Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The two way (tumbling time × rigor condition) interaction was significant (p<0.05) for yield with tumbling producing a greater variation in yield in pre‐than post‐rigor muscle. Utilizing the tumbling treatment increased salt soluble proteins (p<0.01), binding strength (p<0.01), cohesiveness (p<0.01), water‐holding capacity (p<0.01), Instron tenderness (p<0.01) and a more even distribution of both salt (p<0.01) and sodium nitrite (p<0.01). Pre‐rigor muscle treatment improved ham flavor (p<0.05), juiciness (p<0.05) and reflectance of product color at 570 nm (p<0.05) and 650 nm (p<0.06) when compared to the post‐rigor muscle. Electrical stimulation (500 volts) did not alter the quality of canned pork.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chow et al. (1986) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: