Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-lcgwf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-15T09:30:54.380Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nutritional and sensory quality of cooked ham from 135 kg lw pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2013

S. Ratti ,
R. Rossi ,
G. Pastorelli  and
C. Corino
S. Ratti
Affiliation:
Università degli Studi di Milano, Department of Health, Animal Science and Food Safety, Milan, Italy
R. Rossi
Affiliation:
Università degli Studi di Milano, Department of Health, Animal Science and Food Safety, Milan, Italy
G. Pastorelli
Affiliation:
Università degli Studi di Milano, Department of Health, Animal Science and Food Safety, Milan, Italy
C. Corino
Affiliation:
Università degli Studi di Milano, Department of Health, Animal Science and Food Safety, Milan, Italy
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Cooked ham is one of the most commonly consumed pork product in several European countries including Italy. Besides the technological guidelines for the production of cooked ham, genetic and breeding conditions of pigs have an important role on the quality of the final product( Reference Lindahl, Henckel and Karlsson 1 ). Pigs in Europe are reared to different slaughter weights. The Italian heavy pig production, with an average slaughter weight of 160–170 kg, is designed to products of Protected Designation of Origin (PDO)( Reference Lo Fiego, Santoro and Macchini 2 ). Medium-heavy swine represents an alternative for the Italian heavy pig farming. Medium-weight pigs are suitable for fresh meat consumption and the production of cooked ham. In literature, no data are available on cooked ham quality from medium-heavy swine. The quality of cooked ham from two Italian heavy pig genetic type slaughtered at a live weight of 135 kg was investigated. Three hundred pigs balanced for body weight and sex, half TOP D × PIC 1050 (PT) and half Duroc × ANAS F1 (Italian Large White × Italian Landrace) (AD) of initial weight of 60 kg, were selected from two different farms. Pigs fed a commercial diets and were slaughtered at a live weight of 135.4 kg. Twenty pigs per genetic type (10 castrated males and 10 females) were randomly selected and the left thighs were sampled and transformed in cooked ham. Chemical( 3 ) and sensory parameters( 4 ) were evaluated. Genetic type significantly affect cooked ham chemical composition (Table 1). Sensory evaluation showed no significant difference in texture, flavor, aroma and visual descriptors (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

Cooked ham sensory profile.

Table 1.

Chemical properties (% of wet weight)

The evaluation of chemical parameters of cooked ham represents an important tool to define and characterize this product( Reference Moretti, Bellagamba and Paleari 5 ). Genetic type significantly affects some chemical parameters of cooked ham from medium-weight pigs, without affecting sensory parameters.

Further studies are required to better characterize this product and to identify the genetic type more suitable for the production of cooked ham.

This work belongs to a research project called “Allevamento del suino medio pesante per la produzione di materia prima nazionale destinata al consumo fresco ed all'industria di trasformazione” financed by Regione Lombardia – Agricultural Department, according to the Plan of Research and Development “2010”.

References

1. Lindahl, G, Henckel, P, Karlsson, AH et al. (2006) Meat Sci 72, 613–623.Google Scholar
2. Lo Fiego, DP, Santoro, P, Macchini, P et al. (2005) Meat Sci 69, 107–114.Google Scholar
3. AOAC (2000) Official Methods of Analysis (17th ed.) ,Gaithersburg, MD, USA.Google Scholar
4. EN ISO 13299 (2010): Sensory analysis: general guidance to establish a sensory profile.Google Scholar
5. Moretti, VM, Bellagamba, F, Paleari, MA et al. (2009) J Food Qual 32, 125–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Cooked ham sensory profile.

Figure 1

Table 1. Chemical properties (% of wet weight)