Cured Virginia Ham

[menon1971]

I begin this thread with a disclaimer. This will be followed by a shameful confession of ignorance and then a series of questions. The disclaimer is that I am from Virginia, about 30 minutes from the town of Smithfield, and have a somewhat mystical reverence concerning this treat of my up bringing, smoky, fatty, salty Virginia ham. In fact, while working my way through graduate school, I used to occasionally butcher hogs and cure hams at a certain large living history museum.

Now for the confession. I recently finished Jacques Pepin's The Apprentice and in the section where he describes his awakening to American foodstuffs he mentions eating raw Virginia ham and seeing it as an American equivalent to the cured hams of France, Spain, Italy, etc. I enjoy Serrano, Prosciutto, Bayonne, etc. which I believe are all raw hams, and would to like give raw Virginia ham a try if it is safe and advisable, from a culinary standpoint. However, I have never seen such a thing done in the Old Dominion and do not know if this is a matter of tradition or necessity.

The questions are as follows:

1. Is it safe to eat?

2. Is it good to eat?

3. If the answers one and two are yes, then under what circumstances is it safest and best? Should the hams be soaked, as in a more traditional preparation? If so, for how long and in what? What dishes would be well served by its addition?

[donk79]

Menon,

There is some discussion of this very question here.

In brief, the answers to your first two questions are yes. The third question(s) will have to be handled by someone else.

Edited January 13, 2007 by donk79 (log)

[jayt90]

It is cold or slow-smoked, and should be actually safer than uncooked air-dried European hams.

I tried to duplicate a country ham a year ago, and the best parts of it were thinly sliced, uncooked, cellared two to four months after smoking. Like really nice prosciutto with some smokiness. Then I spoiled the ham by leaving it to hang and cure for three months in a warmer place. No way I could duplicate the Smithfield conditions, and I had a smelly mouldy piece of meat that got tossed.

[menon1971]

Menon,

There is some discussion of this very question here.

In brief, the answers to your first two questions are yes.  The third question(s) will have to be handled by someone else.

←

Thanks, very informative thread.

[menon1971]

It is cold or slow-smoked, and should be actually safer than uncooked air-dried European hams.

I tried to duplicate a country ham a year ago, and the best parts of it were thinly sliced, uncooked, cellared two to four months after smoking. Like really nice prosciutto with some smokiness.  Then I spoiled the ham by leaving it to hang and cure for three months in a warmer place. No way I could duplicate the Smithfield conditions, and I had a smelly mouldy piece of meat that got tossed.

←

At the museum we never got the smoking environment above 100F, preferring around 80F.

Smithfield Foods has HUGE temperature controlled rooms with bins full of hams packed in salt.

Earth tone molds good, electric yellow, orange and red molds bad. I had to sneak up on one ham just to remove it from the smokehouse. A memory that stays with me.............

[budrichard]

These Country Hams cured with salt and smoked are NOT safe to eat raw.

Listeria is not killed by any of the above. June Scott of Scott Hams and I have had this discussion before. -Dick

[A Patric]

These Country Hams cured with salt and smoked are NOT safe to eat raw.

Listeria is not killed by any of the above. June Scott of Scott Hams and I have had this discussion before. -Dick

←

Are all of these hams really only cured with salt, or are nitrites/nitrates also added?

I can't imagine most American companies taking more of a risk, in the sue-happy culture in which we live, than they have to by only using salt.

[cdh]

A ham isn't a ham without more chemicals than salt.. the saltpeter is what keeps it pink, isn't it? Don't recall whether it is a nitrate or a nitrite, but I know it is necessary.

Country hams don't go grey when you cook them, do they? If it stays pink, there must be some saltpeter in there.

[DTBarton]

As one who lived in Virginia for quite a while and who's in-laws never cook a Smithfield ham, I can say that I believe they are safe to eat straight from the bag. And I do believe that Smithfield hams contain some nitrates/nitrites.

For me personally, I prefer to cook them because it removes some of the over the top saltiness and creates a more tender meat. I do the classic scrub/soak/braise method.

I am a big fan of Scott hams from Kentucky and they do state that heir hams should be cooked. I believe this is because the Scott hams do not contain any nitrates/nitrites. They are delicious and less salty than Smithfield hams.

In Virginia, some companies have taken to producing hams that are somewhat less dry and salty than Smithfield style. I've seen this kind of ham dubbed "Williamsburg" style.

But I'm sticking with Scott until someone shows me something better.

http://www.scotthams.com/store/

[menon1971]

A ham isn't a ham without more chemicals than salt.. the saltpeter is what keeps it pink, isn't it?  Don't recall whether it is a nitrate or a nitrite, but I know it is necessary.

Country hams don't go grey when you cook them, do they?  If it stays pink, there must be some saltpeter in there.

←

Most of the VA hams have saltpeter, and the evidence we relied on to replicate 18th century hams also used saltpeter. Is that what kills lysteria or does salt kill everything due to dehydration?

[raisab]

Checkout this article from the Washington Post. I believe it ansers your question.Down Home Prosciutto

Edited January 13, 2007 by raisab (log)

[menon1971]

Checkout this article from the Washington Post. I believe it ansers your question.Down Home Prosciutto

←

Thanks a lot, I think I pick up a nice Wigwam the next time I am home. Is it ok to freeze sliced ham that will be eventually served raw?

[raisab]

I have a whole Serrano ham I just keep on my counter and slice pieces off as we need them. You may want to ask Turner Hams about theirs. This is their website. They will ship the hams to you. Remember to ask for hams that have been aged for one year.Turner Hams

[budrichard]

I am a fan of Jamon and have the first order for the Jamon Iberico from Tienda. But until the producer of the country ham produced in this country certifies that thier ham is fit to consume raw, it would be folly to do so.

Listeria occurs even in imported Prosciutto from time to time with frequent recalls so the matter is not academic. It is easy for writers and others to say the product is safe raw but the producer needs to stand behind his product with the USDA at his side. Say what you want about USDA standards about raw milk products and other items, but they have done a good job in food safety.

You are correct in saying that Scotts uses no nitrates or nitrites for that matter which is why we use thier products but not raw.-Dick

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo..._g.htm#symptoms

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/recalls/prelease/pr052-2002.htm

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/1....2002.tb08742.x

Pay particular attention to the last reference, "Therefore, the survival of L. monocytogenes on country-cured ham represents a risk."

Edited January 14, 2007 by budrichard (log)

[ray goud]

I am a fan of Jamon and have the first order for the Jamon Iberico from Tienda. But until the producer of the country ham produced in this country certifies that thier ham is fit to consume raw, it would be folly to do so.

Listeria occurs even in imported Prosciutto from time to time with frequent recalls so the matter is not academic. It is easy for writers and others to say the product is safe raw but the producer needs to stand behind his product with the USDA at his side. Say what you want about USDA standards about raw milk products and other items, but they have done a good job in food safety.

You are correct in saying that Scotts uses no nitrates or nitrites for that matter which is why we use thier products but not raw.-Dick

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo..._g.htm#symptoms

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/recalls/prelease/pr052-2002.htm

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/1....2002.tb08742.x

Pay particular attention to the last reference, "Therefore, the survival of L. monocytogenes on country-cured ham represents a risk."

←

You left out the previous sentence, that the inoculated hams were positive for the listeria after following enrichment procedures at the end of the aging process. What did they mean by "enrichment procedures"? Does that have anything to do with the real world?

[budrichard]

I didn't leave anything out but merely quoted the last words. The refernce was clearly supplied.

A Google search will easily find the following http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlere...gi?artid=243105

It appears that this is how the organism is isolated from the inoculated ham.

If you keep your head in the sand, it probably doesn't have anything to do with the 'real world'.

If you are objective and search for objective evidence then the study has meaning. It may not be the result indivduals want to read on this Forum but it certainly is better than a ham producer saying that his ham is fit to eat raw without certifying that on his product.

For myself, I prefer to do research into the body of knowledge easily available these days on the Internet provided by experts in the field, rather than the hopes and assumptions of individuals not qualified to make these judgements.

As I stated before, I have to yet to find any objective evidence that country hams can be consumed raw without risk from Listeria.-Dick

[donk79]

I think the key word here is risk. We assume some risk in most anything we eat. The question is how much risk we want to take. Safe is always a relative term.

CDC Information on Listeria

[ray goud]

Do more research, please. Especially of the effects that salt curing has on ALL bacteria. If one limits themself to the Internet as a source of information, they deserve the danger they expose themself to.

The most important aspect of this discussion, not yet mentioned, is what might happen to the hams AFTER they are done curing. That is the time of most risk of being re-infected with any bacterium. The surface gets cleaned off of excess salt, and may be cut using unclean appliances. I would prefer buying the whole ham, or portions cut by people familiar with food safety, like my local Italian deli.

[budrichard]

I think the key word here is risk.  We assume some risk in most anything we eat.  The question is how much risk we want to take.  Safe is always a relative term.

CDC Information on Listeria

←

One can drive a vehicle without seatbelts or air bags. One can have unprotected sex with someone you don't know. One can eat eat raw cured ham not certified free of Listeria. When one has the information at hand about the consequences, it is not risk anymore, but stupidity.-Dick

[paulraphael]

I think the key word here is risk.  We assume some risk in most anything we eat.  The question is how much risk we want to take.  Safe is always a relative term.

CDC Information on Listeria

←

It looks to me like the risk is minor, as with many other foods. If you're unwilling to eat uncooked, salt cured ham, you should similarly avoid smoked fish and soft cheeses.

http://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/common/listeria.html

[Porthos]

Please allow me to jump into the frey even though I never buy Smithfield hams.

I went to Smithfield's website and found what I expected: you have to read the label to determine whether the particular ham in question (Smithfield or not) does or does not need cooking.

from their webpage About Hams & Ham Cooking is this specific info:

Preparation

If you have selected a fully cooked ham, further preparation is unnecessary. Just slice and serve.

If your ham is uncooked, you should soak before cooking, since these hams are dry cured. Soak Smithfield Hams or Country Hams twenty-four (24) hours or longer. Change water every four (4) hours.

The length of soaking time is important and should be influenced by your taste for salt (longer soaking results in milder ham).

After soaking, wash ham thoroughly with a stiff brush to remove all pepper and mold, if present.

It seems clear that there is no one definitive answer to the question; the cook needs to read the packaging and determine if the ham should be cooked. If not sure, either contact the maker or err on the side of caution and cook the ham. Food poisoning is not fun stuff.

Porthos Potwatcher

The Unrelenting Carnivore

[paulraphael]

When one has the information at hand about the consequences, it is not risk anymore, but stupidity.-Dick

←

That's utter nonsense. Refusing to understand the risks might be called stupid, but an informed choice to take a risk is just an informed choice. I go rock climbing and ice climbing. Some closed minded people call these pursuits stupid, but the fact is that I spend a lot of time studying and managing the risks. My choices to to accept or not accept those risks are personal ones. They can be judged on a scale of cautious to reckless, but not smart to stupid.

In the same spirit an intelligent person on this board might choose to uncooked ham, smoked fish, soft cheese, or raw eggs.

[Porthos]

It looks to me like the risk is minor, as with many other foods. If you're unwilling to eat uncooked, salt cured ham, you should similarly avoid smoked fish and soft cheeses.

http://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/common/listeria.html

←

At home I only eat meats and fish that I have smoked myself. I hot-smoke (~200 F) and I brine ahead of smoking. I do eat smoked meats at well-established restaurants.

In Rancho Cucamonga, CA there is a fantastic hole-in-the-wall barbeque restaurant (Red Hill Barbeque on what was once part of Route 66) that I will patronize as long as I live near Rancho Cucamonga. You know the meats are fully cooked through since they are falling-off-the-bone tender. They also still make hush-puppies.

Porthos Potwatcher

the Unrelenting Carnivore

[menon1971]

I think the key word here is risk.  We assume some risk in most anything we eat.  The question is how much risk we want to take.  Safe is always a relative term.

CDC Information on Listeria

←

It looks to me like the risk is minor, as with many other foods. If you're unwilling to eat uncooked, salt cured ham, you should similarly avoid smoked fish and soft cheeses.

http://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/common/listeria.html

←

And I will raise you a raw oyster.

It seems that the lysteria may develop on any cured meat that has not been cooked to a certain temperature. I found the Journal of Food Science piece (thanks, budrichard) cautionary. One of the questions I have at this point is whether the risk is any greater for VA ham than any other cured meat, for this would seem to implicate a plethora of European charcuterie including most sausage. What is the calculated risk for a healthy human to eat such things, i.e., is it really more likely for a person to get ill from well treated cured meat than, say, cross contaminated dishes from a careless restaurant, a slightly undercooked egg or mishandled/improperly grown vegetables? Also, what quantities of lysteria, E. coli, salmonella, etc. can an average human metabolize? If every person got ill from every exposure to salmonella, for instance, few of us would be able to leave our bathrooms. Admittedly anecdotally, I have eaten some things that should have, by all rights, laid me out, and have been incapacitated by others that most would consider benign. I am really asking here.

Edited January 18, 2007 by menon1971 (log)

[budrichard]

When one has the information at hand about the consequences, it is not risk anymore, but stupidity.-Dick

←

That's utter nonsense. Refusing to understand the risks might be called stupid, but an informed choice to take a risk is just an informed choice. I go rock climbing and ice climbing. Some closed minded people call these pursuits stupid, but the fact is that I spend a lot of time studying and managing the risks. My choices to to accept or not accept those risks are personal ones. They can be judged on a scale of cautious to reckless, but not smart to stupid.

In the same spirit an intelligent person on this board might choose to uncooked ham, smoked fish, soft cheese, or raw eggs.

←

A short lesson in risk is in order. Risk is ALWAYS coupled with consequence. Low risk, low consequence, do it. Low risk, high consequence, most individuals will chose to do it. Certainly flying in a commercial airliner is low risk, high consequence. Moderate risk, high consequence, most will avoid

When one writes about rock or ice climbing, one needs to specify what type of climbing one does. Do you free climb, climb with aids or 'top rope'. If 'top rope' or climb with aids, then you obviously believe there is a substantial risk associated with free climbing that you avoid because the consequences are high(death). One cannot talk about risk without talking about consequence. In this case the risk for free climbing is dependant on your ability but the consequence is always high and does not depend on your ability.

Which type of climbing do you do? I used to 'top rope'. Low risk, high consequence.

Eating uncooled raw cured ham probably has a moderate risk but high consequence. One might think that its low risk, high consequence but that is debatable. In any event its the high consequence associated with the risk that determines whether or not one does something. If the consequence for eating uncooked cured raw ham were low, then I would not be writing this response.-Dick