## 3 Results and Discussion
### Instrumental Measurement of Color and Texture of Smoked Dry-Cured Ham
Similar to our results, another study [21] also reported a decrease in the hardness of BF and SM muscles in later stages of production in Bayonne dry-cured ham. This phenomenon is related to the initial loss of protein solubility which leads to hardening of muscles but is followed by degradation of myofibrillar proteins which cause the tenderization of muscles in later phases of production [21]. Although proteolysis was more advanced in BF between the drying and ripening phase (Figure 1B), this muscle did not suffer a greater decrease in hardness values than SM. This effect is likely a consequence of the incorporation of the salt and the additional water loss in BF (Table 1), which probably resulted in higher hardness values that would otherwise decrease due to more intense proteolysis in BF muscle. The final hardness values were significantly higher in SM than in BF, which is consistent with the results of other studies on different types of dry-cured ham [14; 34; 37]. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Phase of Production**} \\ \hline  & **Raw Ham** & **After Salting** & **After Smoking** & **After Drying** & **After Ripening** \\ \hline L* & & & & & \\ BF & 54.02 \(\pm\) 0.48 c & 51.55 \(\pm\) 0.18 a,2 & 53.53 \(\pm\) 0.27 bc,2 & 54.31 \(\pm\) 0.47 c,2 & 52.06 \(\pm\) 0.40 ab,2 \\ SM & 54.41 \(\pm\) 0.75 c & 48.21 \(\pm\) 0.21 ab,1 & 49.98 \(\pm\) 0.57 b,1 & 49.88 \(\pm\) 0.41 b,1 & 47.83 \(\pm\) 0.34 a,1 \\ \hline a* & & & & & \\ BF & 2.96 \(\pm\) 0.18 b,2 & 1.95 \(\pm\) 0.11 a & 1.88 \(\pm\) 0.14 a & 1.86 \(\pm\) 0.16 a,2 & 2.98 \(\pm\) 0.18 b,2 \\ SM & 1.77 \(\pm\) 0.09 ab,1 & 1.84 \(\pm\) 0.13 ab & 1.76 \(\pm\) 0.14 ab & 1.38 \(\pm\) 0.09 a,1 & 2.25 \(\pm\) 0.28 b,1 \\ \hline b* & & & & & \\ BF & 8.30 \(\pm\) 0.37 c & 8.32 \(\pm\) 0.19 c & 3.74 \(\pm\) 0.20 a,2 & 4.20 \(\pm\) 0.09 a,2 & 5.28 \(\pm\) 0.19 b,2 \\ SM & 8.20 \(\pm\) 0.39 c & 8.21 \(\pm\) 0.14 c & 3.26 \(\pm\) 0.12 a,1 & 3.4  
Changes in gumminess and chewiness are also related to water content [36; 38] and followed the same trend as hardness in investigated muscles. BF showed significantly lower values of gumminess and chewiness at the end of processing, in agreement with the results observed after 12 months of processing of Kraski prstu [14]. Adhesiveness is a parameter strongly influenced by proteolytic processes [35]. Adhesiveness progressively decreased during processing in both muscles. A decrease in adhesiveness values in BF and SM during 12 months of Bayome ham processing was also reported [9], but with much lower values than those found in this study. Decrease in adhesiveness during dry-cured ham production is associated with drying and protein gelatinization, resulting in improved sliceability of the final product [39]. We can attribute the decrease in adhesiveness in both muscles during processing of the smoked dry-cured ham to drying and progressive loss of water content (Table 1). Significantly higher (\(p<0.05\)) values for adhesiveness in BF compared to SM throughout processing may be related to less severe drying due to the internal position of BF in the ham and, presumably, more advanced proteolysis at the end of processing. Final adhesiveness values were significantly higher for BF over SM, which was also reported for Bayonne [9] and Teruel [34] dry-cured ham after 12 months of processing. Springiness and cohesiveness are TPA parameters negatively correlated with \(\mathrm{a_{w}}\) and water content [31]. Springiness and cohesiveness decreased significantly over time in both muscles, with higher final values in BF. The lower springiness and cohesiveness in SM may be attributed to the more intense dehydration in this muscle, based on previous studies that showed dry-cured ham muscle samples with lower water content had lower springiness and cohesiveness values [31; 36].