HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Davis, C. E. Articles by Mercuri, A. J. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Davis, C. E. Articles by Mercuri, A. J.

Effect of Polyphosphates on Low Quality (PSE) Hams during Processing

United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Richard B. Russell Agricultural Research Center, Athens, Georgia 30604

Abstract

Twenty-four pale, soft, exudative (PSE) fresh hams were selected from the cutting line of a commercial pork processing plant. Six hams were randomly assigned to one of four treatments as follows: I — Control (no phosphate); II — Sodium hexametaphosphate (SHP); and two commercial phosphate mixtures; III — CURAFOS 11-2; and IV — FOS 3 in 1. The hams were pumped with a multiple needle brine injection machine, held 24 hr in a cover brine and then smoked and heat processed to 63 C. During the smoking/heating phase, CURAFOS hams had significantly (P<.05) less shrink than hams in the other three treatments, which were not different from each other. In final yield, CURAFOS hams were not different from FOS hams but were significantly (P<.05) higher (99.5%) than the Control (96.2%) and SHP hams (96.1%). After brine injection and 24 hr in cover pickle, the pH values of the Semimembranosus and Gluteus medius of CURAFOS and FOS hams were significantly (P<.05) higher than values of SHP and control hams. This relationship was maintained through the smoking/heating phase. Warner-Bratzler shear values were not significantly (P<.05) different among treatments. CURAFOS and FOS hams were significantly (P<.05) darker (Hunter L) than control and SHP hams. CURAFOS hams were significantly (P<.05) redder (Hunter a) than the other hams. Visual color scores were significantly (P<.01) correlated with Hunter Values: Hunter L, r = –.72; Hunter a, r = .66; Hunter b, r = –.54. No significant difference (P<.05) was found among treatments for ether extract or salt content of the hams. However, the SHP hams had significantly (P<.05) less moisture than hams from other treatments and more protein (P<.05)than the CURAFOS and FOS hams. Phosphate treatments lessened evaporative losses during oven cooking of ham center slices and significantly reduced the amount of gelatinous fluid loss.

¹ Product Development Research, Animal Products Utilization and Marketing Laboratory, RRC, A.R.S., U.S.D.A., Athens, Georgia 30604

² Reference to a company or product name does not imply approval of recommendation of the product by the U.S.D.A. to the exclusion of others that may be suitable.

³ The authors acknowledge the advice of Victor Chew and Ruel Wilson in the statistical analysis and David E. Rogers for technical laboratory assistance.