Food Science of Animal Resources (한국축산식품학회지)

Korean Society for Food Science of Animal Resources (한국축산식품학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Quality Attributes of Cooked Pork Hams Manufactured with Major Hind Leg Muscles and Longissimus dorsi

돼지 뒷다리 주요 근육과 등심근육으로 제조된 햄의 품질 특성

  • Published : 2008.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study was conducted to evaluate the quality attributes of cooked hams made with four hind leg muscles (Biceps femoris, Semimembranosus, Rectus femoris, Gluteus medius) and Longissimus dorsi. Muscles were prepared from three market-weighted crossbreeds ($L{\times}Y{\times}D$) and the pH, proximate chemical composition, color, texture attributes, and sensory properties of cooked pork muscle hams were evaluated. In the raw state, no significant differences in pH were found among the five muscle hams. However, Rectus femoris ham had the highest pH, while Longissimus dorsi ham had the lowest pH (p<0.05). All muscle hams had similar moisture, fat, and ash contents. The protein content (%) was highest in Longissimus dorsi ham (p<0.05). The Hunter L value was highest for Longissimus dorsi ham while Rectus femoris and Gluteus medius hams had the lowest Hunter L values (p<0.05). The Hunter a values were similar in Rectus femoris, Biceps femoris, and Gluteus medius hams, and lowest for Longissimus dorsi ham (p<0.05). Texture attributes were not significantly different among the five muscle hams (p>0.05). The results of sensory evaluation showed that Semimembranosus hams had the highest flavor score, but there were no significant differences among five muscle hams with regard to color, taste, and texture (p>0.05).

돼지 뒷다리 부위 주요 근육 4개와 등심 근육으로 제조 된 햄의 이화학적 특성과 관능적 특성을 비교한 결과, 햄 제조에 사용된 원료육의 pH는 Longissimus 근육과 다른 4개의 뒷다리 부위 근육들 간에 차이가 없었으나 햄 제품의 pH에서는 Longissimus 근육 햄에 비해 Rectus femoris 근육 햄이 유의적으로 높은 pH를 나타내었으며(p<0.05), Longissimus 근육 햄의 pH 값이 가장 낮았다(p<0.05). 일반성분을 비교한 결과, 단백질 함량에서만 Longissimus 햄이 Rectus femoris, Semimembranosus, Gluteus medius 근육으로 제조된 햄보다 유의적으로 높았다(p<0.05). 제품색 특성 중 Hunter L 값은 Longissimus dorsi 근육이 가장 높았으며, Rectus femoris, Gluteus medius 근육이 가장 낮은 수치를 나타내었다(p<0.05). Hunter a값은 Rectus femoris, Biceps femoris, Gluteus medius 근육으로 제조된 햄들이 비슷한 수준을 나타내었으며, Longissimus 근육 햄에서 가장 낮았다(p<0.05). 조직감을 조사한 결과, 경도, 탄력성, 응집성, 검성, 씹힘성 모두 근육에 따른 차이가 발견되지않았다(p>0.05). 근육 햄들의 관능적 특성을 조사한 결과, 육안적 색도, 맛, 조직감은 근육간 차이가 없었으며(p>0.05), 풍미는 Semimembranosus 근육으로 제조된 햄이 가장 높은 점수를 받았고, Gluteus medius 근육으로 제조된 햄이 가장 낮았다(p<0.05).

Keywords

References

  1. AOAC (2000) Official Methods of Analysis. 17th ed, Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC, chapter 39. pp. 1-8
  2. Bouton, P. E., Harris, P. V., and Shorthose, W. R. (1975) Possible relationships between shear, tensile and adhesion properties of meat texture. J. Texture Studies 5, 297-303
  3. Briskey, E. J., Hoekstra, W. G., Bray, R. W., and Grummer, R. H. (1960) A comparison of certain physical and chemical characteristics of eight pork muscles. J. Anim. Sci. 19, 214-225 https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1960.191214x
  4. Carmack, C. F., Kastner, C. L., Dikeman, M. E., Schwenke, J. R., and Garcia Zepeda, C. M. (1995) Sensory evaluation of beef-flavor-intensity, tenderness, and juiciness among major muscles. Meat Sci. 39, 143-147 https://doi.org/10.1016/0309-1740(95)80016-6
  5. Dransfield, E. (1977) Intramuscular composition and texture of beef muscles. J. Sci. Food Agric. 28, 833-842 https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.2740280910
  6. Harris, P. V. (1976) Structural and other aspects of meat tenderness. J. Texture Studies 7, 49-54 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-4603.1976.tb01381.x
  7. Harris, P. V. and Shorthose, W. R. (1988) Meat texture. In R. Lawrie (Ed.), Developments in meat science (pp. 245-290). London and New York: Elsevier Applied Science
  8. Henning, W. R., Moody, W. G. and Kemp, J. D. (1973) Characteristics of hams and loins from high and low cutability pork carcasses. J. Anim. Sci. 36, 1063-1068 https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1973.3661063x
  9. Johnson, R. C., Chen, C. M., Muller, T. S., Costello, W. J., Romans, J. R., and Jones, K. W. (1988) Characterization of the muscles within the beef forequarter. J. Food Sci. 53, 1247-1250 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1988.tb09249.x
  10. Kapasalis, J. G. and Szczesniak, A. S. (1976) Instrumental testing of meat texture-Comments on the past, present and future. J. Texture Studies 6, 297-302
  11. Karlsson, A., Enfält, a. Ch., Essen-Gustavson, B., Lundstrom, K., Rydhamer, L., and Stern, S. (1993) Muscle histochemical and biochemical properties in relation to meat quality during selection for increased lean tissue growth rate in pigs. J. Anim Sci. 71, 930-938
  12. Nold, R. A., Romans, J. R., Costello, W. J., and Libal, G. W. (1999) Characterization of muscles from boars, barrows, and gilts slaughtered at 100 or 110 kilograms: Differences in fat, moisture, color, water-holding capacity, and collagen. J. Anim Sci. 77, 1746-1754 https://doi.org/10.2527/1999.7771746x
  13. Patterson, B. C. and Parrish, F. C. (1986) A sensory panel and chemical analysis of certain beef chuck muscles. J. Food Sci. 51, 876-879, 896 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1986.tb11189.x
  14. Payne, C. A., Hunt, M. C., Warren, K. E., Hayden, J. M., Williams, J. E., and Hedrick, H. B. (1992) Histochemical properties of four bovine muscles as influenced by compensatory gain and growth impetus. In Proceedings of the 38th International Congress of Meat Science and Technology. (pp. 121-124) Clermont-Ferrand, France
  15. Prusa, K. J., Love, J. A., and Christian, L. L. (1989) Fat content and sensory analysis of selected pork muscles taken from carcasses with various backfat levels. J. Food Qual. 12, 135-143 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-4557.1989.tb00316.x
  16. Rhee, M. S., Wheeler, T. L., Shackelford, S. D., and Koohmaraie, M. (2004) Variation in palatability and biochemical traits within and among eleven beef muscles. J. Anim. Sci. 82, 534-550
  17. SAS (1996) SAS/STAT Software for PC. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA
  18. Shackelford, S. D., Wheeler, T. L., and Koohmaraie, M. (1995) Relationship between shear force and trained sensory panel tenderness ratings of 10 major muscles from Bos indicus and Bos taurus cattle. J. Anim Sci. 73, 3333-3340 https://doi.org/10.2527/1995.73113333x
  19. Stanley, D. W. and Swatland, H. J. (1976) The microstructure of muscle tissue-A basis for meat structure measurement. J. Texture Studies 7, 65-70 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-4603.1976.tb01382.x
  20. Topel, D. G., Mrekel, D. L., Mackintosh, D. L. and Hall, J. L. (1966) Variation of some physical and biochemical properties within and among selected porcine muslces. J. Anim. Sci. 25, 277-282 https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1966.252277x
  21. Voisey, P. W. (1976) Engineering assessment and critique of instruments used for meat tenderness evaluation. J. Texture Studies 7, 11-17 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-4603.1976.tb01380.x
  22. Von Seggern, D. D., Calkins, C. R., Johnson, D. D., Brickler, J. E., and Gwartney, B. L. (2005) Muscle profiling: Characterizing the muscles of the beef chuck and round. Meat Sci. 71, 39-51 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2005.04.010
  23. Warner, R. D., Kauffman, R. G., and Russell, R. L. (1993) Quality attributes of major porcine muscles: A comparison with the longissimus lumborum. Meat Sci. 33, 359-3 https://doi.org/10.1016/0309-1740(93)90007-5
  24. Wiklund, E., Malmfors, G., and Lundström, K. (1998) The effects of exercise on muscle fiber composition and oxidative capacity in eight bovine skeletal muscles. Swedish J. Agric Res. 28, 111-116

Cited by

  1. Quality Characteristics of Dry-cured Ham Made fromTwo Different Three-way Crossbred Pigs vol.29, pp.2, 2016, https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.15.0189
  2. 국내 육가공품의 영양표시 현황과 소비자 인지도 및 소비경향 실태조사 vol.39, pp.7, 2008, https://doi.org/10.3746/jkfn.2010.39.7.1056
  3. Comparison of Physicochemical Properties between Standard and Sow Pork vol.38, pp.5, 2008, https://doi.org/10.5851/kosfa.2018.e45
  4. Physicochemical Quality Properties of Loin and Tenderloin Ham from Sows vol.40, pp.3, 2008, https://doi.org/10.5851/kosfa.2020.e26