Looks liek Smithfield ham is going down since Paula Deen took over.

I checked my Smithfield hams at the grocer. They are advertised
this week as Smithfield Premium Hams, whole or shank portion,
$1.47#. But what's in the case is a "Water Added" ham (which I
believe means 7-13% water - it doesn't say on the label).

I plan to bring it up with Smithfield and the grocer as to why they
are not the usual "premium" hams. Looks like Smithfield pulled a
switcheroo. Which is why they don't list these hams on their
website - it's easy to screw over the consumer at the last minute.

The "Premium" hams are "In Natural Juices". These on sale, while
still "Hardwood Smoked, Ready To Cook" hams, are not "no water
added" Premium hams.

And BTW Kent: Stop calling them "raw" hams. That is an oxymoron
unless they are minimally processed legs of pork (no additives, no
water, no flavorings, no smoking - just raw pork). Pink hams are
partially cooked by the smoking (or other heating) process, but
they are not considered fully cooked.

And believe it or not, just adding nitr[ia]tes to pork does NOT
make them pink until you [partially] cook them. Curing pork in
nitrites does *NOT* make them pink until they are subjected to
heat. And everybody who cures pork knows this. You, OTOH, don't.

I will never answer any more questions from Kent about these hams.
I still reserve the right to call him an idiot and a troll.


-sw

On Nov 20, 5:11*pm, Sqwertz > wrote:

> I will never answer any more questions from Kent about these hams. *
> I still reserve the right to call him an idiot and a troll.
>

You can't reserve something that's in the center of a free fire zone
with a "shoot me" taped onto it's back.

Not fair either.

"tutall" > wrote in message
...
On Nov 20, 5:11 pm, Sqwertz > wrote:

> I will never answer any more questions from Kent about these hams.
> I still reserve the right to call him an idiot and a troll.
>

>You can't reserve something that's in the center of a free fire zone
>with a "shoot me" taped onto it's back.
>
>Not fair either.
>
>
I think he's had a few drinks.

On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 17:49:42 -0800 (PST), tutall wrote:

> On Nov 20, 5:11*pm, Sqwertz > wrote:
>
>> I will never answer any more questions from Kent about these hams. *
>> I still reserve the right to call him an idiot and a troll.
>
> You can't reserve something that's in the center of a free fire zone
> with a "shoot me" taped onto it's back.
>
> Not fair either.

But if he's ever in a cease fire zone, he's all mine!

-sw

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> Looks liek Smithfield ham is going down since Paula Deen took over.
>
> I checked my Smithfield hams at the grocer. They are advertised
> this week as Smithfield Premium Hams, whole or shank portion,
> $1.47#. But what's in the case is a "Water Added" ham (which I
> believe means 7-13% water - it doesn't say on the label).
>
> I plan to bring it up with Smithfield and the grocer as to why they
> are not the usual "premium" hams. Looks like Smithfield pulled a
> switcheroo. Which is why they don't list these hams on their
> website - it's easy to screw over the consumer at the last minute.
>
> The "Premium" hams are "In Natural Juices". These on sale, while
> still "Hardwood Smoked, Ready To Cook" hams, are not "no water
> added" Premium hams.
>
> And BTW Kent: Stop calling them "raw" hams. That is an oxymoron
> unless they are minimally processed legs of pork (no additives, no
> water, no flavorings, no smoking - just raw pork). Pink hams are
> partially cooked by the smoking (or other heating) process, but
> they are not considered fully cooked.
>
> And believe it or not, just adding nitr[ia]tes to pork does NOT
> make them pink until you [partially] cook them. Curing pork in
> nitrites does *NOT* make them pink until they are subjected to
> heat. And everybody who cures pork knows this. You, OTOH, don't.
>
> I will never answer any more questions from Kent about these hams.
> I still reserve the right to call him an idiot and a troll.
>
> -sw
>
>
They are raw. The producer injects the nitrate and nitrite arterially into
the femoral artery to the point where 25% water is added. The meat turns
pink, although I'm sure food coloring is added. I wonder if a liquid smoke
is added to create a smoke flavor, though I suppose at times they're smoked
at room temp. in some strange fashion.. It would cost too much and because
of the risk of inection it would be unsafe for the producer to raise the
temperature of the ham. This, of course, for the inexpensive supermarket
ham. My Tenderquick applied ribs turn pink before they hit the grill.

Kent



Kent

On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 11:47:22 -0800, Kent wrote:

> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Looks liek Smithfield ham is going down since Paula Deen took over.
>>
>> I checked my Smithfield hams at the grocer. They are advertised
>> this week as Smithfield Premium Hams, whole or shank portion,
>> $1.47#. But what's in the case is a "Water Added" ham (which I
>> believe means 7-13% water - it doesn't say on the label).
>>
>> I plan to bring it up with Smithfield and the grocer as to why they
>> are not the usual "premium" hams. Looks like Smithfield pulled a
>> switcheroo. Which is why they don't list these hams on their
>> website - it's easy to screw over the consumer at the last minute.
>>
>> The "Premium" hams are "In Natural Juices". These on sale, while
>> still "Hardwood Smoked, Ready To Cook" hams, are not "no water
>> added" Premium hams.
>>
>> And BTW Kent: Stop calling them "raw" hams. That is an oxymoron
>> unless they are minimally processed legs of pork (no additives, no
>> water, no flavorings, no smoking - just raw pork). Pink hams are
>> partially cooked by the smoking (or other heating) process, but
>> they are not considered fully cooked.
>>
>> And believe it or not, just adding nitr[ia]tes to pork does NOT
>> make them pink until you [partially] cook them. Curing pork in
>> nitrites does *NOT* make them pink until they are subjected to
>> heat. And everybody who cures pork knows this. You, OTOH, don't.
>>
>> I will never answer any more questions from Kent about these hams.
>> I still reserve the right to call him an idiot and a troll.
>>
>> -sw
>>
>>
> They are raw. The producer injects the nitrate and nitrite arterially into
> the femoral artery to the point where 25% water is added.

Shut the **** up, dude. They are injected with a porcupine's worth
of needles. It has been shown on at least a dozen different
documentaries.

You and your god damned arterial brining need to need to go take a
flying leap. Along with your infrared grilling and your cold
smoking.

And they are not raw since they have been smoked at up to 115F
degrees for a couple days.

> The meat turns pink,

Cured pork does not turn pink until you cook it. I have cured
plenty of pork and the only thing is does is turn a sickly grey
before you cook it. Go ahead, dumbass, try it yourself.

End of story.

Now go play in some other group that appreciates your input. And
don't respond to the same posts time after time trying to get
negative attention. It's not healthy.

-sw

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 11:47:22 -0800, Kent wrote:
>
>> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Looks liek Smithfield ham is going down since Paula Deen took over.
>>>
>>> I checked my Smithfield hams at the grocer. They are advertised
>>> this week as Smithfield Premium Hams, whole or shank portion,
>>> $1.47#. But what's in the case is a "Water Added" ham (which I
>>> believe means 7-13% water - it doesn't say on the label).
>>>
>>> I plan to bring it up with Smithfield and the grocer as to why they
>>> are not the usual "premium" hams. Looks like Smithfield pulled a
>>> switcheroo. Which is why they don't list these hams on their
>>> website - it's easy to screw over the consumer at the last minute.
>>>
>>> The "Premium" hams are "In Natural Juices". These on sale, while
>>> still "Hardwood Smoked, Ready To Cook" hams, are not "no water
>>> added" Premium hams.
>>>
>>> And BTW Kent: Stop calling them "raw" hams. That is an oxymoron
>>> unless they are minimally processed legs of pork (no additives, no
>>> water, no flavorings, no smoking - just raw pork). Pink hams are
>>> partially cooked by the smoking (or other heating) process, but
>>> they are not considered fully cooked.
>>>
>>> And believe it or not, just adding nitr[ia]tes to pork does NOT
>>> make them pink until you [partially] cook them. Curing pork in
>>> nitrites does *NOT* make them pink until they are subjected to
>>> heat. And everybody who cures pork knows this. You, OTOH, don't.
>>>
>>> I will never answer any more questions from Kent about these hams.
>>> I still reserve the right to call him an idiot and a troll.
>>>
>>> -sw
>>>
>>>
>> They are raw. The producer injects the nitrate and nitrite arterially
>> into
>> the femoral artery to the point where 25% water is added.
>
> Shut the **** up, dude. They are injected with a porcupine's worth
> of needles. It has been shown on at least a dozen different
> documentaries.
>
> You and your god damned arterial brining need to need to go take a
> flying leap. Along with your infrared grilling and your cold
> smoking.
>
> And they are not raw since they have been smoked at up to 115F
> degrees for a couple days.
>
>> The meat turns pink,
>
> Cured pork does not turn pink until you cook it. I have cured
> plenty of pork and the only thing is does is turn a sickly grey
> before you cook it. Go ahead, dumbass, try it yourself.
>
> End of story.
>
> Now go play in some other group that appreciates your input. And
> don't respond to the same posts time after time trying to get
> negative attention. It's not healthy.
>
> -sw
>
>
sqwertz, that doesn't mean the large volume ham producer is going to half
cook his product to attain color, while making sure the 25% water added
component remains, only to preserve color, and then sell it "ready to cook".
He or she isn't. There's something called food dye.

I really don't feel like arguing with a child like you. Yes, of course,
there are multiple ways to get as much "cure" as possible throughout the
ham. I'm familiar needles.

You did killfile me. That doesn't mean I can't comment on your caca. You
not reading it and not responding to it? What the f__k is going on??

Kent

On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 12:50:26 -0800, Kent wrote:

> sqwertz, that doesn't mean the large volume ham producer is going to half
> cook his product to attain color, while making sure the 25% water added
> component remains, only to preserve color, and then sell it "ready to cook".
> He or she isn't. There's something called food dye.

Yes, Kent. I was just putting you on. Even though the ingredients
do not list food dye, they are indeed using food colorings. You
got me dead to rights. You know all. I can't make a fool of you.

> I really don't feel like arguing with a child like you. Yes, of course,
> there are multiple ways to get as much "cure" as possible throughout the
> ham. I'm familiar needles.

<snort> I bet you are. I hear they can perform a lobotomy without
incisions nowadays. They just use a carefully directed turkey
baster with the injection attachment in reverse. I have one of
those if you'd like to see it in action. We can put it on youtube
(you can sign the release forms afterwards).

ObBBQ: Pork butts are $1/lb this week. They're flying off the
shelves for some reason.

-sw

On Nov 21, 12:50*pm, "Kent" > wrote:

>
> Kent-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_QDGdbg-QQ

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...

[snip...]
> And they are not raw since they have been smoked at up to 115F
> degrees for a couple days.
>
Pork is not considered cooked until a minimum internal temperature of 160
degrees F. That means 115 F is still very much undercooked, even if not
totally raw.

For all practical purposes, consumers should treat smoked/ready to cook hams
as a raw ham--cook them completely, don't just warm them up.

[snip...]

"Daniel W. Rouse Jr." > wrote in message
...
> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> Pork is not considered cooked until a minimum internal temperature of 160
> degrees F. That means 115 F is still very much undercooked, even if not
> totally raw.


not true.

see USDA Title 9 section 318.10 Table:

a.. Cooking pork to a minimum uniform internal temperature per USDA Title 9
section 318.10 Table below. It is prudent to use a margin of error to allow
for variation in internal temperature and error in the thermometer.
°F °C Minimum Time
120 49 21 hours
122 50.0 9.5 hours
124 51.1 4.5hours
126 52.2 2 hours
128 53.4 1 hours
130 54.5 30 minutes
132 55.6 15 minutes
134 56.7 6 minutes
136 57.8 3 minutes
138 58.9 2 minutes
140 60.0 1 minute
142 61.1 1 minute
144 62.2 Instant

On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 17:53:59 -0800, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:

> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> [snip...]
>> And they are not raw since they have been smoked at up to 115F
>> degrees for a couple days.
>>
> Pork is not considered cooked until a minimum internal temperature of 160
> degrees F. That means 115 F is still very much undercooked, even if not
> totally raw.
>
> For all practical purposes, consumers should treat smoked/ready to cook hams
> as a raw ham--cook them completely, don't just warm them up.
>
> [snip...]

We're speaking of the difference between "Ready to Cook" and "Fully
Cooked" hams (and county dry-cured hams). Your raw uncured pork
recommendations are irrelevant at the moment.

-sw

"Pico Rico" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> Pork is not considered cooked until a minimum internal temperature of 160
>> degrees F. That means 115 F is still very much undercooked, even if not
>> totally raw.
>
>
> not true.
>
> see USDA Title 9 section 318.10 Table:
>
> a.. Cooking pork to a minimum uniform internal temperature per USDA Title
> 9 section 318.10 Table below. It is prudent to use a margin of error to
> allow for variation in internal temperature and error in the thermometer.
> °F °C Minimum Time
> 120 49 21 hours
> 122 50.0 9.5 hours
> 124 51.1 4.5hours
> 126 52.2 2 hours
> 128 53.4 1 hours
> 130 54.5 30 minutes
> 132 55.6 15 minutes
> 134 56.7 6 minutes
> 136 57.8 3 minutes
> 138 58.9 2 minutes
> 140 60.0 1 minute
> 142 61.1 1 minute
> 144 62.2 Instant
>
>

To complete my post, the above table pertains to Tricnosis inactivation.
There are other techniques, such as freezing and curing. With this stated,
the old 160 degrees for pork (other than ground pork) is no longer valid.
To me, 160 degree pork is way overcooked.

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 17:53:59 -0800, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
>
>> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> [snip...]
>>> And they are not raw since they have been smoked at up to 115F
>>> degrees for a couple days.
>>>
>> Pork is not considered cooked until a minimum internal temperature of 160
>> degrees F. That means 115 F is still very much undercooked, even if not
>> totally raw.
>>
>> For all practical purposes, consumers should treat smoked/ready to cook
>> hams
>> as a raw ham--cook them completely, don't just warm them up.
>>
>> [snip...]
>
> We're speaking of the difference between "Ready to Cook" and "Fully
> Cooked" hams (and county dry-cured hams). Your raw uncured pork
> recommendations are irrelevant at the moment.
>
> -sw
>
>
As you are

"Pico Rico" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Pico Rico" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>> Pork is not considered cooked until a minimum internal temperature of
>>> 160 degrees F. That means 115 F is still very much undercooked, even if
>>> not totally raw.
>>
>>
>> not true.
>>
>> see USDA Title 9 section 318.10 Table:
>>
>> a.. Cooking pork to a minimum uniform internal temperature per USDA Title
>> 9 section 318.10 Table below. It is prudent to use a margin of error to
>> allow for variation in internal temperature and error in the thermometer.
>> °F °C Minimum Time
>> 120 49 21 hours
>> 122 50.0 9.5 hours
>> 124 51.1 4.5hours
>> 126 52.2 2 hours
>> 128 53.4 1 hours
>> 130 54.5 30 minutes
>> 132 55.6 15 minutes
>> 134 56.7 6 minutes
>> 136 57.8 3 minutes
>> 138 58.9 2 minutes
>> 140 60.0 1 minute
>> 142 61.1 1 minute
>> 144 62.2 Instant
>>
>>
>
> To complete my post, the above table pertains to Tricnosis inactivation.
> There are other techniques, such as freezing and curing. With this
> stated, the old 160 degrees for pork (other than ground pork) is no longer
> valid. To me, 160 degree pork is way overcooked.
>
160F used to be the minimum thermal requirement for pork to safeguard
against Trichinosis. We all grew up eating overcooked pork. There hasn't
been a reported case of Trichinosis in the US for over 30 years until
Sqwertz's cerebral trichinosis just now. Even though the risk is low, we
must always safeguard to keep this kind of thing from happening. He ate raw
cured ham from an excellent producer, Smithfield, yet he still developed
cerebral trichinosis.

Kent

"Kent" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 17:53:59 -0800, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
>>
>>> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>> [snip...]
>>>> And they are not raw since they have been smoked at up to 115F
>>>> degrees for a couple days.
>>>>
>>> Pork is not considered cooked until a minimum internal temperature of
>>> 160
>>> degrees F. That means 115 F is still very much undercooked, even if not
>>> totally raw.
>>>
>>> For all practical purposes, consumers should treat smoked/ready to cook
>>> hams
>>> as a raw ham--cook them completely, don't just warm them up.
>>>
>>> [snip...]
>>
>> We're speaking of the difference between "Ready to Cook" and "Fully
>> Cooked" hams (and county dry-cured hams). Your raw uncured pork
>> recommendations are irrelevant at the moment.
>>
>> -sw
>>
>>
> As you are unfortunately, because of your cerebral condition caused from
> eating the raw product. There isn't any treatment for your condition. May
> God help you.
>
>
>

"Omelet" > wrote in message
news
> In article >,
> "Kent" > wrote:
>
>> >
>> 160F used to be the minimum thermal requirement for pork to safeguard
>> against Trichinosis. We all grew up eating overcooked pork. There hasn't
>> been a reported case of Trichinosis in the US for over 30 years until
>> Sqwertz's cerebral trichinosis just now. Even though the risk is low, we
>> must always safeguard to keep this kind of thing from happening. He ate
>> raw
>> cured ham from an excellent producer, Smithfield, yet he still developed
>> cerebral trichinosis.
>>
>> Kent
>
> Kent, I know you are trying to be funny but FYI, Trichina worms only
> encyst in muscle tissue, not the brain...
>
>
Om, please look at: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/230490-overview
He could have it. Think of it. That little worm is migrating throughout
those primitive poorly developed cells.
My Gawd!
These are times when we must , we just must, be humane.

On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 19:42:55 -0800, Kent wrote:

> 160F used to be the minimum thermal requirement for pork to safeguard
> against Trichinosis. We all grew up eating overcooked pork. There hasn't
> been a reported case of Trichinosis in the US for over 30 years until
> Sqwertz's cerebral trichinosis just now. Even though the risk is low, we
> must always safeguard to keep this kind of thing from happening. He ate raw
> cured ham from an excellent producer, Smithfield, yet he still developed
> cerebral trichinosis.

At least I managed to post something useful to the group.

On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 19:46:08 -0800, Kent wrote:

> "Kent" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> As you are unfortunately, because of your cerebral condition caused from
>> eating the raw product. There isn't any treatment for your condition. May
>> God help you.

Why do you keep responding to yourself and double-quoting it like
this? Is this some sort of plot to covertly concatenate your posts
without anyone noticing that you're ...uh... stumbling all over
yourself?

I really do feel sorry for whatever it is you have. I really am
out of here now.

sw

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 19:46:08 -0800, Kent wrote:
>
>> "Kent" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> As you are unfortunately, because of your cerebral condition caused from
>>> eating the raw product. There isn't any treatment for your condition.
>>> May
>>> God help you.
>
> Why do you keep responding to yourself and double-quoting it like
> this? Is this some sort of plot to covertly concatenate your posts
> without anyone noticing that you're ...uh... stumbling all over
> yourself?
>
> I really do feel sorry for whatever it is you have. I really am
> out of here now.
>
> sw
>
>
" I really am out of here now.", you don't have the balls.

You know, it makes me feel good to think that during the holidays
Kenny and Squirts are together.

It's good to see that after all this time they still can't leave one
another alone.

I can only imagine what they do when they make up. The fight, fight,
fight, kill file, kill file, kill file, berate, belittle, and
generally crap on each other.

But neither lets the other post without a reply, no matter how "mad"
they get with each other, they always find a way to continue to
communicate.

At first I was thinking Oprah, on a segment about "partners that love
to much". Now I am thinking Dr. Phil, both of them in a segment that
wonders why there is so much drama in their relationship.

You two have a nice T-day.

Robert

Kent wrote:
> "Pico > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> "Pico > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> "Daniel W. Rouse > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Pork is not considered cooked until a minimum internal temperature of
>>>> 160 degrees F. That means 115 F is still very much undercooked, even if
>>>> not totally raw.
>>>>
>>>
>>> not true.
>>>
>>> see USDA Title 9 section 318.10 Table:
>>>
>>> a.. Cooking pork to a minimum uniform internal temperature per USDA Title
>>> 9 section 318.10 Table below. It is prudent to use a margin of error to
>>> allow for variation in internal temperature and error in the thermometer.
>>> °F °C Minimum Time
>>> 120 49 21 hours
>>> 122 50.0 9.5 hours
>>> 124 51.1 4.5hours
>>> 126 52.2 2 hours
>>> 128 53.4 1 hours
>>> 130 54.5 30 minutes
>>> 132 55.6 15 minutes
>>> 134 56.7 6 minutes
>>> 136 57.8 3 minutes
>>> 138 58.9 2 minutes
>>> 140 60.0 1 minute
>>> 142 61.1 1 minute
>>> 144 62.2 Instant
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> To complete my post, the above table pertains to Tricnosis inactivation.
>> There are other techniques, such as freezing and curing. With this
>> stated, the old 160 degrees for pork (other than ground pork) is no longer
>> valid. To me, 160 degree pork is way overcooked.
>>
>>
> 160F used to be the minimum thermal requirement for pork to safeguard
> against Trichinosis. We all grew up eating overcooked pork. There hasn't
> been a reported case of Trichinosis in the US for over 30 years until
> Sqwertz's cerebral trichinosis just now. Even though the risk is low, we
> must always safeguard to keep this kind of thing from happening. He ate raw
> cured ham from an excellent producer, Smithfield, yet he still developed
> cerebral trichinosis.
>
> Kent
>
>
>
>
>
>
Sure he did, Sally.