106-E-L 2.74 --- 2.60 ---
115-E-L 4.12 --- 2.90 ---
116-E-L 3.45 --- 2.71 -—-
128-E-L 2.77 --- 2.55 ---
101-L 3.22 --- 2.74 ---
102-L 3.42 --- 3.00 ---
103-L 3.70 --- 2.90 ---
104-L 3.12 --- 2.90 ---
105-L 2.92 --- 2.60 ---
106-L 2.75 --- 2.61 ---
107-L 3.19 --- 2.79 ---
108-L 2.62 --- 2.54 ---
109-L 3.12 --- 2.88 ---
110-L 2.90 --- 2.78 ---
111-L 2.86 --- 2.62 ---
112-L 3.21 --- 2.61 ---
113-L 3.17 --- 2.75 ---
114-L 2.74 --- 2.66 ---
115-L 3.21 --- 2.76 ---
116-L 3.46 --- 2.98 ---
117-L 2.77 --- 2.55 ---
118-L 3.17 --- 2.83 ---
119-L 2.61 --- 2.53 ---
120-L 2.97 --- 2.59 ---
121-L 2.84 --- 2.74 ---
122-L 3.22 --- 2.88 ---
2.5% NaCl 105-ER 3.02 0.13 2.66 0.09
+' 106-ER 2.69 0.21 2.59 0.15
0.5% sucrose 115-ER 3.24 0.11 2.98 0.09
116-ER 2.77 0.21 2.59 0.15
105-R 2.84 0.15 2.60 0.09
2.5% NaCl 128-R 3.17 0.87 2.85 0.55
+ 558-R 2.60 0.41 2.52 0.25
1.25% sucrose 101-R 3.10 0.66 2.66 0.36
102-R 3.31 0.36 2.83 0.42

103-R 3.41 1.03 2.77 0.93

 

-85_-

Appendix BB. Chemical analyses of the Semimembranosus and theps femoris
muscles of intact hams (continued)

 

 

 

Semimemb ranosus Bicg s femoris
Treatment Ham No. NaCl Sucrose NaCl Sucrose
% % % %
2.5% NaCl Y-1-0-R 3.12 1.41 2.74 0.81
+ Y-40-R 3.01 1.20 2.67 0.98
2.0% sucrose Y-50-R 2.64 1.03 2.56 0.95
H-R 2.68 1.56 2.56 0.86
104-R 3.22 0.99 2.60 0.75
106-R 2.60 1.31 2.53 1.21
107-R 3.00 1.42 2.56 1.06
108-R 2.68 1.47 2.54 1.21
109-R 2.97 1.22 2.61 0.80
110-R 2.87 1.61 2.67 1.21
111-R 2.71 1.51 2.65 0.93
112-R 3.33 1.20 2.64 0.78
113-R 3.42 1.41 3.00 1.13
114-R 3.00 1.34 2.94 1.04
115-R 3.19 1.01 2.55 0.95
116-R 3.41 1.36 2.81 1.21
117-R 2.76 1.22 2.66 0.96
118-R 3.66 1.59 3.15 1.15
119-R 2.72 1.01 2.50 0.96
120-R 2.70 1.26 2.66 0.90
121-R 2.91 0.99 2.59 0.88
122-R 2.82 1.21 2.67 1.03
3.0% NaCl + 123-L 3.88 --- 3.61 ---
0.0% sucrose 124-L 3.42 --- 3.15 ---
3.0% NaCl + 123-R 3.76 1.11 3.52 0.97
2.0% sucrose 124-R 3.63 1.61 3.41 1.28
3.5% NaCl +’ 125-L 4.21 --- 3.66 ---
0.0% sucrose 126-L 4.07 --- 3.63 ---
3.5% NaCl + 125-R 4.14 1.98 4.01 1 41
3.5% sucrose 125-R 4.31 2 02 4.17 1.40

 

-86..

Appendix CC. Chemical analyses of Bicep§ femoris and Adductor muscles
in intact hams

 

 

Treatment Ham No. NaCl Sucrose

% %

1.5% NaCl 131 R 2.11 ---
+ 137 L 2.79 --_

. 0.0% sucrose 140 R 2.21 ---
146 L 2.29 ---

1.5% NaCl 127 R 1.87 *
+ 131 L 1 84 *
1.0% sucrose 132 L 2.18 *
149 R 2.03 *

1.5% NaCl 153 R 1.62 *
-+ 153 L 2.37 *
2.0% sucrose 159 L 2.02 0 88
156 R 1.98 *

1.5% NaCl 151 R 1.77 1 22
-b 152 R 1.66 *
3.0% sucrose 154 L 2.14 *
158 R 2.16 1 71

2.0% NaCl 129 L 2.88 ---
+ 133 R 2.42 ---
0.0% sucrose 134 L 2.25 ---
150 R 2.28 ---

2.0% NaCl 130 L 2.78 0.33
+ 143 L 2.84 0.22
1.0% sucrose 144 R 2.23 *
148 L 2.44 *

2.0% NaCl 135 L 2.41 0.76
+ 136 L 2.24 0.51
2.0% sucrose 139 L 2.74 *
149 L 2.21 0.44

2.0% NaCl 130 R 2.49 *
+ 138 R 2.54 1.88
3.0% sucrose 144 L 2.23 *
145 L 2.19 *

2.5% NaCl 129 R 2.88 ---
+ 132 R 3.28 ---
0.0% sucrose 133 L 3.21 ---
145 R 2.75 ---

 

-87-

Appendix CC. Chemical analyses of Biceps femoris and Adductor muscles
in intact hams (continued)

 

 

Treatment Ham No. NaCl Sucrose
% %
2.5% NaCl 151 L 2.70 0.47
+ 157 R 3.22 *
1.0% sucrose 157 L 3.07 0.39
159 R 2.89 0.34
2.5% NaCl 136 R 2.64 1 17
+ 140 L 2.62 *
2.0% sucrose 141 R 3.08 1 03
147 L 2.98 0 91
2.5% NaCl 145 L 2.75 1.88
+ 152 L 2.87 1.61
3.0% sucrose 154 R 2.91 1.10
160 L 2.82 1.31
3.0% NaCl 138 L 3.34 ---
+ 141 L 3.10 ---
0.0% sucrose 142 L 3.75 ---
147 R 3.89 ---
3.0% NaCl 135 R 3.07 0 27
d + 137 R 3.34 0 41
1.0% sucrose 142 R 3.63 0.57
150 L 3.38 0.47
3.0% NaCl 127 L 3.28 1.59
+ 134 R 3.56 1.34
2.0% sucrose 139 R 3.19 1 17
148 R 3.01 0 97
3.0% NaCl 135 L 3.34 1.13
+ 156 L 3.36 1.00
3.0% sucrose 158 L 3.77 0 58
160 R 3.04 0 97

 

*denotes fermented sample

8.1! V
1- EA

10031 USE 0"