EFFECT OF QUALITY ATTRIBUTES UPON PROCESSING AND PALATABILITY CHARACTERISTICS OF COMMERCIALLY CURED HAMS

Abstract

SUMMARY –A total of 488 fresh hams were stratified according to method of cure (regular‐cured and water‐added) and quality scores (gross morphology, color and firmness). Each ham was pumped, cured and smoked using commercial procedures. Individual weights for each ham were obtained at each stage of the processing sequence. Center slices from 50 processed hams were evaluated for muscle color, chemical composition and organoleptic properties. Among both regular‐cured and water‐added hams, gross morphology groups were not significantly (P < 0.05) related to weight gains (fresh to chilled), weight losses during the period in transit (125 km), or to flavor, saltiness, moisture (%) or pigment concentration for the combined muscles of the center slices. A comparison of individual ham muscles revealed that the biceps femoris (BF) was less tender than the semitendinosus (ST); the ST was less salty than the semimembranosus (SM) and the ST had a higher fat content on a moisture‐free basis than other muscles for both regular‐cured and water‐added hams. Significant differences (P < 0.05) among muscles for flavor and juiciness were evident for the regular‐cured hams; however, there were no significant differences for the hams in the water‐added group. There were significant differences in pigment concentration among muscles from the center‐cut slices from water‐added hams. Regular‐cured hams in gross morphology group 5 were significantly (P < 0.05) more juicy and more tender than hams in the other four quality groups. Also, center slices from hams in the high quality gross morphology group (group 5) were more uniform in muscle color, more desirable in lean color and contained more fat than hams in group 1. Regular‐cured hams in gross morphology group 5 also produced individual muscles which were more desirable in lean color (SM, BF), more flavorful (SM), more juicy (ST, BF) and more tender (ST, BF) than hams in group 1. Water‐added hams in gross morphology group 5 did not differ from hams in group 1 in any of the traits but were significantly (P < 0.05) more tender than those in group 2.