am - University of Tasmania
Transcript of am - University of Tasmania
QIRgt
T1lSMANIAN RmlOW IJBgtRA1ORX
OOCIlSlDlAL PAPER 10 8
ASSESSMENT OF SENSOR TECHNIOJES FOR OJALIIY
ASSESSMENl OF WSTRALIAN FISH
by
IIJSSEIN ABO RAfIotAN am JUNE OLLEY
This toOrk was undertaken at the CSIRJ Division of Food R3search nlsmanian
FoOO ~search Unit (TFRJ) Hobart Tasmania in oo-operatIon with staff
rrenbers bull
The project report was prepared as a partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the Graduate Diplana in Fisheries Technology at the School of Fisheries
Australian Maritime College Beauty ~int Tasmania
Present Address stesen Memproses Ikan M ARDI Jalan Balik Bukit IltUala Trengganu Trengganu Malaysia
November 1984
I
TABLE OF OONIENTS
Page
List of Figures iv
List of nb1es v
Acknowledgement vii
lbstract 1
100 Introduction
110 QUality and QUality Assessment of Fish 2
120 Chemical Methods 3
130 Fhysical Methods 6
140 Microbiological Methods 7
1 50 sensory Methods 9
160 The Ideal Method 12
200 Materials and Methods 13
210 Sample Preparation 13
211 Fish stored in RSW 13
212 Fish stored in ice 14
220 sensory assessment of the whole (gutted
am ungutted) rCM fish sarrp1es 15
230 sensory assessment of the frozen filleted
rCM fish samples 15
240 ~ganoleptic acceptability panel of the
cooked fish 20
250 Statistics 20
300 Results 23
310 Fhysical Characteristics of M novaeselandialaquo 23
320 Physical Characteristics of H BemifaBotata 23
400 Discussion
11
330 Sensory assessment of the raw blue grenadier
samples stored in RiW 23
340 sensory assessment of the raw whiting samples
stored in ice 23
3 50 Attributes contributing to total score 23
360 Relative merits of the scoring systems 33
370 Time taken to score the fish 33
380 kceptability taste panel results of blue
grenadier samples 33
390 Acceptability taste panel results of
whiting samples 33
40
410 sensory assessment of the raw blue grenadier
samples stored in RiW 40
420 sensory assessment of the raw whiting sanples
stored in ice 41
430 the ease and difficulties of using the four
methods of scoring 44
440 kceptability taste panel results of blue
grenadier sarrples 44
441 Flavour acceptability 44
442 Texture acceptability 45
443 Overall acceptability 46
450 kceptability taste panel results of whiting
samples 46
451 Flavour acceptability 46
452 Texture acceptability 47
453 OVerall acceptability 47
iii
500 Conclusions 47
510 Feasibility of using demerit points 47
520 Purpose for which demerit points are
to be used 49
530 suggestions for further work 50
600 Bibliography 51
7 00 Appendices 56
Appendix 1 Nomogram for comparison of different
scoring systems for raw fish
Appendix 2 General Foods Smiley scale
Appendix 3 ELF scatter print-out for correlation
analysis of blue grenadier samples
Appendix 4 ELF scatter print-out for correlation
analysis of whiting samples
Maritime Cbllege Ippendix 5 Analysis of variance for the blue
Copy Only grenadier samples by the Genstat package
Appendix 6 Analysis of variance for the whiting
samples by the Genstat package
Appendix 7 Original score sheets
fv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No TIlLE Page
Fig 1 Pamerit points versus days in RSW for blue grenadier samples 25
Fig 2 Dmerit points versus days in ice for whiting samples 26
Fig 3 Fercentage change in demerit points for blue grenadier
in RSW 34
Fig 4 R9rcentafJe chanqe in demerit points for iced whiting 35
Fig 5 1aste panel results of Blue grenadier - flavour acceptability 36
Fig 6 1aste panel results of Blue grenadier - texture acceptability 36
Fig 7 Taste panel results of Blue grenadier - overall acceptability 37
Fig 8 1aste panel results of tiiting - flavour acceptability 37
Fig 9 1aste panel results of tiiting - texture acceptability 38
Fig 10 Taste panel results of Whiting - overall acceptability 38
Table tb
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Table 10
Table 11
Table 12
Table 13
Table 14
v
LIST OF TABLES
TIILE Page
5amplirq regime for fish stored in R3Wice 14
TFRJ Sensory Assessroont score sheet (gutted and
urqutted sanples) 16
EEX Sensory Assessroont score sheet 17-18
Filleted sample score sheet 19
Order of presentation of the cookeq blue grenadier
samples to the acceptability taste panelists 21
Order of presentation of the cooked whitirq samples
to the acceptability taste panelists 22
TOtal demerit points from sensory assessment of
blue grenadier samples stored in R3W 24
TOtal demerit points from sensory assessment of
whiting scrnples stored in ice 27
Relationship between time and demerit points for
fish stored in R3W (M novaeselandiaet 28
Attributes contributirq to total score usirq TFRJ
scores (gutted and urqutted scrnples) bull 29
Attributes contributirq to total score usirq EEC
scores 30
Attributes contributirq to total score usilVJ
filleted samples scores 31
Different emphasis in scorirq systems for whole
f ish as between the EX and TFRJ 32
Acceptability of deep fried blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW 39
VI
Table 15
Table 16
Acceptability of deep fried whiting samples
stored in ice
Acceptability of deep fried whiting samples stored
in ice
39
47
NIlttmLEOOEMEm
Ihe author is indebted to Hr HA Bremner and Miss J A statham of the
CSIR) Division of Food 1esearch and Ii DA Ratk~sky of the Division of
Mathematics and Statistics for direction and advice durin] the course of this
~rk
Thanks nust also go to Miss M Ottenschlaeger for the help in the taste
panel work Hr AH A vail and Hr P Kearney in the correlation analysis and
Mr D 8Jrford in the preparation of the blue grenadier samples and not
forgettirYJ all the panelists who attended the taste panel sessions
Finally the author wishes to thank all those in the SChool of Fisheries
of the Australian HaritiIm College particularly Mr P Minton for the support
and encouragement they have given and also the Australian Development
Assistance Bureau (~) for their financial assistance
1
ABSTRACT
Accumulation of demerit points with time of storage of blue grenadier (M
novaeae landiaev in refrigerated sea water (I~W) and blue rock whi t ing (H
eemifaeeiatcq in ice was fourd to be highly correlated and occurred in an
approximately linear fashion irrespective of the method of scoring used
1he scoring system developed by the TFRJ was fourrl to be the easiest
quickest and rrost reliable method for quality assessment of fish The changes
in tOO appearance of the eyes and the odour developrent of the gills are the
most obvious and valuable indicators of change in quality when using the TFRU
or the EEl freshness scores while the appearance and odour of the fish flesh
seems to be the most obvious indicator when assessing the filleted samples
1he acceptabil ity taste panel results indicate that M nauaeeelandiae stored
in RSW had a shelf-life of 14 days whilst H semifasciata stored in ice had a
shelf-life of 17 days ~ cut-off point at which spoilage of the samples
WDUld have rendered the quality of the fish samples to be unacceptable fran
the consumer point of view would be those equivalent to the accumulated
demerit point of gt29 for the TFRU (gutted and ungutted) scores and gt21 for the
EEC ard filleted sample scores
2
1 00 rsrromcrros
110 QUality and QUality Asses~nt of Fish
QJality is difficult to define since it means different things to
different people One general definition is degree of excellence
According to waterman (1982) quality of food is the SLD1 of those attributes
that govern its acceptability to the buyer or consumer and quality assessment
is the estLmation or measurement of one or more quality factors as a means of
determining quality before exercising control
Bremner (1984) defined quality as that attitude of mind that approach
that event that state of being when everything is right hus until a
seafood is eaten its quality can only be surmised indirectly harever
seafoods do possess a set of properties or characteristics that for practical
purposes can be related with quality
In cxmnerce quality limits are set by what the custcrner is prepared to
pay for generally the custcrner will pay more for fish that he considers to be
of higher quality and will continue to buy as long as quality remains
constant The relationship between quality and marketing is therefore
governed by the sophistication of the consuner ( ta Zylva 1974) Sore of the
more important factors that determine quality fran the custcrners point of
view are species ease of preparation appearance odour flavour freshness
size presence or absence of bones and filth absence of specific
microorganisms condition packaging and composition (Oonnell 1972)
Freshness is the most important quality factor to the consumer thus
assessnent of freshness is vital in quality control kcording to Baines et
al (1965) the term freshness is employed to describe the presence or
absence of deterioration Ib many however freshness involves the concept of
newness in which time is an important factor In other words the fish
technologist is not only concerned with quality at the mrnent of examination
3
but of the products potential shelf-life M accurate measure of st~age
1_ time under kn~ conditions would allow hLm to calculate the remaining life of
the product and its potential for processing
Fish quality depends on tenperature time and hygiene Factors such as
spontaneous chemical changes autolysis and microbial attack produce
deteriorations fran the point of catching until final putrefaction
Measurements of sane of these deteriorations have been invoked as indices of
freshness
he measurement of trimethylamine (lMA) other spoilage cxrrpounds and the
bacteria themselves as indicators of quality has been reviewed recently by
Martin et al (1978) hey stated that in order to define effective indicators
of seafocxi quality the food technologist must be prepared to examine each
species of seafood individually its environment its composition its
harvesting and its handling
A lUIllber of different tests may be used for estimating the degree of
spoilage in fish these include total volatile bases (TVa) total volatile
reducing substances volatile armonia volatile acids total volatilo
nitrogen indole refractive index of the eye fluid electrical resistance of
the fish flesh total bacterial numbers and organoleptic tests hese methods
are discussed under the headings chemical methods physical methods
microbiological methods and sensory methods bel~
120 Chemical Methods
Although not universal in acceptance or applicability the trLmethylamine
(TMA) determination has became one of the established procedures for
determining fish quality Its use as an indicator of spoilage in fresh fish
have also been proposed by the Codex AlLmentarius crnmittee on fish and
fishery products (Olley 1977) his is despite the fact that there is ample
4
evidence that the same ClfDUnt of 1MA is accanpanied by different ClfDUnts of
spoilage even within the same species
Several investigators (Spinelli et aI 1984 Jones 1965) have expressed
reservations regardirq the use of IMA as an index of quality for fresh fish
not inq that 1MA values fail to give an adequate Iod icetIon of early autolytic
quality chanqes aOO preferrirq hypoxanthfne detenninations instead MA as
would be expected of a bacterial product is not useful in detenninilg quality
deteriorations which occur durirq frozen storage FIrthenoore the shape of
the fish will markedly influence the arrount of IMA meaaured in ng per 100 g
fish (Bremner et aI 1978) Trimethylamine is roost sensitive as an indicator
of the later stages of spoilage whereas Chemical tests for dimethylamine are
most valuable in the early stages of spoilage
Ryder et al (1984) foond that the bacterial metabol Ic end products (1VB
and MA) were less useful as objective measurements of freshness in Jack
Mackerel (TrochuflUB nooaezelandiae) hey also reported that the pH was not a
gcxxl indicator of early storage changes and lEA values could not be used to
detennine loss of acceptability or eoo of shelf-life Recently it has became
apparent that the sulphur canpounds and mercaptans may be importantH2S
detenninants of fish odour and flavour (~rbert and Shewan 1975)
Measurement of MA IMA or amoonia requires a laboratory am assistant of
matriculation standard who has had sane weeks of practice in the IOOthod
Neither the Codex Alimentarius CoITInittee or the EEl (Ccmoon Market) lay down
samplilg procedures
Another quality assessment lOOasurement involves the nucleotides aoo their
degradation products Early studies with cod carp Pacific Salmgtn Lemon
sole haddock and plaice revealed that post-mortem nucleotide degradation in
fish muscle proceeds prbnarily via the followirq sequence of reactions ATP -)
AMP -) IMP -) IID -) Hx -) Xa -) UA where KrP = Jldenosine 5-triphosphate AMP
5
= Jldenosine 5-IOCgtoophosphate IMP = Inosine 5-IOCgtoophosphate lID = Inosine j
Hx = Hypoxanthine xa = Xpnthine am UA = Uric acid loo ~tages in this
degradative sequence have been considered as objective indices of quality shy
dephosphorylation of IMP am formation of hypoxanthine IMP reportedly
possesses properties as a flavour enhancer in fish mrscle COnsequently its
breakdawn may contribute to and be correlated with the loss of fresh flavour
in sane species SCme difficulties however may arise fran using IMP
dephosphorylatioo as a s inqle quality index eg the pattern of nucleotide
breakdown in invertebrate seafood species may differ in same key respects fran
that fourrl in vertebrate species he rate of IMP decanposition in the muscle
also differs between species (Ehira 1976) Accordi~ to Martin et al (1978)
the rrost serious limitation imposed by an IMP index may be that the reaction
is substantially complete well within the edible storage life of a number of
species Its major value then may be as an indicator of fresh flavour loss
during early storage
Unlike IMP concentrations of hypoxanthine (Hx) have been shown to
increase steadily throughout the useful storage life of a number of fish
species (Hughes and Jones 1966) Hypoxanthine formation is a result of both
autolytic am bacterial activities hus it also has advantages over the 1MA
assay Hx may be correlated with flavour loss caused by autolytic activities
durirg early storage am with bacterial spoilage during extended storage to
derive a prediction of useful storage life Also the IMA test is of no value
for freshwater fish because these either do not contain or contain very little
trimethylamine oxide Hx may also be used to determine the quali ty of canned
herrirg at the tirre of processing since hypoxanthine concentrations neither
increase nor decrease duri~ heat process inq and subsequent storage (Hughes
ard Jones 1966) 1MA concentrations on the other hand are unstable during
heat process inq lbNever different species of fish produce hypoxanthine by
6
different routes and at different speeds Each lustralian species ttOUld have
to be examined in turn am the hypoxanthine test related to sensory grades
tbte that the Canadian redfish and flounder had produced the maximum amgtunt of
hypoxanthine 10llg before they becarre unacceptable while the swordfish had
only produced a fifth of the arount when it became unacceptable to a taste
panel (Olley 1978) The hypoxanthine test requires laboratory facilities and
same equipment but recently the use of sLmple paper strips have been reported
(Jahns et aI 1976)
The main disadvantages of nucleotide assays are that they are apt to vary
even arro~ individuals within a species Sufficient samples need to be used
to reduce this variability
All the chemical roothods discussed above depend on measuring the
concentration of certain chemical substances in the flesh and since the sample
is destroyed in the process they cannot be used to test every fish in a
batch In any case variation between fishes in the sarre batch makes chemical
tests for quality a task requiring a statistician (Olley 1977) All the
methods require the use of a laboratory or fairly elaborate facilities and
also they oo rot apply to all species and products alike
130 Physical Methods
Love (1954) described a roothod which correlates the turbidity of the eye
lenses of fish with storage tiroo of iced fish kept in a roan of fairly
constant air temperature He found that it is possible by examination of 20
or more lenses to assess the storage tiroo with an error of not roore than 1
day M advantage of this roothod is that since only the eyes have to be
raroved in sampling the fish remains saleable as headed dressed fish or as
fillets ~ver1 the roothod had many limitations such as difficulty in
manipulation and matchi~ of the lenses which have to be done in good diffused
7
daylight at least 20 lenses are required for each estllnation which is rather
tedious for routine work and also it is not applicable where fish had not been
kept all the time in ice under the standard conditions eg bulk stowage of
fish with ice on a trawler may result in deviation fran the conditions of box
stolage in an insulated roan
he GR Ibrrymeter is a battery pc7ot1ered hand-held instnunent that rreasures
certain dialectric properties of fish skin which charge wi th the
tiJretemperature history of the fish fbWever readi~s on a large mrnber of
samples have to be taken and averaged bull Although it is a rapid simple
objective and rDn-destructive method of estllnati~ the quality of fresh fish
it has the followilkJ disadvanteqesj large variation in readirg fran fish to
fish readi~ varies with physical damage to fish1 cha~e of readi~ with time
varies with species and also may be insensitive at later stages of spo i Laqe
Curran et al (1981) reported that the GR Ibrrymeter was not particularly
successful with both the purple emperor (L6thoinus l6ntjan) ard the Spanish
mackerel ( Scomberomorue oonmereons since the readirgs obtained do not
correlate very well with the taste panel results
140 Microbiological Methods
he rootine microbiological testirg that is performed under normal
industry operations is normally restricted to enumeration of nonpathogenic
microorganisms hose frost frequently used are the standard plate count and
enumeration of indicator organisms such as the coliform group Beoher-ichia
coli aM Staphylococcus aureus
Food handl i nq practices beyond the pr-imary processors control make
standard aerobic plate count (APe) a difficult quality assessment tool to use
generally he total nunber of bacteria is not the sole determinant of
8
quali ty since certain microbial groups are rrore apt to cause spoilage than
others These groups can be given a selective advantage for growth by the way
the product is processed or stored furthermore the determination of
bacterial counts while they are of value to research requires too much time
before results are known and can also be expensive for routine testing
Representative samples have to be taken for bacterial examination because the
fish or product is destroyed during the test Interpreting the results of
bacterial testing is a task for experts who should be consulted when
necessary bull
Detection and enumeration of indicator bacteria such as the coliform
group E ooli and S auroeu8 were considered for many years to indicate the
potential presence of pathoqenic microorganisms NM this inference has been
questioned and these groups are no longer considered a reliable method for
predicting the presence of such pathogens (Martin et aL1978) bull
According to Olley and Ratkowsky (1973) there is in fact no simple index
of quality and a thorough knowledge of the oamplete temperature history of the
fish is the only true indicator of freshness This is so because at higher
temperatures bacteria divide in half more rapidly Therefore the
relationship between bacterial growth with production of spoilage canpounds
and temperature is not a straight line rut a curve he curve relates rate of
spoilage of these commodities at temperatures between aoe and 25dege to the rate
at which they would spoil at aoe hus at aoe the relative rate is 1 and at
Rate at temperature (tOe)any other temperature the relative rate is Rate at a be
Bremner et at (1978) have coined the term ICE FOID for this relative rate
ie so many times faster than the ccmnodity would spoil on ice and
lCETIME as equivalent storage time on ice = lCEFOID x time in days
The curve has also been converted into tabular form to enable conversion
of the temperature history of the catch into equivalent storage time
on ice under ideal conditions However the concept of relative rate of
9
spoilage with temperature can only apply if fishing oonditions are kept
constant
150 sensory Methods
Currently the best way to detenmine fish freshness still requires the use
of a taste panel (Regenstein and Regenstein 1981) A number of taste panel
techniques for assessing the quality of unfrozen fish species have been
described am are in use in different parts of the world These techniques
vary in cbjective and ccrrplexity but are of three main types Firstly there
are those which categorise the fish on the basis of its acceptability for
eatirq secondly there are those which categorise the fish on the basis of
well-defined characteristics which change duri~ storage Thirdly there are
techniques which include elements of both of these types Techniques of the
first type usually anploy a single gradi~ or hedonic (like-dislike) scale
whilst those of the second type anploy descriptions of various characteristics
(Baines et aI 1969)
The ultimate criterion of fish quality is the flavour and texture of the
cooked fish HcMever taste panel evaluations of cooked fish are timeshy
consiminq and relatively few samples can be tested at anyone time It is
therefore highly desirable to be able to make an assessment of eati~ quality
by exanini~ the raw fish My atterrpt to raise the quality of raw fish as it
reaches the consumer is critically dependent on the development of a
convenient and consistent rrethod of quality assessment based on raw fish
Fortunately eat inq quality of cooked fish can be correlated with the
appearance odour and texture of the whole raw fish Boyd and Wilson (1976)
when evaluat inq the quality of snapper (Chroysophfys aufatus) by a sensory
method found that there is close relationship between the raw attributes of
gill odour and general appearance with those of odour texture am flavour of
10
the cooked fish
The use of ooject ive tests at dockside or even on inspection within the
plant is not considered to be practical in the normal routine of inspection of
fresh ard frozen fish products as almost all of the coject Ive tests require
laboratories am so becare rather rerooved fran the busy fisherman processor
or factory foreman A nuch simpler piece of apparatus is the eye or the N)Se
(olley 1977) Sensory tests are always controversial as they require an
inspector although the canny buyer is in fact applying his senses of smell
am visual acuity in a similar fashion W9 accept the wine faster and wcxgtl
classer so why not the fish grader (Bremner 1984) Therefore a test that
correlated well with freshnessquality and that could operate on the market or
in the factory would be of considerable value to an efficient industry (Baines
et aI 1965)
Howgate (1978) also considered the sensory rrethods to be far better than
non-sensory methods which are not suitable for consumer testing whilst
Connell (1972) states that in general the sensory rrethod of assessing
freshness is the best at present for quality control purposes
As fish spoils its snell taste appearance and feel go through
characteristic am well defined stages that trained experts or experienced
staff can consistently recognise It is convenient to attach a number or
score to each stage so that the assessor can award the appropriate score to
each fish or batch of fish Alternatively the mere recognition of each stage
ard acceptance or rejection of fish on this basis may be all that is
necessary Different species and products spoil in different ways The
numerical system us irq an objective panel developed at the Ibrry IEsearch
Station by Shewan et al (1953) is probably the ultUnate critical evaluation of
fish freshness available at this time It was created for the determination
of storage time of whole Net fish l6Jenstein and Iegenstein (1981) in using
11
this nunerical system reported that the cooked freshness scores are generally
higher (better) than expected at that storage t irre for whole wet fish A
freshness score of 55 on the Ibrry scale seemed the appropriate endpoint for
their definition of shelf-life This would nonnally be reached with ideal
iced-at-sea fish about twelve days from catch sooner for fillets Freshness
scorirq systems are I1C1laquo available fran Ibrry Research station for most UK
ccmnercial species and systems are available for both the raw and cooked
fish HoweveF there is still no standard scorirq system to be used
internationally he countries in the EEC ~or instance use scoring systems
which differ both in scale length am in characteristics measured Most
systems use the same scale length for all features examined but the United
Kingdon am Icelarrl use scales of 10 to 0 for odour and 5 to 0 for other
characteristics ibwgate (1972) describes the effort to construct a rorogram
for oonvert inq fran one scorinq system to another (Appendix 1) de Zylva
(1974) expanded the Ibrry score sheet to include marks for flesh colour and
texture belly flap discoloration stainiBJ of backbone am colour of
kidney he scoring system was designed for ~w Zealand snapper and gave
excellent negative linear correlations between score am days of storage
legenstein (1983) presents the way in which Ibrry has in turn incorporated
other characteristics into the score sheet for raw fish Groupings of several
characteristics to give a score requires more expertise than scoring
individual points as is done by de Zylva
However the use of a point or scoring system in which higher points are
given for high quality attributes would mean the requirements of more
kllC7filedge of the fish and the tester mist be experienced and knCM the
qualities of the fish previously Therefore it is too species dependent
his problem can be overcare by using the demerit system with points being
allotted in several categories for defects as they becare obvious and one can
I
12
learn as one goes along in each situation he demerit points that were given
to the various selected quality attributes could be weighted in such a way as
to produce an approximately linear change in score with storage time (Branch
and Vail 1985)
It might also be desirable OCIlInercially to specify a uniform mrnber of
days of shelf-life fran the pack date to consumption he length of shelfshy
life ctgttained for fish depends on the initial age and quality of the fish the
tirre of the pack am the time am temperature of storage before am after
packing In practical terns the ultimate measure of the effect(s) of shelf-
life extension treatments on the final quality of the fish is consumer
satisfaction (Regenstein aoo Regenstein 1981)
A tentative grading systan for fresh fish based on sensory assessment of
fish had been described by IbUwing (1972)
160 The Ideal Method
Forty years of research ootably in the UK Canada and Japan have gone
into objective methods for measuring fish quality (Bremner et al 1978)
There is as yet 00 single universal test for all species nor for that
matter any wholly satisfactory test for individual species
The ideal rrethod hOlJld be one that is cheap oon-destructive easy to
use oot subject to much variation or fatigue having rapid response and wide
application sensory tests have the advantages of being non-destructive 00
equipnent required adaptable to species and assessing the market value
Althcogh sensory tests are usually condemned as a subjective test which
requires training am experience am are also said to be easily open to
abuse this can be reduced if a simple rapid and less descriptive rrethod
could be fourd - possibly with the use of demerit point scores Therefore
this study aims at assessing the use of sensory techniques based on the
13
demerit point scores developed for raw whole (gutted and ungutted) and
filleted fish samples of Australian fish species stored in ice and RSW It
also discusses the results of the acceptability taste panels on the cooked
fish samples
The two oammercially ~rtant Australian fish species used in this study
were the blue grenadier am the blue rock whiting he blue grenadier is
currently Tasmanias major oammercial finfish and the recent annual production
of the fishery exceeds 100 tonnes (Last et aI 1983)~ he blue rock whiti~
is the only Australian member of the family that has any commercial
importance It occurs mainly in Bass strait and the sheltered bays of South
eastern Tasmania The flesh is delicately flavoured but very soft
200 MATERIALS lIND MEIHgt[s
210 Sample preparation
211 Fish stored in RSW
Blue grenadier used in this study were caught on the 15th lugust 1984 at
a depth of 300 fathans off Sandy Cape on the west coast of Tasmania (Lat
41deg20S IDrq144deg40 E) by demersal trawl They were taken fran the deck
irnnediately am dropped into a refrigerated seawater (RSW) tank in a net bag
(tanp -1degC) The fish was reported to be handled quite roughly on board
Sore of the fish had already gone into rigor at this stage he fish were
transported to the CnID lasrnanian Food lesearch Uni t (TFRJ) laboratories in
Hobart and were already to days old on arrival The f ish were then placed in
the RSW box tank of the rrobile unit (the design and construction of which were
described by Thrower and Stafford 1981) and was kept at -1degC for the duration
of the storage trial which lasted for about three weeks Four fish were
rerroved at each samplirq tine (Table 1) for sensory assessment Length
14
measurements to the fork of the tail were also noted ~e fish were then
filleted and samples frozen at -lBoe for later assessment of their
acceptability by taste panel
212 Fish stored in ice
For the sensory assessment of fish stored in ice guidelines similar to
those given by Lima dos Santos et al (981) were used ~e blue rock whiting
also known as the weedy whiting was used ~e whiting were caught on the
afternoon of 23rd August 1984 by demersal trawl in 18 to 25 m waters oft
Eastern Tasmania On arrival at the TFRJ laboratories in I-bbart at 11 45 am
on the fol Lowirq day the f ish were re- iced at a ratio of 21 (ice f ish) in
insulated plastic boxes of size 66 x 41 x 28 em with provision for drainage
of melt water Flake ice was used ~e ice was topped up daily and renewed
once a week The boxes of i ced f ish were then kept in a cool roan set at a
temperature of 0deg to -1dege ~ree fish were removed for sensory assessment at
each sampling time (Table 1) over a period of rmre than three weeks of ice
storage 100 fish samples were then frozen at -18dege until needed for the
acceptability taste panel
Table 1
sampling regirre for fish stored in R3Wice
Blue Grenadier Diys in R3W 3 4 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 17 21
Sample code N D G L S R K T U P M 0
Whiting Diys in ice 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Sample code 0 M D G T S N R P U L K
15
220 Sensory assessment of the whole (gutted and ungutted) raw fish samples
Both the blue grenadier stored in lOW and the whi t i nq stored in ice were
progressively assessed by using the sense organs of sight smell and touch tor
changes in general appearance odour and texture with storage tine by giving
the appropriate demeri t scores according to the score sheets as shown in
Tables 2 and 3 IVo types of score sheets were used Table 2 shows the
sensory assessment score sheet orig inally developed for the assessment of
gemfish (Thrower et al 1982) It has been simplified and weighted (Branch
and Vail 1985) to provide accumulated increases in demerit points as the t i sn
change in odour texture and appearance during storage with the max imum
accumulated demerit point scores of 35 for the urx]utted samples and 39 tor tte
gutted samples The total scor irq for gutted fish differs fran that descr ibeo
by Bremner (1984) and Branch and Vail (1985) in that the demerit points for
the belly cavity have been added to those for the whole fish
The whole and gutted raw fish were also assessed by using the freshness
score sheet developed by the Council of the European COl1nunities (Official
Journal of the European Qmnunities 1970) but with slight rrodification marie
in its scor irq method in that the scor irq was reversed to provide accumulateri
increases in demerit points as in the TFRJ score sheet (Table 2) with a
maximun accumulated demerit score of 30 (Table 3) The samples were scored by
H Abd R who had had no previous experience with the score sheet
230 Sensory Assessment of the frozen filleted raw fish samples
Samples of the whole and gutted fish of both species were then filleted
ard frozen at -18degC until required for the organoleptic acceptability test
panel fillets were thawed by holding for about 16 hours (overnight) in still
air at 4degC The thawed fillets of both the blue grenadier and whi t i nq were
then assessed by the sense organs of sight smell and touch by using the scor-e
sheet for filleted sample as shown in Table 4 nle score sheet was developed
16
able 1
FIlt U Snorr bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullnt oore hbullbull t ( ( 1Ii~ ANI) tlNtJuTreo)
1_middotAnlJ lmiddot
rlSB IDDII
UIUIl~ (VBci9ht~i9ht8lDullDUll
o 1 2 3
SitU ( rimSoft) o 1
SCALBS (r1mSlLoomiddotmiddotLoobullbull ) o 12
r r SLIMB (AbbullbullntSlSlimiddotysliyVSliy)
o 123
S1IrnraS (pr-Ri90rRi90rPot-Ri90r) o 1 2
BYBS Clarity (ClbullbullrISlCloudyCloudy) 012
Shape (HoralslsunknSunkn) 012
Irill (ViiblHot Viibl) IJ 1
Blood (No BloodSlBloodyVBloody) o 1 2
GILLS Colour (VDark)Charaotritio (SlDark) (vradd)(Slradd)
2o 1 Kucou (AbbullbullntKoderatmiddotBxcbullbullbulliv)
o 1 2 S bullbullll (rrbullbullh 01ly) Pihy8talpoll~
(MetalliaSaved) 1 2 3
BELLI Dicoloration (AbbullbullntDetatablmiddotModratmiddotBxobullbullbulliy) 012 3
Finanbullbullbull ( rira80ftBurt) o 1 2
VENT Condition (bobullbulldy)Noraal (SlBrbullbullk) (Opening)(Bxudbullbull )
2o 1 Sbullbulln (rrbullbullhReutralrihy8poilt)
o 2 3
BELLI CAVIn Stain (OpalbullbullontGryihlmiddotllow-Brown) o 1 2
Blood (RdDark RdBrown)
o 1 z
--
17
UJE 3
Etc SENSORY A$fE4St4fN[ ~(oIlL~
SCALE OF MARKING - FRESHNESS
CRITERIA shypoundu1LRt
Abullbullbullbullbullment Mara-bull thc r1ah 0 1 2- 3tszhL
AppearanceinIIMlISJ Skin
Eye
Gill
Flbullbullshycut f ssm abdomusn
Colour the~
vertebral column
Organs
Oright iridescent I bright pigmenta- pigmentation in (1) dull pigmenta tion no i tion but not the process of pigmentation discolouration Ius trous becoming dis-
mucus opaquemucus aqueous i coloured and dull
mucus slightlytransparen t
cloudy ~UCU9 milky
convex (bulging) convex and flat (1) concave in cornea tran- slightly sunken cornea the centre parent cornea Ughtly opalescent cornea milky pupil black opalescent pupil pupil grey bright
pupil black opaque dull
-shining colour less coloured becoming dis- (1) yellmiish no mucus a few traces of coloured mucus milky
cloar mucus mucus opaque
blueish trans- dull velvety slightly opaque (1) opaque lucid smooth waxy shining without any change in the colour sUgh tly original colour changed
(I) reduncoloured sl1 gh tly pink pink
kidneys and kidneys and kidneys (1) kidneys residues of resJdues of resicJuos of r bullbullidue of other other organs other organs other organs organs and blood bright red the dull red blood and blood brownish game as the becoming palo red blood inside discolbured the aorta
(1) or in a more advanced bull ta te of decay
I
bull
Flesh
Vertebtal Column
Peritonium
Gills kin abdominal cavity
18
(eontd)
SCALE OF MARKING - FRESHNESS
CRITERIA
Assessment Mark 0 1 2
Physical eOId ton
firm and elas tic surface smooth
breaks ins tead of coming away
totally adherent to the flesh
seaweed
less elastic
adherent
adherent
Smell bull
not of seaweed but not bad
slightly soft (flaccid) Ie elastic surfacente waxy velvety and dull
slightly adherent
slightly adherent
slightly sour
3
(1) soft (flaccid) scales ebullbullil y detached from skin sur face ra ther wrinkled inclining to mealy
(1) not dherent
1( ) not adherent
(1) sour
(1) or in a more advanced stat of decay
_ shy-- -
19
Table 4
Filleted Sample Score Sheet
r
TREATMENT F ILIEIS DATE REMOJAL (THAWED)
FISH IDENr
EASE OF FILLETING (Easysl difficultdifficult)
012
APPEARANCE (a) Oolour of flesh (TranslucentSl discolouredSl opaqueopaque)
o 1 2 3
(b) Blood stains (AbsentDetectableModerateExcessive)
012 3
(c) Clotting (UnclottedSlclottedModclottedExcessclotted)
012 3
(d) Skin Oolour (VbrightBrightSldullOU11)
o 1 2 3
TEXTURE FirmS1 softSoft
o 1 2
ClDClJR (FreshNeutralStaleSpoilt)
012 3
CONJITION (a) Gaping (AbsentDetectableModerateExcessive)
o 1 2 3
(b) Bruising (AbsentSlightSevere)
012
(c) Wetness (NmnalS1 dry orMod dry orExcess dryness or
SldripModdrip Freezer bJrn or Excessdrip
012 3
(d) Autolysis (Absentmoderatesevere) (Disco1ourations) 0 1 2
(e) Parasites (Absentmoderatesevere) ( Infestations) 0 1 2
(f) Other discolourations (Absentpresent) or contaminants (bones membranes tissues etc) 0 1
EASE OF SKINNING (EasySldifficultdifficult)
012
20
by the author after a literature search and observations made during the preshy
liminary part of the study It has a maxUnum accumulated demerit score of 34
240 ~anoleptic Acceptability Panel of the cooked fish
Filleted samples of both fish species which had been frozen in a cold
roan at -18dege and then thawed as above were used for the acceptability taste
panels The fillets were skinned am cut into 30 to 40 g pieces crumbed and
deep fried (Bremner et ale 1985) Three or four treatments were cooked
simultaneously at each session am the fish served with packets of take-away
french fries Tcrnato sauce vinegar and salt were available Each of the
samples were randanised in such a way so as to give a high degree of balance
(Table 5 and 6) Letters that represent the samples were also picked
randanly The fish was assessed by 20 panellists employed at the Tasmanian
lEgional Laboratory and experienced with facial hedonic scaling for flavour
texture am overall acceptability using the General Foods Smiley scale
(Appendix 2) Salt was rot rrentioned with the 9niley questionaire for blue
grenadier so that the panel should have ro preconceiVed prejudices
250 Statistics
tata fran the sensory assessment of the whole gutted and ungutted raw
fish (both TFRJ am EEl score sheets) am fran the sensory assessrrent of the
frozen filleted raw fish samples of both the blue grenadier stored in RSW am
whiting stored in ice were analysed for correlation using the ELF scatter
module (Appendix 3 and 4)
The acceptability taste panel assessment scores for flavour texture and
overall liking of the toKgt species of fish were subjected to analysis of
variance using the Genstat package (Appendix 5 and 6)
22
Table 6
Order of presentation of cooked whiting samples to the acceptability taste panelists
Order of presentation of samples Panelist
session I session II
1 OTP rm 2 MUS KR 3 sm INL
4 IKJ GKR
5 ror NK
6shy USM UN ~
7 OOP RLD
B HUT NKD
9 USO RiL
10 SMP LGN
11 IMT GIltN
12 nxgt KRD
Note
8angtle code OM 0 G T S N R P U L K
storage time in ice (days) 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
23
300 RESULIS
310 Physical Characteristic of M novaeaelandiae
rran the forty-six fish examined the mean fork lerqth was found to be
762 an (range 609 to 838 an) A few of the fish examined had well shy
developed roes and their digestive tracts were found to be relatively empty
320 Physical Characteristics of the H ssmifasoiata
rran a total of thirty-six fish examined the rrean weight of the fish was
fourrl to be 662 g (range 27 to 186 g) am the mean fork length was 183 em
(range 156 to 265 an)
330 sensory assessment of the raw blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
he results of the sensory assessrrent of the r2M blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW by the four rrerhods of scoring are given as average total
accumulated demerit point scores as shown in Table 7 Figure 1 shoes the
graph of demerit point versus days in RSW by the four rrethods of sensory
assessment used Table 9 shltJtS the correlation analysis
340 sensory assessment of the raw whitirq samples stored in ice
he results of the sensory assessment of the r2M whitirq samples stored
in ice by the four methods of scoring are given as average total accumuLated
demerit point scores as shown in Table 8 Figure 2 shltJtS the graph of demerit
point versus days in ice of the four nethods of sensory assessment used Table
9 shltJtS the correlation analysis
350 Attributes contributing to total score
Attributes that contribute to total score usirq the TFRJ scores (ungutted
and gutted) EEC scores and the filleted sample scores are as shewn in Tables
10 - 14
24
Table 7
Total demerit points fran sensory assessment of blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
Average lbta1 Demerit Rgtint SCores
[)lye in RW TFRJ scores TFRJ scores EEl scores Filleted Sample (urvJut t ed ) (gutted) (gutted) SCores
3 3 3 1 1
4 5 5 2 3
6 10 10 6 6
8 16 18 9 8
9 19 21 11 10
10 20 22 13 12
11shy 22 24 15 14
12 23 25 18 17
13 24 26 19 18
14 25 27 19 19
17 29 31 21 23
21 33 35 25 29
Note
Maximum possible scores for (1) IlRJ scores (ungutted is 35
( 11) IlRJ scores (gutted) is 29
( 11i) EEX scores (gutted) is 30
( iv) Filleted sample scores is 32
amptV
35j
3l~
en Ishy 25Z-0 Q
3)-~
bullbullbull 0
bull 0 0bull 0
bull 0 0 6shy abull A ~
~
bull 0
~
6shy
bull 0
6shy
I) 01
-W 0i A15W ~ Q A
~
6shy~101- bull 90 TFRU SCORES (ungutted)
6shy~ bullbull TFRU SCORES (gutt~d i
bull ~
4 6- 6- EEC SCORES 5~
~ ~ FILLETED SAMPLE SCORES ~
6 4 I J I I I
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
DAYS IN RSW
Figl Demerit Points Versus Days in RSW For Blue Grenadier Samples
Fig 2 Demerit Points Versus Days in ice For Whiting Samples I
27
Table 8
TOtal demerit points from sensory assessment of whi tirq samples stored in ice
Average TOtal Demerit Foint SCores
rays in ice TFRJ scores TFRJ scores EEC scores Fi 11eted sample (urqutted) (gutted) (gutted) (gutted)
1 1 1 0 0 3 2 2 1 1
5 4 4 2 3
7 7 9 3 4
9 13 15 6 9
n 15 17 7 13
13 19 21 11 15
15 24 27 15 16
17 29 32 19 18
19 31 35 22 21
21 32 36 24 24
23 33 37 26 26
Note
MaXllnum possible scores for (i) TFRJ scores (urqutted) is 35 ( ii) TFRJ scores (gutted) is 39 ( iii) EEC scores (gutted) is 30 ( iv) Filleted sample scores is 32
28
Table 9
Relationship between tLme and demerit points for fish stored in RSW
Method of Visual Assessment
y- intercept slope correlation
M novaBMBlandias
TFRJ (urqutted ~les) 032 175 097
TFRJ (gutted samples) 032 190 096
EEl -231 146 097
Filleted samplesbull
-357 158 099
H sBmifasoiata
TFRJ (urqutted samples) -245 167 099
TFRJ (gutted samples) -273 187 099
EOC -414 129 098
Filleted samples -244 125 099
ltshy
--------------- ------------------------------------------
------------- - ------------- -------- ------
Table 10
Attributes contributing to total score using TFRO scores (gutted and ungutted)
Attributes involved in score change Score
Blue grenadier in RSW Whiting in ice
Stiffness Eyes - clarity blood Slllne Stiffness Eyes - clarity shape and blood lt10 Gills - smell Vent - smell SlBne Gills - colour smell and mucous
Vent - smell Belly cavity - stains and blood
Appearance Eyes-shape Stiffness Gills - smell colour and mucous Skin
Stiffness appearance gill-smell Scales belly-discolouration and firmness
N so
gt10lt20 SCales belly - discolouration and firmness Vent - smell Vent - smell and condition Belly cavity - stains and blood
Appearance Slllne Eyes - clarity shape Appearance SlBne Scales Skin blood and iris Gills - colour Eyes - clarity and shape
gt20lt30 Belly - discolouration Gills - mucous smell am colour Vent - condi tion and smell Belly cavity shy blood
Appearance Gills - mucous and smell SlBne Eyes - iris am blood Belly - discolouration and firmness Belly - discolouration and firmness
gt30 Vent - condition and smell Vent - condition Belly cavity - blood Belly cavity - stains
Table 11
Attributes contribut irq to total score us irq EEC scores
Attributes involved in score change
Score Blue grenadier in RSW W1iting in ice
lt7 Appearance - skin eyes gills organs Physical condition - flesh Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and organs Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skins eyes gills flesh Appearance-eyes and organs atv
vertebral column and organs Physical condition-flesh and peritoneum gt7lt14 Physical condition - flesh Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-eyes flesh and vertebral Appearance-skin gills and organs column Physical condition-flesh vertebral column
gt14lt21 Physical condition-vertebal column and and peritoneum peritoneum Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and vertebral column vertebral column
gt21 Physical condition-flesh and peritoneum Physical cOndition-flesh vertebral column Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity and peri toneum bull
Table 12
Attributes contributing to total score using filleted sample scores
Score
lt5
Attributes involved in score change
Blue grenadier in RSW
Appearance - blood stains skin colour ltXIour - flesh
M1iting in ice
----- shy -------------- shy
Appearance - skin colour odour - flesh Cbndition - gaping wetness
Appearance - colour of flesh Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Texture - flesh skin colour ltgt gt5lt10 Cbndition - gaping bruising wetness Ease of filleting
Texture - flesh
Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Appearance - colour of flesh clotting skin clotting skin colour skin colour
gt10lt20 odour - flesh odour - flesh Cbndition - gaping wetness autolysis COndition - gaping bruising wetness other discolourations autolysis and other discolouration Ease of skinning
Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains skin colour clotting
gt20 Texture - flesh Texture - flesh odour - flesh Odour shy flesh COndition - gaping bruising wetness Cbndition - wetness autolysis autolysis Ease of skinring
32
Table 13
Diff~rent emphasis in scoring systems for whole fish as between the EEl and TFID
Attribute Number of potential demerit points TFRJ EEl
1Ippearance (general) 3 0
skin ) scales 6 3
slime
Stiffness (Rigor) 2 0
Eyes 7 3
Gills 7 6
Belly 5 0
Vent 5 0
Belly cavity 4 3
Flesh cut fram abdomen 0 3
Flesh texture 0 3
Vertebral column 0 6
Internal organs 0 3
33
360 Relative merits of the scoring systems
The four scor irq methcds were used on the same samples of t ish Any
sample had therefore deteriorated to the same extent on anyone day Figs 3
am 4 shew the scores converted to percentages of possible deroorit point
scores The discrepancy in the accumulation of demerit points between the EEC
am TFRJ scor irq methods is clearly shown IEference to Table 2 3 am 13
shOool that this is caused by the lack of questions regarding rigor looseness
of scales condition of belly am vent am the qroupinq of colour am mucous
in the gills as single po i nts thus halving the potent Ia I gill demerit point
score canparison of the tO species in Table 9 ShONS that the rate of
accumulation of demerit pgtints was more consistent for the TFRU system than by
the EEX scor i oq methltXl or by scorinq of fillets
370 Time taken to score the fish
The average time taken to score an individual fish using the TFPlJ
(unqutted) scores TFRJ (gutted) scores EEX scores am the filleted aamp Le
scores were found to be 1 min 25 sec 1 min 55 sec 3 min 45 sec and 1 min 50
sec respectively The EEX score sheet is more t iroe consumioq in that more than
one question is asked about an attribute for the giving of only one demerit
point this requires conscious thought
380 Acceptability taste panel results of blue grenadier samples bull Figures 5 6 am 7 shOool the mean taste panel scores in graphic form for
flavour texture and overall acceptability of cooked blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW table 14 shows the results of the statistical analysis
390 Acceptability taste panel results of whiting samples
Figures 8 9 am 10 shOool the mean taste panel scores in graphic form for
flavour texture and overall acceptability of cooked whiting samples stored in
ice table 15 shows the results of the statistical analysis
WHITING STORED IN ICE o TFRU SCORES (ungutted)
bull TFRU SCORES (gutted)
b EEC SCORES
FILLETED SAMPLE SCORES
100bull e ~ e b
i 6
bull NW
oIJ-a A A-
(J0 t A~ 0 ~ AC)
C) -e ~~-
C) a 50 A
A w
Iz ~
~ - W e A0 c a ~ ~ A-a ~ l ~ A
w -~
~ X ~ W -e I c ~ ~ ibull I I I I
4 8 12 16 20 24
DAYS IN ICE FIG4
36
- flavourshy
-e s-e l ~ v
5middotIU
STORAGrf IN R sWDAYS
rlCoS Ttutfc pcr1 rcbull
rf oj bl jtlJ~r - jlqVGurc acccr~b
21179 0 2 136 843
~ 0 u 5middot0YI
oJ J l ofmiddot$ 1 e
tu 4middot0
VI
~ 3middot5
3middot0
TelC-lue X bull -e III
~ Gmiddotftv
ct 5middot03
V1
-J -f-SshyU 2
~ 40 t
3-~
~ bullbull0 5 0
~ 17 21A ISII
PAY- IITDRAGamp fbilW
FIG6 I Tq1-c pltnd rc-utl ojbllfcJrcftaJIr bull I~M144 Q Cc(r~blfly
r 411q~~ An~Plf bUIJlfM F llh J~Lld Pt-DoL B fpound)1
gt1 NI ~~eusr SJAVlt1
D ~II
(ffIt1~JP IIID bull U J 1i
-IyoJC )-tlICf p --lInraquoJ Ix-Pc ~1rb1 r I ef
Ma2j NI a~v2loJ$
til
1Ia ~AO (IIp~lJa~e
01
secto
00
s
05
5
o~
~
0pound
s
0
smiddot
o~
07
1 ~ ~ ~ ~
r~
B
~
rv t gtshy 2
~ ~ 11
~ 7shyIn r
~ () 0 1) m ~
~ gtshyz -
(fII~q~~ 7~ P
IItJ1o -~~f(ll p ~I I~U J ~t~L 0 ~ middot~II I
IDI 8~ middot lta ~
~ QS
middotS ~ ~ 0 z
r Smiddot II
S 1d 0-$ 111 r- l gtshy r
V fr~
~llCf-J a-PcJ~ U~middotJO
4lp~dmiddotyIb 6middot~1f np)t -~11M fo --IIhen IJutJel ~bl
Table 14
Acceptability of deep fried blue grenadier samples stored in FSW
rays in R3W
Acceptability 3 4 6 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 17 21
Flavour 50a 50a 4S a 51a 50a 51a 50a 4Sa 49a 53a 41b 35b
Texture 49bc 51abc 4S bed 52ab 4Sbed 53ab 52abc 52ab 4Sbed 55a 46cd 43d
OJerall 50ab 51ab 47be 52ab 4Sb 5lab 52ab 50ab 47b 54 a 41c 35d
abc
d
significantly different (pltOOOl)
significantly different (pltOOl) W so
Table 15
Acceptability of deep fried whiting samples stored in ice
rays in ice
Acceptability 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Flavour 5Sab 59a 59a 60a 59a 5S ab 51b 54ab 53ab 37c 37c 31c
Texture 59ab 59a 53bed 5S ab 63a 59ab 47cde 54be 56ab 55ab 44e 46de
OJera11 57ab 5S ab 59ab 60a 60a 5Sab 52b 53ab 55ab 42c 36cd 31d
abcde significantly different (Plt0001)
40
~oo DISCUSSION
410 Sensory assessment of the raw blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
he results of sensory assessment on the raw blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW by the four methods of scoring all sheM that there is
progressive increment in total demerit points with storage time for all the
four methods (Table 7) It was also fourxi that the accumulation of demerit
points with time of storage of the fish in ffiW occurred in a saui-linear
fashion for all -the four scoring methods used (Figure 1) he variables (time
of storage and demeritmiddot points score) were all highly correlated (Table 9)
he correlation equation of the TFRJ (ungutted samples) and TFRJ (gutted
sanples) scores were similar roth having a zero time intercept of 032 but
with the TFRJ (gutted samples) scores having a slightly greater slope by 015
he EEC scores and the filleted sample scores roth have lower slopes ie
146 and 158 respectively canpared with the TFRJ (ungutted sample) and TFRJ
(gutted sample) scores of 175 and 190 respectively lbwever the EOC scores
which have the lowest slope have a fairly similar correlation equation with
the filleted sample scores (Table 9) he negative intercepts reflected the
slightly more sigrroid relationship for these samples his suggests that the
TFRJ (gutted) scoring method is the rrost sensitive of the four methods
followed by the TFRJ (ungutted) the filleted sample and the EEC scores
It was also found that after 21 days of storage in RSW the blue
grenadier samples had not reached their maximun possible scores in any of the
four scoring rrethods used (Table 7) he TFRJ (ungutted sample) score only
reached 943 of its possible maximun value whereas the TFRJ (gutted sample)
scores EEC scores and the filleted sample score reached only 897 833 ar~
906 of their possible maximun score his means that all the four methods
of scoring can still be sensitive to changes in the quality of the blue
grenadier samples stored in RSW after 21 days of storage time
41
Figures 1 and 3 also shOVt that the pattern of the graphs of demerit
points against days storage in R3W of the four methcxis of scoring is similar
ie a tendency to be slightly sigmoid fbwever the filleted sanple scores
sean to be rrore sensitive than the EOC scores at the later part of the storage
time ie after 14 days of storage and the scores continued to rise
1be rrost obvious indicator of change for the blue grenadier stored in ffiW
using the TFRJ scores (both gutted and unJUtted sanples) was the eyes (clarity
and blood) followed by odour developnent of the gills (Table 10) his is -
also foond to be true wi th the EOC freshness score (Table 11) Fbr the
filleted sample scores the appearance and odoor of the flesh seems to be the
most obvious indicator of change follOVted by the condition of the fillets such
as gaping bruisin) am wetness (Table 12)
4 20 sensory assessment of the raw whi ting samples stored in ice
1he results of sensory assessment on the rCJl whiting samples stored in
ice by the foor roothods of scoring also shows that there is a progressive
increment in total demerit points with storage time for all the four methods
of scoring (Table 8) Ps with the blue grenadier the aCCLD1UJlation of demerit
points with time of storage of the whiting in ice also occurred in a sernishy
linear fashion for all the foor scoring methods used (Figure 2 and 4) wi th a
slight lag in the initial phase Interestingly this was not observed in the
case of blue grenadier sanples stored in ffiW probably because the first
samplin) of the blue grenadier starts only fran the third day after catch
whereas the first sampling of the whiting starts fran the first day after
catch Also the blue grenadier was handled qu i te roughly on the deck in fact
three oot of the four fish samples on the first rerroval ie the third day
after catching had already showed blood in their eyes
Bremner et al (1985) when using the TFRJ score sheet to assess the
42
quality of four tropical fish species fran the oorth west shelf of hJstralia
(stored in ice) also fourrl that the accumulation of demerit points with time
of storage in ice occurred in a linear fashion
PB wi th blue grenadier the variables (tine of storage ard darneri t points
score) were all highly correlated (Table 9) Also the correlation equation of
the TFRJ (ungutted) ard TFRJ (gutted) scores were similar with the TFJU
(gutted) score having a slightly greater slope by 020 Crable 9) he EEC
scores am filleted sample scores also have lower s lopes l e 129 ard 125
respectively ocmpared to the TFm (ungutted) and (gutted) scores of 167 and
187 respectively However unlike the blue grenadier the filleted samples
of the whi t ing had the 10liest slope he more sensi tive na ture of the EEC
scores as canpared to the filleted sample scores in the case of the whiting
especially after 12 days storage in ice can be explained by the snaller size
of the whitirlJ (fork length ranging fran 156 to 265 an) as canpared to the
size of the blue grenadier (fork length ranging 809 to 838 an) the snaller
fish terrl to spoil faster especially the interior parts of the fish PB the
EEC scores depend nuch on the sensory assessment of the interior parts of the
fish such as the appearance and condition of the flesh vertebral colwnn
interior organs per i toneun and abdaninal cavity (Table 3) which makes up more
than 18 demerit points out of the total possible maxinun of 30 the
sensitiveness of its score is thus self-explanatory in the case of whiting
Connell (1980) explained that large fish keep marginally better than small
fish because larger fish have a smaller surface to volume ratio so that in the
same tUne less of their interior is affected
The above results confirmed the previous suggestion that the TFRU
(gutted) scorIoq methcrl is the roost sensitive of the four methods It was
found that after 23 days of storage in ice the whiting scmples had not
reached the maximun possible scores in any of the four methods used (Table
43
8) The 1FIU (UBJutted) scores had reached only 94-3 of its possible maximum
value whereas the TFRJ (gutted) scores EOC scores am the filleted sample
scores reached only 94 9 867 and 81 3 of their poea Ible maximum score
Therefore all the four methods of scoriBJ can still be sensitive to changes
in quality of the whiting samples stored in ice after 23 days of storage tUne
Ihe roost obvious irxHcator of chaDJe for the whiting stored in ice using
the TFIU score sheet was the eyes (clarity shape and blcxxl) followed by the
develqxnent of -colour odour and nucous of the gills (fable 10) Bremner et
al (1985) when working with four tropical species f~ the north west shelf of
Australia also found that the most obvious indicator of change for fish stored
in ice was the eyes (their clarity am shape) follCAtled by odour developnent
and colour changes in the gills This was also found in the case of blue
grenadier in ~ discussed earlier OJrran et al (1981) when investigating
the quality changes duriBJ iced storage of three carmercially important
species of fish fran Bahrein also found that of the visual and olfactory
assessments gill odour showed the roost pranise as a quality control index
Pgain this is also found to be true with the EOC freshness score of both the
blue grenadier and the whitiBJ (Table 11) AccordiBJ to ~ate (1972) it
was generally agreed that odour of the gills is the most sensitive measure of
freshness but the visual appearance of the eyes gills arxi skin was quicker to
use in practice on the market
For the filleted sample scores of the whiting the most obvious indicator
of chanqe was the appearance and odour of the flesh (Table 12) This too
agreed with the findiBJs for blue grenadier stored in ffiW
AccordiBJ to Baines et al (1969) with fish eatiBJ is related to four
main attributes or quality factors viz appearance odour and texture of the
rCM and cooked fish and in the latter also flavour he ultimate purpose of
testing the raw fish is to estimate the eating quality which is here taken to
44
mean the degree of freshness of flavour Acoording to Baines and Shewan
(1965) the mostreliable test for predicting flavour sqore is raw odour
430 The ease aM difficulties of using the four methods of scoring
It was found that the TFRJ (ungutted) scores was the easiest and quickest
method to use as it takes on average only about 1 min 25 sec to score a fish
canpared to 1 min 55 sec 3 min 45 sec ard 1 min 50 sec for the TFRJ
(gutted) EOC and the filleted sample scores he E~ score was found to be
the roost tedious besides taking the longest time to soore a fish
he TFIU (ungutted) scores also have the advantage of not requiring a
knife in order to score ard also were less IOOSSY to work with canpared to all
the other nethods Also the attributes to be assessed were arranged and
organised in such a way in the score sheet that it is easy to score a fish
starting from assessing the apparance and skin and ending with the condition
and smell of the vent
440 Acceptability taste panel results of the blue grenadier samples
441 Flavour acceptability
Figure 5 shc7ws the flavour acceptability of the deep fried samples of
blue grenadier Samples stored in R3W for less than 17 days were found
statistically (Table 14) to be indistinguishable (Plt0001) fran each other
then there was a significant fall in the flavour acceptability of the samples
stored in RSW for 17 days onwards he sarrtgtle stored for 21 days had a still
lower mean value of 35 but it was not significantly different fran the
semple stored for 17 days which had a nean value of 41 It is interesting to
note that despite the progressive increase in sodiun uptake of the blue
grenadier samples stored in RSW from about 7115 35 mg sodium(lOO g tissue
initially to 724 33 mglOO g tissue on the 16th day aM to 729 17 mglOO g
45
tissue on the 21st day (Burford 1984) the panelists seem not to be
negatively affected by the increasing salt content of the samples with storage
tUne and in fact some of the panelists added more salt to their samples I
111is result contradicts statements made by previous reseachers that the
storage life using R3W may be limited by increases in salt content in the fish
flesh (Boyd et aI 1978) he maximun desirable salt content according to
Tcm1inson et al (1974) as quoted by Boyd et al (1978) is about 05 but at
the 16th day ofmiddot RgtW storage the salt content fOllNj In the flesh of blue
grenadier samples was already more than 07 fbwever the panelist only ate
40g pieces it might have been a different case if the fish has been as a
whole meal
442 Texture acceptability
Figure 6 shows the texture acceptability of the deep fried blue grenadier
samples stored in R3W eespf te sane apparent abberant values (such as the
high rrean of 55 for the sample stored for 14 days in RSW) it is obvious that
the texture acceptability showed a significant decreasing trend (pltOOl) from
seventeen days of storage onwards The abberant texture values are possibly
due to the fact that the fish texture might have been masked by the bread
crunbs used to coat the fish samples before deep fryi~ This agrees with the
observations of Bremner et al (1985) wtxgt found that the inherent textural
softness of P piotiue and the tougheni~ on storage of N peroni i detected by
a profile panel usilYJ steamed fillets were no lo~er noticeable when the fish
was deep fried in batter Bremner (1980) also reported that despi te the
softness of the raw flesh the cooked flesh of blue grenadier is reasonably
firm
46
433 OVerall acceptability
The overall acceptability of the deep fried blue grenadier samples stored
in R)W (figure 7) seems to follCM a similar pattern to its flavour
acceptability (figure 5)~ in which a significant fall in overall acceptability
was only observed fran the samples held fran 17 days in RSW onwards (pltO 001)
as shawn in Tablel4
rnus all the above results showed that there was a significant fall in
flavour texture and overall acceptability of blue ~renadier from 17 days of
R)W storage onwards which was found to be equivalent to the accumulated
demerit point scores of 29 of the TFRJ (ungutted) scoresr 31 of the TFRl
(gutted) scoresr 21 of the EOC scores and 23 of the filleted sample
scores Jones (1964) states that the acceptability of a fish is a function of
its suitability for further processing and of its inmediate appearance its
texture its odour and its flavour
450 Acceptability taste panel results of the whiting samples
451 Flavour acceptability
Figure 8 shows the flavour acceptability of the deep fried whiting
samples stored in ice rtle twelve sample times could be analysed individually
since the means if analysed by canbining adjacent sample times to give six
sample groups are in fact the means of the adjacent times if analysed
individually it was found that samples of the first nine renovals i se up to
17 days of storage in ice are more or less indistinguishable (abberant value
at 7th removal) he last three removals ie samples stored in ice for 19
21 and 23 days were found to be of significantly lower flavour acceptability
(p lt 0001) as shawn in Table 5
47
452 Texture acceptability
Except for the abberation at the 7th remgtval i 9 at day 13 of ice
storage there is a significant reduction of texture acceptability at the 21 II
and 23 days of ice storage (p lt0001) as shown by figure 9 and Table5 t
II
I 453 Over~ll acceptability
he overal I acceptability of the whiting sanples stored in ice is very
much similar to its f Lavour acceptability except at day 19 of ice storage
where the ovaral I acceptability shows a higher mean of 42 carpared to the
flavoor acceptability mean of 37 (figure 10 and Table 5) here is however a
significant sudden drop to lOil scores fran the lOth removal ie day 19 of
storage in ice (p lt0001)
hus all the above results for whitifVJ sanples showed that there was a
significant fall in flavCXJr and overall acceptability fram 19 days ice storage
onwards which is equivalent to the accumulated demerit points of 31 of the
TFRJ (unqutted) scores 35 of the TFRJ (gutted) scores 22 of the EEC
scores and 21 of the filleted sample scores he results are interesti~ in
that the oorresponding total accLDnulated demerit points at the time when
significant falls in flavour texture and overall acceptability of the blue
grenadier and whiting samples stored in I5W and ice respectively were quite
similar
500 CONCLUSION
510 Feasibility of using demerit points
Accumulation of demerit points with time of storage of M
in RM and H eemifaeaiatia in ice was found to be highly
occurred in a semi-linear fashion irrespective of the method of
novas8slandiae
correlated and
scori~ used
- _ ~uo_a~_bull--_--I e -Ii --
48
1he slopes of the lines (rate of accumulation of demerit points) and its
relative spoilage rate were found to be similar for the ttoO species provided
the sane method of scoring is employed 1his tends to suggest that the method
is possibly independent of species am methods of storage or at least
applicable to the two species in RSW and ice respectively
TIle TFRJ (ungutted) scores were foum to be the easiest arrl quickest
method to use although the TFRJ (gutted) scores were the roost sensitive 1he
EEX freshness scores were hClgtlever foum to be the JOOSt tedious aod difficult bull I
to use besides taking more than twice the time taken to score a fish ocmpared
to the TFRJ (ungut ted) scores
Although there were slig~t differences between the ttoO species in those
characteristics where changes were first made (Table 10 11 and 12) there is
enough evidence to conclude that the changes in the appearance of the eyes am
the odour developnent of the gills are the JOOSt obvious arrl valuable indicator
of charqe in quality when using the TFIU or the EEl scores while the
appearance am odour of the fish flesh seems to be the JOOSt obvious indicator
when assessing the filleted sample
1he shelf-life of M navaezelandiae stored in RSW was found to be 14 days
(less than 17 days) whilst that of H semifasoiata stored in ice was fourrl to
be 17 days (less than 19 days) beyond which the fish had developed spoilage
characteristics that were disliked by the acceptability taste panel
1he cut-off point at which spoilage of the samples would have rendered
the quality of the fish sample to be unacceptable fran the consumers point of
view ~ld be that equivalent to the accumulated demerit point of gt29 for the
TFRJ (gutted arrl ungutted) scores am gt21 for the EOC and filleted sample
scores
This study thus confinned the potential use of demerit points such as the
TFRJ (ungutted) scores as an easy quick cheap non-destructive and reliable
49
method of sensory assessment of fish quality In fact Branch and Vail (1985)
had studied the possible use of a prototype pocket-sized computer to determine
the condition and shelf-life of temperate and tropical species of fish based
on data that is derived fran the sensory score sheets for the assessment of
fish quality developed at the (SIRgt Division of fbod lEsearch Iasmanian Fbod
Research Unit (TFlU) Hobart
520 RJrpose for which demerit points are to be used
Many scor i oq systerrs are used to predict the nunber of days fish have
been stored on ice and in nore recent years ICETIME (equivalent days on
ice) I ard thus through years of experience the taste panel acceptability of
the fish I
However fish is sold on appearance and a scoring system may be used for
assessirg marketability of whole or gutted fish or fillets or for setting
standards in bulk buying The EEC scoring system is used for example at
fish markets at first point of sale to grade the fish and establish
withdrawal prices A IbrryShewan type system is often used as a purohas i nq
specification from finn to firm
Before a final demerit point system is selected for any COlIOOdity its
ultimate purpose should be established For example the demerit points
chosen for whole fish which nost closely resemble the rate of change of
demerit points for fillets of that species might be the most useful
A linear rate of change of demerit points with time is nose favoured
because it enables prediction of remaining shelf-life ConstJJrer
unacceptability should be at a point where perhaps 75 of the demerit points
have been accrued Further scores would still be available for categories
such as suitable for fish meal D3merit points are not an indication of the
acceptability of fish as eaten where off-odours flavours and fillet
50
tdiscolouration are masked by batters or curries Their correlation with the
iodours flavours off odours aod off flavours of steamed fish are currently ~
~
~being examined by other workers at the Tasmanian ~ Research unit and highly
significant correlations are found Even when fish are subsequently eaten
battered or curried demerit points give a good indication of remaining shelf
life Thus whitiOJ with a Smiley flavour score of 58 after 1 day on ice
has a nlU gutted demerit score of 1 and a high quality life (eaten crumbed
and fried) of a further 16 days while whitiOJ stored for 11 days on ice with
the sane flavour score has a gutted demerit score of 17 and a further shelf
life of 6 days
530 SUggestion for further work
Ib ascertain its potentially wide application as a simple quick and
technically sound methcxi of assessing fish quality many more studies using
other species of fish both temperate and tropical species and in various
storage conditions should be undertaken using a demerit point scorIrq system
such as that developed by the TFlU
The score sheet has proved invaluable when sending individuals untrained
researchers away on distant water fishing trips Ps yet 00 standard
deviations have been detennined using a team of assessors with coded samples
of unknown history This may require a separate group design
The effect of lean fish and fatty fish on the scores should also be
studied because factors such as seasonal variations in biological conditions
Lmproper gutting and washing mechanical damage and filth and changes due to
storage in R3W or shelving may have considerable influence on its shelf-
life Reports such as those of smith et al (1979) clearly showed that in fish
such as the blue whitirlJ (Mioroomesistius poubaeeous there is greater degree
I 51
of seasonal variability than in other gadoid species the overall
acceptability droppirq dramatically once the fish have spawned Fish accepted
for processing for food has to be of a higher standard of quality than fish
accepted for Imredfate sale across the counter to the consumer therefore
there is a need to rreet a minimum score before they could be processed into
food Gradirq is therefore best left to the user sorenson (1971) states
that in establishing limi ts of acceptance an allowance had to be made for
deterioration that would continue to take place during processing and storage
prior to reaching the consimer
The only final criteria of the objectivity of sensory or any other
assessment are results that are reproducible many times which is by definition
a lcnJ-tenn process and in the meantime one requires short-cut indications
that one is headirq in the right direction
Ferhaps a final caution Is necessary as in the YQrds of Ehrenberg and
Shewan (1953) not too much must be expected even the best measuring
instruments occasionally go oot of control
52
60 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baines CR Jones NR am Shewan JM 1965 Technological problems of
measur trq degree of freshness of wet fish and problems of quality
control requirif)J roore knowledge fran fundamental research In he
Technology of fish utilisation ad R Kreuzer Fishi~ News (Books)
p 141
Baines CR and Shewan JM 1965 sensory rrethods for evafuat inq the
quality of white fish Lab practice 14 160-163
Baines CR ltbnnell JoJ Gibson DM lbWgate PF Livi~ston E and
Shewan JM 1969 A taste panel technique for evaluatirq the eati~
quality of frozen cod In Freezi~ and irradiation of fish ad R
Kreuzer Fishi~ News (Books) London p361
Boyd NS and Wilson NDC 1976 A sensory method for evaluatInq the
quality of Snapper (Ch1ysophrys auratus) NZ Journal of Science 19
209-12
Boyd NS Wilson ND and Bjley A 1978 A refrigerated sea water plant
for small boats symposium on fish utilisation technology and
marketi~ in the IPFC region IFFC Proceedi~s 18th session Manila
Philippines FAD Ba~kok p 186-192
Branch AC and Vail AMA 1984 Bri~i~ fish inspection into the
canputer age FltXld Technol Aust 36 in press
Bremner HA Olley J and Ihrower SoJ 1978 CSIIU Iasmanian lEgional
Laboratory OCcasional Paper No4
Bremner HA 1980 Processi~ and freezi~ of the blue grenadier (Maclulonus
novaeselandiae) FltXld Technol Aust 32(8)~ pp 385-393
Bremner J A 1984 QJality - an attitude of mind In he JILlstralian
Fishi~ Industry - today and tanorrow 10-12 July 1984 Launceston
53
Australian MaritUne Cbllege seminar Bapers 224-69
Bremner HA Statham JA am Sykes SJ 1985 Tropical species fran the
north west shelf of Alstralia sensory assessment and acceptability
of fish stored co ice Proceedi~s Sixth session IPR Worki~ Party
on Fish D3chnology and Marketi~ Melbourne 1984 FJID Fish lep 252
supp1
Burford D 1985 Sodiun uptake in MaOlUfOOnUS nooaeselandiae stored in
refrigerated sea water Tasmanian Food Research Unit OCcasional Paper
No9
ltbnnell JJ 1972 OJality control in the fish industry Ibrry Jldvisory
note No 58 IOrty Research Station Aberdeen
ltbnnell JJ 1980 ltbntrol of fish quality Fishi~ ~ws (Books) 2nd ed
Surrey England
OJrran CA Nicolaides L and Al-Alawi ZS 1981 QJality chanqes duri~
iced storage of three carmercially important species of fish fran
Bahrain Trop sci 23(4) 253-268
de Zylva ERA 1974 Effect of fish handli~ at sea on storage quality of
New Zealand Snapper (Chroysophroys aumtus) New Zealand J SCi 17
309-318
Etlira S 1976 A biochemical study on the freshness of fish Bull 1bkai
Reg Fish Res Lab No 88 pp 1-13
Ehrenberg ASC and Shewan JM 1953 he cbjective approach to sensory
tests of food J Sci Food hJric 4 pp 482-489
Herbert RA and Shewan JM 1975 Precursors of the volatile sulphides in
spoili~ North Sea Cod J Sci Food JIlgric 26 1195-1202
lbUwi~ H 1972 Gradi~ of fish in different qualities Institute for
Fishery Products Ijmuiden Unpublished
~ate P 1972 Qrlparison of sensory scor inq systems for raw fish
I 54
Unpubl ished bull ~ ~
~ate P 1978 Measuri~ the quality am acceptability of fish products bull ~
In IPFC Proceedi~s symposiun on fish utilisatial technology and ~
i f~
marketi~ in the IWC region 18th session Manila Ihilippines p
449
fflghes RB and Jones NR 1966 Measurement of hypoxanthine concentrations
in canned herrirg as an index of the freshness of the raw material
with a ocirment oo flavor relations J SCi fOOd middotJlgric 17 434
Jahns FD Howe JL Coduri Jr RJ and Ram Jr AG 1976 A rapid
visual enzyme test to assess fish freshness Food Iechno1 30 (7) 27
Jones NR 1964 ~lems associated with freezi~ very fresh fish
Proceedings Meeting on Fish Iechnology Fish Handling and
Preservation schevenirqen OEC D Paris p 31 bull
Jones NR 1965 Hypoxanthine and other purine containing fractions in fish
muscle as indices of freshness In uthe technology of fish
utilisation ed R Kreuzer Fishi~ rewa (Books) (Drmn p 179
Last PR Scott EOG and Talbot FH 1983 Fishes of Tasmania
Tasmanian Fisheries ~velopnent lUthority lbbart Tasmania pp 238
414
Lima doe santos CAM James D and Ieutscher F 1981 QJidelines for
chilled fish storage experiments FKJ Fish Tech Igt 210
(Dye RM 1954 Ibst rrortem cha~es in the lenses of fish eyes Msessment
of storage tiJm and fish quality J Sci Focx11lgric 5 566-572
Hartin RE Gray RJ H and Pierson MD 1978 QJality assessment of fresh
fish arrl the role of the naturally occurring microflora Focx1
Technol 32 (5) 188
Official Journal of the European oamrnunities No L264 5 ~cember 1970 pp
1-11
bull
55
Technol New Zealand July 1971 pp 31-35
Spinelli J Eklund M and Miyauchi D 1964 Measurement of hypoxanthine
in fish as a method of assessing freshness J Food SCi 29 710
Thrower S oJ am Stafford IA 1981 A roobile unit for ccmparative studies
of chilled storage systems for trawl fish IIF IIR
eatmissions C2 01 02 03 Boston USA 1981-4
Thrower SoJ Bremner HA QJarmby AR Ggtnnan T8 aild Graham KJ
1982 cn-board handlinJ of Q~ish ~ Inportanoeof chillinJ and
gutting Aust Fish 41 (11) 38-41
Tanlinson N bull bull t at 1974 COtparison between refrigerated sea water (with or
without added carbon dioxide) and ice as storage media for fish to be
subsequently frozen Proc IIR C011n 82- 0-3 Tokyo p
waterman J oJ 1982 Qrrposition and QJality of Fish A Dictionary 1brry
Mvisory Note No 87 Torry Research Station Aberdeen
5J
Olley J and letkowsky OA 1973 he role of terrperature function
integration in monitoring of fish spoilage Food Technol New
Zealand 8 (2) 13 15 and 17
Olley J 1977 Iemperature and seafood spoilage In H Proceedings of 1977
SChool for SeafltXld Processorsmiddot ad ~ AF 0 Mello Hawkesbury
Agricultural Oollege p6-2
Olley J 1978 QIality assessment and storage changes In middotCSIRJ Iasmanian bull
leJional Laboratory OCcasional Paper No 4 p 3-1 middot4 Rgenstein J M and ~enstein CE 1981 he shelf-life extension of fesh
fish In Advances in the refrigerated treabnent of fishmiddot
International Institute of Rfrigeration Clmnissions C2 m ra [8
Boston US A 1981-4
leJenstein J 1983 Wlat is fish quality INroFISH Marketing Digest ttgt 6
26-28
Ryder JM 9Jisson OH SCott ON and Fletcher GC 1984 storage of
New Zealand Jack Mackerel ( TmohUMlB notJabullbullbullZandias) in ice
chemical microbiological and sensory assessment J M SCi 49
1453-1456 1477
Shewan JM Macintosh RG rucker CG and Ehrenberg ASC 1953 he
developnent of a numerical ~coring systan for the sensory assessment
of the spoilage of wet white fish stored in ice J SCi Food Jlgric
4 283-298
Smith J GM Hardy R hanson AB Young KW and Parsons E 1979
sane observations 00 the ambient and chill storage of blue whiting
(Mio1om8sistius poutassou) bull In H Advances in Fish SCience and
Technology ad JJ Connell FishinJ News (Books) Surrey England
pp 299-303
SOrensen T 1971 QIality control and fish handling in New zealand Food ~
t c-
o )
~hmiddot r~YiJ lt~
~~f~~ ~
I
Nomooram for comparison of diffGrent scoring systems tor raw T i sn ___ _ J bull )
_U I~ ~Y1 9i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~
I I t I I - _---1------ imiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot __ middot~_ ~ __~_ -_ ~ + ~ _ -~ _ - middotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middot __ G 9 8 7 6 _ 5middot 3
_ - zmmy [ I bull r f II
d _~__ ~ __ _ ~ __ -I-- - ~ L- i~ middoti~ ~ 1-L -~~ lt lt l~tceland 1P i ~ ~ j ~ ~ ~ L~ __ - I ~_ bull _ L j ~- _-
N rv 1 I 1 2 --- - 2~ 3 middot 3middot 4 ~- ~Il ay ~ _ _ middot _ r r
_ _ __ _ _~ ~_ ) - ~ L_ - 1- ~-_ -_ _ _ ~ 19 ~ 8 imiddotmiddot I 6 5 4 3
Do _ _nm~r t I I I r
~ I
_ ~ ~_ ~ t ~ __ i__ t ~ ~ ~ ~ _ q x 1 1i 2 2~ 3v _ Franee I r I l n
I I I i _ - ~ _ _ _- _-- middotmiddot __ middot_middot_middot_middotmiddotmiddotImiddotmiddotmiddot_middot~ _middotmiddotmiddotmiddot-_middotmiddotmiddotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddot ---- - --~ ~-
19oum8 I 7 6 i 5 ~ ~ 4middot 280 J t (
I i
J -- - -_ -__ X ~middotH i__~ -- i_L ~ - l_ middot1-- - 3 I 2Y1 0 4 11z 1 y
E E C I 1
I I I deg deg E I A r Bmiddot - I I C
ltOIl j- ~ ~ c ~--------------
TASTER
DATE
SESSION
~ER middot1
bull You will be given ~bull aamples of cooked fish Please assess the fish for flavour textur~ and
overall liking as though you had purchased them in a takeaway food shop Hark the sample
identification under the face that most closely describes your impressionbull
I
middot5 S shy2 3 4
FLAVOUR
IEXlURE
--
OVERALL UKING
7 bullbull yc ) I _ v J _ _
I1PP~NJIJ( 3 ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE BGRENVZSASS (A)
OBS DAYS-R DMPTS shy
1 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 6 4 3 7 4 6 e 4 5 9 6 1 18 6 10 11 6 18 12 6 18 13 e 13 14 8 16 13 8 13 16 8 17 17 9 18 18 9 18 19 9 bull 19 29 9 19 21 19 19 22 1 21 23 1 19 24 1 2123 11 21 26 11 22 27 11 22 29 11 22 29 12 22 3 12 22 31 12 23 32 12 23 33 13 23 34 13 23 33 13 22 36 13 23 37 14 24 38 14 23 39 14 264 14 25
17 26~ 17 39 43 17 38 44 17 29 43 21 32 46 21 33
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASS(At
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (Xt DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Yt DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9666 R SQUARED 9343 T STATISTIC 231621 INTERCEPT tAt 31799 SLOPE tSt 173399 bull STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 219473
OBSERVATIONS 46 Y DMPT9 XI DAYS-RSW YMIN -18 YMAX 61 YINC e XMIN -19 XMAX 2e9 XINe 2
] y
__ t=- I I 0(I I
JPRH6ELF PRINT MODULE -SYNTAX ERROR
DATABASE J3lGRENVISASS (FIL)
OB8 DAYS-R DMPT8
1 s 1 2 4 5 s 6 6
~ e 8 ~ 9 1 6 19 12 7 11 14 8 12 17 9 13 18 1 14 19 bull 11 17 23 12 21 29
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASSCFIL)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE CX) DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IY) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT ~9963
R SQUARED 992 T STATISTIC 3~36977
INTERCEPT CA) -3~6~41
SLOPE CB) 1~8426
STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 77667
OBSERVATIONS 12 v DMPTS x DAYS-RSW VMIN -2~ VMAX ~~ YINC ~
XMIN -19 XMAX 2~9 XINC 2
]
bull
-SYNTAX ERROR
lPRH6ELF PRINT MODULE
DATABASE BGRENVXSASS (AG)_
OB6
1 2 3 4 ~
6 7 8 9
Hi 11 12 13 14 1~
16 17 -18 19 2 21 22 23 24 2~
26 27 28 29
3 31 32 33 34 3~
36 37 J8
39
4 41 42 43 44 4~
46
DAYS-R
3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 6 6 6 6 8 8
8 bull 8
9 9 9 9
1 1 1 1 11 11 11 11
DMPTS
2 3 3 3 ~
6 ~
~
1 1 1 1 17 18 17 19 2~
2 21 21 21 23 21 23 23 24 24 24
12 24 12 24 12 25 12 25 13 27 13 25 J3 24 13 27 104 26 J04 2S
14 28 14 27 17 28 17 32 17 32 17 31 21 34 21 35
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BORENVISASSCAO)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE IX) DAVS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IV) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9~76~
R SQUARED 917 T STATISTIC 22S6S88 INTERCEPT lA) 323~7
SLOPE lB) 189812 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 269324
OBSERVATIONS 46 Y DM PT6 X DAYS-RSW ~ _01 VMAV 2~ YfNe ~
XMIN -19 XNAX 2l9 XINC 2
]
9YNTA)( ERROR bull ]PRN6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE BGRENVXSASS
OB6 DAY6-R DMPTS
1 3 1 2 3 1 3 3 1 4 3 1 5 4 1 6 4 4 7 4 3 9 4 1 9 6 6 18 6 6
11 6 6 12 6 6 13 9 8
14 9 9 15 8 8 16 8 9 l 9 18 19 9 11 19 9 12 28 9 12 21 18 12 22 18 14 23 18 11 24 18 14 25 11 15 26 11 13 27 11 15 29 11 15 29 12 17 3 12 18 31 12 19 32 12 18gJ l~ 34 13 18 3~ 13 18 36 13 19 37 14 19 JB 14 19 39 14 19 48 14 19 41 17 19 42 17 23 43 17 21 44 17 20
-(EEC)
q~ 21 23 q6 21 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASSCEEC)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE IX) DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IY) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 96691 R SQUARED 93q9 T STATISTIC 2~14824
INTERCEPT IA) -238937 SLOPE IB) 146219 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 1S28eS
OBSERVATIONS q6 Y DMPTS X DAYS-RSW YMIN -2q YMAX ~5 YINC ~
XMIN -19 XMAX 259 XJNC 2
l
SYNTAX ERROR lPRM8ELF PRINT MODULE
-
bull
APPENJ)K 4 -
DATABASE WHZTXNG VXSASS (A) bull
OBS DAYS-I
1 1 2 1 3 1 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 ~
9 5 9 5 Ii 7 11 7 12 7 13 9 14 9 1~ 9
016 11 17 11 19 11
DMPTS
1 1 1 1 2 2 4 3 5 a 7
9 13 15 bull 13 16 14 1~
019 13 2 8 28 13 16 21 13 20 22 15 24 23 1~ 24 24 15 25 25 17 29 26 17 29 27 17 38 29 19 30 29 19 38 38 19 32 31 21 33 32 21 32 33 21 32 34 23 32 3~ 23 32 36 23 34
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASSIA)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE tX) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE tV) qMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 98514 R SQUARED 9785 T STATISTIC 3344414 INTERCEPT tAt -245163 SLOPE CBt 166958 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 286799
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS x DAYS-ICE
YMIN -22 YMAX lS7 YINC lS- XMIN -19 XMAX 259 XINC 2
]
I
J
-8YNTAX ERROR
]PRM6ELF PRINT MODULE shyDATABASE WHITING VISASS (AG)
OB8 DAYS-I DMPT8
1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 4 3 1 ~ 3 2 6 3 2 7 ~ 4 9 ~ 3 9 ~ ~
18 7 18 11 7 9 12 7 18 13 9 1~
14 9 17 1~ 9 1~
16 11 18 17 11 16 18 11 17 19 13 22 28 13 18 21 13 22 22 1~ 26 23 1~ 27 24 1~ 28 2~ 17 32 26 17 32 27 17 33 28 19 34 29 19 34 38 19 36 31 21 37 32 21 36 33 21 36 34 23 36 3~ 23 36 36 23 38
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITINO VISASS(AO)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAY8-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Y) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 986~2
R SQUARED 973 T STATISTIC 3~B167B
INTERCEPT CAl -272~33
SLOPE CBI 197S63 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 221294
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS X DAYS-ICE YHIN -19~ YHAX ~9~ YINC ~
XHIN -19 XHAX 2~9 XINC 2
]
-SYNTAX ERROR lPRM6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASS (EEC)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 2 1 3 1 4 3 ~ 3 1 6 3 1 7 ~ 2 8 ~ 2 9 ~ 3
1 7 3 11 7 3 12 7 3 13 9 6 14 9 6 bull 1~ 9 7 16 11 7 17 11 8 18 11 7 19 13 11 2 13 1 21 13 12 22 1~ 13 23 1~ 1~
24 1~ 17 2~ 17 19 26 17 18 27 17 19 28 19 29 29 19 23 39 19 22 31 21 24 32 21 23 33 21 24
34 23 2J 3~ 23 26 36 23 27
I ELF SCATTER MODULE I DATABASE WHITING VISA88CEEC)I I INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (~) DAYS-ICE I
DEPENDENT VARIABLE (VI DMPTS I bull
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9a2~3
R SQUARED 96~3
T STATISTIC 387a73~
INTERCEPT (A) -4142 SLOPE (8) 12873 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 173287
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS ~ DAYS-ICE YMIN -29 YMA~ ~1 VINC ~
XMIN -19 ~MA~ 2~9 ~INC 2
J
-SYNTAX ERROR JPRM6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHITING VXSASSmiddot(FXL)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 2 3 1 3 ~ 5 4 7 4 ~ 9 9 6 11 13 7 13 1~
e 1~ 16 9 17 19 18 19 21 11 21 24 12 23 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASB(FJLI
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Y) DMPTS
bull bullbull 4~
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE CV) DMPTSr
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 982~3
R SQUARED 96~3
T STATISTIC 3S7873~ t bullbullf CINTERCEPT CA) -4142
SLOPE CB) 12873 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 173287
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS XI DAYS-ICE YMINmiddot~28 YMAKI 1 YINC ~
XMIN -I9XMAX 2~9 XINC2
]
-SYNTAX ERROR ]PRH6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHXTXNG VXSASS (FXL)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 S 2 3 1 1 5 3 4 7 4 5 9 9 6 11 13 7 13 1~
9 15 16 9 17 19 1 19 21 11 21 24 12 23 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE I WHITING VISAS8(FIL)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE CX)I DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE CY) DMPT8
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 99289 R SQUARED 9858 T STATISTIC 2638123 INTERCEPT CA) -243706 SLOPE CB) 124476 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 112846
SLOPE 10) 124476 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 112846
ObullbulllfftVTrOHSO 12 VI DHPTS XI DAVS-ICE VMIN -27 VHAX e2 VINe e XHIN -19 XHAX 2e9 gtcINe 2
]
-8VNTAX ERROR
fi
rr
[bull
SJ
in i
bullol
r~
bull bull
n i
o o o o
~
o~ o
o - l
N~ o ~
o o o
Q
Q o o
a
c -~_
Q
_
_ Q
_9_
0
o ~-
O
_
Q
lI
oJ ~
v
~ ~
~-
-
- -1
---h
---1
---I
I
I
1
~ ((9 ~ J las 0 - ~~ U -lt) az E~-~gl~~1--~~---------- ~) 1)
11 ~ - 11 HI ~~
I bull M~
~ -~ ~~ IJ~ I J ismiddotJ I Q l~
k tl I 01 re lr - 91 br I ~I ( -0 71P g I CJ tt
I I J 000 0 0 w I 0) NlNN1tl 30 hIflJ I t IC (~4ID(r ~ Wi
_ f-- -------- bull fyen ~=y ~~r I I I I I I I 0 0 00 00 ( ~) -Fr~ ~ fj)
-0 I 0 I Ole 17 10 0 ( ~ AI )middot P1~ 0 0 00 Q hItIrS ~7I -~~ (J
t -r------0 bull
_-~_ middotmiddotmiddot_middot~middotmiddotmiddot)-middot7~)
lrrT I 01 0
0 tFmiddot~~i ~ 1 o 00 Omiddot (~ -W ~r f (JJ___~ _______ _ l I I 71 I -_---_ - M-~ ~ I
J I Z-tf ~ ~ ~fI t1 11f ( )) CI I I I i I 00 r11-7[ c I C bull aofl7r_ ~ ~z ~ 1t~Ji ) ( --_--------i---shye l~~~ I f~) I I J I
I II i bull Q ( N~T fE ~I )
~JiP _- -___ ----shy
_
~ 7Yr 0) ~(J ~ I e I t I ~ l I J I I 1 I I I(I 0 0 (~~yen~ M -p~P71 JPtJIJs 0
i euror (1l~J IlLriJlllr1JI ~~J I ~()(1OP I I r I I 0 I ( t t I ( jIfS 7fS ~~I ~ )
I
I 1 I( IN 10~ lb~ qItJ gtr~j f o (~)I(~) I I 0 I (t~ ~~) I I Jbull o 0 J I ~ l 0 a i S(jJ t t t tI tI C I C I J I I I J I 0 I (n~rlP PI4t -I) t
- -I
-I -I-I I II-I I I-I r bull
-----(rtb Ii If p~) PNl17T7~b ~y~ 7
10 IIt1v I 0 1~L CIJ tN IfIfW1IIJ JI11i JN~I HJ3
---Y p~ALY~_ ~~ Yl2-- 1)
yenvr 1amp f111l
-
~
~~
~
II
o 0
~cgt
(
) Q
oa
oo
o
oo
o o
a
o
~
P
t
oo
c
oo
a -
o
oo
o
o -
o
-o
-
-
lJ
I~ I~
Jl ~rIpound i IAlffzfjjsectj 7df- utl kf J OG lie rCOIpound ~IIE(T r
7tU
~
~ ~
~ ~
~
-shy~
~
MYI f)lySLM~ 1 (JAy ISo~r 11 ~~) e ()~t ~I01) r I joy f o~y lOJ 17~JJlII1~ 16 fiti -t1 It r ~17J~~flu~1h 111H 7U 1111111shyIllf Jr(11Jr I fhJo
~ ) ~ I1 J J-4 ~ J 2 JJ ~poundol ~ ] t4 cl -7 eJ uJ cJJJ wI~ wI l shy w c at amp 74 -t ~ ut 4 I
SkIN 000 o 0 0o 0 0 o 00 I o I I I I 3 3 3l) t 3 3 31 s 3ltt
a I I I I I o IfYU I 2 I JI I I000 )l~ 1~1 S 3 ~S 3 5 335
GILtJ I J I o (J 0 I (I I I ~ t 2shy~I I s 3 ]] 2 0 (J 3 ~ ~ t 3 3 AlvItUiU i l I I ls)z oJ lJ 0 a (J ~ 0o 0 0 a a aTff1ttJR II r 1
1 I ~ I I I I 1~E
Cdt47tl7 I I ~ ~t( a a 0O(O I Io I~ 00 000deg a 0wO 0 0 0 o 0 0 o~ 00VUipound811 ~ J I
tJ I Oe6rlllr I I I I 2 2]l2 ~ 3 S 3 S ~ 3o a 0 (J () 0 I 333 1 $ 3
If~euMI LU~ 2l 3000o (J 0 o 0 0 J 2 2shy 331a deg (1 ~ 2 Jshy
i I 000amp1 0 I I 1TIUUpound
lAcltJdJE 00deg00o 0 0 ooalOOO 0 0 I I I 1OdOa deg 0 11 2 I r I I I IbullI
I I h~r~Eu I ( 0 0 CJ 0 o (J a 2 ~ 30001011 0 1 J 1010 I I L II 2 l 2l 22 2 1
sKIN GLLt I f I~J) GlIIl) 0 (I a I do 0 0 I 0 Il~t l~o 0 0 ~ 3 3 3 s 3 3 3 33s1331
i7tJ7l11 Ibull I shy i66 ~o
(J ~ 0 1 0 It3331l J t 1 1shy 1~ ~afJllc 11 Irrshy It ~1 1111 20 J3 u
(])JtUJ61 (l) (1) (Ir)(0) (J)(I) (If) (19) (u) (~r)(J4)
I r f
I
I
i I
I i
II I ((
f
II Ii
p ()
Q
0_
_ 00
0
00
00
00
0
o o o 0
00
0
0 _
o Q
0
0
o
0
00
0
-
0 0
0
middot0
0
o oo
0
o Q
o oo o o
- ~
~
~ ~~pound
w
i -shy
o
co
- --
shy
o o o
~
~_
~
0
-shyJJ
-----l--~
-J
J IJ
f
J
J)
o 0
00
_ 0
0
o (gt
0
o ()
o
0
0 0
0
()
()
o 0
0
o 0
0
_
_ -
-----1
-----shy
Q
0 0
o ~-IJ~ulJ-
u
lJcllJ_-_~IJamp
o o
Q
I---+----I---+----I----I~-
_Ilpound
llD
lIlI
Il
~I
IIIl
I_II
II5
l__
IIlIa
IllP
=lII
Il1
rl
ll
IlIl
IlIII
llII
IlJl
IIl
IIlIl_
IIrII
G3i
mta
isectID
it
llll~
1~=wampampftUla
_
au
U
Lamp
WJN
AJ
poundmiddotJI
IiIamp
3flJ
a
uac
ampa
f
shy
I~middottn 0~L fi 5L middottlu~ fo_~r ( ) 1poundc [CtJRl -ffl(pound1 r~~ rlt1c- J c-ru
-- I
1SllJ7~
lt l)~ J )IIr M ~-t s ~~ OIl middot )If 10 JAY II 041
J- Olt i1 )lir iI DIY IT- IMy11
1~middot6f1 14f1- ~imiddot -- J _ middotAfmiddot IIrk middot Jiamp -ffh~11 rtr Il ~M gt27P- ill Ill ~lllY ~~7rlf JC 1- ~ r 1M 11
r ~ F16F r~h FIjFi ~~I)r r~Fr
5 Fc II -i~fIoi l 1 fj t t Fr c r amp t 1= ~ r ~ F r rtI ~
- -
sION o (j o 0 0 o 0 a I I I I I I I I 2 I t t I-r J~L) z~z~ 2~J ~ z a ~ ~ 33 - -ol t 1 2
~ poundys-s 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I I lt t 2 t t 4 ~z ~ 2l~ ~ ~ 1 Z 3zi3p33 3 333 3 3 3 - - ~ rl~ a 0 a (1 a a o 1 I 1 I 1-2 12 t ltt a ~ l J tll~ ~~~) 2 2 2 2- ~Jll 21 13 33 ~
- ~ MIIi(UlA~
degCt1C 11 )l
FipoundSI- eli CeoD o 0 (J 0 I I I I I I 1 1 I I 1 I Jl~] l2 22- z ~ 2 2 22 11 2-3 -Sfvpound
j
CIJiCVlt-tICN I I I 1 ( I I I 2 2 t ~ t~ )2 2~21 2$ 2 t _~ 3AIJJN(j- P (J dO o C a a o 0 00 1 I I I I - --
V~7r~ ~ c~u N
(TKWW~ CO~ o I oc I I J I I I I 1 2 I 2 2 1- ) t~l2 2- 22 2 ) 2 ~2- 1222 2 2 ll 2L -- -~VClLAl I
a 0 0 0 01 I 0 2 1 2 2 J5r 4 E i H CA I I
-I I I I I I I I J J 12( ~ 12 1 2 1 2-I TfI_ 21 1-1- 1 1 ~ 1
~ I middot_0-__-- I
~ 1
ffCACIpound coo 000lt=1 o 0 0 0 btJCt) o a () (J I I I I I I I I111 I I I 1 I I -~-aD CD lJ a a 0 0 ~ ~ UlrAfllN o 0 a IJ e e 0 C) (JdegOo ecJao co (10 (1 o I I I I I I I I 1 I I III I I I I z --
i tiN ~4r L~~ 2- li ~ a~ 8M) CUmiddot c d (J 0 (J () I I I 1 1 1
I 1 I I f t I II tl-loI 21 1 t 33 - -
-Iffl1-
J I I I I i- 2 I 11~SC~E ~ t 1 o ~ 04-t 1J 11 1 11t IS~ IfS J1 I 1 I If I IJ 1 r~]u ze uu __
bull ttlUIG
(I) l~) (6) (II) ~ (~) 6s-)llIt lCUI CJ (Ii) (~) vmiddot (II) (19~ ---
I t f
I
~ I
~ I
Ii
I I
Ii I II f
~ (
--)raquo~ middot-~~-~-I~~IliiI~~-middotComiddot~-d-b~middotmiddotmiddotmiddot_ ~ ~ middoth-~_middot--~H~~middot~gt
Other Occasional Papers in the series
1 A salinity monitor for irrigation pumps by EOMIEZITIS
2 Wine liqueur and fish products acceptability trials 47th ANZAAS Congress Hobart 1976 by HABREMNER TLLEWIS and ARQUARMBY
3 Abalone silage an exercise in the conservation of waste by JUNE OLLEY
4 Course notes contributed by the CSIRO Tasmanian Food Research Unit to a workshop on fish handling and quality control Hobart Oct3rd-5th 1978 by HABREMNER JUNE OLLEY and SJTHROWER
5 Difficulties with generalized least squares regression in forest modelling by PWWEST
6 Metabolism of zinc cadmium and copper in rats fed shellfish highly contaminated with heavy metals by SJTHROWER JUNE OLLEY and MAUREEN McDERMOTT
7 Hygiene control in seafood processing by SJTHROWER
I
TABLE OF OONIENTS
Page
List of Figures iv
List of nb1es v
Acknowledgement vii
lbstract 1
100 Introduction
110 QUality and QUality Assessment of Fish 2
120 Chemical Methods 3
130 Fhysical Methods 6
140 Microbiological Methods 7
1 50 sensory Methods 9
160 The Ideal Method 12
200 Materials and Methods 13
210 Sample Preparation 13
211 Fish stored in RSW 13
212 Fish stored in ice 14
220 sensory assessment of the whole (gutted
am ungutted) rCM fish sarrp1es 15
230 sensory assessment of the frozen filleted
rCM fish samples 15
240 ~ganoleptic acceptability panel of the
cooked fish 20
250 Statistics 20
300 Results 23
310 Fhysical Characteristics of M novaeselandialaquo 23
320 Physical Characteristics of H BemifaBotata 23
400 Discussion
11
330 Sensory assessment of the raw blue grenadier
samples stored in RiW 23
340 sensory assessment of the raw whiting samples
stored in ice 23
3 50 Attributes contributing to total score 23
360 Relative merits of the scoring systems 33
370 Time taken to score the fish 33
380 kceptability taste panel results of blue
grenadier samples 33
390 Acceptability taste panel results of
whiting samples 33
40
410 sensory assessment of the raw blue grenadier
samples stored in RiW 40
420 sensory assessment of the raw whiting sanples
stored in ice 41
430 the ease and difficulties of using the four
methods of scoring 44
440 kceptability taste panel results of blue
grenadier sarrples 44
441 Flavour acceptability 44
442 Texture acceptability 45
443 Overall acceptability 46
450 kceptability taste panel results of whiting
samples 46
451 Flavour acceptability 46
452 Texture acceptability 47
453 OVerall acceptability 47
iii
500 Conclusions 47
510 Feasibility of using demerit points 47
520 Purpose for which demerit points are
to be used 49
530 suggestions for further work 50
600 Bibliography 51
7 00 Appendices 56
Appendix 1 Nomogram for comparison of different
scoring systems for raw fish
Appendix 2 General Foods Smiley scale
Appendix 3 ELF scatter print-out for correlation
analysis of blue grenadier samples
Appendix 4 ELF scatter print-out for correlation
analysis of whiting samples
Maritime Cbllege Ippendix 5 Analysis of variance for the blue
Copy Only grenadier samples by the Genstat package
Appendix 6 Analysis of variance for the whiting
samples by the Genstat package
Appendix 7 Original score sheets
fv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No TIlLE Page
Fig 1 Pamerit points versus days in RSW for blue grenadier samples 25
Fig 2 Dmerit points versus days in ice for whiting samples 26
Fig 3 Fercentage change in demerit points for blue grenadier
in RSW 34
Fig 4 R9rcentafJe chanqe in demerit points for iced whiting 35
Fig 5 1aste panel results of Blue grenadier - flavour acceptability 36
Fig 6 1aste panel results of Blue grenadier - texture acceptability 36
Fig 7 Taste panel results of Blue grenadier - overall acceptability 37
Fig 8 1aste panel results of tiiting - flavour acceptability 37
Fig 9 1aste panel results of tiiting - texture acceptability 38
Fig 10 Taste panel results of Whiting - overall acceptability 38
Table tb
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Table 10
Table 11
Table 12
Table 13
Table 14
v
LIST OF TABLES
TIILE Page
5amplirq regime for fish stored in R3Wice 14
TFRJ Sensory Assessroont score sheet (gutted and
urqutted sanples) 16
EEX Sensory Assessroont score sheet 17-18
Filleted sample score sheet 19
Order of presentation of the cookeq blue grenadier
samples to the acceptability taste panelists 21
Order of presentation of the cooked whitirq samples
to the acceptability taste panelists 22
TOtal demerit points from sensory assessment of
blue grenadier samples stored in R3W 24
TOtal demerit points from sensory assessment of
whiting scrnples stored in ice 27
Relationship between time and demerit points for
fish stored in R3W (M novaeselandiaet 28
Attributes contributirq to total score usirq TFRJ
scores (gutted and urqutted scrnples) bull 29
Attributes contributirq to total score usirq EEC
scores 30
Attributes contributirq to total score usilVJ
filleted samples scores 31
Different emphasis in scorirq systems for whole
f ish as between the EX and TFRJ 32
Acceptability of deep fried blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW 39
VI
Table 15
Table 16
Acceptability of deep fried whiting samples
stored in ice
Acceptability of deep fried whiting samples stored
in ice
39
47
NIlttmLEOOEMEm
Ihe author is indebted to Hr HA Bremner and Miss J A statham of the
CSIR) Division of Food 1esearch and Ii DA Ratk~sky of the Division of
Mathematics and Statistics for direction and advice durin] the course of this
~rk
Thanks nust also go to Miss M Ottenschlaeger for the help in the taste
panel work Hr AH A vail and Hr P Kearney in the correlation analysis and
Mr D 8Jrford in the preparation of the blue grenadier samples and not
forgettirYJ all the panelists who attended the taste panel sessions
Finally the author wishes to thank all those in the SChool of Fisheries
of the Australian HaritiIm College particularly Mr P Minton for the support
and encouragement they have given and also the Australian Development
Assistance Bureau (~) for their financial assistance
1
ABSTRACT
Accumulation of demerit points with time of storage of blue grenadier (M
novaeae landiaev in refrigerated sea water (I~W) and blue rock whi t ing (H
eemifaeeiatcq in ice was fourd to be highly correlated and occurred in an
approximately linear fashion irrespective of the method of scoring used
1he scoring system developed by the TFRJ was fourrl to be the easiest
quickest and rrost reliable method for quality assessment of fish The changes
in tOO appearance of the eyes and the odour developrent of the gills are the
most obvious and valuable indicators of change in quality when using the TFRU
or the EEl freshness scores while the appearance and odour of the fish flesh
seems to be the most obvious indicator when assessing the filleted samples
1he acceptabil ity taste panel results indicate that M nauaeeelandiae stored
in RSW had a shelf-life of 14 days whilst H semifasciata stored in ice had a
shelf-life of 17 days ~ cut-off point at which spoilage of the samples
WDUld have rendered the quality of the fish samples to be unacceptable fran
the consumer point of view would be those equivalent to the accumulated
demerit point of gt29 for the TFRU (gutted and ungutted) scores and gt21 for the
EEC ard filleted sample scores
2
1 00 rsrromcrros
110 QUality and QUality Asses~nt of Fish
QJality is difficult to define since it means different things to
different people One general definition is degree of excellence
According to waterman (1982) quality of food is the SLD1 of those attributes
that govern its acceptability to the buyer or consumer and quality assessment
is the estLmation or measurement of one or more quality factors as a means of
determining quality before exercising control
Bremner (1984) defined quality as that attitude of mind that approach
that event that state of being when everything is right hus until a
seafood is eaten its quality can only be surmised indirectly harever
seafoods do possess a set of properties or characteristics that for practical
purposes can be related with quality
In cxmnerce quality limits are set by what the custcrner is prepared to
pay for generally the custcrner will pay more for fish that he considers to be
of higher quality and will continue to buy as long as quality remains
constant The relationship between quality and marketing is therefore
governed by the sophistication of the consuner ( ta Zylva 1974) Sore of the
more important factors that determine quality fran the custcrners point of
view are species ease of preparation appearance odour flavour freshness
size presence or absence of bones and filth absence of specific
microorganisms condition packaging and composition (Oonnell 1972)
Freshness is the most important quality factor to the consumer thus
assessnent of freshness is vital in quality control kcording to Baines et
al (1965) the term freshness is employed to describe the presence or
absence of deterioration Ib many however freshness involves the concept of
newness in which time is an important factor In other words the fish
technologist is not only concerned with quality at the mrnent of examination
3
but of the products potential shelf-life M accurate measure of st~age
1_ time under kn~ conditions would allow hLm to calculate the remaining life of
the product and its potential for processing
Fish quality depends on tenperature time and hygiene Factors such as
spontaneous chemical changes autolysis and microbial attack produce
deteriorations fran the point of catching until final putrefaction
Measurements of sane of these deteriorations have been invoked as indices of
freshness
he measurement of trimethylamine (lMA) other spoilage cxrrpounds and the
bacteria themselves as indicators of quality has been reviewed recently by
Martin et al (1978) hey stated that in order to define effective indicators
of seafocxi quality the food technologist must be prepared to examine each
species of seafood individually its environment its composition its
harvesting and its handling
A lUIllber of different tests may be used for estimating the degree of
spoilage in fish these include total volatile bases (TVa) total volatile
reducing substances volatile armonia volatile acids total volatilo
nitrogen indole refractive index of the eye fluid electrical resistance of
the fish flesh total bacterial numbers and organoleptic tests hese methods
are discussed under the headings chemical methods physical methods
microbiological methods and sensory methods bel~
120 Chemical Methods
Although not universal in acceptance or applicability the trLmethylamine
(TMA) determination has became one of the established procedures for
determining fish quality Its use as an indicator of spoilage in fresh fish
have also been proposed by the Codex AlLmentarius crnmittee on fish and
fishery products (Olley 1977) his is despite the fact that there is ample
4
evidence that the same ClfDUnt of 1MA is accanpanied by different ClfDUnts of
spoilage even within the same species
Several investigators (Spinelli et aI 1984 Jones 1965) have expressed
reservations regardirq the use of IMA as an index of quality for fresh fish
not inq that 1MA values fail to give an adequate Iod icetIon of early autolytic
quality chanqes aOO preferrirq hypoxanthfne detenninations instead MA as
would be expected of a bacterial product is not useful in detenninilg quality
deteriorations which occur durirq frozen storage FIrthenoore the shape of
the fish will markedly influence the arrount of IMA meaaured in ng per 100 g
fish (Bremner et aI 1978) Trimethylamine is roost sensitive as an indicator
of the later stages of spoilage whereas Chemical tests for dimethylamine are
most valuable in the early stages of spoilage
Ryder et al (1984) foond that the bacterial metabol Ic end products (1VB
and MA) were less useful as objective measurements of freshness in Jack
Mackerel (TrochuflUB nooaezelandiae) hey also reported that the pH was not a
gcxxl indicator of early storage changes and lEA values could not be used to
detennine loss of acceptability or eoo of shelf-life Recently it has became
apparent that the sulphur canpounds and mercaptans may be importantH2S
detenninants of fish odour and flavour (~rbert and Shewan 1975)
Measurement of MA IMA or amoonia requires a laboratory am assistant of
matriculation standard who has had sane weeks of practice in the IOOthod
Neither the Codex Alimentarius CoITInittee or the EEl (Ccmoon Market) lay down
samplilg procedures
Another quality assessment lOOasurement involves the nucleotides aoo their
degradation products Early studies with cod carp Pacific Salmgtn Lemon
sole haddock and plaice revealed that post-mortem nucleotide degradation in
fish muscle proceeds prbnarily via the followirq sequence of reactions ATP -)
AMP -) IMP -) IID -) Hx -) Xa -) UA where KrP = Jldenosine 5-triphosphate AMP
5
= Jldenosine 5-IOCgtoophosphate IMP = Inosine 5-IOCgtoophosphate lID = Inosine j
Hx = Hypoxanthine xa = Xpnthine am UA = Uric acid loo ~tages in this
degradative sequence have been considered as objective indices of quality shy
dephosphorylation of IMP am formation of hypoxanthine IMP reportedly
possesses properties as a flavour enhancer in fish mrscle COnsequently its
breakdawn may contribute to and be correlated with the loss of fresh flavour
in sane species SCme difficulties however may arise fran using IMP
dephosphorylatioo as a s inqle quality index eg the pattern of nucleotide
breakdown in invertebrate seafood species may differ in same key respects fran
that fourrl in vertebrate species he rate of IMP decanposition in the muscle
also differs between species (Ehira 1976) Accordi~ to Martin et al (1978)
the rrost serious limitation imposed by an IMP index may be that the reaction
is substantially complete well within the edible storage life of a number of
species Its major value then may be as an indicator of fresh flavour loss
during early storage
Unlike IMP concentrations of hypoxanthine (Hx) have been shown to
increase steadily throughout the useful storage life of a number of fish
species (Hughes and Jones 1966) Hypoxanthine formation is a result of both
autolytic am bacterial activities hus it also has advantages over the 1MA
assay Hx may be correlated with flavour loss caused by autolytic activities
durirg early storage am with bacterial spoilage during extended storage to
derive a prediction of useful storage life Also the IMA test is of no value
for freshwater fish because these either do not contain or contain very little
trimethylamine oxide Hx may also be used to determine the quali ty of canned
herrirg at the tirre of processing since hypoxanthine concentrations neither
increase nor decrease duri~ heat process inq and subsequent storage (Hughes
ard Jones 1966) 1MA concentrations on the other hand are unstable during
heat process inq lbNever different species of fish produce hypoxanthine by
6
different routes and at different speeds Each lustralian species ttOUld have
to be examined in turn am the hypoxanthine test related to sensory grades
tbte that the Canadian redfish and flounder had produced the maximum amgtunt of
hypoxanthine 10llg before they becarre unacceptable while the swordfish had
only produced a fifth of the arount when it became unacceptable to a taste
panel (Olley 1978) The hypoxanthine test requires laboratory facilities and
same equipment but recently the use of sLmple paper strips have been reported
(Jahns et aI 1976)
The main disadvantages of nucleotide assays are that they are apt to vary
even arro~ individuals within a species Sufficient samples need to be used
to reduce this variability
All the chemical roothods discussed above depend on measuring the
concentration of certain chemical substances in the flesh and since the sample
is destroyed in the process they cannot be used to test every fish in a
batch In any case variation between fishes in the sarre batch makes chemical
tests for quality a task requiring a statistician (Olley 1977) All the
methods require the use of a laboratory or fairly elaborate facilities and
also they oo rot apply to all species and products alike
130 Physical Methods
Love (1954) described a roothod which correlates the turbidity of the eye
lenses of fish with storage tiroo of iced fish kept in a roan of fairly
constant air temperature He found that it is possible by examination of 20
or more lenses to assess the storage tiroo with an error of not roore than 1
day M advantage of this roothod is that since only the eyes have to be
raroved in sampling the fish remains saleable as headed dressed fish or as
fillets ~ver1 the roothod had many limitations such as difficulty in
manipulation and matchi~ of the lenses which have to be done in good diffused
7
daylight at least 20 lenses are required for each estllnation which is rather
tedious for routine work and also it is not applicable where fish had not been
kept all the time in ice under the standard conditions eg bulk stowage of
fish with ice on a trawler may result in deviation fran the conditions of box
stolage in an insulated roan
he GR Ibrrymeter is a battery pc7ot1ered hand-held instnunent that rreasures
certain dialectric properties of fish skin which charge wi th the
tiJretemperature history of the fish fbWever readi~s on a large mrnber of
samples have to be taken and averaged bull Although it is a rapid simple
objective and rDn-destructive method of estllnati~ the quality of fresh fish
it has the followilkJ disadvanteqesj large variation in readirg fran fish to
fish readi~ varies with physical damage to fish1 cha~e of readi~ with time
varies with species and also may be insensitive at later stages of spo i Laqe
Curran et al (1981) reported that the GR Ibrrymeter was not particularly
successful with both the purple emperor (L6thoinus l6ntjan) ard the Spanish
mackerel ( Scomberomorue oonmereons since the readirgs obtained do not
correlate very well with the taste panel results
140 Microbiological Methods
he rootine microbiological testirg that is performed under normal
industry operations is normally restricted to enumeration of nonpathogenic
microorganisms hose frost frequently used are the standard plate count and
enumeration of indicator organisms such as the coliform group Beoher-ichia
coli aM Staphylococcus aureus
Food handl i nq practices beyond the pr-imary processors control make
standard aerobic plate count (APe) a difficult quality assessment tool to use
generally he total nunber of bacteria is not the sole determinant of
8
quali ty since certain microbial groups are rrore apt to cause spoilage than
others These groups can be given a selective advantage for growth by the way
the product is processed or stored furthermore the determination of
bacterial counts while they are of value to research requires too much time
before results are known and can also be expensive for routine testing
Representative samples have to be taken for bacterial examination because the
fish or product is destroyed during the test Interpreting the results of
bacterial testing is a task for experts who should be consulted when
necessary bull
Detection and enumeration of indicator bacteria such as the coliform
group E ooli and S auroeu8 were considered for many years to indicate the
potential presence of pathoqenic microorganisms NM this inference has been
questioned and these groups are no longer considered a reliable method for
predicting the presence of such pathogens (Martin et aL1978) bull
According to Olley and Ratkowsky (1973) there is in fact no simple index
of quality and a thorough knowledge of the oamplete temperature history of the
fish is the only true indicator of freshness This is so because at higher
temperatures bacteria divide in half more rapidly Therefore the
relationship between bacterial growth with production of spoilage canpounds
and temperature is not a straight line rut a curve he curve relates rate of
spoilage of these commodities at temperatures between aoe and 25dege to the rate
at which they would spoil at aoe hus at aoe the relative rate is 1 and at
Rate at temperature (tOe)any other temperature the relative rate is Rate at a be
Bremner et at (1978) have coined the term ICE FOID for this relative rate
ie so many times faster than the ccmnodity would spoil on ice and
lCETIME as equivalent storage time on ice = lCEFOID x time in days
The curve has also been converted into tabular form to enable conversion
of the temperature history of the catch into equivalent storage time
on ice under ideal conditions However the concept of relative rate of
9
spoilage with temperature can only apply if fishing oonditions are kept
constant
150 sensory Methods
Currently the best way to detenmine fish freshness still requires the use
of a taste panel (Regenstein and Regenstein 1981) A number of taste panel
techniques for assessing the quality of unfrozen fish species have been
described am are in use in different parts of the world These techniques
vary in cbjective and ccrrplexity but are of three main types Firstly there
are those which categorise the fish on the basis of its acceptability for
eatirq secondly there are those which categorise the fish on the basis of
well-defined characteristics which change duri~ storage Thirdly there are
techniques which include elements of both of these types Techniques of the
first type usually anploy a single gradi~ or hedonic (like-dislike) scale
whilst those of the second type anploy descriptions of various characteristics
(Baines et aI 1969)
The ultimate criterion of fish quality is the flavour and texture of the
cooked fish HcMever taste panel evaluations of cooked fish are timeshy
consiminq and relatively few samples can be tested at anyone time It is
therefore highly desirable to be able to make an assessment of eati~ quality
by exanini~ the raw fish My atterrpt to raise the quality of raw fish as it
reaches the consumer is critically dependent on the development of a
convenient and consistent rrethod of quality assessment based on raw fish
Fortunately eat inq quality of cooked fish can be correlated with the
appearance odour and texture of the whole raw fish Boyd and Wilson (1976)
when evaluat inq the quality of snapper (Chroysophfys aufatus) by a sensory
method found that there is close relationship between the raw attributes of
gill odour and general appearance with those of odour texture am flavour of
10
the cooked fish
The use of ooject ive tests at dockside or even on inspection within the
plant is not considered to be practical in the normal routine of inspection of
fresh ard frozen fish products as almost all of the coject Ive tests require
laboratories am so becare rather rerooved fran the busy fisherman processor
or factory foreman A nuch simpler piece of apparatus is the eye or the N)Se
(olley 1977) Sensory tests are always controversial as they require an
inspector although the canny buyer is in fact applying his senses of smell
am visual acuity in a similar fashion W9 accept the wine faster and wcxgtl
classer so why not the fish grader (Bremner 1984) Therefore a test that
correlated well with freshnessquality and that could operate on the market or
in the factory would be of considerable value to an efficient industry (Baines
et aI 1965)
Howgate (1978) also considered the sensory rrethods to be far better than
non-sensory methods which are not suitable for consumer testing whilst
Connell (1972) states that in general the sensory rrethod of assessing
freshness is the best at present for quality control purposes
As fish spoils its snell taste appearance and feel go through
characteristic am well defined stages that trained experts or experienced
staff can consistently recognise It is convenient to attach a number or
score to each stage so that the assessor can award the appropriate score to
each fish or batch of fish Alternatively the mere recognition of each stage
ard acceptance or rejection of fish on this basis may be all that is
necessary Different species and products spoil in different ways The
numerical system us irq an objective panel developed at the Ibrry IEsearch
Station by Shewan et al (1953) is probably the ultUnate critical evaluation of
fish freshness available at this time It was created for the determination
of storage time of whole Net fish l6Jenstein and Iegenstein (1981) in using
11
this nunerical system reported that the cooked freshness scores are generally
higher (better) than expected at that storage t irre for whole wet fish A
freshness score of 55 on the Ibrry scale seemed the appropriate endpoint for
their definition of shelf-life This would nonnally be reached with ideal
iced-at-sea fish about twelve days from catch sooner for fillets Freshness
scorirq systems are I1C1laquo available fran Ibrry Research station for most UK
ccmnercial species and systems are available for both the raw and cooked
fish HoweveF there is still no standard scorirq system to be used
internationally he countries in the EEC ~or instance use scoring systems
which differ both in scale length am in characteristics measured Most
systems use the same scale length for all features examined but the United
Kingdon am Icelarrl use scales of 10 to 0 for odour and 5 to 0 for other
characteristics ibwgate (1972) describes the effort to construct a rorogram
for oonvert inq fran one scorinq system to another (Appendix 1) de Zylva
(1974) expanded the Ibrry score sheet to include marks for flesh colour and
texture belly flap discoloration stainiBJ of backbone am colour of
kidney he scoring system was designed for ~w Zealand snapper and gave
excellent negative linear correlations between score am days of storage
legenstein (1983) presents the way in which Ibrry has in turn incorporated
other characteristics into the score sheet for raw fish Groupings of several
characteristics to give a score requires more expertise than scoring
individual points as is done by de Zylva
However the use of a point or scoring system in which higher points are
given for high quality attributes would mean the requirements of more
kllC7filedge of the fish and the tester mist be experienced and knCM the
qualities of the fish previously Therefore it is too species dependent
his problem can be overcare by using the demerit system with points being
allotted in several categories for defects as they becare obvious and one can
I
12
learn as one goes along in each situation he demerit points that were given
to the various selected quality attributes could be weighted in such a way as
to produce an approximately linear change in score with storage time (Branch
and Vail 1985)
It might also be desirable OCIlInercially to specify a uniform mrnber of
days of shelf-life fran the pack date to consumption he length of shelfshy
life ctgttained for fish depends on the initial age and quality of the fish the
tirre of the pack am the time am temperature of storage before am after
packing In practical terns the ultimate measure of the effect(s) of shelf-
life extension treatments on the final quality of the fish is consumer
satisfaction (Regenstein aoo Regenstein 1981)
A tentative grading systan for fresh fish based on sensory assessment of
fish had been described by IbUwing (1972)
160 The Ideal Method
Forty years of research ootably in the UK Canada and Japan have gone
into objective methods for measuring fish quality (Bremner et al 1978)
There is as yet 00 single universal test for all species nor for that
matter any wholly satisfactory test for individual species
The ideal rrethod hOlJld be one that is cheap oon-destructive easy to
use oot subject to much variation or fatigue having rapid response and wide
application sensory tests have the advantages of being non-destructive 00
equipnent required adaptable to species and assessing the market value
Althcogh sensory tests are usually condemned as a subjective test which
requires training am experience am are also said to be easily open to
abuse this can be reduced if a simple rapid and less descriptive rrethod
could be fourd - possibly with the use of demerit point scores Therefore
this study aims at assessing the use of sensory techniques based on the
13
demerit point scores developed for raw whole (gutted and ungutted) and
filleted fish samples of Australian fish species stored in ice and RSW It
also discusses the results of the acceptability taste panels on the cooked
fish samples
The two oammercially ~rtant Australian fish species used in this study
were the blue grenadier am the blue rock whiting he blue grenadier is
currently Tasmanias major oammercial finfish and the recent annual production
of the fishery exceeds 100 tonnes (Last et aI 1983)~ he blue rock whiti~
is the only Australian member of the family that has any commercial
importance It occurs mainly in Bass strait and the sheltered bays of South
eastern Tasmania The flesh is delicately flavoured but very soft
200 MATERIALS lIND MEIHgt[s
210 Sample preparation
211 Fish stored in RSW
Blue grenadier used in this study were caught on the 15th lugust 1984 at
a depth of 300 fathans off Sandy Cape on the west coast of Tasmania (Lat
41deg20S IDrq144deg40 E) by demersal trawl They were taken fran the deck
irnnediately am dropped into a refrigerated seawater (RSW) tank in a net bag
(tanp -1degC) The fish was reported to be handled quite roughly on board
Sore of the fish had already gone into rigor at this stage he fish were
transported to the CnID lasrnanian Food lesearch Uni t (TFRJ) laboratories in
Hobart and were already to days old on arrival The f ish were then placed in
the RSW box tank of the rrobile unit (the design and construction of which were
described by Thrower and Stafford 1981) and was kept at -1degC for the duration
of the storage trial which lasted for about three weeks Four fish were
rerroved at each samplirq tine (Table 1) for sensory assessment Length
14
measurements to the fork of the tail were also noted ~e fish were then
filleted and samples frozen at -lBoe for later assessment of their
acceptability by taste panel
212 Fish stored in ice
For the sensory assessment of fish stored in ice guidelines similar to
those given by Lima dos Santos et al (981) were used ~e blue rock whiting
also known as the weedy whiting was used ~e whiting were caught on the
afternoon of 23rd August 1984 by demersal trawl in 18 to 25 m waters oft
Eastern Tasmania On arrival at the TFRJ laboratories in I-bbart at 11 45 am
on the fol Lowirq day the f ish were re- iced at a ratio of 21 (ice f ish) in
insulated plastic boxes of size 66 x 41 x 28 em with provision for drainage
of melt water Flake ice was used ~e ice was topped up daily and renewed
once a week The boxes of i ced f ish were then kept in a cool roan set at a
temperature of 0deg to -1dege ~ree fish were removed for sensory assessment at
each sampling time (Table 1) over a period of rmre than three weeks of ice
storage 100 fish samples were then frozen at -18dege until needed for the
acceptability taste panel
Table 1
sampling regirre for fish stored in R3Wice
Blue Grenadier Diys in R3W 3 4 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 17 21
Sample code N D G L S R K T U P M 0
Whiting Diys in ice 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Sample code 0 M D G T S N R P U L K
15
220 Sensory assessment of the whole (gutted and ungutted) raw fish samples
Both the blue grenadier stored in lOW and the whi t i nq stored in ice were
progressively assessed by using the sense organs of sight smell and touch tor
changes in general appearance odour and texture with storage tine by giving
the appropriate demeri t scores according to the score sheets as shown in
Tables 2 and 3 IVo types of score sheets were used Table 2 shows the
sensory assessment score sheet orig inally developed for the assessment of
gemfish (Thrower et al 1982) It has been simplified and weighted (Branch
and Vail 1985) to provide accumulated increases in demerit points as the t i sn
change in odour texture and appearance during storage with the max imum
accumulated demerit point scores of 35 for the urx]utted samples and 39 tor tte
gutted samples The total scor irq for gutted fish differs fran that descr ibeo
by Bremner (1984) and Branch and Vail (1985) in that the demerit points for
the belly cavity have been added to those for the whole fish
The whole and gutted raw fish were also assessed by using the freshness
score sheet developed by the Council of the European COl1nunities (Official
Journal of the European Qmnunities 1970) but with slight rrodification marie
in its scor irq method in that the scor irq was reversed to provide accumulateri
increases in demerit points as in the TFRJ score sheet (Table 2) with a
maximun accumulated demerit score of 30 (Table 3) The samples were scored by
H Abd R who had had no previous experience with the score sheet
230 Sensory Assessment of the frozen filleted raw fish samples
Samples of the whole and gutted fish of both species were then filleted
ard frozen at -18degC until required for the organoleptic acceptability test
panel fillets were thawed by holding for about 16 hours (overnight) in still
air at 4degC The thawed fillets of both the blue grenadier and whi t i nq were
then assessed by the sense organs of sight smell and touch by using the scor-e
sheet for filleted sample as shown in Table 4 nle score sheet was developed
16
able 1
FIlt U Snorr bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullnt oore hbullbull t ( ( 1Ii~ ANI) tlNtJuTreo)
1_middotAnlJ lmiddot
rlSB IDDII
UIUIl~ (VBci9ht~i9ht8lDullDUll
o 1 2 3
SitU ( rimSoft) o 1
SCALBS (r1mSlLoomiddotmiddotLoobullbull ) o 12
r r SLIMB (AbbullbullntSlSlimiddotysliyVSliy)
o 123
S1IrnraS (pr-Ri90rRi90rPot-Ri90r) o 1 2
BYBS Clarity (ClbullbullrISlCloudyCloudy) 012
Shape (HoralslsunknSunkn) 012
Irill (ViiblHot Viibl) IJ 1
Blood (No BloodSlBloodyVBloody) o 1 2
GILLS Colour (VDark)Charaotritio (SlDark) (vradd)(Slradd)
2o 1 Kucou (AbbullbullntKoderatmiddotBxcbullbullbulliv)
o 1 2 S bullbullll (rrbullbullh 01ly) Pihy8talpoll~
(MetalliaSaved) 1 2 3
BELLI Dicoloration (AbbullbullntDetatablmiddotModratmiddotBxobullbullbulliy) 012 3
Finanbullbullbull ( rira80ftBurt) o 1 2
VENT Condition (bobullbulldy)Noraal (SlBrbullbullk) (Opening)(Bxudbullbull )
2o 1 Sbullbulln (rrbullbullhReutralrihy8poilt)
o 2 3
BELLI CAVIn Stain (OpalbullbullontGryihlmiddotllow-Brown) o 1 2
Blood (RdDark RdBrown)
o 1 z
--
17
UJE 3
Etc SENSORY A$fE4St4fN[ ~(oIlL~
SCALE OF MARKING - FRESHNESS
CRITERIA shypoundu1LRt
Abullbullbullbullbullment Mara-bull thc r1ah 0 1 2- 3tszhL
AppearanceinIIMlISJ Skin
Eye
Gill
Flbullbullshycut f ssm abdomusn
Colour the~
vertebral column
Organs
Oright iridescent I bright pigmenta- pigmentation in (1) dull pigmenta tion no i tion but not the process of pigmentation discolouration Ius trous becoming dis-
mucus opaquemucus aqueous i coloured and dull
mucus slightlytransparen t
cloudy ~UCU9 milky
convex (bulging) convex and flat (1) concave in cornea tran- slightly sunken cornea the centre parent cornea Ughtly opalescent cornea milky pupil black opalescent pupil pupil grey bright
pupil black opaque dull
-shining colour less coloured becoming dis- (1) yellmiish no mucus a few traces of coloured mucus milky
cloar mucus mucus opaque
blueish trans- dull velvety slightly opaque (1) opaque lucid smooth waxy shining without any change in the colour sUgh tly original colour changed
(I) reduncoloured sl1 gh tly pink pink
kidneys and kidneys and kidneys (1) kidneys residues of resJdues of resicJuos of r bullbullidue of other other organs other organs other organs organs and blood bright red the dull red blood and blood brownish game as the becoming palo red blood inside discolbured the aorta
(1) or in a more advanced bull ta te of decay
I
bull
Flesh
Vertebtal Column
Peritonium
Gills kin abdominal cavity
18
(eontd)
SCALE OF MARKING - FRESHNESS
CRITERIA
Assessment Mark 0 1 2
Physical eOId ton
firm and elas tic surface smooth
breaks ins tead of coming away
totally adherent to the flesh
seaweed
less elastic
adherent
adherent
Smell bull
not of seaweed but not bad
slightly soft (flaccid) Ie elastic surfacente waxy velvety and dull
slightly adherent
slightly adherent
slightly sour
3
(1) soft (flaccid) scales ebullbullil y detached from skin sur face ra ther wrinkled inclining to mealy
(1) not dherent
1( ) not adherent
(1) sour
(1) or in a more advanced stat of decay
_ shy-- -
19
Table 4
Filleted Sample Score Sheet
r
TREATMENT F ILIEIS DATE REMOJAL (THAWED)
FISH IDENr
EASE OF FILLETING (Easysl difficultdifficult)
012
APPEARANCE (a) Oolour of flesh (TranslucentSl discolouredSl opaqueopaque)
o 1 2 3
(b) Blood stains (AbsentDetectableModerateExcessive)
012 3
(c) Clotting (UnclottedSlclottedModclottedExcessclotted)
012 3
(d) Skin Oolour (VbrightBrightSldullOU11)
o 1 2 3
TEXTURE FirmS1 softSoft
o 1 2
ClDClJR (FreshNeutralStaleSpoilt)
012 3
CONJITION (a) Gaping (AbsentDetectableModerateExcessive)
o 1 2 3
(b) Bruising (AbsentSlightSevere)
012
(c) Wetness (NmnalS1 dry orMod dry orExcess dryness or
SldripModdrip Freezer bJrn or Excessdrip
012 3
(d) Autolysis (Absentmoderatesevere) (Disco1ourations) 0 1 2
(e) Parasites (Absentmoderatesevere) ( Infestations) 0 1 2
(f) Other discolourations (Absentpresent) or contaminants (bones membranes tissues etc) 0 1
EASE OF SKINNING (EasySldifficultdifficult)
012
20
by the author after a literature search and observations made during the preshy
liminary part of the study It has a maxUnum accumulated demerit score of 34
240 ~anoleptic Acceptability Panel of the cooked fish
Filleted samples of both fish species which had been frozen in a cold
roan at -18dege and then thawed as above were used for the acceptability taste
panels The fillets were skinned am cut into 30 to 40 g pieces crumbed and
deep fried (Bremner et ale 1985) Three or four treatments were cooked
simultaneously at each session am the fish served with packets of take-away
french fries Tcrnato sauce vinegar and salt were available Each of the
samples were randanised in such a way so as to give a high degree of balance
(Table 5 and 6) Letters that represent the samples were also picked
randanly The fish was assessed by 20 panellists employed at the Tasmanian
lEgional Laboratory and experienced with facial hedonic scaling for flavour
texture am overall acceptability using the General Foods Smiley scale
(Appendix 2) Salt was rot rrentioned with the 9niley questionaire for blue
grenadier so that the panel should have ro preconceiVed prejudices
250 Statistics
tata fran the sensory assessment of the whole gutted and ungutted raw
fish (both TFRJ am EEl score sheets) am fran the sensory assessrrent of the
frozen filleted raw fish samples of both the blue grenadier stored in RSW am
whiting stored in ice were analysed for correlation using the ELF scatter
module (Appendix 3 and 4)
The acceptability taste panel assessment scores for flavour texture and
overall liking of the toKgt species of fish were subjected to analysis of
variance using the Genstat package (Appendix 5 and 6)
22
Table 6
Order of presentation of cooked whiting samples to the acceptability taste panelists
Order of presentation of samples Panelist
session I session II
1 OTP rm 2 MUS KR 3 sm INL
4 IKJ GKR
5 ror NK
6shy USM UN ~
7 OOP RLD
B HUT NKD
9 USO RiL
10 SMP LGN
11 IMT GIltN
12 nxgt KRD
Note
8angtle code OM 0 G T S N R P U L K
storage time in ice (days) 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
23
300 RESULIS
310 Physical Characteristic of M novaeaelandiae
rran the forty-six fish examined the mean fork lerqth was found to be
762 an (range 609 to 838 an) A few of the fish examined had well shy
developed roes and their digestive tracts were found to be relatively empty
320 Physical Characteristics of the H ssmifasoiata
rran a total of thirty-six fish examined the rrean weight of the fish was
fourrl to be 662 g (range 27 to 186 g) am the mean fork length was 183 em
(range 156 to 265 an)
330 sensory assessment of the raw blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
he results of the sensory assessrrent of the r2M blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW by the four rrerhods of scoring are given as average total
accumulated demerit point scores as shown in Table 7 Figure 1 shoes the
graph of demerit point versus days in RSW by the four rrethods of sensory
assessment used Table 9 shltJtS the correlation analysis
340 sensory assessment of the raw whitirq samples stored in ice
he results of the sensory assessment of the r2M whitirq samples stored
in ice by the four methods of scoring are given as average total accumuLated
demerit point scores as shown in Table 8 Figure 2 shltJtS the graph of demerit
point versus days in ice of the four nethods of sensory assessment used Table
9 shltJtS the correlation analysis
350 Attributes contributing to total score
Attributes that contribute to total score usirq the TFRJ scores (ungutted
and gutted) EEC scores and the filleted sample scores are as shewn in Tables
10 - 14
24
Table 7
Total demerit points fran sensory assessment of blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
Average lbta1 Demerit Rgtint SCores
[)lye in RW TFRJ scores TFRJ scores EEl scores Filleted Sample (urvJut t ed ) (gutted) (gutted) SCores
3 3 3 1 1
4 5 5 2 3
6 10 10 6 6
8 16 18 9 8
9 19 21 11 10
10 20 22 13 12
11shy 22 24 15 14
12 23 25 18 17
13 24 26 19 18
14 25 27 19 19
17 29 31 21 23
21 33 35 25 29
Note
Maximum possible scores for (1) IlRJ scores (ungutted is 35
( 11) IlRJ scores (gutted) is 29
( 11i) EEX scores (gutted) is 30
( iv) Filleted sample scores is 32
amptV
35j
3l~
en Ishy 25Z-0 Q
3)-~
bullbullbull 0
bull 0 0bull 0
bull 0 0 6shy abull A ~
~
bull 0
~
6shy
bull 0
6shy
I) 01
-W 0i A15W ~ Q A
~
6shy~101- bull 90 TFRU SCORES (ungutted)
6shy~ bullbull TFRU SCORES (gutt~d i
bull ~
4 6- 6- EEC SCORES 5~
~ ~ FILLETED SAMPLE SCORES ~
6 4 I J I I I
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
DAYS IN RSW
Figl Demerit Points Versus Days in RSW For Blue Grenadier Samples
Fig 2 Demerit Points Versus Days in ice For Whiting Samples I
27
Table 8
TOtal demerit points from sensory assessment of whi tirq samples stored in ice
Average TOtal Demerit Foint SCores
rays in ice TFRJ scores TFRJ scores EEC scores Fi 11eted sample (urqutted) (gutted) (gutted) (gutted)
1 1 1 0 0 3 2 2 1 1
5 4 4 2 3
7 7 9 3 4
9 13 15 6 9
n 15 17 7 13
13 19 21 11 15
15 24 27 15 16
17 29 32 19 18
19 31 35 22 21
21 32 36 24 24
23 33 37 26 26
Note
MaXllnum possible scores for (i) TFRJ scores (urqutted) is 35 ( ii) TFRJ scores (gutted) is 39 ( iii) EEC scores (gutted) is 30 ( iv) Filleted sample scores is 32
28
Table 9
Relationship between tLme and demerit points for fish stored in RSW
Method of Visual Assessment
y- intercept slope correlation
M novaBMBlandias
TFRJ (urqutted ~les) 032 175 097
TFRJ (gutted samples) 032 190 096
EEl -231 146 097
Filleted samplesbull
-357 158 099
H sBmifasoiata
TFRJ (urqutted samples) -245 167 099
TFRJ (gutted samples) -273 187 099
EOC -414 129 098
Filleted samples -244 125 099
ltshy
--------------- ------------------------------------------
------------- - ------------- -------- ------
Table 10
Attributes contributing to total score using TFRO scores (gutted and ungutted)
Attributes involved in score change Score
Blue grenadier in RSW Whiting in ice
Stiffness Eyes - clarity blood Slllne Stiffness Eyes - clarity shape and blood lt10 Gills - smell Vent - smell SlBne Gills - colour smell and mucous
Vent - smell Belly cavity - stains and blood
Appearance Eyes-shape Stiffness Gills - smell colour and mucous Skin
Stiffness appearance gill-smell Scales belly-discolouration and firmness
N so
gt10lt20 SCales belly - discolouration and firmness Vent - smell Vent - smell and condition Belly cavity - stains and blood
Appearance Slllne Eyes - clarity shape Appearance SlBne Scales Skin blood and iris Gills - colour Eyes - clarity and shape
gt20lt30 Belly - discolouration Gills - mucous smell am colour Vent - condi tion and smell Belly cavity shy blood
Appearance Gills - mucous and smell SlBne Eyes - iris am blood Belly - discolouration and firmness Belly - discolouration and firmness
gt30 Vent - condition and smell Vent - condition Belly cavity - blood Belly cavity - stains
Table 11
Attributes contribut irq to total score us irq EEC scores
Attributes involved in score change
Score Blue grenadier in RSW W1iting in ice
lt7 Appearance - skin eyes gills organs Physical condition - flesh Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and organs Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skins eyes gills flesh Appearance-eyes and organs atv
vertebral column and organs Physical condition-flesh and peritoneum gt7lt14 Physical condition - flesh Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-eyes flesh and vertebral Appearance-skin gills and organs column Physical condition-flesh vertebral column
gt14lt21 Physical condition-vertebal column and and peritoneum peritoneum Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and vertebral column vertebral column
gt21 Physical condition-flesh and peritoneum Physical cOndition-flesh vertebral column Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity and peri toneum bull
Table 12
Attributes contributing to total score using filleted sample scores
Score
lt5
Attributes involved in score change
Blue grenadier in RSW
Appearance - blood stains skin colour ltXIour - flesh
M1iting in ice
----- shy -------------- shy
Appearance - skin colour odour - flesh Cbndition - gaping wetness
Appearance - colour of flesh Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Texture - flesh skin colour ltgt gt5lt10 Cbndition - gaping bruising wetness Ease of filleting
Texture - flesh
Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Appearance - colour of flesh clotting skin clotting skin colour skin colour
gt10lt20 odour - flesh odour - flesh Cbndition - gaping wetness autolysis COndition - gaping bruising wetness other discolourations autolysis and other discolouration Ease of skinning
Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains skin colour clotting
gt20 Texture - flesh Texture - flesh odour - flesh Odour shy flesh COndition - gaping bruising wetness Cbndition - wetness autolysis autolysis Ease of skinring
32
Table 13
Diff~rent emphasis in scoring systems for whole fish as between the EEl and TFID
Attribute Number of potential demerit points TFRJ EEl
1Ippearance (general) 3 0
skin ) scales 6 3
slime
Stiffness (Rigor) 2 0
Eyes 7 3
Gills 7 6
Belly 5 0
Vent 5 0
Belly cavity 4 3
Flesh cut fram abdomen 0 3
Flesh texture 0 3
Vertebral column 0 6
Internal organs 0 3
33
360 Relative merits of the scoring systems
The four scor irq methcds were used on the same samples of t ish Any
sample had therefore deteriorated to the same extent on anyone day Figs 3
am 4 shew the scores converted to percentages of possible deroorit point
scores The discrepancy in the accumulation of demerit points between the EEC
am TFRJ scor irq methods is clearly shown IEference to Table 2 3 am 13
shOool that this is caused by the lack of questions regarding rigor looseness
of scales condition of belly am vent am the qroupinq of colour am mucous
in the gills as single po i nts thus halving the potent Ia I gill demerit point
score canparison of the tO species in Table 9 ShONS that the rate of
accumulation of demerit pgtints was more consistent for the TFRU system than by
the EEX scor i oq methltXl or by scorinq of fillets
370 Time taken to score the fish
The average time taken to score an individual fish using the TFPlJ
(unqutted) scores TFRJ (gutted) scores EEX scores am the filleted aamp Le
scores were found to be 1 min 25 sec 1 min 55 sec 3 min 45 sec and 1 min 50
sec respectively The EEX score sheet is more t iroe consumioq in that more than
one question is asked about an attribute for the giving of only one demerit
point this requires conscious thought
380 Acceptability taste panel results of blue grenadier samples bull Figures 5 6 am 7 shOool the mean taste panel scores in graphic form for
flavour texture and overall acceptability of cooked blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW table 14 shows the results of the statistical analysis
390 Acceptability taste panel results of whiting samples
Figures 8 9 am 10 shOool the mean taste panel scores in graphic form for
flavour texture and overall acceptability of cooked whiting samples stored in
ice table 15 shows the results of the statistical analysis
WHITING STORED IN ICE o TFRU SCORES (ungutted)
bull TFRU SCORES (gutted)
b EEC SCORES
FILLETED SAMPLE SCORES
100bull e ~ e b
i 6
bull NW
oIJ-a A A-
(J0 t A~ 0 ~ AC)
C) -e ~~-
C) a 50 A
A w
Iz ~
~ - W e A0 c a ~ ~ A-a ~ l ~ A
w -~
~ X ~ W -e I c ~ ~ ibull I I I I
4 8 12 16 20 24
DAYS IN ICE FIG4
36
- flavourshy
-e s-e l ~ v
5middotIU
STORAGrf IN R sWDAYS
rlCoS Ttutfc pcr1 rcbull
rf oj bl jtlJ~r - jlqVGurc acccr~b
21179 0 2 136 843
~ 0 u 5middot0YI
oJ J l ofmiddot$ 1 e
tu 4middot0
VI
~ 3middot5
3middot0
TelC-lue X bull -e III
~ Gmiddotftv
ct 5middot03
V1
-J -f-SshyU 2
~ 40 t
3-~
~ bullbull0 5 0
~ 17 21A ISII
PAY- IITDRAGamp fbilW
FIG6 I Tq1-c pltnd rc-utl ojbllfcJrcftaJIr bull I~M144 Q Cc(r~blfly
r 411q~~ An~Plf bUIJlfM F llh J~Lld Pt-DoL B fpound)1
gt1 NI ~~eusr SJAVlt1
D ~II
(ffIt1~JP IIID bull U J 1i
-IyoJC )-tlICf p --lInraquoJ Ix-Pc ~1rb1 r I ef
Ma2j NI a~v2loJ$
til
1Ia ~AO (IIp~lJa~e
01
secto
00
s
05
5
o~
~
0pound
s
0
smiddot
o~
07
1 ~ ~ ~ ~
r~
B
~
rv t gtshy 2
~ ~ 11
~ 7shyIn r
~ () 0 1) m ~
~ gtshyz -
(fII~q~~ 7~ P
IItJ1o -~~f(ll p ~I I~U J ~t~L 0 ~ middot~II I
IDI 8~ middot lta ~
~ QS
middotS ~ ~ 0 z
r Smiddot II
S 1d 0-$ 111 r- l gtshy r
V fr~
~llCf-J a-PcJ~ U~middotJO
4lp~dmiddotyIb 6middot~1f np)t -~11M fo --IIhen IJutJel ~bl
Table 14
Acceptability of deep fried blue grenadier samples stored in FSW
rays in R3W
Acceptability 3 4 6 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 17 21
Flavour 50a 50a 4S a 51a 50a 51a 50a 4Sa 49a 53a 41b 35b
Texture 49bc 51abc 4S bed 52ab 4Sbed 53ab 52abc 52ab 4Sbed 55a 46cd 43d
OJerall 50ab 51ab 47be 52ab 4Sb 5lab 52ab 50ab 47b 54 a 41c 35d
abc
d
significantly different (pltOOOl)
significantly different (pltOOl) W so
Table 15
Acceptability of deep fried whiting samples stored in ice
rays in ice
Acceptability 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Flavour 5Sab 59a 59a 60a 59a 5S ab 51b 54ab 53ab 37c 37c 31c
Texture 59ab 59a 53bed 5S ab 63a 59ab 47cde 54be 56ab 55ab 44e 46de
OJera11 57ab 5S ab 59ab 60a 60a 5Sab 52b 53ab 55ab 42c 36cd 31d
abcde significantly different (Plt0001)
40
~oo DISCUSSION
410 Sensory assessment of the raw blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
he results of sensory assessment on the raw blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW by the four methods of scoring all sheM that there is
progressive increment in total demerit points with storage time for all the
four methods (Table 7) It was also fourxi that the accumulation of demerit
points with time of storage of the fish in ffiW occurred in a saui-linear
fashion for all -the four scoring methods used (Figure 1) he variables (time
of storage and demeritmiddot points score) were all highly correlated (Table 9)
he correlation equation of the TFRJ (ungutted samples) and TFRJ (gutted
sanples) scores were similar roth having a zero time intercept of 032 but
with the TFRJ (gutted samples) scores having a slightly greater slope by 015
he EEC scores and the filleted sample scores roth have lower slopes ie
146 and 158 respectively canpared with the TFRJ (ungutted sample) and TFRJ
(gutted sample) scores of 175 and 190 respectively lbwever the EOC scores
which have the lowest slope have a fairly similar correlation equation with
the filleted sample scores (Table 9) he negative intercepts reflected the
slightly more sigrroid relationship for these samples his suggests that the
TFRJ (gutted) scoring method is the rrost sensitive of the four methods
followed by the TFRJ (ungutted) the filleted sample and the EEC scores
It was also found that after 21 days of storage in RSW the blue
grenadier samples had not reached their maximun possible scores in any of the
four scoring rrethods used (Table 7) he TFRJ (ungutted sample) score only
reached 943 of its possible maximun value whereas the TFRJ (gutted sample)
scores EEC scores and the filleted sample score reached only 897 833 ar~
906 of their possible maximun score his means that all the four methods
of scoring can still be sensitive to changes in the quality of the blue
grenadier samples stored in RSW after 21 days of storage time
41
Figures 1 and 3 also shOVt that the pattern of the graphs of demerit
points against days storage in R3W of the four methcxis of scoring is similar
ie a tendency to be slightly sigmoid fbwever the filleted sanple scores
sean to be rrore sensitive than the EOC scores at the later part of the storage
time ie after 14 days of storage and the scores continued to rise
1be rrost obvious indicator of change for the blue grenadier stored in ffiW
using the TFRJ scores (both gutted and unJUtted sanples) was the eyes (clarity
and blood) followed by odour developnent of the gills (Table 10) his is -
also foond to be true wi th the EOC freshness score (Table 11) Fbr the
filleted sample scores the appearance and odoor of the flesh seems to be the
most obvious indicator of change follOVted by the condition of the fillets such
as gaping bruisin) am wetness (Table 12)
4 20 sensory assessment of the raw whi ting samples stored in ice
1he results of sensory assessment on the rCJl whiting samples stored in
ice by the foor roothods of scoring also shows that there is a progressive
increment in total demerit points with storage time for all the four methods
of scoring (Table 8) Ps with the blue grenadier the aCCLD1UJlation of demerit
points with time of storage of the whiting in ice also occurred in a sernishy
linear fashion for all the foor scoring methods used (Figure 2 and 4) wi th a
slight lag in the initial phase Interestingly this was not observed in the
case of blue grenadier sanples stored in ffiW probably because the first
samplin) of the blue grenadier starts only fran the third day after catch
whereas the first sampling of the whiting starts fran the first day after
catch Also the blue grenadier was handled qu i te roughly on the deck in fact
three oot of the four fish samples on the first rerroval ie the third day
after catching had already showed blood in their eyes
Bremner et al (1985) when using the TFRJ score sheet to assess the
42
quality of four tropical fish species fran the oorth west shelf of hJstralia
(stored in ice) also fourrl that the accumulation of demerit points with time
of storage in ice occurred in a linear fashion
PB wi th blue grenadier the variables (tine of storage ard darneri t points
score) were all highly correlated (Table 9) Also the correlation equation of
the TFRJ (ungutted) ard TFRJ (gutted) scores were similar with the TFJU
(gutted) score having a slightly greater slope by 020 Crable 9) he EEC
scores am filleted sample scores also have lower s lopes l e 129 ard 125
respectively ocmpared to the TFm (ungutted) and (gutted) scores of 167 and
187 respectively However unlike the blue grenadier the filleted samples
of the whi t ing had the 10liest slope he more sensi tive na ture of the EEC
scores as canpared to the filleted sample scores in the case of the whiting
especially after 12 days storage in ice can be explained by the snaller size
of the whitirlJ (fork length ranging fran 156 to 265 an) as canpared to the
size of the blue grenadier (fork length ranging 809 to 838 an) the snaller
fish terrl to spoil faster especially the interior parts of the fish PB the
EEC scores depend nuch on the sensory assessment of the interior parts of the
fish such as the appearance and condition of the flesh vertebral colwnn
interior organs per i toneun and abdaninal cavity (Table 3) which makes up more
than 18 demerit points out of the total possible maxinun of 30 the
sensitiveness of its score is thus self-explanatory in the case of whiting
Connell (1980) explained that large fish keep marginally better than small
fish because larger fish have a smaller surface to volume ratio so that in the
same tUne less of their interior is affected
The above results confirmed the previous suggestion that the TFRU
(gutted) scorIoq methcrl is the roost sensitive of the four methods It was
found that after 23 days of storage in ice the whiting scmples had not
reached the maximun possible scores in any of the four methods used (Table
43
8) The 1FIU (UBJutted) scores had reached only 94-3 of its possible maximum
value whereas the TFRJ (gutted) scores EOC scores am the filleted sample
scores reached only 94 9 867 and 81 3 of their poea Ible maximum score
Therefore all the four methods of scoriBJ can still be sensitive to changes
in quality of the whiting samples stored in ice after 23 days of storage tUne
Ihe roost obvious irxHcator of chaDJe for the whiting stored in ice using
the TFIU score sheet was the eyes (clarity shape and blcxxl) followed by the
develqxnent of -colour odour and nucous of the gills (fable 10) Bremner et
al (1985) when working with four tropical species f~ the north west shelf of
Australia also found that the most obvious indicator of change for fish stored
in ice was the eyes (their clarity am shape) follCAtled by odour developnent
and colour changes in the gills This was also found in the case of blue
grenadier in ~ discussed earlier OJrran et al (1981) when investigating
the quality changes duriBJ iced storage of three carmercially important
species of fish fran Bahrein also found that of the visual and olfactory
assessments gill odour showed the roost pranise as a quality control index
Pgain this is also found to be true with the EOC freshness score of both the
blue grenadier and the whitiBJ (Table 11) AccordiBJ to ~ate (1972) it
was generally agreed that odour of the gills is the most sensitive measure of
freshness but the visual appearance of the eyes gills arxi skin was quicker to
use in practice on the market
For the filleted sample scores of the whiting the most obvious indicator
of chanqe was the appearance and odour of the flesh (Table 12) This too
agreed with the findiBJs for blue grenadier stored in ffiW
AccordiBJ to Baines et al (1969) with fish eatiBJ is related to four
main attributes or quality factors viz appearance odour and texture of the
rCM and cooked fish and in the latter also flavour he ultimate purpose of
testing the raw fish is to estimate the eating quality which is here taken to
44
mean the degree of freshness of flavour Acoording to Baines and Shewan
(1965) the mostreliable test for predicting flavour sqore is raw odour
430 The ease aM difficulties of using the four methods of scoring
It was found that the TFRJ (ungutted) scores was the easiest and quickest
method to use as it takes on average only about 1 min 25 sec to score a fish
canpared to 1 min 55 sec 3 min 45 sec ard 1 min 50 sec for the TFRJ
(gutted) EOC and the filleted sample scores he E~ score was found to be
the roost tedious besides taking the longest time to soore a fish
he TFIU (ungutted) scores also have the advantage of not requiring a
knife in order to score ard also were less IOOSSY to work with canpared to all
the other nethods Also the attributes to be assessed were arranged and
organised in such a way in the score sheet that it is easy to score a fish
starting from assessing the apparance and skin and ending with the condition
and smell of the vent
440 Acceptability taste panel results of the blue grenadier samples
441 Flavour acceptability
Figure 5 shc7ws the flavour acceptability of the deep fried samples of
blue grenadier Samples stored in R3W for less than 17 days were found
statistically (Table 14) to be indistinguishable (Plt0001) fran each other
then there was a significant fall in the flavour acceptability of the samples
stored in RSW for 17 days onwards he sarrtgtle stored for 21 days had a still
lower mean value of 35 but it was not significantly different fran the
semple stored for 17 days which had a nean value of 41 It is interesting to
note that despite the progressive increase in sodiun uptake of the blue
grenadier samples stored in RSW from about 7115 35 mg sodium(lOO g tissue
initially to 724 33 mglOO g tissue on the 16th day aM to 729 17 mglOO g
45
tissue on the 21st day (Burford 1984) the panelists seem not to be
negatively affected by the increasing salt content of the samples with storage
tUne and in fact some of the panelists added more salt to their samples I
111is result contradicts statements made by previous reseachers that the
storage life using R3W may be limited by increases in salt content in the fish
flesh (Boyd et aI 1978) he maximun desirable salt content according to
Tcm1inson et al (1974) as quoted by Boyd et al (1978) is about 05 but at
the 16th day ofmiddot RgtW storage the salt content fOllNj In the flesh of blue
grenadier samples was already more than 07 fbwever the panelist only ate
40g pieces it might have been a different case if the fish has been as a
whole meal
442 Texture acceptability
Figure 6 shows the texture acceptability of the deep fried blue grenadier
samples stored in R3W eespf te sane apparent abberant values (such as the
high rrean of 55 for the sample stored for 14 days in RSW) it is obvious that
the texture acceptability showed a significant decreasing trend (pltOOl) from
seventeen days of storage onwards The abberant texture values are possibly
due to the fact that the fish texture might have been masked by the bread
crunbs used to coat the fish samples before deep fryi~ This agrees with the
observations of Bremner et al (1985) wtxgt found that the inherent textural
softness of P piotiue and the tougheni~ on storage of N peroni i detected by
a profile panel usilYJ steamed fillets were no lo~er noticeable when the fish
was deep fried in batter Bremner (1980) also reported that despi te the
softness of the raw flesh the cooked flesh of blue grenadier is reasonably
firm
46
433 OVerall acceptability
The overall acceptability of the deep fried blue grenadier samples stored
in R)W (figure 7) seems to follCM a similar pattern to its flavour
acceptability (figure 5)~ in which a significant fall in overall acceptability
was only observed fran the samples held fran 17 days in RSW onwards (pltO 001)
as shawn in Tablel4
rnus all the above results showed that there was a significant fall in
flavour texture and overall acceptability of blue ~renadier from 17 days of
R)W storage onwards which was found to be equivalent to the accumulated
demerit point scores of 29 of the TFRJ (ungutted) scoresr 31 of the TFRl
(gutted) scoresr 21 of the EOC scores and 23 of the filleted sample
scores Jones (1964) states that the acceptability of a fish is a function of
its suitability for further processing and of its inmediate appearance its
texture its odour and its flavour
450 Acceptability taste panel results of the whiting samples
451 Flavour acceptability
Figure 8 shows the flavour acceptability of the deep fried whiting
samples stored in ice rtle twelve sample times could be analysed individually
since the means if analysed by canbining adjacent sample times to give six
sample groups are in fact the means of the adjacent times if analysed
individually it was found that samples of the first nine renovals i se up to
17 days of storage in ice are more or less indistinguishable (abberant value
at 7th removal) he last three removals ie samples stored in ice for 19
21 and 23 days were found to be of significantly lower flavour acceptability
(p lt 0001) as shawn in Table 5
47
452 Texture acceptability
Except for the abberation at the 7th remgtval i 9 at day 13 of ice
storage there is a significant reduction of texture acceptability at the 21 II
and 23 days of ice storage (p lt0001) as shown by figure 9 and Table5 t
II
I 453 Over~ll acceptability
he overal I acceptability of the whiting sanples stored in ice is very
much similar to its f Lavour acceptability except at day 19 of ice storage
where the ovaral I acceptability shows a higher mean of 42 carpared to the
flavoor acceptability mean of 37 (figure 10 and Table 5) here is however a
significant sudden drop to lOil scores fran the lOth removal ie day 19 of
storage in ice (p lt0001)
hus all the above results for whitifVJ sanples showed that there was a
significant fall in flavCXJr and overall acceptability fram 19 days ice storage
onwards which is equivalent to the accumulated demerit points of 31 of the
TFRJ (unqutted) scores 35 of the TFRJ (gutted) scores 22 of the EEC
scores and 21 of the filleted sample scores he results are interesti~ in
that the oorresponding total accLDnulated demerit points at the time when
significant falls in flavour texture and overall acceptability of the blue
grenadier and whiting samples stored in I5W and ice respectively were quite
similar
500 CONCLUSION
510 Feasibility of using demerit points
Accumulation of demerit points with time of storage of M
in RM and H eemifaeaiatia in ice was found to be highly
occurred in a semi-linear fashion irrespective of the method of
novas8slandiae
correlated and
scori~ used
- _ ~uo_a~_bull--_--I e -Ii --
48
1he slopes of the lines (rate of accumulation of demerit points) and its
relative spoilage rate were found to be similar for the ttoO species provided
the sane method of scoring is employed 1his tends to suggest that the method
is possibly independent of species am methods of storage or at least
applicable to the two species in RSW and ice respectively
TIle TFRJ (ungutted) scores were foum to be the easiest arrl quickest
method to use although the TFRJ (gutted) scores were the roost sensitive 1he
EEX freshness scores were hClgtlever foum to be the JOOSt tedious aod difficult bull I
to use besides taking more than twice the time taken to score a fish ocmpared
to the TFRJ (ungut ted) scores
Although there were slig~t differences between the ttoO species in those
characteristics where changes were first made (Table 10 11 and 12) there is
enough evidence to conclude that the changes in the appearance of the eyes am
the odour developnent of the gills are the JOOSt obvious arrl valuable indicator
of charqe in quality when using the TFIU or the EEl scores while the
appearance am odour of the fish flesh seems to be the JOOSt obvious indicator
when assessing the filleted sample
1he shelf-life of M navaezelandiae stored in RSW was found to be 14 days
(less than 17 days) whilst that of H semifasoiata stored in ice was fourrl to
be 17 days (less than 19 days) beyond which the fish had developed spoilage
characteristics that were disliked by the acceptability taste panel
1he cut-off point at which spoilage of the samples would have rendered
the quality of the fish sample to be unacceptable fran the consumers point of
view ~ld be that equivalent to the accumulated demerit point of gt29 for the
TFRJ (gutted arrl ungutted) scores am gt21 for the EOC and filleted sample
scores
This study thus confinned the potential use of demerit points such as the
TFRJ (ungutted) scores as an easy quick cheap non-destructive and reliable
49
method of sensory assessment of fish quality In fact Branch and Vail (1985)
had studied the possible use of a prototype pocket-sized computer to determine
the condition and shelf-life of temperate and tropical species of fish based
on data that is derived fran the sensory score sheets for the assessment of
fish quality developed at the (SIRgt Division of fbod lEsearch Iasmanian Fbod
Research Unit (TFlU) Hobart
520 RJrpose for which demerit points are to be used
Many scor i oq systerrs are used to predict the nunber of days fish have
been stored on ice and in nore recent years ICETIME (equivalent days on
ice) I ard thus through years of experience the taste panel acceptability of
the fish I
However fish is sold on appearance and a scoring system may be used for
assessirg marketability of whole or gutted fish or fillets or for setting
standards in bulk buying The EEC scoring system is used for example at
fish markets at first point of sale to grade the fish and establish
withdrawal prices A IbrryShewan type system is often used as a purohas i nq
specification from finn to firm
Before a final demerit point system is selected for any COlIOOdity its
ultimate purpose should be established For example the demerit points
chosen for whole fish which nost closely resemble the rate of change of
demerit points for fillets of that species might be the most useful
A linear rate of change of demerit points with time is nose favoured
because it enables prediction of remaining shelf-life ConstJJrer
unacceptability should be at a point where perhaps 75 of the demerit points
have been accrued Further scores would still be available for categories
such as suitable for fish meal D3merit points are not an indication of the
acceptability of fish as eaten where off-odours flavours and fillet
50
tdiscolouration are masked by batters or curries Their correlation with the
iodours flavours off odours aod off flavours of steamed fish are currently ~
~
~being examined by other workers at the Tasmanian ~ Research unit and highly
significant correlations are found Even when fish are subsequently eaten
battered or curried demerit points give a good indication of remaining shelf
life Thus whitiOJ with a Smiley flavour score of 58 after 1 day on ice
has a nlU gutted demerit score of 1 and a high quality life (eaten crumbed
and fried) of a further 16 days while whitiOJ stored for 11 days on ice with
the sane flavour score has a gutted demerit score of 17 and a further shelf
life of 6 days
530 SUggestion for further work
Ib ascertain its potentially wide application as a simple quick and
technically sound methcxi of assessing fish quality many more studies using
other species of fish both temperate and tropical species and in various
storage conditions should be undertaken using a demerit point scorIrq system
such as that developed by the TFlU
The score sheet has proved invaluable when sending individuals untrained
researchers away on distant water fishing trips Ps yet 00 standard
deviations have been detennined using a team of assessors with coded samples
of unknown history This may require a separate group design
The effect of lean fish and fatty fish on the scores should also be
studied because factors such as seasonal variations in biological conditions
Lmproper gutting and washing mechanical damage and filth and changes due to
storage in R3W or shelving may have considerable influence on its shelf-
life Reports such as those of smith et al (1979) clearly showed that in fish
such as the blue whitirlJ (Mioroomesistius poubaeeous there is greater degree
I 51
of seasonal variability than in other gadoid species the overall
acceptability droppirq dramatically once the fish have spawned Fish accepted
for processing for food has to be of a higher standard of quality than fish
accepted for Imredfate sale across the counter to the consumer therefore
there is a need to rreet a minimum score before they could be processed into
food Gradirq is therefore best left to the user sorenson (1971) states
that in establishing limi ts of acceptance an allowance had to be made for
deterioration that would continue to take place during processing and storage
prior to reaching the consimer
The only final criteria of the objectivity of sensory or any other
assessment are results that are reproducible many times which is by definition
a lcnJ-tenn process and in the meantime one requires short-cut indications
that one is headirq in the right direction
Ferhaps a final caution Is necessary as in the YQrds of Ehrenberg and
Shewan (1953) not too much must be expected even the best measuring
instruments occasionally go oot of control
52
60 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baines CR Jones NR am Shewan JM 1965 Technological problems of
measur trq degree of freshness of wet fish and problems of quality
control requirif)J roore knowledge fran fundamental research In he
Technology of fish utilisation ad R Kreuzer Fishi~ News (Books)
p 141
Baines CR and Shewan JM 1965 sensory rrethods for evafuat inq the
quality of white fish Lab practice 14 160-163
Baines CR ltbnnell JoJ Gibson DM lbWgate PF Livi~ston E and
Shewan JM 1969 A taste panel technique for evaluatirq the eati~
quality of frozen cod In Freezi~ and irradiation of fish ad R
Kreuzer Fishi~ News (Books) London p361
Boyd NS and Wilson NDC 1976 A sensory method for evaluatInq the
quality of Snapper (Ch1ysophrys auratus) NZ Journal of Science 19
209-12
Boyd NS Wilson ND and Bjley A 1978 A refrigerated sea water plant
for small boats symposium on fish utilisation technology and
marketi~ in the IPFC region IFFC Proceedi~s 18th session Manila
Philippines FAD Ba~kok p 186-192
Branch AC and Vail AMA 1984 Bri~i~ fish inspection into the
canputer age FltXld Technol Aust 36 in press
Bremner HA Olley J and Ihrower SoJ 1978 CSIIU Iasmanian lEgional
Laboratory OCcasional Paper No4
Bremner HA 1980 Processi~ and freezi~ of the blue grenadier (Maclulonus
novaeselandiae) FltXld Technol Aust 32(8)~ pp 385-393
Bremner J A 1984 QJality - an attitude of mind In he JILlstralian
Fishi~ Industry - today and tanorrow 10-12 July 1984 Launceston
53
Australian MaritUne Cbllege seminar Bapers 224-69
Bremner HA Statham JA am Sykes SJ 1985 Tropical species fran the
north west shelf of Alstralia sensory assessment and acceptability
of fish stored co ice Proceedi~s Sixth session IPR Worki~ Party
on Fish D3chnology and Marketi~ Melbourne 1984 FJID Fish lep 252
supp1
Burford D 1985 Sodiun uptake in MaOlUfOOnUS nooaeselandiae stored in
refrigerated sea water Tasmanian Food Research Unit OCcasional Paper
No9
ltbnnell JJ 1972 OJality control in the fish industry Ibrry Jldvisory
note No 58 IOrty Research Station Aberdeen
ltbnnell JJ 1980 ltbntrol of fish quality Fishi~ ~ws (Books) 2nd ed
Surrey England
OJrran CA Nicolaides L and Al-Alawi ZS 1981 QJality chanqes duri~
iced storage of three carmercially important species of fish fran
Bahrain Trop sci 23(4) 253-268
de Zylva ERA 1974 Effect of fish handli~ at sea on storage quality of
New Zealand Snapper (Chroysophroys aumtus) New Zealand J SCi 17
309-318
Etlira S 1976 A biochemical study on the freshness of fish Bull 1bkai
Reg Fish Res Lab No 88 pp 1-13
Ehrenberg ASC and Shewan JM 1953 he cbjective approach to sensory
tests of food J Sci Food hJric 4 pp 482-489
Herbert RA and Shewan JM 1975 Precursors of the volatile sulphides in
spoili~ North Sea Cod J Sci Food JIlgric 26 1195-1202
lbUwi~ H 1972 Gradi~ of fish in different qualities Institute for
Fishery Products Ijmuiden Unpublished
~ate P 1972 Qrlparison of sensory scor inq systems for raw fish
I 54
Unpubl ished bull ~ ~
~ate P 1978 Measuri~ the quality am acceptability of fish products bull ~
In IPFC Proceedi~s symposiun on fish utilisatial technology and ~
i f~
marketi~ in the IWC region 18th session Manila Ihilippines p
449
fflghes RB and Jones NR 1966 Measurement of hypoxanthine concentrations
in canned herrirg as an index of the freshness of the raw material
with a ocirment oo flavor relations J SCi fOOd middotJlgric 17 434
Jahns FD Howe JL Coduri Jr RJ and Ram Jr AG 1976 A rapid
visual enzyme test to assess fish freshness Food Iechno1 30 (7) 27
Jones NR 1964 ~lems associated with freezi~ very fresh fish
Proceedings Meeting on Fish Iechnology Fish Handling and
Preservation schevenirqen OEC D Paris p 31 bull
Jones NR 1965 Hypoxanthine and other purine containing fractions in fish
muscle as indices of freshness In uthe technology of fish
utilisation ed R Kreuzer Fishi~ rewa (Books) (Drmn p 179
Last PR Scott EOG and Talbot FH 1983 Fishes of Tasmania
Tasmanian Fisheries ~velopnent lUthority lbbart Tasmania pp 238
414
Lima doe santos CAM James D and Ieutscher F 1981 QJidelines for
chilled fish storage experiments FKJ Fish Tech Igt 210
(Dye RM 1954 Ibst rrortem cha~es in the lenses of fish eyes Msessment
of storage tiJm and fish quality J Sci Focx11lgric 5 566-572
Hartin RE Gray RJ H and Pierson MD 1978 QJality assessment of fresh
fish arrl the role of the naturally occurring microflora Focx1
Technol 32 (5) 188
Official Journal of the European oamrnunities No L264 5 ~cember 1970 pp
1-11
bull
55
Technol New Zealand July 1971 pp 31-35
Spinelli J Eklund M and Miyauchi D 1964 Measurement of hypoxanthine
in fish as a method of assessing freshness J Food SCi 29 710
Thrower S oJ am Stafford IA 1981 A roobile unit for ccmparative studies
of chilled storage systems for trawl fish IIF IIR
eatmissions C2 01 02 03 Boston USA 1981-4
Thrower SoJ Bremner HA QJarmby AR Ggtnnan T8 aild Graham KJ
1982 cn-board handlinJ of Q~ish ~ Inportanoeof chillinJ and
gutting Aust Fish 41 (11) 38-41
Tanlinson N bull bull t at 1974 COtparison between refrigerated sea water (with or
without added carbon dioxide) and ice as storage media for fish to be
subsequently frozen Proc IIR C011n 82- 0-3 Tokyo p
waterman J oJ 1982 Qrrposition and QJality of Fish A Dictionary 1brry
Mvisory Note No 87 Torry Research Station Aberdeen
5J
Olley J and letkowsky OA 1973 he role of terrperature function
integration in monitoring of fish spoilage Food Technol New
Zealand 8 (2) 13 15 and 17
Olley J 1977 Iemperature and seafood spoilage In H Proceedings of 1977
SChool for SeafltXld Processorsmiddot ad ~ AF 0 Mello Hawkesbury
Agricultural Oollege p6-2
Olley J 1978 QIality assessment and storage changes In middotCSIRJ Iasmanian bull
leJional Laboratory OCcasional Paper No 4 p 3-1 middot4 Rgenstein J M and ~enstein CE 1981 he shelf-life extension of fesh
fish In Advances in the refrigerated treabnent of fishmiddot
International Institute of Rfrigeration Clmnissions C2 m ra [8
Boston US A 1981-4
leJenstein J 1983 Wlat is fish quality INroFISH Marketing Digest ttgt 6
26-28
Ryder JM 9Jisson OH SCott ON and Fletcher GC 1984 storage of
New Zealand Jack Mackerel ( TmohUMlB notJabullbullbullZandias) in ice
chemical microbiological and sensory assessment J M SCi 49
1453-1456 1477
Shewan JM Macintosh RG rucker CG and Ehrenberg ASC 1953 he
developnent of a numerical ~coring systan for the sensory assessment
of the spoilage of wet white fish stored in ice J SCi Food Jlgric
4 283-298
Smith J GM Hardy R hanson AB Young KW and Parsons E 1979
sane observations 00 the ambient and chill storage of blue whiting
(Mio1om8sistius poutassou) bull In H Advances in Fish SCience and
Technology ad JJ Connell FishinJ News (Books) Surrey England
pp 299-303
SOrensen T 1971 QIality control and fish handling in New zealand Food ~
t c-
o )
~hmiddot r~YiJ lt~
~~f~~ ~
I
Nomooram for comparison of diffGrent scoring systems tor raw T i sn ___ _ J bull )
_U I~ ~Y1 9i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~
I I t I I - _---1------ imiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot __ middot~_ ~ __~_ -_ ~ + ~ _ -~ _ - middotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middot __ G 9 8 7 6 _ 5middot 3
_ - zmmy [ I bull r f II
d _~__ ~ __ _ ~ __ -I-- - ~ L- i~ middoti~ ~ 1-L -~~ lt lt l~tceland 1P i ~ ~ j ~ ~ ~ L~ __ - I ~_ bull _ L j ~- _-
N rv 1 I 1 2 --- - 2~ 3 middot 3middot 4 ~- ~Il ay ~ _ _ middot _ r r
_ _ __ _ _~ ~_ ) - ~ L_ - 1- ~-_ -_ _ _ ~ 19 ~ 8 imiddotmiddot I 6 5 4 3
Do _ _nm~r t I I I r
~ I
_ ~ ~_ ~ t ~ __ i__ t ~ ~ ~ ~ _ q x 1 1i 2 2~ 3v _ Franee I r I l n
I I I i _ - ~ _ _ _- _-- middotmiddot __ middot_middot_middot_middotmiddotmiddotImiddotmiddotmiddot_middot~ _middotmiddotmiddotmiddot-_middotmiddotmiddotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddot ---- - --~ ~-
19oum8 I 7 6 i 5 ~ ~ 4middot 280 J t (
I i
J -- - -_ -__ X ~middotH i__~ -- i_L ~ - l_ middot1-- - 3 I 2Y1 0 4 11z 1 y
E E C I 1
I I I deg deg E I A r Bmiddot - I I C
ltOIl j- ~ ~ c ~--------------
TASTER
DATE
SESSION
~ER middot1
bull You will be given ~bull aamples of cooked fish Please assess the fish for flavour textur~ and
overall liking as though you had purchased them in a takeaway food shop Hark the sample
identification under the face that most closely describes your impressionbull
I
middot5 S shy2 3 4
FLAVOUR
IEXlURE
--
OVERALL UKING
7 bullbull yc ) I _ v J _ _
I1PP~NJIJ( 3 ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE BGRENVZSASS (A)
OBS DAYS-R DMPTS shy
1 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 6 4 3 7 4 6 e 4 5 9 6 1 18 6 10 11 6 18 12 6 18 13 e 13 14 8 16 13 8 13 16 8 17 17 9 18 18 9 18 19 9 bull 19 29 9 19 21 19 19 22 1 21 23 1 19 24 1 2123 11 21 26 11 22 27 11 22 29 11 22 29 12 22 3 12 22 31 12 23 32 12 23 33 13 23 34 13 23 33 13 22 36 13 23 37 14 24 38 14 23 39 14 264 14 25
17 26~ 17 39 43 17 38 44 17 29 43 21 32 46 21 33
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASS(At
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (Xt DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Yt DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9666 R SQUARED 9343 T STATISTIC 231621 INTERCEPT tAt 31799 SLOPE tSt 173399 bull STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 219473
OBSERVATIONS 46 Y DMPT9 XI DAYS-RSW YMIN -18 YMAX 61 YINC e XMIN -19 XMAX 2e9 XINe 2
] y
__ t=- I I 0(I I
JPRH6ELF PRINT MODULE -SYNTAX ERROR
DATABASE J3lGRENVISASS (FIL)
OB8 DAYS-R DMPT8
1 s 1 2 4 5 s 6 6
~ e 8 ~ 9 1 6 19 12 7 11 14 8 12 17 9 13 18 1 14 19 bull 11 17 23 12 21 29
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASSCFIL)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE CX) DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IY) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT ~9963
R SQUARED 992 T STATISTIC 3~36977
INTERCEPT CA) -3~6~41
SLOPE CB) 1~8426
STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 77667
OBSERVATIONS 12 v DMPTS x DAYS-RSW VMIN -2~ VMAX ~~ YINC ~
XMIN -19 XMAX 2~9 XINC 2
]
bull
-SYNTAX ERROR
lPRH6ELF PRINT MODULE
DATABASE BGRENVXSASS (AG)_
OB6
1 2 3 4 ~
6 7 8 9
Hi 11 12 13 14 1~
16 17 -18 19 2 21 22 23 24 2~
26 27 28 29
3 31 32 33 34 3~
36 37 J8
39
4 41 42 43 44 4~
46
DAYS-R
3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 6 6 6 6 8 8
8 bull 8
9 9 9 9
1 1 1 1 11 11 11 11
DMPTS
2 3 3 3 ~
6 ~
~
1 1 1 1 17 18 17 19 2~
2 21 21 21 23 21 23 23 24 24 24
12 24 12 24 12 25 12 25 13 27 13 25 J3 24 13 27 104 26 J04 2S
14 28 14 27 17 28 17 32 17 32 17 31 21 34 21 35
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BORENVISASSCAO)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE IX) DAVS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IV) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9~76~
R SQUARED 917 T STATISTIC 22S6S88 INTERCEPT lA) 323~7
SLOPE lB) 189812 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 269324
OBSERVATIONS 46 Y DM PT6 X DAYS-RSW ~ _01 VMAV 2~ YfNe ~
XMIN -19 XNAX 2l9 XINC 2
]
9YNTA)( ERROR bull ]PRN6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE BGRENVXSASS
OB6 DAY6-R DMPTS
1 3 1 2 3 1 3 3 1 4 3 1 5 4 1 6 4 4 7 4 3 9 4 1 9 6 6 18 6 6
11 6 6 12 6 6 13 9 8
14 9 9 15 8 8 16 8 9 l 9 18 19 9 11 19 9 12 28 9 12 21 18 12 22 18 14 23 18 11 24 18 14 25 11 15 26 11 13 27 11 15 29 11 15 29 12 17 3 12 18 31 12 19 32 12 18gJ l~ 34 13 18 3~ 13 18 36 13 19 37 14 19 JB 14 19 39 14 19 48 14 19 41 17 19 42 17 23 43 17 21 44 17 20
-(EEC)
q~ 21 23 q6 21 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASSCEEC)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE IX) DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IY) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 96691 R SQUARED 93q9 T STATISTIC 2~14824
INTERCEPT IA) -238937 SLOPE IB) 146219 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 1S28eS
OBSERVATIONS q6 Y DMPTS X DAYS-RSW YMIN -2q YMAX ~5 YINC ~
XMIN -19 XMAX 259 XJNC 2
l
SYNTAX ERROR lPRM8ELF PRINT MODULE
-
bull
APPENJ)K 4 -
DATABASE WHZTXNG VXSASS (A) bull
OBS DAYS-I
1 1 2 1 3 1 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 ~
9 5 9 5 Ii 7 11 7 12 7 13 9 14 9 1~ 9
016 11 17 11 19 11
DMPTS
1 1 1 1 2 2 4 3 5 a 7
9 13 15 bull 13 16 14 1~
019 13 2 8 28 13 16 21 13 20 22 15 24 23 1~ 24 24 15 25 25 17 29 26 17 29 27 17 38 29 19 30 29 19 38 38 19 32 31 21 33 32 21 32 33 21 32 34 23 32 3~ 23 32 36 23 34
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASSIA)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE tX) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE tV) qMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 98514 R SQUARED 9785 T STATISTIC 3344414 INTERCEPT tAt -245163 SLOPE CBt 166958 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 286799
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS x DAYS-ICE
YMIN -22 YMAX lS7 YINC lS- XMIN -19 XMAX 259 XINC 2
]
I
J
-8YNTAX ERROR
]PRM6ELF PRINT MODULE shyDATABASE WHITING VISASS (AG)
OB8 DAYS-I DMPT8
1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 4 3 1 ~ 3 2 6 3 2 7 ~ 4 9 ~ 3 9 ~ ~
18 7 18 11 7 9 12 7 18 13 9 1~
14 9 17 1~ 9 1~
16 11 18 17 11 16 18 11 17 19 13 22 28 13 18 21 13 22 22 1~ 26 23 1~ 27 24 1~ 28 2~ 17 32 26 17 32 27 17 33 28 19 34 29 19 34 38 19 36 31 21 37 32 21 36 33 21 36 34 23 36 3~ 23 36 36 23 38
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITINO VISASS(AO)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAY8-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Y) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 986~2
R SQUARED 973 T STATISTIC 3~B167B
INTERCEPT CAl -272~33
SLOPE CBI 197S63 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 221294
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS X DAYS-ICE YHIN -19~ YHAX ~9~ YINC ~
XHIN -19 XHAX 2~9 XINC 2
]
-SYNTAX ERROR lPRM6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASS (EEC)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 2 1 3 1 4 3 ~ 3 1 6 3 1 7 ~ 2 8 ~ 2 9 ~ 3
1 7 3 11 7 3 12 7 3 13 9 6 14 9 6 bull 1~ 9 7 16 11 7 17 11 8 18 11 7 19 13 11 2 13 1 21 13 12 22 1~ 13 23 1~ 1~
24 1~ 17 2~ 17 19 26 17 18 27 17 19 28 19 29 29 19 23 39 19 22 31 21 24 32 21 23 33 21 24
34 23 2J 3~ 23 26 36 23 27
I ELF SCATTER MODULE I DATABASE WHITING VISA88CEEC)I I INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (~) DAYS-ICE I
DEPENDENT VARIABLE (VI DMPTS I bull
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9a2~3
R SQUARED 96~3
T STATISTIC 387a73~
INTERCEPT (A) -4142 SLOPE (8) 12873 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 173287
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS ~ DAYS-ICE YMIN -29 YMA~ ~1 VINC ~
XMIN -19 ~MA~ 2~9 ~INC 2
J
-SYNTAX ERROR JPRM6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHITING VXSASSmiddot(FXL)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 2 3 1 3 ~ 5 4 7 4 ~ 9 9 6 11 13 7 13 1~
e 1~ 16 9 17 19 18 19 21 11 21 24 12 23 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASB(FJLI
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Y) DMPTS
bull bullbull 4~
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE CV) DMPTSr
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 982~3
R SQUARED 96~3
T STATISTIC 3S7873~ t bullbullf CINTERCEPT CA) -4142
SLOPE CB) 12873 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 173287
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS XI DAYS-ICE YMINmiddot~28 YMAKI 1 YINC ~
XMIN -I9XMAX 2~9 XINC2
]
-SYNTAX ERROR ]PRH6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHXTXNG VXSASS (FXL)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 S 2 3 1 1 5 3 4 7 4 5 9 9 6 11 13 7 13 1~
9 15 16 9 17 19 1 19 21 11 21 24 12 23 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE I WHITING VISAS8(FIL)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE CX)I DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE CY) DMPT8
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 99289 R SQUARED 9858 T STATISTIC 2638123 INTERCEPT CA) -243706 SLOPE CB) 124476 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 112846
SLOPE 10) 124476 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 112846
ObullbulllfftVTrOHSO 12 VI DHPTS XI DAVS-ICE VMIN -27 VHAX e2 VINe e XHIN -19 XHAX 2e9 gtcINe 2
]
-8VNTAX ERROR
fi
rr
[bull
SJ
in i
bullol
r~
bull bull
n i
o o o o
~
o~ o
o - l
N~ o ~
o o o
Q
Q o o
a
c -~_
Q
_
_ Q
_9_
0
o ~-
O
_
Q
lI
oJ ~
v
~ ~
~-
-
- -1
---h
---1
---I
I
I
1
~ ((9 ~ J las 0 - ~~ U -lt) az E~-~gl~~1--~~---------- ~) 1)
11 ~ - 11 HI ~~
I bull M~
~ -~ ~~ IJ~ I J ismiddotJ I Q l~
k tl I 01 re lr - 91 br I ~I ( -0 71P g I CJ tt
I I J 000 0 0 w I 0) NlNN1tl 30 hIflJ I t IC (~4ID(r ~ Wi
_ f-- -------- bull fyen ~=y ~~r I I I I I I I 0 0 00 00 ( ~) -Fr~ ~ fj)
-0 I 0 I Ole 17 10 0 ( ~ AI )middot P1~ 0 0 00 Q hItIrS ~7I -~~ (J
t -r------0 bull
_-~_ middotmiddotmiddot_middot~middotmiddotmiddot)-middot7~)
lrrT I 01 0
0 tFmiddot~~i ~ 1 o 00 Omiddot (~ -W ~r f (JJ___~ _______ _ l I I 71 I -_---_ - M-~ ~ I
J I Z-tf ~ ~ ~fI t1 11f ( )) CI I I I i I 00 r11-7[ c I C bull aofl7r_ ~ ~z ~ 1t~Ji ) ( --_--------i---shye l~~~ I f~) I I J I
I II i bull Q ( N~T fE ~I )
~JiP _- -___ ----shy
_
~ 7Yr 0) ~(J ~ I e I t I ~ l I J I I 1 I I I(I 0 0 (~~yen~ M -p~P71 JPtJIJs 0
i euror (1l~J IlLriJlllr1JI ~~J I ~()(1OP I I r I I 0 I ( t t I ( jIfS 7fS ~~I ~ )
I
I 1 I( IN 10~ lb~ qItJ gtr~j f o (~)I(~) I I 0 I (t~ ~~) I I Jbull o 0 J I ~ l 0 a i S(jJ t t t tI tI C I C I J I I I J I 0 I (n~rlP PI4t -I) t
- -I
-I -I-I I II-I I I-I r bull
-----(rtb Ii If p~) PNl17T7~b ~y~ 7
10 IIt1v I 0 1~L CIJ tN IfIfW1IIJ JI11i JN~I HJ3
---Y p~ALY~_ ~~ Yl2-- 1)
yenvr 1amp f111l
-
~
~~
~
II
o 0
~cgt
(
) Q
oa
oo
o
oo
o o
a
o
~
P
t
oo
c
oo
a -
o
oo
o
o -
o
-o
-
-
lJ
I~ I~
Jl ~rIpound i IAlffzfjjsectj 7df- utl kf J OG lie rCOIpound ~IIE(T r
7tU
~
~ ~
~ ~
~
-shy~
~
MYI f)lySLM~ 1 (JAy ISo~r 11 ~~) e ()~t ~I01) r I joy f o~y lOJ 17~JJlII1~ 16 fiti -t1 It r ~17J~~flu~1h 111H 7U 1111111shyIllf Jr(11Jr I fhJo
~ ) ~ I1 J J-4 ~ J 2 JJ ~poundol ~ ] t4 cl -7 eJ uJ cJJJ wI~ wI l shy w c at amp 74 -t ~ ut 4 I
SkIN 000 o 0 0o 0 0 o 00 I o I I I I 3 3 3l) t 3 3 31 s 3ltt
a I I I I I o IfYU I 2 I JI I I000 )l~ 1~1 S 3 ~S 3 5 335
GILtJ I J I o (J 0 I (I I I ~ t 2shy~I I s 3 ]] 2 0 (J 3 ~ ~ t 3 3 AlvItUiU i l I I ls)z oJ lJ 0 a (J ~ 0o 0 0 a a aTff1ttJR II r 1
1 I ~ I I I I 1~E
Cdt47tl7 I I ~ ~t( a a 0O(O I Io I~ 00 000deg a 0wO 0 0 0 o 0 0 o~ 00VUipound811 ~ J I
tJ I Oe6rlllr I I I I 2 2]l2 ~ 3 S 3 S ~ 3o a 0 (J () 0 I 333 1 $ 3
If~euMI LU~ 2l 3000o (J 0 o 0 0 J 2 2shy 331a deg (1 ~ 2 Jshy
i I 000amp1 0 I I 1TIUUpound
lAcltJdJE 00deg00o 0 0 ooalOOO 0 0 I I I 1OdOa deg 0 11 2 I r I I I IbullI
I I h~r~Eu I ( 0 0 CJ 0 o (J a 2 ~ 30001011 0 1 J 1010 I I L II 2 l 2l 22 2 1
sKIN GLLt I f I~J) GlIIl) 0 (I a I do 0 0 I 0 Il~t l~o 0 0 ~ 3 3 3 s 3 3 3 33s1331
i7tJ7l11 Ibull I shy i66 ~o
(J ~ 0 1 0 It3331l J t 1 1shy 1~ ~afJllc 11 Irrshy It ~1 1111 20 J3 u
(])JtUJ61 (l) (1) (Ir)(0) (J)(I) (If) (19) (u) (~r)(J4)
I r f
I
I
i I
I i
II I ((
f
II Ii
p ()
Q
0_
_ 00
0
00
00
00
0
o o o 0
00
0
0 _
o Q
0
0
o
0
00
0
-
0 0
0
middot0
0
o oo
0
o Q
o oo o o
- ~
~
~ ~~pound
w
i -shy
o
co
- --
shy
o o o
~
~_
~
0
-shyJJ
-----l--~
-J
J IJ
f
J
J)
o 0
00
_ 0
0
o (gt
0
o ()
o
0
0 0
0
()
()
o 0
0
o 0
0
_
_ -
-----1
-----shy
Q
0 0
o ~-IJ~ulJ-
u
lJcllJ_-_~IJamp
o o
Q
I---+----I---+----I----I~-
_Ilpound
llD
lIlI
Il
~I
IIIl
I_II
II5
l__
IIlIa
IllP
=lII
Il1
rl
ll
IlIl
IlIII
llII
IlJl
IIl
IIlIl_
IIrII
G3i
mta
isectID
it
llll~
1~=wampampftUla
_
au
U
Lamp
WJN
AJ
poundmiddotJI
IiIamp
3flJ
a
uac
ampa
f
shy
I~middottn 0~L fi 5L middottlu~ fo_~r ( ) 1poundc [CtJRl -ffl(pound1 r~~ rlt1c- J c-ru
-- I
1SllJ7~
lt l)~ J )IIr M ~-t s ~~ OIl middot )If 10 JAY II 041
J- Olt i1 )lir iI DIY IT- IMy11
1~middot6f1 14f1- ~imiddot -- J _ middotAfmiddot IIrk middot Jiamp -ffh~11 rtr Il ~M gt27P- ill Ill ~lllY ~~7rlf JC 1- ~ r 1M 11
r ~ F16F r~h FIjFi ~~I)r r~Fr
5 Fc II -i~fIoi l 1 fj t t Fr c r amp t 1= ~ r ~ F r rtI ~
- -
sION o (j o 0 0 o 0 a I I I I I I I I 2 I t t I-r J~L) z~z~ 2~J ~ z a ~ ~ 33 - -ol t 1 2
~ poundys-s 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I I lt t 2 t t 4 ~z ~ 2l~ ~ ~ 1 Z 3zi3p33 3 333 3 3 3 - - ~ rl~ a 0 a (1 a a o 1 I 1 I 1-2 12 t ltt a ~ l J tll~ ~~~) 2 2 2 2- ~Jll 21 13 33 ~
- ~ MIIi(UlA~
degCt1C 11 )l
FipoundSI- eli CeoD o 0 (J 0 I I I I I I 1 1 I I 1 I Jl~] l2 22- z ~ 2 2 22 11 2-3 -Sfvpound
j
CIJiCVlt-tICN I I I 1 ( I I I 2 2 t ~ t~ )2 2~21 2$ 2 t _~ 3AIJJN(j- P (J dO o C a a o 0 00 1 I I I I - --
V~7r~ ~ c~u N
(TKWW~ CO~ o I oc I I J I I I I 1 2 I 2 2 1- ) t~l2 2- 22 2 ) 2 ~2- 1222 2 2 ll 2L -- -~VClLAl I
a 0 0 0 01 I 0 2 1 2 2 J5r 4 E i H CA I I
-I I I I I I I I J J 12( ~ 12 1 2 1 2-I TfI_ 21 1-1- 1 1 ~ 1
~ I middot_0-__-- I
~ 1
ffCACIpound coo 000lt=1 o 0 0 0 btJCt) o a () (J I I I I I I I I111 I I I 1 I I -~-aD CD lJ a a 0 0 ~ ~ UlrAfllN o 0 a IJ e e 0 C) (JdegOo ecJao co (10 (1 o I I I I I I I I 1 I I III I I I I z --
i tiN ~4r L~~ 2- li ~ a~ 8M) CUmiddot c d (J 0 (J () I I I 1 1 1
I 1 I I f t I II tl-loI 21 1 t 33 - -
-Iffl1-
J I I I I i- 2 I 11~SC~E ~ t 1 o ~ 04-t 1J 11 1 11t IS~ IfS J1 I 1 I If I IJ 1 r~]u ze uu __
bull ttlUIG
(I) l~) (6) (II) ~ (~) 6s-)llIt lCUI CJ (Ii) (~) vmiddot (II) (19~ ---
I t f
I
~ I
~ I
Ii
I I
Ii I II f
~ (
--)raquo~ middot-~~-~-I~~IliiI~~-middotComiddot~-d-b~middotmiddotmiddotmiddot_ ~ ~ middoth-~_middot--~H~~middot~gt
Other Occasional Papers in the series
1 A salinity monitor for irrigation pumps by EOMIEZITIS
2 Wine liqueur and fish products acceptability trials 47th ANZAAS Congress Hobart 1976 by HABREMNER TLLEWIS and ARQUARMBY
3 Abalone silage an exercise in the conservation of waste by JUNE OLLEY
4 Course notes contributed by the CSIRO Tasmanian Food Research Unit to a workshop on fish handling and quality control Hobart Oct3rd-5th 1978 by HABREMNER JUNE OLLEY and SJTHROWER
5 Difficulties with generalized least squares regression in forest modelling by PWWEST
6 Metabolism of zinc cadmium and copper in rats fed shellfish highly contaminated with heavy metals by SJTHROWER JUNE OLLEY and MAUREEN McDERMOTT
7 Hygiene control in seafood processing by SJTHROWER
400 Discussion
11
330 Sensory assessment of the raw blue grenadier
samples stored in RiW 23
340 sensory assessment of the raw whiting samples
stored in ice 23
3 50 Attributes contributing to total score 23
360 Relative merits of the scoring systems 33
370 Time taken to score the fish 33
380 kceptability taste panel results of blue
grenadier samples 33
390 Acceptability taste panel results of
whiting samples 33
40
410 sensory assessment of the raw blue grenadier
samples stored in RiW 40
420 sensory assessment of the raw whiting sanples
stored in ice 41
430 the ease and difficulties of using the four
methods of scoring 44
440 kceptability taste panel results of blue
grenadier sarrples 44
441 Flavour acceptability 44
442 Texture acceptability 45
443 Overall acceptability 46
450 kceptability taste panel results of whiting
samples 46
451 Flavour acceptability 46
452 Texture acceptability 47
453 OVerall acceptability 47
iii
500 Conclusions 47
510 Feasibility of using demerit points 47
520 Purpose for which demerit points are
to be used 49
530 suggestions for further work 50
600 Bibliography 51
7 00 Appendices 56
Appendix 1 Nomogram for comparison of different
scoring systems for raw fish
Appendix 2 General Foods Smiley scale
Appendix 3 ELF scatter print-out for correlation
analysis of blue grenadier samples
Appendix 4 ELF scatter print-out for correlation
analysis of whiting samples
Maritime Cbllege Ippendix 5 Analysis of variance for the blue
Copy Only grenadier samples by the Genstat package
Appendix 6 Analysis of variance for the whiting
samples by the Genstat package
Appendix 7 Original score sheets
fv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No TIlLE Page
Fig 1 Pamerit points versus days in RSW for blue grenadier samples 25
Fig 2 Dmerit points versus days in ice for whiting samples 26
Fig 3 Fercentage change in demerit points for blue grenadier
in RSW 34
Fig 4 R9rcentafJe chanqe in demerit points for iced whiting 35
Fig 5 1aste panel results of Blue grenadier - flavour acceptability 36
Fig 6 1aste panel results of Blue grenadier - texture acceptability 36
Fig 7 Taste panel results of Blue grenadier - overall acceptability 37
Fig 8 1aste panel results of tiiting - flavour acceptability 37
Fig 9 1aste panel results of tiiting - texture acceptability 38
Fig 10 Taste panel results of Whiting - overall acceptability 38
Table tb
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Table 10
Table 11
Table 12
Table 13
Table 14
v
LIST OF TABLES
TIILE Page
5amplirq regime for fish stored in R3Wice 14
TFRJ Sensory Assessroont score sheet (gutted and
urqutted sanples) 16
EEX Sensory Assessroont score sheet 17-18
Filleted sample score sheet 19
Order of presentation of the cookeq blue grenadier
samples to the acceptability taste panelists 21
Order of presentation of the cooked whitirq samples
to the acceptability taste panelists 22
TOtal demerit points from sensory assessment of
blue grenadier samples stored in R3W 24
TOtal demerit points from sensory assessment of
whiting scrnples stored in ice 27
Relationship between time and demerit points for
fish stored in R3W (M novaeselandiaet 28
Attributes contributirq to total score usirq TFRJ
scores (gutted and urqutted scrnples) bull 29
Attributes contributirq to total score usirq EEC
scores 30
Attributes contributirq to total score usilVJ
filleted samples scores 31
Different emphasis in scorirq systems for whole
f ish as between the EX and TFRJ 32
Acceptability of deep fried blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW 39
VI
Table 15
Table 16
Acceptability of deep fried whiting samples
stored in ice
Acceptability of deep fried whiting samples stored
in ice
39
47
NIlttmLEOOEMEm
Ihe author is indebted to Hr HA Bremner and Miss J A statham of the
CSIR) Division of Food 1esearch and Ii DA Ratk~sky of the Division of
Mathematics and Statistics for direction and advice durin] the course of this
~rk
Thanks nust also go to Miss M Ottenschlaeger for the help in the taste
panel work Hr AH A vail and Hr P Kearney in the correlation analysis and
Mr D 8Jrford in the preparation of the blue grenadier samples and not
forgettirYJ all the panelists who attended the taste panel sessions
Finally the author wishes to thank all those in the SChool of Fisheries
of the Australian HaritiIm College particularly Mr P Minton for the support
and encouragement they have given and also the Australian Development
Assistance Bureau (~) for their financial assistance
1
ABSTRACT
Accumulation of demerit points with time of storage of blue grenadier (M
novaeae landiaev in refrigerated sea water (I~W) and blue rock whi t ing (H
eemifaeeiatcq in ice was fourd to be highly correlated and occurred in an
approximately linear fashion irrespective of the method of scoring used
1he scoring system developed by the TFRJ was fourrl to be the easiest
quickest and rrost reliable method for quality assessment of fish The changes
in tOO appearance of the eyes and the odour developrent of the gills are the
most obvious and valuable indicators of change in quality when using the TFRU
or the EEl freshness scores while the appearance and odour of the fish flesh
seems to be the most obvious indicator when assessing the filleted samples
1he acceptabil ity taste panel results indicate that M nauaeeelandiae stored
in RSW had a shelf-life of 14 days whilst H semifasciata stored in ice had a
shelf-life of 17 days ~ cut-off point at which spoilage of the samples
WDUld have rendered the quality of the fish samples to be unacceptable fran
the consumer point of view would be those equivalent to the accumulated
demerit point of gt29 for the TFRU (gutted and ungutted) scores and gt21 for the
EEC ard filleted sample scores
2
1 00 rsrromcrros
110 QUality and QUality Asses~nt of Fish
QJality is difficult to define since it means different things to
different people One general definition is degree of excellence
According to waterman (1982) quality of food is the SLD1 of those attributes
that govern its acceptability to the buyer or consumer and quality assessment
is the estLmation or measurement of one or more quality factors as a means of
determining quality before exercising control
Bremner (1984) defined quality as that attitude of mind that approach
that event that state of being when everything is right hus until a
seafood is eaten its quality can only be surmised indirectly harever
seafoods do possess a set of properties or characteristics that for practical
purposes can be related with quality
In cxmnerce quality limits are set by what the custcrner is prepared to
pay for generally the custcrner will pay more for fish that he considers to be
of higher quality and will continue to buy as long as quality remains
constant The relationship between quality and marketing is therefore
governed by the sophistication of the consuner ( ta Zylva 1974) Sore of the
more important factors that determine quality fran the custcrners point of
view are species ease of preparation appearance odour flavour freshness
size presence or absence of bones and filth absence of specific
microorganisms condition packaging and composition (Oonnell 1972)
Freshness is the most important quality factor to the consumer thus
assessnent of freshness is vital in quality control kcording to Baines et
al (1965) the term freshness is employed to describe the presence or
absence of deterioration Ib many however freshness involves the concept of
newness in which time is an important factor In other words the fish
technologist is not only concerned with quality at the mrnent of examination
3
but of the products potential shelf-life M accurate measure of st~age
1_ time under kn~ conditions would allow hLm to calculate the remaining life of
the product and its potential for processing
Fish quality depends on tenperature time and hygiene Factors such as
spontaneous chemical changes autolysis and microbial attack produce
deteriorations fran the point of catching until final putrefaction
Measurements of sane of these deteriorations have been invoked as indices of
freshness
he measurement of trimethylamine (lMA) other spoilage cxrrpounds and the
bacteria themselves as indicators of quality has been reviewed recently by
Martin et al (1978) hey stated that in order to define effective indicators
of seafocxi quality the food technologist must be prepared to examine each
species of seafood individually its environment its composition its
harvesting and its handling
A lUIllber of different tests may be used for estimating the degree of
spoilage in fish these include total volatile bases (TVa) total volatile
reducing substances volatile armonia volatile acids total volatilo
nitrogen indole refractive index of the eye fluid electrical resistance of
the fish flesh total bacterial numbers and organoleptic tests hese methods
are discussed under the headings chemical methods physical methods
microbiological methods and sensory methods bel~
120 Chemical Methods
Although not universal in acceptance or applicability the trLmethylamine
(TMA) determination has became one of the established procedures for
determining fish quality Its use as an indicator of spoilage in fresh fish
have also been proposed by the Codex AlLmentarius crnmittee on fish and
fishery products (Olley 1977) his is despite the fact that there is ample
4
evidence that the same ClfDUnt of 1MA is accanpanied by different ClfDUnts of
spoilage even within the same species
Several investigators (Spinelli et aI 1984 Jones 1965) have expressed
reservations regardirq the use of IMA as an index of quality for fresh fish
not inq that 1MA values fail to give an adequate Iod icetIon of early autolytic
quality chanqes aOO preferrirq hypoxanthfne detenninations instead MA as
would be expected of a bacterial product is not useful in detenninilg quality
deteriorations which occur durirq frozen storage FIrthenoore the shape of
the fish will markedly influence the arrount of IMA meaaured in ng per 100 g
fish (Bremner et aI 1978) Trimethylamine is roost sensitive as an indicator
of the later stages of spoilage whereas Chemical tests for dimethylamine are
most valuable in the early stages of spoilage
Ryder et al (1984) foond that the bacterial metabol Ic end products (1VB
and MA) were less useful as objective measurements of freshness in Jack
Mackerel (TrochuflUB nooaezelandiae) hey also reported that the pH was not a
gcxxl indicator of early storage changes and lEA values could not be used to
detennine loss of acceptability or eoo of shelf-life Recently it has became
apparent that the sulphur canpounds and mercaptans may be importantH2S
detenninants of fish odour and flavour (~rbert and Shewan 1975)
Measurement of MA IMA or amoonia requires a laboratory am assistant of
matriculation standard who has had sane weeks of practice in the IOOthod
Neither the Codex Alimentarius CoITInittee or the EEl (Ccmoon Market) lay down
samplilg procedures
Another quality assessment lOOasurement involves the nucleotides aoo their
degradation products Early studies with cod carp Pacific Salmgtn Lemon
sole haddock and plaice revealed that post-mortem nucleotide degradation in
fish muscle proceeds prbnarily via the followirq sequence of reactions ATP -)
AMP -) IMP -) IID -) Hx -) Xa -) UA where KrP = Jldenosine 5-triphosphate AMP
5
= Jldenosine 5-IOCgtoophosphate IMP = Inosine 5-IOCgtoophosphate lID = Inosine j
Hx = Hypoxanthine xa = Xpnthine am UA = Uric acid loo ~tages in this
degradative sequence have been considered as objective indices of quality shy
dephosphorylation of IMP am formation of hypoxanthine IMP reportedly
possesses properties as a flavour enhancer in fish mrscle COnsequently its
breakdawn may contribute to and be correlated with the loss of fresh flavour
in sane species SCme difficulties however may arise fran using IMP
dephosphorylatioo as a s inqle quality index eg the pattern of nucleotide
breakdown in invertebrate seafood species may differ in same key respects fran
that fourrl in vertebrate species he rate of IMP decanposition in the muscle
also differs between species (Ehira 1976) Accordi~ to Martin et al (1978)
the rrost serious limitation imposed by an IMP index may be that the reaction
is substantially complete well within the edible storage life of a number of
species Its major value then may be as an indicator of fresh flavour loss
during early storage
Unlike IMP concentrations of hypoxanthine (Hx) have been shown to
increase steadily throughout the useful storage life of a number of fish
species (Hughes and Jones 1966) Hypoxanthine formation is a result of both
autolytic am bacterial activities hus it also has advantages over the 1MA
assay Hx may be correlated with flavour loss caused by autolytic activities
durirg early storage am with bacterial spoilage during extended storage to
derive a prediction of useful storage life Also the IMA test is of no value
for freshwater fish because these either do not contain or contain very little
trimethylamine oxide Hx may also be used to determine the quali ty of canned
herrirg at the tirre of processing since hypoxanthine concentrations neither
increase nor decrease duri~ heat process inq and subsequent storage (Hughes
ard Jones 1966) 1MA concentrations on the other hand are unstable during
heat process inq lbNever different species of fish produce hypoxanthine by
6
different routes and at different speeds Each lustralian species ttOUld have
to be examined in turn am the hypoxanthine test related to sensory grades
tbte that the Canadian redfish and flounder had produced the maximum amgtunt of
hypoxanthine 10llg before they becarre unacceptable while the swordfish had
only produced a fifth of the arount when it became unacceptable to a taste
panel (Olley 1978) The hypoxanthine test requires laboratory facilities and
same equipment but recently the use of sLmple paper strips have been reported
(Jahns et aI 1976)
The main disadvantages of nucleotide assays are that they are apt to vary
even arro~ individuals within a species Sufficient samples need to be used
to reduce this variability
All the chemical roothods discussed above depend on measuring the
concentration of certain chemical substances in the flesh and since the sample
is destroyed in the process they cannot be used to test every fish in a
batch In any case variation between fishes in the sarre batch makes chemical
tests for quality a task requiring a statistician (Olley 1977) All the
methods require the use of a laboratory or fairly elaborate facilities and
also they oo rot apply to all species and products alike
130 Physical Methods
Love (1954) described a roothod which correlates the turbidity of the eye
lenses of fish with storage tiroo of iced fish kept in a roan of fairly
constant air temperature He found that it is possible by examination of 20
or more lenses to assess the storage tiroo with an error of not roore than 1
day M advantage of this roothod is that since only the eyes have to be
raroved in sampling the fish remains saleable as headed dressed fish or as
fillets ~ver1 the roothod had many limitations such as difficulty in
manipulation and matchi~ of the lenses which have to be done in good diffused
7
daylight at least 20 lenses are required for each estllnation which is rather
tedious for routine work and also it is not applicable where fish had not been
kept all the time in ice under the standard conditions eg bulk stowage of
fish with ice on a trawler may result in deviation fran the conditions of box
stolage in an insulated roan
he GR Ibrrymeter is a battery pc7ot1ered hand-held instnunent that rreasures
certain dialectric properties of fish skin which charge wi th the
tiJretemperature history of the fish fbWever readi~s on a large mrnber of
samples have to be taken and averaged bull Although it is a rapid simple
objective and rDn-destructive method of estllnati~ the quality of fresh fish
it has the followilkJ disadvanteqesj large variation in readirg fran fish to
fish readi~ varies with physical damage to fish1 cha~e of readi~ with time
varies with species and also may be insensitive at later stages of spo i Laqe
Curran et al (1981) reported that the GR Ibrrymeter was not particularly
successful with both the purple emperor (L6thoinus l6ntjan) ard the Spanish
mackerel ( Scomberomorue oonmereons since the readirgs obtained do not
correlate very well with the taste panel results
140 Microbiological Methods
he rootine microbiological testirg that is performed under normal
industry operations is normally restricted to enumeration of nonpathogenic
microorganisms hose frost frequently used are the standard plate count and
enumeration of indicator organisms such as the coliform group Beoher-ichia
coli aM Staphylococcus aureus
Food handl i nq practices beyond the pr-imary processors control make
standard aerobic plate count (APe) a difficult quality assessment tool to use
generally he total nunber of bacteria is not the sole determinant of
8
quali ty since certain microbial groups are rrore apt to cause spoilage than
others These groups can be given a selective advantage for growth by the way
the product is processed or stored furthermore the determination of
bacterial counts while they are of value to research requires too much time
before results are known and can also be expensive for routine testing
Representative samples have to be taken for bacterial examination because the
fish or product is destroyed during the test Interpreting the results of
bacterial testing is a task for experts who should be consulted when
necessary bull
Detection and enumeration of indicator bacteria such as the coliform
group E ooli and S auroeu8 were considered for many years to indicate the
potential presence of pathoqenic microorganisms NM this inference has been
questioned and these groups are no longer considered a reliable method for
predicting the presence of such pathogens (Martin et aL1978) bull
According to Olley and Ratkowsky (1973) there is in fact no simple index
of quality and a thorough knowledge of the oamplete temperature history of the
fish is the only true indicator of freshness This is so because at higher
temperatures bacteria divide in half more rapidly Therefore the
relationship between bacterial growth with production of spoilage canpounds
and temperature is not a straight line rut a curve he curve relates rate of
spoilage of these commodities at temperatures between aoe and 25dege to the rate
at which they would spoil at aoe hus at aoe the relative rate is 1 and at
Rate at temperature (tOe)any other temperature the relative rate is Rate at a be
Bremner et at (1978) have coined the term ICE FOID for this relative rate
ie so many times faster than the ccmnodity would spoil on ice and
lCETIME as equivalent storage time on ice = lCEFOID x time in days
The curve has also been converted into tabular form to enable conversion
of the temperature history of the catch into equivalent storage time
on ice under ideal conditions However the concept of relative rate of
9
spoilage with temperature can only apply if fishing oonditions are kept
constant
150 sensory Methods
Currently the best way to detenmine fish freshness still requires the use
of a taste panel (Regenstein and Regenstein 1981) A number of taste panel
techniques for assessing the quality of unfrozen fish species have been
described am are in use in different parts of the world These techniques
vary in cbjective and ccrrplexity but are of three main types Firstly there
are those which categorise the fish on the basis of its acceptability for
eatirq secondly there are those which categorise the fish on the basis of
well-defined characteristics which change duri~ storage Thirdly there are
techniques which include elements of both of these types Techniques of the
first type usually anploy a single gradi~ or hedonic (like-dislike) scale
whilst those of the second type anploy descriptions of various characteristics
(Baines et aI 1969)
The ultimate criterion of fish quality is the flavour and texture of the
cooked fish HcMever taste panel evaluations of cooked fish are timeshy
consiminq and relatively few samples can be tested at anyone time It is
therefore highly desirable to be able to make an assessment of eati~ quality
by exanini~ the raw fish My atterrpt to raise the quality of raw fish as it
reaches the consumer is critically dependent on the development of a
convenient and consistent rrethod of quality assessment based on raw fish
Fortunately eat inq quality of cooked fish can be correlated with the
appearance odour and texture of the whole raw fish Boyd and Wilson (1976)
when evaluat inq the quality of snapper (Chroysophfys aufatus) by a sensory
method found that there is close relationship between the raw attributes of
gill odour and general appearance with those of odour texture am flavour of
10
the cooked fish
The use of ooject ive tests at dockside or even on inspection within the
plant is not considered to be practical in the normal routine of inspection of
fresh ard frozen fish products as almost all of the coject Ive tests require
laboratories am so becare rather rerooved fran the busy fisherman processor
or factory foreman A nuch simpler piece of apparatus is the eye or the N)Se
(olley 1977) Sensory tests are always controversial as they require an
inspector although the canny buyer is in fact applying his senses of smell
am visual acuity in a similar fashion W9 accept the wine faster and wcxgtl
classer so why not the fish grader (Bremner 1984) Therefore a test that
correlated well with freshnessquality and that could operate on the market or
in the factory would be of considerable value to an efficient industry (Baines
et aI 1965)
Howgate (1978) also considered the sensory rrethods to be far better than
non-sensory methods which are not suitable for consumer testing whilst
Connell (1972) states that in general the sensory rrethod of assessing
freshness is the best at present for quality control purposes
As fish spoils its snell taste appearance and feel go through
characteristic am well defined stages that trained experts or experienced
staff can consistently recognise It is convenient to attach a number or
score to each stage so that the assessor can award the appropriate score to
each fish or batch of fish Alternatively the mere recognition of each stage
ard acceptance or rejection of fish on this basis may be all that is
necessary Different species and products spoil in different ways The
numerical system us irq an objective panel developed at the Ibrry IEsearch
Station by Shewan et al (1953) is probably the ultUnate critical evaluation of
fish freshness available at this time It was created for the determination
of storage time of whole Net fish l6Jenstein and Iegenstein (1981) in using
11
this nunerical system reported that the cooked freshness scores are generally
higher (better) than expected at that storage t irre for whole wet fish A
freshness score of 55 on the Ibrry scale seemed the appropriate endpoint for
their definition of shelf-life This would nonnally be reached with ideal
iced-at-sea fish about twelve days from catch sooner for fillets Freshness
scorirq systems are I1C1laquo available fran Ibrry Research station for most UK
ccmnercial species and systems are available for both the raw and cooked
fish HoweveF there is still no standard scorirq system to be used
internationally he countries in the EEC ~or instance use scoring systems
which differ both in scale length am in characteristics measured Most
systems use the same scale length for all features examined but the United
Kingdon am Icelarrl use scales of 10 to 0 for odour and 5 to 0 for other
characteristics ibwgate (1972) describes the effort to construct a rorogram
for oonvert inq fran one scorinq system to another (Appendix 1) de Zylva
(1974) expanded the Ibrry score sheet to include marks for flesh colour and
texture belly flap discoloration stainiBJ of backbone am colour of
kidney he scoring system was designed for ~w Zealand snapper and gave
excellent negative linear correlations between score am days of storage
legenstein (1983) presents the way in which Ibrry has in turn incorporated
other characteristics into the score sheet for raw fish Groupings of several
characteristics to give a score requires more expertise than scoring
individual points as is done by de Zylva
However the use of a point or scoring system in which higher points are
given for high quality attributes would mean the requirements of more
kllC7filedge of the fish and the tester mist be experienced and knCM the
qualities of the fish previously Therefore it is too species dependent
his problem can be overcare by using the demerit system with points being
allotted in several categories for defects as they becare obvious and one can
I
12
learn as one goes along in each situation he demerit points that were given
to the various selected quality attributes could be weighted in such a way as
to produce an approximately linear change in score with storage time (Branch
and Vail 1985)
It might also be desirable OCIlInercially to specify a uniform mrnber of
days of shelf-life fran the pack date to consumption he length of shelfshy
life ctgttained for fish depends on the initial age and quality of the fish the
tirre of the pack am the time am temperature of storage before am after
packing In practical terns the ultimate measure of the effect(s) of shelf-
life extension treatments on the final quality of the fish is consumer
satisfaction (Regenstein aoo Regenstein 1981)
A tentative grading systan for fresh fish based on sensory assessment of
fish had been described by IbUwing (1972)
160 The Ideal Method
Forty years of research ootably in the UK Canada and Japan have gone
into objective methods for measuring fish quality (Bremner et al 1978)
There is as yet 00 single universal test for all species nor for that
matter any wholly satisfactory test for individual species
The ideal rrethod hOlJld be one that is cheap oon-destructive easy to
use oot subject to much variation or fatigue having rapid response and wide
application sensory tests have the advantages of being non-destructive 00
equipnent required adaptable to species and assessing the market value
Althcogh sensory tests are usually condemned as a subjective test which
requires training am experience am are also said to be easily open to
abuse this can be reduced if a simple rapid and less descriptive rrethod
could be fourd - possibly with the use of demerit point scores Therefore
this study aims at assessing the use of sensory techniques based on the
13
demerit point scores developed for raw whole (gutted and ungutted) and
filleted fish samples of Australian fish species stored in ice and RSW It
also discusses the results of the acceptability taste panels on the cooked
fish samples
The two oammercially ~rtant Australian fish species used in this study
were the blue grenadier am the blue rock whiting he blue grenadier is
currently Tasmanias major oammercial finfish and the recent annual production
of the fishery exceeds 100 tonnes (Last et aI 1983)~ he blue rock whiti~
is the only Australian member of the family that has any commercial
importance It occurs mainly in Bass strait and the sheltered bays of South
eastern Tasmania The flesh is delicately flavoured but very soft
200 MATERIALS lIND MEIHgt[s
210 Sample preparation
211 Fish stored in RSW
Blue grenadier used in this study were caught on the 15th lugust 1984 at
a depth of 300 fathans off Sandy Cape on the west coast of Tasmania (Lat
41deg20S IDrq144deg40 E) by demersal trawl They were taken fran the deck
irnnediately am dropped into a refrigerated seawater (RSW) tank in a net bag
(tanp -1degC) The fish was reported to be handled quite roughly on board
Sore of the fish had already gone into rigor at this stage he fish were
transported to the CnID lasrnanian Food lesearch Uni t (TFRJ) laboratories in
Hobart and were already to days old on arrival The f ish were then placed in
the RSW box tank of the rrobile unit (the design and construction of which were
described by Thrower and Stafford 1981) and was kept at -1degC for the duration
of the storage trial which lasted for about three weeks Four fish were
rerroved at each samplirq tine (Table 1) for sensory assessment Length
14
measurements to the fork of the tail were also noted ~e fish were then
filleted and samples frozen at -lBoe for later assessment of their
acceptability by taste panel
212 Fish stored in ice
For the sensory assessment of fish stored in ice guidelines similar to
those given by Lima dos Santos et al (981) were used ~e blue rock whiting
also known as the weedy whiting was used ~e whiting were caught on the
afternoon of 23rd August 1984 by demersal trawl in 18 to 25 m waters oft
Eastern Tasmania On arrival at the TFRJ laboratories in I-bbart at 11 45 am
on the fol Lowirq day the f ish were re- iced at a ratio of 21 (ice f ish) in
insulated plastic boxes of size 66 x 41 x 28 em with provision for drainage
of melt water Flake ice was used ~e ice was topped up daily and renewed
once a week The boxes of i ced f ish were then kept in a cool roan set at a
temperature of 0deg to -1dege ~ree fish were removed for sensory assessment at
each sampling time (Table 1) over a period of rmre than three weeks of ice
storage 100 fish samples were then frozen at -18dege until needed for the
acceptability taste panel
Table 1
sampling regirre for fish stored in R3Wice
Blue Grenadier Diys in R3W 3 4 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 17 21
Sample code N D G L S R K T U P M 0
Whiting Diys in ice 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Sample code 0 M D G T S N R P U L K
15
220 Sensory assessment of the whole (gutted and ungutted) raw fish samples
Both the blue grenadier stored in lOW and the whi t i nq stored in ice were
progressively assessed by using the sense organs of sight smell and touch tor
changes in general appearance odour and texture with storage tine by giving
the appropriate demeri t scores according to the score sheets as shown in
Tables 2 and 3 IVo types of score sheets were used Table 2 shows the
sensory assessment score sheet orig inally developed for the assessment of
gemfish (Thrower et al 1982) It has been simplified and weighted (Branch
and Vail 1985) to provide accumulated increases in demerit points as the t i sn
change in odour texture and appearance during storage with the max imum
accumulated demerit point scores of 35 for the urx]utted samples and 39 tor tte
gutted samples The total scor irq for gutted fish differs fran that descr ibeo
by Bremner (1984) and Branch and Vail (1985) in that the demerit points for
the belly cavity have been added to those for the whole fish
The whole and gutted raw fish were also assessed by using the freshness
score sheet developed by the Council of the European COl1nunities (Official
Journal of the European Qmnunities 1970) but with slight rrodification marie
in its scor irq method in that the scor irq was reversed to provide accumulateri
increases in demerit points as in the TFRJ score sheet (Table 2) with a
maximun accumulated demerit score of 30 (Table 3) The samples were scored by
H Abd R who had had no previous experience with the score sheet
230 Sensory Assessment of the frozen filleted raw fish samples
Samples of the whole and gutted fish of both species were then filleted
ard frozen at -18degC until required for the organoleptic acceptability test
panel fillets were thawed by holding for about 16 hours (overnight) in still
air at 4degC The thawed fillets of both the blue grenadier and whi t i nq were
then assessed by the sense organs of sight smell and touch by using the scor-e
sheet for filleted sample as shown in Table 4 nle score sheet was developed
16
able 1
FIlt U Snorr bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullnt oore hbullbull t ( ( 1Ii~ ANI) tlNtJuTreo)
1_middotAnlJ lmiddot
rlSB IDDII
UIUIl~ (VBci9ht~i9ht8lDullDUll
o 1 2 3
SitU ( rimSoft) o 1
SCALBS (r1mSlLoomiddotmiddotLoobullbull ) o 12
r r SLIMB (AbbullbullntSlSlimiddotysliyVSliy)
o 123
S1IrnraS (pr-Ri90rRi90rPot-Ri90r) o 1 2
BYBS Clarity (ClbullbullrISlCloudyCloudy) 012
Shape (HoralslsunknSunkn) 012
Irill (ViiblHot Viibl) IJ 1
Blood (No BloodSlBloodyVBloody) o 1 2
GILLS Colour (VDark)Charaotritio (SlDark) (vradd)(Slradd)
2o 1 Kucou (AbbullbullntKoderatmiddotBxcbullbullbulliv)
o 1 2 S bullbullll (rrbullbullh 01ly) Pihy8talpoll~
(MetalliaSaved) 1 2 3
BELLI Dicoloration (AbbullbullntDetatablmiddotModratmiddotBxobullbullbulliy) 012 3
Finanbullbullbull ( rira80ftBurt) o 1 2
VENT Condition (bobullbulldy)Noraal (SlBrbullbullk) (Opening)(Bxudbullbull )
2o 1 Sbullbulln (rrbullbullhReutralrihy8poilt)
o 2 3
BELLI CAVIn Stain (OpalbullbullontGryihlmiddotllow-Brown) o 1 2
Blood (RdDark RdBrown)
o 1 z
--
17
UJE 3
Etc SENSORY A$fE4St4fN[ ~(oIlL~
SCALE OF MARKING - FRESHNESS
CRITERIA shypoundu1LRt
Abullbullbullbullbullment Mara-bull thc r1ah 0 1 2- 3tszhL
AppearanceinIIMlISJ Skin
Eye
Gill
Flbullbullshycut f ssm abdomusn
Colour the~
vertebral column
Organs
Oright iridescent I bright pigmenta- pigmentation in (1) dull pigmenta tion no i tion but not the process of pigmentation discolouration Ius trous becoming dis-
mucus opaquemucus aqueous i coloured and dull
mucus slightlytransparen t
cloudy ~UCU9 milky
convex (bulging) convex and flat (1) concave in cornea tran- slightly sunken cornea the centre parent cornea Ughtly opalescent cornea milky pupil black opalescent pupil pupil grey bright
pupil black opaque dull
-shining colour less coloured becoming dis- (1) yellmiish no mucus a few traces of coloured mucus milky
cloar mucus mucus opaque
blueish trans- dull velvety slightly opaque (1) opaque lucid smooth waxy shining without any change in the colour sUgh tly original colour changed
(I) reduncoloured sl1 gh tly pink pink
kidneys and kidneys and kidneys (1) kidneys residues of resJdues of resicJuos of r bullbullidue of other other organs other organs other organs organs and blood bright red the dull red blood and blood brownish game as the becoming palo red blood inside discolbured the aorta
(1) or in a more advanced bull ta te of decay
I
bull
Flesh
Vertebtal Column
Peritonium
Gills kin abdominal cavity
18
(eontd)
SCALE OF MARKING - FRESHNESS
CRITERIA
Assessment Mark 0 1 2
Physical eOId ton
firm and elas tic surface smooth
breaks ins tead of coming away
totally adherent to the flesh
seaweed
less elastic
adherent
adherent
Smell bull
not of seaweed but not bad
slightly soft (flaccid) Ie elastic surfacente waxy velvety and dull
slightly adherent
slightly adherent
slightly sour
3
(1) soft (flaccid) scales ebullbullil y detached from skin sur face ra ther wrinkled inclining to mealy
(1) not dherent
1( ) not adherent
(1) sour
(1) or in a more advanced stat of decay
_ shy-- -
19
Table 4
Filleted Sample Score Sheet
r
TREATMENT F ILIEIS DATE REMOJAL (THAWED)
FISH IDENr
EASE OF FILLETING (Easysl difficultdifficult)
012
APPEARANCE (a) Oolour of flesh (TranslucentSl discolouredSl opaqueopaque)
o 1 2 3
(b) Blood stains (AbsentDetectableModerateExcessive)
012 3
(c) Clotting (UnclottedSlclottedModclottedExcessclotted)
012 3
(d) Skin Oolour (VbrightBrightSldullOU11)
o 1 2 3
TEXTURE FirmS1 softSoft
o 1 2
ClDClJR (FreshNeutralStaleSpoilt)
012 3
CONJITION (a) Gaping (AbsentDetectableModerateExcessive)
o 1 2 3
(b) Bruising (AbsentSlightSevere)
012
(c) Wetness (NmnalS1 dry orMod dry orExcess dryness or
SldripModdrip Freezer bJrn or Excessdrip
012 3
(d) Autolysis (Absentmoderatesevere) (Disco1ourations) 0 1 2
(e) Parasites (Absentmoderatesevere) ( Infestations) 0 1 2
(f) Other discolourations (Absentpresent) or contaminants (bones membranes tissues etc) 0 1
EASE OF SKINNING (EasySldifficultdifficult)
012
20
by the author after a literature search and observations made during the preshy
liminary part of the study It has a maxUnum accumulated demerit score of 34
240 ~anoleptic Acceptability Panel of the cooked fish
Filleted samples of both fish species which had been frozen in a cold
roan at -18dege and then thawed as above were used for the acceptability taste
panels The fillets were skinned am cut into 30 to 40 g pieces crumbed and
deep fried (Bremner et ale 1985) Three or four treatments were cooked
simultaneously at each session am the fish served with packets of take-away
french fries Tcrnato sauce vinegar and salt were available Each of the
samples were randanised in such a way so as to give a high degree of balance
(Table 5 and 6) Letters that represent the samples were also picked
randanly The fish was assessed by 20 panellists employed at the Tasmanian
lEgional Laboratory and experienced with facial hedonic scaling for flavour
texture am overall acceptability using the General Foods Smiley scale
(Appendix 2) Salt was rot rrentioned with the 9niley questionaire for blue
grenadier so that the panel should have ro preconceiVed prejudices
250 Statistics
tata fran the sensory assessment of the whole gutted and ungutted raw
fish (both TFRJ am EEl score sheets) am fran the sensory assessrrent of the
frozen filleted raw fish samples of both the blue grenadier stored in RSW am
whiting stored in ice were analysed for correlation using the ELF scatter
module (Appendix 3 and 4)
The acceptability taste panel assessment scores for flavour texture and
overall liking of the toKgt species of fish were subjected to analysis of
variance using the Genstat package (Appendix 5 and 6)
22
Table 6
Order of presentation of cooked whiting samples to the acceptability taste panelists
Order of presentation of samples Panelist
session I session II
1 OTP rm 2 MUS KR 3 sm INL
4 IKJ GKR
5 ror NK
6shy USM UN ~
7 OOP RLD
B HUT NKD
9 USO RiL
10 SMP LGN
11 IMT GIltN
12 nxgt KRD
Note
8angtle code OM 0 G T S N R P U L K
storage time in ice (days) 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
23
300 RESULIS
310 Physical Characteristic of M novaeaelandiae
rran the forty-six fish examined the mean fork lerqth was found to be
762 an (range 609 to 838 an) A few of the fish examined had well shy
developed roes and their digestive tracts were found to be relatively empty
320 Physical Characteristics of the H ssmifasoiata
rran a total of thirty-six fish examined the rrean weight of the fish was
fourrl to be 662 g (range 27 to 186 g) am the mean fork length was 183 em
(range 156 to 265 an)
330 sensory assessment of the raw blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
he results of the sensory assessrrent of the r2M blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW by the four rrerhods of scoring are given as average total
accumulated demerit point scores as shown in Table 7 Figure 1 shoes the
graph of demerit point versus days in RSW by the four rrethods of sensory
assessment used Table 9 shltJtS the correlation analysis
340 sensory assessment of the raw whitirq samples stored in ice
he results of the sensory assessment of the r2M whitirq samples stored
in ice by the four methods of scoring are given as average total accumuLated
demerit point scores as shown in Table 8 Figure 2 shltJtS the graph of demerit
point versus days in ice of the four nethods of sensory assessment used Table
9 shltJtS the correlation analysis
350 Attributes contributing to total score
Attributes that contribute to total score usirq the TFRJ scores (ungutted
and gutted) EEC scores and the filleted sample scores are as shewn in Tables
10 - 14
24
Table 7
Total demerit points fran sensory assessment of blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
Average lbta1 Demerit Rgtint SCores
[)lye in RW TFRJ scores TFRJ scores EEl scores Filleted Sample (urvJut t ed ) (gutted) (gutted) SCores
3 3 3 1 1
4 5 5 2 3
6 10 10 6 6
8 16 18 9 8
9 19 21 11 10
10 20 22 13 12
11shy 22 24 15 14
12 23 25 18 17
13 24 26 19 18
14 25 27 19 19
17 29 31 21 23
21 33 35 25 29
Note
Maximum possible scores for (1) IlRJ scores (ungutted is 35
( 11) IlRJ scores (gutted) is 29
( 11i) EEX scores (gutted) is 30
( iv) Filleted sample scores is 32
amptV
35j
3l~
en Ishy 25Z-0 Q
3)-~
bullbullbull 0
bull 0 0bull 0
bull 0 0 6shy abull A ~
~
bull 0
~
6shy
bull 0
6shy
I) 01
-W 0i A15W ~ Q A
~
6shy~101- bull 90 TFRU SCORES (ungutted)
6shy~ bullbull TFRU SCORES (gutt~d i
bull ~
4 6- 6- EEC SCORES 5~
~ ~ FILLETED SAMPLE SCORES ~
6 4 I J I I I
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
DAYS IN RSW
Figl Demerit Points Versus Days in RSW For Blue Grenadier Samples
Fig 2 Demerit Points Versus Days in ice For Whiting Samples I
27
Table 8
TOtal demerit points from sensory assessment of whi tirq samples stored in ice
Average TOtal Demerit Foint SCores
rays in ice TFRJ scores TFRJ scores EEC scores Fi 11eted sample (urqutted) (gutted) (gutted) (gutted)
1 1 1 0 0 3 2 2 1 1
5 4 4 2 3
7 7 9 3 4
9 13 15 6 9
n 15 17 7 13
13 19 21 11 15
15 24 27 15 16
17 29 32 19 18
19 31 35 22 21
21 32 36 24 24
23 33 37 26 26
Note
MaXllnum possible scores for (i) TFRJ scores (urqutted) is 35 ( ii) TFRJ scores (gutted) is 39 ( iii) EEC scores (gutted) is 30 ( iv) Filleted sample scores is 32
28
Table 9
Relationship between tLme and demerit points for fish stored in RSW
Method of Visual Assessment
y- intercept slope correlation
M novaBMBlandias
TFRJ (urqutted ~les) 032 175 097
TFRJ (gutted samples) 032 190 096
EEl -231 146 097
Filleted samplesbull
-357 158 099
H sBmifasoiata
TFRJ (urqutted samples) -245 167 099
TFRJ (gutted samples) -273 187 099
EOC -414 129 098
Filleted samples -244 125 099
ltshy
--------------- ------------------------------------------
------------- - ------------- -------- ------
Table 10
Attributes contributing to total score using TFRO scores (gutted and ungutted)
Attributes involved in score change Score
Blue grenadier in RSW Whiting in ice
Stiffness Eyes - clarity blood Slllne Stiffness Eyes - clarity shape and blood lt10 Gills - smell Vent - smell SlBne Gills - colour smell and mucous
Vent - smell Belly cavity - stains and blood
Appearance Eyes-shape Stiffness Gills - smell colour and mucous Skin
Stiffness appearance gill-smell Scales belly-discolouration and firmness
N so
gt10lt20 SCales belly - discolouration and firmness Vent - smell Vent - smell and condition Belly cavity - stains and blood
Appearance Slllne Eyes - clarity shape Appearance SlBne Scales Skin blood and iris Gills - colour Eyes - clarity and shape
gt20lt30 Belly - discolouration Gills - mucous smell am colour Vent - condi tion and smell Belly cavity shy blood
Appearance Gills - mucous and smell SlBne Eyes - iris am blood Belly - discolouration and firmness Belly - discolouration and firmness
gt30 Vent - condition and smell Vent - condition Belly cavity - blood Belly cavity - stains
Table 11
Attributes contribut irq to total score us irq EEC scores
Attributes involved in score change
Score Blue grenadier in RSW W1iting in ice
lt7 Appearance - skin eyes gills organs Physical condition - flesh Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and organs Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skins eyes gills flesh Appearance-eyes and organs atv
vertebral column and organs Physical condition-flesh and peritoneum gt7lt14 Physical condition - flesh Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-eyes flesh and vertebral Appearance-skin gills and organs column Physical condition-flesh vertebral column
gt14lt21 Physical condition-vertebal column and and peritoneum peritoneum Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and vertebral column vertebral column
gt21 Physical condition-flesh and peritoneum Physical cOndition-flesh vertebral column Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity and peri toneum bull
Table 12
Attributes contributing to total score using filleted sample scores
Score
lt5
Attributes involved in score change
Blue grenadier in RSW
Appearance - blood stains skin colour ltXIour - flesh
M1iting in ice
----- shy -------------- shy
Appearance - skin colour odour - flesh Cbndition - gaping wetness
Appearance - colour of flesh Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Texture - flesh skin colour ltgt gt5lt10 Cbndition - gaping bruising wetness Ease of filleting
Texture - flesh
Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Appearance - colour of flesh clotting skin clotting skin colour skin colour
gt10lt20 odour - flesh odour - flesh Cbndition - gaping wetness autolysis COndition - gaping bruising wetness other discolourations autolysis and other discolouration Ease of skinning
Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains skin colour clotting
gt20 Texture - flesh Texture - flesh odour - flesh Odour shy flesh COndition - gaping bruising wetness Cbndition - wetness autolysis autolysis Ease of skinring
32
Table 13
Diff~rent emphasis in scoring systems for whole fish as between the EEl and TFID
Attribute Number of potential demerit points TFRJ EEl
1Ippearance (general) 3 0
skin ) scales 6 3
slime
Stiffness (Rigor) 2 0
Eyes 7 3
Gills 7 6
Belly 5 0
Vent 5 0
Belly cavity 4 3
Flesh cut fram abdomen 0 3
Flesh texture 0 3
Vertebral column 0 6
Internal organs 0 3
33
360 Relative merits of the scoring systems
The four scor irq methcds were used on the same samples of t ish Any
sample had therefore deteriorated to the same extent on anyone day Figs 3
am 4 shew the scores converted to percentages of possible deroorit point
scores The discrepancy in the accumulation of demerit points between the EEC
am TFRJ scor irq methods is clearly shown IEference to Table 2 3 am 13
shOool that this is caused by the lack of questions regarding rigor looseness
of scales condition of belly am vent am the qroupinq of colour am mucous
in the gills as single po i nts thus halving the potent Ia I gill demerit point
score canparison of the tO species in Table 9 ShONS that the rate of
accumulation of demerit pgtints was more consistent for the TFRU system than by
the EEX scor i oq methltXl or by scorinq of fillets
370 Time taken to score the fish
The average time taken to score an individual fish using the TFPlJ
(unqutted) scores TFRJ (gutted) scores EEX scores am the filleted aamp Le
scores were found to be 1 min 25 sec 1 min 55 sec 3 min 45 sec and 1 min 50
sec respectively The EEX score sheet is more t iroe consumioq in that more than
one question is asked about an attribute for the giving of only one demerit
point this requires conscious thought
380 Acceptability taste panel results of blue grenadier samples bull Figures 5 6 am 7 shOool the mean taste panel scores in graphic form for
flavour texture and overall acceptability of cooked blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW table 14 shows the results of the statistical analysis
390 Acceptability taste panel results of whiting samples
Figures 8 9 am 10 shOool the mean taste panel scores in graphic form for
flavour texture and overall acceptability of cooked whiting samples stored in
ice table 15 shows the results of the statistical analysis
WHITING STORED IN ICE o TFRU SCORES (ungutted)
bull TFRU SCORES (gutted)
b EEC SCORES
FILLETED SAMPLE SCORES
100bull e ~ e b
i 6
bull NW
oIJ-a A A-
(J0 t A~ 0 ~ AC)
C) -e ~~-
C) a 50 A
A w
Iz ~
~ - W e A0 c a ~ ~ A-a ~ l ~ A
w -~
~ X ~ W -e I c ~ ~ ibull I I I I
4 8 12 16 20 24
DAYS IN ICE FIG4
36
- flavourshy
-e s-e l ~ v
5middotIU
STORAGrf IN R sWDAYS
rlCoS Ttutfc pcr1 rcbull
rf oj bl jtlJ~r - jlqVGurc acccr~b
21179 0 2 136 843
~ 0 u 5middot0YI
oJ J l ofmiddot$ 1 e
tu 4middot0
VI
~ 3middot5
3middot0
TelC-lue X bull -e III
~ Gmiddotftv
ct 5middot03
V1
-J -f-SshyU 2
~ 40 t
3-~
~ bullbull0 5 0
~ 17 21A ISII
PAY- IITDRAGamp fbilW
FIG6 I Tq1-c pltnd rc-utl ojbllfcJrcftaJIr bull I~M144 Q Cc(r~blfly
r 411q~~ An~Plf bUIJlfM F llh J~Lld Pt-DoL B fpound)1
gt1 NI ~~eusr SJAVlt1
D ~II
(ffIt1~JP IIID bull U J 1i
-IyoJC )-tlICf p --lInraquoJ Ix-Pc ~1rb1 r I ef
Ma2j NI a~v2loJ$
til
1Ia ~AO (IIp~lJa~e
01
secto
00
s
05
5
o~
~
0pound
s
0
smiddot
o~
07
1 ~ ~ ~ ~
r~
B
~
rv t gtshy 2
~ ~ 11
~ 7shyIn r
~ () 0 1) m ~
~ gtshyz -
(fII~q~~ 7~ P
IItJ1o -~~f(ll p ~I I~U J ~t~L 0 ~ middot~II I
IDI 8~ middot lta ~
~ QS
middotS ~ ~ 0 z
r Smiddot II
S 1d 0-$ 111 r- l gtshy r
V fr~
~llCf-J a-PcJ~ U~middotJO
4lp~dmiddotyIb 6middot~1f np)t -~11M fo --IIhen IJutJel ~bl
Table 14
Acceptability of deep fried blue grenadier samples stored in FSW
rays in R3W
Acceptability 3 4 6 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 17 21
Flavour 50a 50a 4S a 51a 50a 51a 50a 4Sa 49a 53a 41b 35b
Texture 49bc 51abc 4S bed 52ab 4Sbed 53ab 52abc 52ab 4Sbed 55a 46cd 43d
OJerall 50ab 51ab 47be 52ab 4Sb 5lab 52ab 50ab 47b 54 a 41c 35d
abc
d
significantly different (pltOOOl)
significantly different (pltOOl) W so
Table 15
Acceptability of deep fried whiting samples stored in ice
rays in ice
Acceptability 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Flavour 5Sab 59a 59a 60a 59a 5S ab 51b 54ab 53ab 37c 37c 31c
Texture 59ab 59a 53bed 5S ab 63a 59ab 47cde 54be 56ab 55ab 44e 46de
OJera11 57ab 5S ab 59ab 60a 60a 5Sab 52b 53ab 55ab 42c 36cd 31d
abcde significantly different (Plt0001)
40
~oo DISCUSSION
410 Sensory assessment of the raw blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
he results of sensory assessment on the raw blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW by the four methods of scoring all sheM that there is
progressive increment in total demerit points with storage time for all the
four methods (Table 7) It was also fourxi that the accumulation of demerit
points with time of storage of the fish in ffiW occurred in a saui-linear
fashion for all -the four scoring methods used (Figure 1) he variables (time
of storage and demeritmiddot points score) were all highly correlated (Table 9)
he correlation equation of the TFRJ (ungutted samples) and TFRJ (gutted
sanples) scores were similar roth having a zero time intercept of 032 but
with the TFRJ (gutted samples) scores having a slightly greater slope by 015
he EEC scores and the filleted sample scores roth have lower slopes ie
146 and 158 respectively canpared with the TFRJ (ungutted sample) and TFRJ
(gutted sample) scores of 175 and 190 respectively lbwever the EOC scores
which have the lowest slope have a fairly similar correlation equation with
the filleted sample scores (Table 9) he negative intercepts reflected the
slightly more sigrroid relationship for these samples his suggests that the
TFRJ (gutted) scoring method is the rrost sensitive of the four methods
followed by the TFRJ (ungutted) the filleted sample and the EEC scores
It was also found that after 21 days of storage in RSW the blue
grenadier samples had not reached their maximun possible scores in any of the
four scoring rrethods used (Table 7) he TFRJ (ungutted sample) score only
reached 943 of its possible maximun value whereas the TFRJ (gutted sample)
scores EEC scores and the filleted sample score reached only 897 833 ar~
906 of their possible maximun score his means that all the four methods
of scoring can still be sensitive to changes in the quality of the blue
grenadier samples stored in RSW after 21 days of storage time
41
Figures 1 and 3 also shOVt that the pattern of the graphs of demerit
points against days storage in R3W of the four methcxis of scoring is similar
ie a tendency to be slightly sigmoid fbwever the filleted sanple scores
sean to be rrore sensitive than the EOC scores at the later part of the storage
time ie after 14 days of storage and the scores continued to rise
1be rrost obvious indicator of change for the blue grenadier stored in ffiW
using the TFRJ scores (both gutted and unJUtted sanples) was the eyes (clarity
and blood) followed by odour developnent of the gills (Table 10) his is -
also foond to be true wi th the EOC freshness score (Table 11) Fbr the
filleted sample scores the appearance and odoor of the flesh seems to be the
most obvious indicator of change follOVted by the condition of the fillets such
as gaping bruisin) am wetness (Table 12)
4 20 sensory assessment of the raw whi ting samples stored in ice
1he results of sensory assessment on the rCJl whiting samples stored in
ice by the foor roothods of scoring also shows that there is a progressive
increment in total demerit points with storage time for all the four methods
of scoring (Table 8) Ps with the blue grenadier the aCCLD1UJlation of demerit
points with time of storage of the whiting in ice also occurred in a sernishy
linear fashion for all the foor scoring methods used (Figure 2 and 4) wi th a
slight lag in the initial phase Interestingly this was not observed in the
case of blue grenadier sanples stored in ffiW probably because the first
samplin) of the blue grenadier starts only fran the third day after catch
whereas the first sampling of the whiting starts fran the first day after
catch Also the blue grenadier was handled qu i te roughly on the deck in fact
three oot of the four fish samples on the first rerroval ie the third day
after catching had already showed blood in their eyes
Bremner et al (1985) when using the TFRJ score sheet to assess the
42
quality of four tropical fish species fran the oorth west shelf of hJstralia
(stored in ice) also fourrl that the accumulation of demerit points with time
of storage in ice occurred in a linear fashion
PB wi th blue grenadier the variables (tine of storage ard darneri t points
score) were all highly correlated (Table 9) Also the correlation equation of
the TFRJ (ungutted) ard TFRJ (gutted) scores were similar with the TFJU
(gutted) score having a slightly greater slope by 020 Crable 9) he EEC
scores am filleted sample scores also have lower s lopes l e 129 ard 125
respectively ocmpared to the TFm (ungutted) and (gutted) scores of 167 and
187 respectively However unlike the blue grenadier the filleted samples
of the whi t ing had the 10liest slope he more sensi tive na ture of the EEC
scores as canpared to the filleted sample scores in the case of the whiting
especially after 12 days storage in ice can be explained by the snaller size
of the whitirlJ (fork length ranging fran 156 to 265 an) as canpared to the
size of the blue grenadier (fork length ranging 809 to 838 an) the snaller
fish terrl to spoil faster especially the interior parts of the fish PB the
EEC scores depend nuch on the sensory assessment of the interior parts of the
fish such as the appearance and condition of the flesh vertebral colwnn
interior organs per i toneun and abdaninal cavity (Table 3) which makes up more
than 18 demerit points out of the total possible maxinun of 30 the
sensitiveness of its score is thus self-explanatory in the case of whiting
Connell (1980) explained that large fish keep marginally better than small
fish because larger fish have a smaller surface to volume ratio so that in the
same tUne less of their interior is affected
The above results confirmed the previous suggestion that the TFRU
(gutted) scorIoq methcrl is the roost sensitive of the four methods It was
found that after 23 days of storage in ice the whiting scmples had not
reached the maximun possible scores in any of the four methods used (Table
43
8) The 1FIU (UBJutted) scores had reached only 94-3 of its possible maximum
value whereas the TFRJ (gutted) scores EOC scores am the filleted sample
scores reached only 94 9 867 and 81 3 of their poea Ible maximum score
Therefore all the four methods of scoriBJ can still be sensitive to changes
in quality of the whiting samples stored in ice after 23 days of storage tUne
Ihe roost obvious irxHcator of chaDJe for the whiting stored in ice using
the TFIU score sheet was the eyes (clarity shape and blcxxl) followed by the
develqxnent of -colour odour and nucous of the gills (fable 10) Bremner et
al (1985) when working with four tropical species f~ the north west shelf of
Australia also found that the most obvious indicator of change for fish stored
in ice was the eyes (their clarity am shape) follCAtled by odour developnent
and colour changes in the gills This was also found in the case of blue
grenadier in ~ discussed earlier OJrran et al (1981) when investigating
the quality changes duriBJ iced storage of three carmercially important
species of fish fran Bahrein also found that of the visual and olfactory
assessments gill odour showed the roost pranise as a quality control index
Pgain this is also found to be true with the EOC freshness score of both the
blue grenadier and the whitiBJ (Table 11) AccordiBJ to ~ate (1972) it
was generally agreed that odour of the gills is the most sensitive measure of
freshness but the visual appearance of the eyes gills arxi skin was quicker to
use in practice on the market
For the filleted sample scores of the whiting the most obvious indicator
of chanqe was the appearance and odour of the flesh (Table 12) This too
agreed with the findiBJs for blue grenadier stored in ffiW
AccordiBJ to Baines et al (1969) with fish eatiBJ is related to four
main attributes or quality factors viz appearance odour and texture of the
rCM and cooked fish and in the latter also flavour he ultimate purpose of
testing the raw fish is to estimate the eating quality which is here taken to
44
mean the degree of freshness of flavour Acoording to Baines and Shewan
(1965) the mostreliable test for predicting flavour sqore is raw odour
430 The ease aM difficulties of using the four methods of scoring
It was found that the TFRJ (ungutted) scores was the easiest and quickest
method to use as it takes on average only about 1 min 25 sec to score a fish
canpared to 1 min 55 sec 3 min 45 sec ard 1 min 50 sec for the TFRJ
(gutted) EOC and the filleted sample scores he E~ score was found to be
the roost tedious besides taking the longest time to soore a fish
he TFIU (ungutted) scores also have the advantage of not requiring a
knife in order to score ard also were less IOOSSY to work with canpared to all
the other nethods Also the attributes to be assessed were arranged and
organised in such a way in the score sheet that it is easy to score a fish
starting from assessing the apparance and skin and ending with the condition
and smell of the vent
440 Acceptability taste panel results of the blue grenadier samples
441 Flavour acceptability
Figure 5 shc7ws the flavour acceptability of the deep fried samples of
blue grenadier Samples stored in R3W for less than 17 days were found
statistically (Table 14) to be indistinguishable (Plt0001) fran each other
then there was a significant fall in the flavour acceptability of the samples
stored in RSW for 17 days onwards he sarrtgtle stored for 21 days had a still
lower mean value of 35 but it was not significantly different fran the
semple stored for 17 days which had a nean value of 41 It is interesting to
note that despite the progressive increase in sodiun uptake of the blue
grenadier samples stored in RSW from about 7115 35 mg sodium(lOO g tissue
initially to 724 33 mglOO g tissue on the 16th day aM to 729 17 mglOO g
45
tissue on the 21st day (Burford 1984) the panelists seem not to be
negatively affected by the increasing salt content of the samples with storage
tUne and in fact some of the panelists added more salt to their samples I
111is result contradicts statements made by previous reseachers that the
storage life using R3W may be limited by increases in salt content in the fish
flesh (Boyd et aI 1978) he maximun desirable salt content according to
Tcm1inson et al (1974) as quoted by Boyd et al (1978) is about 05 but at
the 16th day ofmiddot RgtW storage the salt content fOllNj In the flesh of blue
grenadier samples was already more than 07 fbwever the panelist only ate
40g pieces it might have been a different case if the fish has been as a
whole meal
442 Texture acceptability
Figure 6 shows the texture acceptability of the deep fried blue grenadier
samples stored in R3W eespf te sane apparent abberant values (such as the
high rrean of 55 for the sample stored for 14 days in RSW) it is obvious that
the texture acceptability showed a significant decreasing trend (pltOOl) from
seventeen days of storage onwards The abberant texture values are possibly
due to the fact that the fish texture might have been masked by the bread
crunbs used to coat the fish samples before deep fryi~ This agrees with the
observations of Bremner et al (1985) wtxgt found that the inherent textural
softness of P piotiue and the tougheni~ on storage of N peroni i detected by
a profile panel usilYJ steamed fillets were no lo~er noticeable when the fish
was deep fried in batter Bremner (1980) also reported that despi te the
softness of the raw flesh the cooked flesh of blue grenadier is reasonably
firm
46
433 OVerall acceptability
The overall acceptability of the deep fried blue grenadier samples stored
in R)W (figure 7) seems to follCM a similar pattern to its flavour
acceptability (figure 5)~ in which a significant fall in overall acceptability
was only observed fran the samples held fran 17 days in RSW onwards (pltO 001)
as shawn in Tablel4
rnus all the above results showed that there was a significant fall in
flavour texture and overall acceptability of blue ~renadier from 17 days of
R)W storage onwards which was found to be equivalent to the accumulated
demerit point scores of 29 of the TFRJ (ungutted) scoresr 31 of the TFRl
(gutted) scoresr 21 of the EOC scores and 23 of the filleted sample
scores Jones (1964) states that the acceptability of a fish is a function of
its suitability for further processing and of its inmediate appearance its
texture its odour and its flavour
450 Acceptability taste panel results of the whiting samples
451 Flavour acceptability
Figure 8 shows the flavour acceptability of the deep fried whiting
samples stored in ice rtle twelve sample times could be analysed individually
since the means if analysed by canbining adjacent sample times to give six
sample groups are in fact the means of the adjacent times if analysed
individually it was found that samples of the first nine renovals i se up to
17 days of storage in ice are more or less indistinguishable (abberant value
at 7th removal) he last three removals ie samples stored in ice for 19
21 and 23 days were found to be of significantly lower flavour acceptability
(p lt 0001) as shawn in Table 5
47
452 Texture acceptability
Except for the abberation at the 7th remgtval i 9 at day 13 of ice
storage there is a significant reduction of texture acceptability at the 21 II
and 23 days of ice storage (p lt0001) as shown by figure 9 and Table5 t
II
I 453 Over~ll acceptability
he overal I acceptability of the whiting sanples stored in ice is very
much similar to its f Lavour acceptability except at day 19 of ice storage
where the ovaral I acceptability shows a higher mean of 42 carpared to the
flavoor acceptability mean of 37 (figure 10 and Table 5) here is however a
significant sudden drop to lOil scores fran the lOth removal ie day 19 of
storage in ice (p lt0001)
hus all the above results for whitifVJ sanples showed that there was a
significant fall in flavCXJr and overall acceptability fram 19 days ice storage
onwards which is equivalent to the accumulated demerit points of 31 of the
TFRJ (unqutted) scores 35 of the TFRJ (gutted) scores 22 of the EEC
scores and 21 of the filleted sample scores he results are interesti~ in
that the oorresponding total accLDnulated demerit points at the time when
significant falls in flavour texture and overall acceptability of the blue
grenadier and whiting samples stored in I5W and ice respectively were quite
similar
500 CONCLUSION
510 Feasibility of using demerit points
Accumulation of demerit points with time of storage of M
in RM and H eemifaeaiatia in ice was found to be highly
occurred in a semi-linear fashion irrespective of the method of
novas8slandiae
correlated and
scori~ used
- _ ~uo_a~_bull--_--I e -Ii --
48
1he slopes of the lines (rate of accumulation of demerit points) and its
relative spoilage rate were found to be similar for the ttoO species provided
the sane method of scoring is employed 1his tends to suggest that the method
is possibly independent of species am methods of storage or at least
applicable to the two species in RSW and ice respectively
TIle TFRJ (ungutted) scores were foum to be the easiest arrl quickest
method to use although the TFRJ (gutted) scores were the roost sensitive 1he
EEX freshness scores were hClgtlever foum to be the JOOSt tedious aod difficult bull I
to use besides taking more than twice the time taken to score a fish ocmpared
to the TFRJ (ungut ted) scores
Although there were slig~t differences between the ttoO species in those
characteristics where changes were first made (Table 10 11 and 12) there is
enough evidence to conclude that the changes in the appearance of the eyes am
the odour developnent of the gills are the JOOSt obvious arrl valuable indicator
of charqe in quality when using the TFIU or the EEl scores while the
appearance am odour of the fish flesh seems to be the JOOSt obvious indicator
when assessing the filleted sample
1he shelf-life of M navaezelandiae stored in RSW was found to be 14 days
(less than 17 days) whilst that of H semifasoiata stored in ice was fourrl to
be 17 days (less than 19 days) beyond which the fish had developed spoilage
characteristics that were disliked by the acceptability taste panel
1he cut-off point at which spoilage of the samples would have rendered
the quality of the fish sample to be unacceptable fran the consumers point of
view ~ld be that equivalent to the accumulated demerit point of gt29 for the
TFRJ (gutted arrl ungutted) scores am gt21 for the EOC and filleted sample
scores
This study thus confinned the potential use of demerit points such as the
TFRJ (ungutted) scores as an easy quick cheap non-destructive and reliable
49
method of sensory assessment of fish quality In fact Branch and Vail (1985)
had studied the possible use of a prototype pocket-sized computer to determine
the condition and shelf-life of temperate and tropical species of fish based
on data that is derived fran the sensory score sheets for the assessment of
fish quality developed at the (SIRgt Division of fbod lEsearch Iasmanian Fbod
Research Unit (TFlU) Hobart
520 RJrpose for which demerit points are to be used
Many scor i oq systerrs are used to predict the nunber of days fish have
been stored on ice and in nore recent years ICETIME (equivalent days on
ice) I ard thus through years of experience the taste panel acceptability of
the fish I
However fish is sold on appearance and a scoring system may be used for
assessirg marketability of whole or gutted fish or fillets or for setting
standards in bulk buying The EEC scoring system is used for example at
fish markets at first point of sale to grade the fish and establish
withdrawal prices A IbrryShewan type system is often used as a purohas i nq
specification from finn to firm
Before a final demerit point system is selected for any COlIOOdity its
ultimate purpose should be established For example the demerit points
chosen for whole fish which nost closely resemble the rate of change of
demerit points for fillets of that species might be the most useful
A linear rate of change of demerit points with time is nose favoured
because it enables prediction of remaining shelf-life ConstJJrer
unacceptability should be at a point where perhaps 75 of the demerit points
have been accrued Further scores would still be available for categories
such as suitable for fish meal D3merit points are not an indication of the
acceptability of fish as eaten where off-odours flavours and fillet
50
tdiscolouration are masked by batters or curries Their correlation with the
iodours flavours off odours aod off flavours of steamed fish are currently ~
~
~being examined by other workers at the Tasmanian ~ Research unit and highly
significant correlations are found Even when fish are subsequently eaten
battered or curried demerit points give a good indication of remaining shelf
life Thus whitiOJ with a Smiley flavour score of 58 after 1 day on ice
has a nlU gutted demerit score of 1 and a high quality life (eaten crumbed
and fried) of a further 16 days while whitiOJ stored for 11 days on ice with
the sane flavour score has a gutted demerit score of 17 and a further shelf
life of 6 days
530 SUggestion for further work
Ib ascertain its potentially wide application as a simple quick and
technically sound methcxi of assessing fish quality many more studies using
other species of fish both temperate and tropical species and in various
storage conditions should be undertaken using a demerit point scorIrq system
such as that developed by the TFlU
The score sheet has proved invaluable when sending individuals untrained
researchers away on distant water fishing trips Ps yet 00 standard
deviations have been detennined using a team of assessors with coded samples
of unknown history This may require a separate group design
The effect of lean fish and fatty fish on the scores should also be
studied because factors such as seasonal variations in biological conditions
Lmproper gutting and washing mechanical damage and filth and changes due to
storage in R3W or shelving may have considerable influence on its shelf-
life Reports such as those of smith et al (1979) clearly showed that in fish
such as the blue whitirlJ (Mioroomesistius poubaeeous there is greater degree
I 51
of seasonal variability than in other gadoid species the overall
acceptability droppirq dramatically once the fish have spawned Fish accepted
for processing for food has to be of a higher standard of quality than fish
accepted for Imredfate sale across the counter to the consumer therefore
there is a need to rreet a minimum score before they could be processed into
food Gradirq is therefore best left to the user sorenson (1971) states
that in establishing limi ts of acceptance an allowance had to be made for
deterioration that would continue to take place during processing and storage
prior to reaching the consimer
The only final criteria of the objectivity of sensory or any other
assessment are results that are reproducible many times which is by definition
a lcnJ-tenn process and in the meantime one requires short-cut indications
that one is headirq in the right direction
Ferhaps a final caution Is necessary as in the YQrds of Ehrenberg and
Shewan (1953) not too much must be expected even the best measuring
instruments occasionally go oot of control
52
60 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baines CR Jones NR am Shewan JM 1965 Technological problems of
measur trq degree of freshness of wet fish and problems of quality
control requirif)J roore knowledge fran fundamental research In he
Technology of fish utilisation ad R Kreuzer Fishi~ News (Books)
p 141
Baines CR and Shewan JM 1965 sensory rrethods for evafuat inq the
quality of white fish Lab practice 14 160-163
Baines CR ltbnnell JoJ Gibson DM lbWgate PF Livi~ston E and
Shewan JM 1969 A taste panel technique for evaluatirq the eati~
quality of frozen cod In Freezi~ and irradiation of fish ad R
Kreuzer Fishi~ News (Books) London p361
Boyd NS and Wilson NDC 1976 A sensory method for evaluatInq the
quality of Snapper (Ch1ysophrys auratus) NZ Journal of Science 19
209-12
Boyd NS Wilson ND and Bjley A 1978 A refrigerated sea water plant
for small boats symposium on fish utilisation technology and
marketi~ in the IPFC region IFFC Proceedi~s 18th session Manila
Philippines FAD Ba~kok p 186-192
Branch AC and Vail AMA 1984 Bri~i~ fish inspection into the
canputer age FltXld Technol Aust 36 in press
Bremner HA Olley J and Ihrower SoJ 1978 CSIIU Iasmanian lEgional
Laboratory OCcasional Paper No4
Bremner HA 1980 Processi~ and freezi~ of the blue grenadier (Maclulonus
novaeselandiae) FltXld Technol Aust 32(8)~ pp 385-393
Bremner J A 1984 QJality - an attitude of mind In he JILlstralian
Fishi~ Industry - today and tanorrow 10-12 July 1984 Launceston
53
Australian MaritUne Cbllege seminar Bapers 224-69
Bremner HA Statham JA am Sykes SJ 1985 Tropical species fran the
north west shelf of Alstralia sensory assessment and acceptability
of fish stored co ice Proceedi~s Sixth session IPR Worki~ Party
on Fish D3chnology and Marketi~ Melbourne 1984 FJID Fish lep 252
supp1
Burford D 1985 Sodiun uptake in MaOlUfOOnUS nooaeselandiae stored in
refrigerated sea water Tasmanian Food Research Unit OCcasional Paper
No9
ltbnnell JJ 1972 OJality control in the fish industry Ibrry Jldvisory
note No 58 IOrty Research Station Aberdeen
ltbnnell JJ 1980 ltbntrol of fish quality Fishi~ ~ws (Books) 2nd ed
Surrey England
OJrran CA Nicolaides L and Al-Alawi ZS 1981 QJality chanqes duri~
iced storage of three carmercially important species of fish fran
Bahrain Trop sci 23(4) 253-268
de Zylva ERA 1974 Effect of fish handli~ at sea on storage quality of
New Zealand Snapper (Chroysophroys aumtus) New Zealand J SCi 17
309-318
Etlira S 1976 A biochemical study on the freshness of fish Bull 1bkai
Reg Fish Res Lab No 88 pp 1-13
Ehrenberg ASC and Shewan JM 1953 he cbjective approach to sensory
tests of food J Sci Food hJric 4 pp 482-489
Herbert RA and Shewan JM 1975 Precursors of the volatile sulphides in
spoili~ North Sea Cod J Sci Food JIlgric 26 1195-1202
lbUwi~ H 1972 Gradi~ of fish in different qualities Institute for
Fishery Products Ijmuiden Unpublished
~ate P 1972 Qrlparison of sensory scor inq systems for raw fish
I 54
Unpubl ished bull ~ ~
~ate P 1978 Measuri~ the quality am acceptability of fish products bull ~
In IPFC Proceedi~s symposiun on fish utilisatial technology and ~
i f~
marketi~ in the IWC region 18th session Manila Ihilippines p
449
fflghes RB and Jones NR 1966 Measurement of hypoxanthine concentrations
in canned herrirg as an index of the freshness of the raw material
with a ocirment oo flavor relations J SCi fOOd middotJlgric 17 434
Jahns FD Howe JL Coduri Jr RJ and Ram Jr AG 1976 A rapid
visual enzyme test to assess fish freshness Food Iechno1 30 (7) 27
Jones NR 1964 ~lems associated with freezi~ very fresh fish
Proceedings Meeting on Fish Iechnology Fish Handling and
Preservation schevenirqen OEC D Paris p 31 bull
Jones NR 1965 Hypoxanthine and other purine containing fractions in fish
muscle as indices of freshness In uthe technology of fish
utilisation ed R Kreuzer Fishi~ rewa (Books) (Drmn p 179
Last PR Scott EOG and Talbot FH 1983 Fishes of Tasmania
Tasmanian Fisheries ~velopnent lUthority lbbart Tasmania pp 238
414
Lima doe santos CAM James D and Ieutscher F 1981 QJidelines for
chilled fish storage experiments FKJ Fish Tech Igt 210
(Dye RM 1954 Ibst rrortem cha~es in the lenses of fish eyes Msessment
of storage tiJm and fish quality J Sci Focx11lgric 5 566-572
Hartin RE Gray RJ H and Pierson MD 1978 QJality assessment of fresh
fish arrl the role of the naturally occurring microflora Focx1
Technol 32 (5) 188
Official Journal of the European oamrnunities No L264 5 ~cember 1970 pp
1-11
bull
55
Technol New Zealand July 1971 pp 31-35
Spinelli J Eklund M and Miyauchi D 1964 Measurement of hypoxanthine
in fish as a method of assessing freshness J Food SCi 29 710
Thrower S oJ am Stafford IA 1981 A roobile unit for ccmparative studies
of chilled storage systems for trawl fish IIF IIR
eatmissions C2 01 02 03 Boston USA 1981-4
Thrower SoJ Bremner HA QJarmby AR Ggtnnan T8 aild Graham KJ
1982 cn-board handlinJ of Q~ish ~ Inportanoeof chillinJ and
gutting Aust Fish 41 (11) 38-41
Tanlinson N bull bull t at 1974 COtparison between refrigerated sea water (with or
without added carbon dioxide) and ice as storage media for fish to be
subsequently frozen Proc IIR C011n 82- 0-3 Tokyo p
waterman J oJ 1982 Qrrposition and QJality of Fish A Dictionary 1brry
Mvisory Note No 87 Torry Research Station Aberdeen
5J
Olley J and letkowsky OA 1973 he role of terrperature function
integration in monitoring of fish spoilage Food Technol New
Zealand 8 (2) 13 15 and 17
Olley J 1977 Iemperature and seafood spoilage In H Proceedings of 1977
SChool for SeafltXld Processorsmiddot ad ~ AF 0 Mello Hawkesbury
Agricultural Oollege p6-2
Olley J 1978 QIality assessment and storage changes In middotCSIRJ Iasmanian bull
leJional Laboratory OCcasional Paper No 4 p 3-1 middot4 Rgenstein J M and ~enstein CE 1981 he shelf-life extension of fesh
fish In Advances in the refrigerated treabnent of fishmiddot
International Institute of Rfrigeration Clmnissions C2 m ra [8
Boston US A 1981-4
leJenstein J 1983 Wlat is fish quality INroFISH Marketing Digest ttgt 6
26-28
Ryder JM 9Jisson OH SCott ON and Fletcher GC 1984 storage of
New Zealand Jack Mackerel ( TmohUMlB notJabullbullbullZandias) in ice
chemical microbiological and sensory assessment J M SCi 49
1453-1456 1477
Shewan JM Macintosh RG rucker CG and Ehrenberg ASC 1953 he
developnent of a numerical ~coring systan for the sensory assessment
of the spoilage of wet white fish stored in ice J SCi Food Jlgric
4 283-298
Smith J GM Hardy R hanson AB Young KW and Parsons E 1979
sane observations 00 the ambient and chill storage of blue whiting
(Mio1om8sistius poutassou) bull In H Advances in Fish SCience and
Technology ad JJ Connell FishinJ News (Books) Surrey England
pp 299-303
SOrensen T 1971 QIality control and fish handling in New zealand Food ~
t c-
o )
~hmiddot r~YiJ lt~
~~f~~ ~
I
Nomooram for comparison of diffGrent scoring systems tor raw T i sn ___ _ J bull )
_U I~ ~Y1 9i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~
I I t I I - _---1------ imiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot __ middot~_ ~ __~_ -_ ~ + ~ _ -~ _ - middotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middot __ G 9 8 7 6 _ 5middot 3
_ - zmmy [ I bull r f II
d _~__ ~ __ _ ~ __ -I-- - ~ L- i~ middoti~ ~ 1-L -~~ lt lt l~tceland 1P i ~ ~ j ~ ~ ~ L~ __ - I ~_ bull _ L j ~- _-
N rv 1 I 1 2 --- - 2~ 3 middot 3middot 4 ~- ~Il ay ~ _ _ middot _ r r
_ _ __ _ _~ ~_ ) - ~ L_ - 1- ~-_ -_ _ _ ~ 19 ~ 8 imiddotmiddot I 6 5 4 3
Do _ _nm~r t I I I r
~ I
_ ~ ~_ ~ t ~ __ i__ t ~ ~ ~ ~ _ q x 1 1i 2 2~ 3v _ Franee I r I l n
I I I i _ - ~ _ _ _- _-- middotmiddot __ middot_middot_middot_middotmiddotmiddotImiddotmiddotmiddot_middot~ _middotmiddotmiddotmiddot-_middotmiddotmiddotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddot ---- - --~ ~-
19oum8 I 7 6 i 5 ~ ~ 4middot 280 J t (
I i
J -- - -_ -__ X ~middotH i__~ -- i_L ~ - l_ middot1-- - 3 I 2Y1 0 4 11z 1 y
E E C I 1
I I I deg deg E I A r Bmiddot - I I C
ltOIl j- ~ ~ c ~--------------
TASTER
DATE
SESSION
~ER middot1
bull You will be given ~bull aamples of cooked fish Please assess the fish for flavour textur~ and
overall liking as though you had purchased them in a takeaway food shop Hark the sample
identification under the face that most closely describes your impressionbull
I
middot5 S shy2 3 4
FLAVOUR
IEXlURE
--
OVERALL UKING
7 bullbull yc ) I _ v J _ _
I1PP~NJIJ( 3 ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE BGRENVZSASS (A)
OBS DAYS-R DMPTS shy
1 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 6 4 3 7 4 6 e 4 5 9 6 1 18 6 10 11 6 18 12 6 18 13 e 13 14 8 16 13 8 13 16 8 17 17 9 18 18 9 18 19 9 bull 19 29 9 19 21 19 19 22 1 21 23 1 19 24 1 2123 11 21 26 11 22 27 11 22 29 11 22 29 12 22 3 12 22 31 12 23 32 12 23 33 13 23 34 13 23 33 13 22 36 13 23 37 14 24 38 14 23 39 14 264 14 25
17 26~ 17 39 43 17 38 44 17 29 43 21 32 46 21 33
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASS(At
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (Xt DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Yt DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9666 R SQUARED 9343 T STATISTIC 231621 INTERCEPT tAt 31799 SLOPE tSt 173399 bull STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 219473
OBSERVATIONS 46 Y DMPT9 XI DAYS-RSW YMIN -18 YMAX 61 YINC e XMIN -19 XMAX 2e9 XINe 2
] y
__ t=- I I 0(I I
JPRH6ELF PRINT MODULE -SYNTAX ERROR
DATABASE J3lGRENVISASS (FIL)
OB8 DAYS-R DMPT8
1 s 1 2 4 5 s 6 6
~ e 8 ~ 9 1 6 19 12 7 11 14 8 12 17 9 13 18 1 14 19 bull 11 17 23 12 21 29
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASSCFIL)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE CX) DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IY) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT ~9963
R SQUARED 992 T STATISTIC 3~36977
INTERCEPT CA) -3~6~41
SLOPE CB) 1~8426
STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 77667
OBSERVATIONS 12 v DMPTS x DAYS-RSW VMIN -2~ VMAX ~~ YINC ~
XMIN -19 XMAX 2~9 XINC 2
]
bull
-SYNTAX ERROR
lPRH6ELF PRINT MODULE
DATABASE BGRENVXSASS (AG)_
OB6
1 2 3 4 ~
6 7 8 9
Hi 11 12 13 14 1~
16 17 -18 19 2 21 22 23 24 2~
26 27 28 29
3 31 32 33 34 3~
36 37 J8
39
4 41 42 43 44 4~
46
DAYS-R
3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 6 6 6 6 8 8
8 bull 8
9 9 9 9
1 1 1 1 11 11 11 11
DMPTS
2 3 3 3 ~
6 ~
~
1 1 1 1 17 18 17 19 2~
2 21 21 21 23 21 23 23 24 24 24
12 24 12 24 12 25 12 25 13 27 13 25 J3 24 13 27 104 26 J04 2S
14 28 14 27 17 28 17 32 17 32 17 31 21 34 21 35
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BORENVISASSCAO)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE IX) DAVS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IV) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9~76~
R SQUARED 917 T STATISTIC 22S6S88 INTERCEPT lA) 323~7
SLOPE lB) 189812 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 269324
OBSERVATIONS 46 Y DM PT6 X DAYS-RSW ~ _01 VMAV 2~ YfNe ~
XMIN -19 XNAX 2l9 XINC 2
]
9YNTA)( ERROR bull ]PRN6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE BGRENVXSASS
OB6 DAY6-R DMPTS
1 3 1 2 3 1 3 3 1 4 3 1 5 4 1 6 4 4 7 4 3 9 4 1 9 6 6 18 6 6
11 6 6 12 6 6 13 9 8
14 9 9 15 8 8 16 8 9 l 9 18 19 9 11 19 9 12 28 9 12 21 18 12 22 18 14 23 18 11 24 18 14 25 11 15 26 11 13 27 11 15 29 11 15 29 12 17 3 12 18 31 12 19 32 12 18gJ l~ 34 13 18 3~ 13 18 36 13 19 37 14 19 JB 14 19 39 14 19 48 14 19 41 17 19 42 17 23 43 17 21 44 17 20
-(EEC)
q~ 21 23 q6 21 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASSCEEC)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE IX) DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IY) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 96691 R SQUARED 93q9 T STATISTIC 2~14824
INTERCEPT IA) -238937 SLOPE IB) 146219 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 1S28eS
OBSERVATIONS q6 Y DMPTS X DAYS-RSW YMIN -2q YMAX ~5 YINC ~
XMIN -19 XMAX 259 XJNC 2
l
SYNTAX ERROR lPRM8ELF PRINT MODULE
-
bull
APPENJ)K 4 -
DATABASE WHZTXNG VXSASS (A) bull
OBS DAYS-I
1 1 2 1 3 1 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 ~
9 5 9 5 Ii 7 11 7 12 7 13 9 14 9 1~ 9
016 11 17 11 19 11
DMPTS
1 1 1 1 2 2 4 3 5 a 7
9 13 15 bull 13 16 14 1~
019 13 2 8 28 13 16 21 13 20 22 15 24 23 1~ 24 24 15 25 25 17 29 26 17 29 27 17 38 29 19 30 29 19 38 38 19 32 31 21 33 32 21 32 33 21 32 34 23 32 3~ 23 32 36 23 34
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASSIA)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE tX) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE tV) qMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 98514 R SQUARED 9785 T STATISTIC 3344414 INTERCEPT tAt -245163 SLOPE CBt 166958 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 286799
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS x DAYS-ICE
YMIN -22 YMAX lS7 YINC lS- XMIN -19 XMAX 259 XINC 2
]
I
J
-8YNTAX ERROR
]PRM6ELF PRINT MODULE shyDATABASE WHITING VISASS (AG)
OB8 DAYS-I DMPT8
1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 4 3 1 ~ 3 2 6 3 2 7 ~ 4 9 ~ 3 9 ~ ~
18 7 18 11 7 9 12 7 18 13 9 1~
14 9 17 1~ 9 1~
16 11 18 17 11 16 18 11 17 19 13 22 28 13 18 21 13 22 22 1~ 26 23 1~ 27 24 1~ 28 2~ 17 32 26 17 32 27 17 33 28 19 34 29 19 34 38 19 36 31 21 37 32 21 36 33 21 36 34 23 36 3~ 23 36 36 23 38
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITINO VISASS(AO)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAY8-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Y) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 986~2
R SQUARED 973 T STATISTIC 3~B167B
INTERCEPT CAl -272~33
SLOPE CBI 197S63 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 221294
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS X DAYS-ICE YHIN -19~ YHAX ~9~ YINC ~
XHIN -19 XHAX 2~9 XINC 2
]
-SYNTAX ERROR lPRM6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASS (EEC)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 2 1 3 1 4 3 ~ 3 1 6 3 1 7 ~ 2 8 ~ 2 9 ~ 3
1 7 3 11 7 3 12 7 3 13 9 6 14 9 6 bull 1~ 9 7 16 11 7 17 11 8 18 11 7 19 13 11 2 13 1 21 13 12 22 1~ 13 23 1~ 1~
24 1~ 17 2~ 17 19 26 17 18 27 17 19 28 19 29 29 19 23 39 19 22 31 21 24 32 21 23 33 21 24
34 23 2J 3~ 23 26 36 23 27
I ELF SCATTER MODULE I DATABASE WHITING VISA88CEEC)I I INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (~) DAYS-ICE I
DEPENDENT VARIABLE (VI DMPTS I bull
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9a2~3
R SQUARED 96~3
T STATISTIC 387a73~
INTERCEPT (A) -4142 SLOPE (8) 12873 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 173287
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS ~ DAYS-ICE YMIN -29 YMA~ ~1 VINC ~
XMIN -19 ~MA~ 2~9 ~INC 2
J
-SYNTAX ERROR JPRM6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHITING VXSASSmiddot(FXL)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 2 3 1 3 ~ 5 4 7 4 ~ 9 9 6 11 13 7 13 1~
e 1~ 16 9 17 19 18 19 21 11 21 24 12 23 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASB(FJLI
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Y) DMPTS
bull bullbull 4~
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE CV) DMPTSr
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 982~3
R SQUARED 96~3
T STATISTIC 3S7873~ t bullbullf CINTERCEPT CA) -4142
SLOPE CB) 12873 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 173287
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS XI DAYS-ICE YMINmiddot~28 YMAKI 1 YINC ~
XMIN -I9XMAX 2~9 XINC2
]
-SYNTAX ERROR ]PRH6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHXTXNG VXSASS (FXL)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 S 2 3 1 1 5 3 4 7 4 5 9 9 6 11 13 7 13 1~
9 15 16 9 17 19 1 19 21 11 21 24 12 23 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE I WHITING VISAS8(FIL)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE CX)I DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE CY) DMPT8
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 99289 R SQUARED 9858 T STATISTIC 2638123 INTERCEPT CA) -243706 SLOPE CB) 124476 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 112846
SLOPE 10) 124476 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 112846
ObullbulllfftVTrOHSO 12 VI DHPTS XI DAVS-ICE VMIN -27 VHAX e2 VINe e XHIN -19 XHAX 2e9 gtcINe 2
]
-8VNTAX ERROR
fi
rr
[bull
SJ
in i
bullol
r~
bull bull
n i
o o o o
~
o~ o
o - l
N~ o ~
o o o
Q
Q o o
a
c -~_
Q
_
_ Q
_9_
0
o ~-
O
_
Q
lI
oJ ~
v
~ ~
~-
-
- -1
---h
---1
---I
I
I
1
~ ((9 ~ J las 0 - ~~ U -lt) az E~-~gl~~1--~~---------- ~) 1)
11 ~ - 11 HI ~~
I bull M~
~ -~ ~~ IJ~ I J ismiddotJ I Q l~
k tl I 01 re lr - 91 br I ~I ( -0 71P g I CJ tt
I I J 000 0 0 w I 0) NlNN1tl 30 hIflJ I t IC (~4ID(r ~ Wi
_ f-- -------- bull fyen ~=y ~~r I I I I I I I 0 0 00 00 ( ~) -Fr~ ~ fj)
-0 I 0 I Ole 17 10 0 ( ~ AI )middot P1~ 0 0 00 Q hItIrS ~7I -~~ (J
t -r------0 bull
_-~_ middotmiddotmiddot_middot~middotmiddotmiddot)-middot7~)
lrrT I 01 0
0 tFmiddot~~i ~ 1 o 00 Omiddot (~ -W ~r f (JJ___~ _______ _ l I I 71 I -_---_ - M-~ ~ I
J I Z-tf ~ ~ ~fI t1 11f ( )) CI I I I i I 00 r11-7[ c I C bull aofl7r_ ~ ~z ~ 1t~Ji ) ( --_--------i---shye l~~~ I f~) I I J I
I II i bull Q ( N~T fE ~I )
~JiP _- -___ ----shy
_
~ 7Yr 0) ~(J ~ I e I t I ~ l I J I I 1 I I I(I 0 0 (~~yen~ M -p~P71 JPtJIJs 0
i euror (1l~J IlLriJlllr1JI ~~J I ~()(1OP I I r I I 0 I ( t t I ( jIfS 7fS ~~I ~ )
I
I 1 I( IN 10~ lb~ qItJ gtr~j f o (~)I(~) I I 0 I (t~ ~~) I I Jbull o 0 J I ~ l 0 a i S(jJ t t t tI tI C I C I J I I I J I 0 I (n~rlP PI4t -I) t
- -I
-I -I-I I II-I I I-I r bull
-----(rtb Ii If p~) PNl17T7~b ~y~ 7
10 IIt1v I 0 1~L CIJ tN IfIfW1IIJ JI11i JN~I HJ3
---Y p~ALY~_ ~~ Yl2-- 1)
yenvr 1amp f111l
-
~
~~
~
II
o 0
~cgt
(
) Q
oa
oo
o
oo
o o
a
o
~
P
t
oo
c
oo
a -
o
oo
o
o -
o
-o
-
-
lJ
I~ I~
Jl ~rIpound i IAlffzfjjsectj 7df- utl kf J OG lie rCOIpound ~IIE(T r
7tU
~
~ ~
~ ~
~
-shy~
~
MYI f)lySLM~ 1 (JAy ISo~r 11 ~~) e ()~t ~I01) r I joy f o~y lOJ 17~JJlII1~ 16 fiti -t1 It r ~17J~~flu~1h 111H 7U 1111111shyIllf Jr(11Jr I fhJo
~ ) ~ I1 J J-4 ~ J 2 JJ ~poundol ~ ] t4 cl -7 eJ uJ cJJJ wI~ wI l shy w c at amp 74 -t ~ ut 4 I
SkIN 000 o 0 0o 0 0 o 00 I o I I I I 3 3 3l) t 3 3 31 s 3ltt
a I I I I I o IfYU I 2 I JI I I000 )l~ 1~1 S 3 ~S 3 5 335
GILtJ I J I o (J 0 I (I I I ~ t 2shy~I I s 3 ]] 2 0 (J 3 ~ ~ t 3 3 AlvItUiU i l I I ls)z oJ lJ 0 a (J ~ 0o 0 0 a a aTff1ttJR II r 1
1 I ~ I I I I 1~E
Cdt47tl7 I I ~ ~t( a a 0O(O I Io I~ 00 000deg a 0wO 0 0 0 o 0 0 o~ 00VUipound811 ~ J I
tJ I Oe6rlllr I I I I 2 2]l2 ~ 3 S 3 S ~ 3o a 0 (J () 0 I 333 1 $ 3
If~euMI LU~ 2l 3000o (J 0 o 0 0 J 2 2shy 331a deg (1 ~ 2 Jshy
i I 000amp1 0 I I 1TIUUpound
lAcltJdJE 00deg00o 0 0 ooalOOO 0 0 I I I 1OdOa deg 0 11 2 I r I I I IbullI
I I h~r~Eu I ( 0 0 CJ 0 o (J a 2 ~ 30001011 0 1 J 1010 I I L II 2 l 2l 22 2 1
sKIN GLLt I f I~J) GlIIl) 0 (I a I do 0 0 I 0 Il~t l~o 0 0 ~ 3 3 3 s 3 3 3 33s1331
i7tJ7l11 Ibull I shy i66 ~o
(J ~ 0 1 0 It3331l J t 1 1shy 1~ ~afJllc 11 Irrshy It ~1 1111 20 J3 u
(])JtUJ61 (l) (1) (Ir)(0) (J)(I) (If) (19) (u) (~r)(J4)
I r f
I
I
i I
I i
II I ((
f
II Ii
p ()
Q
0_
_ 00
0
00
00
00
0
o o o 0
00
0
0 _
o Q
0
0
o
0
00
0
-
0 0
0
middot0
0
o oo
0
o Q
o oo o o
- ~
~
~ ~~pound
w
i -shy
o
co
- --
shy
o o o
~
~_
~
0
-shyJJ
-----l--~
-J
J IJ
f
J
J)
o 0
00
_ 0
0
o (gt
0
o ()
o
0
0 0
0
()
()
o 0
0
o 0
0
_
_ -
-----1
-----shy
Q
0 0
o ~-IJ~ulJ-
u
lJcllJ_-_~IJamp
o o
Q
I---+----I---+----I----I~-
_Ilpound
llD
lIlI
Il
~I
IIIl
I_II
II5
l__
IIlIa
IllP
=lII
Il1
rl
ll
IlIl
IlIII
llII
IlJl
IIl
IIlIl_
IIrII
G3i
mta
isectID
it
llll~
1~=wampampftUla
_
au
U
Lamp
WJN
AJ
poundmiddotJI
IiIamp
3flJ
a
uac
ampa
f
shy
I~middottn 0~L fi 5L middottlu~ fo_~r ( ) 1poundc [CtJRl -ffl(pound1 r~~ rlt1c- J c-ru
-- I
1SllJ7~
lt l)~ J )IIr M ~-t s ~~ OIl middot )If 10 JAY II 041
J- Olt i1 )lir iI DIY IT- IMy11
1~middot6f1 14f1- ~imiddot -- J _ middotAfmiddot IIrk middot Jiamp -ffh~11 rtr Il ~M gt27P- ill Ill ~lllY ~~7rlf JC 1- ~ r 1M 11
r ~ F16F r~h FIjFi ~~I)r r~Fr
5 Fc II -i~fIoi l 1 fj t t Fr c r amp t 1= ~ r ~ F r rtI ~
- -
sION o (j o 0 0 o 0 a I I I I I I I I 2 I t t I-r J~L) z~z~ 2~J ~ z a ~ ~ 33 - -ol t 1 2
~ poundys-s 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I I lt t 2 t t 4 ~z ~ 2l~ ~ ~ 1 Z 3zi3p33 3 333 3 3 3 - - ~ rl~ a 0 a (1 a a o 1 I 1 I 1-2 12 t ltt a ~ l J tll~ ~~~) 2 2 2 2- ~Jll 21 13 33 ~
- ~ MIIi(UlA~
degCt1C 11 )l
FipoundSI- eli CeoD o 0 (J 0 I I I I I I 1 1 I I 1 I Jl~] l2 22- z ~ 2 2 22 11 2-3 -Sfvpound
j
CIJiCVlt-tICN I I I 1 ( I I I 2 2 t ~ t~ )2 2~21 2$ 2 t _~ 3AIJJN(j- P (J dO o C a a o 0 00 1 I I I I - --
V~7r~ ~ c~u N
(TKWW~ CO~ o I oc I I J I I I I 1 2 I 2 2 1- ) t~l2 2- 22 2 ) 2 ~2- 1222 2 2 ll 2L -- -~VClLAl I
a 0 0 0 01 I 0 2 1 2 2 J5r 4 E i H CA I I
-I I I I I I I I J J 12( ~ 12 1 2 1 2-I TfI_ 21 1-1- 1 1 ~ 1
~ I middot_0-__-- I
~ 1
ffCACIpound coo 000lt=1 o 0 0 0 btJCt) o a () (J I I I I I I I I111 I I I 1 I I -~-aD CD lJ a a 0 0 ~ ~ UlrAfllN o 0 a IJ e e 0 C) (JdegOo ecJao co (10 (1 o I I I I I I I I 1 I I III I I I I z --
i tiN ~4r L~~ 2- li ~ a~ 8M) CUmiddot c d (J 0 (J () I I I 1 1 1
I 1 I I f t I II tl-loI 21 1 t 33 - -
-Iffl1-
J I I I I i- 2 I 11~SC~E ~ t 1 o ~ 04-t 1J 11 1 11t IS~ IfS J1 I 1 I If I IJ 1 r~]u ze uu __
bull ttlUIG
(I) l~) (6) (II) ~ (~) 6s-)llIt lCUI CJ (Ii) (~) vmiddot (II) (19~ ---
I t f
I
~ I
~ I
Ii
I I
Ii I II f
~ (
--)raquo~ middot-~~-~-I~~IliiI~~-middotComiddot~-d-b~middotmiddotmiddotmiddot_ ~ ~ middoth-~_middot--~H~~middot~gt
Other Occasional Papers in the series
1 A salinity monitor for irrigation pumps by EOMIEZITIS
2 Wine liqueur and fish products acceptability trials 47th ANZAAS Congress Hobart 1976 by HABREMNER TLLEWIS and ARQUARMBY
3 Abalone silage an exercise in the conservation of waste by JUNE OLLEY
4 Course notes contributed by the CSIRO Tasmanian Food Research Unit to a workshop on fish handling and quality control Hobart Oct3rd-5th 1978 by HABREMNER JUNE OLLEY and SJTHROWER
5 Difficulties with generalized least squares regression in forest modelling by PWWEST
6 Metabolism of zinc cadmium and copper in rats fed shellfish highly contaminated with heavy metals by SJTHROWER JUNE OLLEY and MAUREEN McDERMOTT
7 Hygiene control in seafood processing by SJTHROWER
iii
500 Conclusions 47
510 Feasibility of using demerit points 47
520 Purpose for which demerit points are
to be used 49
530 suggestions for further work 50
600 Bibliography 51
7 00 Appendices 56
Appendix 1 Nomogram for comparison of different
scoring systems for raw fish
Appendix 2 General Foods Smiley scale
Appendix 3 ELF scatter print-out for correlation
analysis of blue grenadier samples
Appendix 4 ELF scatter print-out for correlation
analysis of whiting samples
Maritime Cbllege Ippendix 5 Analysis of variance for the blue
Copy Only grenadier samples by the Genstat package
Appendix 6 Analysis of variance for the whiting
samples by the Genstat package
Appendix 7 Original score sheets
fv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No TIlLE Page
Fig 1 Pamerit points versus days in RSW for blue grenadier samples 25
Fig 2 Dmerit points versus days in ice for whiting samples 26
Fig 3 Fercentage change in demerit points for blue grenadier
in RSW 34
Fig 4 R9rcentafJe chanqe in demerit points for iced whiting 35
Fig 5 1aste panel results of Blue grenadier - flavour acceptability 36
Fig 6 1aste panel results of Blue grenadier - texture acceptability 36
Fig 7 Taste panel results of Blue grenadier - overall acceptability 37
Fig 8 1aste panel results of tiiting - flavour acceptability 37
Fig 9 1aste panel results of tiiting - texture acceptability 38
Fig 10 Taste panel results of Whiting - overall acceptability 38
Table tb
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Table 10
Table 11
Table 12
Table 13
Table 14
v
LIST OF TABLES
TIILE Page
5amplirq regime for fish stored in R3Wice 14
TFRJ Sensory Assessroont score sheet (gutted and
urqutted sanples) 16
EEX Sensory Assessroont score sheet 17-18
Filleted sample score sheet 19
Order of presentation of the cookeq blue grenadier
samples to the acceptability taste panelists 21
Order of presentation of the cooked whitirq samples
to the acceptability taste panelists 22
TOtal demerit points from sensory assessment of
blue grenadier samples stored in R3W 24
TOtal demerit points from sensory assessment of
whiting scrnples stored in ice 27
Relationship between time and demerit points for
fish stored in R3W (M novaeselandiaet 28
Attributes contributirq to total score usirq TFRJ
scores (gutted and urqutted scrnples) bull 29
Attributes contributirq to total score usirq EEC
scores 30
Attributes contributirq to total score usilVJ
filleted samples scores 31
Different emphasis in scorirq systems for whole
f ish as between the EX and TFRJ 32
Acceptability of deep fried blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW 39
VI
Table 15
Table 16
Acceptability of deep fried whiting samples
stored in ice
Acceptability of deep fried whiting samples stored
in ice
39
47
NIlttmLEOOEMEm
Ihe author is indebted to Hr HA Bremner and Miss J A statham of the
CSIR) Division of Food 1esearch and Ii DA Ratk~sky of the Division of
Mathematics and Statistics for direction and advice durin] the course of this
~rk
Thanks nust also go to Miss M Ottenschlaeger for the help in the taste
panel work Hr AH A vail and Hr P Kearney in the correlation analysis and
Mr D 8Jrford in the preparation of the blue grenadier samples and not
forgettirYJ all the panelists who attended the taste panel sessions
Finally the author wishes to thank all those in the SChool of Fisheries
of the Australian HaritiIm College particularly Mr P Minton for the support
and encouragement they have given and also the Australian Development
Assistance Bureau (~) for their financial assistance
1
ABSTRACT
Accumulation of demerit points with time of storage of blue grenadier (M
novaeae landiaev in refrigerated sea water (I~W) and blue rock whi t ing (H
eemifaeeiatcq in ice was fourd to be highly correlated and occurred in an
approximately linear fashion irrespective of the method of scoring used
1he scoring system developed by the TFRJ was fourrl to be the easiest
quickest and rrost reliable method for quality assessment of fish The changes
in tOO appearance of the eyes and the odour developrent of the gills are the
most obvious and valuable indicators of change in quality when using the TFRU
or the EEl freshness scores while the appearance and odour of the fish flesh
seems to be the most obvious indicator when assessing the filleted samples
1he acceptabil ity taste panel results indicate that M nauaeeelandiae stored
in RSW had a shelf-life of 14 days whilst H semifasciata stored in ice had a
shelf-life of 17 days ~ cut-off point at which spoilage of the samples
WDUld have rendered the quality of the fish samples to be unacceptable fran
the consumer point of view would be those equivalent to the accumulated
demerit point of gt29 for the TFRU (gutted and ungutted) scores and gt21 for the
EEC ard filleted sample scores
2
1 00 rsrromcrros
110 QUality and QUality Asses~nt of Fish
QJality is difficult to define since it means different things to
different people One general definition is degree of excellence
According to waterman (1982) quality of food is the SLD1 of those attributes
that govern its acceptability to the buyer or consumer and quality assessment
is the estLmation or measurement of one or more quality factors as a means of
determining quality before exercising control
Bremner (1984) defined quality as that attitude of mind that approach
that event that state of being when everything is right hus until a
seafood is eaten its quality can only be surmised indirectly harever
seafoods do possess a set of properties or characteristics that for practical
purposes can be related with quality
In cxmnerce quality limits are set by what the custcrner is prepared to
pay for generally the custcrner will pay more for fish that he considers to be
of higher quality and will continue to buy as long as quality remains
constant The relationship between quality and marketing is therefore
governed by the sophistication of the consuner ( ta Zylva 1974) Sore of the
more important factors that determine quality fran the custcrners point of
view are species ease of preparation appearance odour flavour freshness
size presence or absence of bones and filth absence of specific
microorganisms condition packaging and composition (Oonnell 1972)
Freshness is the most important quality factor to the consumer thus
assessnent of freshness is vital in quality control kcording to Baines et
al (1965) the term freshness is employed to describe the presence or
absence of deterioration Ib many however freshness involves the concept of
newness in which time is an important factor In other words the fish
technologist is not only concerned with quality at the mrnent of examination
3
but of the products potential shelf-life M accurate measure of st~age
1_ time under kn~ conditions would allow hLm to calculate the remaining life of
the product and its potential for processing
Fish quality depends on tenperature time and hygiene Factors such as
spontaneous chemical changes autolysis and microbial attack produce
deteriorations fran the point of catching until final putrefaction
Measurements of sane of these deteriorations have been invoked as indices of
freshness
he measurement of trimethylamine (lMA) other spoilage cxrrpounds and the
bacteria themselves as indicators of quality has been reviewed recently by
Martin et al (1978) hey stated that in order to define effective indicators
of seafocxi quality the food technologist must be prepared to examine each
species of seafood individually its environment its composition its
harvesting and its handling
A lUIllber of different tests may be used for estimating the degree of
spoilage in fish these include total volatile bases (TVa) total volatile
reducing substances volatile armonia volatile acids total volatilo
nitrogen indole refractive index of the eye fluid electrical resistance of
the fish flesh total bacterial numbers and organoleptic tests hese methods
are discussed under the headings chemical methods physical methods
microbiological methods and sensory methods bel~
120 Chemical Methods
Although not universal in acceptance or applicability the trLmethylamine
(TMA) determination has became one of the established procedures for
determining fish quality Its use as an indicator of spoilage in fresh fish
have also been proposed by the Codex AlLmentarius crnmittee on fish and
fishery products (Olley 1977) his is despite the fact that there is ample
4
evidence that the same ClfDUnt of 1MA is accanpanied by different ClfDUnts of
spoilage even within the same species
Several investigators (Spinelli et aI 1984 Jones 1965) have expressed
reservations regardirq the use of IMA as an index of quality for fresh fish
not inq that 1MA values fail to give an adequate Iod icetIon of early autolytic
quality chanqes aOO preferrirq hypoxanthfne detenninations instead MA as
would be expected of a bacterial product is not useful in detenninilg quality
deteriorations which occur durirq frozen storage FIrthenoore the shape of
the fish will markedly influence the arrount of IMA meaaured in ng per 100 g
fish (Bremner et aI 1978) Trimethylamine is roost sensitive as an indicator
of the later stages of spoilage whereas Chemical tests for dimethylamine are
most valuable in the early stages of spoilage
Ryder et al (1984) foond that the bacterial metabol Ic end products (1VB
and MA) were less useful as objective measurements of freshness in Jack
Mackerel (TrochuflUB nooaezelandiae) hey also reported that the pH was not a
gcxxl indicator of early storage changes and lEA values could not be used to
detennine loss of acceptability or eoo of shelf-life Recently it has became
apparent that the sulphur canpounds and mercaptans may be importantH2S
detenninants of fish odour and flavour (~rbert and Shewan 1975)
Measurement of MA IMA or amoonia requires a laboratory am assistant of
matriculation standard who has had sane weeks of practice in the IOOthod
Neither the Codex Alimentarius CoITInittee or the EEl (Ccmoon Market) lay down
samplilg procedures
Another quality assessment lOOasurement involves the nucleotides aoo their
degradation products Early studies with cod carp Pacific Salmgtn Lemon
sole haddock and plaice revealed that post-mortem nucleotide degradation in
fish muscle proceeds prbnarily via the followirq sequence of reactions ATP -)
AMP -) IMP -) IID -) Hx -) Xa -) UA where KrP = Jldenosine 5-triphosphate AMP
5
= Jldenosine 5-IOCgtoophosphate IMP = Inosine 5-IOCgtoophosphate lID = Inosine j
Hx = Hypoxanthine xa = Xpnthine am UA = Uric acid loo ~tages in this
degradative sequence have been considered as objective indices of quality shy
dephosphorylation of IMP am formation of hypoxanthine IMP reportedly
possesses properties as a flavour enhancer in fish mrscle COnsequently its
breakdawn may contribute to and be correlated with the loss of fresh flavour
in sane species SCme difficulties however may arise fran using IMP
dephosphorylatioo as a s inqle quality index eg the pattern of nucleotide
breakdown in invertebrate seafood species may differ in same key respects fran
that fourrl in vertebrate species he rate of IMP decanposition in the muscle
also differs between species (Ehira 1976) Accordi~ to Martin et al (1978)
the rrost serious limitation imposed by an IMP index may be that the reaction
is substantially complete well within the edible storage life of a number of
species Its major value then may be as an indicator of fresh flavour loss
during early storage
Unlike IMP concentrations of hypoxanthine (Hx) have been shown to
increase steadily throughout the useful storage life of a number of fish
species (Hughes and Jones 1966) Hypoxanthine formation is a result of both
autolytic am bacterial activities hus it also has advantages over the 1MA
assay Hx may be correlated with flavour loss caused by autolytic activities
durirg early storage am with bacterial spoilage during extended storage to
derive a prediction of useful storage life Also the IMA test is of no value
for freshwater fish because these either do not contain or contain very little
trimethylamine oxide Hx may also be used to determine the quali ty of canned
herrirg at the tirre of processing since hypoxanthine concentrations neither
increase nor decrease duri~ heat process inq and subsequent storage (Hughes
ard Jones 1966) 1MA concentrations on the other hand are unstable during
heat process inq lbNever different species of fish produce hypoxanthine by
6
different routes and at different speeds Each lustralian species ttOUld have
to be examined in turn am the hypoxanthine test related to sensory grades
tbte that the Canadian redfish and flounder had produced the maximum amgtunt of
hypoxanthine 10llg before they becarre unacceptable while the swordfish had
only produced a fifth of the arount when it became unacceptable to a taste
panel (Olley 1978) The hypoxanthine test requires laboratory facilities and
same equipment but recently the use of sLmple paper strips have been reported
(Jahns et aI 1976)
The main disadvantages of nucleotide assays are that they are apt to vary
even arro~ individuals within a species Sufficient samples need to be used
to reduce this variability
All the chemical roothods discussed above depend on measuring the
concentration of certain chemical substances in the flesh and since the sample
is destroyed in the process they cannot be used to test every fish in a
batch In any case variation between fishes in the sarre batch makes chemical
tests for quality a task requiring a statistician (Olley 1977) All the
methods require the use of a laboratory or fairly elaborate facilities and
also they oo rot apply to all species and products alike
130 Physical Methods
Love (1954) described a roothod which correlates the turbidity of the eye
lenses of fish with storage tiroo of iced fish kept in a roan of fairly
constant air temperature He found that it is possible by examination of 20
or more lenses to assess the storage tiroo with an error of not roore than 1
day M advantage of this roothod is that since only the eyes have to be
raroved in sampling the fish remains saleable as headed dressed fish or as
fillets ~ver1 the roothod had many limitations such as difficulty in
manipulation and matchi~ of the lenses which have to be done in good diffused
7
daylight at least 20 lenses are required for each estllnation which is rather
tedious for routine work and also it is not applicable where fish had not been
kept all the time in ice under the standard conditions eg bulk stowage of
fish with ice on a trawler may result in deviation fran the conditions of box
stolage in an insulated roan
he GR Ibrrymeter is a battery pc7ot1ered hand-held instnunent that rreasures
certain dialectric properties of fish skin which charge wi th the
tiJretemperature history of the fish fbWever readi~s on a large mrnber of
samples have to be taken and averaged bull Although it is a rapid simple
objective and rDn-destructive method of estllnati~ the quality of fresh fish
it has the followilkJ disadvanteqesj large variation in readirg fran fish to
fish readi~ varies with physical damage to fish1 cha~e of readi~ with time
varies with species and also may be insensitive at later stages of spo i Laqe
Curran et al (1981) reported that the GR Ibrrymeter was not particularly
successful with both the purple emperor (L6thoinus l6ntjan) ard the Spanish
mackerel ( Scomberomorue oonmereons since the readirgs obtained do not
correlate very well with the taste panel results
140 Microbiological Methods
he rootine microbiological testirg that is performed under normal
industry operations is normally restricted to enumeration of nonpathogenic
microorganisms hose frost frequently used are the standard plate count and
enumeration of indicator organisms such as the coliform group Beoher-ichia
coli aM Staphylococcus aureus
Food handl i nq practices beyond the pr-imary processors control make
standard aerobic plate count (APe) a difficult quality assessment tool to use
generally he total nunber of bacteria is not the sole determinant of
8
quali ty since certain microbial groups are rrore apt to cause spoilage than
others These groups can be given a selective advantage for growth by the way
the product is processed or stored furthermore the determination of
bacterial counts while they are of value to research requires too much time
before results are known and can also be expensive for routine testing
Representative samples have to be taken for bacterial examination because the
fish or product is destroyed during the test Interpreting the results of
bacterial testing is a task for experts who should be consulted when
necessary bull
Detection and enumeration of indicator bacteria such as the coliform
group E ooli and S auroeu8 were considered for many years to indicate the
potential presence of pathoqenic microorganisms NM this inference has been
questioned and these groups are no longer considered a reliable method for
predicting the presence of such pathogens (Martin et aL1978) bull
According to Olley and Ratkowsky (1973) there is in fact no simple index
of quality and a thorough knowledge of the oamplete temperature history of the
fish is the only true indicator of freshness This is so because at higher
temperatures bacteria divide in half more rapidly Therefore the
relationship between bacterial growth with production of spoilage canpounds
and temperature is not a straight line rut a curve he curve relates rate of
spoilage of these commodities at temperatures between aoe and 25dege to the rate
at which they would spoil at aoe hus at aoe the relative rate is 1 and at
Rate at temperature (tOe)any other temperature the relative rate is Rate at a be
Bremner et at (1978) have coined the term ICE FOID for this relative rate
ie so many times faster than the ccmnodity would spoil on ice and
lCETIME as equivalent storage time on ice = lCEFOID x time in days
The curve has also been converted into tabular form to enable conversion
of the temperature history of the catch into equivalent storage time
on ice under ideal conditions However the concept of relative rate of
9
spoilage with temperature can only apply if fishing oonditions are kept
constant
150 sensory Methods
Currently the best way to detenmine fish freshness still requires the use
of a taste panel (Regenstein and Regenstein 1981) A number of taste panel
techniques for assessing the quality of unfrozen fish species have been
described am are in use in different parts of the world These techniques
vary in cbjective and ccrrplexity but are of three main types Firstly there
are those which categorise the fish on the basis of its acceptability for
eatirq secondly there are those which categorise the fish on the basis of
well-defined characteristics which change duri~ storage Thirdly there are
techniques which include elements of both of these types Techniques of the
first type usually anploy a single gradi~ or hedonic (like-dislike) scale
whilst those of the second type anploy descriptions of various characteristics
(Baines et aI 1969)
The ultimate criterion of fish quality is the flavour and texture of the
cooked fish HcMever taste panel evaluations of cooked fish are timeshy
consiminq and relatively few samples can be tested at anyone time It is
therefore highly desirable to be able to make an assessment of eati~ quality
by exanini~ the raw fish My atterrpt to raise the quality of raw fish as it
reaches the consumer is critically dependent on the development of a
convenient and consistent rrethod of quality assessment based on raw fish
Fortunately eat inq quality of cooked fish can be correlated with the
appearance odour and texture of the whole raw fish Boyd and Wilson (1976)
when evaluat inq the quality of snapper (Chroysophfys aufatus) by a sensory
method found that there is close relationship between the raw attributes of
gill odour and general appearance with those of odour texture am flavour of
10
the cooked fish
The use of ooject ive tests at dockside or even on inspection within the
plant is not considered to be practical in the normal routine of inspection of
fresh ard frozen fish products as almost all of the coject Ive tests require
laboratories am so becare rather rerooved fran the busy fisherman processor
or factory foreman A nuch simpler piece of apparatus is the eye or the N)Se
(olley 1977) Sensory tests are always controversial as they require an
inspector although the canny buyer is in fact applying his senses of smell
am visual acuity in a similar fashion W9 accept the wine faster and wcxgtl
classer so why not the fish grader (Bremner 1984) Therefore a test that
correlated well with freshnessquality and that could operate on the market or
in the factory would be of considerable value to an efficient industry (Baines
et aI 1965)
Howgate (1978) also considered the sensory rrethods to be far better than
non-sensory methods which are not suitable for consumer testing whilst
Connell (1972) states that in general the sensory rrethod of assessing
freshness is the best at present for quality control purposes
As fish spoils its snell taste appearance and feel go through
characteristic am well defined stages that trained experts or experienced
staff can consistently recognise It is convenient to attach a number or
score to each stage so that the assessor can award the appropriate score to
each fish or batch of fish Alternatively the mere recognition of each stage
ard acceptance or rejection of fish on this basis may be all that is
necessary Different species and products spoil in different ways The
numerical system us irq an objective panel developed at the Ibrry IEsearch
Station by Shewan et al (1953) is probably the ultUnate critical evaluation of
fish freshness available at this time It was created for the determination
of storage time of whole Net fish l6Jenstein and Iegenstein (1981) in using
11
this nunerical system reported that the cooked freshness scores are generally
higher (better) than expected at that storage t irre for whole wet fish A
freshness score of 55 on the Ibrry scale seemed the appropriate endpoint for
their definition of shelf-life This would nonnally be reached with ideal
iced-at-sea fish about twelve days from catch sooner for fillets Freshness
scorirq systems are I1C1laquo available fran Ibrry Research station for most UK
ccmnercial species and systems are available for both the raw and cooked
fish HoweveF there is still no standard scorirq system to be used
internationally he countries in the EEC ~or instance use scoring systems
which differ both in scale length am in characteristics measured Most
systems use the same scale length for all features examined but the United
Kingdon am Icelarrl use scales of 10 to 0 for odour and 5 to 0 for other
characteristics ibwgate (1972) describes the effort to construct a rorogram
for oonvert inq fran one scorinq system to another (Appendix 1) de Zylva
(1974) expanded the Ibrry score sheet to include marks for flesh colour and
texture belly flap discoloration stainiBJ of backbone am colour of
kidney he scoring system was designed for ~w Zealand snapper and gave
excellent negative linear correlations between score am days of storage
legenstein (1983) presents the way in which Ibrry has in turn incorporated
other characteristics into the score sheet for raw fish Groupings of several
characteristics to give a score requires more expertise than scoring
individual points as is done by de Zylva
However the use of a point or scoring system in which higher points are
given for high quality attributes would mean the requirements of more
kllC7filedge of the fish and the tester mist be experienced and knCM the
qualities of the fish previously Therefore it is too species dependent
his problem can be overcare by using the demerit system with points being
allotted in several categories for defects as they becare obvious and one can
I
12
learn as one goes along in each situation he demerit points that were given
to the various selected quality attributes could be weighted in such a way as
to produce an approximately linear change in score with storage time (Branch
and Vail 1985)
It might also be desirable OCIlInercially to specify a uniform mrnber of
days of shelf-life fran the pack date to consumption he length of shelfshy
life ctgttained for fish depends on the initial age and quality of the fish the
tirre of the pack am the time am temperature of storage before am after
packing In practical terns the ultimate measure of the effect(s) of shelf-
life extension treatments on the final quality of the fish is consumer
satisfaction (Regenstein aoo Regenstein 1981)
A tentative grading systan for fresh fish based on sensory assessment of
fish had been described by IbUwing (1972)
160 The Ideal Method
Forty years of research ootably in the UK Canada and Japan have gone
into objective methods for measuring fish quality (Bremner et al 1978)
There is as yet 00 single universal test for all species nor for that
matter any wholly satisfactory test for individual species
The ideal rrethod hOlJld be one that is cheap oon-destructive easy to
use oot subject to much variation or fatigue having rapid response and wide
application sensory tests have the advantages of being non-destructive 00
equipnent required adaptable to species and assessing the market value
Althcogh sensory tests are usually condemned as a subjective test which
requires training am experience am are also said to be easily open to
abuse this can be reduced if a simple rapid and less descriptive rrethod
could be fourd - possibly with the use of demerit point scores Therefore
this study aims at assessing the use of sensory techniques based on the
13
demerit point scores developed for raw whole (gutted and ungutted) and
filleted fish samples of Australian fish species stored in ice and RSW It
also discusses the results of the acceptability taste panels on the cooked
fish samples
The two oammercially ~rtant Australian fish species used in this study
were the blue grenadier am the blue rock whiting he blue grenadier is
currently Tasmanias major oammercial finfish and the recent annual production
of the fishery exceeds 100 tonnes (Last et aI 1983)~ he blue rock whiti~
is the only Australian member of the family that has any commercial
importance It occurs mainly in Bass strait and the sheltered bays of South
eastern Tasmania The flesh is delicately flavoured but very soft
200 MATERIALS lIND MEIHgt[s
210 Sample preparation
211 Fish stored in RSW
Blue grenadier used in this study were caught on the 15th lugust 1984 at
a depth of 300 fathans off Sandy Cape on the west coast of Tasmania (Lat
41deg20S IDrq144deg40 E) by demersal trawl They were taken fran the deck
irnnediately am dropped into a refrigerated seawater (RSW) tank in a net bag
(tanp -1degC) The fish was reported to be handled quite roughly on board
Sore of the fish had already gone into rigor at this stage he fish were
transported to the CnID lasrnanian Food lesearch Uni t (TFRJ) laboratories in
Hobart and were already to days old on arrival The f ish were then placed in
the RSW box tank of the rrobile unit (the design and construction of which were
described by Thrower and Stafford 1981) and was kept at -1degC for the duration
of the storage trial which lasted for about three weeks Four fish were
rerroved at each samplirq tine (Table 1) for sensory assessment Length
14
measurements to the fork of the tail were also noted ~e fish were then
filleted and samples frozen at -lBoe for later assessment of their
acceptability by taste panel
212 Fish stored in ice
For the sensory assessment of fish stored in ice guidelines similar to
those given by Lima dos Santos et al (981) were used ~e blue rock whiting
also known as the weedy whiting was used ~e whiting were caught on the
afternoon of 23rd August 1984 by demersal trawl in 18 to 25 m waters oft
Eastern Tasmania On arrival at the TFRJ laboratories in I-bbart at 11 45 am
on the fol Lowirq day the f ish were re- iced at a ratio of 21 (ice f ish) in
insulated plastic boxes of size 66 x 41 x 28 em with provision for drainage
of melt water Flake ice was used ~e ice was topped up daily and renewed
once a week The boxes of i ced f ish were then kept in a cool roan set at a
temperature of 0deg to -1dege ~ree fish were removed for sensory assessment at
each sampling time (Table 1) over a period of rmre than three weeks of ice
storage 100 fish samples were then frozen at -18dege until needed for the
acceptability taste panel
Table 1
sampling regirre for fish stored in R3Wice
Blue Grenadier Diys in R3W 3 4 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 17 21
Sample code N D G L S R K T U P M 0
Whiting Diys in ice 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Sample code 0 M D G T S N R P U L K
15
220 Sensory assessment of the whole (gutted and ungutted) raw fish samples
Both the blue grenadier stored in lOW and the whi t i nq stored in ice were
progressively assessed by using the sense organs of sight smell and touch tor
changes in general appearance odour and texture with storage tine by giving
the appropriate demeri t scores according to the score sheets as shown in
Tables 2 and 3 IVo types of score sheets were used Table 2 shows the
sensory assessment score sheet orig inally developed for the assessment of
gemfish (Thrower et al 1982) It has been simplified and weighted (Branch
and Vail 1985) to provide accumulated increases in demerit points as the t i sn
change in odour texture and appearance during storage with the max imum
accumulated demerit point scores of 35 for the urx]utted samples and 39 tor tte
gutted samples The total scor irq for gutted fish differs fran that descr ibeo
by Bremner (1984) and Branch and Vail (1985) in that the demerit points for
the belly cavity have been added to those for the whole fish
The whole and gutted raw fish were also assessed by using the freshness
score sheet developed by the Council of the European COl1nunities (Official
Journal of the European Qmnunities 1970) but with slight rrodification marie
in its scor irq method in that the scor irq was reversed to provide accumulateri
increases in demerit points as in the TFRJ score sheet (Table 2) with a
maximun accumulated demerit score of 30 (Table 3) The samples were scored by
H Abd R who had had no previous experience with the score sheet
230 Sensory Assessment of the frozen filleted raw fish samples
Samples of the whole and gutted fish of both species were then filleted
ard frozen at -18degC until required for the organoleptic acceptability test
panel fillets were thawed by holding for about 16 hours (overnight) in still
air at 4degC The thawed fillets of both the blue grenadier and whi t i nq were
then assessed by the sense organs of sight smell and touch by using the scor-e
sheet for filleted sample as shown in Table 4 nle score sheet was developed
16
able 1
FIlt U Snorr bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullnt oore hbullbull t ( ( 1Ii~ ANI) tlNtJuTreo)
1_middotAnlJ lmiddot
rlSB IDDII
UIUIl~ (VBci9ht~i9ht8lDullDUll
o 1 2 3
SitU ( rimSoft) o 1
SCALBS (r1mSlLoomiddotmiddotLoobullbull ) o 12
r r SLIMB (AbbullbullntSlSlimiddotysliyVSliy)
o 123
S1IrnraS (pr-Ri90rRi90rPot-Ri90r) o 1 2
BYBS Clarity (ClbullbullrISlCloudyCloudy) 012
Shape (HoralslsunknSunkn) 012
Irill (ViiblHot Viibl) IJ 1
Blood (No BloodSlBloodyVBloody) o 1 2
GILLS Colour (VDark)Charaotritio (SlDark) (vradd)(Slradd)
2o 1 Kucou (AbbullbullntKoderatmiddotBxcbullbullbulliv)
o 1 2 S bullbullll (rrbullbullh 01ly) Pihy8talpoll~
(MetalliaSaved) 1 2 3
BELLI Dicoloration (AbbullbullntDetatablmiddotModratmiddotBxobullbullbulliy) 012 3
Finanbullbullbull ( rira80ftBurt) o 1 2
VENT Condition (bobullbulldy)Noraal (SlBrbullbullk) (Opening)(Bxudbullbull )
2o 1 Sbullbulln (rrbullbullhReutralrihy8poilt)
o 2 3
BELLI CAVIn Stain (OpalbullbullontGryihlmiddotllow-Brown) o 1 2
Blood (RdDark RdBrown)
o 1 z
--
17
UJE 3
Etc SENSORY A$fE4St4fN[ ~(oIlL~
SCALE OF MARKING - FRESHNESS
CRITERIA shypoundu1LRt
Abullbullbullbullbullment Mara-bull thc r1ah 0 1 2- 3tszhL
AppearanceinIIMlISJ Skin
Eye
Gill
Flbullbullshycut f ssm abdomusn
Colour the~
vertebral column
Organs
Oright iridescent I bright pigmenta- pigmentation in (1) dull pigmenta tion no i tion but not the process of pigmentation discolouration Ius trous becoming dis-
mucus opaquemucus aqueous i coloured and dull
mucus slightlytransparen t
cloudy ~UCU9 milky
convex (bulging) convex and flat (1) concave in cornea tran- slightly sunken cornea the centre parent cornea Ughtly opalescent cornea milky pupil black opalescent pupil pupil grey bright
pupil black opaque dull
-shining colour less coloured becoming dis- (1) yellmiish no mucus a few traces of coloured mucus milky
cloar mucus mucus opaque
blueish trans- dull velvety slightly opaque (1) opaque lucid smooth waxy shining without any change in the colour sUgh tly original colour changed
(I) reduncoloured sl1 gh tly pink pink
kidneys and kidneys and kidneys (1) kidneys residues of resJdues of resicJuos of r bullbullidue of other other organs other organs other organs organs and blood bright red the dull red blood and blood brownish game as the becoming palo red blood inside discolbured the aorta
(1) or in a more advanced bull ta te of decay
I
bull
Flesh
Vertebtal Column
Peritonium
Gills kin abdominal cavity
18
(eontd)
SCALE OF MARKING - FRESHNESS
CRITERIA
Assessment Mark 0 1 2
Physical eOId ton
firm and elas tic surface smooth
breaks ins tead of coming away
totally adherent to the flesh
seaweed
less elastic
adherent
adherent
Smell bull
not of seaweed but not bad
slightly soft (flaccid) Ie elastic surfacente waxy velvety and dull
slightly adherent
slightly adherent
slightly sour
3
(1) soft (flaccid) scales ebullbullil y detached from skin sur face ra ther wrinkled inclining to mealy
(1) not dherent
1( ) not adherent
(1) sour
(1) or in a more advanced stat of decay
_ shy-- -
19
Table 4
Filleted Sample Score Sheet
r
TREATMENT F ILIEIS DATE REMOJAL (THAWED)
FISH IDENr
EASE OF FILLETING (Easysl difficultdifficult)
012
APPEARANCE (a) Oolour of flesh (TranslucentSl discolouredSl opaqueopaque)
o 1 2 3
(b) Blood stains (AbsentDetectableModerateExcessive)
012 3
(c) Clotting (UnclottedSlclottedModclottedExcessclotted)
012 3
(d) Skin Oolour (VbrightBrightSldullOU11)
o 1 2 3
TEXTURE FirmS1 softSoft
o 1 2
ClDClJR (FreshNeutralStaleSpoilt)
012 3
CONJITION (a) Gaping (AbsentDetectableModerateExcessive)
o 1 2 3
(b) Bruising (AbsentSlightSevere)
012
(c) Wetness (NmnalS1 dry orMod dry orExcess dryness or
SldripModdrip Freezer bJrn or Excessdrip
012 3
(d) Autolysis (Absentmoderatesevere) (Disco1ourations) 0 1 2
(e) Parasites (Absentmoderatesevere) ( Infestations) 0 1 2
(f) Other discolourations (Absentpresent) or contaminants (bones membranes tissues etc) 0 1
EASE OF SKINNING (EasySldifficultdifficult)
012
20
by the author after a literature search and observations made during the preshy
liminary part of the study It has a maxUnum accumulated demerit score of 34
240 ~anoleptic Acceptability Panel of the cooked fish
Filleted samples of both fish species which had been frozen in a cold
roan at -18dege and then thawed as above were used for the acceptability taste
panels The fillets were skinned am cut into 30 to 40 g pieces crumbed and
deep fried (Bremner et ale 1985) Three or four treatments were cooked
simultaneously at each session am the fish served with packets of take-away
french fries Tcrnato sauce vinegar and salt were available Each of the
samples were randanised in such a way so as to give a high degree of balance
(Table 5 and 6) Letters that represent the samples were also picked
randanly The fish was assessed by 20 panellists employed at the Tasmanian
lEgional Laboratory and experienced with facial hedonic scaling for flavour
texture am overall acceptability using the General Foods Smiley scale
(Appendix 2) Salt was rot rrentioned with the 9niley questionaire for blue
grenadier so that the panel should have ro preconceiVed prejudices
250 Statistics
tata fran the sensory assessment of the whole gutted and ungutted raw
fish (both TFRJ am EEl score sheets) am fran the sensory assessrrent of the
frozen filleted raw fish samples of both the blue grenadier stored in RSW am
whiting stored in ice were analysed for correlation using the ELF scatter
module (Appendix 3 and 4)
The acceptability taste panel assessment scores for flavour texture and
overall liking of the toKgt species of fish were subjected to analysis of
variance using the Genstat package (Appendix 5 and 6)
22
Table 6
Order of presentation of cooked whiting samples to the acceptability taste panelists
Order of presentation of samples Panelist
session I session II
1 OTP rm 2 MUS KR 3 sm INL
4 IKJ GKR
5 ror NK
6shy USM UN ~
7 OOP RLD
B HUT NKD
9 USO RiL
10 SMP LGN
11 IMT GIltN
12 nxgt KRD
Note
8angtle code OM 0 G T S N R P U L K
storage time in ice (days) 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
23
300 RESULIS
310 Physical Characteristic of M novaeaelandiae
rran the forty-six fish examined the mean fork lerqth was found to be
762 an (range 609 to 838 an) A few of the fish examined had well shy
developed roes and their digestive tracts were found to be relatively empty
320 Physical Characteristics of the H ssmifasoiata
rran a total of thirty-six fish examined the rrean weight of the fish was
fourrl to be 662 g (range 27 to 186 g) am the mean fork length was 183 em
(range 156 to 265 an)
330 sensory assessment of the raw blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
he results of the sensory assessrrent of the r2M blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW by the four rrerhods of scoring are given as average total
accumulated demerit point scores as shown in Table 7 Figure 1 shoes the
graph of demerit point versus days in RSW by the four rrethods of sensory
assessment used Table 9 shltJtS the correlation analysis
340 sensory assessment of the raw whitirq samples stored in ice
he results of the sensory assessment of the r2M whitirq samples stored
in ice by the four methods of scoring are given as average total accumuLated
demerit point scores as shown in Table 8 Figure 2 shltJtS the graph of demerit
point versus days in ice of the four nethods of sensory assessment used Table
9 shltJtS the correlation analysis
350 Attributes contributing to total score
Attributes that contribute to total score usirq the TFRJ scores (ungutted
and gutted) EEC scores and the filleted sample scores are as shewn in Tables
10 - 14
24
Table 7
Total demerit points fran sensory assessment of blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
Average lbta1 Demerit Rgtint SCores
[)lye in RW TFRJ scores TFRJ scores EEl scores Filleted Sample (urvJut t ed ) (gutted) (gutted) SCores
3 3 3 1 1
4 5 5 2 3
6 10 10 6 6
8 16 18 9 8
9 19 21 11 10
10 20 22 13 12
11shy 22 24 15 14
12 23 25 18 17
13 24 26 19 18
14 25 27 19 19
17 29 31 21 23
21 33 35 25 29
Note
Maximum possible scores for (1) IlRJ scores (ungutted is 35
( 11) IlRJ scores (gutted) is 29
( 11i) EEX scores (gutted) is 30
( iv) Filleted sample scores is 32
amptV
35j
3l~
en Ishy 25Z-0 Q
3)-~
bullbullbull 0
bull 0 0bull 0
bull 0 0 6shy abull A ~
~
bull 0
~
6shy
bull 0
6shy
I) 01
-W 0i A15W ~ Q A
~
6shy~101- bull 90 TFRU SCORES (ungutted)
6shy~ bullbull TFRU SCORES (gutt~d i
bull ~
4 6- 6- EEC SCORES 5~
~ ~ FILLETED SAMPLE SCORES ~
6 4 I J I I I
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
DAYS IN RSW
Figl Demerit Points Versus Days in RSW For Blue Grenadier Samples
Fig 2 Demerit Points Versus Days in ice For Whiting Samples I
27
Table 8
TOtal demerit points from sensory assessment of whi tirq samples stored in ice
Average TOtal Demerit Foint SCores
rays in ice TFRJ scores TFRJ scores EEC scores Fi 11eted sample (urqutted) (gutted) (gutted) (gutted)
1 1 1 0 0 3 2 2 1 1
5 4 4 2 3
7 7 9 3 4
9 13 15 6 9
n 15 17 7 13
13 19 21 11 15
15 24 27 15 16
17 29 32 19 18
19 31 35 22 21
21 32 36 24 24
23 33 37 26 26
Note
MaXllnum possible scores for (i) TFRJ scores (urqutted) is 35 ( ii) TFRJ scores (gutted) is 39 ( iii) EEC scores (gutted) is 30 ( iv) Filleted sample scores is 32
28
Table 9
Relationship between tLme and demerit points for fish stored in RSW
Method of Visual Assessment
y- intercept slope correlation
M novaBMBlandias
TFRJ (urqutted ~les) 032 175 097
TFRJ (gutted samples) 032 190 096
EEl -231 146 097
Filleted samplesbull
-357 158 099
H sBmifasoiata
TFRJ (urqutted samples) -245 167 099
TFRJ (gutted samples) -273 187 099
EOC -414 129 098
Filleted samples -244 125 099
ltshy
--------------- ------------------------------------------
------------- - ------------- -------- ------
Table 10
Attributes contributing to total score using TFRO scores (gutted and ungutted)
Attributes involved in score change Score
Blue grenadier in RSW Whiting in ice
Stiffness Eyes - clarity blood Slllne Stiffness Eyes - clarity shape and blood lt10 Gills - smell Vent - smell SlBne Gills - colour smell and mucous
Vent - smell Belly cavity - stains and blood
Appearance Eyes-shape Stiffness Gills - smell colour and mucous Skin
Stiffness appearance gill-smell Scales belly-discolouration and firmness
N so
gt10lt20 SCales belly - discolouration and firmness Vent - smell Vent - smell and condition Belly cavity - stains and blood
Appearance Slllne Eyes - clarity shape Appearance SlBne Scales Skin blood and iris Gills - colour Eyes - clarity and shape
gt20lt30 Belly - discolouration Gills - mucous smell am colour Vent - condi tion and smell Belly cavity shy blood
Appearance Gills - mucous and smell SlBne Eyes - iris am blood Belly - discolouration and firmness Belly - discolouration and firmness
gt30 Vent - condition and smell Vent - condition Belly cavity - blood Belly cavity - stains
Table 11
Attributes contribut irq to total score us irq EEC scores
Attributes involved in score change
Score Blue grenadier in RSW W1iting in ice
lt7 Appearance - skin eyes gills organs Physical condition - flesh Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and organs Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skins eyes gills flesh Appearance-eyes and organs atv
vertebral column and organs Physical condition-flesh and peritoneum gt7lt14 Physical condition - flesh Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-eyes flesh and vertebral Appearance-skin gills and organs column Physical condition-flesh vertebral column
gt14lt21 Physical condition-vertebal column and and peritoneum peritoneum Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and vertebral column vertebral column
gt21 Physical condition-flesh and peritoneum Physical cOndition-flesh vertebral column Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity and peri toneum bull
Table 12
Attributes contributing to total score using filleted sample scores
Score
lt5
Attributes involved in score change
Blue grenadier in RSW
Appearance - blood stains skin colour ltXIour - flesh
M1iting in ice
----- shy -------------- shy
Appearance - skin colour odour - flesh Cbndition - gaping wetness
Appearance - colour of flesh Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Texture - flesh skin colour ltgt gt5lt10 Cbndition - gaping bruising wetness Ease of filleting
Texture - flesh
Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Appearance - colour of flesh clotting skin clotting skin colour skin colour
gt10lt20 odour - flesh odour - flesh Cbndition - gaping wetness autolysis COndition - gaping bruising wetness other discolourations autolysis and other discolouration Ease of skinning
Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains skin colour clotting
gt20 Texture - flesh Texture - flesh odour - flesh Odour shy flesh COndition - gaping bruising wetness Cbndition - wetness autolysis autolysis Ease of skinring
32
Table 13
Diff~rent emphasis in scoring systems for whole fish as between the EEl and TFID
Attribute Number of potential demerit points TFRJ EEl
1Ippearance (general) 3 0
skin ) scales 6 3
slime
Stiffness (Rigor) 2 0
Eyes 7 3
Gills 7 6
Belly 5 0
Vent 5 0
Belly cavity 4 3
Flesh cut fram abdomen 0 3
Flesh texture 0 3
Vertebral column 0 6
Internal organs 0 3
33
360 Relative merits of the scoring systems
The four scor irq methcds were used on the same samples of t ish Any
sample had therefore deteriorated to the same extent on anyone day Figs 3
am 4 shew the scores converted to percentages of possible deroorit point
scores The discrepancy in the accumulation of demerit points between the EEC
am TFRJ scor irq methods is clearly shown IEference to Table 2 3 am 13
shOool that this is caused by the lack of questions regarding rigor looseness
of scales condition of belly am vent am the qroupinq of colour am mucous
in the gills as single po i nts thus halving the potent Ia I gill demerit point
score canparison of the tO species in Table 9 ShONS that the rate of
accumulation of demerit pgtints was more consistent for the TFRU system than by
the EEX scor i oq methltXl or by scorinq of fillets
370 Time taken to score the fish
The average time taken to score an individual fish using the TFPlJ
(unqutted) scores TFRJ (gutted) scores EEX scores am the filleted aamp Le
scores were found to be 1 min 25 sec 1 min 55 sec 3 min 45 sec and 1 min 50
sec respectively The EEX score sheet is more t iroe consumioq in that more than
one question is asked about an attribute for the giving of only one demerit
point this requires conscious thought
380 Acceptability taste panel results of blue grenadier samples bull Figures 5 6 am 7 shOool the mean taste panel scores in graphic form for
flavour texture and overall acceptability of cooked blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW table 14 shows the results of the statistical analysis
390 Acceptability taste panel results of whiting samples
Figures 8 9 am 10 shOool the mean taste panel scores in graphic form for
flavour texture and overall acceptability of cooked whiting samples stored in
ice table 15 shows the results of the statistical analysis
WHITING STORED IN ICE o TFRU SCORES (ungutted)
bull TFRU SCORES (gutted)
b EEC SCORES
FILLETED SAMPLE SCORES
100bull e ~ e b
i 6
bull NW
oIJ-a A A-
(J0 t A~ 0 ~ AC)
C) -e ~~-
C) a 50 A
A w
Iz ~
~ - W e A0 c a ~ ~ A-a ~ l ~ A
w -~
~ X ~ W -e I c ~ ~ ibull I I I I
4 8 12 16 20 24
DAYS IN ICE FIG4
36
- flavourshy
-e s-e l ~ v
5middotIU
STORAGrf IN R sWDAYS
rlCoS Ttutfc pcr1 rcbull
rf oj bl jtlJ~r - jlqVGurc acccr~b
21179 0 2 136 843
~ 0 u 5middot0YI
oJ J l ofmiddot$ 1 e
tu 4middot0
VI
~ 3middot5
3middot0
TelC-lue X bull -e III
~ Gmiddotftv
ct 5middot03
V1
-J -f-SshyU 2
~ 40 t
3-~
~ bullbull0 5 0
~ 17 21A ISII
PAY- IITDRAGamp fbilW
FIG6 I Tq1-c pltnd rc-utl ojbllfcJrcftaJIr bull I~M144 Q Cc(r~blfly
r 411q~~ An~Plf bUIJlfM F llh J~Lld Pt-DoL B fpound)1
gt1 NI ~~eusr SJAVlt1
D ~II
(ffIt1~JP IIID bull U J 1i
-IyoJC )-tlICf p --lInraquoJ Ix-Pc ~1rb1 r I ef
Ma2j NI a~v2loJ$
til
1Ia ~AO (IIp~lJa~e
01
secto
00
s
05
5
o~
~
0pound
s
0
smiddot
o~
07
1 ~ ~ ~ ~
r~
B
~
rv t gtshy 2
~ ~ 11
~ 7shyIn r
~ () 0 1) m ~
~ gtshyz -
(fII~q~~ 7~ P
IItJ1o -~~f(ll p ~I I~U J ~t~L 0 ~ middot~II I
IDI 8~ middot lta ~
~ QS
middotS ~ ~ 0 z
r Smiddot II
S 1d 0-$ 111 r- l gtshy r
V fr~
~llCf-J a-PcJ~ U~middotJO
4lp~dmiddotyIb 6middot~1f np)t -~11M fo --IIhen IJutJel ~bl
Table 14
Acceptability of deep fried blue grenadier samples stored in FSW
rays in R3W
Acceptability 3 4 6 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 17 21
Flavour 50a 50a 4S a 51a 50a 51a 50a 4Sa 49a 53a 41b 35b
Texture 49bc 51abc 4S bed 52ab 4Sbed 53ab 52abc 52ab 4Sbed 55a 46cd 43d
OJerall 50ab 51ab 47be 52ab 4Sb 5lab 52ab 50ab 47b 54 a 41c 35d
abc
d
significantly different (pltOOOl)
significantly different (pltOOl) W so
Table 15
Acceptability of deep fried whiting samples stored in ice
rays in ice
Acceptability 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Flavour 5Sab 59a 59a 60a 59a 5S ab 51b 54ab 53ab 37c 37c 31c
Texture 59ab 59a 53bed 5S ab 63a 59ab 47cde 54be 56ab 55ab 44e 46de
OJera11 57ab 5S ab 59ab 60a 60a 5Sab 52b 53ab 55ab 42c 36cd 31d
abcde significantly different (Plt0001)
40
~oo DISCUSSION
410 Sensory assessment of the raw blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
he results of sensory assessment on the raw blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW by the four methods of scoring all sheM that there is
progressive increment in total demerit points with storage time for all the
four methods (Table 7) It was also fourxi that the accumulation of demerit
points with time of storage of the fish in ffiW occurred in a saui-linear
fashion for all -the four scoring methods used (Figure 1) he variables (time
of storage and demeritmiddot points score) were all highly correlated (Table 9)
he correlation equation of the TFRJ (ungutted samples) and TFRJ (gutted
sanples) scores were similar roth having a zero time intercept of 032 but
with the TFRJ (gutted samples) scores having a slightly greater slope by 015
he EEC scores and the filleted sample scores roth have lower slopes ie
146 and 158 respectively canpared with the TFRJ (ungutted sample) and TFRJ
(gutted sample) scores of 175 and 190 respectively lbwever the EOC scores
which have the lowest slope have a fairly similar correlation equation with
the filleted sample scores (Table 9) he negative intercepts reflected the
slightly more sigrroid relationship for these samples his suggests that the
TFRJ (gutted) scoring method is the rrost sensitive of the four methods
followed by the TFRJ (ungutted) the filleted sample and the EEC scores
It was also found that after 21 days of storage in RSW the blue
grenadier samples had not reached their maximun possible scores in any of the
four scoring rrethods used (Table 7) he TFRJ (ungutted sample) score only
reached 943 of its possible maximun value whereas the TFRJ (gutted sample)
scores EEC scores and the filleted sample score reached only 897 833 ar~
906 of their possible maximun score his means that all the four methods
of scoring can still be sensitive to changes in the quality of the blue
grenadier samples stored in RSW after 21 days of storage time
41
Figures 1 and 3 also shOVt that the pattern of the graphs of demerit
points against days storage in R3W of the four methcxis of scoring is similar
ie a tendency to be slightly sigmoid fbwever the filleted sanple scores
sean to be rrore sensitive than the EOC scores at the later part of the storage
time ie after 14 days of storage and the scores continued to rise
1be rrost obvious indicator of change for the blue grenadier stored in ffiW
using the TFRJ scores (both gutted and unJUtted sanples) was the eyes (clarity
and blood) followed by odour developnent of the gills (Table 10) his is -
also foond to be true wi th the EOC freshness score (Table 11) Fbr the
filleted sample scores the appearance and odoor of the flesh seems to be the
most obvious indicator of change follOVted by the condition of the fillets such
as gaping bruisin) am wetness (Table 12)
4 20 sensory assessment of the raw whi ting samples stored in ice
1he results of sensory assessment on the rCJl whiting samples stored in
ice by the foor roothods of scoring also shows that there is a progressive
increment in total demerit points with storage time for all the four methods
of scoring (Table 8) Ps with the blue grenadier the aCCLD1UJlation of demerit
points with time of storage of the whiting in ice also occurred in a sernishy
linear fashion for all the foor scoring methods used (Figure 2 and 4) wi th a
slight lag in the initial phase Interestingly this was not observed in the
case of blue grenadier sanples stored in ffiW probably because the first
samplin) of the blue grenadier starts only fran the third day after catch
whereas the first sampling of the whiting starts fran the first day after
catch Also the blue grenadier was handled qu i te roughly on the deck in fact
three oot of the four fish samples on the first rerroval ie the third day
after catching had already showed blood in their eyes
Bremner et al (1985) when using the TFRJ score sheet to assess the
42
quality of four tropical fish species fran the oorth west shelf of hJstralia
(stored in ice) also fourrl that the accumulation of demerit points with time
of storage in ice occurred in a linear fashion
PB wi th blue grenadier the variables (tine of storage ard darneri t points
score) were all highly correlated (Table 9) Also the correlation equation of
the TFRJ (ungutted) ard TFRJ (gutted) scores were similar with the TFJU
(gutted) score having a slightly greater slope by 020 Crable 9) he EEC
scores am filleted sample scores also have lower s lopes l e 129 ard 125
respectively ocmpared to the TFm (ungutted) and (gutted) scores of 167 and
187 respectively However unlike the blue grenadier the filleted samples
of the whi t ing had the 10liest slope he more sensi tive na ture of the EEC
scores as canpared to the filleted sample scores in the case of the whiting
especially after 12 days storage in ice can be explained by the snaller size
of the whitirlJ (fork length ranging fran 156 to 265 an) as canpared to the
size of the blue grenadier (fork length ranging 809 to 838 an) the snaller
fish terrl to spoil faster especially the interior parts of the fish PB the
EEC scores depend nuch on the sensory assessment of the interior parts of the
fish such as the appearance and condition of the flesh vertebral colwnn
interior organs per i toneun and abdaninal cavity (Table 3) which makes up more
than 18 demerit points out of the total possible maxinun of 30 the
sensitiveness of its score is thus self-explanatory in the case of whiting
Connell (1980) explained that large fish keep marginally better than small
fish because larger fish have a smaller surface to volume ratio so that in the
same tUne less of their interior is affected
The above results confirmed the previous suggestion that the TFRU
(gutted) scorIoq methcrl is the roost sensitive of the four methods It was
found that after 23 days of storage in ice the whiting scmples had not
reached the maximun possible scores in any of the four methods used (Table
43
8) The 1FIU (UBJutted) scores had reached only 94-3 of its possible maximum
value whereas the TFRJ (gutted) scores EOC scores am the filleted sample
scores reached only 94 9 867 and 81 3 of their poea Ible maximum score
Therefore all the four methods of scoriBJ can still be sensitive to changes
in quality of the whiting samples stored in ice after 23 days of storage tUne
Ihe roost obvious irxHcator of chaDJe for the whiting stored in ice using
the TFIU score sheet was the eyes (clarity shape and blcxxl) followed by the
develqxnent of -colour odour and nucous of the gills (fable 10) Bremner et
al (1985) when working with four tropical species f~ the north west shelf of
Australia also found that the most obvious indicator of change for fish stored
in ice was the eyes (their clarity am shape) follCAtled by odour developnent
and colour changes in the gills This was also found in the case of blue
grenadier in ~ discussed earlier OJrran et al (1981) when investigating
the quality changes duriBJ iced storage of three carmercially important
species of fish fran Bahrein also found that of the visual and olfactory
assessments gill odour showed the roost pranise as a quality control index
Pgain this is also found to be true with the EOC freshness score of both the
blue grenadier and the whitiBJ (Table 11) AccordiBJ to ~ate (1972) it
was generally agreed that odour of the gills is the most sensitive measure of
freshness but the visual appearance of the eyes gills arxi skin was quicker to
use in practice on the market
For the filleted sample scores of the whiting the most obvious indicator
of chanqe was the appearance and odour of the flesh (Table 12) This too
agreed with the findiBJs for blue grenadier stored in ffiW
AccordiBJ to Baines et al (1969) with fish eatiBJ is related to four
main attributes or quality factors viz appearance odour and texture of the
rCM and cooked fish and in the latter also flavour he ultimate purpose of
testing the raw fish is to estimate the eating quality which is here taken to
44
mean the degree of freshness of flavour Acoording to Baines and Shewan
(1965) the mostreliable test for predicting flavour sqore is raw odour
430 The ease aM difficulties of using the four methods of scoring
It was found that the TFRJ (ungutted) scores was the easiest and quickest
method to use as it takes on average only about 1 min 25 sec to score a fish
canpared to 1 min 55 sec 3 min 45 sec ard 1 min 50 sec for the TFRJ
(gutted) EOC and the filleted sample scores he E~ score was found to be
the roost tedious besides taking the longest time to soore a fish
he TFIU (ungutted) scores also have the advantage of not requiring a
knife in order to score ard also were less IOOSSY to work with canpared to all
the other nethods Also the attributes to be assessed were arranged and
organised in such a way in the score sheet that it is easy to score a fish
starting from assessing the apparance and skin and ending with the condition
and smell of the vent
440 Acceptability taste panel results of the blue grenadier samples
441 Flavour acceptability
Figure 5 shc7ws the flavour acceptability of the deep fried samples of
blue grenadier Samples stored in R3W for less than 17 days were found
statistically (Table 14) to be indistinguishable (Plt0001) fran each other
then there was a significant fall in the flavour acceptability of the samples
stored in RSW for 17 days onwards he sarrtgtle stored for 21 days had a still
lower mean value of 35 but it was not significantly different fran the
semple stored for 17 days which had a nean value of 41 It is interesting to
note that despite the progressive increase in sodiun uptake of the blue
grenadier samples stored in RSW from about 7115 35 mg sodium(lOO g tissue
initially to 724 33 mglOO g tissue on the 16th day aM to 729 17 mglOO g
45
tissue on the 21st day (Burford 1984) the panelists seem not to be
negatively affected by the increasing salt content of the samples with storage
tUne and in fact some of the panelists added more salt to their samples I
111is result contradicts statements made by previous reseachers that the
storage life using R3W may be limited by increases in salt content in the fish
flesh (Boyd et aI 1978) he maximun desirable salt content according to
Tcm1inson et al (1974) as quoted by Boyd et al (1978) is about 05 but at
the 16th day ofmiddot RgtW storage the salt content fOllNj In the flesh of blue
grenadier samples was already more than 07 fbwever the panelist only ate
40g pieces it might have been a different case if the fish has been as a
whole meal
442 Texture acceptability
Figure 6 shows the texture acceptability of the deep fried blue grenadier
samples stored in R3W eespf te sane apparent abberant values (such as the
high rrean of 55 for the sample stored for 14 days in RSW) it is obvious that
the texture acceptability showed a significant decreasing trend (pltOOl) from
seventeen days of storage onwards The abberant texture values are possibly
due to the fact that the fish texture might have been masked by the bread
crunbs used to coat the fish samples before deep fryi~ This agrees with the
observations of Bremner et al (1985) wtxgt found that the inherent textural
softness of P piotiue and the tougheni~ on storage of N peroni i detected by
a profile panel usilYJ steamed fillets were no lo~er noticeable when the fish
was deep fried in batter Bremner (1980) also reported that despi te the
softness of the raw flesh the cooked flesh of blue grenadier is reasonably
firm
46
433 OVerall acceptability
The overall acceptability of the deep fried blue grenadier samples stored
in R)W (figure 7) seems to follCM a similar pattern to its flavour
acceptability (figure 5)~ in which a significant fall in overall acceptability
was only observed fran the samples held fran 17 days in RSW onwards (pltO 001)
as shawn in Tablel4
rnus all the above results showed that there was a significant fall in
flavour texture and overall acceptability of blue ~renadier from 17 days of
R)W storage onwards which was found to be equivalent to the accumulated
demerit point scores of 29 of the TFRJ (ungutted) scoresr 31 of the TFRl
(gutted) scoresr 21 of the EOC scores and 23 of the filleted sample
scores Jones (1964) states that the acceptability of a fish is a function of
its suitability for further processing and of its inmediate appearance its
texture its odour and its flavour
450 Acceptability taste panel results of the whiting samples
451 Flavour acceptability
Figure 8 shows the flavour acceptability of the deep fried whiting
samples stored in ice rtle twelve sample times could be analysed individually
since the means if analysed by canbining adjacent sample times to give six
sample groups are in fact the means of the adjacent times if analysed
individually it was found that samples of the first nine renovals i se up to
17 days of storage in ice are more or less indistinguishable (abberant value
at 7th removal) he last three removals ie samples stored in ice for 19
21 and 23 days were found to be of significantly lower flavour acceptability
(p lt 0001) as shawn in Table 5
47
452 Texture acceptability
Except for the abberation at the 7th remgtval i 9 at day 13 of ice
storage there is a significant reduction of texture acceptability at the 21 II
and 23 days of ice storage (p lt0001) as shown by figure 9 and Table5 t
II
I 453 Over~ll acceptability
he overal I acceptability of the whiting sanples stored in ice is very
much similar to its f Lavour acceptability except at day 19 of ice storage
where the ovaral I acceptability shows a higher mean of 42 carpared to the
flavoor acceptability mean of 37 (figure 10 and Table 5) here is however a
significant sudden drop to lOil scores fran the lOth removal ie day 19 of
storage in ice (p lt0001)
hus all the above results for whitifVJ sanples showed that there was a
significant fall in flavCXJr and overall acceptability fram 19 days ice storage
onwards which is equivalent to the accumulated demerit points of 31 of the
TFRJ (unqutted) scores 35 of the TFRJ (gutted) scores 22 of the EEC
scores and 21 of the filleted sample scores he results are interesti~ in
that the oorresponding total accLDnulated demerit points at the time when
significant falls in flavour texture and overall acceptability of the blue
grenadier and whiting samples stored in I5W and ice respectively were quite
similar
500 CONCLUSION
510 Feasibility of using demerit points
Accumulation of demerit points with time of storage of M
in RM and H eemifaeaiatia in ice was found to be highly
occurred in a semi-linear fashion irrespective of the method of
novas8slandiae
correlated and
scori~ used
- _ ~uo_a~_bull--_--I e -Ii --
48
1he slopes of the lines (rate of accumulation of demerit points) and its
relative spoilage rate were found to be similar for the ttoO species provided
the sane method of scoring is employed 1his tends to suggest that the method
is possibly independent of species am methods of storage or at least
applicable to the two species in RSW and ice respectively
TIle TFRJ (ungutted) scores were foum to be the easiest arrl quickest
method to use although the TFRJ (gutted) scores were the roost sensitive 1he
EEX freshness scores were hClgtlever foum to be the JOOSt tedious aod difficult bull I
to use besides taking more than twice the time taken to score a fish ocmpared
to the TFRJ (ungut ted) scores
Although there were slig~t differences between the ttoO species in those
characteristics where changes were first made (Table 10 11 and 12) there is
enough evidence to conclude that the changes in the appearance of the eyes am
the odour developnent of the gills are the JOOSt obvious arrl valuable indicator
of charqe in quality when using the TFIU or the EEl scores while the
appearance am odour of the fish flesh seems to be the JOOSt obvious indicator
when assessing the filleted sample
1he shelf-life of M navaezelandiae stored in RSW was found to be 14 days
(less than 17 days) whilst that of H semifasoiata stored in ice was fourrl to
be 17 days (less than 19 days) beyond which the fish had developed spoilage
characteristics that were disliked by the acceptability taste panel
1he cut-off point at which spoilage of the samples would have rendered
the quality of the fish sample to be unacceptable fran the consumers point of
view ~ld be that equivalent to the accumulated demerit point of gt29 for the
TFRJ (gutted arrl ungutted) scores am gt21 for the EOC and filleted sample
scores
This study thus confinned the potential use of demerit points such as the
TFRJ (ungutted) scores as an easy quick cheap non-destructive and reliable
49
method of sensory assessment of fish quality In fact Branch and Vail (1985)
had studied the possible use of a prototype pocket-sized computer to determine
the condition and shelf-life of temperate and tropical species of fish based
on data that is derived fran the sensory score sheets for the assessment of
fish quality developed at the (SIRgt Division of fbod lEsearch Iasmanian Fbod
Research Unit (TFlU) Hobart
520 RJrpose for which demerit points are to be used
Many scor i oq systerrs are used to predict the nunber of days fish have
been stored on ice and in nore recent years ICETIME (equivalent days on
ice) I ard thus through years of experience the taste panel acceptability of
the fish I
However fish is sold on appearance and a scoring system may be used for
assessirg marketability of whole or gutted fish or fillets or for setting
standards in bulk buying The EEC scoring system is used for example at
fish markets at first point of sale to grade the fish and establish
withdrawal prices A IbrryShewan type system is often used as a purohas i nq
specification from finn to firm
Before a final demerit point system is selected for any COlIOOdity its
ultimate purpose should be established For example the demerit points
chosen for whole fish which nost closely resemble the rate of change of
demerit points for fillets of that species might be the most useful
A linear rate of change of demerit points with time is nose favoured
because it enables prediction of remaining shelf-life ConstJJrer
unacceptability should be at a point where perhaps 75 of the demerit points
have been accrued Further scores would still be available for categories
such as suitable for fish meal D3merit points are not an indication of the
acceptability of fish as eaten where off-odours flavours and fillet
50
tdiscolouration are masked by batters or curries Their correlation with the
iodours flavours off odours aod off flavours of steamed fish are currently ~
~
~being examined by other workers at the Tasmanian ~ Research unit and highly
significant correlations are found Even when fish are subsequently eaten
battered or curried demerit points give a good indication of remaining shelf
life Thus whitiOJ with a Smiley flavour score of 58 after 1 day on ice
has a nlU gutted demerit score of 1 and a high quality life (eaten crumbed
and fried) of a further 16 days while whitiOJ stored for 11 days on ice with
the sane flavour score has a gutted demerit score of 17 and a further shelf
life of 6 days
530 SUggestion for further work
Ib ascertain its potentially wide application as a simple quick and
technically sound methcxi of assessing fish quality many more studies using
other species of fish both temperate and tropical species and in various
storage conditions should be undertaken using a demerit point scorIrq system
such as that developed by the TFlU
The score sheet has proved invaluable when sending individuals untrained
researchers away on distant water fishing trips Ps yet 00 standard
deviations have been detennined using a team of assessors with coded samples
of unknown history This may require a separate group design
The effect of lean fish and fatty fish on the scores should also be
studied because factors such as seasonal variations in biological conditions
Lmproper gutting and washing mechanical damage and filth and changes due to
storage in R3W or shelving may have considerable influence on its shelf-
life Reports such as those of smith et al (1979) clearly showed that in fish
such as the blue whitirlJ (Mioroomesistius poubaeeous there is greater degree
I 51
of seasonal variability than in other gadoid species the overall
acceptability droppirq dramatically once the fish have spawned Fish accepted
for processing for food has to be of a higher standard of quality than fish
accepted for Imredfate sale across the counter to the consumer therefore
there is a need to rreet a minimum score before they could be processed into
food Gradirq is therefore best left to the user sorenson (1971) states
that in establishing limi ts of acceptance an allowance had to be made for
deterioration that would continue to take place during processing and storage
prior to reaching the consimer
The only final criteria of the objectivity of sensory or any other
assessment are results that are reproducible many times which is by definition
a lcnJ-tenn process and in the meantime one requires short-cut indications
that one is headirq in the right direction
Ferhaps a final caution Is necessary as in the YQrds of Ehrenberg and
Shewan (1953) not too much must be expected even the best measuring
instruments occasionally go oot of control
52
60 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baines CR Jones NR am Shewan JM 1965 Technological problems of
measur trq degree of freshness of wet fish and problems of quality
control requirif)J roore knowledge fran fundamental research In he
Technology of fish utilisation ad R Kreuzer Fishi~ News (Books)
p 141
Baines CR and Shewan JM 1965 sensory rrethods for evafuat inq the
quality of white fish Lab practice 14 160-163
Baines CR ltbnnell JoJ Gibson DM lbWgate PF Livi~ston E and
Shewan JM 1969 A taste panel technique for evaluatirq the eati~
quality of frozen cod In Freezi~ and irradiation of fish ad R
Kreuzer Fishi~ News (Books) London p361
Boyd NS and Wilson NDC 1976 A sensory method for evaluatInq the
quality of Snapper (Ch1ysophrys auratus) NZ Journal of Science 19
209-12
Boyd NS Wilson ND and Bjley A 1978 A refrigerated sea water plant
for small boats symposium on fish utilisation technology and
marketi~ in the IPFC region IFFC Proceedi~s 18th session Manila
Philippines FAD Ba~kok p 186-192
Branch AC and Vail AMA 1984 Bri~i~ fish inspection into the
canputer age FltXld Technol Aust 36 in press
Bremner HA Olley J and Ihrower SoJ 1978 CSIIU Iasmanian lEgional
Laboratory OCcasional Paper No4
Bremner HA 1980 Processi~ and freezi~ of the blue grenadier (Maclulonus
novaeselandiae) FltXld Technol Aust 32(8)~ pp 385-393
Bremner J A 1984 QJality - an attitude of mind In he JILlstralian
Fishi~ Industry - today and tanorrow 10-12 July 1984 Launceston
53
Australian MaritUne Cbllege seminar Bapers 224-69
Bremner HA Statham JA am Sykes SJ 1985 Tropical species fran the
north west shelf of Alstralia sensory assessment and acceptability
of fish stored co ice Proceedi~s Sixth session IPR Worki~ Party
on Fish D3chnology and Marketi~ Melbourne 1984 FJID Fish lep 252
supp1
Burford D 1985 Sodiun uptake in MaOlUfOOnUS nooaeselandiae stored in
refrigerated sea water Tasmanian Food Research Unit OCcasional Paper
No9
ltbnnell JJ 1972 OJality control in the fish industry Ibrry Jldvisory
note No 58 IOrty Research Station Aberdeen
ltbnnell JJ 1980 ltbntrol of fish quality Fishi~ ~ws (Books) 2nd ed
Surrey England
OJrran CA Nicolaides L and Al-Alawi ZS 1981 QJality chanqes duri~
iced storage of three carmercially important species of fish fran
Bahrain Trop sci 23(4) 253-268
de Zylva ERA 1974 Effect of fish handli~ at sea on storage quality of
New Zealand Snapper (Chroysophroys aumtus) New Zealand J SCi 17
309-318
Etlira S 1976 A biochemical study on the freshness of fish Bull 1bkai
Reg Fish Res Lab No 88 pp 1-13
Ehrenberg ASC and Shewan JM 1953 he cbjective approach to sensory
tests of food J Sci Food hJric 4 pp 482-489
Herbert RA and Shewan JM 1975 Precursors of the volatile sulphides in
spoili~ North Sea Cod J Sci Food JIlgric 26 1195-1202
lbUwi~ H 1972 Gradi~ of fish in different qualities Institute for
Fishery Products Ijmuiden Unpublished
~ate P 1972 Qrlparison of sensory scor inq systems for raw fish
I 54
Unpubl ished bull ~ ~
~ate P 1978 Measuri~ the quality am acceptability of fish products bull ~
In IPFC Proceedi~s symposiun on fish utilisatial technology and ~
i f~
marketi~ in the IWC region 18th session Manila Ihilippines p
449
fflghes RB and Jones NR 1966 Measurement of hypoxanthine concentrations
in canned herrirg as an index of the freshness of the raw material
with a ocirment oo flavor relations J SCi fOOd middotJlgric 17 434
Jahns FD Howe JL Coduri Jr RJ and Ram Jr AG 1976 A rapid
visual enzyme test to assess fish freshness Food Iechno1 30 (7) 27
Jones NR 1964 ~lems associated with freezi~ very fresh fish
Proceedings Meeting on Fish Iechnology Fish Handling and
Preservation schevenirqen OEC D Paris p 31 bull
Jones NR 1965 Hypoxanthine and other purine containing fractions in fish
muscle as indices of freshness In uthe technology of fish
utilisation ed R Kreuzer Fishi~ rewa (Books) (Drmn p 179
Last PR Scott EOG and Talbot FH 1983 Fishes of Tasmania
Tasmanian Fisheries ~velopnent lUthority lbbart Tasmania pp 238
414
Lima doe santos CAM James D and Ieutscher F 1981 QJidelines for
chilled fish storage experiments FKJ Fish Tech Igt 210
(Dye RM 1954 Ibst rrortem cha~es in the lenses of fish eyes Msessment
of storage tiJm and fish quality J Sci Focx11lgric 5 566-572
Hartin RE Gray RJ H and Pierson MD 1978 QJality assessment of fresh
fish arrl the role of the naturally occurring microflora Focx1
Technol 32 (5) 188
Official Journal of the European oamrnunities No L264 5 ~cember 1970 pp
1-11
bull
55
Technol New Zealand July 1971 pp 31-35
Spinelli J Eklund M and Miyauchi D 1964 Measurement of hypoxanthine
in fish as a method of assessing freshness J Food SCi 29 710
Thrower S oJ am Stafford IA 1981 A roobile unit for ccmparative studies
of chilled storage systems for trawl fish IIF IIR
eatmissions C2 01 02 03 Boston USA 1981-4
Thrower SoJ Bremner HA QJarmby AR Ggtnnan T8 aild Graham KJ
1982 cn-board handlinJ of Q~ish ~ Inportanoeof chillinJ and
gutting Aust Fish 41 (11) 38-41
Tanlinson N bull bull t at 1974 COtparison between refrigerated sea water (with or
without added carbon dioxide) and ice as storage media for fish to be
subsequently frozen Proc IIR C011n 82- 0-3 Tokyo p
waterman J oJ 1982 Qrrposition and QJality of Fish A Dictionary 1brry
Mvisory Note No 87 Torry Research Station Aberdeen
5J
Olley J and letkowsky OA 1973 he role of terrperature function
integration in monitoring of fish spoilage Food Technol New
Zealand 8 (2) 13 15 and 17
Olley J 1977 Iemperature and seafood spoilage In H Proceedings of 1977
SChool for SeafltXld Processorsmiddot ad ~ AF 0 Mello Hawkesbury
Agricultural Oollege p6-2
Olley J 1978 QIality assessment and storage changes In middotCSIRJ Iasmanian bull
leJional Laboratory OCcasional Paper No 4 p 3-1 middot4 Rgenstein J M and ~enstein CE 1981 he shelf-life extension of fesh
fish In Advances in the refrigerated treabnent of fishmiddot
International Institute of Rfrigeration Clmnissions C2 m ra [8
Boston US A 1981-4
leJenstein J 1983 Wlat is fish quality INroFISH Marketing Digest ttgt 6
26-28
Ryder JM 9Jisson OH SCott ON and Fletcher GC 1984 storage of
New Zealand Jack Mackerel ( TmohUMlB notJabullbullbullZandias) in ice
chemical microbiological and sensory assessment J M SCi 49
1453-1456 1477
Shewan JM Macintosh RG rucker CG and Ehrenberg ASC 1953 he
developnent of a numerical ~coring systan for the sensory assessment
of the spoilage of wet white fish stored in ice J SCi Food Jlgric
4 283-298
Smith J GM Hardy R hanson AB Young KW and Parsons E 1979
sane observations 00 the ambient and chill storage of blue whiting
(Mio1om8sistius poutassou) bull In H Advances in Fish SCience and
Technology ad JJ Connell FishinJ News (Books) Surrey England
pp 299-303
SOrensen T 1971 QIality control and fish handling in New zealand Food ~
t c-
o )
~hmiddot r~YiJ lt~
~~f~~ ~
I
Nomooram for comparison of diffGrent scoring systems tor raw T i sn ___ _ J bull )
_U I~ ~Y1 9i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~
I I t I I - _---1------ imiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot __ middot~_ ~ __~_ -_ ~ + ~ _ -~ _ - middotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middot __ G 9 8 7 6 _ 5middot 3
_ - zmmy [ I bull r f II
d _~__ ~ __ _ ~ __ -I-- - ~ L- i~ middoti~ ~ 1-L -~~ lt lt l~tceland 1P i ~ ~ j ~ ~ ~ L~ __ - I ~_ bull _ L j ~- _-
N rv 1 I 1 2 --- - 2~ 3 middot 3middot 4 ~- ~Il ay ~ _ _ middot _ r r
_ _ __ _ _~ ~_ ) - ~ L_ - 1- ~-_ -_ _ _ ~ 19 ~ 8 imiddotmiddot I 6 5 4 3
Do _ _nm~r t I I I r
~ I
_ ~ ~_ ~ t ~ __ i__ t ~ ~ ~ ~ _ q x 1 1i 2 2~ 3v _ Franee I r I l n
I I I i _ - ~ _ _ _- _-- middotmiddot __ middot_middot_middot_middotmiddotmiddotImiddotmiddotmiddot_middot~ _middotmiddotmiddotmiddot-_middotmiddotmiddotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddot ---- - --~ ~-
19oum8 I 7 6 i 5 ~ ~ 4middot 280 J t (
I i
J -- - -_ -__ X ~middotH i__~ -- i_L ~ - l_ middot1-- - 3 I 2Y1 0 4 11z 1 y
E E C I 1
I I I deg deg E I A r Bmiddot - I I C
ltOIl j- ~ ~ c ~--------------
TASTER
DATE
SESSION
~ER middot1
bull You will be given ~bull aamples of cooked fish Please assess the fish for flavour textur~ and
overall liking as though you had purchased them in a takeaway food shop Hark the sample
identification under the face that most closely describes your impressionbull
I
middot5 S shy2 3 4
FLAVOUR
IEXlURE
--
OVERALL UKING
7 bullbull yc ) I _ v J _ _
I1PP~NJIJ( 3 ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE BGRENVZSASS (A)
OBS DAYS-R DMPTS shy
1 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 6 4 3 7 4 6 e 4 5 9 6 1 18 6 10 11 6 18 12 6 18 13 e 13 14 8 16 13 8 13 16 8 17 17 9 18 18 9 18 19 9 bull 19 29 9 19 21 19 19 22 1 21 23 1 19 24 1 2123 11 21 26 11 22 27 11 22 29 11 22 29 12 22 3 12 22 31 12 23 32 12 23 33 13 23 34 13 23 33 13 22 36 13 23 37 14 24 38 14 23 39 14 264 14 25
17 26~ 17 39 43 17 38 44 17 29 43 21 32 46 21 33
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASS(At
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (Xt DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Yt DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9666 R SQUARED 9343 T STATISTIC 231621 INTERCEPT tAt 31799 SLOPE tSt 173399 bull STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 219473
OBSERVATIONS 46 Y DMPT9 XI DAYS-RSW YMIN -18 YMAX 61 YINC e XMIN -19 XMAX 2e9 XINe 2
] y
__ t=- I I 0(I I
JPRH6ELF PRINT MODULE -SYNTAX ERROR
DATABASE J3lGRENVISASS (FIL)
OB8 DAYS-R DMPT8
1 s 1 2 4 5 s 6 6
~ e 8 ~ 9 1 6 19 12 7 11 14 8 12 17 9 13 18 1 14 19 bull 11 17 23 12 21 29
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASSCFIL)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE CX) DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IY) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT ~9963
R SQUARED 992 T STATISTIC 3~36977
INTERCEPT CA) -3~6~41
SLOPE CB) 1~8426
STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 77667
OBSERVATIONS 12 v DMPTS x DAYS-RSW VMIN -2~ VMAX ~~ YINC ~
XMIN -19 XMAX 2~9 XINC 2
]
bull
-SYNTAX ERROR
lPRH6ELF PRINT MODULE
DATABASE BGRENVXSASS (AG)_
OB6
1 2 3 4 ~
6 7 8 9
Hi 11 12 13 14 1~
16 17 -18 19 2 21 22 23 24 2~
26 27 28 29
3 31 32 33 34 3~
36 37 J8
39
4 41 42 43 44 4~
46
DAYS-R
3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 6 6 6 6 8 8
8 bull 8
9 9 9 9
1 1 1 1 11 11 11 11
DMPTS
2 3 3 3 ~
6 ~
~
1 1 1 1 17 18 17 19 2~
2 21 21 21 23 21 23 23 24 24 24
12 24 12 24 12 25 12 25 13 27 13 25 J3 24 13 27 104 26 J04 2S
14 28 14 27 17 28 17 32 17 32 17 31 21 34 21 35
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BORENVISASSCAO)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE IX) DAVS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IV) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9~76~
R SQUARED 917 T STATISTIC 22S6S88 INTERCEPT lA) 323~7
SLOPE lB) 189812 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 269324
OBSERVATIONS 46 Y DM PT6 X DAYS-RSW ~ _01 VMAV 2~ YfNe ~
XMIN -19 XNAX 2l9 XINC 2
]
9YNTA)( ERROR bull ]PRN6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE BGRENVXSASS
OB6 DAY6-R DMPTS
1 3 1 2 3 1 3 3 1 4 3 1 5 4 1 6 4 4 7 4 3 9 4 1 9 6 6 18 6 6
11 6 6 12 6 6 13 9 8
14 9 9 15 8 8 16 8 9 l 9 18 19 9 11 19 9 12 28 9 12 21 18 12 22 18 14 23 18 11 24 18 14 25 11 15 26 11 13 27 11 15 29 11 15 29 12 17 3 12 18 31 12 19 32 12 18gJ l~ 34 13 18 3~ 13 18 36 13 19 37 14 19 JB 14 19 39 14 19 48 14 19 41 17 19 42 17 23 43 17 21 44 17 20
-(EEC)
q~ 21 23 q6 21 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASSCEEC)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE IX) DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IY) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 96691 R SQUARED 93q9 T STATISTIC 2~14824
INTERCEPT IA) -238937 SLOPE IB) 146219 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 1S28eS
OBSERVATIONS q6 Y DMPTS X DAYS-RSW YMIN -2q YMAX ~5 YINC ~
XMIN -19 XMAX 259 XJNC 2
l
SYNTAX ERROR lPRM8ELF PRINT MODULE
-
bull
APPENJ)K 4 -
DATABASE WHZTXNG VXSASS (A) bull
OBS DAYS-I
1 1 2 1 3 1 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 ~
9 5 9 5 Ii 7 11 7 12 7 13 9 14 9 1~ 9
016 11 17 11 19 11
DMPTS
1 1 1 1 2 2 4 3 5 a 7
9 13 15 bull 13 16 14 1~
019 13 2 8 28 13 16 21 13 20 22 15 24 23 1~ 24 24 15 25 25 17 29 26 17 29 27 17 38 29 19 30 29 19 38 38 19 32 31 21 33 32 21 32 33 21 32 34 23 32 3~ 23 32 36 23 34
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASSIA)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE tX) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE tV) qMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 98514 R SQUARED 9785 T STATISTIC 3344414 INTERCEPT tAt -245163 SLOPE CBt 166958 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 286799
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS x DAYS-ICE
YMIN -22 YMAX lS7 YINC lS- XMIN -19 XMAX 259 XINC 2
]
I
J
-8YNTAX ERROR
]PRM6ELF PRINT MODULE shyDATABASE WHITING VISASS (AG)
OB8 DAYS-I DMPT8
1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 4 3 1 ~ 3 2 6 3 2 7 ~ 4 9 ~ 3 9 ~ ~
18 7 18 11 7 9 12 7 18 13 9 1~
14 9 17 1~ 9 1~
16 11 18 17 11 16 18 11 17 19 13 22 28 13 18 21 13 22 22 1~ 26 23 1~ 27 24 1~ 28 2~ 17 32 26 17 32 27 17 33 28 19 34 29 19 34 38 19 36 31 21 37 32 21 36 33 21 36 34 23 36 3~ 23 36 36 23 38
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITINO VISASS(AO)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAY8-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Y) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 986~2
R SQUARED 973 T STATISTIC 3~B167B
INTERCEPT CAl -272~33
SLOPE CBI 197S63 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 221294
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS X DAYS-ICE YHIN -19~ YHAX ~9~ YINC ~
XHIN -19 XHAX 2~9 XINC 2
]
-SYNTAX ERROR lPRM6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASS (EEC)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 2 1 3 1 4 3 ~ 3 1 6 3 1 7 ~ 2 8 ~ 2 9 ~ 3
1 7 3 11 7 3 12 7 3 13 9 6 14 9 6 bull 1~ 9 7 16 11 7 17 11 8 18 11 7 19 13 11 2 13 1 21 13 12 22 1~ 13 23 1~ 1~
24 1~ 17 2~ 17 19 26 17 18 27 17 19 28 19 29 29 19 23 39 19 22 31 21 24 32 21 23 33 21 24
34 23 2J 3~ 23 26 36 23 27
I ELF SCATTER MODULE I DATABASE WHITING VISA88CEEC)I I INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (~) DAYS-ICE I
DEPENDENT VARIABLE (VI DMPTS I bull
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9a2~3
R SQUARED 96~3
T STATISTIC 387a73~
INTERCEPT (A) -4142 SLOPE (8) 12873 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 173287
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS ~ DAYS-ICE YMIN -29 YMA~ ~1 VINC ~
XMIN -19 ~MA~ 2~9 ~INC 2
J
-SYNTAX ERROR JPRM6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHITING VXSASSmiddot(FXL)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 2 3 1 3 ~ 5 4 7 4 ~ 9 9 6 11 13 7 13 1~
e 1~ 16 9 17 19 18 19 21 11 21 24 12 23 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASB(FJLI
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Y) DMPTS
bull bullbull 4~
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE CV) DMPTSr
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 982~3
R SQUARED 96~3
T STATISTIC 3S7873~ t bullbullf CINTERCEPT CA) -4142
SLOPE CB) 12873 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 173287
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS XI DAYS-ICE YMINmiddot~28 YMAKI 1 YINC ~
XMIN -I9XMAX 2~9 XINC2
]
-SYNTAX ERROR ]PRH6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHXTXNG VXSASS (FXL)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 S 2 3 1 1 5 3 4 7 4 5 9 9 6 11 13 7 13 1~
9 15 16 9 17 19 1 19 21 11 21 24 12 23 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE I WHITING VISAS8(FIL)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE CX)I DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE CY) DMPT8
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 99289 R SQUARED 9858 T STATISTIC 2638123 INTERCEPT CA) -243706 SLOPE CB) 124476 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 112846
SLOPE 10) 124476 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 112846
ObullbulllfftVTrOHSO 12 VI DHPTS XI DAVS-ICE VMIN -27 VHAX e2 VINe e XHIN -19 XHAX 2e9 gtcINe 2
]
-8VNTAX ERROR
fi
rr
[bull
SJ
in i
bullol
r~
bull bull
n i
o o o o
~
o~ o
o - l
N~ o ~
o o o
Q
Q o o
a
c -~_
Q
_
_ Q
_9_
0
o ~-
O
_
Q
lI
oJ ~
v
~ ~
~-
-
- -1
---h
---1
---I
I
I
1
~ ((9 ~ J las 0 - ~~ U -lt) az E~-~gl~~1--~~---------- ~) 1)
11 ~ - 11 HI ~~
I bull M~
~ -~ ~~ IJ~ I J ismiddotJ I Q l~
k tl I 01 re lr - 91 br I ~I ( -0 71P g I CJ tt
I I J 000 0 0 w I 0) NlNN1tl 30 hIflJ I t IC (~4ID(r ~ Wi
_ f-- -------- bull fyen ~=y ~~r I I I I I I I 0 0 00 00 ( ~) -Fr~ ~ fj)
-0 I 0 I Ole 17 10 0 ( ~ AI )middot P1~ 0 0 00 Q hItIrS ~7I -~~ (J
t -r------0 bull
_-~_ middotmiddotmiddot_middot~middotmiddotmiddot)-middot7~)
lrrT I 01 0
0 tFmiddot~~i ~ 1 o 00 Omiddot (~ -W ~r f (JJ___~ _______ _ l I I 71 I -_---_ - M-~ ~ I
J I Z-tf ~ ~ ~fI t1 11f ( )) CI I I I i I 00 r11-7[ c I C bull aofl7r_ ~ ~z ~ 1t~Ji ) ( --_--------i---shye l~~~ I f~) I I J I
I II i bull Q ( N~T fE ~I )
~JiP _- -___ ----shy
_
~ 7Yr 0) ~(J ~ I e I t I ~ l I J I I 1 I I I(I 0 0 (~~yen~ M -p~P71 JPtJIJs 0
i euror (1l~J IlLriJlllr1JI ~~J I ~()(1OP I I r I I 0 I ( t t I ( jIfS 7fS ~~I ~ )
I
I 1 I( IN 10~ lb~ qItJ gtr~j f o (~)I(~) I I 0 I (t~ ~~) I I Jbull o 0 J I ~ l 0 a i S(jJ t t t tI tI C I C I J I I I J I 0 I (n~rlP PI4t -I) t
- -I
-I -I-I I II-I I I-I r bull
-----(rtb Ii If p~) PNl17T7~b ~y~ 7
10 IIt1v I 0 1~L CIJ tN IfIfW1IIJ JI11i JN~I HJ3
---Y p~ALY~_ ~~ Yl2-- 1)
yenvr 1amp f111l
-
~
~~
~
II
o 0
~cgt
(
) Q
oa
oo
o
oo
o o
a
o
~
P
t
oo
c
oo
a -
o
oo
o
o -
o
-o
-
-
lJ
I~ I~
Jl ~rIpound i IAlffzfjjsectj 7df- utl kf J OG lie rCOIpound ~IIE(T r
7tU
~
~ ~
~ ~
~
-shy~
~
MYI f)lySLM~ 1 (JAy ISo~r 11 ~~) e ()~t ~I01) r I joy f o~y lOJ 17~JJlII1~ 16 fiti -t1 It r ~17J~~flu~1h 111H 7U 1111111shyIllf Jr(11Jr I fhJo
~ ) ~ I1 J J-4 ~ J 2 JJ ~poundol ~ ] t4 cl -7 eJ uJ cJJJ wI~ wI l shy w c at amp 74 -t ~ ut 4 I
SkIN 000 o 0 0o 0 0 o 00 I o I I I I 3 3 3l) t 3 3 31 s 3ltt
a I I I I I o IfYU I 2 I JI I I000 )l~ 1~1 S 3 ~S 3 5 335
GILtJ I J I o (J 0 I (I I I ~ t 2shy~I I s 3 ]] 2 0 (J 3 ~ ~ t 3 3 AlvItUiU i l I I ls)z oJ lJ 0 a (J ~ 0o 0 0 a a aTff1ttJR II r 1
1 I ~ I I I I 1~E
Cdt47tl7 I I ~ ~t( a a 0O(O I Io I~ 00 000deg a 0wO 0 0 0 o 0 0 o~ 00VUipound811 ~ J I
tJ I Oe6rlllr I I I I 2 2]l2 ~ 3 S 3 S ~ 3o a 0 (J () 0 I 333 1 $ 3
If~euMI LU~ 2l 3000o (J 0 o 0 0 J 2 2shy 331a deg (1 ~ 2 Jshy
i I 000amp1 0 I I 1TIUUpound
lAcltJdJE 00deg00o 0 0 ooalOOO 0 0 I I I 1OdOa deg 0 11 2 I r I I I IbullI
I I h~r~Eu I ( 0 0 CJ 0 o (J a 2 ~ 30001011 0 1 J 1010 I I L II 2 l 2l 22 2 1
sKIN GLLt I f I~J) GlIIl) 0 (I a I do 0 0 I 0 Il~t l~o 0 0 ~ 3 3 3 s 3 3 3 33s1331
i7tJ7l11 Ibull I shy i66 ~o
(J ~ 0 1 0 It3331l J t 1 1shy 1~ ~afJllc 11 Irrshy It ~1 1111 20 J3 u
(])JtUJ61 (l) (1) (Ir)(0) (J)(I) (If) (19) (u) (~r)(J4)
I r f
I
I
i I
I i
II I ((
f
II Ii
p ()
Q
0_
_ 00
0
00
00
00
0
o o o 0
00
0
0 _
o Q
0
0
o
0
00
0
-
0 0
0
middot0
0
o oo
0
o Q
o oo o o
- ~
~
~ ~~pound
w
i -shy
o
co
- --
shy
o o o
~
~_
~
0
-shyJJ
-----l--~
-J
J IJ
f
J
J)
o 0
00
_ 0
0
o (gt
0
o ()
o
0
0 0
0
()
()
o 0
0
o 0
0
_
_ -
-----1
-----shy
Q
0 0
o ~-IJ~ulJ-
u
lJcllJ_-_~IJamp
o o
Q
I---+----I---+----I----I~-
_Ilpound
llD
lIlI
Il
~I
IIIl
I_II
II5
l__
IIlIa
IllP
=lII
Il1
rl
ll
IlIl
IlIII
llII
IlJl
IIl
IIlIl_
IIrII
G3i
mta
isectID
it
llll~
1~=wampampftUla
_
au
U
Lamp
WJN
AJ
poundmiddotJI
IiIamp
3flJ
a
uac
ampa
f
shy
I~middottn 0~L fi 5L middottlu~ fo_~r ( ) 1poundc [CtJRl -ffl(pound1 r~~ rlt1c- J c-ru
-- I
1SllJ7~
lt l)~ J )IIr M ~-t s ~~ OIl middot )If 10 JAY II 041
J- Olt i1 )lir iI DIY IT- IMy11
1~middot6f1 14f1- ~imiddot -- J _ middotAfmiddot IIrk middot Jiamp -ffh~11 rtr Il ~M gt27P- ill Ill ~lllY ~~7rlf JC 1- ~ r 1M 11
r ~ F16F r~h FIjFi ~~I)r r~Fr
5 Fc II -i~fIoi l 1 fj t t Fr c r amp t 1= ~ r ~ F r rtI ~
- -
sION o (j o 0 0 o 0 a I I I I I I I I 2 I t t I-r J~L) z~z~ 2~J ~ z a ~ ~ 33 - -ol t 1 2
~ poundys-s 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I I lt t 2 t t 4 ~z ~ 2l~ ~ ~ 1 Z 3zi3p33 3 333 3 3 3 - - ~ rl~ a 0 a (1 a a o 1 I 1 I 1-2 12 t ltt a ~ l J tll~ ~~~) 2 2 2 2- ~Jll 21 13 33 ~
- ~ MIIi(UlA~
degCt1C 11 )l
FipoundSI- eli CeoD o 0 (J 0 I I I I I I 1 1 I I 1 I Jl~] l2 22- z ~ 2 2 22 11 2-3 -Sfvpound
j
CIJiCVlt-tICN I I I 1 ( I I I 2 2 t ~ t~ )2 2~21 2$ 2 t _~ 3AIJJN(j- P (J dO o C a a o 0 00 1 I I I I - --
V~7r~ ~ c~u N
(TKWW~ CO~ o I oc I I J I I I I 1 2 I 2 2 1- ) t~l2 2- 22 2 ) 2 ~2- 1222 2 2 ll 2L -- -~VClLAl I
a 0 0 0 01 I 0 2 1 2 2 J5r 4 E i H CA I I
-I I I I I I I I J J 12( ~ 12 1 2 1 2-I TfI_ 21 1-1- 1 1 ~ 1
~ I middot_0-__-- I
~ 1
ffCACIpound coo 000lt=1 o 0 0 0 btJCt) o a () (J I I I I I I I I111 I I I 1 I I -~-aD CD lJ a a 0 0 ~ ~ UlrAfllN o 0 a IJ e e 0 C) (JdegOo ecJao co (10 (1 o I I I I I I I I 1 I I III I I I I z --
i tiN ~4r L~~ 2- li ~ a~ 8M) CUmiddot c d (J 0 (J () I I I 1 1 1
I 1 I I f t I II tl-loI 21 1 t 33 - -
-Iffl1-
J I I I I i- 2 I 11~SC~E ~ t 1 o ~ 04-t 1J 11 1 11t IS~ IfS J1 I 1 I If I IJ 1 r~]u ze uu __
bull ttlUIG
(I) l~) (6) (II) ~ (~) 6s-)llIt lCUI CJ (Ii) (~) vmiddot (II) (19~ ---
I t f
I
~ I
~ I
Ii
I I
Ii I II f
~ (
--)raquo~ middot-~~-~-I~~IliiI~~-middotComiddot~-d-b~middotmiddotmiddotmiddot_ ~ ~ middoth-~_middot--~H~~middot~gt
Other Occasional Papers in the series
1 A salinity monitor for irrigation pumps by EOMIEZITIS
2 Wine liqueur and fish products acceptability trials 47th ANZAAS Congress Hobart 1976 by HABREMNER TLLEWIS and ARQUARMBY
3 Abalone silage an exercise in the conservation of waste by JUNE OLLEY
4 Course notes contributed by the CSIRO Tasmanian Food Research Unit to a workshop on fish handling and quality control Hobart Oct3rd-5th 1978 by HABREMNER JUNE OLLEY and SJTHROWER
5 Difficulties with generalized least squares regression in forest modelling by PWWEST
6 Metabolism of zinc cadmium and copper in rats fed shellfish highly contaminated with heavy metals by SJTHROWER JUNE OLLEY and MAUREEN McDERMOTT
7 Hygiene control in seafood processing by SJTHROWER
fv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No TIlLE Page
Fig 1 Pamerit points versus days in RSW for blue grenadier samples 25
Fig 2 Dmerit points versus days in ice for whiting samples 26
Fig 3 Fercentage change in demerit points for blue grenadier
in RSW 34
Fig 4 R9rcentafJe chanqe in demerit points for iced whiting 35
Fig 5 1aste panel results of Blue grenadier - flavour acceptability 36
Fig 6 1aste panel results of Blue grenadier - texture acceptability 36
Fig 7 Taste panel results of Blue grenadier - overall acceptability 37
Fig 8 1aste panel results of tiiting - flavour acceptability 37
Fig 9 1aste panel results of tiiting - texture acceptability 38
Fig 10 Taste panel results of Whiting - overall acceptability 38
Table tb
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Table 10
Table 11
Table 12
Table 13
Table 14
v
LIST OF TABLES
TIILE Page
5amplirq regime for fish stored in R3Wice 14
TFRJ Sensory Assessroont score sheet (gutted and
urqutted sanples) 16
EEX Sensory Assessroont score sheet 17-18
Filleted sample score sheet 19
Order of presentation of the cookeq blue grenadier
samples to the acceptability taste panelists 21
Order of presentation of the cooked whitirq samples
to the acceptability taste panelists 22
TOtal demerit points from sensory assessment of
blue grenadier samples stored in R3W 24
TOtal demerit points from sensory assessment of
whiting scrnples stored in ice 27
Relationship between time and demerit points for
fish stored in R3W (M novaeselandiaet 28
Attributes contributirq to total score usirq TFRJ
scores (gutted and urqutted scrnples) bull 29
Attributes contributirq to total score usirq EEC
scores 30
Attributes contributirq to total score usilVJ
filleted samples scores 31
Different emphasis in scorirq systems for whole
f ish as between the EX and TFRJ 32
Acceptability of deep fried blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW 39
VI
Table 15
Table 16
Acceptability of deep fried whiting samples
stored in ice
Acceptability of deep fried whiting samples stored
in ice
39
47
NIlttmLEOOEMEm
Ihe author is indebted to Hr HA Bremner and Miss J A statham of the
CSIR) Division of Food 1esearch and Ii DA Ratk~sky of the Division of
Mathematics and Statistics for direction and advice durin] the course of this
~rk
Thanks nust also go to Miss M Ottenschlaeger for the help in the taste
panel work Hr AH A vail and Hr P Kearney in the correlation analysis and
Mr D 8Jrford in the preparation of the blue grenadier samples and not
forgettirYJ all the panelists who attended the taste panel sessions
Finally the author wishes to thank all those in the SChool of Fisheries
of the Australian HaritiIm College particularly Mr P Minton for the support
and encouragement they have given and also the Australian Development
Assistance Bureau (~) for their financial assistance
1
ABSTRACT
Accumulation of demerit points with time of storage of blue grenadier (M
novaeae landiaev in refrigerated sea water (I~W) and blue rock whi t ing (H
eemifaeeiatcq in ice was fourd to be highly correlated and occurred in an
approximately linear fashion irrespective of the method of scoring used
1he scoring system developed by the TFRJ was fourrl to be the easiest
quickest and rrost reliable method for quality assessment of fish The changes
in tOO appearance of the eyes and the odour developrent of the gills are the
most obvious and valuable indicators of change in quality when using the TFRU
or the EEl freshness scores while the appearance and odour of the fish flesh
seems to be the most obvious indicator when assessing the filleted samples
1he acceptabil ity taste panel results indicate that M nauaeeelandiae stored
in RSW had a shelf-life of 14 days whilst H semifasciata stored in ice had a
shelf-life of 17 days ~ cut-off point at which spoilage of the samples
WDUld have rendered the quality of the fish samples to be unacceptable fran
the consumer point of view would be those equivalent to the accumulated
demerit point of gt29 for the TFRU (gutted and ungutted) scores and gt21 for the
EEC ard filleted sample scores
2
1 00 rsrromcrros
110 QUality and QUality Asses~nt of Fish
QJality is difficult to define since it means different things to
different people One general definition is degree of excellence
According to waterman (1982) quality of food is the SLD1 of those attributes
that govern its acceptability to the buyer or consumer and quality assessment
is the estLmation or measurement of one or more quality factors as a means of
determining quality before exercising control
Bremner (1984) defined quality as that attitude of mind that approach
that event that state of being when everything is right hus until a
seafood is eaten its quality can only be surmised indirectly harever
seafoods do possess a set of properties or characteristics that for practical
purposes can be related with quality
In cxmnerce quality limits are set by what the custcrner is prepared to
pay for generally the custcrner will pay more for fish that he considers to be
of higher quality and will continue to buy as long as quality remains
constant The relationship between quality and marketing is therefore
governed by the sophistication of the consuner ( ta Zylva 1974) Sore of the
more important factors that determine quality fran the custcrners point of
view are species ease of preparation appearance odour flavour freshness
size presence or absence of bones and filth absence of specific
microorganisms condition packaging and composition (Oonnell 1972)
Freshness is the most important quality factor to the consumer thus
assessnent of freshness is vital in quality control kcording to Baines et
al (1965) the term freshness is employed to describe the presence or
absence of deterioration Ib many however freshness involves the concept of
newness in which time is an important factor In other words the fish
technologist is not only concerned with quality at the mrnent of examination
3
but of the products potential shelf-life M accurate measure of st~age
1_ time under kn~ conditions would allow hLm to calculate the remaining life of
the product and its potential for processing
Fish quality depends on tenperature time and hygiene Factors such as
spontaneous chemical changes autolysis and microbial attack produce
deteriorations fran the point of catching until final putrefaction
Measurements of sane of these deteriorations have been invoked as indices of
freshness
he measurement of trimethylamine (lMA) other spoilage cxrrpounds and the
bacteria themselves as indicators of quality has been reviewed recently by
Martin et al (1978) hey stated that in order to define effective indicators
of seafocxi quality the food technologist must be prepared to examine each
species of seafood individually its environment its composition its
harvesting and its handling
A lUIllber of different tests may be used for estimating the degree of
spoilage in fish these include total volatile bases (TVa) total volatile
reducing substances volatile armonia volatile acids total volatilo
nitrogen indole refractive index of the eye fluid electrical resistance of
the fish flesh total bacterial numbers and organoleptic tests hese methods
are discussed under the headings chemical methods physical methods
microbiological methods and sensory methods bel~
120 Chemical Methods
Although not universal in acceptance or applicability the trLmethylamine
(TMA) determination has became one of the established procedures for
determining fish quality Its use as an indicator of spoilage in fresh fish
have also been proposed by the Codex AlLmentarius crnmittee on fish and
fishery products (Olley 1977) his is despite the fact that there is ample
4
evidence that the same ClfDUnt of 1MA is accanpanied by different ClfDUnts of
spoilage even within the same species
Several investigators (Spinelli et aI 1984 Jones 1965) have expressed
reservations regardirq the use of IMA as an index of quality for fresh fish
not inq that 1MA values fail to give an adequate Iod icetIon of early autolytic
quality chanqes aOO preferrirq hypoxanthfne detenninations instead MA as
would be expected of a bacterial product is not useful in detenninilg quality
deteriorations which occur durirq frozen storage FIrthenoore the shape of
the fish will markedly influence the arrount of IMA meaaured in ng per 100 g
fish (Bremner et aI 1978) Trimethylamine is roost sensitive as an indicator
of the later stages of spoilage whereas Chemical tests for dimethylamine are
most valuable in the early stages of spoilage
Ryder et al (1984) foond that the bacterial metabol Ic end products (1VB
and MA) were less useful as objective measurements of freshness in Jack
Mackerel (TrochuflUB nooaezelandiae) hey also reported that the pH was not a
gcxxl indicator of early storage changes and lEA values could not be used to
detennine loss of acceptability or eoo of shelf-life Recently it has became
apparent that the sulphur canpounds and mercaptans may be importantH2S
detenninants of fish odour and flavour (~rbert and Shewan 1975)
Measurement of MA IMA or amoonia requires a laboratory am assistant of
matriculation standard who has had sane weeks of practice in the IOOthod
Neither the Codex Alimentarius CoITInittee or the EEl (Ccmoon Market) lay down
samplilg procedures
Another quality assessment lOOasurement involves the nucleotides aoo their
degradation products Early studies with cod carp Pacific Salmgtn Lemon
sole haddock and plaice revealed that post-mortem nucleotide degradation in
fish muscle proceeds prbnarily via the followirq sequence of reactions ATP -)
AMP -) IMP -) IID -) Hx -) Xa -) UA where KrP = Jldenosine 5-triphosphate AMP
5
= Jldenosine 5-IOCgtoophosphate IMP = Inosine 5-IOCgtoophosphate lID = Inosine j
Hx = Hypoxanthine xa = Xpnthine am UA = Uric acid loo ~tages in this
degradative sequence have been considered as objective indices of quality shy
dephosphorylation of IMP am formation of hypoxanthine IMP reportedly
possesses properties as a flavour enhancer in fish mrscle COnsequently its
breakdawn may contribute to and be correlated with the loss of fresh flavour
in sane species SCme difficulties however may arise fran using IMP
dephosphorylatioo as a s inqle quality index eg the pattern of nucleotide
breakdown in invertebrate seafood species may differ in same key respects fran
that fourrl in vertebrate species he rate of IMP decanposition in the muscle
also differs between species (Ehira 1976) Accordi~ to Martin et al (1978)
the rrost serious limitation imposed by an IMP index may be that the reaction
is substantially complete well within the edible storage life of a number of
species Its major value then may be as an indicator of fresh flavour loss
during early storage
Unlike IMP concentrations of hypoxanthine (Hx) have been shown to
increase steadily throughout the useful storage life of a number of fish
species (Hughes and Jones 1966) Hypoxanthine formation is a result of both
autolytic am bacterial activities hus it also has advantages over the 1MA
assay Hx may be correlated with flavour loss caused by autolytic activities
durirg early storage am with bacterial spoilage during extended storage to
derive a prediction of useful storage life Also the IMA test is of no value
for freshwater fish because these either do not contain or contain very little
trimethylamine oxide Hx may also be used to determine the quali ty of canned
herrirg at the tirre of processing since hypoxanthine concentrations neither
increase nor decrease duri~ heat process inq and subsequent storage (Hughes
ard Jones 1966) 1MA concentrations on the other hand are unstable during
heat process inq lbNever different species of fish produce hypoxanthine by
6
different routes and at different speeds Each lustralian species ttOUld have
to be examined in turn am the hypoxanthine test related to sensory grades
tbte that the Canadian redfish and flounder had produced the maximum amgtunt of
hypoxanthine 10llg before they becarre unacceptable while the swordfish had
only produced a fifth of the arount when it became unacceptable to a taste
panel (Olley 1978) The hypoxanthine test requires laboratory facilities and
same equipment but recently the use of sLmple paper strips have been reported
(Jahns et aI 1976)
The main disadvantages of nucleotide assays are that they are apt to vary
even arro~ individuals within a species Sufficient samples need to be used
to reduce this variability
All the chemical roothods discussed above depend on measuring the
concentration of certain chemical substances in the flesh and since the sample
is destroyed in the process they cannot be used to test every fish in a
batch In any case variation between fishes in the sarre batch makes chemical
tests for quality a task requiring a statistician (Olley 1977) All the
methods require the use of a laboratory or fairly elaborate facilities and
also they oo rot apply to all species and products alike
130 Physical Methods
Love (1954) described a roothod which correlates the turbidity of the eye
lenses of fish with storage tiroo of iced fish kept in a roan of fairly
constant air temperature He found that it is possible by examination of 20
or more lenses to assess the storage tiroo with an error of not roore than 1
day M advantage of this roothod is that since only the eyes have to be
raroved in sampling the fish remains saleable as headed dressed fish or as
fillets ~ver1 the roothod had many limitations such as difficulty in
manipulation and matchi~ of the lenses which have to be done in good diffused
7
daylight at least 20 lenses are required for each estllnation which is rather
tedious for routine work and also it is not applicable where fish had not been
kept all the time in ice under the standard conditions eg bulk stowage of
fish with ice on a trawler may result in deviation fran the conditions of box
stolage in an insulated roan
he GR Ibrrymeter is a battery pc7ot1ered hand-held instnunent that rreasures
certain dialectric properties of fish skin which charge wi th the
tiJretemperature history of the fish fbWever readi~s on a large mrnber of
samples have to be taken and averaged bull Although it is a rapid simple
objective and rDn-destructive method of estllnati~ the quality of fresh fish
it has the followilkJ disadvanteqesj large variation in readirg fran fish to
fish readi~ varies with physical damage to fish1 cha~e of readi~ with time
varies with species and also may be insensitive at later stages of spo i Laqe
Curran et al (1981) reported that the GR Ibrrymeter was not particularly
successful with both the purple emperor (L6thoinus l6ntjan) ard the Spanish
mackerel ( Scomberomorue oonmereons since the readirgs obtained do not
correlate very well with the taste panel results
140 Microbiological Methods
he rootine microbiological testirg that is performed under normal
industry operations is normally restricted to enumeration of nonpathogenic
microorganisms hose frost frequently used are the standard plate count and
enumeration of indicator organisms such as the coliform group Beoher-ichia
coli aM Staphylococcus aureus
Food handl i nq practices beyond the pr-imary processors control make
standard aerobic plate count (APe) a difficult quality assessment tool to use
generally he total nunber of bacteria is not the sole determinant of
8
quali ty since certain microbial groups are rrore apt to cause spoilage than
others These groups can be given a selective advantage for growth by the way
the product is processed or stored furthermore the determination of
bacterial counts while they are of value to research requires too much time
before results are known and can also be expensive for routine testing
Representative samples have to be taken for bacterial examination because the
fish or product is destroyed during the test Interpreting the results of
bacterial testing is a task for experts who should be consulted when
necessary bull
Detection and enumeration of indicator bacteria such as the coliform
group E ooli and S auroeu8 were considered for many years to indicate the
potential presence of pathoqenic microorganisms NM this inference has been
questioned and these groups are no longer considered a reliable method for
predicting the presence of such pathogens (Martin et aL1978) bull
According to Olley and Ratkowsky (1973) there is in fact no simple index
of quality and a thorough knowledge of the oamplete temperature history of the
fish is the only true indicator of freshness This is so because at higher
temperatures bacteria divide in half more rapidly Therefore the
relationship between bacterial growth with production of spoilage canpounds
and temperature is not a straight line rut a curve he curve relates rate of
spoilage of these commodities at temperatures between aoe and 25dege to the rate
at which they would spoil at aoe hus at aoe the relative rate is 1 and at
Rate at temperature (tOe)any other temperature the relative rate is Rate at a be
Bremner et at (1978) have coined the term ICE FOID for this relative rate
ie so many times faster than the ccmnodity would spoil on ice and
lCETIME as equivalent storage time on ice = lCEFOID x time in days
The curve has also been converted into tabular form to enable conversion
of the temperature history of the catch into equivalent storage time
on ice under ideal conditions However the concept of relative rate of
9
spoilage with temperature can only apply if fishing oonditions are kept
constant
150 sensory Methods
Currently the best way to detenmine fish freshness still requires the use
of a taste panel (Regenstein and Regenstein 1981) A number of taste panel
techniques for assessing the quality of unfrozen fish species have been
described am are in use in different parts of the world These techniques
vary in cbjective and ccrrplexity but are of three main types Firstly there
are those which categorise the fish on the basis of its acceptability for
eatirq secondly there are those which categorise the fish on the basis of
well-defined characteristics which change duri~ storage Thirdly there are
techniques which include elements of both of these types Techniques of the
first type usually anploy a single gradi~ or hedonic (like-dislike) scale
whilst those of the second type anploy descriptions of various characteristics
(Baines et aI 1969)
The ultimate criterion of fish quality is the flavour and texture of the
cooked fish HcMever taste panel evaluations of cooked fish are timeshy
consiminq and relatively few samples can be tested at anyone time It is
therefore highly desirable to be able to make an assessment of eati~ quality
by exanini~ the raw fish My atterrpt to raise the quality of raw fish as it
reaches the consumer is critically dependent on the development of a
convenient and consistent rrethod of quality assessment based on raw fish
Fortunately eat inq quality of cooked fish can be correlated with the
appearance odour and texture of the whole raw fish Boyd and Wilson (1976)
when evaluat inq the quality of snapper (Chroysophfys aufatus) by a sensory
method found that there is close relationship between the raw attributes of
gill odour and general appearance with those of odour texture am flavour of
10
the cooked fish
The use of ooject ive tests at dockside or even on inspection within the
plant is not considered to be practical in the normal routine of inspection of
fresh ard frozen fish products as almost all of the coject Ive tests require
laboratories am so becare rather rerooved fran the busy fisherman processor
or factory foreman A nuch simpler piece of apparatus is the eye or the N)Se
(olley 1977) Sensory tests are always controversial as they require an
inspector although the canny buyer is in fact applying his senses of smell
am visual acuity in a similar fashion W9 accept the wine faster and wcxgtl
classer so why not the fish grader (Bremner 1984) Therefore a test that
correlated well with freshnessquality and that could operate on the market or
in the factory would be of considerable value to an efficient industry (Baines
et aI 1965)
Howgate (1978) also considered the sensory rrethods to be far better than
non-sensory methods which are not suitable for consumer testing whilst
Connell (1972) states that in general the sensory rrethod of assessing
freshness is the best at present for quality control purposes
As fish spoils its snell taste appearance and feel go through
characteristic am well defined stages that trained experts or experienced
staff can consistently recognise It is convenient to attach a number or
score to each stage so that the assessor can award the appropriate score to
each fish or batch of fish Alternatively the mere recognition of each stage
ard acceptance or rejection of fish on this basis may be all that is
necessary Different species and products spoil in different ways The
numerical system us irq an objective panel developed at the Ibrry IEsearch
Station by Shewan et al (1953) is probably the ultUnate critical evaluation of
fish freshness available at this time It was created for the determination
of storage time of whole Net fish l6Jenstein and Iegenstein (1981) in using
11
this nunerical system reported that the cooked freshness scores are generally
higher (better) than expected at that storage t irre for whole wet fish A
freshness score of 55 on the Ibrry scale seemed the appropriate endpoint for
their definition of shelf-life This would nonnally be reached with ideal
iced-at-sea fish about twelve days from catch sooner for fillets Freshness
scorirq systems are I1C1laquo available fran Ibrry Research station for most UK
ccmnercial species and systems are available for both the raw and cooked
fish HoweveF there is still no standard scorirq system to be used
internationally he countries in the EEC ~or instance use scoring systems
which differ both in scale length am in characteristics measured Most
systems use the same scale length for all features examined but the United
Kingdon am Icelarrl use scales of 10 to 0 for odour and 5 to 0 for other
characteristics ibwgate (1972) describes the effort to construct a rorogram
for oonvert inq fran one scorinq system to another (Appendix 1) de Zylva
(1974) expanded the Ibrry score sheet to include marks for flesh colour and
texture belly flap discoloration stainiBJ of backbone am colour of
kidney he scoring system was designed for ~w Zealand snapper and gave
excellent negative linear correlations between score am days of storage
legenstein (1983) presents the way in which Ibrry has in turn incorporated
other characteristics into the score sheet for raw fish Groupings of several
characteristics to give a score requires more expertise than scoring
individual points as is done by de Zylva
However the use of a point or scoring system in which higher points are
given for high quality attributes would mean the requirements of more
kllC7filedge of the fish and the tester mist be experienced and knCM the
qualities of the fish previously Therefore it is too species dependent
his problem can be overcare by using the demerit system with points being
allotted in several categories for defects as they becare obvious and one can
I
12
learn as one goes along in each situation he demerit points that were given
to the various selected quality attributes could be weighted in such a way as
to produce an approximately linear change in score with storage time (Branch
and Vail 1985)
It might also be desirable OCIlInercially to specify a uniform mrnber of
days of shelf-life fran the pack date to consumption he length of shelfshy
life ctgttained for fish depends on the initial age and quality of the fish the
tirre of the pack am the time am temperature of storage before am after
packing In practical terns the ultimate measure of the effect(s) of shelf-
life extension treatments on the final quality of the fish is consumer
satisfaction (Regenstein aoo Regenstein 1981)
A tentative grading systan for fresh fish based on sensory assessment of
fish had been described by IbUwing (1972)
160 The Ideal Method
Forty years of research ootably in the UK Canada and Japan have gone
into objective methods for measuring fish quality (Bremner et al 1978)
There is as yet 00 single universal test for all species nor for that
matter any wholly satisfactory test for individual species
The ideal rrethod hOlJld be one that is cheap oon-destructive easy to
use oot subject to much variation or fatigue having rapid response and wide
application sensory tests have the advantages of being non-destructive 00
equipnent required adaptable to species and assessing the market value
Althcogh sensory tests are usually condemned as a subjective test which
requires training am experience am are also said to be easily open to
abuse this can be reduced if a simple rapid and less descriptive rrethod
could be fourd - possibly with the use of demerit point scores Therefore
this study aims at assessing the use of sensory techniques based on the
13
demerit point scores developed for raw whole (gutted and ungutted) and
filleted fish samples of Australian fish species stored in ice and RSW It
also discusses the results of the acceptability taste panels on the cooked
fish samples
The two oammercially ~rtant Australian fish species used in this study
were the blue grenadier am the blue rock whiting he blue grenadier is
currently Tasmanias major oammercial finfish and the recent annual production
of the fishery exceeds 100 tonnes (Last et aI 1983)~ he blue rock whiti~
is the only Australian member of the family that has any commercial
importance It occurs mainly in Bass strait and the sheltered bays of South
eastern Tasmania The flesh is delicately flavoured but very soft
200 MATERIALS lIND MEIHgt[s
210 Sample preparation
211 Fish stored in RSW
Blue grenadier used in this study were caught on the 15th lugust 1984 at
a depth of 300 fathans off Sandy Cape on the west coast of Tasmania (Lat
41deg20S IDrq144deg40 E) by demersal trawl They were taken fran the deck
irnnediately am dropped into a refrigerated seawater (RSW) tank in a net bag
(tanp -1degC) The fish was reported to be handled quite roughly on board
Sore of the fish had already gone into rigor at this stage he fish were
transported to the CnID lasrnanian Food lesearch Uni t (TFRJ) laboratories in
Hobart and were already to days old on arrival The f ish were then placed in
the RSW box tank of the rrobile unit (the design and construction of which were
described by Thrower and Stafford 1981) and was kept at -1degC for the duration
of the storage trial which lasted for about three weeks Four fish were
rerroved at each samplirq tine (Table 1) for sensory assessment Length
14
measurements to the fork of the tail were also noted ~e fish were then
filleted and samples frozen at -lBoe for later assessment of their
acceptability by taste panel
212 Fish stored in ice
For the sensory assessment of fish stored in ice guidelines similar to
those given by Lima dos Santos et al (981) were used ~e blue rock whiting
also known as the weedy whiting was used ~e whiting were caught on the
afternoon of 23rd August 1984 by demersal trawl in 18 to 25 m waters oft
Eastern Tasmania On arrival at the TFRJ laboratories in I-bbart at 11 45 am
on the fol Lowirq day the f ish were re- iced at a ratio of 21 (ice f ish) in
insulated plastic boxes of size 66 x 41 x 28 em with provision for drainage
of melt water Flake ice was used ~e ice was topped up daily and renewed
once a week The boxes of i ced f ish were then kept in a cool roan set at a
temperature of 0deg to -1dege ~ree fish were removed for sensory assessment at
each sampling time (Table 1) over a period of rmre than three weeks of ice
storage 100 fish samples were then frozen at -18dege until needed for the
acceptability taste panel
Table 1
sampling regirre for fish stored in R3Wice
Blue Grenadier Diys in R3W 3 4 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 17 21
Sample code N D G L S R K T U P M 0
Whiting Diys in ice 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Sample code 0 M D G T S N R P U L K
15
220 Sensory assessment of the whole (gutted and ungutted) raw fish samples
Both the blue grenadier stored in lOW and the whi t i nq stored in ice were
progressively assessed by using the sense organs of sight smell and touch tor
changes in general appearance odour and texture with storage tine by giving
the appropriate demeri t scores according to the score sheets as shown in
Tables 2 and 3 IVo types of score sheets were used Table 2 shows the
sensory assessment score sheet orig inally developed for the assessment of
gemfish (Thrower et al 1982) It has been simplified and weighted (Branch
and Vail 1985) to provide accumulated increases in demerit points as the t i sn
change in odour texture and appearance during storage with the max imum
accumulated demerit point scores of 35 for the urx]utted samples and 39 tor tte
gutted samples The total scor irq for gutted fish differs fran that descr ibeo
by Bremner (1984) and Branch and Vail (1985) in that the demerit points for
the belly cavity have been added to those for the whole fish
The whole and gutted raw fish were also assessed by using the freshness
score sheet developed by the Council of the European COl1nunities (Official
Journal of the European Qmnunities 1970) but with slight rrodification marie
in its scor irq method in that the scor irq was reversed to provide accumulateri
increases in demerit points as in the TFRJ score sheet (Table 2) with a
maximun accumulated demerit score of 30 (Table 3) The samples were scored by
H Abd R who had had no previous experience with the score sheet
230 Sensory Assessment of the frozen filleted raw fish samples
Samples of the whole and gutted fish of both species were then filleted
ard frozen at -18degC until required for the organoleptic acceptability test
panel fillets were thawed by holding for about 16 hours (overnight) in still
air at 4degC The thawed fillets of both the blue grenadier and whi t i nq were
then assessed by the sense organs of sight smell and touch by using the scor-e
sheet for filleted sample as shown in Table 4 nle score sheet was developed
16
able 1
FIlt U Snorr bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullnt oore hbullbull t ( ( 1Ii~ ANI) tlNtJuTreo)
1_middotAnlJ lmiddot
rlSB IDDII
UIUIl~ (VBci9ht~i9ht8lDullDUll
o 1 2 3
SitU ( rimSoft) o 1
SCALBS (r1mSlLoomiddotmiddotLoobullbull ) o 12
r r SLIMB (AbbullbullntSlSlimiddotysliyVSliy)
o 123
S1IrnraS (pr-Ri90rRi90rPot-Ri90r) o 1 2
BYBS Clarity (ClbullbullrISlCloudyCloudy) 012
Shape (HoralslsunknSunkn) 012
Irill (ViiblHot Viibl) IJ 1
Blood (No BloodSlBloodyVBloody) o 1 2
GILLS Colour (VDark)Charaotritio (SlDark) (vradd)(Slradd)
2o 1 Kucou (AbbullbullntKoderatmiddotBxcbullbullbulliv)
o 1 2 S bullbullll (rrbullbullh 01ly) Pihy8talpoll~
(MetalliaSaved) 1 2 3
BELLI Dicoloration (AbbullbullntDetatablmiddotModratmiddotBxobullbullbulliy) 012 3
Finanbullbullbull ( rira80ftBurt) o 1 2
VENT Condition (bobullbulldy)Noraal (SlBrbullbullk) (Opening)(Bxudbullbull )
2o 1 Sbullbulln (rrbullbullhReutralrihy8poilt)
o 2 3
BELLI CAVIn Stain (OpalbullbullontGryihlmiddotllow-Brown) o 1 2
Blood (RdDark RdBrown)
o 1 z
--
17
UJE 3
Etc SENSORY A$fE4St4fN[ ~(oIlL~
SCALE OF MARKING - FRESHNESS
CRITERIA shypoundu1LRt
Abullbullbullbullbullment Mara-bull thc r1ah 0 1 2- 3tszhL
AppearanceinIIMlISJ Skin
Eye
Gill
Flbullbullshycut f ssm abdomusn
Colour the~
vertebral column
Organs
Oright iridescent I bright pigmenta- pigmentation in (1) dull pigmenta tion no i tion but not the process of pigmentation discolouration Ius trous becoming dis-
mucus opaquemucus aqueous i coloured and dull
mucus slightlytransparen t
cloudy ~UCU9 milky
convex (bulging) convex and flat (1) concave in cornea tran- slightly sunken cornea the centre parent cornea Ughtly opalescent cornea milky pupil black opalescent pupil pupil grey bright
pupil black opaque dull
-shining colour less coloured becoming dis- (1) yellmiish no mucus a few traces of coloured mucus milky
cloar mucus mucus opaque
blueish trans- dull velvety slightly opaque (1) opaque lucid smooth waxy shining without any change in the colour sUgh tly original colour changed
(I) reduncoloured sl1 gh tly pink pink
kidneys and kidneys and kidneys (1) kidneys residues of resJdues of resicJuos of r bullbullidue of other other organs other organs other organs organs and blood bright red the dull red blood and blood brownish game as the becoming palo red blood inside discolbured the aorta
(1) or in a more advanced bull ta te of decay
I
bull
Flesh
Vertebtal Column
Peritonium
Gills kin abdominal cavity
18
(eontd)
SCALE OF MARKING - FRESHNESS
CRITERIA
Assessment Mark 0 1 2
Physical eOId ton
firm and elas tic surface smooth
breaks ins tead of coming away
totally adherent to the flesh
seaweed
less elastic
adherent
adherent
Smell bull
not of seaweed but not bad
slightly soft (flaccid) Ie elastic surfacente waxy velvety and dull
slightly adherent
slightly adherent
slightly sour
3
(1) soft (flaccid) scales ebullbullil y detached from skin sur face ra ther wrinkled inclining to mealy
(1) not dherent
1( ) not adherent
(1) sour
(1) or in a more advanced stat of decay
_ shy-- -
19
Table 4
Filleted Sample Score Sheet
r
TREATMENT F ILIEIS DATE REMOJAL (THAWED)
FISH IDENr
EASE OF FILLETING (Easysl difficultdifficult)
012
APPEARANCE (a) Oolour of flesh (TranslucentSl discolouredSl opaqueopaque)
o 1 2 3
(b) Blood stains (AbsentDetectableModerateExcessive)
012 3
(c) Clotting (UnclottedSlclottedModclottedExcessclotted)
012 3
(d) Skin Oolour (VbrightBrightSldullOU11)
o 1 2 3
TEXTURE FirmS1 softSoft
o 1 2
ClDClJR (FreshNeutralStaleSpoilt)
012 3
CONJITION (a) Gaping (AbsentDetectableModerateExcessive)
o 1 2 3
(b) Bruising (AbsentSlightSevere)
012
(c) Wetness (NmnalS1 dry orMod dry orExcess dryness or
SldripModdrip Freezer bJrn or Excessdrip
012 3
(d) Autolysis (Absentmoderatesevere) (Disco1ourations) 0 1 2
(e) Parasites (Absentmoderatesevere) ( Infestations) 0 1 2
(f) Other discolourations (Absentpresent) or contaminants (bones membranes tissues etc) 0 1
EASE OF SKINNING (EasySldifficultdifficult)
012
20
by the author after a literature search and observations made during the preshy
liminary part of the study It has a maxUnum accumulated demerit score of 34
240 ~anoleptic Acceptability Panel of the cooked fish
Filleted samples of both fish species which had been frozen in a cold
roan at -18dege and then thawed as above were used for the acceptability taste
panels The fillets were skinned am cut into 30 to 40 g pieces crumbed and
deep fried (Bremner et ale 1985) Three or four treatments were cooked
simultaneously at each session am the fish served with packets of take-away
french fries Tcrnato sauce vinegar and salt were available Each of the
samples were randanised in such a way so as to give a high degree of balance
(Table 5 and 6) Letters that represent the samples were also picked
randanly The fish was assessed by 20 panellists employed at the Tasmanian
lEgional Laboratory and experienced with facial hedonic scaling for flavour
texture am overall acceptability using the General Foods Smiley scale
(Appendix 2) Salt was rot rrentioned with the 9niley questionaire for blue
grenadier so that the panel should have ro preconceiVed prejudices
250 Statistics
tata fran the sensory assessment of the whole gutted and ungutted raw
fish (both TFRJ am EEl score sheets) am fran the sensory assessrrent of the
frozen filleted raw fish samples of both the blue grenadier stored in RSW am
whiting stored in ice were analysed for correlation using the ELF scatter
module (Appendix 3 and 4)
The acceptability taste panel assessment scores for flavour texture and
overall liking of the toKgt species of fish were subjected to analysis of
variance using the Genstat package (Appendix 5 and 6)
22
Table 6
Order of presentation of cooked whiting samples to the acceptability taste panelists
Order of presentation of samples Panelist
session I session II
1 OTP rm 2 MUS KR 3 sm INL
4 IKJ GKR
5 ror NK
6shy USM UN ~
7 OOP RLD
B HUT NKD
9 USO RiL
10 SMP LGN
11 IMT GIltN
12 nxgt KRD
Note
8angtle code OM 0 G T S N R P U L K
storage time in ice (days) 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
23
300 RESULIS
310 Physical Characteristic of M novaeaelandiae
rran the forty-six fish examined the mean fork lerqth was found to be
762 an (range 609 to 838 an) A few of the fish examined had well shy
developed roes and their digestive tracts were found to be relatively empty
320 Physical Characteristics of the H ssmifasoiata
rran a total of thirty-six fish examined the rrean weight of the fish was
fourrl to be 662 g (range 27 to 186 g) am the mean fork length was 183 em
(range 156 to 265 an)
330 sensory assessment of the raw blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
he results of the sensory assessrrent of the r2M blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW by the four rrerhods of scoring are given as average total
accumulated demerit point scores as shown in Table 7 Figure 1 shoes the
graph of demerit point versus days in RSW by the four rrethods of sensory
assessment used Table 9 shltJtS the correlation analysis
340 sensory assessment of the raw whitirq samples stored in ice
he results of the sensory assessment of the r2M whitirq samples stored
in ice by the four methods of scoring are given as average total accumuLated
demerit point scores as shown in Table 8 Figure 2 shltJtS the graph of demerit
point versus days in ice of the four nethods of sensory assessment used Table
9 shltJtS the correlation analysis
350 Attributes contributing to total score
Attributes that contribute to total score usirq the TFRJ scores (ungutted
and gutted) EEC scores and the filleted sample scores are as shewn in Tables
10 - 14
24
Table 7
Total demerit points fran sensory assessment of blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
Average lbta1 Demerit Rgtint SCores
[)lye in RW TFRJ scores TFRJ scores EEl scores Filleted Sample (urvJut t ed ) (gutted) (gutted) SCores
3 3 3 1 1
4 5 5 2 3
6 10 10 6 6
8 16 18 9 8
9 19 21 11 10
10 20 22 13 12
11shy 22 24 15 14
12 23 25 18 17
13 24 26 19 18
14 25 27 19 19
17 29 31 21 23
21 33 35 25 29
Note
Maximum possible scores for (1) IlRJ scores (ungutted is 35
( 11) IlRJ scores (gutted) is 29
( 11i) EEX scores (gutted) is 30
( iv) Filleted sample scores is 32
amptV
35j
3l~
en Ishy 25Z-0 Q
3)-~
bullbullbull 0
bull 0 0bull 0
bull 0 0 6shy abull A ~
~
bull 0
~
6shy
bull 0
6shy
I) 01
-W 0i A15W ~ Q A
~
6shy~101- bull 90 TFRU SCORES (ungutted)
6shy~ bullbull TFRU SCORES (gutt~d i
bull ~
4 6- 6- EEC SCORES 5~
~ ~ FILLETED SAMPLE SCORES ~
6 4 I J I I I
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
DAYS IN RSW
Figl Demerit Points Versus Days in RSW For Blue Grenadier Samples
Fig 2 Demerit Points Versus Days in ice For Whiting Samples I
27
Table 8
TOtal demerit points from sensory assessment of whi tirq samples stored in ice
Average TOtal Demerit Foint SCores
rays in ice TFRJ scores TFRJ scores EEC scores Fi 11eted sample (urqutted) (gutted) (gutted) (gutted)
1 1 1 0 0 3 2 2 1 1
5 4 4 2 3
7 7 9 3 4
9 13 15 6 9
n 15 17 7 13
13 19 21 11 15
15 24 27 15 16
17 29 32 19 18
19 31 35 22 21
21 32 36 24 24
23 33 37 26 26
Note
MaXllnum possible scores for (i) TFRJ scores (urqutted) is 35 ( ii) TFRJ scores (gutted) is 39 ( iii) EEC scores (gutted) is 30 ( iv) Filleted sample scores is 32
28
Table 9
Relationship between tLme and demerit points for fish stored in RSW
Method of Visual Assessment
y- intercept slope correlation
M novaBMBlandias
TFRJ (urqutted ~les) 032 175 097
TFRJ (gutted samples) 032 190 096
EEl -231 146 097
Filleted samplesbull
-357 158 099
H sBmifasoiata
TFRJ (urqutted samples) -245 167 099
TFRJ (gutted samples) -273 187 099
EOC -414 129 098
Filleted samples -244 125 099
ltshy
--------------- ------------------------------------------
------------- - ------------- -------- ------
Table 10
Attributes contributing to total score using TFRO scores (gutted and ungutted)
Attributes involved in score change Score
Blue grenadier in RSW Whiting in ice
Stiffness Eyes - clarity blood Slllne Stiffness Eyes - clarity shape and blood lt10 Gills - smell Vent - smell SlBne Gills - colour smell and mucous
Vent - smell Belly cavity - stains and blood
Appearance Eyes-shape Stiffness Gills - smell colour and mucous Skin
Stiffness appearance gill-smell Scales belly-discolouration and firmness
N so
gt10lt20 SCales belly - discolouration and firmness Vent - smell Vent - smell and condition Belly cavity - stains and blood
Appearance Slllne Eyes - clarity shape Appearance SlBne Scales Skin blood and iris Gills - colour Eyes - clarity and shape
gt20lt30 Belly - discolouration Gills - mucous smell am colour Vent - condi tion and smell Belly cavity shy blood
Appearance Gills - mucous and smell SlBne Eyes - iris am blood Belly - discolouration and firmness Belly - discolouration and firmness
gt30 Vent - condition and smell Vent - condition Belly cavity - blood Belly cavity - stains
Table 11
Attributes contribut irq to total score us irq EEC scores
Attributes involved in score change
Score Blue grenadier in RSW W1iting in ice
lt7 Appearance - skin eyes gills organs Physical condition - flesh Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and organs Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skins eyes gills flesh Appearance-eyes and organs atv
vertebral column and organs Physical condition-flesh and peritoneum gt7lt14 Physical condition - flesh Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-eyes flesh and vertebral Appearance-skin gills and organs column Physical condition-flesh vertebral column
gt14lt21 Physical condition-vertebal column and and peritoneum peritoneum Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and vertebral column vertebral column
gt21 Physical condition-flesh and peritoneum Physical cOndition-flesh vertebral column Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity and peri toneum bull
Table 12
Attributes contributing to total score using filleted sample scores
Score
lt5
Attributes involved in score change
Blue grenadier in RSW
Appearance - blood stains skin colour ltXIour - flesh
M1iting in ice
----- shy -------------- shy
Appearance - skin colour odour - flesh Cbndition - gaping wetness
Appearance - colour of flesh Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Texture - flesh skin colour ltgt gt5lt10 Cbndition - gaping bruising wetness Ease of filleting
Texture - flesh
Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Appearance - colour of flesh clotting skin clotting skin colour skin colour
gt10lt20 odour - flesh odour - flesh Cbndition - gaping wetness autolysis COndition - gaping bruising wetness other discolourations autolysis and other discolouration Ease of skinning
Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains skin colour clotting
gt20 Texture - flesh Texture - flesh odour - flesh Odour shy flesh COndition - gaping bruising wetness Cbndition - wetness autolysis autolysis Ease of skinring
32
Table 13
Diff~rent emphasis in scoring systems for whole fish as between the EEl and TFID
Attribute Number of potential demerit points TFRJ EEl
1Ippearance (general) 3 0
skin ) scales 6 3
slime
Stiffness (Rigor) 2 0
Eyes 7 3
Gills 7 6
Belly 5 0
Vent 5 0
Belly cavity 4 3
Flesh cut fram abdomen 0 3
Flesh texture 0 3
Vertebral column 0 6
Internal organs 0 3
33
360 Relative merits of the scoring systems
The four scor irq methcds were used on the same samples of t ish Any
sample had therefore deteriorated to the same extent on anyone day Figs 3
am 4 shew the scores converted to percentages of possible deroorit point
scores The discrepancy in the accumulation of demerit points between the EEC
am TFRJ scor irq methods is clearly shown IEference to Table 2 3 am 13
shOool that this is caused by the lack of questions regarding rigor looseness
of scales condition of belly am vent am the qroupinq of colour am mucous
in the gills as single po i nts thus halving the potent Ia I gill demerit point
score canparison of the tO species in Table 9 ShONS that the rate of
accumulation of demerit pgtints was more consistent for the TFRU system than by
the EEX scor i oq methltXl or by scorinq of fillets
370 Time taken to score the fish
The average time taken to score an individual fish using the TFPlJ
(unqutted) scores TFRJ (gutted) scores EEX scores am the filleted aamp Le
scores were found to be 1 min 25 sec 1 min 55 sec 3 min 45 sec and 1 min 50
sec respectively The EEX score sheet is more t iroe consumioq in that more than
one question is asked about an attribute for the giving of only one demerit
point this requires conscious thought
380 Acceptability taste panel results of blue grenadier samples bull Figures 5 6 am 7 shOool the mean taste panel scores in graphic form for
flavour texture and overall acceptability of cooked blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW table 14 shows the results of the statistical analysis
390 Acceptability taste panel results of whiting samples
Figures 8 9 am 10 shOool the mean taste panel scores in graphic form for
flavour texture and overall acceptability of cooked whiting samples stored in
ice table 15 shows the results of the statistical analysis
WHITING STORED IN ICE o TFRU SCORES (ungutted)
bull TFRU SCORES (gutted)
b EEC SCORES
FILLETED SAMPLE SCORES
100bull e ~ e b
i 6
bull NW
oIJ-a A A-
(J0 t A~ 0 ~ AC)
C) -e ~~-
C) a 50 A
A w
Iz ~
~ - W e A0 c a ~ ~ A-a ~ l ~ A
w -~
~ X ~ W -e I c ~ ~ ibull I I I I
4 8 12 16 20 24
DAYS IN ICE FIG4
36
- flavourshy
-e s-e l ~ v
5middotIU
STORAGrf IN R sWDAYS
rlCoS Ttutfc pcr1 rcbull
rf oj bl jtlJ~r - jlqVGurc acccr~b
21179 0 2 136 843
~ 0 u 5middot0YI
oJ J l ofmiddot$ 1 e
tu 4middot0
VI
~ 3middot5
3middot0
TelC-lue X bull -e III
~ Gmiddotftv
ct 5middot03
V1
-J -f-SshyU 2
~ 40 t
3-~
~ bullbull0 5 0
~ 17 21A ISII
PAY- IITDRAGamp fbilW
FIG6 I Tq1-c pltnd rc-utl ojbllfcJrcftaJIr bull I~M144 Q Cc(r~blfly
r 411q~~ An~Plf bUIJlfM F llh J~Lld Pt-DoL B fpound)1
gt1 NI ~~eusr SJAVlt1
D ~II
(ffIt1~JP IIID bull U J 1i
-IyoJC )-tlICf p --lInraquoJ Ix-Pc ~1rb1 r I ef
Ma2j NI a~v2loJ$
til
1Ia ~AO (IIp~lJa~e
01
secto
00
s
05
5
o~
~
0pound
s
0
smiddot
o~
07
1 ~ ~ ~ ~
r~
B
~
rv t gtshy 2
~ ~ 11
~ 7shyIn r
~ () 0 1) m ~
~ gtshyz -
(fII~q~~ 7~ P
IItJ1o -~~f(ll p ~I I~U J ~t~L 0 ~ middot~II I
IDI 8~ middot lta ~
~ QS
middotS ~ ~ 0 z
r Smiddot II
S 1d 0-$ 111 r- l gtshy r
V fr~
~llCf-J a-PcJ~ U~middotJO
4lp~dmiddotyIb 6middot~1f np)t -~11M fo --IIhen IJutJel ~bl
Table 14
Acceptability of deep fried blue grenadier samples stored in FSW
rays in R3W
Acceptability 3 4 6 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 17 21
Flavour 50a 50a 4S a 51a 50a 51a 50a 4Sa 49a 53a 41b 35b
Texture 49bc 51abc 4S bed 52ab 4Sbed 53ab 52abc 52ab 4Sbed 55a 46cd 43d
OJerall 50ab 51ab 47be 52ab 4Sb 5lab 52ab 50ab 47b 54 a 41c 35d
abc
d
significantly different (pltOOOl)
significantly different (pltOOl) W so
Table 15
Acceptability of deep fried whiting samples stored in ice
rays in ice
Acceptability 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Flavour 5Sab 59a 59a 60a 59a 5S ab 51b 54ab 53ab 37c 37c 31c
Texture 59ab 59a 53bed 5S ab 63a 59ab 47cde 54be 56ab 55ab 44e 46de
OJera11 57ab 5S ab 59ab 60a 60a 5Sab 52b 53ab 55ab 42c 36cd 31d
abcde significantly different (Plt0001)
40
~oo DISCUSSION
410 Sensory assessment of the raw blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
he results of sensory assessment on the raw blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW by the four methods of scoring all sheM that there is
progressive increment in total demerit points with storage time for all the
four methods (Table 7) It was also fourxi that the accumulation of demerit
points with time of storage of the fish in ffiW occurred in a saui-linear
fashion for all -the four scoring methods used (Figure 1) he variables (time
of storage and demeritmiddot points score) were all highly correlated (Table 9)
he correlation equation of the TFRJ (ungutted samples) and TFRJ (gutted
sanples) scores were similar roth having a zero time intercept of 032 but
with the TFRJ (gutted samples) scores having a slightly greater slope by 015
he EEC scores and the filleted sample scores roth have lower slopes ie
146 and 158 respectively canpared with the TFRJ (ungutted sample) and TFRJ
(gutted sample) scores of 175 and 190 respectively lbwever the EOC scores
which have the lowest slope have a fairly similar correlation equation with
the filleted sample scores (Table 9) he negative intercepts reflected the
slightly more sigrroid relationship for these samples his suggests that the
TFRJ (gutted) scoring method is the rrost sensitive of the four methods
followed by the TFRJ (ungutted) the filleted sample and the EEC scores
It was also found that after 21 days of storage in RSW the blue
grenadier samples had not reached their maximun possible scores in any of the
four scoring rrethods used (Table 7) he TFRJ (ungutted sample) score only
reached 943 of its possible maximun value whereas the TFRJ (gutted sample)
scores EEC scores and the filleted sample score reached only 897 833 ar~
906 of their possible maximun score his means that all the four methods
of scoring can still be sensitive to changes in the quality of the blue
grenadier samples stored in RSW after 21 days of storage time
41
Figures 1 and 3 also shOVt that the pattern of the graphs of demerit
points against days storage in R3W of the four methcxis of scoring is similar
ie a tendency to be slightly sigmoid fbwever the filleted sanple scores
sean to be rrore sensitive than the EOC scores at the later part of the storage
time ie after 14 days of storage and the scores continued to rise
1be rrost obvious indicator of change for the blue grenadier stored in ffiW
using the TFRJ scores (both gutted and unJUtted sanples) was the eyes (clarity
and blood) followed by odour developnent of the gills (Table 10) his is -
also foond to be true wi th the EOC freshness score (Table 11) Fbr the
filleted sample scores the appearance and odoor of the flesh seems to be the
most obvious indicator of change follOVted by the condition of the fillets such
as gaping bruisin) am wetness (Table 12)
4 20 sensory assessment of the raw whi ting samples stored in ice
1he results of sensory assessment on the rCJl whiting samples stored in
ice by the foor roothods of scoring also shows that there is a progressive
increment in total demerit points with storage time for all the four methods
of scoring (Table 8) Ps with the blue grenadier the aCCLD1UJlation of demerit
points with time of storage of the whiting in ice also occurred in a sernishy
linear fashion for all the foor scoring methods used (Figure 2 and 4) wi th a
slight lag in the initial phase Interestingly this was not observed in the
case of blue grenadier sanples stored in ffiW probably because the first
samplin) of the blue grenadier starts only fran the third day after catch
whereas the first sampling of the whiting starts fran the first day after
catch Also the blue grenadier was handled qu i te roughly on the deck in fact
three oot of the four fish samples on the first rerroval ie the third day
after catching had already showed blood in their eyes
Bremner et al (1985) when using the TFRJ score sheet to assess the
42
quality of four tropical fish species fran the oorth west shelf of hJstralia
(stored in ice) also fourrl that the accumulation of demerit points with time
of storage in ice occurred in a linear fashion
PB wi th blue grenadier the variables (tine of storage ard darneri t points
score) were all highly correlated (Table 9) Also the correlation equation of
the TFRJ (ungutted) ard TFRJ (gutted) scores were similar with the TFJU
(gutted) score having a slightly greater slope by 020 Crable 9) he EEC
scores am filleted sample scores also have lower s lopes l e 129 ard 125
respectively ocmpared to the TFm (ungutted) and (gutted) scores of 167 and
187 respectively However unlike the blue grenadier the filleted samples
of the whi t ing had the 10liest slope he more sensi tive na ture of the EEC
scores as canpared to the filleted sample scores in the case of the whiting
especially after 12 days storage in ice can be explained by the snaller size
of the whitirlJ (fork length ranging fran 156 to 265 an) as canpared to the
size of the blue grenadier (fork length ranging 809 to 838 an) the snaller
fish terrl to spoil faster especially the interior parts of the fish PB the
EEC scores depend nuch on the sensory assessment of the interior parts of the
fish such as the appearance and condition of the flesh vertebral colwnn
interior organs per i toneun and abdaninal cavity (Table 3) which makes up more
than 18 demerit points out of the total possible maxinun of 30 the
sensitiveness of its score is thus self-explanatory in the case of whiting
Connell (1980) explained that large fish keep marginally better than small
fish because larger fish have a smaller surface to volume ratio so that in the
same tUne less of their interior is affected
The above results confirmed the previous suggestion that the TFRU
(gutted) scorIoq methcrl is the roost sensitive of the four methods It was
found that after 23 days of storage in ice the whiting scmples had not
reached the maximun possible scores in any of the four methods used (Table
43
8) The 1FIU (UBJutted) scores had reached only 94-3 of its possible maximum
value whereas the TFRJ (gutted) scores EOC scores am the filleted sample
scores reached only 94 9 867 and 81 3 of their poea Ible maximum score
Therefore all the four methods of scoriBJ can still be sensitive to changes
in quality of the whiting samples stored in ice after 23 days of storage tUne
Ihe roost obvious irxHcator of chaDJe for the whiting stored in ice using
the TFIU score sheet was the eyes (clarity shape and blcxxl) followed by the
develqxnent of -colour odour and nucous of the gills (fable 10) Bremner et
al (1985) when working with four tropical species f~ the north west shelf of
Australia also found that the most obvious indicator of change for fish stored
in ice was the eyes (their clarity am shape) follCAtled by odour developnent
and colour changes in the gills This was also found in the case of blue
grenadier in ~ discussed earlier OJrran et al (1981) when investigating
the quality changes duriBJ iced storage of three carmercially important
species of fish fran Bahrein also found that of the visual and olfactory
assessments gill odour showed the roost pranise as a quality control index
Pgain this is also found to be true with the EOC freshness score of both the
blue grenadier and the whitiBJ (Table 11) AccordiBJ to ~ate (1972) it
was generally agreed that odour of the gills is the most sensitive measure of
freshness but the visual appearance of the eyes gills arxi skin was quicker to
use in practice on the market
For the filleted sample scores of the whiting the most obvious indicator
of chanqe was the appearance and odour of the flesh (Table 12) This too
agreed with the findiBJs for blue grenadier stored in ffiW
AccordiBJ to Baines et al (1969) with fish eatiBJ is related to four
main attributes or quality factors viz appearance odour and texture of the
rCM and cooked fish and in the latter also flavour he ultimate purpose of
testing the raw fish is to estimate the eating quality which is here taken to
44
mean the degree of freshness of flavour Acoording to Baines and Shewan
(1965) the mostreliable test for predicting flavour sqore is raw odour
430 The ease aM difficulties of using the four methods of scoring
It was found that the TFRJ (ungutted) scores was the easiest and quickest
method to use as it takes on average only about 1 min 25 sec to score a fish
canpared to 1 min 55 sec 3 min 45 sec ard 1 min 50 sec for the TFRJ
(gutted) EOC and the filleted sample scores he E~ score was found to be
the roost tedious besides taking the longest time to soore a fish
he TFIU (ungutted) scores also have the advantage of not requiring a
knife in order to score ard also were less IOOSSY to work with canpared to all
the other nethods Also the attributes to be assessed were arranged and
organised in such a way in the score sheet that it is easy to score a fish
starting from assessing the apparance and skin and ending with the condition
and smell of the vent
440 Acceptability taste panel results of the blue grenadier samples
441 Flavour acceptability
Figure 5 shc7ws the flavour acceptability of the deep fried samples of
blue grenadier Samples stored in R3W for less than 17 days were found
statistically (Table 14) to be indistinguishable (Plt0001) fran each other
then there was a significant fall in the flavour acceptability of the samples
stored in RSW for 17 days onwards he sarrtgtle stored for 21 days had a still
lower mean value of 35 but it was not significantly different fran the
semple stored for 17 days which had a nean value of 41 It is interesting to
note that despite the progressive increase in sodiun uptake of the blue
grenadier samples stored in RSW from about 7115 35 mg sodium(lOO g tissue
initially to 724 33 mglOO g tissue on the 16th day aM to 729 17 mglOO g
45
tissue on the 21st day (Burford 1984) the panelists seem not to be
negatively affected by the increasing salt content of the samples with storage
tUne and in fact some of the panelists added more salt to their samples I
111is result contradicts statements made by previous reseachers that the
storage life using R3W may be limited by increases in salt content in the fish
flesh (Boyd et aI 1978) he maximun desirable salt content according to
Tcm1inson et al (1974) as quoted by Boyd et al (1978) is about 05 but at
the 16th day ofmiddot RgtW storage the salt content fOllNj In the flesh of blue
grenadier samples was already more than 07 fbwever the panelist only ate
40g pieces it might have been a different case if the fish has been as a
whole meal
442 Texture acceptability
Figure 6 shows the texture acceptability of the deep fried blue grenadier
samples stored in R3W eespf te sane apparent abberant values (such as the
high rrean of 55 for the sample stored for 14 days in RSW) it is obvious that
the texture acceptability showed a significant decreasing trend (pltOOl) from
seventeen days of storage onwards The abberant texture values are possibly
due to the fact that the fish texture might have been masked by the bread
crunbs used to coat the fish samples before deep fryi~ This agrees with the
observations of Bremner et al (1985) wtxgt found that the inherent textural
softness of P piotiue and the tougheni~ on storage of N peroni i detected by
a profile panel usilYJ steamed fillets were no lo~er noticeable when the fish
was deep fried in batter Bremner (1980) also reported that despi te the
softness of the raw flesh the cooked flesh of blue grenadier is reasonably
firm
46
433 OVerall acceptability
The overall acceptability of the deep fried blue grenadier samples stored
in R)W (figure 7) seems to follCM a similar pattern to its flavour
acceptability (figure 5)~ in which a significant fall in overall acceptability
was only observed fran the samples held fran 17 days in RSW onwards (pltO 001)
as shawn in Tablel4
rnus all the above results showed that there was a significant fall in
flavour texture and overall acceptability of blue ~renadier from 17 days of
R)W storage onwards which was found to be equivalent to the accumulated
demerit point scores of 29 of the TFRJ (ungutted) scoresr 31 of the TFRl
(gutted) scoresr 21 of the EOC scores and 23 of the filleted sample
scores Jones (1964) states that the acceptability of a fish is a function of
its suitability for further processing and of its inmediate appearance its
texture its odour and its flavour
450 Acceptability taste panel results of the whiting samples
451 Flavour acceptability
Figure 8 shows the flavour acceptability of the deep fried whiting
samples stored in ice rtle twelve sample times could be analysed individually
since the means if analysed by canbining adjacent sample times to give six
sample groups are in fact the means of the adjacent times if analysed
individually it was found that samples of the first nine renovals i se up to
17 days of storage in ice are more or less indistinguishable (abberant value
at 7th removal) he last three removals ie samples stored in ice for 19
21 and 23 days were found to be of significantly lower flavour acceptability
(p lt 0001) as shawn in Table 5
47
452 Texture acceptability
Except for the abberation at the 7th remgtval i 9 at day 13 of ice
storage there is a significant reduction of texture acceptability at the 21 II
and 23 days of ice storage (p lt0001) as shown by figure 9 and Table5 t
II
I 453 Over~ll acceptability
he overal I acceptability of the whiting sanples stored in ice is very
much similar to its f Lavour acceptability except at day 19 of ice storage
where the ovaral I acceptability shows a higher mean of 42 carpared to the
flavoor acceptability mean of 37 (figure 10 and Table 5) here is however a
significant sudden drop to lOil scores fran the lOth removal ie day 19 of
storage in ice (p lt0001)
hus all the above results for whitifVJ sanples showed that there was a
significant fall in flavCXJr and overall acceptability fram 19 days ice storage
onwards which is equivalent to the accumulated demerit points of 31 of the
TFRJ (unqutted) scores 35 of the TFRJ (gutted) scores 22 of the EEC
scores and 21 of the filleted sample scores he results are interesti~ in
that the oorresponding total accLDnulated demerit points at the time when
significant falls in flavour texture and overall acceptability of the blue
grenadier and whiting samples stored in I5W and ice respectively were quite
similar
500 CONCLUSION
510 Feasibility of using demerit points
Accumulation of demerit points with time of storage of M
in RM and H eemifaeaiatia in ice was found to be highly
occurred in a semi-linear fashion irrespective of the method of
novas8slandiae
correlated and
scori~ used
- _ ~uo_a~_bull--_--I e -Ii --
48
1he slopes of the lines (rate of accumulation of demerit points) and its
relative spoilage rate were found to be similar for the ttoO species provided
the sane method of scoring is employed 1his tends to suggest that the method
is possibly independent of species am methods of storage or at least
applicable to the two species in RSW and ice respectively
TIle TFRJ (ungutted) scores were foum to be the easiest arrl quickest
method to use although the TFRJ (gutted) scores were the roost sensitive 1he
EEX freshness scores were hClgtlever foum to be the JOOSt tedious aod difficult bull I
to use besides taking more than twice the time taken to score a fish ocmpared
to the TFRJ (ungut ted) scores
Although there were slig~t differences between the ttoO species in those
characteristics where changes were first made (Table 10 11 and 12) there is
enough evidence to conclude that the changes in the appearance of the eyes am
the odour developnent of the gills are the JOOSt obvious arrl valuable indicator
of charqe in quality when using the TFIU or the EEl scores while the
appearance am odour of the fish flesh seems to be the JOOSt obvious indicator
when assessing the filleted sample
1he shelf-life of M navaezelandiae stored in RSW was found to be 14 days
(less than 17 days) whilst that of H semifasoiata stored in ice was fourrl to
be 17 days (less than 19 days) beyond which the fish had developed spoilage
characteristics that were disliked by the acceptability taste panel
1he cut-off point at which spoilage of the samples would have rendered
the quality of the fish sample to be unacceptable fran the consumers point of
view ~ld be that equivalent to the accumulated demerit point of gt29 for the
TFRJ (gutted arrl ungutted) scores am gt21 for the EOC and filleted sample
scores
This study thus confinned the potential use of demerit points such as the
TFRJ (ungutted) scores as an easy quick cheap non-destructive and reliable
49
method of sensory assessment of fish quality In fact Branch and Vail (1985)
had studied the possible use of a prototype pocket-sized computer to determine
the condition and shelf-life of temperate and tropical species of fish based
on data that is derived fran the sensory score sheets for the assessment of
fish quality developed at the (SIRgt Division of fbod lEsearch Iasmanian Fbod
Research Unit (TFlU) Hobart
520 RJrpose for which demerit points are to be used
Many scor i oq systerrs are used to predict the nunber of days fish have
been stored on ice and in nore recent years ICETIME (equivalent days on
ice) I ard thus through years of experience the taste panel acceptability of
the fish I
However fish is sold on appearance and a scoring system may be used for
assessirg marketability of whole or gutted fish or fillets or for setting
standards in bulk buying The EEC scoring system is used for example at
fish markets at first point of sale to grade the fish and establish
withdrawal prices A IbrryShewan type system is often used as a purohas i nq
specification from finn to firm
Before a final demerit point system is selected for any COlIOOdity its
ultimate purpose should be established For example the demerit points
chosen for whole fish which nost closely resemble the rate of change of
demerit points for fillets of that species might be the most useful
A linear rate of change of demerit points with time is nose favoured
because it enables prediction of remaining shelf-life ConstJJrer
unacceptability should be at a point where perhaps 75 of the demerit points
have been accrued Further scores would still be available for categories
such as suitable for fish meal D3merit points are not an indication of the
acceptability of fish as eaten where off-odours flavours and fillet
50
tdiscolouration are masked by batters or curries Their correlation with the
iodours flavours off odours aod off flavours of steamed fish are currently ~
~
~being examined by other workers at the Tasmanian ~ Research unit and highly
significant correlations are found Even when fish are subsequently eaten
battered or curried demerit points give a good indication of remaining shelf
life Thus whitiOJ with a Smiley flavour score of 58 after 1 day on ice
has a nlU gutted demerit score of 1 and a high quality life (eaten crumbed
and fried) of a further 16 days while whitiOJ stored for 11 days on ice with
the sane flavour score has a gutted demerit score of 17 and a further shelf
life of 6 days
530 SUggestion for further work
Ib ascertain its potentially wide application as a simple quick and
technically sound methcxi of assessing fish quality many more studies using
other species of fish both temperate and tropical species and in various
storage conditions should be undertaken using a demerit point scorIrq system
such as that developed by the TFlU
The score sheet has proved invaluable when sending individuals untrained
researchers away on distant water fishing trips Ps yet 00 standard
deviations have been detennined using a team of assessors with coded samples
of unknown history This may require a separate group design
The effect of lean fish and fatty fish on the scores should also be
studied because factors such as seasonal variations in biological conditions
Lmproper gutting and washing mechanical damage and filth and changes due to
storage in R3W or shelving may have considerable influence on its shelf-
life Reports such as those of smith et al (1979) clearly showed that in fish
such as the blue whitirlJ (Mioroomesistius poubaeeous there is greater degree
I 51
of seasonal variability than in other gadoid species the overall
acceptability droppirq dramatically once the fish have spawned Fish accepted
for processing for food has to be of a higher standard of quality than fish
accepted for Imredfate sale across the counter to the consumer therefore
there is a need to rreet a minimum score before they could be processed into
food Gradirq is therefore best left to the user sorenson (1971) states
that in establishing limi ts of acceptance an allowance had to be made for
deterioration that would continue to take place during processing and storage
prior to reaching the consimer
The only final criteria of the objectivity of sensory or any other
assessment are results that are reproducible many times which is by definition
a lcnJ-tenn process and in the meantime one requires short-cut indications
that one is headirq in the right direction
Ferhaps a final caution Is necessary as in the YQrds of Ehrenberg and
Shewan (1953) not too much must be expected even the best measuring
instruments occasionally go oot of control
52
60 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baines CR Jones NR am Shewan JM 1965 Technological problems of
measur trq degree of freshness of wet fish and problems of quality
control requirif)J roore knowledge fran fundamental research In he
Technology of fish utilisation ad R Kreuzer Fishi~ News (Books)
p 141
Baines CR and Shewan JM 1965 sensory rrethods for evafuat inq the
quality of white fish Lab practice 14 160-163
Baines CR ltbnnell JoJ Gibson DM lbWgate PF Livi~ston E and
Shewan JM 1969 A taste panel technique for evaluatirq the eati~
quality of frozen cod In Freezi~ and irradiation of fish ad R
Kreuzer Fishi~ News (Books) London p361
Boyd NS and Wilson NDC 1976 A sensory method for evaluatInq the
quality of Snapper (Ch1ysophrys auratus) NZ Journal of Science 19
209-12
Boyd NS Wilson ND and Bjley A 1978 A refrigerated sea water plant
for small boats symposium on fish utilisation technology and
marketi~ in the IPFC region IFFC Proceedi~s 18th session Manila
Philippines FAD Ba~kok p 186-192
Branch AC and Vail AMA 1984 Bri~i~ fish inspection into the
canputer age FltXld Technol Aust 36 in press
Bremner HA Olley J and Ihrower SoJ 1978 CSIIU Iasmanian lEgional
Laboratory OCcasional Paper No4
Bremner HA 1980 Processi~ and freezi~ of the blue grenadier (Maclulonus
novaeselandiae) FltXld Technol Aust 32(8)~ pp 385-393
Bremner J A 1984 QJality - an attitude of mind In he JILlstralian
Fishi~ Industry - today and tanorrow 10-12 July 1984 Launceston
53
Australian MaritUne Cbllege seminar Bapers 224-69
Bremner HA Statham JA am Sykes SJ 1985 Tropical species fran the
north west shelf of Alstralia sensory assessment and acceptability
of fish stored co ice Proceedi~s Sixth session IPR Worki~ Party
on Fish D3chnology and Marketi~ Melbourne 1984 FJID Fish lep 252
supp1
Burford D 1985 Sodiun uptake in MaOlUfOOnUS nooaeselandiae stored in
refrigerated sea water Tasmanian Food Research Unit OCcasional Paper
No9
ltbnnell JJ 1972 OJality control in the fish industry Ibrry Jldvisory
note No 58 IOrty Research Station Aberdeen
ltbnnell JJ 1980 ltbntrol of fish quality Fishi~ ~ws (Books) 2nd ed
Surrey England
OJrran CA Nicolaides L and Al-Alawi ZS 1981 QJality chanqes duri~
iced storage of three carmercially important species of fish fran
Bahrain Trop sci 23(4) 253-268
de Zylva ERA 1974 Effect of fish handli~ at sea on storage quality of
New Zealand Snapper (Chroysophroys aumtus) New Zealand J SCi 17
309-318
Etlira S 1976 A biochemical study on the freshness of fish Bull 1bkai
Reg Fish Res Lab No 88 pp 1-13
Ehrenberg ASC and Shewan JM 1953 he cbjective approach to sensory
tests of food J Sci Food hJric 4 pp 482-489
Herbert RA and Shewan JM 1975 Precursors of the volatile sulphides in
spoili~ North Sea Cod J Sci Food JIlgric 26 1195-1202
lbUwi~ H 1972 Gradi~ of fish in different qualities Institute for
Fishery Products Ijmuiden Unpublished
~ate P 1972 Qrlparison of sensory scor inq systems for raw fish
I 54
Unpubl ished bull ~ ~
~ate P 1978 Measuri~ the quality am acceptability of fish products bull ~
In IPFC Proceedi~s symposiun on fish utilisatial technology and ~
i f~
marketi~ in the IWC region 18th session Manila Ihilippines p
449
fflghes RB and Jones NR 1966 Measurement of hypoxanthine concentrations
in canned herrirg as an index of the freshness of the raw material
with a ocirment oo flavor relations J SCi fOOd middotJlgric 17 434
Jahns FD Howe JL Coduri Jr RJ and Ram Jr AG 1976 A rapid
visual enzyme test to assess fish freshness Food Iechno1 30 (7) 27
Jones NR 1964 ~lems associated with freezi~ very fresh fish
Proceedings Meeting on Fish Iechnology Fish Handling and
Preservation schevenirqen OEC D Paris p 31 bull
Jones NR 1965 Hypoxanthine and other purine containing fractions in fish
muscle as indices of freshness In uthe technology of fish
utilisation ed R Kreuzer Fishi~ rewa (Books) (Drmn p 179
Last PR Scott EOG and Talbot FH 1983 Fishes of Tasmania
Tasmanian Fisheries ~velopnent lUthority lbbart Tasmania pp 238
414
Lima doe santos CAM James D and Ieutscher F 1981 QJidelines for
chilled fish storage experiments FKJ Fish Tech Igt 210
(Dye RM 1954 Ibst rrortem cha~es in the lenses of fish eyes Msessment
of storage tiJm and fish quality J Sci Focx11lgric 5 566-572
Hartin RE Gray RJ H and Pierson MD 1978 QJality assessment of fresh
fish arrl the role of the naturally occurring microflora Focx1
Technol 32 (5) 188
Official Journal of the European oamrnunities No L264 5 ~cember 1970 pp
1-11
bull
55
Technol New Zealand July 1971 pp 31-35
Spinelli J Eklund M and Miyauchi D 1964 Measurement of hypoxanthine
in fish as a method of assessing freshness J Food SCi 29 710
Thrower S oJ am Stafford IA 1981 A roobile unit for ccmparative studies
of chilled storage systems for trawl fish IIF IIR
eatmissions C2 01 02 03 Boston USA 1981-4
Thrower SoJ Bremner HA QJarmby AR Ggtnnan T8 aild Graham KJ
1982 cn-board handlinJ of Q~ish ~ Inportanoeof chillinJ and
gutting Aust Fish 41 (11) 38-41
Tanlinson N bull bull t at 1974 COtparison between refrigerated sea water (with or
without added carbon dioxide) and ice as storage media for fish to be
subsequently frozen Proc IIR C011n 82- 0-3 Tokyo p
waterman J oJ 1982 Qrrposition and QJality of Fish A Dictionary 1brry
Mvisory Note No 87 Torry Research Station Aberdeen
5J
Olley J and letkowsky OA 1973 he role of terrperature function
integration in monitoring of fish spoilage Food Technol New
Zealand 8 (2) 13 15 and 17
Olley J 1977 Iemperature and seafood spoilage In H Proceedings of 1977
SChool for SeafltXld Processorsmiddot ad ~ AF 0 Mello Hawkesbury
Agricultural Oollege p6-2
Olley J 1978 QIality assessment and storage changes In middotCSIRJ Iasmanian bull
leJional Laboratory OCcasional Paper No 4 p 3-1 middot4 Rgenstein J M and ~enstein CE 1981 he shelf-life extension of fesh
fish In Advances in the refrigerated treabnent of fishmiddot
International Institute of Rfrigeration Clmnissions C2 m ra [8
Boston US A 1981-4
leJenstein J 1983 Wlat is fish quality INroFISH Marketing Digest ttgt 6
26-28
Ryder JM 9Jisson OH SCott ON and Fletcher GC 1984 storage of
New Zealand Jack Mackerel ( TmohUMlB notJabullbullbullZandias) in ice
chemical microbiological and sensory assessment J M SCi 49
1453-1456 1477
Shewan JM Macintosh RG rucker CG and Ehrenberg ASC 1953 he
developnent of a numerical ~coring systan for the sensory assessment
of the spoilage of wet white fish stored in ice J SCi Food Jlgric
4 283-298
Smith J GM Hardy R hanson AB Young KW and Parsons E 1979
sane observations 00 the ambient and chill storage of blue whiting
(Mio1om8sistius poutassou) bull In H Advances in Fish SCience and
Technology ad JJ Connell FishinJ News (Books) Surrey England
pp 299-303
SOrensen T 1971 QIality control and fish handling in New zealand Food ~
t c-
o )
~hmiddot r~YiJ lt~
~~f~~ ~
I
Nomooram for comparison of diffGrent scoring systems tor raw T i sn ___ _ J bull )
_U I~ ~Y1 9i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~
I I t I I - _---1------ imiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot __ middot~_ ~ __~_ -_ ~ + ~ _ -~ _ - middotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middot __ G 9 8 7 6 _ 5middot 3
_ - zmmy [ I bull r f II
d _~__ ~ __ _ ~ __ -I-- - ~ L- i~ middoti~ ~ 1-L -~~ lt lt l~tceland 1P i ~ ~ j ~ ~ ~ L~ __ - I ~_ bull _ L j ~- _-
N rv 1 I 1 2 --- - 2~ 3 middot 3middot 4 ~- ~Il ay ~ _ _ middot _ r r
_ _ __ _ _~ ~_ ) - ~ L_ - 1- ~-_ -_ _ _ ~ 19 ~ 8 imiddotmiddot I 6 5 4 3
Do _ _nm~r t I I I r
~ I
_ ~ ~_ ~ t ~ __ i__ t ~ ~ ~ ~ _ q x 1 1i 2 2~ 3v _ Franee I r I l n
I I I i _ - ~ _ _ _- _-- middotmiddot __ middot_middot_middot_middotmiddotmiddotImiddotmiddotmiddot_middot~ _middotmiddotmiddotmiddot-_middotmiddotmiddotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddot ---- - --~ ~-
19oum8 I 7 6 i 5 ~ ~ 4middot 280 J t (
I i
J -- - -_ -__ X ~middotH i__~ -- i_L ~ - l_ middot1-- - 3 I 2Y1 0 4 11z 1 y
E E C I 1
I I I deg deg E I A r Bmiddot - I I C
ltOIl j- ~ ~ c ~--------------
TASTER
DATE
SESSION
~ER middot1
bull You will be given ~bull aamples of cooked fish Please assess the fish for flavour textur~ and
overall liking as though you had purchased them in a takeaway food shop Hark the sample
identification under the face that most closely describes your impressionbull
I
middot5 S shy2 3 4
FLAVOUR
IEXlURE
--
OVERALL UKING
7 bullbull yc ) I _ v J _ _
I1PP~NJIJ( 3 ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE BGRENVZSASS (A)
OBS DAYS-R DMPTS shy
1 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 6 4 3 7 4 6 e 4 5 9 6 1 18 6 10 11 6 18 12 6 18 13 e 13 14 8 16 13 8 13 16 8 17 17 9 18 18 9 18 19 9 bull 19 29 9 19 21 19 19 22 1 21 23 1 19 24 1 2123 11 21 26 11 22 27 11 22 29 11 22 29 12 22 3 12 22 31 12 23 32 12 23 33 13 23 34 13 23 33 13 22 36 13 23 37 14 24 38 14 23 39 14 264 14 25
17 26~ 17 39 43 17 38 44 17 29 43 21 32 46 21 33
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASS(At
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (Xt DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Yt DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9666 R SQUARED 9343 T STATISTIC 231621 INTERCEPT tAt 31799 SLOPE tSt 173399 bull STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 219473
OBSERVATIONS 46 Y DMPT9 XI DAYS-RSW YMIN -18 YMAX 61 YINC e XMIN -19 XMAX 2e9 XINe 2
] y
__ t=- I I 0(I I
JPRH6ELF PRINT MODULE -SYNTAX ERROR
DATABASE J3lGRENVISASS (FIL)
OB8 DAYS-R DMPT8
1 s 1 2 4 5 s 6 6
~ e 8 ~ 9 1 6 19 12 7 11 14 8 12 17 9 13 18 1 14 19 bull 11 17 23 12 21 29
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASSCFIL)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE CX) DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IY) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT ~9963
R SQUARED 992 T STATISTIC 3~36977
INTERCEPT CA) -3~6~41
SLOPE CB) 1~8426
STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 77667
OBSERVATIONS 12 v DMPTS x DAYS-RSW VMIN -2~ VMAX ~~ YINC ~
XMIN -19 XMAX 2~9 XINC 2
]
bull
-SYNTAX ERROR
lPRH6ELF PRINT MODULE
DATABASE BGRENVXSASS (AG)_
OB6
1 2 3 4 ~
6 7 8 9
Hi 11 12 13 14 1~
16 17 -18 19 2 21 22 23 24 2~
26 27 28 29
3 31 32 33 34 3~
36 37 J8
39
4 41 42 43 44 4~
46
DAYS-R
3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 6 6 6 6 8 8
8 bull 8
9 9 9 9
1 1 1 1 11 11 11 11
DMPTS
2 3 3 3 ~
6 ~
~
1 1 1 1 17 18 17 19 2~
2 21 21 21 23 21 23 23 24 24 24
12 24 12 24 12 25 12 25 13 27 13 25 J3 24 13 27 104 26 J04 2S
14 28 14 27 17 28 17 32 17 32 17 31 21 34 21 35
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BORENVISASSCAO)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE IX) DAVS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IV) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9~76~
R SQUARED 917 T STATISTIC 22S6S88 INTERCEPT lA) 323~7
SLOPE lB) 189812 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 269324
OBSERVATIONS 46 Y DM PT6 X DAYS-RSW ~ _01 VMAV 2~ YfNe ~
XMIN -19 XNAX 2l9 XINC 2
]
9YNTA)( ERROR bull ]PRN6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE BGRENVXSASS
OB6 DAY6-R DMPTS
1 3 1 2 3 1 3 3 1 4 3 1 5 4 1 6 4 4 7 4 3 9 4 1 9 6 6 18 6 6
11 6 6 12 6 6 13 9 8
14 9 9 15 8 8 16 8 9 l 9 18 19 9 11 19 9 12 28 9 12 21 18 12 22 18 14 23 18 11 24 18 14 25 11 15 26 11 13 27 11 15 29 11 15 29 12 17 3 12 18 31 12 19 32 12 18gJ l~ 34 13 18 3~ 13 18 36 13 19 37 14 19 JB 14 19 39 14 19 48 14 19 41 17 19 42 17 23 43 17 21 44 17 20
-(EEC)
q~ 21 23 q6 21 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASSCEEC)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE IX) DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IY) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 96691 R SQUARED 93q9 T STATISTIC 2~14824
INTERCEPT IA) -238937 SLOPE IB) 146219 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 1S28eS
OBSERVATIONS q6 Y DMPTS X DAYS-RSW YMIN -2q YMAX ~5 YINC ~
XMIN -19 XMAX 259 XJNC 2
l
SYNTAX ERROR lPRM8ELF PRINT MODULE
-
bull
APPENJ)K 4 -
DATABASE WHZTXNG VXSASS (A) bull
OBS DAYS-I
1 1 2 1 3 1 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 ~
9 5 9 5 Ii 7 11 7 12 7 13 9 14 9 1~ 9
016 11 17 11 19 11
DMPTS
1 1 1 1 2 2 4 3 5 a 7
9 13 15 bull 13 16 14 1~
019 13 2 8 28 13 16 21 13 20 22 15 24 23 1~ 24 24 15 25 25 17 29 26 17 29 27 17 38 29 19 30 29 19 38 38 19 32 31 21 33 32 21 32 33 21 32 34 23 32 3~ 23 32 36 23 34
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASSIA)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE tX) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE tV) qMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 98514 R SQUARED 9785 T STATISTIC 3344414 INTERCEPT tAt -245163 SLOPE CBt 166958 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 286799
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS x DAYS-ICE
YMIN -22 YMAX lS7 YINC lS- XMIN -19 XMAX 259 XINC 2
]
I
J
-8YNTAX ERROR
]PRM6ELF PRINT MODULE shyDATABASE WHITING VISASS (AG)
OB8 DAYS-I DMPT8
1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 4 3 1 ~ 3 2 6 3 2 7 ~ 4 9 ~ 3 9 ~ ~
18 7 18 11 7 9 12 7 18 13 9 1~
14 9 17 1~ 9 1~
16 11 18 17 11 16 18 11 17 19 13 22 28 13 18 21 13 22 22 1~ 26 23 1~ 27 24 1~ 28 2~ 17 32 26 17 32 27 17 33 28 19 34 29 19 34 38 19 36 31 21 37 32 21 36 33 21 36 34 23 36 3~ 23 36 36 23 38
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITINO VISASS(AO)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAY8-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Y) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 986~2
R SQUARED 973 T STATISTIC 3~B167B
INTERCEPT CAl -272~33
SLOPE CBI 197S63 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 221294
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS X DAYS-ICE YHIN -19~ YHAX ~9~ YINC ~
XHIN -19 XHAX 2~9 XINC 2
]
-SYNTAX ERROR lPRM6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASS (EEC)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 2 1 3 1 4 3 ~ 3 1 6 3 1 7 ~ 2 8 ~ 2 9 ~ 3
1 7 3 11 7 3 12 7 3 13 9 6 14 9 6 bull 1~ 9 7 16 11 7 17 11 8 18 11 7 19 13 11 2 13 1 21 13 12 22 1~ 13 23 1~ 1~
24 1~ 17 2~ 17 19 26 17 18 27 17 19 28 19 29 29 19 23 39 19 22 31 21 24 32 21 23 33 21 24
34 23 2J 3~ 23 26 36 23 27
I ELF SCATTER MODULE I DATABASE WHITING VISA88CEEC)I I INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (~) DAYS-ICE I
DEPENDENT VARIABLE (VI DMPTS I bull
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9a2~3
R SQUARED 96~3
T STATISTIC 387a73~
INTERCEPT (A) -4142 SLOPE (8) 12873 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 173287
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS ~ DAYS-ICE YMIN -29 YMA~ ~1 VINC ~
XMIN -19 ~MA~ 2~9 ~INC 2
J
-SYNTAX ERROR JPRM6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHITING VXSASSmiddot(FXL)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 2 3 1 3 ~ 5 4 7 4 ~ 9 9 6 11 13 7 13 1~
e 1~ 16 9 17 19 18 19 21 11 21 24 12 23 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASB(FJLI
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Y) DMPTS
bull bullbull 4~
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE CV) DMPTSr
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 982~3
R SQUARED 96~3
T STATISTIC 3S7873~ t bullbullf CINTERCEPT CA) -4142
SLOPE CB) 12873 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 173287
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS XI DAYS-ICE YMINmiddot~28 YMAKI 1 YINC ~
XMIN -I9XMAX 2~9 XINC2
]
-SYNTAX ERROR ]PRH6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHXTXNG VXSASS (FXL)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 S 2 3 1 1 5 3 4 7 4 5 9 9 6 11 13 7 13 1~
9 15 16 9 17 19 1 19 21 11 21 24 12 23 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE I WHITING VISAS8(FIL)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE CX)I DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE CY) DMPT8
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 99289 R SQUARED 9858 T STATISTIC 2638123 INTERCEPT CA) -243706 SLOPE CB) 124476 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 112846
SLOPE 10) 124476 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 112846
ObullbulllfftVTrOHSO 12 VI DHPTS XI DAVS-ICE VMIN -27 VHAX e2 VINe e XHIN -19 XHAX 2e9 gtcINe 2
]
-8VNTAX ERROR
fi
rr
[bull
SJ
in i
bullol
r~
bull bull
n i
o o o o
~
o~ o
o - l
N~ o ~
o o o
Q
Q o o
a
c -~_
Q
_
_ Q
_9_
0
o ~-
O
_
Q
lI
oJ ~
v
~ ~
~-
-
- -1
---h
---1
---I
I
I
1
~ ((9 ~ J las 0 - ~~ U -lt) az E~-~gl~~1--~~---------- ~) 1)
11 ~ - 11 HI ~~
I bull M~
~ -~ ~~ IJ~ I J ismiddotJ I Q l~
k tl I 01 re lr - 91 br I ~I ( -0 71P g I CJ tt
I I J 000 0 0 w I 0) NlNN1tl 30 hIflJ I t IC (~4ID(r ~ Wi
_ f-- -------- bull fyen ~=y ~~r I I I I I I I 0 0 00 00 ( ~) -Fr~ ~ fj)
-0 I 0 I Ole 17 10 0 ( ~ AI )middot P1~ 0 0 00 Q hItIrS ~7I -~~ (J
t -r------0 bull
_-~_ middotmiddotmiddot_middot~middotmiddotmiddot)-middot7~)
lrrT I 01 0
0 tFmiddot~~i ~ 1 o 00 Omiddot (~ -W ~r f (JJ___~ _______ _ l I I 71 I -_---_ - M-~ ~ I
J I Z-tf ~ ~ ~fI t1 11f ( )) CI I I I i I 00 r11-7[ c I C bull aofl7r_ ~ ~z ~ 1t~Ji ) ( --_--------i---shye l~~~ I f~) I I J I
I II i bull Q ( N~T fE ~I )
~JiP _- -___ ----shy
_
~ 7Yr 0) ~(J ~ I e I t I ~ l I J I I 1 I I I(I 0 0 (~~yen~ M -p~P71 JPtJIJs 0
i euror (1l~J IlLriJlllr1JI ~~J I ~()(1OP I I r I I 0 I ( t t I ( jIfS 7fS ~~I ~ )
I
I 1 I( IN 10~ lb~ qItJ gtr~j f o (~)I(~) I I 0 I (t~ ~~) I I Jbull o 0 J I ~ l 0 a i S(jJ t t t tI tI C I C I J I I I J I 0 I (n~rlP PI4t -I) t
- -I
-I -I-I I II-I I I-I r bull
-----(rtb Ii If p~) PNl17T7~b ~y~ 7
10 IIt1v I 0 1~L CIJ tN IfIfW1IIJ JI11i JN~I HJ3
---Y p~ALY~_ ~~ Yl2-- 1)
yenvr 1amp f111l
-
~
~~
~
II
o 0
~cgt
(
) Q
oa
oo
o
oo
o o
a
o
~
P
t
oo
c
oo
a -
o
oo
o
o -
o
-o
-
-
lJ
I~ I~
Jl ~rIpound i IAlffzfjjsectj 7df- utl kf J OG lie rCOIpound ~IIE(T r
7tU
~
~ ~
~ ~
~
-shy~
~
MYI f)lySLM~ 1 (JAy ISo~r 11 ~~) e ()~t ~I01) r I joy f o~y lOJ 17~JJlII1~ 16 fiti -t1 It r ~17J~~flu~1h 111H 7U 1111111shyIllf Jr(11Jr I fhJo
~ ) ~ I1 J J-4 ~ J 2 JJ ~poundol ~ ] t4 cl -7 eJ uJ cJJJ wI~ wI l shy w c at amp 74 -t ~ ut 4 I
SkIN 000 o 0 0o 0 0 o 00 I o I I I I 3 3 3l) t 3 3 31 s 3ltt
a I I I I I o IfYU I 2 I JI I I000 )l~ 1~1 S 3 ~S 3 5 335
GILtJ I J I o (J 0 I (I I I ~ t 2shy~I I s 3 ]] 2 0 (J 3 ~ ~ t 3 3 AlvItUiU i l I I ls)z oJ lJ 0 a (J ~ 0o 0 0 a a aTff1ttJR II r 1
1 I ~ I I I I 1~E
Cdt47tl7 I I ~ ~t( a a 0O(O I Io I~ 00 000deg a 0wO 0 0 0 o 0 0 o~ 00VUipound811 ~ J I
tJ I Oe6rlllr I I I I 2 2]l2 ~ 3 S 3 S ~ 3o a 0 (J () 0 I 333 1 $ 3
If~euMI LU~ 2l 3000o (J 0 o 0 0 J 2 2shy 331a deg (1 ~ 2 Jshy
i I 000amp1 0 I I 1TIUUpound
lAcltJdJE 00deg00o 0 0 ooalOOO 0 0 I I I 1OdOa deg 0 11 2 I r I I I IbullI
I I h~r~Eu I ( 0 0 CJ 0 o (J a 2 ~ 30001011 0 1 J 1010 I I L II 2 l 2l 22 2 1
sKIN GLLt I f I~J) GlIIl) 0 (I a I do 0 0 I 0 Il~t l~o 0 0 ~ 3 3 3 s 3 3 3 33s1331
i7tJ7l11 Ibull I shy i66 ~o
(J ~ 0 1 0 It3331l J t 1 1shy 1~ ~afJllc 11 Irrshy It ~1 1111 20 J3 u
(])JtUJ61 (l) (1) (Ir)(0) (J)(I) (If) (19) (u) (~r)(J4)
I r f
I
I
i I
I i
II I ((
f
II Ii
p ()
Q
0_
_ 00
0
00
00
00
0
o o o 0
00
0
0 _
o Q
0
0
o
0
00
0
-
0 0
0
middot0
0
o oo
0
o Q
o oo o o
- ~
~
~ ~~pound
w
i -shy
o
co
- --
shy
o o o
~
~_
~
0
-shyJJ
-----l--~
-J
J IJ
f
J
J)
o 0
00
_ 0
0
o (gt
0
o ()
o
0
0 0
0
()
()
o 0
0
o 0
0
_
_ -
-----1
-----shy
Q
0 0
o ~-IJ~ulJ-
u
lJcllJ_-_~IJamp
o o
Q
I---+----I---+----I----I~-
_Ilpound
llD
lIlI
Il
~I
IIIl
I_II
II5
l__
IIlIa
IllP
=lII
Il1
rl
ll
IlIl
IlIII
llII
IlJl
IIl
IIlIl_
IIrII
G3i
mta
isectID
it
llll~
1~=wampampftUla
_
au
U
Lamp
WJN
AJ
poundmiddotJI
IiIamp
3flJ
a
uac
ampa
f
shy
I~middottn 0~L fi 5L middottlu~ fo_~r ( ) 1poundc [CtJRl -ffl(pound1 r~~ rlt1c- J c-ru
-- I
1SllJ7~
lt l)~ J )IIr M ~-t s ~~ OIl middot )If 10 JAY II 041
J- Olt i1 )lir iI DIY IT- IMy11
1~middot6f1 14f1- ~imiddot -- J _ middotAfmiddot IIrk middot Jiamp -ffh~11 rtr Il ~M gt27P- ill Ill ~lllY ~~7rlf JC 1- ~ r 1M 11
r ~ F16F r~h FIjFi ~~I)r r~Fr
5 Fc II -i~fIoi l 1 fj t t Fr c r amp t 1= ~ r ~ F r rtI ~
- -
sION o (j o 0 0 o 0 a I I I I I I I I 2 I t t I-r J~L) z~z~ 2~J ~ z a ~ ~ 33 - -ol t 1 2
~ poundys-s 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I I lt t 2 t t 4 ~z ~ 2l~ ~ ~ 1 Z 3zi3p33 3 333 3 3 3 - - ~ rl~ a 0 a (1 a a o 1 I 1 I 1-2 12 t ltt a ~ l J tll~ ~~~) 2 2 2 2- ~Jll 21 13 33 ~
- ~ MIIi(UlA~
degCt1C 11 )l
FipoundSI- eli CeoD o 0 (J 0 I I I I I I 1 1 I I 1 I Jl~] l2 22- z ~ 2 2 22 11 2-3 -Sfvpound
j
CIJiCVlt-tICN I I I 1 ( I I I 2 2 t ~ t~ )2 2~21 2$ 2 t _~ 3AIJJN(j- P (J dO o C a a o 0 00 1 I I I I - --
V~7r~ ~ c~u N
(TKWW~ CO~ o I oc I I J I I I I 1 2 I 2 2 1- ) t~l2 2- 22 2 ) 2 ~2- 1222 2 2 ll 2L -- -~VClLAl I
a 0 0 0 01 I 0 2 1 2 2 J5r 4 E i H CA I I
-I I I I I I I I J J 12( ~ 12 1 2 1 2-I TfI_ 21 1-1- 1 1 ~ 1
~ I middot_0-__-- I
~ 1
ffCACIpound coo 000lt=1 o 0 0 0 btJCt) o a () (J I I I I I I I I111 I I I 1 I I -~-aD CD lJ a a 0 0 ~ ~ UlrAfllN o 0 a IJ e e 0 C) (JdegOo ecJao co (10 (1 o I I I I I I I I 1 I I III I I I I z --
i tiN ~4r L~~ 2- li ~ a~ 8M) CUmiddot c d (J 0 (J () I I I 1 1 1
I 1 I I f t I II tl-loI 21 1 t 33 - -
-Iffl1-
J I I I I i- 2 I 11~SC~E ~ t 1 o ~ 04-t 1J 11 1 11t IS~ IfS J1 I 1 I If I IJ 1 r~]u ze uu __
bull ttlUIG
(I) l~) (6) (II) ~ (~) 6s-)llIt lCUI CJ (Ii) (~) vmiddot (II) (19~ ---
I t f
I
~ I
~ I
Ii
I I
Ii I II f
~ (
--)raquo~ middot-~~-~-I~~IliiI~~-middotComiddot~-d-b~middotmiddotmiddotmiddot_ ~ ~ middoth-~_middot--~H~~middot~gt
Other Occasional Papers in the series
1 A salinity monitor for irrigation pumps by EOMIEZITIS
2 Wine liqueur and fish products acceptability trials 47th ANZAAS Congress Hobart 1976 by HABREMNER TLLEWIS and ARQUARMBY
3 Abalone silage an exercise in the conservation of waste by JUNE OLLEY
4 Course notes contributed by the CSIRO Tasmanian Food Research Unit to a workshop on fish handling and quality control Hobart Oct3rd-5th 1978 by HABREMNER JUNE OLLEY and SJTHROWER
5 Difficulties with generalized least squares regression in forest modelling by PWWEST
6 Metabolism of zinc cadmium and copper in rats fed shellfish highly contaminated with heavy metals by SJTHROWER JUNE OLLEY and MAUREEN McDERMOTT
7 Hygiene control in seafood processing by SJTHROWER
Table tb
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Table 10
Table 11
Table 12
Table 13
Table 14
v
LIST OF TABLES
TIILE Page
5amplirq regime for fish stored in R3Wice 14
TFRJ Sensory Assessroont score sheet (gutted and
urqutted sanples) 16
EEX Sensory Assessroont score sheet 17-18
Filleted sample score sheet 19
Order of presentation of the cookeq blue grenadier
samples to the acceptability taste panelists 21
Order of presentation of the cooked whitirq samples
to the acceptability taste panelists 22
TOtal demerit points from sensory assessment of
blue grenadier samples stored in R3W 24
TOtal demerit points from sensory assessment of
whiting scrnples stored in ice 27
Relationship between time and demerit points for
fish stored in R3W (M novaeselandiaet 28
Attributes contributirq to total score usirq TFRJ
scores (gutted and urqutted scrnples) bull 29
Attributes contributirq to total score usirq EEC
scores 30
Attributes contributirq to total score usilVJ
filleted samples scores 31
Different emphasis in scorirq systems for whole
f ish as between the EX and TFRJ 32
Acceptability of deep fried blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW 39
VI
Table 15
Table 16
Acceptability of deep fried whiting samples
stored in ice
Acceptability of deep fried whiting samples stored
in ice
39
47
NIlttmLEOOEMEm
Ihe author is indebted to Hr HA Bremner and Miss J A statham of the
CSIR) Division of Food 1esearch and Ii DA Ratk~sky of the Division of
Mathematics and Statistics for direction and advice durin] the course of this
~rk
Thanks nust also go to Miss M Ottenschlaeger for the help in the taste
panel work Hr AH A vail and Hr P Kearney in the correlation analysis and
Mr D 8Jrford in the preparation of the blue grenadier samples and not
forgettirYJ all the panelists who attended the taste panel sessions
Finally the author wishes to thank all those in the SChool of Fisheries
of the Australian HaritiIm College particularly Mr P Minton for the support
and encouragement they have given and also the Australian Development
Assistance Bureau (~) for their financial assistance
1
ABSTRACT
Accumulation of demerit points with time of storage of blue grenadier (M
novaeae landiaev in refrigerated sea water (I~W) and blue rock whi t ing (H
eemifaeeiatcq in ice was fourd to be highly correlated and occurred in an
approximately linear fashion irrespective of the method of scoring used
1he scoring system developed by the TFRJ was fourrl to be the easiest
quickest and rrost reliable method for quality assessment of fish The changes
in tOO appearance of the eyes and the odour developrent of the gills are the
most obvious and valuable indicators of change in quality when using the TFRU
or the EEl freshness scores while the appearance and odour of the fish flesh
seems to be the most obvious indicator when assessing the filleted samples
1he acceptabil ity taste panel results indicate that M nauaeeelandiae stored
in RSW had a shelf-life of 14 days whilst H semifasciata stored in ice had a
shelf-life of 17 days ~ cut-off point at which spoilage of the samples
WDUld have rendered the quality of the fish samples to be unacceptable fran
the consumer point of view would be those equivalent to the accumulated
demerit point of gt29 for the TFRU (gutted and ungutted) scores and gt21 for the
EEC ard filleted sample scores
2
1 00 rsrromcrros
110 QUality and QUality Asses~nt of Fish
QJality is difficult to define since it means different things to
different people One general definition is degree of excellence
According to waterman (1982) quality of food is the SLD1 of those attributes
that govern its acceptability to the buyer or consumer and quality assessment
is the estLmation or measurement of one or more quality factors as a means of
determining quality before exercising control
Bremner (1984) defined quality as that attitude of mind that approach
that event that state of being when everything is right hus until a
seafood is eaten its quality can only be surmised indirectly harever
seafoods do possess a set of properties or characteristics that for practical
purposes can be related with quality
In cxmnerce quality limits are set by what the custcrner is prepared to
pay for generally the custcrner will pay more for fish that he considers to be
of higher quality and will continue to buy as long as quality remains
constant The relationship between quality and marketing is therefore
governed by the sophistication of the consuner ( ta Zylva 1974) Sore of the
more important factors that determine quality fran the custcrners point of
view are species ease of preparation appearance odour flavour freshness
size presence or absence of bones and filth absence of specific
microorganisms condition packaging and composition (Oonnell 1972)
Freshness is the most important quality factor to the consumer thus
assessnent of freshness is vital in quality control kcording to Baines et
al (1965) the term freshness is employed to describe the presence or
absence of deterioration Ib many however freshness involves the concept of
newness in which time is an important factor In other words the fish
technologist is not only concerned with quality at the mrnent of examination
3
but of the products potential shelf-life M accurate measure of st~age
1_ time under kn~ conditions would allow hLm to calculate the remaining life of
the product and its potential for processing
Fish quality depends on tenperature time and hygiene Factors such as
spontaneous chemical changes autolysis and microbial attack produce
deteriorations fran the point of catching until final putrefaction
Measurements of sane of these deteriorations have been invoked as indices of
freshness
he measurement of trimethylamine (lMA) other spoilage cxrrpounds and the
bacteria themselves as indicators of quality has been reviewed recently by
Martin et al (1978) hey stated that in order to define effective indicators
of seafocxi quality the food technologist must be prepared to examine each
species of seafood individually its environment its composition its
harvesting and its handling
A lUIllber of different tests may be used for estimating the degree of
spoilage in fish these include total volatile bases (TVa) total volatile
reducing substances volatile armonia volatile acids total volatilo
nitrogen indole refractive index of the eye fluid electrical resistance of
the fish flesh total bacterial numbers and organoleptic tests hese methods
are discussed under the headings chemical methods physical methods
microbiological methods and sensory methods bel~
120 Chemical Methods
Although not universal in acceptance or applicability the trLmethylamine
(TMA) determination has became one of the established procedures for
determining fish quality Its use as an indicator of spoilage in fresh fish
have also been proposed by the Codex AlLmentarius crnmittee on fish and
fishery products (Olley 1977) his is despite the fact that there is ample
4
evidence that the same ClfDUnt of 1MA is accanpanied by different ClfDUnts of
spoilage even within the same species
Several investigators (Spinelli et aI 1984 Jones 1965) have expressed
reservations regardirq the use of IMA as an index of quality for fresh fish
not inq that 1MA values fail to give an adequate Iod icetIon of early autolytic
quality chanqes aOO preferrirq hypoxanthfne detenninations instead MA as
would be expected of a bacterial product is not useful in detenninilg quality
deteriorations which occur durirq frozen storage FIrthenoore the shape of
the fish will markedly influence the arrount of IMA meaaured in ng per 100 g
fish (Bremner et aI 1978) Trimethylamine is roost sensitive as an indicator
of the later stages of spoilage whereas Chemical tests for dimethylamine are
most valuable in the early stages of spoilage
Ryder et al (1984) foond that the bacterial metabol Ic end products (1VB
and MA) were less useful as objective measurements of freshness in Jack
Mackerel (TrochuflUB nooaezelandiae) hey also reported that the pH was not a
gcxxl indicator of early storage changes and lEA values could not be used to
detennine loss of acceptability or eoo of shelf-life Recently it has became
apparent that the sulphur canpounds and mercaptans may be importantH2S
detenninants of fish odour and flavour (~rbert and Shewan 1975)
Measurement of MA IMA or amoonia requires a laboratory am assistant of
matriculation standard who has had sane weeks of practice in the IOOthod
Neither the Codex Alimentarius CoITInittee or the EEl (Ccmoon Market) lay down
samplilg procedures
Another quality assessment lOOasurement involves the nucleotides aoo their
degradation products Early studies with cod carp Pacific Salmgtn Lemon
sole haddock and plaice revealed that post-mortem nucleotide degradation in
fish muscle proceeds prbnarily via the followirq sequence of reactions ATP -)
AMP -) IMP -) IID -) Hx -) Xa -) UA where KrP = Jldenosine 5-triphosphate AMP
5
= Jldenosine 5-IOCgtoophosphate IMP = Inosine 5-IOCgtoophosphate lID = Inosine j
Hx = Hypoxanthine xa = Xpnthine am UA = Uric acid loo ~tages in this
degradative sequence have been considered as objective indices of quality shy
dephosphorylation of IMP am formation of hypoxanthine IMP reportedly
possesses properties as a flavour enhancer in fish mrscle COnsequently its
breakdawn may contribute to and be correlated with the loss of fresh flavour
in sane species SCme difficulties however may arise fran using IMP
dephosphorylatioo as a s inqle quality index eg the pattern of nucleotide
breakdown in invertebrate seafood species may differ in same key respects fran
that fourrl in vertebrate species he rate of IMP decanposition in the muscle
also differs between species (Ehira 1976) Accordi~ to Martin et al (1978)
the rrost serious limitation imposed by an IMP index may be that the reaction
is substantially complete well within the edible storage life of a number of
species Its major value then may be as an indicator of fresh flavour loss
during early storage
Unlike IMP concentrations of hypoxanthine (Hx) have been shown to
increase steadily throughout the useful storage life of a number of fish
species (Hughes and Jones 1966) Hypoxanthine formation is a result of both
autolytic am bacterial activities hus it also has advantages over the 1MA
assay Hx may be correlated with flavour loss caused by autolytic activities
durirg early storage am with bacterial spoilage during extended storage to
derive a prediction of useful storage life Also the IMA test is of no value
for freshwater fish because these either do not contain or contain very little
trimethylamine oxide Hx may also be used to determine the quali ty of canned
herrirg at the tirre of processing since hypoxanthine concentrations neither
increase nor decrease duri~ heat process inq and subsequent storage (Hughes
ard Jones 1966) 1MA concentrations on the other hand are unstable during
heat process inq lbNever different species of fish produce hypoxanthine by
6
different routes and at different speeds Each lustralian species ttOUld have
to be examined in turn am the hypoxanthine test related to sensory grades
tbte that the Canadian redfish and flounder had produced the maximum amgtunt of
hypoxanthine 10llg before they becarre unacceptable while the swordfish had
only produced a fifth of the arount when it became unacceptable to a taste
panel (Olley 1978) The hypoxanthine test requires laboratory facilities and
same equipment but recently the use of sLmple paper strips have been reported
(Jahns et aI 1976)
The main disadvantages of nucleotide assays are that they are apt to vary
even arro~ individuals within a species Sufficient samples need to be used
to reduce this variability
All the chemical roothods discussed above depend on measuring the
concentration of certain chemical substances in the flesh and since the sample
is destroyed in the process they cannot be used to test every fish in a
batch In any case variation between fishes in the sarre batch makes chemical
tests for quality a task requiring a statistician (Olley 1977) All the
methods require the use of a laboratory or fairly elaborate facilities and
also they oo rot apply to all species and products alike
130 Physical Methods
Love (1954) described a roothod which correlates the turbidity of the eye
lenses of fish with storage tiroo of iced fish kept in a roan of fairly
constant air temperature He found that it is possible by examination of 20
or more lenses to assess the storage tiroo with an error of not roore than 1
day M advantage of this roothod is that since only the eyes have to be
raroved in sampling the fish remains saleable as headed dressed fish or as
fillets ~ver1 the roothod had many limitations such as difficulty in
manipulation and matchi~ of the lenses which have to be done in good diffused
7
daylight at least 20 lenses are required for each estllnation which is rather
tedious for routine work and also it is not applicable where fish had not been
kept all the time in ice under the standard conditions eg bulk stowage of
fish with ice on a trawler may result in deviation fran the conditions of box
stolage in an insulated roan
he GR Ibrrymeter is a battery pc7ot1ered hand-held instnunent that rreasures
certain dialectric properties of fish skin which charge wi th the
tiJretemperature history of the fish fbWever readi~s on a large mrnber of
samples have to be taken and averaged bull Although it is a rapid simple
objective and rDn-destructive method of estllnati~ the quality of fresh fish
it has the followilkJ disadvanteqesj large variation in readirg fran fish to
fish readi~ varies with physical damage to fish1 cha~e of readi~ with time
varies with species and also may be insensitive at later stages of spo i Laqe
Curran et al (1981) reported that the GR Ibrrymeter was not particularly
successful with both the purple emperor (L6thoinus l6ntjan) ard the Spanish
mackerel ( Scomberomorue oonmereons since the readirgs obtained do not
correlate very well with the taste panel results
140 Microbiological Methods
he rootine microbiological testirg that is performed under normal
industry operations is normally restricted to enumeration of nonpathogenic
microorganisms hose frost frequently used are the standard plate count and
enumeration of indicator organisms such as the coliform group Beoher-ichia
coli aM Staphylococcus aureus
Food handl i nq practices beyond the pr-imary processors control make
standard aerobic plate count (APe) a difficult quality assessment tool to use
generally he total nunber of bacteria is not the sole determinant of
8
quali ty since certain microbial groups are rrore apt to cause spoilage than
others These groups can be given a selective advantage for growth by the way
the product is processed or stored furthermore the determination of
bacterial counts while they are of value to research requires too much time
before results are known and can also be expensive for routine testing
Representative samples have to be taken for bacterial examination because the
fish or product is destroyed during the test Interpreting the results of
bacterial testing is a task for experts who should be consulted when
necessary bull
Detection and enumeration of indicator bacteria such as the coliform
group E ooli and S auroeu8 were considered for many years to indicate the
potential presence of pathoqenic microorganisms NM this inference has been
questioned and these groups are no longer considered a reliable method for
predicting the presence of such pathogens (Martin et aL1978) bull
According to Olley and Ratkowsky (1973) there is in fact no simple index
of quality and a thorough knowledge of the oamplete temperature history of the
fish is the only true indicator of freshness This is so because at higher
temperatures bacteria divide in half more rapidly Therefore the
relationship between bacterial growth with production of spoilage canpounds
and temperature is not a straight line rut a curve he curve relates rate of
spoilage of these commodities at temperatures between aoe and 25dege to the rate
at which they would spoil at aoe hus at aoe the relative rate is 1 and at
Rate at temperature (tOe)any other temperature the relative rate is Rate at a be
Bremner et at (1978) have coined the term ICE FOID for this relative rate
ie so many times faster than the ccmnodity would spoil on ice and
lCETIME as equivalent storage time on ice = lCEFOID x time in days
The curve has also been converted into tabular form to enable conversion
of the temperature history of the catch into equivalent storage time
on ice under ideal conditions However the concept of relative rate of
9
spoilage with temperature can only apply if fishing oonditions are kept
constant
150 sensory Methods
Currently the best way to detenmine fish freshness still requires the use
of a taste panel (Regenstein and Regenstein 1981) A number of taste panel
techniques for assessing the quality of unfrozen fish species have been
described am are in use in different parts of the world These techniques
vary in cbjective and ccrrplexity but are of three main types Firstly there
are those which categorise the fish on the basis of its acceptability for
eatirq secondly there are those which categorise the fish on the basis of
well-defined characteristics which change duri~ storage Thirdly there are
techniques which include elements of both of these types Techniques of the
first type usually anploy a single gradi~ or hedonic (like-dislike) scale
whilst those of the second type anploy descriptions of various characteristics
(Baines et aI 1969)
The ultimate criterion of fish quality is the flavour and texture of the
cooked fish HcMever taste panel evaluations of cooked fish are timeshy
consiminq and relatively few samples can be tested at anyone time It is
therefore highly desirable to be able to make an assessment of eati~ quality
by exanini~ the raw fish My atterrpt to raise the quality of raw fish as it
reaches the consumer is critically dependent on the development of a
convenient and consistent rrethod of quality assessment based on raw fish
Fortunately eat inq quality of cooked fish can be correlated with the
appearance odour and texture of the whole raw fish Boyd and Wilson (1976)
when evaluat inq the quality of snapper (Chroysophfys aufatus) by a sensory
method found that there is close relationship between the raw attributes of
gill odour and general appearance with those of odour texture am flavour of
10
the cooked fish
The use of ooject ive tests at dockside or even on inspection within the
plant is not considered to be practical in the normal routine of inspection of
fresh ard frozen fish products as almost all of the coject Ive tests require
laboratories am so becare rather rerooved fran the busy fisherman processor
or factory foreman A nuch simpler piece of apparatus is the eye or the N)Se
(olley 1977) Sensory tests are always controversial as they require an
inspector although the canny buyer is in fact applying his senses of smell
am visual acuity in a similar fashion W9 accept the wine faster and wcxgtl
classer so why not the fish grader (Bremner 1984) Therefore a test that
correlated well with freshnessquality and that could operate on the market or
in the factory would be of considerable value to an efficient industry (Baines
et aI 1965)
Howgate (1978) also considered the sensory rrethods to be far better than
non-sensory methods which are not suitable for consumer testing whilst
Connell (1972) states that in general the sensory rrethod of assessing
freshness is the best at present for quality control purposes
As fish spoils its snell taste appearance and feel go through
characteristic am well defined stages that trained experts or experienced
staff can consistently recognise It is convenient to attach a number or
score to each stage so that the assessor can award the appropriate score to
each fish or batch of fish Alternatively the mere recognition of each stage
ard acceptance or rejection of fish on this basis may be all that is
necessary Different species and products spoil in different ways The
numerical system us irq an objective panel developed at the Ibrry IEsearch
Station by Shewan et al (1953) is probably the ultUnate critical evaluation of
fish freshness available at this time It was created for the determination
of storage time of whole Net fish l6Jenstein and Iegenstein (1981) in using
11
this nunerical system reported that the cooked freshness scores are generally
higher (better) than expected at that storage t irre for whole wet fish A
freshness score of 55 on the Ibrry scale seemed the appropriate endpoint for
their definition of shelf-life This would nonnally be reached with ideal
iced-at-sea fish about twelve days from catch sooner for fillets Freshness
scorirq systems are I1C1laquo available fran Ibrry Research station for most UK
ccmnercial species and systems are available for both the raw and cooked
fish HoweveF there is still no standard scorirq system to be used
internationally he countries in the EEC ~or instance use scoring systems
which differ both in scale length am in characteristics measured Most
systems use the same scale length for all features examined but the United
Kingdon am Icelarrl use scales of 10 to 0 for odour and 5 to 0 for other
characteristics ibwgate (1972) describes the effort to construct a rorogram
for oonvert inq fran one scorinq system to another (Appendix 1) de Zylva
(1974) expanded the Ibrry score sheet to include marks for flesh colour and
texture belly flap discoloration stainiBJ of backbone am colour of
kidney he scoring system was designed for ~w Zealand snapper and gave
excellent negative linear correlations between score am days of storage
legenstein (1983) presents the way in which Ibrry has in turn incorporated
other characteristics into the score sheet for raw fish Groupings of several
characteristics to give a score requires more expertise than scoring
individual points as is done by de Zylva
However the use of a point or scoring system in which higher points are
given for high quality attributes would mean the requirements of more
kllC7filedge of the fish and the tester mist be experienced and knCM the
qualities of the fish previously Therefore it is too species dependent
his problem can be overcare by using the demerit system with points being
allotted in several categories for defects as they becare obvious and one can
I
12
learn as one goes along in each situation he demerit points that were given
to the various selected quality attributes could be weighted in such a way as
to produce an approximately linear change in score with storage time (Branch
and Vail 1985)
It might also be desirable OCIlInercially to specify a uniform mrnber of
days of shelf-life fran the pack date to consumption he length of shelfshy
life ctgttained for fish depends on the initial age and quality of the fish the
tirre of the pack am the time am temperature of storage before am after
packing In practical terns the ultimate measure of the effect(s) of shelf-
life extension treatments on the final quality of the fish is consumer
satisfaction (Regenstein aoo Regenstein 1981)
A tentative grading systan for fresh fish based on sensory assessment of
fish had been described by IbUwing (1972)
160 The Ideal Method
Forty years of research ootably in the UK Canada and Japan have gone
into objective methods for measuring fish quality (Bremner et al 1978)
There is as yet 00 single universal test for all species nor for that
matter any wholly satisfactory test for individual species
The ideal rrethod hOlJld be one that is cheap oon-destructive easy to
use oot subject to much variation or fatigue having rapid response and wide
application sensory tests have the advantages of being non-destructive 00
equipnent required adaptable to species and assessing the market value
Althcogh sensory tests are usually condemned as a subjective test which
requires training am experience am are also said to be easily open to
abuse this can be reduced if a simple rapid and less descriptive rrethod
could be fourd - possibly with the use of demerit point scores Therefore
this study aims at assessing the use of sensory techniques based on the
13
demerit point scores developed for raw whole (gutted and ungutted) and
filleted fish samples of Australian fish species stored in ice and RSW It
also discusses the results of the acceptability taste panels on the cooked
fish samples
The two oammercially ~rtant Australian fish species used in this study
were the blue grenadier am the blue rock whiting he blue grenadier is
currently Tasmanias major oammercial finfish and the recent annual production
of the fishery exceeds 100 tonnes (Last et aI 1983)~ he blue rock whiti~
is the only Australian member of the family that has any commercial
importance It occurs mainly in Bass strait and the sheltered bays of South
eastern Tasmania The flesh is delicately flavoured but very soft
200 MATERIALS lIND MEIHgt[s
210 Sample preparation
211 Fish stored in RSW
Blue grenadier used in this study were caught on the 15th lugust 1984 at
a depth of 300 fathans off Sandy Cape on the west coast of Tasmania (Lat
41deg20S IDrq144deg40 E) by demersal trawl They were taken fran the deck
irnnediately am dropped into a refrigerated seawater (RSW) tank in a net bag
(tanp -1degC) The fish was reported to be handled quite roughly on board
Sore of the fish had already gone into rigor at this stage he fish were
transported to the CnID lasrnanian Food lesearch Uni t (TFRJ) laboratories in
Hobart and were already to days old on arrival The f ish were then placed in
the RSW box tank of the rrobile unit (the design and construction of which were
described by Thrower and Stafford 1981) and was kept at -1degC for the duration
of the storage trial which lasted for about three weeks Four fish were
rerroved at each samplirq tine (Table 1) for sensory assessment Length
14
measurements to the fork of the tail were also noted ~e fish were then
filleted and samples frozen at -lBoe for later assessment of their
acceptability by taste panel
212 Fish stored in ice
For the sensory assessment of fish stored in ice guidelines similar to
those given by Lima dos Santos et al (981) were used ~e blue rock whiting
also known as the weedy whiting was used ~e whiting were caught on the
afternoon of 23rd August 1984 by demersal trawl in 18 to 25 m waters oft
Eastern Tasmania On arrival at the TFRJ laboratories in I-bbart at 11 45 am
on the fol Lowirq day the f ish were re- iced at a ratio of 21 (ice f ish) in
insulated plastic boxes of size 66 x 41 x 28 em with provision for drainage
of melt water Flake ice was used ~e ice was topped up daily and renewed
once a week The boxes of i ced f ish were then kept in a cool roan set at a
temperature of 0deg to -1dege ~ree fish were removed for sensory assessment at
each sampling time (Table 1) over a period of rmre than three weeks of ice
storage 100 fish samples were then frozen at -18dege until needed for the
acceptability taste panel
Table 1
sampling regirre for fish stored in R3Wice
Blue Grenadier Diys in R3W 3 4 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 17 21
Sample code N D G L S R K T U P M 0
Whiting Diys in ice 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Sample code 0 M D G T S N R P U L K
15
220 Sensory assessment of the whole (gutted and ungutted) raw fish samples
Both the blue grenadier stored in lOW and the whi t i nq stored in ice were
progressively assessed by using the sense organs of sight smell and touch tor
changes in general appearance odour and texture with storage tine by giving
the appropriate demeri t scores according to the score sheets as shown in
Tables 2 and 3 IVo types of score sheets were used Table 2 shows the
sensory assessment score sheet orig inally developed for the assessment of
gemfish (Thrower et al 1982) It has been simplified and weighted (Branch
and Vail 1985) to provide accumulated increases in demerit points as the t i sn
change in odour texture and appearance during storage with the max imum
accumulated demerit point scores of 35 for the urx]utted samples and 39 tor tte
gutted samples The total scor irq for gutted fish differs fran that descr ibeo
by Bremner (1984) and Branch and Vail (1985) in that the demerit points for
the belly cavity have been added to those for the whole fish
The whole and gutted raw fish were also assessed by using the freshness
score sheet developed by the Council of the European COl1nunities (Official
Journal of the European Qmnunities 1970) but with slight rrodification marie
in its scor irq method in that the scor irq was reversed to provide accumulateri
increases in demerit points as in the TFRJ score sheet (Table 2) with a
maximun accumulated demerit score of 30 (Table 3) The samples were scored by
H Abd R who had had no previous experience with the score sheet
230 Sensory Assessment of the frozen filleted raw fish samples
Samples of the whole and gutted fish of both species were then filleted
ard frozen at -18degC until required for the organoleptic acceptability test
panel fillets were thawed by holding for about 16 hours (overnight) in still
air at 4degC The thawed fillets of both the blue grenadier and whi t i nq were
then assessed by the sense organs of sight smell and touch by using the scor-e
sheet for filleted sample as shown in Table 4 nle score sheet was developed
16
able 1
FIlt U Snorr bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullnt oore hbullbull t ( ( 1Ii~ ANI) tlNtJuTreo)
1_middotAnlJ lmiddot
rlSB IDDII
UIUIl~ (VBci9ht~i9ht8lDullDUll
o 1 2 3
SitU ( rimSoft) o 1
SCALBS (r1mSlLoomiddotmiddotLoobullbull ) o 12
r r SLIMB (AbbullbullntSlSlimiddotysliyVSliy)
o 123
S1IrnraS (pr-Ri90rRi90rPot-Ri90r) o 1 2
BYBS Clarity (ClbullbullrISlCloudyCloudy) 012
Shape (HoralslsunknSunkn) 012
Irill (ViiblHot Viibl) IJ 1
Blood (No BloodSlBloodyVBloody) o 1 2
GILLS Colour (VDark)Charaotritio (SlDark) (vradd)(Slradd)
2o 1 Kucou (AbbullbullntKoderatmiddotBxcbullbullbulliv)
o 1 2 S bullbullll (rrbullbullh 01ly) Pihy8talpoll~
(MetalliaSaved) 1 2 3
BELLI Dicoloration (AbbullbullntDetatablmiddotModratmiddotBxobullbullbulliy) 012 3
Finanbullbullbull ( rira80ftBurt) o 1 2
VENT Condition (bobullbulldy)Noraal (SlBrbullbullk) (Opening)(Bxudbullbull )
2o 1 Sbullbulln (rrbullbullhReutralrihy8poilt)
o 2 3
BELLI CAVIn Stain (OpalbullbullontGryihlmiddotllow-Brown) o 1 2
Blood (RdDark RdBrown)
o 1 z
--
17
UJE 3
Etc SENSORY A$fE4St4fN[ ~(oIlL~
SCALE OF MARKING - FRESHNESS
CRITERIA shypoundu1LRt
Abullbullbullbullbullment Mara-bull thc r1ah 0 1 2- 3tszhL
AppearanceinIIMlISJ Skin
Eye
Gill
Flbullbullshycut f ssm abdomusn
Colour the~
vertebral column
Organs
Oright iridescent I bright pigmenta- pigmentation in (1) dull pigmenta tion no i tion but not the process of pigmentation discolouration Ius trous becoming dis-
mucus opaquemucus aqueous i coloured and dull
mucus slightlytransparen t
cloudy ~UCU9 milky
convex (bulging) convex and flat (1) concave in cornea tran- slightly sunken cornea the centre parent cornea Ughtly opalescent cornea milky pupil black opalescent pupil pupil grey bright
pupil black opaque dull
-shining colour less coloured becoming dis- (1) yellmiish no mucus a few traces of coloured mucus milky
cloar mucus mucus opaque
blueish trans- dull velvety slightly opaque (1) opaque lucid smooth waxy shining without any change in the colour sUgh tly original colour changed
(I) reduncoloured sl1 gh tly pink pink
kidneys and kidneys and kidneys (1) kidneys residues of resJdues of resicJuos of r bullbullidue of other other organs other organs other organs organs and blood bright red the dull red blood and blood brownish game as the becoming palo red blood inside discolbured the aorta
(1) or in a more advanced bull ta te of decay
I
bull
Flesh
Vertebtal Column
Peritonium
Gills kin abdominal cavity
18
(eontd)
SCALE OF MARKING - FRESHNESS
CRITERIA
Assessment Mark 0 1 2
Physical eOId ton
firm and elas tic surface smooth
breaks ins tead of coming away
totally adherent to the flesh
seaweed
less elastic
adherent
adherent
Smell bull
not of seaweed but not bad
slightly soft (flaccid) Ie elastic surfacente waxy velvety and dull
slightly adherent
slightly adherent
slightly sour
3
(1) soft (flaccid) scales ebullbullil y detached from skin sur face ra ther wrinkled inclining to mealy
(1) not dherent
1( ) not adherent
(1) sour
(1) or in a more advanced stat of decay
_ shy-- -
19
Table 4
Filleted Sample Score Sheet
r
TREATMENT F ILIEIS DATE REMOJAL (THAWED)
FISH IDENr
EASE OF FILLETING (Easysl difficultdifficult)
012
APPEARANCE (a) Oolour of flesh (TranslucentSl discolouredSl opaqueopaque)
o 1 2 3
(b) Blood stains (AbsentDetectableModerateExcessive)
012 3
(c) Clotting (UnclottedSlclottedModclottedExcessclotted)
012 3
(d) Skin Oolour (VbrightBrightSldullOU11)
o 1 2 3
TEXTURE FirmS1 softSoft
o 1 2
ClDClJR (FreshNeutralStaleSpoilt)
012 3
CONJITION (a) Gaping (AbsentDetectableModerateExcessive)
o 1 2 3
(b) Bruising (AbsentSlightSevere)
012
(c) Wetness (NmnalS1 dry orMod dry orExcess dryness or
SldripModdrip Freezer bJrn or Excessdrip
012 3
(d) Autolysis (Absentmoderatesevere) (Disco1ourations) 0 1 2
(e) Parasites (Absentmoderatesevere) ( Infestations) 0 1 2
(f) Other discolourations (Absentpresent) or contaminants (bones membranes tissues etc) 0 1
EASE OF SKINNING (EasySldifficultdifficult)
012
20
by the author after a literature search and observations made during the preshy
liminary part of the study It has a maxUnum accumulated demerit score of 34
240 ~anoleptic Acceptability Panel of the cooked fish
Filleted samples of both fish species which had been frozen in a cold
roan at -18dege and then thawed as above were used for the acceptability taste
panels The fillets were skinned am cut into 30 to 40 g pieces crumbed and
deep fried (Bremner et ale 1985) Three or four treatments were cooked
simultaneously at each session am the fish served with packets of take-away
french fries Tcrnato sauce vinegar and salt were available Each of the
samples were randanised in such a way so as to give a high degree of balance
(Table 5 and 6) Letters that represent the samples were also picked
randanly The fish was assessed by 20 panellists employed at the Tasmanian
lEgional Laboratory and experienced with facial hedonic scaling for flavour
texture am overall acceptability using the General Foods Smiley scale
(Appendix 2) Salt was rot rrentioned with the 9niley questionaire for blue
grenadier so that the panel should have ro preconceiVed prejudices
250 Statistics
tata fran the sensory assessment of the whole gutted and ungutted raw
fish (both TFRJ am EEl score sheets) am fran the sensory assessrrent of the
frozen filleted raw fish samples of both the blue grenadier stored in RSW am
whiting stored in ice were analysed for correlation using the ELF scatter
module (Appendix 3 and 4)
The acceptability taste panel assessment scores for flavour texture and
overall liking of the toKgt species of fish were subjected to analysis of
variance using the Genstat package (Appendix 5 and 6)
22
Table 6
Order of presentation of cooked whiting samples to the acceptability taste panelists
Order of presentation of samples Panelist
session I session II
1 OTP rm 2 MUS KR 3 sm INL
4 IKJ GKR
5 ror NK
6shy USM UN ~
7 OOP RLD
B HUT NKD
9 USO RiL
10 SMP LGN
11 IMT GIltN
12 nxgt KRD
Note
8angtle code OM 0 G T S N R P U L K
storage time in ice (days) 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
23
300 RESULIS
310 Physical Characteristic of M novaeaelandiae
rran the forty-six fish examined the mean fork lerqth was found to be
762 an (range 609 to 838 an) A few of the fish examined had well shy
developed roes and their digestive tracts were found to be relatively empty
320 Physical Characteristics of the H ssmifasoiata
rran a total of thirty-six fish examined the rrean weight of the fish was
fourrl to be 662 g (range 27 to 186 g) am the mean fork length was 183 em
(range 156 to 265 an)
330 sensory assessment of the raw blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
he results of the sensory assessrrent of the r2M blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW by the four rrerhods of scoring are given as average total
accumulated demerit point scores as shown in Table 7 Figure 1 shoes the
graph of demerit point versus days in RSW by the four rrethods of sensory
assessment used Table 9 shltJtS the correlation analysis
340 sensory assessment of the raw whitirq samples stored in ice
he results of the sensory assessment of the r2M whitirq samples stored
in ice by the four methods of scoring are given as average total accumuLated
demerit point scores as shown in Table 8 Figure 2 shltJtS the graph of demerit
point versus days in ice of the four nethods of sensory assessment used Table
9 shltJtS the correlation analysis
350 Attributes contributing to total score
Attributes that contribute to total score usirq the TFRJ scores (ungutted
and gutted) EEC scores and the filleted sample scores are as shewn in Tables
10 - 14
24
Table 7
Total demerit points fran sensory assessment of blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
Average lbta1 Demerit Rgtint SCores
[)lye in RW TFRJ scores TFRJ scores EEl scores Filleted Sample (urvJut t ed ) (gutted) (gutted) SCores
3 3 3 1 1
4 5 5 2 3
6 10 10 6 6
8 16 18 9 8
9 19 21 11 10
10 20 22 13 12
11shy 22 24 15 14
12 23 25 18 17
13 24 26 19 18
14 25 27 19 19
17 29 31 21 23
21 33 35 25 29
Note
Maximum possible scores for (1) IlRJ scores (ungutted is 35
( 11) IlRJ scores (gutted) is 29
( 11i) EEX scores (gutted) is 30
( iv) Filleted sample scores is 32
amptV
35j
3l~
en Ishy 25Z-0 Q
3)-~
bullbullbull 0
bull 0 0bull 0
bull 0 0 6shy abull A ~
~
bull 0
~
6shy
bull 0
6shy
I) 01
-W 0i A15W ~ Q A
~
6shy~101- bull 90 TFRU SCORES (ungutted)
6shy~ bullbull TFRU SCORES (gutt~d i
bull ~
4 6- 6- EEC SCORES 5~
~ ~ FILLETED SAMPLE SCORES ~
6 4 I J I I I
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
DAYS IN RSW
Figl Demerit Points Versus Days in RSW For Blue Grenadier Samples
Fig 2 Demerit Points Versus Days in ice For Whiting Samples I
27
Table 8
TOtal demerit points from sensory assessment of whi tirq samples stored in ice
Average TOtal Demerit Foint SCores
rays in ice TFRJ scores TFRJ scores EEC scores Fi 11eted sample (urqutted) (gutted) (gutted) (gutted)
1 1 1 0 0 3 2 2 1 1
5 4 4 2 3
7 7 9 3 4
9 13 15 6 9
n 15 17 7 13
13 19 21 11 15
15 24 27 15 16
17 29 32 19 18
19 31 35 22 21
21 32 36 24 24
23 33 37 26 26
Note
MaXllnum possible scores for (i) TFRJ scores (urqutted) is 35 ( ii) TFRJ scores (gutted) is 39 ( iii) EEC scores (gutted) is 30 ( iv) Filleted sample scores is 32
28
Table 9
Relationship between tLme and demerit points for fish stored in RSW
Method of Visual Assessment
y- intercept slope correlation
M novaBMBlandias
TFRJ (urqutted ~les) 032 175 097
TFRJ (gutted samples) 032 190 096
EEl -231 146 097
Filleted samplesbull
-357 158 099
H sBmifasoiata
TFRJ (urqutted samples) -245 167 099
TFRJ (gutted samples) -273 187 099
EOC -414 129 098
Filleted samples -244 125 099
ltshy
--------------- ------------------------------------------
------------- - ------------- -------- ------
Table 10
Attributes contributing to total score using TFRO scores (gutted and ungutted)
Attributes involved in score change Score
Blue grenadier in RSW Whiting in ice
Stiffness Eyes - clarity blood Slllne Stiffness Eyes - clarity shape and blood lt10 Gills - smell Vent - smell SlBne Gills - colour smell and mucous
Vent - smell Belly cavity - stains and blood
Appearance Eyes-shape Stiffness Gills - smell colour and mucous Skin
Stiffness appearance gill-smell Scales belly-discolouration and firmness
N so
gt10lt20 SCales belly - discolouration and firmness Vent - smell Vent - smell and condition Belly cavity - stains and blood
Appearance Slllne Eyes - clarity shape Appearance SlBne Scales Skin blood and iris Gills - colour Eyes - clarity and shape
gt20lt30 Belly - discolouration Gills - mucous smell am colour Vent - condi tion and smell Belly cavity shy blood
Appearance Gills - mucous and smell SlBne Eyes - iris am blood Belly - discolouration and firmness Belly - discolouration and firmness
gt30 Vent - condition and smell Vent - condition Belly cavity - blood Belly cavity - stains
Table 11
Attributes contribut irq to total score us irq EEC scores
Attributes involved in score change
Score Blue grenadier in RSW W1iting in ice
lt7 Appearance - skin eyes gills organs Physical condition - flesh Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and organs Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skins eyes gills flesh Appearance-eyes and organs atv
vertebral column and organs Physical condition-flesh and peritoneum gt7lt14 Physical condition - flesh Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-eyes flesh and vertebral Appearance-skin gills and organs column Physical condition-flesh vertebral column
gt14lt21 Physical condition-vertebal column and and peritoneum peritoneum Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and vertebral column vertebral column
gt21 Physical condition-flesh and peritoneum Physical cOndition-flesh vertebral column Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity and peri toneum bull
Table 12
Attributes contributing to total score using filleted sample scores
Score
lt5
Attributes involved in score change
Blue grenadier in RSW
Appearance - blood stains skin colour ltXIour - flesh
M1iting in ice
----- shy -------------- shy
Appearance - skin colour odour - flesh Cbndition - gaping wetness
Appearance - colour of flesh Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Texture - flesh skin colour ltgt gt5lt10 Cbndition - gaping bruising wetness Ease of filleting
Texture - flesh
Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Appearance - colour of flesh clotting skin clotting skin colour skin colour
gt10lt20 odour - flesh odour - flesh Cbndition - gaping wetness autolysis COndition - gaping bruising wetness other discolourations autolysis and other discolouration Ease of skinning
Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains skin colour clotting
gt20 Texture - flesh Texture - flesh odour - flesh Odour shy flesh COndition - gaping bruising wetness Cbndition - wetness autolysis autolysis Ease of skinring
32
Table 13
Diff~rent emphasis in scoring systems for whole fish as between the EEl and TFID
Attribute Number of potential demerit points TFRJ EEl
1Ippearance (general) 3 0
skin ) scales 6 3
slime
Stiffness (Rigor) 2 0
Eyes 7 3
Gills 7 6
Belly 5 0
Vent 5 0
Belly cavity 4 3
Flesh cut fram abdomen 0 3
Flesh texture 0 3
Vertebral column 0 6
Internal organs 0 3
33
360 Relative merits of the scoring systems
The four scor irq methcds were used on the same samples of t ish Any
sample had therefore deteriorated to the same extent on anyone day Figs 3
am 4 shew the scores converted to percentages of possible deroorit point
scores The discrepancy in the accumulation of demerit points between the EEC
am TFRJ scor irq methods is clearly shown IEference to Table 2 3 am 13
shOool that this is caused by the lack of questions regarding rigor looseness
of scales condition of belly am vent am the qroupinq of colour am mucous
in the gills as single po i nts thus halving the potent Ia I gill demerit point
score canparison of the tO species in Table 9 ShONS that the rate of
accumulation of demerit pgtints was more consistent for the TFRU system than by
the EEX scor i oq methltXl or by scorinq of fillets
370 Time taken to score the fish
The average time taken to score an individual fish using the TFPlJ
(unqutted) scores TFRJ (gutted) scores EEX scores am the filleted aamp Le
scores were found to be 1 min 25 sec 1 min 55 sec 3 min 45 sec and 1 min 50
sec respectively The EEX score sheet is more t iroe consumioq in that more than
one question is asked about an attribute for the giving of only one demerit
point this requires conscious thought
380 Acceptability taste panel results of blue grenadier samples bull Figures 5 6 am 7 shOool the mean taste panel scores in graphic form for
flavour texture and overall acceptability of cooked blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW table 14 shows the results of the statistical analysis
390 Acceptability taste panel results of whiting samples
Figures 8 9 am 10 shOool the mean taste panel scores in graphic form for
flavour texture and overall acceptability of cooked whiting samples stored in
ice table 15 shows the results of the statistical analysis
WHITING STORED IN ICE o TFRU SCORES (ungutted)
bull TFRU SCORES (gutted)
b EEC SCORES
FILLETED SAMPLE SCORES
100bull e ~ e b
i 6
bull NW
oIJ-a A A-
(J0 t A~ 0 ~ AC)
C) -e ~~-
C) a 50 A
A w
Iz ~
~ - W e A0 c a ~ ~ A-a ~ l ~ A
w -~
~ X ~ W -e I c ~ ~ ibull I I I I
4 8 12 16 20 24
DAYS IN ICE FIG4
36
- flavourshy
-e s-e l ~ v
5middotIU
STORAGrf IN R sWDAYS
rlCoS Ttutfc pcr1 rcbull
rf oj bl jtlJ~r - jlqVGurc acccr~b
21179 0 2 136 843
~ 0 u 5middot0YI
oJ J l ofmiddot$ 1 e
tu 4middot0
VI
~ 3middot5
3middot0
TelC-lue X bull -e III
~ Gmiddotftv
ct 5middot03
V1
-J -f-SshyU 2
~ 40 t
3-~
~ bullbull0 5 0
~ 17 21A ISII
PAY- IITDRAGamp fbilW
FIG6 I Tq1-c pltnd rc-utl ojbllfcJrcftaJIr bull I~M144 Q Cc(r~blfly
r 411q~~ An~Plf bUIJlfM F llh J~Lld Pt-DoL B fpound)1
gt1 NI ~~eusr SJAVlt1
D ~II
(ffIt1~JP IIID bull U J 1i
-IyoJC )-tlICf p --lInraquoJ Ix-Pc ~1rb1 r I ef
Ma2j NI a~v2loJ$
til
1Ia ~AO (IIp~lJa~e
01
secto
00
s
05
5
o~
~
0pound
s
0
smiddot
o~
07
1 ~ ~ ~ ~
r~
B
~
rv t gtshy 2
~ ~ 11
~ 7shyIn r
~ () 0 1) m ~
~ gtshyz -
(fII~q~~ 7~ P
IItJ1o -~~f(ll p ~I I~U J ~t~L 0 ~ middot~II I
IDI 8~ middot lta ~
~ QS
middotS ~ ~ 0 z
r Smiddot II
S 1d 0-$ 111 r- l gtshy r
V fr~
~llCf-J a-PcJ~ U~middotJO
4lp~dmiddotyIb 6middot~1f np)t -~11M fo --IIhen IJutJel ~bl
Table 14
Acceptability of deep fried blue grenadier samples stored in FSW
rays in R3W
Acceptability 3 4 6 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 17 21
Flavour 50a 50a 4S a 51a 50a 51a 50a 4Sa 49a 53a 41b 35b
Texture 49bc 51abc 4S bed 52ab 4Sbed 53ab 52abc 52ab 4Sbed 55a 46cd 43d
OJerall 50ab 51ab 47be 52ab 4Sb 5lab 52ab 50ab 47b 54 a 41c 35d
abc
d
significantly different (pltOOOl)
significantly different (pltOOl) W so
Table 15
Acceptability of deep fried whiting samples stored in ice
rays in ice
Acceptability 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Flavour 5Sab 59a 59a 60a 59a 5S ab 51b 54ab 53ab 37c 37c 31c
Texture 59ab 59a 53bed 5S ab 63a 59ab 47cde 54be 56ab 55ab 44e 46de
OJera11 57ab 5S ab 59ab 60a 60a 5Sab 52b 53ab 55ab 42c 36cd 31d
abcde significantly different (Plt0001)
40
~oo DISCUSSION
410 Sensory assessment of the raw blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
he results of sensory assessment on the raw blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW by the four methods of scoring all sheM that there is
progressive increment in total demerit points with storage time for all the
four methods (Table 7) It was also fourxi that the accumulation of demerit
points with time of storage of the fish in ffiW occurred in a saui-linear
fashion for all -the four scoring methods used (Figure 1) he variables (time
of storage and demeritmiddot points score) were all highly correlated (Table 9)
he correlation equation of the TFRJ (ungutted samples) and TFRJ (gutted
sanples) scores were similar roth having a zero time intercept of 032 but
with the TFRJ (gutted samples) scores having a slightly greater slope by 015
he EEC scores and the filleted sample scores roth have lower slopes ie
146 and 158 respectively canpared with the TFRJ (ungutted sample) and TFRJ
(gutted sample) scores of 175 and 190 respectively lbwever the EOC scores
which have the lowest slope have a fairly similar correlation equation with
the filleted sample scores (Table 9) he negative intercepts reflected the
slightly more sigrroid relationship for these samples his suggests that the
TFRJ (gutted) scoring method is the rrost sensitive of the four methods
followed by the TFRJ (ungutted) the filleted sample and the EEC scores
It was also found that after 21 days of storage in RSW the blue
grenadier samples had not reached their maximun possible scores in any of the
four scoring rrethods used (Table 7) he TFRJ (ungutted sample) score only
reached 943 of its possible maximun value whereas the TFRJ (gutted sample)
scores EEC scores and the filleted sample score reached only 897 833 ar~
906 of their possible maximun score his means that all the four methods
of scoring can still be sensitive to changes in the quality of the blue
grenadier samples stored in RSW after 21 days of storage time
41
Figures 1 and 3 also shOVt that the pattern of the graphs of demerit
points against days storage in R3W of the four methcxis of scoring is similar
ie a tendency to be slightly sigmoid fbwever the filleted sanple scores
sean to be rrore sensitive than the EOC scores at the later part of the storage
time ie after 14 days of storage and the scores continued to rise
1be rrost obvious indicator of change for the blue grenadier stored in ffiW
using the TFRJ scores (both gutted and unJUtted sanples) was the eyes (clarity
and blood) followed by odour developnent of the gills (Table 10) his is -
also foond to be true wi th the EOC freshness score (Table 11) Fbr the
filleted sample scores the appearance and odoor of the flesh seems to be the
most obvious indicator of change follOVted by the condition of the fillets such
as gaping bruisin) am wetness (Table 12)
4 20 sensory assessment of the raw whi ting samples stored in ice
1he results of sensory assessment on the rCJl whiting samples stored in
ice by the foor roothods of scoring also shows that there is a progressive
increment in total demerit points with storage time for all the four methods
of scoring (Table 8) Ps with the blue grenadier the aCCLD1UJlation of demerit
points with time of storage of the whiting in ice also occurred in a sernishy
linear fashion for all the foor scoring methods used (Figure 2 and 4) wi th a
slight lag in the initial phase Interestingly this was not observed in the
case of blue grenadier sanples stored in ffiW probably because the first
samplin) of the blue grenadier starts only fran the third day after catch
whereas the first sampling of the whiting starts fran the first day after
catch Also the blue grenadier was handled qu i te roughly on the deck in fact
three oot of the four fish samples on the first rerroval ie the third day
after catching had already showed blood in their eyes
Bremner et al (1985) when using the TFRJ score sheet to assess the
42
quality of four tropical fish species fran the oorth west shelf of hJstralia
(stored in ice) also fourrl that the accumulation of demerit points with time
of storage in ice occurred in a linear fashion
PB wi th blue grenadier the variables (tine of storage ard darneri t points
score) were all highly correlated (Table 9) Also the correlation equation of
the TFRJ (ungutted) ard TFRJ (gutted) scores were similar with the TFJU
(gutted) score having a slightly greater slope by 020 Crable 9) he EEC
scores am filleted sample scores also have lower s lopes l e 129 ard 125
respectively ocmpared to the TFm (ungutted) and (gutted) scores of 167 and
187 respectively However unlike the blue grenadier the filleted samples
of the whi t ing had the 10liest slope he more sensi tive na ture of the EEC
scores as canpared to the filleted sample scores in the case of the whiting
especially after 12 days storage in ice can be explained by the snaller size
of the whitirlJ (fork length ranging fran 156 to 265 an) as canpared to the
size of the blue grenadier (fork length ranging 809 to 838 an) the snaller
fish terrl to spoil faster especially the interior parts of the fish PB the
EEC scores depend nuch on the sensory assessment of the interior parts of the
fish such as the appearance and condition of the flesh vertebral colwnn
interior organs per i toneun and abdaninal cavity (Table 3) which makes up more
than 18 demerit points out of the total possible maxinun of 30 the
sensitiveness of its score is thus self-explanatory in the case of whiting
Connell (1980) explained that large fish keep marginally better than small
fish because larger fish have a smaller surface to volume ratio so that in the
same tUne less of their interior is affected
The above results confirmed the previous suggestion that the TFRU
(gutted) scorIoq methcrl is the roost sensitive of the four methods It was
found that after 23 days of storage in ice the whiting scmples had not
reached the maximun possible scores in any of the four methods used (Table
43
8) The 1FIU (UBJutted) scores had reached only 94-3 of its possible maximum
value whereas the TFRJ (gutted) scores EOC scores am the filleted sample
scores reached only 94 9 867 and 81 3 of their poea Ible maximum score
Therefore all the four methods of scoriBJ can still be sensitive to changes
in quality of the whiting samples stored in ice after 23 days of storage tUne
Ihe roost obvious irxHcator of chaDJe for the whiting stored in ice using
the TFIU score sheet was the eyes (clarity shape and blcxxl) followed by the
develqxnent of -colour odour and nucous of the gills (fable 10) Bremner et
al (1985) when working with four tropical species f~ the north west shelf of
Australia also found that the most obvious indicator of change for fish stored
in ice was the eyes (their clarity am shape) follCAtled by odour developnent
and colour changes in the gills This was also found in the case of blue
grenadier in ~ discussed earlier OJrran et al (1981) when investigating
the quality changes duriBJ iced storage of three carmercially important
species of fish fran Bahrein also found that of the visual and olfactory
assessments gill odour showed the roost pranise as a quality control index
Pgain this is also found to be true with the EOC freshness score of both the
blue grenadier and the whitiBJ (Table 11) AccordiBJ to ~ate (1972) it
was generally agreed that odour of the gills is the most sensitive measure of
freshness but the visual appearance of the eyes gills arxi skin was quicker to
use in practice on the market
For the filleted sample scores of the whiting the most obvious indicator
of chanqe was the appearance and odour of the flesh (Table 12) This too
agreed with the findiBJs for blue grenadier stored in ffiW
AccordiBJ to Baines et al (1969) with fish eatiBJ is related to four
main attributes or quality factors viz appearance odour and texture of the
rCM and cooked fish and in the latter also flavour he ultimate purpose of
testing the raw fish is to estimate the eating quality which is here taken to
44
mean the degree of freshness of flavour Acoording to Baines and Shewan
(1965) the mostreliable test for predicting flavour sqore is raw odour
430 The ease aM difficulties of using the four methods of scoring
It was found that the TFRJ (ungutted) scores was the easiest and quickest
method to use as it takes on average only about 1 min 25 sec to score a fish
canpared to 1 min 55 sec 3 min 45 sec ard 1 min 50 sec for the TFRJ
(gutted) EOC and the filleted sample scores he E~ score was found to be
the roost tedious besides taking the longest time to soore a fish
he TFIU (ungutted) scores also have the advantage of not requiring a
knife in order to score ard also were less IOOSSY to work with canpared to all
the other nethods Also the attributes to be assessed were arranged and
organised in such a way in the score sheet that it is easy to score a fish
starting from assessing the apparance and skin and ending with the condition
and smell of the vent
440 Acceptability taste panel results of the blue grenadier samples
441 Flavour acceptability
Figure 5 shc7ws the flavour acceptability of the deep fried samples of
blue grenadier Samples stored in R3W for less than 17 days were found
statistically (Table 14) to be indistinguishable (Plt0001) fran each other
then there was a significant fall in the flavour acceptability of the samples
stored in RSW for 17 days onwards he sarrtgtle stored for 21 days had a still
lower mean value of 35 but it was not significantly different fran the
semple stored for 17 days which had a nean value of 41 It is interesting to
note that despite the progressive increase in sodiun uptake of the blue
grenadier samples stored in RSW from about 7115 35 mg sodium(lOO g tissue
initially to 724 33 mglOO g tissue on the 16th day aM to 729 17 mglOO g
45
tissue on the 21st day (Burford 1984) the panelists seem not to be
negatively affected by the increasing salt content of the samples with storage
tUne and in fact some of the panelists added more salt to their samples I
111is result contradicts statements made by previous reseachers that the
storage life using R3W may be limited by increases in salt content in the fish
flesh (Boyd et aI 1978) he maximun desirable salt content according to
Tcm1inson et al (1974) as quoted by Boyd et al (1978) is about 05 but at
the 16th day ofmiddot RgtW storage the salt content fOllNj In the flesh of blue
grenadier samples was already more than 07 fbwever the panelist only ate
40g pieces it might have been a different case if the fish has been as a
whole meal
442 Texture acceptability
Figure 6 shows the texture acceptability of the deep fried blue grenadier
samples stored in R3W eespf te sane apparent abberant values (such as the
high rrean of 55 for the sample stored for 14 days in RSW) it is obvious that
the texture acceptability showed a significant decreasing trend (pltOOl) from
seventeen days of storage onwards The abberant texture values are possibly
due to the fact that the fish texture might have been masked by the bread
crunbs used to coat the fish samples before deep fryi~ This agrees with the
observations of Bremner et al (1985) wtxgt found that the inherent textural
softness of P piotiue and the tougheni~ on storage of N peroni i detected by
a profile panel usilYJ steamed fillets were no lo~er noticeable when the fish
was deep fried in batter Bremner (1980) also reported that despi te the
softness of the raw flesh the cooked flesh of blue grenadier is reasonably
firm
46
433 OVerall acceptability
The overall acceptability of the deep fried blue grenadier samples stored
in R)W (figure 7) seems to follCM a similar pattern to its flavour
acceptability (figure 5)~ in which a significant fall in overall acceptability
was only observed fran the samples held fran 17 days in RSW onwards (pltO 001)
as shawn in Tablel4
rnus all the above results showed that there was a significant fall in
flavour texture and overall acceptability of blue ~renadier from 17 days of
R)W storage onwards which was found to be equivalent to the accumulated
demerit point scores of 29 of the TFRJ (ungutted) scoresr 31 of the TFRl
(gutted) scoresr 21 of the EOC scores and 23 of the filleted sample
scores Jones (1964) states that the acceptability of a fish is a function of
its suitability for further processing and of its inmediate appearance its
texture its odour and its flavour
450 Acceptability taste panel results of the whiting samples
451 Flavour acceptability
Figure 8 shows the flavour acceptability of the deep fried whiting
samples stored in ice rtle twelve sample times could be analysed individually
since the means if analysed by canbining adjacent sample times to give six
sample groups are in fact the means of the adjacent times if analysed
individually it was found that samples of the first nine renovals i se up to
17 days of storage in ice are more or less indistinguishable (abberant value
at 7th removal) he last three removals ie samples stored in ice for 19
21 and 23 days were found to be of significantly lower flavour acceptability
(p lt 0001) as shawn in Table 5
47
452 Texture acceptability
Except for the abberation at the 7th remgtval i 9 at day 13 of ice
storage there is a significant reduction of texture acceptability at the 21 II
and 23 days of ice storage (p lt0001) as shown by figure 9 and Table5 t
II
I 453 Over~ll acceptability
he overal I acceptability of the whiting sanples stored in ice is very
much similar to its f Lavour acceptability except at day 19 of ice storage
where the ovaral I acceptability shows a higher mean of 42 carpared to the
flavoor acceptability mean of 37 (figure 10 and Table 5) here is however a
significant sudden drop to lOil scores fran the lOth removal ie day 19 of
storage in ice (p lt0001)
hus all the above results for whitifVJ sanples showed that there was a
significant fall in flavCXJr and overall acceptability fram 19 days ice storage
onwards which is equivalent to the accumulated demerit points of 31 of the
TFRJ (unqutted) scores 35 of the TFRJ (gutted) scores 22 of the EEC
scores and 21 of the filleted sample scores he results are interesti~ in
that the oorresponding total accLDnulated demerit points at the time when
significant falls in flavour texture and overall acceptability of the blue
grenadier and whiting samples stored in I5W and ice respectively were quite
similar
500 CONCLUSION
510 Feasibility of using demerit points
Accumulation of demerit points with time of storage of M
in RM and H eemifaeaiatia in ice was found to be highly
occurred in a semi-linear fashion irrespective of the method of
novas8slandiae
correlated and
scori~ used
- _ ~uo_a~_bull--_--I e -Ii --
48
1he slopes of the lines (rate of accumulation of demerit points) and its
relative spoilage rate were found to be similar for the ttoO species provided
the sane method of scoring is employed 1his tends to suggest that the method
is possibly independent of species am methods of storage or at least
applicable to the two species in RSW and ice respectively
TIle TFRJ (ungutted) scores were foum to be the easiest arrl quickest
method to use although the TFRJ (gutted) scores were the roost sensitive 1he
EEX freshness scores were hClgtlever foum to be the JOOSt tedious aod difficult bull I
to use besides taking more than twice the time taken to score a fish ocmpared
to the TFRJ (ungut ted) scores
Although there were slig~t differences between the ttoO species in those
characteristics where changes were first made (Table 10 11 and 12) there is
enough evidence to conclude that the changes in the appearance of the eyes am
the odour developnent of the gills are the JOOSt obvious arrl valuable indicator
of charqe in quality when using the TFIU or the EEl scores while the
appearance am odour of the fish flesh seems to be the JOOSt obvious indicator
when assessing the filleted sample
1he shelf-life of M navaezelandiae stored in RSW was found to be 14 days
(less than 17 days) whilst that of H semifasoiata stored in ice was fourrl to
be 17 days (less than 19 days) beyond which the fish had developed spoilage
characteristics that were disliked by the acceptability taste panel
1he cut-off point at which spoilage of the samples would have rendered
the quality of the fish sample to be unacceptable fran the consumers point of
view ~ld be that equivalent to the accumulated demerit point of gt29 for the
TFRJ (gutted arrl ungutted) scores am gt21 for the EOC and filleted sample
scores
This study thus confinned the potential use of demerit points such as the
TFRJ (ungutted) scores as an easy quick cheap non-destructive and reliable
49
method of sensory assessment of fish quality In fact Branch and Vail (1985)
had studied the possible use of a prototype pocket-sized computer to determine
the condition and shelf-life of temperate and tropical species of fish based
on data that is derived fran the sensory score sheets for the assessment of
fish quality developed at the (SIRgt Division of fbod lEsearch Iasmanian Fbod
Research Unit (TFlU) Hobart
520 RJrpose for which demerit points are to be used
Many scor i oq systerrs are used to predict the nunber of days fish have
been stored on ice and in nore recent years ICETIME (equivalent days on
ice) I ard thus through years of experience the taste panel acceptability of
the fish I
However fish is sold on appearance and a scoring system may be used for
assessirg marketability of whole or gutted fish or fillets or for setting
standards in bulk buying The EEC scoring system is used for example at
fish markets at first point of sale to grade the fish and establish
withdrawal prices A IbrryShewan type system is often used as a purohas i nq
specification from finn to firm
Before a final demerit point system is selected for any COlIOOdity its
ultimate purpose should be established For example the demerit points
chosen for whole fish which nost closely resemble the rate of change of
demerit points for fillets of that species might be the most useful
A linear rate of change of demerit points with time is nose favoured
because it enables prediction of remaining shelf-life ConstJJrer
unacceptability should be at a point where perhaps 75 of the demerit points
have been accrued Further scores would still be available for categories
such as suitable for fish meal D3merit points are not an indication of the
acceptability of fish as eaten where off-odours flavours and fillet
50
tdiscolouration are masked by batters or curries Their correlation with the
iodours flavours off odours aod off flavours of steamed fish are currently ~
~
~being examined by other workers at the Tasmanian ~ Research unit and highly
significant correlations are found Even when fish are subsequently eaten
battered or curried demerit points give a good indication of remaining shelf
life Thus whitiOJ with a Smiley flavour score of 58 after 1 day on ice
has a nlU gutted demerit score of 1 and a high quality life (eaten crumbed
and fried) of a further 16 days while whitiOJ stored for 11 days on ice with
the sane flavour score has a gutted demerit score of 17 and a further shelf
life of 6 days
530 SUggestion for further work
Ib ascertain its potentially wide application as a simple quick and
technically sound methcxi of assessing fish quality many more studies using
other species of fish both temperate and tropical species and in various
storage conditions should be undertaken using a demerit point scorIrq system
such as that developed by the TFlU
The score sheet has proved invaluable when sending individuals untrained
researchers away on distant water fishing trips Ps yet 00 standard
deviations have been detennined using a team of assessors with coded samples
of unknown history This may require a separate group design
The effect of lean fish and fatty fish on the scores should also be
studied because factors such as seasonal variations in biological conditions
Lmproper gutting and washing mechanical damage and filth and changes due to
storage in R3W or shelving may have considerable influence on its shelf-
life Reports such as those of smith et al (1979) clearly showed that in fish
such as the blue whitirlJ (Mioroomesistius poubaeeous there is greater degree
I 51
of seasonal variability than in other gadoid species the overall
acceptability droppirq dramatically once the fish have spawned Fish accepted
for processing for food has to be of a higher standard of quality than fish
accepted for Imredfate sale across the counter to the consumer therefore
there is a need to rreet a minimum score before they could be processed into
food Gradirq is therefore best left to the user sorenson (1971) states
that in establishing limi ts of acceptance an allowance had to be made for
deterioration that would continue to take place during processing and storage
prior to reaching the consimer
The only final criteria of the objectivity of sensory or any other
assessment are results that are reproducible many times which is by definition
a lcnJ-tenn process and in the meantime one requires short-cut indications
that one is headirq in the right direction
Ferhaps a final caution Is necessary as in the YQrds of Ehrenberg and
Shewan (1953) not too much must be expected even the best measuring
instruments occasionally go oot of control
52
60 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baines CR Jones NR am Shewan JM 1965 Technological problems of
measur trq degree of freshness of wet fish and problems of quality
control requirif)J roore knowledge fran fundamental research In he
Technology of fish utilisation ad R Kreuzer Fishi~ News (Books)
p 141
Baines CR and Shewan JM 1965 sensory rrethods for evafuat inq the
quality of white fish Lab practice 14 160-163
Baines CR ltbnnell JoJ Gibson DM lbWgate PF Livi~ston E and
Shewan JM 1969 A taste panel technique for evaluatirq the eati~
quality of frozen cod In Freezi~ and irradiation of fish ad R
Kreuzer Fishi~ News (Books) London p361
Boyd NS and Wilson NDC 1976 A sensory method for evaluatInq the
quality of Snapper (Ch1ysophrys auratus) NZ Journal of Science 19
209-12
Boyd NS Wilson ND and Bjley A 1978 A refrigerated sea water plant
for small boats symposium on fish utilisation technology and
marketi~ in the IPFC region IFFC Proceedi~s 18th session Manila
Philippines FAD Ba~kok p 186-192
Branch AC and Vail AMA 1984 Bri~i~ fish inspection into the
canputer age FltXld Technol Aust 36 in press
Bremner HA Olley J and Ihrower SoJ 1978 CSIIU Iasmanian lEgional
Laboratory OCcasional Paper No4
Bremner HA 1980 Processi~ and freezi~ of the blue grenadier (Maclulonus
novaeselandiae) FltXld Technol Aust 32(8)~ pp 385-393
Bremner J A 1984 QJality - an attitude of mind In he JILlstralian
Fishi~ Industry - today and tanorrow 10-12 July 1984 Launceston
53
Australian MaritUne Cbllege seminar Bapers 224-69
Bremner HA Statham JA am Sykes SJ 1985 Tropical species fran the
north west shelf of Alstralia sensory assessment and acceptability
of fish stored co ice Proceedi~s Sixth session IPR Worki~ Party
on Fish D3chnology and Marketi~ Melbourne 1984 FJID Fish lep 252
supp1
Burford D 1985 Sodiun uptake in MaOlUfOOnUS nooaeselandiae stored in
refrigerated sea water Tasmanian Food Research Unit OCcasional Paper
No9
ltbnnell JJ 1972 OJality control in the fish industry Ibrry Jldvisory
note No 58 IOrty Research Station Aberdeen
ltbnnell JJ 1980 ltbntrol of fish quality Fishi~ ~ws (Books) 2nd ed
Surrey England
OJrran CA Nicolaides L and Al-Alawi ZS 1981 QJality chanqes duri~
iced storage of three carmercially important species of fish fran
Bahrain Trop sci 23(4) 253-268
de Zylva ERA 1974 Effect of fish handli~ at sea on storage quality of
New Zealand Snapper (Chroysophroys aumtus) New Zealand J SCi 17
309-318
Etlira S 1976 A biochemical study on the freshness of fish Bull 1bkai
Reg Fish Res Lab No 88 pp 1-13
Ehrenberg ASC and Shewan JM 1953 he cbjective approach to sensory
tests of food J Sci Food hJric 4 pp 482-489
Herbert RA and Shewan JM 1975 Precursors of the volatile sulphides in
spoili~ North Sea Cod J Sci Food JIlgric 26 1195-1202
lbUwi~ H 1972 Gradi~ of fish in different qualities Institute for
Fishery Products Ijmuiden Unpublished
~ate P 1972 Qrlparison of sensory scor inq systems for raw fish
I 54
Unpubl ished bull ~ ~
~ate P 1978 Measuri~ the quality am acceptability of fish products bull ~
In IPFC Proceedi~s symposiun on fish utilisatial technology and ~
i f~
marketi~ in the IWC region 18th session Manila Ihilippines p
449
fflghes RB and Jones NR 1966 Measurement of hypoxanthine concentrations
in canned herrirg as an index of the freshness of the raw material
with a ocirment oo flavor relations J SCi fOOd middotJlgric 17 434
Jahns FD Howe JL Coduri Jr RJ and Ram Jr AG 1976 A rapid
visual enzyme test to assess fish freshness Food Iechno1 30 (7) 27
Jones NR 1964 ~lems associated with freezi~ very fresh fish
Proceedings Meeting on Fish Iechnology Fish Handling and
Preservation schevenirqen OEC D Paris p 31 bull
Jones NR 1965 Hypoxanthine and other purine containing fractions in fish
muscle as indices of freshness In uthe technology of fish
utilisation ed R Kreuzer Fishi~ rewa (Books) (Drmn p 179
Last PR Scott EOG and Talbot FH 1983 Fishes of Tasmania
Tasmanian Fisheries ~velopnent lUthority lbbart Tasmania pp 238
414
Lima doe santos CAM James D and Ieutscher F 1981 QJidelines for
chilled fish storage experiments FKJ Fish Tech Igt 210
(Dye RM 1954 Ibst rrortem cha~es in the lenses of fish eyes Msessment
of storage tiJm and fish quality J Sci Focx11lgric 5 566-572
Hartin RE Gray RJ H and Pierson MD 1978 QJality assessment of fresh
fish arrl the role of the naturally occurring microflora Focx1
Technol 32 (5) 188
Official Journal of the European oamrnunities No L264 5 ~cember 1970 pp
1-11
bull
55
Technol New Zealand July 1971 pp 31-35
Spinelli J Eklund M and Miyauchi D 1964 Measurement of hypoxanthine
in fish as a method of assessing freshness J Food SCi 29 710
Thrower S oJ am Stafford IA 1981 A roobile unit for ccmparative studies
of chilled storage systems for trawl fish IIF IIR
eatmissions C2 01 02 03 Boston USA 1981-4
Thrower SoJ Bremner HA QJarmby AR Ggtnnan T8 aild Graham KJ
1982 cn-board handlinJ of Q~ish ~ Inportanoeof chillinJ and
gutting Aust Fish 41 (11) 38-41
Tanlinson N bull bull t at 1974 COtparison between refrigerated sea water (with or
without added carbon dioxide) and ice as storage media for fish to be
subsequently frozen Proc IIR C011n 82- 0-3 Tokyo p
waterman J oJ 1982 Qrrposition and QJality of Fish A Dictionary 1brry
Mvisory Note No 87 Torry Research Station Aberdeen
5J
Olley J and letkowsky OA 1973 he role of terrperature function
integration in monitoring of fish spoilage Food Technol New
Zealand 8 (2) 13 15 and 17
Olley J 1977 Iemperature and seafood spoilage In H Proceedings of 1977
SChool for SeafltXld Processorsmiddot ad ~ AF 0 Mello Hawkesbury
Agricultural Oollege p6-2
Olley J 1978 QIality assessment and storage changes In middotCSIRJ Iasmanian bull
leJional Laboratory OCcasional Paper No 4 p 3-1 middot4 Rgenstein J M and ~enstein CE 1981 he shelf-life extension of fesh
fish In Advances in the refrigerated treabnent of fishmiddot
International Institute of Rfrigeration Clmnissions C2 m ra [8
Boston US A 1981-4
leJenstein J 1983 Wlat is fish quality INroFISH Marketing Digest ttgt 6
26-28
Ryder JM 9Jisson OH SCott ON and Fletcher GC 1984 storage of
New Zealand Jack Mackerel ( TmohUMlB notJabullbullbullZandias) in ice
chemical microbiological and sensory assessment J M SCi 49
1453-1456 1477
Shewan JM Macintosh RG rucker CG and Ehrenberg ASC 1953 he
developnent of a numerical ~coring systan for the sensory assessment
of the spoilage of wet white fish stored in ice J SCi Food Jlgric
4 283-298
Smith J GM Hardy R hanson AB Young KW and Parsons E 1979
sane observations 00 the ambient and chill storage of blue whiting
(Mio1om8sistius poutassou) bull In H Advances in Fish SCience and
Technology ad JJ Connell FishinJ News (Books) Surrey England
pp 299-303
SOrensen T 1971 QIality control and fish handling in New zealand Food ~
t c-
o )
~hmiddot r~YiJ lt~
~~f~~ ~
I
Nomooram for comparison of diffGrent scoring systems tor raw T i sn ___ _ J bull )
_U I~ ~Y1 9i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~
I I t I I - _---1------ imiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot __ middot~_ ~ __~_ -_ ~ + ~ _ -~ _ - middotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middot __ G 9 8 7 6 _ 5middot 3
_ - zmmy [ I bull r f II
d _~__ ~ __ _ ~ __ -I-- - ~ L- i~ middoti~ ~ 1-L -~~ lt lt l~tceland 1P i ~ ~ j ~ ~ ~ L~ __ - I ~_ bull _ L j ~- _-
N rv 1 I 1 2 --- - 2~ 3 middot 3middot 4 ~- ~Il ay ~ _ _ middot _ r r
_ _ __ _ _~ ~_ ) - ~ L_ - 1- ~-_ -_ _ _ ~ 19 ~ 8 imiddotmiddot I 6 5 4 3
Do _ _nm~r t I I I r
~ I
_ ~ ~_ ~ t ~ __ i__ t ~ ~ ~ ~ _ q x 1 1i 2 2~ 3v _ Franee I r I l n
I I I i _ - ~ _ _ _- _-- middotmiddot __ middot_middot_middot_middotmiddotmiddotImiddotmiddotmiddot_middot~ _middotmiddotmiddotmiddot-_middotmiddotmiddotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddot ---- - --~ ~-
19oum8 I 7 6 i 5 ~ ~ 4middot 280 J t (
I i
J -- - -_ -__ X ~middotH i__~ -- i_L ~ - l_ middot1-- - 3 I 2Y1 0 4 11z 1 y
E E C I 1
I I I deg deg E I A r Bmiddot - I I C
ltOIl j- ~ ~ c ~--------------
TASTER
DATE
SESSION
~ER middot1
bull You will be given ~bull aamples of cooked fish Please assess the fish for flavour textur~ and
overall liking as though you had purchased them in a takeaway food shop Hark the sample
identification under the face that most closely describes your impressionbull
I
middot5 S shy2 3 4
FLAVOUR
IEXlURE
--
OVERALL UKING
7 bullbull yc ) I _ v J _ _
I1PP~NJIJ( 3 ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE BGRENVZSASS (A)
OBS DAYS-R DMPTS shy
1 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 6 4 3 7 4 6 e 4 5 9 6 1 18 6 10 11 6 18 12 6 18 13 e 13 14 8 16 13 8 13 16 8 17 17 9 18 18 9 18 19 9 bull 19 29 9 19 21 19 19 22 1 21 23 1 19 24 1 2123 11 21 26 11 22 27 11 22 29 11 22 29 12 22 3 12 22 31 12 23 32 12 23 33 13 23 34 13 23 33 13 22 36 13 23 37 14 24 38 14 23 39 14 264 14 25
17 26~ 17 39 43 17 38 44 17 29 43 21 32 46 21 33
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASS(At
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (Xt DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Yt DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9666 R SQUARED 9343 T STATISTIC 231621 INTERCEPT tAt 31799 SLOPE tSt 173399 bull STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 219473
OBSERVATIONS 46 Y DMPT9 XI DAYS-RSW YMIN -18 YMAX 61 YINC e XMIN -19 XMAX 2e9 XINe 2
] y
__ t=- I I 0(I I
JPRH6ELF PRINT MODULE -SYNTAX ERROR
DATABASE J3lGRENVISASS (FIL)
OB8 DAYS-R DMPT8
1 s 1 2 4 5 s 6 6
~ e 8 ~ 9 1 6 19 12 7 11 14 8 12 17 9 13 18 1 14 19 bull 11 17 23 12 21 29
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASSCFIL)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE CX) DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IY) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT ~9963
R SQUARED 992 T STATISTIC 3~36977
INTERCEPT CA) -3~6~41
SLOPE CB) 1~8426
STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 77667
OBSERVATIONS 12 v DMPTS x DAYS-RSW VMIN -2~ VMAX ~~ YINC ~
XMIN -19 XMAX 2~9 XINC 2
]
bull
-SYNTAX ERROR
lPRH6ELF PRINT MODULE
DATABASE BGRENVXSASS (AG)_
OB6
1 2 3 4 ~
6 7 8 9
Hi 11 12 13 14 1~
16 17 -18 19 2 21 22 23 24 2~
26 27 28 29
3 31 32 33 34 3~
36 37 J8
39
4 41 42 43 44 4~
46
DAYS-R
3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 6 6 6 6 8 8
8 bull 8
9 9 9 9
1 1 1 1 11 11 11 11
DMPTS
2 3 3 3 ~
6 ~
~
1 1 1 1 17 18 17 19 2~
2 21 21 21 23 21 23 23 24 24 24
12 24 12 24 12 25 12 25 13 27 13 25 J3 24 13 27 104 26 J04 2S
14 28 14 27 17 28 17 32 17 32 17 31 21 34 21 35
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BORENVISASSCAO)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE IX) DAVS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IV) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9~76~
R SQUARED 917 T STATISTIC 22S6S88 INTERCEPT lA) 323~7
SLOPE lB) 189812 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 269324
OBSERVATIONS 46 Y DM PT6 X DAYS-RSW ~ _01 VMAV 2~ YfNe ~
XMIN -19 XNAX 2l9 XINC 2
]
9YNTA)( ERROR bull ]PRN6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE BGRENVXSASS
OB6 DAY6-R DMPTS
1 3 1 2 3 1 3 3 1 4 3 1 5 4 1 6 4 4 7 4 3 9 4 1 9 6 6 18 6 6
11 6 6 12 6 6 13 9 8
14 9 9 15 8 8 16 8 9 l 9 18 19 9 11 19 9 12 28 9 12 21 18 12 22 18 14 23 18 11 24 18 14 25 11 15 26 11 13 27 11 15 29 11 15 29 12 17 3 12 18 31 12 19 32 12 18gJ l~ 34 13 18 3~ 13 18 36 13 19 37 14 19 JB 14 19 39 14 19 48 14 19 41 17 19 42 17 23 43 17 21 44 17 20
-(EEC)
q~ 21 23 q6 21 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASSCEEC)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE IX) DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IY) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 96691 R SQUARED 93q9 T STATISTIC 2~14824
INTERCEPT IA) -238937 SLOPE IB) 146219 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 1S28eS
OBSERVATIONS q6 Y DMPTS X DAYS-RSW YMIN -2q YMAX ~5 YINC ~
XMIN -19 XMAX 259 XJNC 2
l
SYNTAX ERROR lPRM8ELF PRINT MODULE
-
bull
APPENJ)K 4 -
DATABASE WHZTXNG VXSASS (A) bull
OBS DAYS-I
1 1 2 1 3 1 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 ~
9 5 9 5 Ii 7 11 7 12 7 13 9 14 9 1~ 9
016 11 17 11 19 11
DMPTS
1 1 1 1 2 2 4 3 5 a 7
9 13 15 bull 13 16 14 1~
019 13 2 8 28 13 16 21 13 20 22 15 24 23 1~ 24 24 15 25 25 17 29 26 17 29 27 17 38 29 19 30 29 19 38 38 19 32 31 21 33 32 21 32 33 21 32 34 23 32 3~ 23 32 36 23 34
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASSIA)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE tX) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE tV) qMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 98514 R SQUARED 9785 T STATISTIC 3344414 INTERCEPT tAt -245163 SLOPE CBt 166958 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 286799
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS x DAYS-ICE
YMIN -22 YMAX lS7 YINC lS- XMIN -19 XMAX 259 XINC 2
]
I
J
-8YNTAX ERROR
]PRM6ELF PRINT MODULE shyDATABASE WHITING VISASS (AG)
OB8 DAYS-I DMPT8
1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 4 3 1 ~ 3 2 6 3 2 7 ~ 4 9 ~ 3 9 ~ ~
18 7 18 11 7 9 12 7 18 13 9 1~
14 9 17 1~ 9 1~
16 11 18 17 11 16 18 11 17 19 13 22 28 13 18 21 13 22 22 1~ 26 23 1~ 27 24 1~ 28 2~ 17 32 26 17 32 27 17 33 28 19 34 29 19 34 38 19 36 31 21 37 32 21 36 33 21 36 34 23 36 3~ 23 36 36 23 38
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITINO VISASS(AO)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAY8-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Y) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 986~2
R SQUARED 973 T STATISTIC 3~B167B
INTERCEPT CAl -272~33
SLOPE CBI 197S63 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 221294
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS X DAYS-ICE YHIN -19~ YHAX ~9~ YINC ~
XHIN -19 XHAX 2~9 XINC 2
]
-SYNTAX ERROR lPRM6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASS (EEC)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 2 1 3 1 4 3 ~ 3 1 6 3 1 7 ~ 2 8 ~ 2 9 ~ 3
1 7 3 11 7 3 12 7 3 13 9 6 14 9 6 bull 1~ 9 7 16 11 7 17 11 8 18 11 7 19 13 11 2 13 1 21 13 12 22 1~ 13 23 1~ 1~
24 1~ 17 2~ 17 19 26 17 18 27 17 19 28 19 29 29 19 23 39 19 22 31 21 24 32 21 23 33 21 24
34 23 2J 3~ 23 26 36 23 27
I ELF SCATTER MODULE I DATABASE WHITING VISA88CEEC)I I INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (~) DAYS-ICE I
DEPENDENT VARIABLE (VI DMPTS I bull
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9a2~3
R SQUARED 96~3
T STATISTIC 387a73~
INTERCEPT (A) -4142 SLOPE (8) 12873 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 173287
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS ~ DAYS-ICE YMIN -29 YMA~ ~1 VINC ~
XMIN -19 ~MA~ 2~9 ~INC 2
J
-SYNTAX ERROR JPRM6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHITING VXSASSmiddot(FXL)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 2 3 1 3 ~ 5 4 7 4 ~ 9 9 6 11 13 7 13 1~
e 1~ 16 9 17 19 18 19 21 11 21 24 12 23 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASB(FJLI
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Y) DMPTS
bull bullbull 4~
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE CV) DMPTSr
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 982~3
R SQUARED 96~3
T STATISTIC 3S7873~ t bullbullf CINTERCEPT CA) -4142
SLOPE CB) 12873 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 173287
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS XI DAYS-ICE YMINmiddot~28 YMAKI 1 YINC ~
XMIN -I9XMAX 2~9 XINC2
]
-SYNTAX ERROR ]PRH6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHXTXNG VXSASS (FXL)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 S 2 3 1 1 5 3 4 7 4 5 9 9 6 11 13 7 13 1~
9 15 16 9 17 19 1 19 21 11 21 24 12 23 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE I WHITING VISAS8(FIL)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE CX)I DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE CY) DMPT8
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 99289 R SQUARED 9858 T STATISTIC 2638123 INTERCEPT CA) -243706 SLOPE CB) 124476 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 112846
SLOPE 10) 124476 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 112846
ObullbulllfftVTrOHSO 12 VI DHPTS XI DAVS-ICE VMIN -27 VHAX e2 VINe e XHIN -19 XHAX 2e9 gtcINe 2
]
-8VNTAX ERROR
fi
rr
[bull
SJ
in i
bullol
r~
bull bull
n i
o o o o
~
o~ o
o - l
N~ o ~
o o o
Q
Q o o
a
c -~_
Q
_
_ Q
_9_
0
o ~-
O
_
Q
lI
oJ ~
v
~ ~
~-
-
- -1
---h
---1
---I
I
I
1
~ ((9 ~ J las 0 - ~~ U -lt) az E~-~gl~~1--~~---------- ~) 1)
11 ~ - 11 HI ~~
I bull M~
~ -~ ~~ IJ~ I J ismiddotJ I Q l~
k tl I 01 re lr - 91 br I ~I ( -0 71P g I CJ tt
I I J 000 0 0 w I 0) NlNN1tl 30 hIflJ I t IC (~4ID(r ~ Wi
_ f-- -------- bull fyen ~=y ~~r I I I I I I I 0 0 00 00 ( ~) -Fr~ ~ fj)
-0 I 0 I Ole 17 10 0 ( ~ AI )middot P1~ 0 0 00 Q hItIrS ~7I -~~ (J
t -r------0 bull
_-~_ middotmiddotmiddot_middot~middotmiddotmiddot)-middot7~)
lrrT I 01 0
0 tFmiddot~~i ~ 1 o 00 Omiddot (~ -W ~r f (JJ___~ _______ _ l I I 71 I -_---_ - M-~ ~ I
J I Z-tf ~ ~ ~fI t1 11f ( )) CI I I I i I 00 r11-7[ c I C bull aofl7r_ ~ ~z ~ 1t~Ji ) ( --_--------i---shye l~~~ I f~) I I J I
I II i bull Q ( N~T fE ~I )
~JiP _- -___ ----shy
_
~ 7Yr 0) ~(J ~ I e I t I ~ l I J I I 1 I I I(I 0 0 (~~yen~ M -p~P71 JPtJIJs 0
i euror (1l~J IlLriJlllr1JI ~~J I ~()(1OP I I r I I 0 I ( t t I ( jIfS 7fS ~~I ~ )
I
I 1 I( IN 10~ lb~ qItJ gtr~j f o (~)I(~) I I 0 I (t~ ~~) I I Jbull o 0 J I ~ l 0 a i S(jJ t t t tI tI C I C I J I I I J I 0 I (n~rlP PI4t -I) t
- -I
-I -I-I I II-I I I-I r bull
-----(rtb Ii If p~) PNl17T7~b ~y~ 7
10 IIt1v I 0 1~L CIJ tN IfIfW1IIJ JI11i JN~I HJ3
---Y p~ALY~_ ~~ Yl2-- 1)
yenvr 1amp f111l
-
~
~~
~
II
o 0
~cgt
(
) Q
oa
oo
o
oo
o o
a
o
~
P
t
oo
c
oo
a -
o
oo
o
o -
o
-o
-
-
lJ
I~ I~
Jl ~rIpound i IAlffzfjjsectj 7df- utl kf J OG lie rCOIpound ~IIE(T r
7tU
~
~ ~
~ ~
~
-shy~
~
MYI f)lySLM~ 1 (JAy ISo~r 11 ~~) e ()~t ~I01) r I joy f o~y lOJ 17~JJlII1~ 16 fiti -t1 It r ~17J~~flu~1h 111H 7U 1111111shyIllf Jr(11Jr I fhJo
~ ) ~ I1 J J-4 ~ J 2 JJ ~poundol ~ ] t4 cl -7 eJ uJ cJJJ wI~ wI l shy w c at amp 74 -t ~ ut 4 I
SkIN 000 o 0 0o 0 0 o 00 I o I I I I 3 3 3l) t 3 3 31 s 3ltt
a I I I I I o IfYU I 2 I JI I I000 )l~ 1~1 S 3 ~S 3 5 335
GILtJ I J I o (J 0 I (I I I ~ t 2shy~I I s 3 ]] 2 0 (J 3 ~ ~ t 3 3 AlvItUiU i l I I ls)z oJ lJ 0 a (J ~ 0o 0 0 a a aTff1ttJR II r 1
1 I ~ I I I I 1~E
Cdt47tl7 I I ~ ~t( a a 0O(O I Io I~ 00 000deg a 0wO 0 0 0 o 0 0 o~ 00VUipound811 ~ J I
tJ I Oe6rlllr I I I I 2 2]l2 ~ 3 S 3 S ~ 3o a 0 (J () 0 I 333 1 $ 3
If~euMI LU~ 2l 3000o (J 0 o 0 0 J 2 2shy 331a deg (1 ~ 2 Jshy
i I 000amp1 0 I I 1TIUUpound
lAcltJdJE 00deg00o 0 0 ooalOOO 0 0 I I I 1OdOa deg 0 11 2 I r I I I IbullI
I I h~r~Eu I ( 0 0 CJ 0 o (J a 2 ~ 30001011 0 1 J 1010 I I L II 2 l 2l 22 2 1
sKIN GLLt I f I~J) GlIIl) 0 (I a I do 0 0 I 0 Il~t l~o 0 0 ~ 3 3 3 s 3 3 3 33s1331
i7tJ7l11 Ibull I shy i66 ~o
(J ~ 0 1 0 It3331l J t 1 1shy 1~ ~afJllc 11 Irrshy It ~1 1111 20 J3 u
(])JtUJ61 (l) (1) (Ir)(0) (J)(I) (If) (19) (u) (~r)(J4)
I r f
I
I
i I
I i
II I ((
f
II Ii
p ()
Q
0_
_ 00
0
00
00
00
0
o o o 0
00
0
0 _
o Q
0
0
o
0
00
0
-
0 0
0
middot0
0
o oo
0
o Q
o oo o o
- ~
~
~ ~~pound
w
i -shy
o
co
- --
shy
o o o
~
~_
~
0
-shyJJ
-----l--~
-J
J IJ
f
J
J)
o 0
00
_ 0
0
o (gt
0
o ()
o
0
0 0
0
()
()
o 0
0
o 0
0
_
_ -
-----1
-----shy
Q
0 0
o ~-IJ~ulJ-
u
lJcllJ_-_~IJamp
o o
Q
I---+----I---+----I----I~-
_Ilpound
llD
lIlI
Il
~I
IIIl
I_II
II5
l__
IIlIa
IllP
=lII
Il1
rl
ll
IlIl
IlIII
llII
IlJl
IIl
IIlIl_
IIrII
G3i
mta
isectID
it
llll~
1~=wampampftUla
_
au
U
Lamp
WJN
AJ
poundmiddotJI
IiIamp
3flJ
a
uac
ampa
f
shy
I~middottn 0~L fi 5L middottlu~ fo_~r ( ) 1poundc [CtJRl -ffl(pound1 r~~ rlt1c- J c-ru
-- I
1SllJ7~
lt l)~ J )IIr M ~-t s ~~ OIl middot )If 10 JAY II 041
J- Olt i1 )lir iI DIY IT- IMy11
1~middot6f1 14f1- ~imiddot -- J _ middotAfmiddot IIrk middot Jiamp -ffh~11 rtr Il ~M gt27P- ill Ill ~lllY ~~7rlf JC 1- ~ r 1M 11
r ~ F16F r~h FIjFi ~~I)r r~Fr
5 Fc II -i~fIoi l 1 fj t t Fr c r amp t 1= ~ r ~ F r rtI ~
- -
sION o (j o 0 0 o 0 a I I I I I I I I 2 I t t I-r J~L) z~z~ 2~J ~ z a ~ ~ 33 - -ol t 1 2
~ poundys-s 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I I lt t 2 t t 4 ~z ~ 2l~ ~ ~ 1 Z 3zi3p33 3 333 3 3 3 - - ~ rl~ a 0 a (1 a a o 1 I 1 I 1-2 12 t ltt a ~ l J tll~ ~~~) 2 2 2 2- ~Jll 21 13 33 ~
- ~ MIIi(UlA~
degCt1C 11 )l
FipoundSI- eli CeoD o 0 (J 0 I I I I I I 1 1 I I 1 I Jl~] l2 22- z ~ 2 2 22 11 2-3 -Sfvpound
j
CIJiCVlt-tICN I I I 1 ( I I I 2 2 t ~ t~ )2 2~21 2$ 2 t _~ 3AIJJN(j- P (J dO o C a a o 0 00 1 I I I I - --
V~7r~ ~ c~u N
(TKWW~ CO~ o I oc I I J I I I I 1 2 I 2 2 1- ) t~l2 2- 22 2 ) 2 ~2- 1222 2 2 ll 2L -- -~VClLAl I
a 0 0 0 01 I 0 2 1 2 2 J5r 4 E i H CA I I
-I I I I I I I I J J 12( ~ 12 1 2 1 2-I TfI_ 21 1-1- 1 1 ~ 1
~ I middot_0-__-- I
~ 1
ffCACIpound coo 000lt=1 o 0 0 0 btJCt) o a () (J I I I I I I I I111 I I I 1 I I -~-aD CD lJ a a 0 0 ~ ~ UlrAfllN o 0 a IJ e e 0 C) (JdegOo ecJao co (10 (1 o I I I I I I I I 1 I I III I I I I z --
i tiN ~4r L~~ 2- li ~ a~ 8M) CUmiddot c d (J 0 (J () I I I 1 1 1
I 1 I I f t I II tl-loI 21 1 t 33 - -
-Iffl1-
J I I I I i- 2 I 11~SC~E ~ t 1 o ~ 04-t 1J 11 1 11t IS~ IfS J1 I 1 I If I IJ 1 r~]u ze uu __
bull ttlUIG
(I) l~) (6) (II) ~ (~) 6s-)llIt lCUI CJ (Ii) (~) vmiddot (II) (19~ ---
I t f
I
~ I
~ I
Ii
I I
Ii I II f
~ (
--)raquo~ middot-~~-~-I~~IliiI~~-middotComiddot~-d-b~middotmiddotmiddotmiddot_ ~ ~ middoth-~_middot--~H~~middot~gt
Other Occasional Papers in the series
1 A salinity monitor for irrigation pumps by EOMIEZITIS
2 Wine liqueur and fish products acceptability trials 47th ANZAAS Congress Hobart 1976 by HABREMNER TLLEWIS and ARQUARMBY
3 Abalone silage an exercise in the conservation of waste by JUNE OLLEY
4 Course notes contributed by the CSIRO Tasmanian Food Research Unit to a workshop on fish handling and quality control Hobart Oct3rd-5th 1978 by HABREMNER JUNE OLLEY and SJTHROWER
5 Difficulties with generalized least squares regression in forest modelling by PWWEST
6 Metabolism of zinc cadmium and copper in rats fed shellfish highly contaminated with heavy metals by SJTHROWER JUNE OLLEY and MAUREEN McDERMOTT
7 Hygiene control in seafood processing by SJTHROWER
VI
Table 15
Table 16
Acceptability of deep fried whiting samples
stored in ice
Acceptability of deep fried whiting samples stored
in ice
39
47
NIlttmLEOOEMEm
Ihe author is indebted to Hr HA Bremner and Miss J A statham of the
CSIR) Division of Food 1esearch and Ii DA Ratk~sky of the Division of
Mathematics and Statistics for direction and advice durin] the course of this
~rk
Thanks nust also go to Miss M Ottenschlaeger for the help in the taste
panel work Hr AH A vail and Hr P Kearney in the correlation analysis and
Mr D 8Jrford in the preparation of the blue grenadier samples and not
forgettirYJ all the panelists who attended the taste panel sessions
Finally the author wishes to thank all those in the SChool of Fisheries
of the Australian HaritiIm College particularly Mr P Minton for the support
and encouragement they have given and also the Australian Development
Assistance Bureau (~) for their financial assistance
1
ABSTRACT
Accumulation of demerit points with time of storage of blue grenadier (M
novaeae landiaev in refrigerated sea water (I~W) and blue rock whi t ing (H
eemifaeeiatcq in ice was fourd to be highly correlated and occurred in an
approximately linear fashion irrespective of the method of scoring used
1he scoring system developed by the TFRJ was fourrl to be the easiest
quickest and rrost reliable method for quality assessment of fish The changes
in tOO appearance of the eyes and the odour developrent of the gills are the
most obvious and valuable indicators of change in quality when using the TFRU
or the EEl freshness scores while the appearance and odour of the fish flesh
seems to be the most obvious indicator when assessing the filleted samples
1he acceptabil ity taste panel results indicate that M nauaeeelandiae stored
in RSW had a shelf-life of 14 days whilst H semifasciata stored in ice had a
shelf-life of 17 days ~ cut-off point at which spoilage of the samples
WDUld have rendered the quality of the fish samples to be unacceptable fran
the consumer point of view would be those equivalent to the accumulated
demerit point of gt29 for the TFRU (gutted and ungutted) scores and gt21 for the
EEC ard filleted sample scores
2
1 00 rsrromcrros
110 QUality and QUality Asses~nt of Fish
QJality is difficult to define since it means different things to
different people One general definition is degree of excellence
According to waterman (1982) quality of food is the SLD1 of those attributes
that govern its acceptability to the buyer or consumer and quality assessment
is the estLmation or measurement of one or more quality factors as a means of
determining quality before exercising control
Bremner (1984) defined quality as that attitude of mind that approach
that event that state of being when everything is right hus until a
seafood is eaten its quality can only be surmised indirectly harever
seafoods do possess a set of properties or characteristics that for practical
purposes can be related with quality
In cxmnerce quality limits are set by what the custcrner is prepared to
pay for generally the custcrner will pay more for fish that he considers to be
of higher quality and will continue to buy as long as quality remains
constant The relationship between quality and marketing is therefore
governed by the sophistication of the consuner ( ta Zylva 1974) Sore of the
more important factors that determine quality fran the custcrners point of
view are species ease of preparation appearance odour flavour freshness
size presence or absence of bones and filth absence of specific
microorganisms condition packaging and composition (Oonnell 1972)
Freshness is the most important quality factor to the consumer thus
assessnent of freshness is vital in quality control kcording to Baines et
al (1965) the term freshness is employed to describe the presence or
absence of deterioration Ib many however freshness involves the concept of
newness in which time is an important factor In other words the fish
technologist is not only concerned with quality at the mrnent of examination
3
but of the products potential shelf-life M accurate measure of st~age
1_ time under kn~ conditions would allow hLm to calculate the remaining life of
the product and its potential for processing
Fish quality depends on tenperature time and hygiene Factors such as
spontaneous chemical changes autolysis and microbial attack produce
deteriorations fran the point of catching until final putrefaction
Measurements of sane of these deteriorations have been invoked as indices of
freshness
he measurement of trimethylamine (lMA) other spoilage cxrrpounds and the
bacteria themselves as indicators of quality has been reviewed recently by
Martin et al (1978) hey stated that in order to define effective indicators
of seafocxi quality the food technologist must be prepared to examine each
species of seafood individually its environment its composition its
harvesting and its handling
A lUIllber of different tests may be used for estimating the degree of
spoilage in fish these include total volatile bases (TVa) total volatile
reducing substances volatile armonia volatile acids total volatilo
nitrogen indole refractive index of the eye fluid electrical resistance of
the fish flesh total bacterial numbers and organoleptic tests hese methods
are discussed under the headings chemical methods physical methods
microbiological methods and sensory methods bel~
120 Chemical Methods
Although not universal in acceptance or applicability the trLmethylamine
(TMA) determination has became one of the established procedures for
determining fish quality Its use as an indicator of spoilage in fresh fish
have also been proposed by the Codex AlLmentarius crnmittee on fish and
fishery products (Olley 1977) his is despite the fact that there is ample
4
evidence that the same ClfDUnt of 1MA is accanpanied by different ClfDUnts of
spoilage even within the same species
Several investigators (Spinelli et aI 1984 Jones 1965) have expressed
reservations regardirq the use of IMA as an index of quality for fresh fish
not inq that 1MA values fail to give an adequate Iod icetIon of early autolytic
quality chanqes aOO preferrirq hypoxanthfne detenninations instead MA as
would be expected of a bacterial product is not useful in detenninilg quality
deteriorations which occur durirq frozen storage FIrthenoore the shape of
the fish will markedly influence the arrount of IMA meaaured in ng per 100 g
fish (Bremner et aI 1978) Trimethylamine is roost sensitive as an indicator
of the later stages of spoilage whereas Chemical tests for dimethylamine are
most valuable in the early stages of spoilage
Ryder et al (1984) foond that the bacterial metabol Ic end products (1VB
and MA) were less useful as objective measurements of freshness in Jack
Mackerel (TrochuflUB nooaezelandiae) hey also reported that the pH was not a
gcxxl indicator of early storage changes and lEA values could not be used to
detennine loss of acceptability or eoo of shelf-life Recently it has became
apparent that the sulphur canpounds and mercaptans may be importantH2S
detenninants of fish odour and flavour (~rbert and Shewan 1975)
Measurement of MA IMA or amoonia requires a laboratory am assistant of
matriculation standard who has had sane weeks of practice in the IOOthod
Neither the Codex Alimentarius CoITInittee or the EEl (Ccmoon Market) lay down
samplilg procedures
Another quality assessment lOOasurement involves the nucleotides aoo their
degradation products Early studies with cod carp Pacific Salmgtn Lemon
sole haddock and plaice revealed that post-mortem nucleotide degradation in
fish muscle proceeds prbnarily via the followirq sequence of reactions ATP -)
AMP -) IMP -) IID -) Hx -) Xa -) UA where KrP = Jldenosine 5-triphosphate AMP
5
= Jldenosine 5-IOCgtoophosphate IMP = Inosine 5-IOCgtoophosphate lID = Inosine j
Hx = Hypoxanthine xa = Xpnthine am UA = Uric acid loo ~tages in this
degradative sequence have been considered as objective indices of quality shy
dephosphorylation of IMP am formation of hypoxanthine IMP reportedly
possesses properties as a flavour enhancer in fish mrscle COnsequently its
breakdawn may contribute to and be correlated with the loss of fresh flavour
in sane species SCme difficulties however may arise fran using IMP
dephosphorylatioo as a s inqle quality index eg the pattern of nucleotide
breakdown in invertebrate seafood species may differ in same key respects fran
that fourrl in vertebrate species he rate of IMP decanposition in the muscle
also differs between species (Ehira 1976) Accordi~ to Martin et al (1978)
the rrost serious limitation imposed by an IMP index may be that the reaction
is substantially complete well within the edible storage life of a number of
species Its major value then may be as an indicator of fresh flavour loss
during early storage
Unlike IMP concentrations of hypoxanthine (Hx) have been shown to
increase steadily throughout the useful storage life of a number of fish
species (Hughes and Jones 1966) Hypoxanthine formation is a result of both
autolytic am bacterial activities hus it also has advantages over the 1MA
assay Hx may be correlated with flavour loss caused by autolytic activities
durirg early storage am with bacterial spoilage during extended storage to
derive a prediction of useful storage life Also the IMA test is of no value
for freshwater fish because these either do not contain or contain very little
trimethylamine oxide Hx may also be used to determine the quali ty of canned
herrirg at the tirre of processing since hypoxanthine concentrations neither
increase nor decrease duri~ heat process inq and subsequent storage (Hughes
ard Jones 1966) 1MA concentrations on the other hand are unstable during
heat process inq lbNever different species of fish produce hypoxanthine by
6
different routes and at different speeds Each lustralian species ttOUld have
to be examined in turn am the hypoxanthine test related to sensory grades
tbte that the Canadian redfish and flounder had produced the maximum amgtunt of
hypoxanthine 10llg before they becarre unacceptable while the swordfish had
only produced a fifth of the arount when it became unacceptable to a taste
panel (Olley 1978) The hypoxanthine test requires laboratory facilities and
same equipment but recently the use of sLmple paper strips have been reported
(Jahns et aI 1976)
The main disadvantages of nucleotide assays are that they are apt to vary
even arro~ individuals within a species Sufficient samples need to be used
to reduce this variability
All the chemical roothods discussed above depend on measuring the
concentration of certain chemical substances in the flesh and since the sample
is destroyed in the process they cannot be used to test every fish in a
batch In any case variation between fishes in the sarre batch makes chemical
tests for quality a task requiring a statistician (Olley 1977) All the
methods require the use of a laboratory or fairly elaborate facilities and
also they oo rot apply to all species and products alike
130 Physical Methods
Love (1954) described a roothod which correlates the turbidity of the eye
lenses of fish with storage tiroo of iced fish kept in a roan of fairly
constant air temperature He found that it is possible by examination of 20
or more lenses to assess the storage tiroo with an error of not roore than 1
day M advantage of this roothod is that since only the eyes have to be
raroved in sampling the fish remains saleable as headed dressed fish or as
fillets ~ver1 the roothod had many limitations such as difficulty in
manipulation and matchi~ of the lenses which have to be done in good diffused
7
daylight at least 20 lenses are required for each estllnation which is rather
tedious for routine work and also it is not applicable where fish had not been
kept all the time in ice under the standard conditions eg bulk stowage of
fish with ice on a trawler may result in deviation fran the conditions of box
stolage in an insulated roan
he GR Ibrrymeter is a battery pc7ot1ered hand-held instnunent that rreasures
certain dialectric properties of fish skin which charge wi th the
tiJretemperature history of the fish fbWever readi~s on a large mrnber of
samples have to be taken and averaged bull Although it is a rapid simple
objective and rDn-destructive method of estllnati~ the quality of fresh fish
it has the followilkJ disadvanteqesj large variation in readirg fran fish to
fish readi~ varies with physical damage to fish1 cha~e of readi~ with time
varies with species and also may be insensitive at later stages of spo i Laqe
Curran et al (1981) reported that the GR Ibrrymeter was not particularly
successful with both the purple emperor (L6thoinus l6ntjan) ard the Spanish
mackerel ( Scomberomorue oonmereons since the readirgs obtained do not
correlate very well with the taste panel results
140 Microbiological Methods
he rootine microbiological testirg that is performed under normal
industry operations is normally restricted to enumeration of nonpathogenic
microorganisms hose frost frequently used are the standard plate count and
enumeration of indicator organisms such as the coliform group Beoher-ichia
coli aM Staphylococcus aureus
Food handl i nq practices beyond the pr-imary processors control make
standard aerobic plate count (APe) a difficult quality assessment tool to use
generally he total nunber of bacteria is not the sole determinant of
8
quali ty since certain microbial groups are rrore apt to cause spoilage than
others These groups can be given a selective advantage for growth by the way
the product is processed or stored furthermore the determination of
bacterial counts while they are of value to research requires too much time
before results are known and can also be expensive for routine testing
Representative samples have to be taken for bacterial examination because the
fish or product is destroyed during the test Interpreting the results of
bacterial testing is a task for experts who should be consulted when
necessary bull
Detection and enumeration of indicator bacteria such as the coliform
group E ooli and S auroeu8 were considered for many years to indicate the
potential presence of pathoqenic microorganisms NM this inference has been
questioned and these groups are no longer considered a reliable method for
predicting the presence of such pathogens (Martin et aL1978) bull
According to Olley and Ratkowsky (1973) there is in fact no simple index
of quality and a thorough knowledge of the oamplete temperature history of the
fish is the only true indicator of freshness This is so because at higher
temperatures bacteria divide in half more rapidly Therefore the
relationship between bacterial growth with production of spoilage canpounds
and temperature is not a straight line rut a curve he curve relates rate of
spoilage of these commodities at temperatures between aoe and 25dege to the rate
at which they would spoil at aoe hus at aoe the relative rate is 1 and at
Rate at temperature (tOe)any other temperature the relative rate is Rate at a be
Bremner et at (1978) have coined the term ICE FOID for this relative rate
ie so many times faster than the ccmnodity would spoil on ice and
lCETIME as equivalent storage time on ice = lCEFOID x time in days
The curve has also been converted into tabular form to enable conversion
of the temperature history of the catch into equivalent storage time
on ice under ideal conditions However the concept of relative rate of
9
spoilage with temperature can only apply if fishing oonditions are kept
constant
150 sensory Methods
Currently the best way to detenmine fish freshness still requires the use
of a taste panel (Regenstein and Regenstein 1981) A number of taste panel
techniques for assessing the quality of unfrozen fish species have been
described am are in use in different parts of the world These techniques
vary in cbjective and ccrrplexity but are of three main types Firstly there
are those which categorise the fish on the basis of its acceptability for
eatirq secondly there are those which categorise the fish on the basis of
well-defined characteristics which change duri~ storage Thirdly there are
techniques which include elements of both of these types Techniques of the
first type usually anploy a single gradi~ or hedonic (like-dislike) scale
whilst those of the second type anploy descriptions of various characteristics
(Baines et aI 1969)
The ultimate criterion of fish quality is the flavour and texture of the
cooked fish HcMever taste panel evaluations of cooked fish are timeshy
consiminq and relatively few samples can be tested at anyone time It is
therefore highly desirable to be able to make an assessment of eati~ quality
by exanini~ the raw fish My atterrpt to raise the quality of raw fish as it
reaches the consumer is critically dependent on the development of a
convenient and consistent rrethod of quality assessment based on raw fish
Fortunately eat inq quality of cooked fish can be correlated with the
appearance odour and texture of the whole raw fish Boyd and Wilson (1976)
when evaluat inq the quality of snapper (Chroysophfys aufatus) by a sensory
method found that there is close relationship between the raw attributes of
gill odour and general appearance with those of odour texture am flavour of
10
the cooked fish
The use of ooject ive tests at dockside or even on inspection within the
plant is not considered to be practical in the normal routine of inspection of
fresh ard frozen fish products as almost all of the coject Ive tests require
laboratories am so becare rather rerooved fran the busy fisherman processor
or factory foreman A nuch simpler piece of apparatus is the eye or the N)Se
(olley 1977) Sensory tests are always controversial as they require an
inspector although the canny buyer is in fact applying his senses of smell
am visual acuity in a similar fashion W9 accept the wine faster and wcxgtl
classer so why not the fish grader (Bremner 1984) Therefore a test that
correlated well with freshnessquality and that could operate on the market or
in the factory would be of considerable value to an efficient industry (Baines
et aI 1965)
Howgate (1978) also considered the sensory rrethods to be far better than
non-sensory methods which are not suitable for consumer testing whilst
Connell (1972) states that in general the sensory rrethod of assessing
freshness is the best at present for quality control purposes
As fish spoils its snell taste appearance and feel go through
characteristic am well defined stages that trained experts or experienced
staff can consistently recognise It is convenient to attach a number or
score to each stage so that the assessor can award the appropriate score to
each fish or batch of fish Alternatively the mere recognition of each stage
ard acceptance or rejection of fish on this basis may be all that is
necessary Different species and products spoil in different ways The
numerical system us irq an objective panel developed at the Ibrry IEsearch
Station by Shewan et al (1953) is probably the ultUnate critical evaluation of
fish freshness available at this time It was created for the determination
of storage time of whole Net fish l6Jenstein and Iegenstein (1981) in using
11
this nunerical system reported that the cooked freshness scores are generally
higher (better) than expected at that storage t irre for whole wet fish A
freshness score of 55 on the Ibrry scale seemed the appropriate endpoint for
their definition of shelf-life This would nonnally be reached with ideal
iced-at-sea fish about twelve days from catch sooner for fillets Freshness
scorirq systems are I1C1laquo available fran Ibrry Research station for most UK
ccmnercial species and systems are available for both the raw and cooked
fish HoweveF there is still no standard scorirq system to be used
internationally he countries in the EEC ~or instance use scoring systems
which differ both in scale length am in characteristics measured Most
systems use the same scale length for all features examined but the United
Kingdon am Icelarrl use scales of 10 to 0 for odour and 5 to 0 for other
characteristics ibwgate (1972) describes the effort to construct a rorogram
for oonvert inq fran one scorinq system to another (Appendix 1) de Zylva
(1974) expanded the Ibrry score sheet to include marks for flesh colour and
texture belly flap discoloration stainiBJ of backbone am colour of
kidney he scoring system was designed for ~w Zealand snapper and gave
excellent negative linear correlations between score am days of storage
legenstein (1983) presents the way in which Ibrry has in turn incorporated
other characteristics into the score sheet for raw fish Groupings of several
characteristics to give a score requires more expertise than scoring
individual points as is done by de Zylva
However the use of a point or scoring system in which higher points are
given for high quality attributes would mean the requirements of more
kllC7filedge of the fish and the tester mist be experienced and knCM the
qualities of the fish previously Therefore it is too species dependent
his problem can be overcare by using the demerit system with points being
allotted in several categories for defects as they becare obvious and one can
I
12
learn as one goes along in each situation he demerit points that were given
to the various selected quality attributes could be weighted in such a way as
to produce an approximately linear change in score with storage time (Branch
and Vail 1985)
It might also be desirable OCIlInercially to specify a uniform mrnber of
days of shelf-life fran the pack date to consumption he length of shelfshy
life ctgttained for fish depends on the initial age and quality of the fish the
tirre of the pack am the time am temperature of storage before am after
packing In practical terns the ultimate measure of the effect(s) of shelf-
life extension treatments on the final quality of the fish is consumer
satisfaction (Regenstein aoo Regenstein 1981)
A tentative grading systan for fresh fish based on sensory assessment of
fish had been described by IbUwing (1972)
160 The Ideal Method
Forty years of research ootably in the UK Canada and Japan have gone
into objective methods for measuring fish quality (Bremner et al 1978)
There is as yet 00 single universal test for all species nor for that
matter any wholly satisfactory test for individual species
The ideal rrethod hOlJld be one that is cheap oon-destructive easy to
use oot subject to much variation or fatigue having rapid response and wide
application sensory tests have the advantages of being non-destructive 00
equipnent required adaptable to species and assessing the market value
Althcogh sensory tests are usually condemned as a subjective test which
requires training am experience am are also said to be easily open to
abuse this can be reduced if a simple rapid and less descriptive rrethod
could be fourd - possibly with the use of demerit point scores Therefore
this study aims at assessing the use of sensory techniques based on the
13
demerit point scores developed for raw whole (gutted and ungutted) and
filleted fish samples of Australian fish species stored in ice and RSW It
also discusses the results of the acceptability taste panels on the cooked
fish samples
The two oammercially ~rtant Australian fish species used in this study
were the blue grenadier am the blue rock whiting he blue grenadier is
currently Tasmanias major oammercial finfish and the recent annual production
of the fishery exceeds 100 tonnes (Last et aI 1983)~ he blue rock whiti~
is the only Australian member of the family that has any commercial
importance It occurs mainly in Bass strait and the sheltered bays of South
eastern Tasmania The flesh is delicately flavoured but very soft
200 MATERIALS lIND MEIHgt[s
210 Sample preparation
211 Fish stored in RSW
Blue grenadier used in this study were caught on the 15th lugust 1984 at
a depth of 300 fathans off Sandy Cape on the west coast of Tasmania (Lat
41deg20S IDrq144deg40 E) by demersal trawl They were taken fran the deck
irnnediately am dropped into a refrigerated seawater (RSW) tank in a net bag
(tanp -1degC) The fish was reported to be handled quite roughly on board
Sore of the fish had already gone into rigor at this stage he fish were
transported to the CnID lasrnanian Food lesearch Uni t (TFRJ) laboratories in
Hobart and were already to days old on arrival The f ish were then placed in
the RSW box tank of the rrobile unit (the design and construction of which were
described by Thrower and Stafford 1981) and was kept at -1degC for the duration
of the storage trial which lasted for about three weeks Four fish were
rerroved at each samplirq tine (Table 1) for sensory assessment Length
14
measurements to the fork of the tail were also noted ~e fish were then
filleted and samples frozen at -lBoe for later assessment of their
acceptability by taste panel
212 Fish stored in ice
For the sensory assessment of fish stored in ice guidelines similar to
those given by Lima dos Santos et al (981) were used ~e blue rock whiting
also known as the weedy whiting was used ~e whiting were caught on the
afternoon of 23rd August 1984 by demersal trawl in 18 to 25 m waters oft
Eastern Tasmania On arrival at the TFRJ laboratories in I-bbart at 11 45 am
on the fol Lowirq day the f ish were re- iced at a ratio of 21 (ice f ish) in
insulated plastic boxes of size 66 x 41 x 28 em with provision for drainage
of melt water Flake ice was used ~e ice was topped up daily and renewed
once a week The boxes of i ced f ish were then kept in a cool roan set at a
temperature of 0deg to -1dege ~ree fish were removed for sensory assessment at
each sampling time (Table 1) over a period of rmre than three weeks of ice
storage 100 fish samples were then frozen at -18dege until needed for the
acceptability taste panel
Table 1
sampling regirre for fish stored in R3Wice
Blue Grenadier Diys in R3W 3 4 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 17 21
Sample code N D G L S R K T U P M 0
Whiting Diys in ice 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Sample code 0 M D G T S N R P U L K
15
220 Sensory assessment of the whole (gutted and ungutted) raw fish samples
Both the blue grenadier stored in lOW and the whi t i nq stored in ice were
progressively assessed by using the sense organs of sight smell and touch tor
changes in general appearance odour and texture with storage tine by giving
the appropriate demeri t scores according to the score sheets as shown in
Tables 2 and 3 IVo types of score sheets were used Table 2 shows the
sensory assessment score sheet orig inally developed for the assessment of
gemfish (Thrower et al 1982) It has been simplified and weighted (Branch
and Vail 1985) to provide accumulated increases in demerit points as the t i sn
change in odour texture and appearance during storage with the max imum
accumulated demerit point scores of 35 for the urx]utted samples and 39 tor tte
gutted samples The total scor irq for gutted fish differs fran that descr ibeo
by Bremner (1984) and Branch and Vail (1985) in that the demerit points for
the belly cavity have been added to those for the whole fish
The whole and gutted raw fish were also assessed by using the freshness
score sheet developed by the Council of the European COl1nunities (Official
Journal of the European Qmnunities 1970) but with slight rrodification marie
in its scor irq method in that the scor irq was reversed to provide accumulateri
increases in demerit points as in the TFRJ score sheet (Table 2) with a
maximun accumulated demerit score of 30 (Table 3) The samples were scored by
H Abd R who had had no previous experience with the score sheet
230 Sensory Assessment of the frozen filleted raw fish samples
Samples of the whole and gutted fish of both species were then filleted
ard frozen at -18degC until required for the organoleptic acceptability test
panel fillets were thawed by holding for about 16 hours (overnight) in still
air at 4degC The thawed fillets of both the blue grenadier and whi t i nq were
then assessed by the sense organs of sight smell and touch by using the scor-e
sheet for filleted sample as shown in Table 4 nle score sheet was developed
16
able 1
FIlt U Snorr bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullnt oore hbullbull t ( ( 1Ii~ ANI) tlNtJuTreo)
1_middotAnlJ lmiddot
rlSB IDDII
UIUIl~ (VBci9ht~i9ht8lDullDUll
o 1 2 3
SitU ( rimSoft) o 1
SCALBS (r1mSlLoomiddotmiddotLoobullbull ) o 12
r r SLIMB (AbbullbullntSlSlimiddotysliyVSliy)
o 123
S1IrnraS (pr-Ri90rRi90rPot-Ri90r) o 1 2
BYBS Clarity (ClbullbullrISlCloudyCloudy) 012
Shape (HoralslsunknSunkn) 012
Irill (ViiblHot Viibl) IJ 1
Blood (No BloodSlBloodyVBloody) o 1 2
GILLS Colour (VDark)Charaotritio (SlDark) (vradd)(Slradd)
2o 1 Kucou (AbbullbullntKoderatmiddotBxcbullbullbulliv)
o 1 2 S bullbullll (rrbullbullh 01ly) Pihy8talpoll~
(MetalliaSaved) 1 2 3
BELLI Dicoloration (AbbullbullntDetatablmiddotModratmiddotBxobullbullbulliy) 012 3
Finanbullbullbull ( rira80ftBurt) o 1 2
VENT Condition (bobullbulldy)Noraal (SlBrbullbullk) (Opening)(Bxudbullbull )
2o 1 Sbullbulln (rrbullbullhReutralrihy8poilt)
o 2 3
BELLI CAVIn Stain (OpalbullbullontGryihlmiddotllow-Brown) o 1 2
Blood (RdDark RdBrown)
o 1 z
--
17
UJE 3
Etc SENSORY A$fE4St4fN[ ~(oIlL~
SCALE OF MARKING - FRESHNESS
CRITERIA shypoundu1LRt
Abullbullbullbullbullment Mara-bull thc r1ah 0 1 2- 3tszhL
AppearanceinIIMlISJ Skin
Eye
Gill
Flbullbullshycut f ssm abdomusn
Colour the~
vertebral column
Organs
Oright iridescent I bright pigmenta- pigmentation in (1) dull pigmenta tion no i tion but not the process of pigmentation discolouration Ius trous becoming dis-
mucus opaquemucus aqueous i coloured and dull
mucus slightlytransparen t
cloudy ~UCU9 milky
convex (bulging) convex and flat (1) concave in cornea tran- slightly sunken cornea the centre parent cornea Ughtly opalescent cornea milky pupil black opalescent pupil pupil grey bright
pupil black opaque dull
-shining colour less coloured becoming dis- (1) yellmiish no mucus a few traces of coloured mucus milky
cloar mucus mucus opaque
blueish trans- dull velvety slightly opaque (1) opaque lucid smooth waxy shining without any change in the colour sUgh tly original colour changed
(I) reduncoloured sl1 gh tly pink pink
kidneys and kidneys and kidneys (1) kidneys residues of resJdues of resicJuos of r bullbullidue of other other organs other organs other organs organs and blood bright red the dull red blood and blood brownish game as the becoming palo red blood inside discolbured the aorta
(1) or in a more advanced bull ta te of decay
I
bull
Flesh
Vertebtal Column
Peritonium
Gills kin abdominal cavity
18
(eontd)
SCALE OF MARKING - FRESHNESS
CRITERIA
Assessment Mark 0 1 2
Physical eOId ton
firm and elas tic surface smooth
breaks ins tead of coming away
totally adherent to the flesh
seaweed
less elastic
adherent
adherent
Smell bull
not of seaweed but not bad
slightly soft (flaccid) Ie elastic surfacente waxy velvety and dull
slightly adherent
slightly adherent
slightly sour
3
(1) soft (flaccid) scales ebullbullil y detached from skin sur face ra ther wrinkled inclining to mealy
(1) not dherent
1( ) not adherent
(1) sour
(1) or in a more advanced stat of decay
_ shy-- -
19
Table 4
Filleted Sample Score Sheet
r
TREATMENT F ILIEIS DATE REMOJAL (THAWED)
FISH IDENr
EASE OF FILLETING (Easysl difficultdifficult)
012
APPEARANCE (a) Oolour of flesh (TranslucentSl discolouredSl opaqueopaque)
o 1 2 3
(b) Blood stains (AbsentDetectableModerateExcessive)
012 3
(c) Clotting (UnclottedSlclottedModclottedExcessclotted)
012 3
(d) Skin Oolour (VbrightBrightSldullOU11)
o 1 2 3
TEXTURE FirmS1 softSoft
o 1 2
ClDClJR (FreshNeutralStaleSpoilt)
012 3
CONJITION (a) Gaping (AbsentDetectableModerateExcessive)
o 1 2 3
(b) Bruising (AbsentSlightSevere)
012
(c) Wetness (NmnalS1 dry orMod dry orExcess dryness or
SldripModdrip Freezer bJrn or Excessdrip
012 3
(d) Autolysis (Absentmoderatesevere) (Disco1ourations) 0 1 2
(e) Parasites (Absentmoderatesevere) ( Infestations) 0 1 2
(f) Other discolourations (Absentpresent) or contaminants (bones membranes tissues etc) 0 1
EASE OF SKINNING (EasySldifficultdifficult)
012
20
by the author after a literature search and observations made during the preshy
liminary part of the study It has a maxUnum accumulated demerit score of 34
240 ~anoleptic Acceptability Panel of the cooked fish
Filleted samples of both fish species which had been frozen in a cold
roan at -18dege and then thawed as above were used for the acceptability taste
panels The fillets were skinned am cut into 30 to 40 g pieces crumbed and
deep fried (Bremner et ale 1985) Three or four treatments were cooked
simultaneously at each session am the fish served with packets of take-away
french fries Tcrnato sauce vinegar and salt were available Each of the
samples were randanised in such a way so as to give a high degree of balance
(Table 5 and 6) Letters that represent the samples were also picked
randanly The fish was assessed by 20 panellists employed at the Tasmanian
lEgional Laboratory and experienced with facial hedonic scaling for flavour
texture am overall acceptability using the General Foods Smiley scale
(Appendix 2) Salt was rot rrentioned with the 9niley questionaire for blue
grenadier so that the panel should have ro preconceiVed prejudices
250 Statistics
tata fran the sensory assessment of the whole gutted and ungutted raw
fish (both TFRJ am EEl score sheets) am fran the sensory assessrrent of the
frozen filleted raw fish samples of both the blue grenadier stored in RSW am
whiting stored in ice were analysed for correlation using the ELF scatter
module (Appendix 3 and 4)
The acceptability taste panel assessment scores for flavour texture and
overall liking of the toKgt species of fish were subjected to analysis of
variance using the Genstat package (Appendix 5 and 6)
22
Table 6
Order of presentation of cooked whiting samples to the acceptability taste panelists
Order of presentation of samples Panelist
session I session II
1 OTP rm 2 MUS KR 3 sm INL
4 IKJ GKR
5 ror NK
6shy USM UN ~
7 OOP RLD
B HUT NKD
9 USO RiL
10 SMP LGN
11 IMT GIltN
12 nxgt KRD
Note
8angtle code OM 0 G T S N R P U L K
storage time in ice (days) 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
23
300 RESULIS
310 Physical Characteristic of M novaeaelandiae
rran the forty-six fish examined the mean fork lerqth was found to be
762 an (range 609 to 838 an) A few of the fish examined had well shy
developed roes and their digestive tracts were found to be relatively empty
320 Physical Characteristics of the H ssmifasoiata
rran a total of thirty-six fish examined the rrean weight of the fish was
fourrl to be 662 g (range 27 to 186 g) am the mean fork length was 183 em
(range 156 to 265 an)
330 sensory assessment of the raw blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
he results of the sensory assessrrent of the r2M blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW by the four rrerhods of scoring are given as average total
accumulated demerit point scores as shown in Table 7 Figure 1 shoes the
graph of demerit point versus days in RSW by the four rrethods of sensory
assessment used Table 9 shltJtS the correlation analysis
340 sensory assessment of the raw whitirq samples stored in ice
he results of the sensory assessment of the r2M whitirq samples stored
in ice by the four methods of scoring are given as average total accumuLated
demerit point scores as shown in Table 8 Figure 2 shltJtS the graph of demerit
point versus days in ice of the four nethods of sensory assessment used Table
9 shltJtS the correlation analysis
350 Attributes contributing to total score
Attributes that contribute to total score usirq the TFRJ scores (ungutted
and gutted) EEC scores and the filleted sample scores are as shewn in Tables
10 - 14
24
Table 7
Total demerit points fran sensory assessment of blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
Average lbta1 Demerit Rgtint SCores
[)lye in RW TFRJ scores TFRJ scores EEl scores Filleted Sample (urvJut t ed ) (gutted) (gutted) SCores
3 3 3 1 1
4 5 5 2 3
6 10 10 6 6
8 16 18 9 8
9 19 21 11 10
10 20 22 13 12
11shy 22 24 15 14
12 23 25 18 17
13 24 26 19 18
14 25 27 19 19
17 29 31 21 23
21 33 35 25 29
Note
Maximum possible scores for (1) IlRJ scores (ungutted is 35
( 11) IlRJ scores (gutted) is 29
( 11i) EEX scores (gutted) is 30
( iv) Filleted sample scores is 32
amptV
35j
3l~
en Ishy 25Z-0 Q
3)-~
bullbullbull 0
bull 0 0bull 0
bull 0 0 6shy abull A ~
~
bull 0
~
6shy
bull 0
6shy
I) 01
-W 0i A15W ~ Q A
~
6shy~101- bull 90 TFRU SCORES (ungutted)
6shy~ bullbull TFRU SCORES (gutt~d i
bull ~
4 6- 6- EEC SCORES 5~
~ ~ FILLETED SAMPLE SCORES ~
6 4 I J I I I
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
DAYS IN RSW
Figl Demerit Points Versus Days in RSW For Blue Grenadier Samples
Fig 2 Demerit Points Versus Days in ice For Whiting Samples I
27
Table 8
TOtal demerit points from sensory assessment of whi tirq samples stored in ice
Average TOtal Demerit Foint SCores
rays in ice TFRJ scores TFRJ scores EEC scores Fi 11eted sample (urqutted) (gutted) (gutted) (gutted)
1 1 1 0 0 3 2 2 1 1
5 4 4 2 3
7 7 9 3 4
9 13 15 6 9
n 15 17 7 13
13 19 21 11 15
15 24 27 15 16
17 29 32 19 18
19 31 35 22 21
21 32 36 24 24
23 33 37 26 26
Note
MaXllnum possible scores for (i) TFRJ scores (urqutted) is 35 ( ii) TFRJ scores (gutted) is 39 ( iii) EEC scores (gutted) is 30 ( iv) Filleted sample scores is 32
28
Table 9
Relationship between tLme and demerit points for fish stored in RSW
Method of Visual Assessment
y- intercept slope correlation
M novaBMBlandias
TFRJ (urqutted ~les) 032 175 097
TFRJ (gutted samples) 032 190 096
EEl -231 146 097
Filleted samplesbull
-357 158 099
H sBmifasoiata
TFRJ (urqutted samples) -245 167 099
TFRJ (gutted samples) -273 187 099
EOC -414 129 098
Filleted samples -244 125 099
ltshy
--------------- ------------------------------------------
------------- - ------------- -------- ------
Table 10
Attributes contributing to total score using TFRO scores (gutted and ungutted)
Attributes involved in score change Score
Blue grenadier in RSW Whiting in ice
Stiffness Eyes - clarity blood Slllne Stiffness Eyes - clarity shape and blood lt10 Gills - smell Vent - smell SlBne Gills - colour smell and mucous
Vent - smell Belly cavity - stains and blood
Appearance Eyes-shape Stiffness Gills - smell colour and mucous Skin
Stiffness appearance gill-smell Scales belly-discolouration and firmness
N so
gt10lt20 SCales belly - discolouration and firmness Vent - smell Vent - smell and condition Belly cavity - stains and blood
Appearance Slllne Eyes - clarity shape Appearance SlBne Scales Skin blood and iris Gills - colour Eyes - clarity and shape
gt20lt30 Belly - discolouration Gills - mucous smell am colour Vent - condi tion and smell Belly cavity shy blood
Appearance Gills - mucous and smell SlBne Eyes - iris am blood Belly - discolouration and firmness Belly - discolouration and firmness
gt30 Vent - condition and smell Vent - condition Belly cavity - blood Belly cavity - stains
Table 11
Attributes contribut irq to total score us irq EEC scores
Attributes involved in score change
Score Blue grenadier in RSW W1iting in ice
lt7 Appearance - skin eyes gills organs Physical condition - flesh Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and organs Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skins eyes gills flesh Appearance-eyes and organs atv
vertebral column and organs Physical condition-flesh and peritoneum gt7lt14 Physical condition - flesh Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-eyes flesh and vertebral Appearance-skin gills and organs column Physical condition-flesh vertebral column
gt14lt21 Physical condition-vertebal column and and peritoneum peritoneum Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and vertebral column vertebral column
gt21 Physical condition-flesh and peritoneum Physical cOndition-flesh vertebral column Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity and peri toneum bull
Table 12
Attributes contributing to total score using filleted sample scores
Score
lt5
Attributes involved in score change
Blue grenadier in RSW
Appearance - blood stains skin colour ltXIour - flesh
M1iting in ice
----- shy -------------- shy
Appearance - skin colour odour - flesh Cbndition - gaping wetness
Appearance - colour of flesh Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Texture - flesh skin colour ltgt gt5lt10 Cbndition - gaping bruising wetness Ease of filleting
Texture - flesh
Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Appearance - colour of flesh clotting skin clotting skin colour skin colour
gt10lt20 odour - flesh odour - flesh Cbndition - gaping wetness autolysis COndition - gaping bruising wetness other discolourations autolysis and other discolouration Ease of skinning
Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains skin colour clotting
gt20 Texture - flesh Texture - flesh odour - flesh Odour shy flesh COndition - gaping bruising wetness Cbndition - wetness autolysis autolysis Ease of skinring
32
Table 13
Diff~rent emphasis in scoring systems for whole fish as between the EEl and TFID
Attribute Number of potential demerit points TFRJ EEl
1Ippearance (general) 3 0
skin ) scales 6 3
slime
Stiffness (Rigor) 2 0
Eyes 7 3
Gills 7 6
Belly 5 0
Vent 5 0
Belly cavity 4 3
Flesh cut fram abdomen 0 3
Flesh texture 0 3
Vertebral column 0 6
Internal organs 0 3
33
360 Relative merits of the scoring systems
The four scor irq methcds were used on the same samples of t ish Any
sample had therefore deteriorated to the same extent on anyone day Figs 3
am 4 shew the scores converted to percentages of possible deroorit point
scores The discrepancy in the accumulation of demerit points between the EEC
am TFRJ scor irq methods is clearly shown IEference to Table 2 3 am 13
shOool that this is caused by the lack of questions regarding rigor looseness
of scales condition of belly am vent am the qroupinq of colour am mucous
in the gills as single po i nts thus halving the potent Ia I gill demerit point
score canparison of the tO species in Table 9 ShONS that the rate of
accumulation of demerit pgtints was more consistent for the TFRU system than by
the EEX scor i oq methltXl or by scorinq of fillets
370 Time taken to score the fish
The average time taken to score an individual fish using the TFPlJ
(unqutted) scores TFRJ (gutted) scores EEX scores am the filleted aamp Le
scores were found to be 1 min 25 sec 1 min 55 sec 3 min 45 sec and 1 min 50
sec respectively The EEX score sheet is more t iroe consumioq in that more than
one question is asked about an attribute for the giving of only one demerit
point this requires conscious thought
380 Acceptability taste panel results of blue grenadier samples bull Figures 5 6 am 7 shOool the mean taste panel scores in graphic form for
flavour texture and overall acceptability of cooked blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW table 14 shows the results of the statistical analysis
390 Acceptability taste panel results of whiting samples
Figures 8 9 am 10 shOool the mean taste panel scores in graphic form for
flavour texture and overall acceptability of cooked whiting samples stored in
ice table 15 shows the results of the statistical analysis
WHITING STORED IN ICE o TFRU SCORES (ungutted)
bull TFRU SCORES (gutted)
b EEC SCORES
FILLETED SAMPLE SCORES
100bull e ~ e b
i 6
bull NW
oIJ-a A A-
(J0 t A~ 0 ~ AC)
C) -e ~~-
C) a 50 A
A w
Iz ~
~ - W e A0 c a ~ ~ A-a ~ l ~ A
w -~
~ X ~ W -e I c ~ ~ ibull I I I I
4 8 12 16 20 24
DAYS IN ICE FIG4
36
- flavourshy
-e s-e l ~ v
5middotIU
STORAGrf IN R sWDAYS
rlCoS Ttutfc pcr1 rcbull
rf oj bl jtlJ~r - jlqVGurc acccr~b
21179 0 2 136 843
~ 0 u 5middot0YI
oJ J l ofmiddot$ 1 e
tu 4middot0
VI
~ 3middot5
3middot0
TelC-lue X bull -e III
~ Gmiddotftv
ct 5middot03
V1
-J -f-SshyU 2
~ 40 t
3-~
~ bullbull0 5 0
~ 17 21A ISII
PAY- IITDRAGamp fbilW
FIG6 I Tq1-c pltnd rc-utl ojbllfcJrcftaJIr bull I~M144 Q Cc(r~blfly
r 411q~~ An~Plf bUIJlfM F llh J~Lld Pt-DoL B fpound)1
gt1 NI ~~eusr SJAVlt1
D ~II
(ffIt1~JP IIID bull U J 1i
-IyoJC )-tlICf p --lInraquoJ Ix-Pc ~1rb1 r I ef
Ma2j NI a~v2loJ$
til
1Ia ~AO (IIp~lJa~e
01
secto
00
s
05
5
o~
~
0pound
s
0
smiddot
o~
07
1 ~ ~ ~ ~
r~
B
~
rv t gtshy 2
~ ~ 11
~ 7shyIn r
~ () 0 1) m ~
~ gtshyz -
(fII~q~~ 7~ P
IItJ1o -~~f(ll p ~I I~U J ~t~L 0 ~ middot~II I
IDI 8~ middot lta ~
~ QS
middotS ~ ~ 0 z
r Smiddot II
S 1d 0-$ 111 r- l gtshy r
V fr~
~llCf-J a-PcJ~ U~middotJO
4lp~dmiddotyIb 6middot~1f np)t -~11M fo --IIhen IJutJel ~bl
Table 14
Acceptability of deep fried blue grenadier samples stored in FSW
rays in R3W
Acceptability 3 4 6 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 17 21
Flavour 50a 50a 4S a 51a 50a 51a 50a 4Sa 49a 53a 41b 35b
Texture 49bc 51abc 4S bed 52ab 4Sbed 53ab 52abc 52ab 4Sbed 55a 46cd 43d
OJerall 50ab 51ab 47be 52ab 4Sb 5lab 52ab 50ab 47b 54 a 41c 35d
abc
d
significantly different (pltOOOl)
significantly different (pltOOl) W so
Table 15
Acceptability of deep fried whiting samples stored in ice
rays in ice
Acceptability 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Flavour 5Sab 59a 59a 60a 59a 5S ab 51b 54ab 53ab 37c 37c 31c
Texture 59ab 59a 53bed 5S ab 63a 59ab 47cde 54be 56ab 55ab 44e 46de
OJera11 57ab 5S ab 59ab 60a 60a 5Sab 52b 53ab 55ab 42c 36cd 31d
abcde significantly different (Plt0001)
40
~oo DISCUSSION
410 Sensory assessment of the raw blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
he results of sensory assessment on the raw blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW by the four methods of scoring all sheM that there is
progressive increment in total demerit points with storage time for all the
four methods (Table 7) It was also fourxi that the accumulation of demerit
points with time of storage of the fish in ffiW occurred in a saui-linear
fashion for all -the four scoring methods used (Figure 1) he variables (time
of storage and demeritmiddot points score) were all highly correlated (Table 9)
he correlation equation of the TFRJ (ungutted samples) and TFRJ (gutted
sanples) scores were similar roth having a zero time intercept of 032 but
with the TFRJ (gutted samples) scores having a slightly greater slope by 015
he EEC scores and the filleted sample scores roth have lower slopes ie
146 and 158 respectively canpared with the TFRJ (ungutted sample) and TFRJ
(gutted sample) scores of 175 and 190 respectively lbwever the EOC scores
which have the lowest slope have a fairly similar correlation equation with
the filleted sample scores (Table 9) he negative intercepts reflected the
slightly more sigrroid relationship for these samples his suggests that the
TFRJ (gutted) scoring method is the rrost sensitive of the four methods
followed by the TFRJ (ungutted) the filleted sample and the EEC scores
It was also found that after 21 days of storage in RSW the blue
grenadier samples had not reached their maximun possible scores in any of the
four scoring rrethods used (Table 7) he TFRJ (ungutted sample) score only
reached 943 of its possible maximun value whereas the TFRJ (gutted sample)
scores EEC scores and the filleted sample score reached only 897 833 ar~
906 of their possible maximun score his means that all the four methods
of scoring can still be sensitive to changes in the quality of the blue
grenadier samples stored in RSW after 21 days of storage time
41
Figures 1 and 3 also shOVt that the pattern of the graphs of demerit
points against days storage in R3W of the four methcxis of scoring is similar
ie a tendency to be slightly sigmoid fbwever the filleted sanple scores
sean to be rrore sensitive than the EOC scores at the later part of the storage
time ie after 14 days of storage and the scores continued to rise
1be rrost obvious indicator of change for the blue grenadier stored in ffiW
using the TFRJ scores (both gutted and unJUtted sanples) was the eyes (clarity
and blood) followed by odour developnent of the gills (Table 10) his is -
also foond to be true wi th the EOC freshness score (Table 11) Fbr the
filleted sample scores the appearance and odoor of the flesh seems to be the
most obvious indicator of change follOVted by the condition of the fillets such
as gaping bruisin) am wetness (Table 12)
4 20 sensory assessment of the raw whi ting samples stored in ice
1he results of sensory assessment on the rCJl whiting samples stored in
ice by the foor roothods of scoring also shows that there is a progressive
increment in total demerit points with storage time for all the four methods
of scoring (Table 8) Ps with the blue grenadier the aCCLD1UJlation of demerit
points with time of storage of the whiting in ice also occurred in a sernishy
linear fashion for all the foor scoring methods used (Figure 2 and 4) wi th a
slight lag in the initial phase Interestingly this was not observed in the
case of blue grenadier sanples stored in ffiW probably because the first
samplin) of the blue grenadier starts only fran the third day after catch
whereas the first sampling of the whiting starts fran the first day after
catch Also the blue grenadier was handled qu i te roughly on the deck in fact
three oot of the four fish samples on the first rerroval ie the third day
after catching had already showed blood in their eyes
Bremner et al (1985) when using the TFRJ score sheet to assess the
42
quality of four tropical fish species fran the oorth west shelf of hJstralia
(stored in ice) also fourrl that the accumulation of demerit points with time
of storage in ice occurred in a linear fashion
PB wi th blue grenadier the variables (tine of storage ard darneri t points
score) were all highly correlated (Table 9) Also the correlation equation of
the TFRJ (ungutted) ard TFRJ (gutted) scores were similar with the TFJU
(gutted) score having a slightly greater slope by 020 Crable 9) he EEC
scores am filleted sample scores also have lower s lopes l e 129 ard 125
respectively ocmpared to the TFm (ungutted) and (gutted) scores of 167 and
187 respectively However unlike the blue grenadier the filleted samples
of the whi t ing had the 10liest slope he more sensi tive na ture of the EEC
scores as canpared to the filleted sample scores in the case of the whiting
especially after 12 days storage in ice can be explained by the snaller size
of the whitirlJ (fork length ranging fran 156 to 265 an) as canpared to the
size of the blue grenadier (fork length ranging 809 to 838 an) the snaller
fish terrl to spoil faster especially the interior parts of the fish PB the
EEC scores depend nuch on the sensory assessment of the interior parts of the
fish such as the appearance and condition of the flesh vertebral colwnn
interior organs per i toneun and abdaninal cavity (Table 3) which makes up more
than 18 demerit points out of the total possible maxinun of 30 the
sensitiveness of its score is thus self-explanatory in the case of whiting
Connell (1980) explained that large fish keep marginally better than small
fish because larger fish have a smaller surface to volume ratio so that in the
same tUne less of their interior is affected
The above results confirmed the previous suggestion that the TFRU
(gutted) scorIoq methcrl is the roost sensitive of the four methods It was
found that after 23 days of storage in ice the whiting scmples had not
reached the maximun possible scores in any of the four methods used (Table
43
8) The 1FIU (UBJutted) scores had reached only 94-3 of its possible maximum
value whereas the TFRJ (gutted) scores EOC scores am the filleted sample
scores reached only 94 9 867 and 81 3 of their poea Ible maximum score
Therefore all the four methods of scoriBJ can still be sensitive to changes
in quality of the whiting samples stored in ice after 23 days of storage tUne
Ihe roost obvious irxHcator of chaDJe for the whiting stored in ice using
the TFIU score sheet was the eyes (clarity shape and blcxxl) followed by the
develqxnent of -colour odour and nucous of the gills (fable 10) Bremner et
al (1985) when working with four tropical species f~ the north west shelf of
Australia also found that the most obvious indicator of change for fish stored
in ice was the eyes (their clarity am shape) follCAtled by odour developnent
and colour changes in the gills This was also found in the case of blue
grenadier in ~ discussed earlier OJrran et al (1981) when investigating
the quality changes duriBJ iced storage of three carmercially important
species of fish fran Bahrein also found that of the visual and olfactory
assessments gill odour showed the roost pranise as a quality control index
Pgain this is also found to be true with the EOC freshness score of both the
blue grenadier and the whitiBJ (Table 11) AccordiBJ to ~ate (1972) it
was generally agreed that odour of the gills is the most sensitive measure of
freshness but the visual appearance of the eyes gills arxi skin was quicker to
use in practice on the market
For the filleted sample scores of the whiting the most obvious indicator
of chanqe was the appearance and odour of the flesh (Table 12) This too
agreed with the findiBJs for blue grenadier stored in ffiW
AccordiBJ to Baines et al (1969) with fish eatiBJ is related to four
main attributes or quality factors viz appearance odour and texture of the
rCM and cooked fish and in the latter also flavour he ultimate purpose of
testing the raw fish is to estimate the eating quality which is here taken to
44
mean the degree of freshness of flavour Acoording to Baines and Shewan
(1965) the mostreliable test for predicting flavour sqore is raw odour
430 The ease aM difficulties of using the four methods of scoring
It was found that the TFRJ (ungutted) scores was the easiest and quickest
method to use as it takes on average only about 1 min 25 sec to score a fish
canpared to 1 min 55 sec 3 min 45 sec ard 1 min 50 sec for the TFRJ
(gutted) EOC and the filleted sample scores he E~ score was found to be
the roost tedious besides taking the longest time to soore a fish
he TFIU (ungutted) scores also have the advantage of not requiring a
knife in order to score ard also were less IOOSSY to work with canpared to all
the other nethods Also the attributes to be assessed were arranged and
organised in such a way in the score sheet that it is easy to score a fish
starting from assessing the apparance and skin and ending with the condition
and smell of the vent
440 Acceptability taste panel results of the blue grenadier samples
441 Flavour acceptability
Figure 5 shc7ws the flavour acceptability of the deep fried samples of
blue grenadier Samples stored in R3W for less than 17 days were found
statistically (Table 14) to be indistinguishable (Plt0001) fran each other
then there was a significant fall in the flavour acceptability of the samples
stored in RSW for 17 days onwards he sarrtgtle stored for 21 days had a still
lower mean value of 35 but it was not significantly different fran the
semple stored for 17 days which had a nean value of 41 It is interesting to
note that despite the progressive increase in sodiun uptake of the blue
grenadier samples stored in RSW from about 7115 35 mg sodium(lOO g tissue
initially to 724 33 mglOO g tissue on the 16th day aM to 729 17 mglOO g
45
tissue on the 21st day (Burford 1984) the panelists seem not to be
negatively affected by the increasing salt content of the samples with storage
tUne and in fact some of the panelists added more salt to their samples I
111is result contradicts statements made by previous reseachers that the
storage life using R3W may be limited by increases in salt content in the fish
flesh (Boyd et aI 1978) he maximun desirable salt content according to
Tcm1inson et al (1974) as quoted by Boyd et al (1978) is about 05 but at
the 16th day ofmiddot RgtW storage the salt content fOllNj In the flesh of blue
grenadier samples was already more than 07 fbwever the panelist only ate
40g pieces it might have been a different case if the fish has been as a
whole meal
442 Texture acceptability
Figure 6 shows the texture acceptability of the deep fried blue grenadier
samples stored in R3W eespf te sane apparent abberant values (such as the
high rrean of 55 for the sample stored for 14 days in RSW) it is obvious that
the texture acceptability showed a significant decreasing trend (pltOOl) from
seventeen days of storage onwards The abberant texture values are possibly
due to the fact that the fish texture might have been masked by the bread
crunbs used to coat the fish samples before deep fryi~ This agrees with the
observations of Bremner et al (1985) wtxgt found that the inherent textural
softness of P piotiue and the tougheni~ on storage of N peroni i detected by
a profile panel usilYJ steamed fillets were no lo~er noticeable when the fish
was deep fried in batter Bremner (1980) also reported that despi te the
softness of the raw flesh the cooked flesh of blue grenadier is reasonably
firm
46
433 OVerall acceptability
The overall acceptability of the deep fried blue grenadier samples stored
in R)W (figure 7) seems to follCM a similar pattern to its flavour
acceptability (figure 5)~ in which a significant fall in overall acceptability
was only observed fran the samples held fran 17 days in RSW onwards (pltO 001)
as shawn in Tablel4
rnus all the above results showed that there was a significant fall in
flavour texture and overall acceptability of blue ~renadier from 17 days of
R)W storage onwards which was found to be equivalent to the accumulated
demerit point scores of 29 of the TFRJ (ungutted) scoresr 31 of the TFRl
(gutted) scoresr 21 of the EOC scores and 23 of the filleted sample
scores Jones (1964) states that the acceptability of a fish is a function of
its suitability for further processing and of its inmediate appearance its
texture its odour and its flavour
450 Acceptability taste panel results of the whiting samples
451 Flavour acceptability
Figure 8 shows the flavour acceptability of the deep fried whiting
samples stored in ice rtle twelve sample times could be analysed individually
since the means if analysed by canbining adjacent sample times to give six
sample groups are in fact the means of the adjacent times if analysed
individually it was found that samples of the first nine renovals i se up to
17 days of storage in ice are more or less indistinguishable (abberant value
at 7th removal) he last three removals ie samples stored in ice for 19
21 and 23 days were found to be of significantly lower flavour acceptability
(p lt 0001) as shawn in Table 5
47
452 Texture acceptability
Except for the abberation at the 7th remgtval i 9 at day 13 of ice
storage there is a significant reduction of texture acceptability at the 21 II
and 23 days of ice storage (p lt0001) as shown by figure 9 and Table5 t
II
I 453 Over~ll acceptability
he overal I acceptability of the whiting sanples stored in ice is very
much similar to its f Lavour acceptability except at day 19 of ice storage
where the ovaral I acceptability shows a higher mean of 42 carpared to the
flavoor acceptability mean of 37 (figure 10 and Table 5) here is however a
significant sudden drop to lOil scores fran the lOth removal ie day 19 of
storage in ice (p lt0001)
hus all the above results for whitifVJ sanples showed that there was a
significant fall in flavCXJr and overall acceptability fram 19 days ice storage
onwards which is equivalent to the accumulated demerit points of 31 of the
TFRJ (unqutted) scores 35 of the TFRJ (gutted) scores 22 of the EEC
scores and 21 of the filleted sample scores he results are interesti~ in
that the oorresponding total accLDnulated demerit points at the time when
significant falls in flavour texture and overall acceptability of the blue
grenadier and whiting samples stored in I5W and ice respectively were quite
similar
500 CONCLUSION
510 Feasibility of using demerit points
Accumulation of demerit points with time of storage of M
in RM and H eemifaeaiatia in ice was found to be highly
occurred in a semi-linear fashion irrespective of the method of
novas8slandiae
correlated and
scori~ used
- _ ~uo_a~_bull--_--I e -Ii --
48
1he slopes of the lines (rate of accumulation of demerit points) and its
relative spoilage rate were found to be similar for the ttoO species provided
the sane method of scoring is employed 1his tends to suggest that the method
is possibly independent of species am methods of storage or at least
applicable to the two species in RSW and ice respectively
TIle TFRJ (ungutted) scores were foum to be the easiest arrl quickest
method to use although the TFRJ (gutted) scores were the roost sensitive 1he
EEX freshness scores were hClgtlever foum to be the JOOSt tedious aod difficult bull I
to use besides taking more than twice the time taken to score a fish ocmpared
to the TFRJ (ungut ted) scores
Although there were slig~t differences between the ttoO species in those
characteristics where changes were first made (Table 10 11 and 12) there is
enough evidence to conclude that the changes in the appearance of the eyes am
the odour developnent of the gills are the JOOSt obvious arrl valuable indicator
of charqe in quality when using the TFIU or the EEl scores while the
appearance am odour of the fish flesh seems to be the JOOSt obvious indicator
when assessing the filleted sample
1he shelf-life of M navaezelandiae stored in RSW was found to be 14 days
(less than 17 days) whilst that of H semifasoiata stored in ice was fourrl to
be 17 days (less than 19 days) beyond which the fish had developed spoilage
characteristics that were disliked by the acceptability taste panel
1he cut-off point at which spoilage of the samples would have rendered
the quality of the fish sample to be unacceptable fran the consumers point of
view ~ld be that equivalent to the accumulated demerit point of gt29 for the
TFRJ (gutted arrl ungutted) scores am gt21 for the EOC and filleted sample
scores
This study thus confinned the potential use of demerit points such as the
TFRJ (ungutted) scores as an easy quick cheap non-destructive and reliable
49
method of sensory assessment of fish quality In fact Branch and Vail (1985)
had studied the possible use of a prototype pocket-sized computer to determine
the condition and shelf-life of temperate and tropical species of fish based
on data that is derived fran the sensory score sheets for the assessment of
fish quality developed at the (SIRgt Division of fbod lEsearch Iasmanian Fbod
Research Unit (TFlU) Hobart
520 RJrpose for which demerit points are to be used
Many scor i oq systerrs are used to predict the nunber of days fish have
been stored on ice and in nore recent years ICETIME (equivalent days on
ice) I ard thus through years of experience the taste panel acceptability of
the fish I
However fish is sold on appearance and a scoring system may be used for
assessirg marketability of whole or gutted fish or fillets or for setting
standards in bulk buying The EEC scoring system is used for example at
fish markets at first point of sale to grade the fish and establish
withdrawal prices A IbrryShewan type system is often used as a purohas i nq
specification from finn to firm
Before a final demerit point system is selected for any COlIOOdity its
ultimate purpose should be established For example the demerit points
chosen for whole fish which nost closely resemble the rate of change of
demerit points for fillets of that species might be the most useful
A linear rate of change of demerit points with time is nose favoured
because it enables prediction of remaining shelf-life ConstJJrer
unacceptability should be at a point where perhaps 75 of the demerit points
have been accrued Further scores would still be available for categories
such as suitable for fish meal D3merit points are not an indication of the
acceptability of fish as eaten where off-odours flavours and fillet
50
tdiscolouration are masked by batters or curries Their correlation with the
iodours flavours off odours aod off flavours of steamed fish are currently ~
~
~being examined by other workers at the Tasmanian ~ Research unit and highly
significant correlations are found Even when fish are subsequently eaten
battered or curried demerit points give a good indication of remaining shelf
life Thus whitiOJ with a Smiley flavour score of 58 after 1 day on ice
has a nlU gutted demerit score of 1 and a high quality life (eaten crumbed
and fried) of a further 16 days while whitiOJ stored for 11 days on ice with
the sane flavour score has a gutted demerit score of 17 and a further shelf
life of 6 days
530 SUggestion for further work
Ib ascertain its potentially wide application as a simple quick and
technically sound methcxi of assessing fish quality many more studies using
other species of fish both temperate and tropical species and in various
storage conditions should be undertaken using a demerit point scorIrq system
such as that developed by the TFlU
The score sheet has proved invaluable when sending individuals untrained
researchers away on distant water fishing trips Ps yet 00 standard
deviations have been detennined using a team of assessors with coded samples
of unknown history This may require a separate group design
The effect of lean fish and fatty fish on the scores should also be
studied because factors such as seasonal variations in biological conditions
Lmproper gutting and washing mechanical damage and filth and changes due to
storage in R3W or shelving may have considerable influence on its shelf-
life Reports such as those of smith et al (1979) clearly showed that in fish
such as the blue whitirlJ (Mioroomesistius poubaeeous there is greater degree
I 51
of seasonal variability than in other gadoid species the overall
acceptability droppirq dramatically once the fish have spawned Fish accepted
for processing for food has to be of a higher standard of quality than fish
accepted for Imredfate sale across the counter to the consumer therefore
there is a need to rreet a minimum score before they could be processed into
food Gradirq is therefore best left to the user sorenson (1971) states
that in establishing limi ts of acceptance an allowance had to be made for
deterioration that would continue to take place during processing and storage
prior to reaching the consimer
The only final criteria of the objectivity of sensory or any other
assessment are results that are reproducible many times which is by definition
a lcnJ-tenn process and in the meantime one requires short-cut indications
that one is headirq in the right direction
Ferhaps a final caution Is necessary as in the YQrds of Ehrenberg and
Shewan (1953) not too much must be expected even the best measuring
instruments occasionally go oot of control
52
60 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baines CR Jones NR am Shewan JM 1965 Technological problems of
measur trq degree of freshness of wet fish and problems of quality
control requirif)J roore knowledge fran fundamental research In he
Technology of fish utilisation ad R Kreuzer Fishi~ News (Books)
p 141
Baines CR and Shewan JM 1965 sensory rrethods for evafuat inq the
quality of white fish Lab practice 14 160-163
Baines CR ltbnnell JoJ Gibson DM lbWgate PF Livi~ston E and
Shewan JM 1969 A taste panel technique for evaluatirq the eati~
quality of frozen cod In Freezi~ and irradiation of fish ad R
Kreuzer Fishi~ News (Books) London p361
Boyd NS and Wilson NDC 1976 A sensory method for evaluatInq the
quality of Snapper (Ch1ysophrys auratus) NZ Journal of Science 19
209-12
Boyd NS Wilson ND and Bjley A 1978 A refrigerated sea water plant
for small boats symposium on fish utilisation technology and
marketi~ in the IPFC region IFFC Proceedi~s 18th session Manila
Philippines FAD Ba~kok p 186-192
Branch AC and Vail AMA 1984 Bri~i~ fish inspection into the
canputer age FltXld Technol Aust 36 in press
Bremner HA Olley J and Ihrower SoJ 1978 CSIIU Iasmanian lEgional
Laboratory OCcasional Paper No4
Bremner HA 1980 Processi~ and freezi~ of the blue grenadier (Maclulonus
novaeselandiae) FltXld Technol Aust 32(8)~ pp 385-393
Bremner J A 1984 QJality - an attitude of mind In he JILlstralian
Fishi~ Industry - today and tanorrow 10-12 July 1984 Launceston
53
Australian MaritUne Cbllege seminar Bapers 224-69
Bremner HA Statham JA am Sykes SJ 1985 Tropical species fran the
north west shelf of Alstralia sensory assessment and acceptability
of fish stored co ice Proceedi~s Sixth session IPR Worki~ Party
on Fish D3chnology and Marketi~ Melbourne 1984 FJID Fish lep 252
supp1
Burford D 1985 Sodiun uptake in MaOlUfOOnUS nooaeselandiae stored in
refrigerated sea water Tasmanian Food Research Unit OCcasional Paper
No9
ltbnnell JJ 1972 OJality control in the fish industry Ibrry Jldvisory
note No 58 IOrty Research Station Aberdeen
ltbnnell JJ 1980 ltbntrol of fish quality Fishi~ ~ws (Books) 2nd ed
Surrey England
OJrran CA Nicolaides L and Al-Alawi ZS 1981 QJality chanqes duri~
iced storage of three carmercially important species of fish fran
Bahrain Trop sci 23(4) 253-268
de Zylva ERA 1974 Effect of fish handli~ at sea on storage quality of
New Zealand Snapper (Chroysophroys aumtus) New Zealand J SCi 17
309-318
Etlira S 1976 A biochemical study on the freshness of fish Bull 1bkai
Reg Fish Res Lab No 88 pp 1-13
Ehrenberg ASC and Shewan JM 1953 he cbjective approach to sensory
tests of food J Sci Food hJric 4 pp 482-489
Herbert RA and Shewan JM 1975 Precursors of the volatile sulphides in
spoili~ North Sea Cod J Sci Food JIlgric 26 1195-1202
lbUwi~ H 1972 Gradi~ of fish in different qualities Institute for
Fishery Products Ijmuiden Unpublished
~ate P 1972 Qrlparison of sensory scor inq systems for raw fish
I 54
Unpubl ished bull ~ ~
~ate P 1978 Measuri~ the quality am acceptability of fish products bull ~
In IPFC Proceedi~s symposiun on fish utilisatial technology and ~
i f~
marketi~ in the IWC region 18th session Manila Ihilippines p
449
fflghes RB and Jones NR 1966 Measurement of hypoxanthine concentrations
in canned herrirg as an index of the freshness of the raw material
with a ocirment oo flavor relations J SCi fOOd middotJlgric 17 434
Jahns FD Howe JL Coduri Jr RJ and Ram Jr AG 1976 A rapid
visual enzyme test to assess fish freshness Food Iechno1 30 (7) 27
Jones NR 1964 ~lems associated with freezi~ very fresh fish
Proceedings Meeting on Fish Iechnology Fish Handling and
Preservation schevenirqen OEC D Paris p 31 bull
Jones NR 1965 Hypoxanthine and other purine containing fractions in fish
muscle as indices of freshness In uthe technology of fish
utilisation ed R Kreuzer Fishi~ rewa (Books) (Drmn p 179
Last PR Scott EOG and Talbot FH 1983 Fishes of Tasmania
Tasmanian Fisheries ~velopnent lUthority lbbart Tasmania pp 238
414
Lima doe santos CAM James D and Ieutscher F 1981 QJidelines for
chilled fish storage experiments FKJ Fish Tech Igt 210
(Dye RM 1954 Ibst rrortem cha~es in the lenses of fish eyes Msessment
of storage tiJm and fish quality J Sci Focx11lgric 5 566-572
Hartin RE Gray RJ H and Pierson MD 1978 QJality assessment of fresh
fish arrl the role of the naturally occurring microflora Focx1
Technol 32 (5) 188
Official Journal of the European oamrnunities No L264 5 ~cember 1970 pp
1-11
bull
55
Technol New Zealand July 1971 pp 31-35
Spinelli J Eklund M and Miyauchi D 1964 Measurement of hypoxanthine
in fish as a method of assessing freshness J Food SCi 29 710
Thrower S oJ am Stafford IA 1981 A roobile unit for ccmparative studies
of chilled storage systems for trawl fish IIF IIR
eatmissions C2 01 02 03 Boston USA 1981-4
Thrower SoJ Bremner HA QJarmby AR Ggtnnan T8 aild Graham KJ
1982 cn-board handlinJ of Q~ish ~ Inportanoeof chillinJ and
gutting Aust Fish 41 (11) 38-41
Tanlinson N bull bull t at 1974 COtparison between refrigerated sea water (with or
without added carbon dioxide) and ice as storage media for fish to be
subsequently frozen Proc IIR C011n 82- 0-3 Tokyo p
waterman J oJ 1982 Qrrposition and QJality of Fish A Dictionary 1brry
Mvisory Note No 87 Torry Research Station Aberdeen
5J
Olley J and letkowsky OA 1973 he role of terrperature function
integration in monitoring of fish spoilage Food Technol New
Zealand 8 (2) 13 15 and 17
Olley J 1977 Iemperature and seafood spoilage In H Proceedings of 1977
SChool for SeafltXld Processorsmiddot ad ~ AF 0 Mello Hawkesbury
Agricultural Oollege p6-2
Olley J 1978 QIality assessment and storage changes In middotCSIRJ Iasmanian bull
leJional Laboratory OCcasional Paper No 4 p 3-1 middot4 Rgenstein J M and ~enstein CE 1981 he shelf-life extension of fesh
fish In Advances in the refrigerated treabnent of fishmiddot
International Institute of Rfrigeration Clmnissions C2 m ra [8
Boston US A 1981-4
leJenstein J 1983 Wlat is fish quality INroFISH Marketing Digest ttgt 6
26-28
Ryder JM 9Jisson OH SCott ON and Fletcher GC 1984 storage of
New Zealand Jack Mackerel ( TmohUMlB notJabullbullbullZandias) in ice
chemical microbiological and sensory assessment J M SCi 49
1453-1456 1477
Shewan JM Macintosh RG rucker CG and Ehrenberg ASC 1953 he
developnent of a numerical ~coring systan for the sensory assessment
of the spoilage of wet white fish stored in ice J SCi Food Jlgric
4 283-298
Smith J GM Hardy R hanson AB Young KW and Parsons E 1979
sane observations 00 the ambient and chill storage of blue whiting
(Mio1om8sistius poutassou) bull In H Advances in Fish SCience and
Technology ad JJ Connell FishinJ News (Books) Surrey England
pp 299-303
SOrensen T 1971 QIality control and fish handling in New zealand Food ~
t c-
o )
~hmiddot r~YiJ lt~
~~f~~ ~
I
Nomooram for comparison of diffGrent scoring systems tor raw T i sn ___ _ J bull )
_U I~ ~Y1 9i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~
I I t I I - _---1------ imiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot __ middot~_ ~ __~_ -_ ~ + ~ _ -~ _ - middotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middot __ G 9 8 7 6 _ 5middot 3
_ - zmmy [ I bull r f II
d _~__ ~ __ _ ~ __ -I-- - ~ L- i~ middoti~ ~ 1-L -~~ lt lt l~tceland 1P i ~ ~ j ~ ~ ~ L~ __ - I ~_ bull _ L j ~- _-
N rv 1 I 1 2 --- - 2~ 3 middot 3middot 4 ~- ~Il ay ~ _ _ middot _ r r
_ _ __ _ _~ ~_ ) - ~ L_ - 1- ~-_ -_ _ _ ~ 19 ~ 8 imiddotmiddot I 6 5 4 3
Do _ _nm~r t I I I r
~ I
_ ~ ~_ ~ t ~ __ i__ t ~ ~ ~ ~ _ q x 1 1i 2 2~ 3v _ Franee I r I l n
I I I i _ - ~ _ _ _- _-- middotmiddot __ middot_middot_middot_middotmiddotmiddotImiddotmiddotmiddot_middot~ _middotmiddotmiddotmiddot-_middotmiddotmiddotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddot ---- - --~ ~-
19oum8 I 7 6 i 5 ~ ~ 4middot 280 J t (
I i
J -- - -_ -__ X ~middotH i__~ -- i_L ~ - l_ middot1-- - 3 I 2Y1 0 4 11z 1 y
E E C I 1
I I I deg deg E I A r Bmiddot - I I C
ltOIl j- ~ ~ c ~--------------
TASTER
DATE
SESSION
~ER middot1
bull You will be given ~bull aamples of cooked fish Please assess the fish for flavour textur~ and
overall liking as though you had purchased them in a takeaway food shop Hark the sample
identification under the face that most closely describes your impressionbull
I
middot5 S shy2 3 4
FLAVOUR
IEXlURE
--
OVERALL UKING
7 bullbull yc ) I _ v J _ _
I1PP~NJIJ( 3 ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE BGRENVZSASS (A)
OBS DAYS-R DMPTS shy
1 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 6 4 3 7 4 6 e 4 5 9 6 1 18 6 10 11 6 18 12 6 18 13 e 13 14 8 16 13 8 13 16 8 17 17 9 18 18 9 18 19 9 bull 19 29 9 19 21 19 19 22 1 21 23 1 19 24 1 2123 11 21 26 11 22 27 11 22 29 11 22 29 12 22 3 12 22 31 12 23 32 12 23 33 13 23 34 13 23 33 13 22 36 13 23 37 14 24 38 14 23 39 14 264 14 25
17 26~ 17 39 43 17 38 44 17 29 43 21 32 46 21 33
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASS(At
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (Xt DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Yt DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9666 R SQUARED 9343 T STATISTIC 231621 INTERCEPT tAt 31799 SLOPE tSt 173399 bull STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 219473
OBSERVATIONS 46 Y DMPT9 XI DAYS-RSW YMIN -18 YMAX 61 YINC e XMIN -19 XMAX 2e9 XINe 2
] y
__ t=- I I 0(I I
JPRH6ELF PRINT MODULE -SYNTAX ERROR
DATABASE J3lGRENVISASS (FIL)
OB8 DAYS-R DMPT8
1 s 1 2 4 5 s 6 6
~ e 8 ~ 9 1 6 19 12 7 11 14 8 12 17 9 13 18 1 14 19 bull 11 17 23 12 21 29
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASSCFIL)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE CX) DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IY) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT ~9963
R SQUARED 992 T STATISTIC 3~36977
INTERCEPT CA) -3~6~41
SLOPE CB) 1~8426
STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 77667
OBSERVATIONS 12 v DMPTS x DAYS-RSW VMIN -2~ VMAX ~~ YINC ~
XMIN -19 XMAX 2~9 XINC 2
]
bull
-SYNTAX ERROR
lPRH6ELF PRINT MODULE
DATABASE BGRENVXSASS (AG)_
OB6
1 2 3 4 ~
6 7 8 9
Hi 11 12 13 14 1~
16 17 -18 19 2 21 22 23 24 2~
26 27 28 29
3 31 32 33 34 3~
36 37 J8
39
4 41 42 43 44 4~
46
DAYS-R
3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 6 6 6 6 8 8
8 bull 8
9 9 9 9
1 1 1 1 11 11 11 11
DMPTS
2 3 3 3 ~
6 ~
~
1 1 1 1 17 18 17 19 2~
2 21 21 21 23 21 23 23 24 24 24
12 24 12 24 12 25 12 25 13 27 13 25 J3 24 13 27 104 26 J04 2S
14 28 14 27 17 28 17 32 17 32 17 31 21 34 21 35
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BORENVISASSCAO)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE IX) DAVS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IV) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9~76~
R SQUARED 917 T STATISTIC 22S6S88 INTERCEPT lA) 323~7
SLOPE lB) 189812 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 269324
OBSERVATIONS 46 Y DM PT6 X DAYS-RSW ~ _01 VMAV 2~ YfNe ~
XMIN -19 XNAX 2l9 XINC 2
]
9YNTA)( ERROR bull ]PRN6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE BGRENVXSASS
OB6 DAY6-R DMPTS
1 3 1 2 3 1 3 3 1 4 3 1 5 4 1 6 4 4 7 4 3 9 4 1 9 6 6 18 6 6
11 6 6 12 6 6 13 9 8
14 9 9 15 8 8 16 8 9 l 9 18 19 9 11 19 9 12 28 9 12 21 18 12 22 18 14 23 18 11 24 18 14 25 11 15 26 11 13 27 11 15 29 11 15 29 12 17 3 12 18 31 12 19 32 12 18gJ l~ 34 13 18 3~ 13 18 36 13 19 37 14 19 JB 14 19 39 14 19 48 14 19 41 17 19 42 17 23 43 17 21 44 17 20
-(EEC)
q~ 21 23 q6 21 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASSCEEC)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE IX) DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IY) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 96691 R SQUARED 93q9 T STATISTIC 2~14824
INTERCEPT IA) -238937 SLOPE IB) 146219 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 1S28eS
OBSERVATIONS q6 Y DMPTS X DAYS-RSW YMIN -2q YMAX ~5 YINC ~
XMIN -19 XMAX 259 XJNC 2
l
SYNTAX ERROR lPRM8ELF PRINT MODULE
-
bull
APPENJ)K 4 -
DATABASE WHZTXNG VXSASS (A) bull
OBS DAYS-I
1 1 2 1 3 1 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 ~
9 5 9 5 Ii 7 11 7 12 7 13 9 14 9 1~ 9
016 11 17 11 19 11
DMPTS
1 1 1 1 2 2 4 3 5 a 7
9 13 15 bull 13 16 14 1~
019 13 2 8 28 13 16 21 13 20 22 15 24 23 1~ 24 24 15 25 25 17 29 26 17 29 27 17 38 29 19 30 29 19 38 38 19 32 31 21 33 32 21 32 33 21 32 34 23 32 3~ 23 32 36 23 34
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASSIA)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE tX) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE tV) qMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 98514 R SQUARED 9785 T STATISTIC 3344414 INTERCEPT tAt -245163 SLOPE CBt 166958 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 286799
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS x DAYS-ICE
YMIN -22 YMAX lS7 YINC lS- XMIN -19 XMAX 259 XINC 2
]
I
J
-8YNTAX ERROR
]PRM6ELF PRINT MODULE shyDATABASE WHITING VISASS (AG)
OB8 DAYS-I DMPT8
1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 4 3 1 ~ 3 2 6 3 2 7 ~ 4 9 ~ 3 9 ~ ~
18 7 18 11 7 9 12 7 18 13 9 1~
14 9 17 1~ 9 1~
16 11 18 17 11 16 18 11 17 19 13 22 28 13 18 21 13 22 22 1~ 26 23 1~ 27 24 1~ 28 2~ 17 32 26 17 32 27 17 33 28 19 34 29 19 34 38 19 36 31 21 37 32 21 36 33 21 36 34 23 36 3~ 23 36 36 23 38
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITINO VISASS(AO)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAY8-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Y) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 986~2
R SQUARED 973 T STATISTIC 3~B167B
INTERCEPT CAl -272~33
SLOPE CBI 197S63 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 221294
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS X DAYS-ICE YHIN -19~ YHAX ~9~ YINC ~
XHIN -19 XHAX 2~9 XINC 2
]
-SYNTAX ERROR lPRM6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASS (EEC)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 2 1 3 1 4 3 ~ 3 1 6 3 1 7 ~ 2 8 ~ 2 9 ~ 3
1 7 3 11 7 3 12 7 3 13 9 6 14 9 6 bull 1~ 9 7 16 11 7 17 11 8 18 11 7 19 13 11 2 13 1 21 13 12 22 1~ 13 23 1~ 1~
24 1~ 17 2~ 17 19 26 17 18 27 17 19 28 19 29 29 19 23 39 19 22 31 21 24 32 21 23 33 21 24
34 23 2J 3~ 23 26 36 23 27
I ELF SCATTER MODULE I DATABASE WHITING VISA88CEEC)I I INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (~) DAYS-ICE I
DEPENDENT VARIABLE (VI DMPTS I bull
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9a2~3
R SQUARED 96~3
T STATISTIC 387a73~
INTERCEPT (A) -4142 SLOPE (8) 12873 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 173287
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS ~ DAYS-ICE YMIN -29 YMA~ ~1 VINC ~
XMIN -19 ~MA~ 2~9 ~INC 2
J
-SYNTAX ERROR JPRM6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHITING VXSASSmiddot(FXL)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 2 3 1 3 ~ 5 4 7 4 ~ 9 9 6 11 13 7 13 1~
e 1~ 16 9 17 19 18 19 21 11 21 24 12 23 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASB(FJLI
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Y) DMPTS
bull bullbull 4~
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE CV) DMPTSr
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 982~3
R SQUARED 96~3
T STATISTIC 3S7873~ t bullbullf CINTERCEPT CA) -4142
SLOPE CB) 12873 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 173287
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS XI DAYS-ICE YMINmiddot~28 YMAKI 1 YINC ~
XMIN -I9XMAX 2~9 XINC2
]
-SYNTAX ERROR ]PRH6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHXTXNG VXSASS (FXL)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 S 2 3 1 1 5 3 4 7 4 5 9 9 6 11 13 7 13 1~
9 15 16 9 17 19 1 19 21 11 21 24 12 23 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE I WHITING VISAS8(FIL)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE CX)I DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE CY) DMPT8
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 99289 R SQUARED 9858 T STATISTIC 2638123 INTERCEPT CA) -243706 SLOPE CB) 124476 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 112846
SLOPE 10) 124476 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 112846
ObullbulllfftVTrOHSO 12 VI DHPTS XI DAVS-ICE VMIN -27 VHAX e2 VINe e XHIN -19 XHAX 2e9 gtcINe 2
]
-8VNTAX ERROR
fi
rr
[bull
SJ
in i
bullol
r~
bull bull
n i
o o o o
~
o~ o
o - l
N~ o ~
o o o
Q
Q o o
a
c -~_
Q
_
_ Q
_9_
0
o ~-
O
_
Q
lI
oJ ~
v
~ ~
~-
-
- -1
---h
---1
---I
I
I
1
~ ((9 ~ J las 0 - ~~ U -lt) az E~-~gl~~1--~~---------- ~) 1)
11 ~ - 11 HI ~~
I bull M~
~ -~ ~~ IJ~ I J ismiddotJ I Q l~
k tl I 01 re lr - 91 br I ~I ( -0 71P g I CJ tt
I I J 000 0 0 w I 0) NlNN1tl 30 hIflJ I t IC (~4ID(r ~ Wi
_ f-- -------- bull fyen ~=y ~~r I I I I I I I 0 0 00 00 ( ~) -Fr~ ~ fj)
-0 I 0 I Ole 17 10 0 ( ~ AI )middot P1~ 0 0 00 Q hItIrS ~7I -~~ (J
t -r------0 bull
_-~_ middotmiddotmiddot_middot~middotmiddotmiddot)-middot7~)
lrrT I 01 0
0 tFmiddot~~i ~ 1 o 00 Omiddot (~ -W ~r f (JJ___~ _______ _ l I I 71 I -_---_ - M-~ ~ I
J I Z-tf ~ ~ ~fI t1 11f ( )) CI I I I i I 00 r11-7[ c I C bull aofl7r_ ~ ~z ~ 1t~Ji ) ( --_--------i---shye l~~~ I f~) I I J I
I II i bull Q ( N~T fE ~I )
~JiP _- -___ ----shy
_
~ 7Yr 0) ~(J ~ I e I t I ~ l I J I I 1 I I I(I 0 0 (~~yen~ M -p~P71 JPtJIJs 0
i euror (1l~J IlLriJlllr1JI ~~J I ~()(1OP I I r I I 0 I ( t t I ( jIfS 7fS ~~I ~ )
I
I 1 I( IN 10~ lb~ qItJ gtr~j f o (~)I(~) I I 0 I (t~ ~~) I I Jbull o 0 J I ~ l 0 a i S(jJ t t t tI tI C I C I J I I I J I 0 I (n~rlP PI4t -I) t
- -I
-I -I-I I II-I I I-I r bull
-----(rtb Ii If p~) PNl17T7~b ~y~ 7
10 IIt1v I 0 1~L CIJ tN IfIfW1IIJ JI11i JN~I HJ3
---Y p~ALY~_ ~~ Yl2-- 1)
yenvr 1amp f111l
-
~
~~
~
II
o 0
~cgt
(
) Q
oa
oo
o
oo
o o
a
o
~
P
t
oo
c
oo
a -
o
oo
o
o -
o
-o
-
-
lJ
I~ I~
Jl ~rIpound i IAlffzfjjsectj 7df- utl kf J OG lie rCOIpound ~IIE(T r
7tU
~
~ ~
~ ~
~
-shy~
~
MYI f)lySLM~ 1 (JAy ISo~r 11 ~~) e ()~t ~I01) r I joy f o~y lOJ 17~JJlII1~ 16 fiti -t1 It r ~17J~~flu~1h 111H 7U 1111111shyIllf Jr(11Jr I fhJo
~ ) ~ I1 J J-4 ~ J 2 JJ ~poundol ~ ] t4 cl -7 eJ uJ cJJJ wI~ wI l shy w c at amp 74 -t ~ ut 4 I
SkIN 000 o 0 0o 0 0 o 00 I o I I I I 3 3 3l) t 3 3 31 s 3ltt
a I I I I I o IfYU I 2 I JI I I000 )l~ 1~1 S 3 ~S 3 5 335
GILtJ I J I o (J 0 I (I I I ~ t 2shy~I I s 3 ]] 2 0 (J 3 ~ ~ t 3 3 AlvItUiU i l I I ls)z oJ lJ 0 a (J ~ 0o 0 0 a a aTff1ttJR II r 1
1 I ~ I I I I 1~E
Cdt47tl7 I I ~ ~t( a a 0O(O I Io I~ 00 000deg a 0wO 0 0 0 o 0 0 o~ 00VUipound811 ~ J I
tJ I Oe6rlllr I I I I 2 2]l2 ~ 3 S 3 S ~ 3o a 0 (J () 0 I 333 1 $ 3
If~euMI LU~ 2l 3000o (J 0 o 0 0 J 2 2shy 331a deg (1 ~ 2 Jshy
i I 000amp1 0 I I 1TIUUpound
lAcltJdJE 00deg00o 0 0 ooalOOO 0 0 I I I 1OdOa deg 0 11 2 I r I I I IbullI
I I h~r~Eu I ( 0 0 CJ 0 o (J a 2 ~ 30001011 0 1 J 1010 I I L II 2 l 2l 22 2 1
sKIN GLLt I f I~J) GlIIl) 0 (I a I do 0 0 I 0 Il~t l~o 0 0 ~ 3 3 3 s 3 3 3 33s1331
i7tJ7l11 Ibull I shy i66 ~o
(J ~ 0 1 0 It3331l J t 1 1shy 1~ ~afJllc 11 Irrshy It ~1 1111 20 J3 u
(])JtUJ61 (l) (1) (Ir)(0) (J)(I) (If) (19) (u) (~r)(J4)
I r f
I
I
i I
I i
II I ((
f
II Ii
p ()
Q
0_
_ 00
0
00
00
00
0
o o o 0
00
0
0 _
o Q
0
0
o
0
00
0
-
0 0
0
middot0
0
o oo
0
o Q
o oo o o
- ~
~
~ ~~pound
w
i -shy
o
co
- --
shy
o o o
~
~_
~
0
-shyJJ
-----l--~
-J
J IJ
f
J
J)
o 0
00
_ 0
0
o (gt
0
o ()
o
0
0 0
0
()
()
o 0
0
o 0
0
_
_ -
-----1
-----shy
Q
0 0
o ~-IJ~ulJ-
u
lJcllJ_-_~IJamp
o o
Q
I---+----I---+----I----I~-
_Ilpound
llD
lIlI
Il
~I
IIIl
I_II
II5
l__
IIlIa
IllP
=lII
Il1
rl
ll
IlIl
IlIII
llII
IlJl
IIl
IIlIl_
IIrII
G3i
mta
isectID
it
llll~
1~=wampampftUla
_
au
U
Lamp
WJN
AJ
poundmiddotJI
IiIamp
3flJ
a
uac
ampa
f
shy
I~middottn 0~L fi 5L middottlu~ fo_~r ( ) 1poundc [CtJRl -ffl(pound1 r~~ rlt1c- J c-ru
-- I
1SllJ7~
lt l)~ J )IIr M ~-t s ~~ OIl middot )If 10 JAY II 041
J- Olt i1 )lir iI DIY IT- IMy11
1~middot6f1 14f1- ~imiddot -- J _ middotAfmiddot IIrk middot Jiamp -ffh~11 rtr Il ~M gt27P- ill Ill ~lllY ~~7rlf JC 1- ~ r 1M 11
r ~ F16F r~h FIjFi ~~I)r r~Fr
5 Fc II -i~fIoi l 1 fj t t Fr c r amp t 1= ~ r ~ F r rtI ~
- -
sION o (j o 0 0 o 0 a I I I I I I I I 2 I t t I-r J~L) z~z~ 2~J ~ z a ~ ~ 33 - -ol t 1 2
~ poundys-s 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I I lt t 2 t t 4 ~z ~ 2l~ ~ ~ 1 Z 3zi3p33 3 333 3 3 3 - - ~ rl~ a 0 a (1 a a o 1 I 1 I 1-2 12 t ltt a ~ l J tll~ ~~~) 2 2 2 2- ~Jll 21 13 33 ~
- ~ MIIi(UlA~
degCt1C 11 )l
FipoundSI- eli CeoD o 0 (J 0 I I I I I I 1 1 I I 1 I Jl~] l2 22- z ~ 2 2 22 11 2-3 -Sfvpound
j
CIJiCVlt-tICN I I I 1 ( I I I 2 2 t ~ t~ )2 2~21 2$ 2 t _~ 3AIJJN(j- P (J dO o C a a o 0 00 1 I I I I - --
V~7r~ ~ c~u N
(TKWW~ CO~ o I oc I I J I I I I 1 2 I 2 2 1- ) t~l2 2- 22 2 ) 2 ~2- 1222 2 2 ll 2L -- -~VClLAl I
a 0 0 0 01 I 0 2 1 2 2 J5r 4 E i H CA I I
-I I I I I I I I J J 12( ~ 12 1 2 1 2-I TfI_ 21 1-1- 1 1 ~ 1
~ I middot_0-__-- I
~ 1
ffCACIpound coo 000lt=1 o 0 0 0 btJCt) o a () (J I I I I I I I I111 I I I 1 I I -~-aD CD lJ a a 0 0 ~ ~ UlrAfllN o 0 a IJ e e 0 C) (JdegOo ecJao co (10 (1 o I I I I I I I I 1 I I III I I I I z --
i tiN ~4r L~~ 2- li ~ a~ 8M) CUmiddot c d (J 0 (J () I I I 1 1 1
I 1 I I f t I II tl-loI 21 1 t 33 - -
-Iffl1-
J I I I I i- 2 I 11~SC~E ~ t 1 o ~ 04-t 1J 11 1 11t IS~ IfS J1 I 1 I If I IJ 1 r~]u ze uu __
bull ttlUIG
(I) l~) (6) (II) ~ (~) 6s-)llIt lCUI CJ (Ii) (~) vmiddot (II) (19~ ---
I t f
I
~ I
~ I
Ii
I I
Ii I II f
~ (
--)raquo~ middot-~~-~-I~~IliiI~~-middotComiddot~-d-b~middotmiddotmiddotmiddot_ ~ ~ middoth-~_middot--~H~~middot~gt
Other Occasional Papers in the series
1 A salinity monitor for irrigation pumps by EOMIEZITIS
2 Wine liqueur and fish products acceptability trials 47th ANZAAS Congress Hobart 1976 by HABREMNER TLLEWIS and ARQUARMBY
3 Abalone silage an exercise in the conservation of waste by JUNE OLLEY
4 Course notes contributed by the CSIRO Tasmanian Food Research Unit to a workshop on fish handling and quality control Hobart Oct3rd-5th 1978 by HABREMNER JUNE OLLEY and SJTHROWER
5 Difficulties with generalized least squares regression in forest modelling by PWWEST
6 Metabolism of zinc cadmium and copper in rats fed shellfish highly contaminated with heavy metals by SJTHROWER JUNE OLLEY and MAUREEN McDERMOTT
7 Hygiene control in seafood processing by SJTHROWER
NIlttmLEOOEMEm
Ihe author is indebted to Hr HA Bremner and Miss J A statham of the
CSIR) Division of Food 1esearch and Ii DA Ratk~sky of the Division of
Mathematics and Statistics for direction and advice durin] the course of this
~rk
Thanks nust also go to Miss M Ottenschlaeger for the help in the taste
panel work Hr AH A vail and Hr P Kearney in the correlation analysis and
Mr D 8Jrford in the preparation of the blue grenadier samples and not
forgettirYJ all the panelists who attended the taste panel sessions
Finally the author wishes to thank all those in the SChool of Fisheries
of the Australian HaritiIm College particularly Mr P Minton for the support
and encouragement they have given and also the Australian Development
Assistance Bureau (~) for their financial assistance
1
ABSTRACT
Accumulation of demerit points with time of storage of blue grenadier (M
novaeae landiaev in refrigerated sea water (I~W) and blue rock whi t ing (H
eemifaeeiatcq in ice was fourd to be highly correlated and occurred in an
approximately linear fashion irrespective of the method of scoring used
1he scoring system developed by the TFRJ was fourrl to be the easiest
quickest and rrost reliable method for quality assessment of fish The changes
in tOO appearance of the eyes and the odour developrent of the gills are the
most obvious and valuable indicators of change in quality when using the TFRU
or the EEl freshness scores while the appearance and odour of the fish flesh
seems to be the most obvious indicator when assessing the filleted samples
1he acceptabil ity taste panel results indicate that M nauaeeelandiae stored
in RSW had a shelf-life of 14 days whilst H semifasciata stored in ice had a
shelf-life of 17 days ~ cut-off point at which spoilage of the samples
WDUld have rendered the quality of the fish samples to be unacceptable fran
the consumer point of view would be those equivalent to the accumulated
demerit point of gt29 for the TFRU (gutted and ungutted) scores and gt21 for the
EEC ard filleted sample scores
2
1 00 rsrromcrros
110 QUality and QUality Asses~nt of Fish
QJality is difficult to define since it means different things to
different people One general definition is degree of excellence
According to waterman (1982) quality of food is the SLD1 of those attributes
that govern its acceptability to the buyer or consumer and quality assessment
is the estLmation or measurement of one or more quality factors as a means of
determining quality before exercising control
Bremner (1984) defined quality as that attitude of mind that approach
that event that state of being when everything is right hus until a
seafood is eaten its quality can only be surmised indirectly harever
seafoods do possess a set of properties or characteristics that for practical
purposes can be related with quality
In cxmnerce quality limits are set by what the custcrner is prepared to
pay for generally the custcrner will pay more for fish that he considers to be
of higher quality and will continue to buy as long as quality remains
constant The relationship between quality and marketing is therefore
governed by the sophistication of the consuner ( ta Zylva 1974) Sore of the
more important factors that determine quality fran the custcrners point of
view are species ease of preparation appearance odour flavour freshness
size presence or absence of bones and filth absence of specific
microorganisms condition packaging and composition (Oonnell 1972)
Freshness is the most important quality factor to the consumer thus
assessnent of freshness is vital in quality control kcording to Baines et
al (1965) the term freshness is employed to describe the presence or
absence of deterioration Ib many however freshness involves the concept of
newness in which time is an important factor In other words the fish
technologist is not only concerned with quality at the mrnent of examination
3
but of the products potential shelf-life M accurate measure of st~age
1_ time under kn~ conditions would allow hLm to calculate the remaining life of
the product and its potential for processing
Fish quality depends on tenperature time and hygiene Factors such as
spontaneous chemical changes autolysis and microbial attack produce
deteriorations fran the point of catching until final putrefaction
Measurements of sane of these deteriorations have been invoked as indices of
freshness
he measurement of trimethylamine (lMA) other spoilage cxrrpounds and the
bacteria themselves as indicators of quality has been reviewed recently by
Martin et al (1978) hey stated that in order to define effective indicators
of seafocxi quality the food technologist must be prepared to examine each
species of seafood individually its environment its composition its
harvesting and its handling
A lUIllber of different tests may be used for estimating the degree of
spoilage in fish these include total volatile bases (TVa) total volatile
reducing substances volatile armonia volatile acids total volatilo
nitrogen indole refractive index of the eye fluid electrical resistance of
the fish flesh total bacterial numbers and organoleptic tests hese methods
are discussed under the headings chemical methods physical methods
microbiological methods and sensory methods bel~
120 Chemical Methods
Although not universal in acceptance or applicability the trLmethylamine
(TMA) determination has became one of the established procedures for
determining fish quality Its use as an indicator of spoilage in fresh fish
have also been proposed by the Codex AlLmentarius crnmittee on fish and
fishery products (Olley 1977) his is despite the fact that there is ample
4
evidence that the same ClfDUnt of 1MA is accanpanied by different ClfDUnts of
spoilage even within the same species
Several investigators (Spinelli et aI 1984 Jones 1965) have expressed
reservations regardirq the use of IMA as an index of quality for fresh fish
not inq that 1MA values fail to give an adequate Iod icetIon of early autolytic
quality chanqes aOO preferrirq hypoxanthfne detenninations instead MA as
would be expected of a bacterial product is not useful in detenninilg quality
deteriorations which occur durirq frozen storage FIrthenoore the shape of
the fish will markedly influence the arrount of IMA meaaured in ng per 100 g
fish (Bremner et aI 1978) Trimethylamine is roost sensitive as an indicator
of the later stages of spoilage whereas Chemical tests for dimethylamine are
most valuable in the early stages of spoilage
Ryder et al (1984) foond that the bacterial metabol Ic end products (1VB
and MA) were less useful as objective measurements of freshness in Jack
Mackerel (TrochuflUB nooaezelandiae) hey also reported that the pH was not a
gcxxl indicator of early storage changes and lEA values could not be used to
detennine loss of acceptability or eoo of shelf-life Recently it has became
apparent that the sulphur canpounds and mercaptans may be importantH2S
detenninants of fish odour and flavour (~rbert and Shewan 1975)
Measurement of MA IMA or amoonia requires a laboratory am assistant of
matriculation standard who has had sane weeks of practice in the IOOthod
Neither the Codex Alimentarius CoITInittee or the EEl (Ccmoon Market) lay down
samplilg procedures
Another quality assessment lOOasurement involves the nucleotides aoo their
degradation products Early studies with cod carp Pacific Salmgtn Lemon
sole haddock and plaice revealed that post-mortem nucleotide degradation in
fish muscle proceeds prbnarily via the followirq sequence of reactions ATP -)
AMP -) IMP -) IID -) Hx -) Xa -) UA where KrP = Jldenosine 5-triphosphate AMP
5
= Jldenosine 5-IOCgtoophosphate IMP = Inosine 5-IOCgtoophosphate lID = Inosine j
Hx = Hypoxanthine xa = Xpnthine am UA = Uric acid loo ~tages in this
degradative sequence have been considered as objective indices of quality shy
dephosphorylation of IMP am formation of hypoxanthine IMP reportedly
possesses properties as a flavour enhancer in fish mrscle COnsequently its
breakdawn may contribute to and be correlated with the loss of fresh flavour
in sane species SCme difficulties however may arise fran using IMP
dephosphorylatioo as a s inqle quality index eg the pattern of nucleotide
breakdown in invertebrate seafood species may differ in same key respects fran
that fourrl in vertebrate species he rate of IMP decanposition in the muscle
also differs between species (Ehira 1976) Accordi~ to Martin et al (1978)
the rrost serious limitation imposed by an IMP index may be that the reaction
is substantially complete well within the edible storage life of a number of
species Its major value then may be as an indicator of fresh flavour loss
during early storage
Unlike IMP concentrations of hypoxanthine (Hx) have been shown to
increase steadily throughout the useful storage life of a number of fish
species (Hughes and Jones 1966) Hypoxanthine formation is a result of both
autolytic am bacterial activities hus it also has advantages over the 1MA
assay Hx may be correlated with flavour loss caused by autolytic activities
durirg early storage am with bacterial spoilage during extended storage to
derive a prediction of useful storage life Also the IMA test is of no value
for freshwater fish because these either do not contain or contain very little
trimethylamine oxide Hx may also be used to determine the quali ty of canned
herrirg at the tirre of processing since hypoxanthine concentrations neither
increase nor decrease duri~ heat process inq and subsequent storage (Hughes
ard Jones 1966) 1MA concentrations on the other hand are unstable during
heat process inq lbNever different species of fish produce hypoxanthine by
6
different routes and at different speeds Each lustralian species ttOUld have
to be examined in turn am the hypoxanthine test related to sensory grades
tbte that the Canadian redfish and flounder had produced the maximum amgtunt of
hypoxanthine 10llg before they becarre unacceptable while the swordfish had
only produced a fifth of the arount when it became unacceptable to a taste
panel (Olley 1978) The hypoxanthine test requires laboratory facilities and
same equipment but recently the use of sLmple paper strips have been reported
(Jahns et aI 1976)
The main disadvantages of nucleotide assays are that they are apt to vary
even arro~ individuals within a species Sufficient samples need to be used
to reduce this variability
All the chemical roothods discussed above depend on measuring the
concentration of certain chemical substances in the flesh and since the sample
is destroyed in the process they cannot be used to test every fish in a
batch In any case variation between fishes in the sarre batch makes chemical
tests for quality a task requiring a statistician (Olley 1977) All the
methods require the use of a laboratory or fairly elaborate facilities and
also they oo rot apply to all species and products alike
130 Physical Methods
Love (1954) described a roothod which correlates the turbidity of the eye
lenses of fish with storage tiroo of iced fish kept in a roan of fairly
constant air temperature He found that it is possible by examination of 20
or more lenses to assess the storage tiroo with an error of not roore than 1
day M advantage of this roothod is that since only the eyes have to be
raroved in sampling the fish remains saleable as headed dressed fish or as
fillets ~ver1 the roothod had many limitations such as difficulty in
manipulation and matchi~ of the lenses which have to be done in good diffused
7
daylight at least 20 lenses are required for each estllnation which is rather
tedious for routine work and also it is not applicable where fish had not been
kept all the time in ice under the standard conditions eg bulk stowage of
fish with ice on a trawler may result in deviation fran the conditions of box
stolage in an insulated roan
he GR Ibrrymeter is a battery pc7ot1ered hand-held instnunent that rreasures
certain dialectric properties of fish skin which charge wi th the
tiJretemperature history of the fish fbWever readi~s on a large mrnber of
samples have to be taken and averaged bull Although it is a rapid simple
objective and rDn-destructive method of estllnati~ the quality of fresh fish
it has the followilkJ disadvanteqesj large variation in readirg fran fish to
fish readi~ varies with physical damage to fish1 cha~e of readi~ with time
varies with species and also may be insensitive at later stages of spo i Laqe
Curran et al (1981) reported that the GR Ibrrymeter was not particularly
successful with both the purple emperor (L6thoinus l6ntjan) ard the Spanish
mackerel ( Scomberomorue oonmereons since the readirgs obtained do not
correlate very well with the taste panel results
140 Microbiological Methods
he rootine microbiological testirg that is performed under normal
industry operations is normally restricted to enumeration of nonpathogenic
microorganisms hose frost frequently used are the standard plate count and
enumeration of indicator organisms such as the coliform group Beoher-ichia
coli aM Staphylococcus aureus
Food handl i nq practices beyond the pr-imary processors control make
standard aerobic plate count (APe) a difficult quality assessment tool to use
generally he total nunber of bacteria is not the sole determinant of
8
quali ty since certain microbial groups are rrore apt to cause spoilage than
others These groups can be given a selective advantage for growth by the way
the product is processed or stored furthermore the determination of
bacterial counts while they are of value to research requires too much time
before results are known and can also be expensive for routine testing
Representative samples have to be taken for bacterial examination because the
fish or product is destroyed during the test Interpreting the results of
bacterial testing is a task for experts who should be consulted when
necessary bull
Detection and enumeration of indicator bacteria such as the coliform
group E ooli and S auroeu8 were considered for many years to indicate the
potential presence of pathoqenic microorganisms NM this inference has been
questioned and these groups are no longer considered a reliable method for
predicting the presence of such pathogens (Martin et aL1978) bull
According to Olley and Ratkowsky (1973) there is in fact no simple index
of quality and a thorough knowledge of the oamplete temperature history of the
fish is the only true indicator of freshness This is so because at higher
temperatures bacteria divide in half more rapidly Therefore the
relationship between bacterial growth with production of spoilage canpounds
and temperature is not a straight line rut a curve he curve relates rate of
spoilage of these commodities at temperatures between aoe and 25dege to the rate
at which they would spoil at aoe hus at aoe the relative rate is 1 and at
Rate at temperature (tOe)any other temperature the relative rate is Rate at a be
Bremner et at (1978) have coined the term ICE FOID for this relative rate
ie so many times faster than the ccmnodity would spoil on ice and
lCETIME as equivalent storage time on ice = lCEFOID x time in days
The curve has also been converted into tabular form to enable conversion
of the temperature history of the catch into equivalent storage time
on ice under ideal conditions However the concept of relative rate of
9
spoilage with temperature can only apply if fishing oonditions are kept
constant
150 sensory Methods
Currently the best way to detenmine fish freshness still requires the use
of a taste panel (Regenstein and Regenstein 1981) A number of taste panel
techniques for assessing the quality of unfrozen fish species have been
described am are in use in different parts of the world These techniques
vary in cbjective and ccrrplexity but are of three main types Firstly there
are those which categorise the fish on the basis of its acceptability for
eatirq secondly there are those which categorise the fish on the basis of
well-defined characteristics which change duri~ storage Thirdly there are
techniques which include elements of both of these types Techniques of the
first type usually anploy a single gradi~ or hedonic (like-dislike) scale
whilst those of the second type anploy descriptions of various characteristics
(Baines et aI 1969)
The ultimate criterion of fish quality is the flavour and texture of the
cooked fish HcMever taste panel evaluations of cooked fish are timeshy
consiminq and relatively few samples can be tested at anyone time It is
therefore highly desirable to be able to make an assessment of eati~ quality
by exanini~ the raw fish My atterrpt to raise the quality of raw fish as it
reaches the consumer is critically dependent on the development of a
convenient and consistent rrethod of quality assessment based on raw fish
Fortunately eat inq quality of cooked fish can be correlated with the
appearance odour and texture of the whole raw fish Boyd and Wilson (1976)
when evaluat inq the quality of snapper (Chroysophfys aufatus) by a sensory
method found that there is close relationship between the raw attributes of
gill odour and general appearance with those of odour texture am flavour of
10
the cooked fish
The use of ooject ive tests at dockside or even on inspection within the
plant is not considered to be practical in the normal routine of inspection of
fresh ard frozen fish products as almost all of the coject Ive tests require
laboratories am so becare rather rerooved fran the busy fisherman processor
or factory foreman A nuch simpler piece of apparatus is the eye or the N)Se
(olley 1977) Sensory tests are always controversial as they require an
inspector although the canny buyer is in fact applying his senses of smell
am visual acuity in a similar fashion W9 accept the wine faster and wcxgtl
classer so why not the fish grader (Bremner 1984) Therefore a test that
correlated well with freshnessquality and that could operate on the market or
in the factory would be of considerable value to an efficient industry (Baines
et aI 1965)
Howgate (1978) also considered the sensory rrethods to be far better than
non-sensory methods which are not suitable for consumer testing whilst
Connell (1972) states that in general the sensory rrethod of assessing
freshness is the best at present for quality control purposes
As fish spoils its snell taste appearance and feel go through
characteristic am well defined stages that trained experts or experienced
staff can consistently recognise It is convenient to attach a number or
score to each stage so that the assessor can award the appropriate score to
each fish or batch of fish Alternatively the mere recognition of each stage
ard acceptance or rejection of fish on this basis may be all that is
necessary Different species and products spoil in different ways The
numerical system us irq an objective panel developed at the Ibrry IEsearch
Station by Shewan et al (1953) is probably the ultUnate critical evaluation of
fish freshness available at this time It was created for the determination
of storage time of whole Net fish l6Jenstein and Iegenstein (1981) in using
11
this nunerical system reported that the cooked freshness scores are generally
higher (better) than expected at that storage t irre for whole wet fish A
freshness score of 55 on the Ibrry scale seemed the appropriate endpoint for
their definition of shelf-life This would nonnally be reached with ideal
iced-at-sea fish about twelve days from catch sooner for fillets Freshness
scorirq systems are I1C1laquo available fran Ibrry Research station for most UK
ccmnercial species and systems are available for both the raw and cooked
fish HoweveF there is still no standard scorirq system to be used
internationally he countries in the EEC ~or instance use scoring systems
which differ both in scale length am in characteristics measured Most
systems use the same scale length for all features examined but the United
Kingdon am Icelarrl use scales of 10 to 0 for odour and 5 to 0 for other
characteristics ibwgate (1972) describes the effort to construct a rorogram
for oonvert inq fran one scorinq system to another (Appendix 1) de Zylva
(1974) expanded the Ibrry score sheet to include marks for flesh colour and
texture belly flap discoloration stainiBJ of backbone am colour of
kidney he scoring system was designed for ~w Zealand snapper and gave
excellent negative linear correlations between score am days of storage
legenstein (1983) presents the way in which Ibrry has in turn incorporated
other characteristics into the score sheet for raw fish Groupings of several
characteristics to give a score requires more expertise than scoring
individual points as is done by de Zylva
However the use of a point or scoring system in which higher points are
given for high quality attributes would mean the requirements of more
kllC7filedge of the fish and the tester mist be experienced and knCM the
qualities of the fish previously Therefore it is too species dependent
his problem can be overcare by using the demerit system with points being
allotted in several categories for defects as they becare obvious and one can
I
12
learn as one goes along in each situation he demerit points that were given
to the various selected quality attributes could be weighted in such a way as
to produce an approximately linear change in score with storage time (Branch
and Vail 1985)
It might also be desirable OCIlInercially to specify a uniform mrnber of
days of shelf-life fran the pack date to consumption he length of shelfshy
life ctgttained for fish depends on the initial age and quality of the fish the
tirre of the pack am the time am temperature of storage before am after
packing In practical terns the ultimate measure of the effect(s) of shelf-
life extension treatments on the final quality of the fish is consumer
satisfaction (Regenstein aoo Regenstein 1981)
A tentative grading systan for fresh fish based on sensory assessment of
fish had been described by IbUwing (1972)
160 The Ideal Method
Forty years of research ootably in the UK Canada and Japan have gone
into objective methods for measuring fish quality (Bremner et al 1978)
There is as yet 00 single universal test for all species nor for that
matter any wholly satisfactory test for individual species
The ideal rrethod hOlJld be one that is cheap oon-destructive easy to
use oot subject to much variation or fatigue having rapid response and wide
application sensory tests have the advantages of being non-destructive 00
equipnent required adaptable to species and assessing the market value
Althcogh sensory tests are usually condemned as a subjective test which
requires training am experience am are also said to be easily open to
abuse this can be reduced if a simple rapid and less descriptive rrethod
could be fourd - possibly with the use of demerit point scores Therefore
this study aims at assessing the use of sensory techniques based on the
13
demerit point scores developed for raw whole (gutted and ungutted) and
filleted fish samples of Australian fish species stored in ice and RSW It
also discusses the results of the acceptability taste panels on the cooked
fish samples
The two oammercially ~rtant Australian fish species used in this study
were the blue grenadier am the blue rock whiting he blue grenadier is
currently Tasmanias major oammercial finfish and the recent annual production
of the fishery exceeds 100 tonnes (Last et aI 1983)~ he blue rock whiti~
is the only Australian member of the family that has any commercial
importance It occurs mainly in Bass strait and the sheltered bays of South
eastern Tasmania The flesh is delicately flavoured but very soft
200 MATERIALS lIND MEIHgt[s
210 Sample preparation
211 Fish stored in RSW
Blue grenadier used in this study were caught on the 15th lugust 1984 at
a depth of 300 fathans off Sandy Cape on the west coast of Tasmania (Lat
41deg20S IDrq144deg40 E) by demersal trawl They were taken fran the deck
irnnediately am dropped into a refrigerated seawater (RSW) tank in a net bag
(tanp -1degC) The fish was reported to be handled quite roughly on board
Sore of the fish had already gone into rigor at this stage he fish were
transported to the CnID lasrnanian Food lesearch Uni t (TFRJ) laboratories in
Hobart and were already to days old on arrival The f ish were then placed in
the RSW box tank of the rrobile unit (the design and construction of which were
described by Thrower and Stafford 1981) and was kept at -1degC for the duration
of the storage trial which lasted for about three weeks Four fish were
rerroved at each samplirq tine (Table 1) for sensory assessment Length
14
measurements to the fork of the tail were also noted ~e fish were then
filleted and samples frozen at -lBoe for later assessment of their
acceptability by taste panel
212 Fish stored in ice
For the sensory assessment of fish stored in ice guidelines similar to
those given by Lima dos Santos et al (981) were used ~e blue rock whiting
also known as the weedy whiting was used ~e whiting were caught on the
afternoon of 23rd August 1984 by demersal trawl in 18 to 25 m waters oft
Eastern Tasmania On arrival at the TFRJ laboratories in I-bbart at 11 45 am
on the fol Lowirq day the f ish were re- iced at a ratio of 21 (ice f ish) in
insulated plastic boxes of size 66 x 41 x 28 em with provision for drainage
of melt water Flake ice was used ~e ice was topped up daily and renewed
once a week The boxes of i ced f ish were then kept in a cool roan set at a
temperature of 0deg to -1dege ~ree fish were removed for sensory assessment at
each sampling time (Table 1) over a period of rmre than three weeks of ice
storage 100 fish samples were then frozen at -18dege until needed for the
acceptability taste panel
Table 1
sampling regirre for fish stored in R3Wice
Blue Grenadier Diys in R3W 3 4 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 17 21
Sample code N D G L S R K T U P M 0
Whiting Diys in ice 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Sample code 0 M D G T S N R P U L K
15
220 Sensory assessment of the whole (gutted and ungutted) raw fish samples
Both the blue grenadier stored in lOW and the whi t i nq stored in ice were
progressively assessed by using the sense organs of sight smell and touch tor
changes in general appearance odour and texture with storage tine by giving
the appropriate demeri t scores according to the score sheets as shown in
Tables 2 and 3 IVo types of score sheets were used Table 2 shows the
sensory assessment score sheet orig inally developed for the assessment of
gemfish (Thrower et al 1982) It has been simplified and weighted (Branch
and Vail 1985) to provide accumulated increases in demerit points as the t i sn
change in odour texture and appearance during storage with the max imum
accumulated demerit point scores of 35 for the urx]utted samples and 39 tor tte
gutted samples The total scor irq for gutted fish differs fran that descr ibeo
by Bremner (1984) and Branch and Vail (1985) in that the demerit points for
the belly cavity have been added to those for the whole fish
The whole and gutted raw fish were also assessed by using the freshness
score sheet developed by the Council of the European COl1nunities (Official
Journal of the European Qmnunities 1970) but with slight rrodification marie
in its scor irq method in that the scor irq was reversed to provide accumulateri
increases in demerit points as in the TFRJ score sheet (Table 2) with a
maximun accumulated demerit score of 30 (Table 3) The samples were scored by
H Abd R who had had no previous experience with the score sheet
230 Sensory Assessment of the frozen filleted raw fish samples
Samples of the whole and gutted fish of both species were then filleted
ard frozen at -18degC until required for the organoleptic acceptability test
panel fillets were thawed by holding for about 16 hours (overnight) in still
air at 4degC The thawed fillets of both the blue grenadier and whi t i nq were
then assessed by the sense organs of sight smell and touch by using the scor-e
sheet for filleted sample as shown in Table 4 nle score sheet was developed
16
able 1
FIlt U Snorr bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullnt oore hbullbull t ( ( 1Ii~ ANI) tlNtJuTreo)
1_middotAnlJ lmiddot
rlSB IDDII
UIUIl~ (VBci9ht~i9ht8lDullDUll
o 1 2 3
SitU ( rimSoft) o 1
SCALBS (r1mSlLoomiddotmiddotLoobullbull ) o 12
r r SLIMB (AbbullbullntSlSlimiddotysliyVSliy)
o 123
S1IrnraS (pr-Ri90rRi90rPot-Ri90r) o 1 2
BYBS Clarity (ClbullbullrISlCloudyCloudy) 012
Shape (HoralslsunknSunkn) 012
Irill (ViiblHot Viibl) IJ 1
Blood (No BloodSlBloodyVBloody) o 1 2
GILLS Colour (VDark)Charaotritio (SlDark) (vradd)(Slradd)
2o 1 Kucou (AbbullbullntKoderatmiddotBxcbullbullbulliv)
o 1 2 S bullbullll (rrbullbullh 01ly) Pihy8talpoll~
(MetalliaSaved) 1 2 3
BELLI Dicoloration (AbbullbullntDetatablmiddotModratmiddotBxobullbullbulliy) 012 3
Finanbullbullbull ( rira80ftBurt) o 1 2
VENT Condition (bobullbulldy)Noraal (SlBrbullbullk) (Opening)(Bxudbullbull )
2o 1 Sbullbulln (rrbullbullhReutralrihy8poilt)
o 2 3
BELLI CAVIn Stain (OpalbullbullontGryihlmiddotllow-Brown) o 1 2
Blood (RdDark RdBrown)
o 1 z
--
17
UJE 3
Etc SENSORY A$fE4St4fN[ ~(oIlL~
SCALE OF MARKING - FRESHNESS
CRITERIA shypoundu1LRt
Abullbullbullbullbullment Mara-bull thc r1ah 0 1 2- 3tszhL
AppearanceinIIMlISJ Skin
Eye
Gill
Flbullbullshycut f ssm abdomusn
Colour the~
vertebral column
Organs
Oright iridescent I bright pigmenta- pigmentation in (1) dull pigmenta tion no i tion but not the process of pigmentation discolouration Ius trous becoming dis-
mucus opaquemucus aqueous i coloured and dull
mucus slightlytransparen t
cloudy ~UCU9 milky
convex (bulging) convex and flat (1) concave in cornea tran- slightly sunken cornea the centre parent cornea Ughtly opalescent cornea milky pupil black opalescent pupil pupil grey bright
pupil black opaque dull
-shining colour less coloured becoming dis- (1) yellmiish no mucus a few traces of coloured mucus milky
cloar mucus mucus opaque
blueish trans- dull velvety slightly opaque (1) opaque lucid smooth waxy shining without any change in the colour sUgh tly original colour changed
(I) reduncoloured sl1 gh tly pink pink
kidneys and kidneys and kidneys (1) kidneys residues of resJdues of resicJuos of r bullbullidue of other other organs other organs other organs organs and blood bright red the dull red blood and blood brownish game as the becoming palo red blood inside discolbured the aorta
(1) or in a more advanced bull ta te of decay
I
bull
Flesh
Vertebtal Column
Peritonium
Gills kin abdominal cavity
18
(eontd)
SCALE OF MARKING - FRESHNESS
CRITERIA
Assessment Mark 0 1 2
Physical eOId ton
firm and elas tic surface smooth
breaks ins tead of coming away
totally adherent to the flesh
seaweed
less elastic
adherent
adherent
Smell bull
not of seaweed but not bad
slightly soft (flaccid) Ie elastic surfacente waxy velvety and dull
slightly adherent
slightly adherent
slightly sour
3
(1) soft (flaccid) scales ebullbullil y detached from skin sur face ra ther wrinkled inclining to mealy
(1) not dherent
1( ) not adherent
(1) sour
(1) or in a more advanced stat of decay
_ shy-- -
19
Table 4
Filleted Sample Score Sheet
r
TREATMENT F ILIEIS DATE REMOJAL (THAWED)
FISH IDENr
EASE OF FILLETING (Easysl difficultdifficult)
012
APPEARANCE (a) Oolour of flesh (TranslucentSl discolouredSl opaqueopaque)
o 1 2 3
(b) Blood stains (AbsentDetectableModerateExcessive)
012 3
(c) Clotting (UnclottedSlclottedModclottedExcessclotted)
012 3
(d) Skin Oolour (VbrightBrightSldullOU11)
o 1 2 3
TEXTURE FirmS1 softSoft
o 1 2
ClDClJR (FreshNeutralStaleSpoilt)
012 3
CONJITION (a) Gaping (AbsentDetectableModerateExcessive)
o 1 2 3
(b) Bruising (AbsentSlightSevere)
012
(c) Wetness (NmnalS1 dry orMod dry orExcess dryness or
SldripModdrip Freezer bJrn or Excessdrip
012 3
(d) Autolysis (Absentmoderatesevere) (Disco1ourations) 0 1 2
(e) Parasites (Absentmoderatesevere) ( Infestations) 0 1 2
(f) Other discolourations (Absentpresent) or contaminants (bones membranes tissues etc) 0 1
EASE OF SKINNING (EasySldifficultdifficult)
012
20
by the author after a literature search and observations made during the preshy
liminary part of the study It has a maxUnum accumulated demerit score of 34
240 ~anoleptic Acceptability Panel of the cooked fish
Filleted samples of both fish species which had been frozen in a cold
roan at -18dege and then thawed as above were used for the acceptability taste
panels The fillets were skinned am cut into 30 to 40 g pieces crumbed and
deep fried (Bremner et ale 1985) Three or four treatments were cooked
simultaneously at each session am the fish served with packets of take-away
french fries Tcrnato sauce vinegar and salt were available Each of the
samples were randanised in such a way so as to give a high degree of balance
(Table 5 and 6) Letters that represent the samples were also picked
randanly The fish was assessed by 20 panellists employed at the Tasmanian
lEgional Laboratory and experienced with facial hedonic scaling for flavour
texture am overall acceptability using the General Foods Smiley scale
(Appendix 2) Salt was rot rrentioned with the 9niley questionaire for blue
grenadier so that the panel should have ro preconceiVed prejudices
250 Statistics
tata fran the sensory assessment of the whole gutted and ungutted raw
fish (both TFRJ am EEl score sheets) am fran the sensory assessrrent of the
frozen filleted raw fish samples of both the blue grenadier stored in RSW am
whiting stored in ice were analysed for correlation using the ELF scatter
module (Appendix 3 and 4)
The acceptability taste panel assessment scores for flavour texture and
overall liking of the toKgt species of fish were subjected to analysis of
variance using the Genstat package (Appendix 5 and 6)
22
Table 6
Order of presentation of cooked whiting samples to the acceptability taste panelists
Order of presentation of samples Panelist
session I session II
1 OTP rm 2 MUS KR 3 sm INL
4 IKJ GKR
5 ror NK
6shy USM UN ~
7 OOP RLD
B HUT NKD
9 USO RiL
10 SMP LGN
11 IMT GIltN
12 nxgt KRD
Note
8angtle code OM 0 G T S N R P U L K
storage time in ice (days) 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
23
300 RESULIS
310 Physical Characteristic of M novaeaelandiae
rran the forty-six fish examined the mean fork lerqth was found to be
762 an (range 609 to 838 an) A few of the fish examined had well shy
developed roes and their digestive tracts were found to be relatively empty
320 Physical Characteristics of the H ssmifasoiata
rran a total of thirty-six fish examined the rrean weight of the fish was
fourrl to be 662 g (range 27 to 186 g) am the mean fork length was 183 em
(range 156 to 265 an)
330 sensory assessment of the raw blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
he results of the sensory assessrrent of the r2M blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW by the four rrerhods of scoring are given as average total
accumulated demerit point scores as shown in Table 7 Figure 1 shoes the
graph of demerit point versus days in RSW by the four rrethods of sensory
assessment used Table 9 shltJtS the correlation analysis
340 sensory assessment of the raw whitirq samples stored in ice
he results of the sensory assessment of the r2M whitirq samples stored
in ice by the four methods of scoring are given as average total accumuLated
demerit point scores as shown in Table 8 Figure 2 shltJtS the graph of demerit
point versus days in ice of the four nethods of sensory assessment used Table
9 shltJtS the correlation analysis
350 Attributes contributing to total score
Attributes that contribute to total score usirq the TFRJ scores (ungutted
and gutted) EEC scores and the filleted sample scores are as shewn in Tables
10 - 14
24
Table 7
Total demerit points fran sensory assessment of blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
Average lbta1 Demerit Rgtint SCores
[)lye in RW TFRJ scores TFRJ scores EEl scores Filleted Sample (urvJut t ed ) (gutted) (gutted) SCores
3 3 3 1 1
4 5 5 2 3
6 10 10 6 6
8 16 18 9 8
9 19 21 11 10
10 20 22 13 12
11shy 22 24 15 14
12 23 25 18 17
13 24 26 19 18
14 25 27 19 19
17 29 31 21 23
21 33 35 25 29
Note
Maximum possible scores for (1) IlRJ scores (ungutted is 35
( 11) IlRJ scores (gutted) is 29
( 11i) EEX scores (gutted) is 30
( iv) Filleted sample scores is 32
amptV
35j
3l~
en Ishy 25Z-0 Q
3)-~
bullbullbull 0
bull 0 0bull 0
bull 0 0 6shy abull A ~
~
bull 0
~
6shy
bull 0
6shy
I) 01
-W 0i A15W ~ Q A
~
6shy~101- bull 90 TFRU SCORES (ungutted)
6shy~ bullbull TFRU SCORES (gutt~d i
bull ~
4 6- 6- EEC SCORES 5~
~ ~ FILLETED SAMPLE SCORES ~
6 4 I J I I I
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
DAYS IN RSW
Figl Demerit Points Versus Days in RSW For Blue Grenadier Samples
Fig 2 Demerit Points Versus Days in ice For Whiting Samples I
27
Table 8
TOtal demerit points from sensory assessment of whi tirq samples stored in ice
Average TOtal Demerit Foint SCores
rays in ice TFRJ scores TFRJ scores EEC scores Fi 11eted sample (urqutted) (gutted) (gutted) (gutted)
1 1 1 0 0 3 2 2 1 1
5 4 4 2 3
7 7 9 3 4
9 13 15 6 9
n 15 17 7 13
13 19 21 11 15
15 24 27 15 16
17 29 32 19 18
19 31 35 22 21
21 32 36 24 24
23 33 37 26 26
Note
MaXllnum possible scores for (i) TFRJ scores (urqutted) is 35 ( ii) TFRJ scores (gutted) is 39 ( iii) EEC scores (gutted) is 30 ( iv) Filleted sample scores is 32
28
Table 9
Relationship between tLme and demerit points for fish stored in RSW
Method of Visual Assessment
y- intercept slope correlation
M novaBMBlandias
TFRJ (urqutted ~les) 032 175 097
TFRJ (gutted samples) 032 190 096
EEl -231 146 097
Filleted samplesbull
-357 158 099
H sBmifasoiata
TFRJ (urqutted samples) -245 167 099
TFRJ (gutted samples) -273 187 099
EOC -414 129 098
Filleted samples -244 125 099
ltshy
--------------- ------------------------------------------
------------- - ------------- -------- ------
Table 10
Attributes contributing to total score using TFRO scores (gutted and ungutted)
Attributes involved in score change Score
Blue grenadier in RSW Whiting in ice
Stiffness Eyes - clarity blood Slllne Stiffness Eyes - clarity shape and blood lt10 Gills - smell Vent - smell SlBne Gills - colour smell and mucous
Vent - smell Belly cavity - stains and blood
Appearance Eyes-shape Stiffness Gills - smell colour and mucous Skin
Stiffness appearance gill-smell Scales belly-discolouration and firmness
N so
gt10lt20 SCales belly - discolouration and firmness Vent - smell Vent - smell and condition Belly cavity - stains and blood
Appearance Slllne Eyes - clarity shape Appearance SlBne Scales Skin blood and iris Gills - colour Eyes - clarity and shape
gt20lt30 Belly - discolouration Gills - mucous smell am colour Vent - condi tion and smell Belly cavity shy blood
Appearance Gills - mucous and smell SlBne Eyes - iris am blood Belly - discolouration and firmness Belly - discolouration and firmness
gt30 Vent - condition and smell Vent - condition Belly cavity - blood Belly cavity - stains
Table 11
Attributes contribut irq to total score us irq EEC scores
Attributes involved in score change
Score Blue grenadier in RSW W1iting in ice
lt7 Appearance - skin eyes gills organs Physical condition - flesh Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and organs Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skins eyes gills flesh Appearance-eyes and organs atv
vertebral column and organs Physical condition-flesh and peritoneum gt7lt14 Physical condition - flesh Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-eyes flesh and vertebral Appearance-skin gills and organs column Physical condition-flesh vertebral column
gt14lt21 Physical condition-vertebal column and and peritoneum peritoneum Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and vertebral column vertebral column
gt21 Physical condition-flesh and peritoneum Physical cOndition-flesh vertebral column Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity and peri toneum bull
Table 12
Attributes contributing to total score using filleted sample scores
Score
lt5
Attributes involved in score change
Blue grenadier in RSW
Appearance - blood stains skin colour ltXIour - flesh
M1iting in ice
----- shy -------------- shy
Appearance - skin colour odour - flesh Cbndition - gaping wetness
Appearance - colour of flesh Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Texture - flesh skin colour ltgt gt5lt10 Cbndition - gaping bruising wetness Ease of filleting
Texture - flesh
Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Appearance - colour of flesh clotting skin clotting skin colour skin colour
gt10lt20 odour - flesh odour - flesh Cbndition - gaping wetness autolysis COndition - gaping bruising wetness other discolourations autolysis and other discolouration Ease of skinning
Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains skin colour clotting
gt20 Texture - flesh Texture - flesh odour - flesh Odour shy flesh COndition - gaping bruising wetness Cbndition - wetness autolysis autolysis Ease of skinring
32
Table 13
Diff~rent emphasis in scoring systems for whole fish as between the EEl and TFID
Attribute Number of potential demerit points TFRJ EEl
1Ippearance (general) 3 0
skin ) scales 6 3
slime
Stiffness (Rigor) 2 0
Eyes 7 3
Gills 7 6
Belly 5 0
Vent 5 0
Belly cavity 4 3
Flesh cut fram abdomen 0 3
Flesh texture 0 3
Vertebral column 0 6
Internal organs 0 3
33
360 Relative merits of the scoring systems
The four scor irq methcds were used on the same samples of t ish Any
sample had therefore deteriorated to the same extent on anyone day Figs 3
am 4 shew the scores converted to percentages of possible deroorit point
scores The discrepancy in the accumulation of demerit points between the EEC
am TFRJ scor irq methods is clearly shown IEference to Table 2 3 am 13
shOool that this is caused by the lack of questions regarding rigor looseness
of scales condition of belly am vent am the qroupinq of colour am mucous
in the gills as single po i nts thus halving the potent Ia I gill demerit point
score canparison of the tO species in Table 9 ShONS that the rate of
accumulation of demerit pgtints was more consistent for the TFRU system than by
the EEX scor i oq methltXl or by scorinq of fillets
370 Time taken to score the fish
The average time taken to score an individual fish using the TFPlJ
(unqutted) scores TFRJ (gutted) scores EEX scores am the filleted aamp Le
scores were found to be 1 min 25 sec 1 min 55 sec 3 min 45 sec and 1 min 50
sec respectively The EEX score sheet is more t iroe consumioq in that more than
one question is asked about an attribute for the giving of only one demerit
point this requires conscious thought
380 Acceptability taste panel results of blue grenadier samples bull Figures 5 6 am 7 shOool the mean taste panel scores in graphic form for
flavour texture and overall acceptability of cooked blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW table 14 shows the results of the statistical analysis
390 Acceptability taste panel results of whiting samples
Figures 8 9 am 10 shOool the mean taste panel scores in graphic form for
flavour texture and overall acceptability of cooked whiting samples stored in
ice table 15 shows the results of the statistical analysis
WHITING STORED IN ICE o TFRU SCORES (ungutted)
bull TFRU SCORES (gutted)
b EEC SCORES
FILLETED SAMPLE SCORES
100bull e ~ e b
i 6
bull NW
oIJ-a A A-
(J0 t A~ 0 ~ AC)
C) -e ~~-
C) a 50 A
A w
Iz ~
~ - W e A0 c a ~ ~ A-a ~ l ~ A
w -~
~ X ~ W -e I c ~ ~ ibull I I I I
4 8 12 16 20 24
DAYS IN ICE FIG4
36
- flavourshy
-e s-e l ~ v
5middotIU
STORAGrf IN R sWDAYS
rlCoS Ttutfc pcr1 rcbull
rf oj bl jtlJ~r - jlqVGurc acccr~b
21179 0 2 136 843
~ 0 u 5middot0YI
oJ J l ofmiddot$ 1 e
tu 4middot0
VI
~ 3middot5
3middot0
TelC-lue X bull -e III
~ Gmiddotftv
ct 5middot03
V1
-J -f-SshyU 2
~ 40 t
3-~
~ bullbull0 5 0
~ 17 21A ISII
PAY- IITDRAGamp fbilW
FIG6 I Tq1-c pltnd rc-utl ojbllfcJrcftaJIr bull I~M144 Q Cc(r~blfly
r 411q~~ An~Plf bUIJlfM F llh J~Lld Pt-DoL B fpound)1
gt1 NI ~~eusr SJAVlt1
D ~II
(ffIt1~JP IIID bull U J 1i
-IyoJC )-tlICf p --lInraquoJ Ix-Pc ~1rb1 r I ef
Ma2j NI a~v2loJ$
til
1Ia ~AO (IIp~lJa~e
01
secto
00
s
05
5
o~
~
0pound
s
0
smiddot
o~
07
1 ~ ~ ~ ~
r~
B
~
rv t gtshy 2
~ ~ 11
~ 7shyIn r
~ () 0 1) m ~
~ gtshyz -
(fII~q~~ 7~ P
IItJ1o -~~f(ll p ~I I~U J ~t~L 0 ~ middot~II I
IDI 8~ middot lta ~
~ QS
middotS ~ ~ 0 z
r Smiddot II
S 1d 0-$ 111 r- l gtshy r
V fr~
~llCf-J a-PcJ~ U~middotJO
4lp~dmiddotyIb 6middot~1f np)t -~11M fo --IIhen IJutJel ~bl
Table 14
Acceptability of deep fried blue grenadier samples stored in FSW
rays in R3W
Acceptability 3 4 6 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 17 21
Flavour 50a 50a 4S a 51a 50a 51a 50a 4Sa 49a 53a 41b 35b
Texture 49bc 51abc 4S bed 52ab 4Sbed 53ab 52abc 52ab 4Sbed 55a 46cd 43d
OJerall 50ab 51ab 47be 52ab 4Sb 5lab 52ab 50ab 47b 54 a 41c 35d
abc
d
significantly different (pltOOOl)
significantly different (pltOOl) W so
Table 15
Acceptability of deep fried whiting samples stored in ice
rays in ice
Acceptability 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Flavour 5Sab 59a 59a 60a 59a 5S ab 51b 54ab 53ab 37c 37c 31c
Texture 59ab 59a 53bed 5S ab 63a 59ab 47cde 54be 56ab 55ab 44e 46de
OJera11 57ab 5S ab 59ab 60a 60a 5Sab 52b 53ab 55ab 42c 36cd 31d
abcde significantly different (Plt0001)
40
~oo DISCUSSION
410 Sensory assessment of the raw blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
he results of sensory assessment on the raw blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW by the four methods of scoring all sheM that there is
progressive increment in total demerit points with storage time for all the
four methods (Table 7) It was also fourxi that the accumulation of demerit
points with time of storage of the fish in ffiW occurred in a saui-linear
fashion for all -the four scoring methods used (Figure 1) he variables (time
of storage and demeritmiddot points score) were all highly correlated (Table 9)
he correlation equation of the TFRJ (ungutted samples) and TFRJ (gutted
sanples) scores were similar roth having a zero time intercept of 032 but
with the TFRJ (gutted samples) scores having a slightly greater slope by 015
he EEC scores and the filleted sample scores roth have lower slopes ie
146 and 158 respectively canpared with the TFRJ (ungutted sample) and TFRJ
(gutted sample) scores of 175 and 190 respectively lbwever the EOC scores
which have the lowest slope have a fairly similar correlation equation with
the filleted sample scores (Table 9) he negative intercepts reflected the
slightly more sigrroid relationship for these samples his suggests that the
TFRJ (gutted) scoring method is the rrost sensitive of the four methods
followed by the TFRJ (ungutted) the filleted sample and the EEC scores
It was also found that after 21 days of storage in RSW the blue
grenadier samples had not reached their maximun possible scores in any of the
four scoring rrethods used (Table 7) he TFRJ (ungutted sample) score only
reached 943 of its possible maximun value whereas the TFRJ (gutted sample)
scores EEC scores and the filleted sample score reached only 897 833 ar~
906 of their possible maximun score his means that all the four methods
of scoring can still be sensitive to changes in the quality of the blue
grenadier samples stored in RSW after 21 days of storage time
41
Figures 1 and 3 also shOVt that the pattern of the graphs of demerit
points against days storage in R3W of the four methcxis of scoring is similar
ie a tendency to be slightly sigmoid fbwever the filleted sanple scores
sean to be rrore sensitive than the EOC scores at the later part of the storage
time ie after 14 days of storage and the scores continued to rise
1be rrost obvious indicator of change for the blue grenadier stored in ffiW
using the TFRJ scores (both gutted and unJUtted sanples) was the eyes (clarity
and blood) followed by odour developnent of the gills (Table 10) his is -
also foond to be true wi th the EOC freshness score (Table 11) Fbr the
filleted sample scores the appearance and odoor of the flesh seems to be the
most obvious indicator of change follOVted by the condition of the fillets such
as gaping bruisin) am wetness (Table 12)
4 20 sensory assessment of the raw whi ting samples stored in ice
1he results of sensory assessment on the rCJl whiting samples stored in
ice by the foor roothods of scoring also shows that there is a progressive
increment in total demerit points with storage time for all the four methods
of scoring (Table 8) Ps with the blue grenadier the aCCLD1UJlation of demerit
points with time of storage of the whiting in ice also occurred in a sernishy
linear fashion for all the foor scoring methods used (Figure 2 and 4) wi th a
slight lag in the initial phase Interestingly this was not observed in the
case of blue grenadier sanples stored in ffiW probably because the first
samplin) of the blue grenadier starts only fran the third day after catch
whereas the first sampling of the whiting starts fran the first day after
catch Also the blue grenadier was handled qu i te roughly on the deck in fact
three oot of the four fish samples on the first rerroval ie the third day
after catching had already showed blood in their eyes
Bremner et al (1985) when using the TFRJ score sheet to assess the
42
quality of four tropical fish species fran the oorth west shelf of hJstralia
(stored in ice) also fourrl that the accumulation of demerit points with time
of storage in ice occurred in a linear fashion
PB wi th blue grenadier the variables (tine of storage ard darneri t points
score) were all highly correlated (Table 9) Also the correlation equation of
the TFRJ (ungutted) ard TFRJ (gutted) scores were similar with the TFJU
(gutted) score having a slightly greater slope by 020 Crable 9) he EEC
scores am filleted sample scores also have lower s lopes l e 129 ard 125
respectively ocmpared to the TFm (ungutted) and (gutted) scores of 167 and
187 respectively However unlike the blue grenadier the filleted samples
of the whi t ing had the 10liest slope he more sensi tive na ture of the EEC
scores as canpared to the filleted sample scores in the case of the whiting
especially after 12 days storage in ice can be explained by the snaller size
of the whitirlJ (fork length ranging fran 156 to 265 an) as canpared to the
size of the blue grenadier (fork length ranging 809 to 838 an) the snaller
fish terrl to spoil faster especially the interior parts of the fish PB the
EEC scores depend nuch on the sensory assessment of the interior parts of the
fish such as the appearance and condition of the flesh vertebral colwnn
interior organs per i toneun and abdaninal cavity (Table 3) which makes up more
than 18 demerit points out of the total possible maxinun of 30 the
sensitiveness of its score is thus self-explanatory in the case of whiting
Connell (1980) explained that large fish keep marginally better than small
fish because larger fish have a smaller surface to volume ratio so that in the
same tUne less of their interior is affected
The above results confirmed the previous suggestion that the TFRU
(gutted) scorIoq methcrl is the roost sensitive of the four methods It was
found that after 23 days of storage in ice the whiting scmples had not
reached the maximun possible scores in any of the four methods used (Table
43
8) The 1FIU (UBJutted) scores had reached only 94-3 of its possible maximum
value whereas the TFRJ (gutted) scores EOC scores am the filleted sample
scores reached only 94 9 867 and 81 3 of their poea Ible maximum score
Therefore all the four methods of scoriBJ can still be sensitive to changes
in quality of the whiting samples stored in ice after 23 days of storage tUne
Ihe roost obvious irxHcator of chaDJe for the whiting stored in ice using
the TFIU score sheet was the eyes (clarity shape and blcxxl) followed by the
develqxnent of -colour odour and nucous of the gills (fable 10) Bremner et
al (1985) when working with four tropical species f~ the north west shelf of
Australia also found that the most obvious indicator of change for fish stored
in ice was the eyes (their clarity am shape) follCAtled by odour developnent
and colour changes in the gills This was also found in the case of blue
grenadier in ~ discussed earlier OJrran et al (1981) when investigating
the quality changes duriBJ iced storage of three carmercially important
species of fish fran Bahrein also found that of the visual and olfactory
assessments gill odour showed the roost pranise as a quality control index
Pgain this is also found to be true with the EOC freshness score of both the
blue grenadier and the whitiBJ (Table 11) AccordiBJ to ~ate (1972) it
was generally agreed that odour of the gills is the most sensitive measure of
freshness but the visual appearance of the eyes gills arxi skin was quicker to
use in practice on the market
For the filleted sample scores of the whiting the most obvious indicator
of chanqe was the appearance and odour of the flesh (Table 12) This too
agreed with the findiBJs for blue grenadier stored in ffiW
AccordiBJ to Baines et al (1969) with fish eatiBJ is related to four
main attributes or quality factors viz appearance odour and texture of the
rCM and cooked fish and in the latter also flavour he ultimate purpose of
testing the raw fish is to estimate the eating quality which is here taken to
44
mean the degree of freshness of flavour Acoording to Baines and Shewan
(1965) the mostreliable test for predicting flavour sqore is raw odour
430 The ease aM difficulties of using the four methods of scoring
It was found that the TFRJ (ungutted) scores was the easiest and quickest
method to use as it takes on average only about 1 min 25 sec to score a fish
canpared to 1 min 55 sec 3 min 45 sec ard 1 min 50 sec for the TFRJ
(gutted) EOC and the filleted sample scores he E~ score was found to be
the roost tedious besides taking the longest time to soore a fish
he TFIU (ungutted) scores also have the advantage of not requiring a
knife in order to score ard also were less IOOSSY to work with canpared to all
the other nethods Also the attributes to be assessed were arranged and
organised in such a way in the score sheet that it is easy to score a fish
starting from assessing the apparance and skin and ending with the condition
and smell of the vent
440 Acceptability taste panel results of the blue grenadier samples
441 Flavour acceptability
Figure 5 shc7ws the flavour acceptability of the deep fried samples of
blue grenadier Samples stored in R3W for less than 17 days were found
statistically (Table 14) to be indistinguishable (Plt0001) fran each other
then there was a significant fall in the flavour acceptability of the samples
stored in RSW for 17 days onwards he sarrtgtle stored for 21 days had a still
lower mean value of 35 but it was not significantly different fran the
semple stored for 17 days which had a nean value of 41 It is interesting to
note that despite the progressive increase in sodiun uptake of the blue
grenadier samples stored in RSW from about 7115 35 mg sodium(lOO g tissue
initially to 724 33 mglOO g tissue on the 16th day aM to 729 17 mglOO g
45
tissue on the 21st day (Burford 1984) the panelists seem not to be
negatively affected by the increasing salt content of the samples with storage
tUne and in fact some of the panelists added more salt to their samples I
111is result contradicts statements made by previous reseachers that the
storage life using R3W may be limited by increases in salt content in the fish
flesh (Boyd et aI 1978) he maximun desirable salt content according to
Tcm1inson et al (1974) as quoted by Boyd et al (1978) is about 05 but at
the 16th day ofmiddot RgtW storage the salt content fOllNj In the flesh of blue
grenadier samples was already more than 07 fbwever the panelist only ate
40g pieces it might have been a different case if the fish has been as a
whole meal
442 Texture acceptability
Figure 6 shows the texture acceptability of the deep fried blue grenadier
samples stored in R3W eespf te sane apparent abberant values (such as the
high rrean of 55 for the sample stored for 14 days in RSW) it is obvious that
the texture acceptability showed a significant decreasing trend (pltOOl) from
seventeen days of storage onwards The abberant texture values are possibly
due to the fact that the fish texture might have been masked by the bread
crunbs used to coat the fish samples before deep fryi~ This agrees with the
observations of Bremner et al (1985) wtxgt found that the inherent textural
softness of P piotiue and the tougheni~ on storage of N peroni i detected by
a profile panel usilYJ steamed fillets were no lo~er noticeable when the fish
was deep fried in batter Bremner (1980) also reported that despi te the
softness of the raw flesh the cooked flesh of blue grenadier is reasonably
firm
46
433 OVerall acceptability
The overall acceptability of the deep fried blue grenadier samples stored
in R)W (figure 7) seems to follCM a similar pattern to its flavour
acceptability (figure 5)~ in which a significant fall in overall acceptability
was only observed fran the samples held fran 17 days in RSW onwards (pltO 001)
as shawn in Tablel4
rnus all the above results showed that there was a significant fall in
flavour texture and overall acceptability of blue ~renadier from 17 days of
R)W storage onwards which was found to be equivalent to the accumulated
demerit point scores of 29 of the TFRJ (ungutted) scoresr 31 of the TFRl
(gutted) scoresr 21 of the EOC scores and 23 of the filleted sample
scores Jones (1964) states that the acceptability of a fish is a function of
its suitability for further processing and of its inmediate appearance its
texture its odour and its flavour
450 Acceptability taste panel results of the whiting samples
451 Flavour acceptability
Figure 8 shows the flavour acceptability of the deep fried whiting
samples stored in ice rtle twelve sample times could be analysed individually
since the means if analysed by canbining adjacent sample times to give six
sample groups are in fact the means of the adjacent times if analysed
individually it was found that samples of the first nine renovals i se up to
17 days of storage in ice are more or less indistinguishable (abberant value
at 7th removal) he last three removals ie samples stored in ice for 19
21 and 23 days were found to be of significantly lower flavour acceptability
(p lt 0001) as shawn in Table 5
47
452 Texture acceptability
Except for the abberation at the 7th remgtval i 9 at day 13 of ice
storage there is a significant reduction of texture acceptability at the 21 II
and 23 days of ice storage (p lt0001) as shown by figure 9 and Table5 t
II
I 453 Over~ll acceptability
he overal I acceptability of the whiting sanples stored in ice is very
much similar to its f Lavour acceptability except at day 19 of ice storage
where the ovaral I acceptability shows a higher mean of 42 carpared to the
flavoor acceptability mean of 37 (figure 10 and Table 5) here is however a
significant sudden drop to lOil scores fran the lOth removal ie day 19 of
storage in ice (p lt0001)
hus all the above results for whitifVJ sanples showed that there was a
significant fall in flavCXJr and overall acceptability fram 19 days ice storage
onwards which is equivalent to the accumulated demerit points of 31 of the
TFRJ (unqutted) scores 35 of the TFRJ (gutted) scores 22 of the EEC
scores and 21 of the filleted sample scores he results are interesti~ in
that the oorresponding total accLDnulated demerit points at the time when
significant falls in flavour texture and overall acceptability of the blue
grenadier and whiting samples stored in I5W and ice respectively were quite
similar
500 CONCLUSION
510 Feasibility of using demerit points
Accumulation of demerit points with time of storage of M
in RM and H eemifaeaiatia in ice was found to be highly
occurred in a semi-linear fashion irrespective of the method of
novas8slandiae
correlated and
scori~ used
- _ ~uo_a~_bull--_--I e -Ii --
48
1he slopes of the lines (rate of accumulation of demerit points) and its
relative spoilage rate were found to be similar for the ttoO species provided
the sane method of scoring is employed 1his tends to suggest that the method
is possibly independent of species am methods of storage or at least
applicable to the two species in RSW and ice respectively
TIle TFRJ (ungutted) scores were foum to be the easiest arrl quickest
method to use although the TFRJ (gutted) scores were the roost sensitive 1he
EEX freshness scores were hClgtlever foum to be the JOOSt tedious aod difficult bull I
to use besides taking more than twice the time taken to score a fish ocmpared
to the TFRJ (ungut ted) scores
Although there were slig~t differences between the ttoO species in those
characteristics where changes were first made (Table 10 11 and 12) there is
enough evidence to conclude that the changes in the appearance of the eyes am
the odour developnent of the gills are the JOOSt obvious arrl valuable indicator
of charqe in quality when using the TFIU or the EEl scores while the
appearance am odour of the fish flesh seems to be the JOOSt obvious indicator
when assessing the filleted sample
1he shelf-life of M navaezelandiae stored in RSW was found to be 14 days
(less than 17 days) whilst that of H semifasoiata stored in ice was fourrl to
be 17 days (less than 19 days) beyond which the fish had developed spoilage
characteristics that were disliked by the acceptability taste panel
1he cut-off point at which spoilage of the samples would have rendered
the quality of the fish sample to be unacceptable fran the consumers point of
view ~ld be that equivalent to the accumulated demerit point of gt29 for the
TFRJ (gutted arrl ungutted) scores am gt21 for the EOC and filleted sample
scores
This study thus confinned the potential use of demerit points such as the
TFRJ (ungutted) scores as an easy quick cheap non-destructive and reliable
49
method of sensory assessment of fish quality In fact Branch and Vail (1985)
had studied the possible use of a prototype pocket-sized computer to determine
the condition and shelf-life of temperate and tropical species of fish based
on data that is derived fran the sensory score sheets for the assessment of
fish quality developed at the (SIRgt Division of fbod lEsearch Iasmanian Fbod
Research Unit (TFlU) Hobart
520 RJrpose for which demerit points are to be used
Many scor i oq systerrs are used to predict the nunber of days fish have
been stored on ice and in nore recent years ICETIME (equivalent days on
ice) I ard thus through years of experience the taste panel acceptability of
the fish I
However fish is sold on appearance and a scoring system may be used for
assessirg marketability of whole or gutted fish or fillets or for setting
standards in bulk buying The EEC scoring system is used for example at
fish markets at first point of sale to grade the fish and establish
withdrawal prices A IbrryShewan type system is often used as a purohas i nq
specification from finn to firm
Before a final demerit point system is selected for any COlIOOdity its
ultimate purpose should be established For example the demerit points
chosen for whole fish which nost closely resemble the rate of change of
demerit points for fillets of that species might be the most useful
A linear rate of change of demerit points with time is nose favoured
because it enables prediction of remaining shelf-life ConstJJrer
unacceptability should be at a point where perhaps 75 of the demerit points
have been accrued Further scores would still be available for categories
such as suitable for fish meal D3merit points are not an indication of the
acceptability of fish as eaten where off-odours flavours and fillet
50
tdiscolouration are masked by batters or curries Their correlation with the
iodours flavours off odours aod off flavours of steamed fish are currently ~
~
~being examined by other workers at the Tasmanian ~ Research unit and highly
significant correlations are found Even when fish are subsequently eaten
battered or curried demerit points give a good indication of remaining shelf
life Thus whitiOJ with a Smiley flavour score of 58 after 1 day on ice
has a nlU gutted demerit score of 1 and a high quality life (eaten crumbed
and fried) of a further 16 days while whitiOJ stored for 11 days on ice with
the sane flavour score has a gutted demerit score of 17 and a further shelf
life of 6 days
530 SUggestion for further work
Ib ascertain its potentially wide application as a simple quick and
technically sound methcxi of assessing fish quality many more studies using
other species of fish both temperate and tropical species and in various
storage conditions should be undertaken using a demerit point scorIrq system
such as that developed by the TFlU
The score sheet has proved invaluable when sending individuals untrained
researchers away on distant water fishing trips Ps yet 00 standard
deviations have been detennined using a team of assessors with coded samples
of unknown history This may require a separate group design
The effect of lean fish and fatty fish on the scores should also be
studied because factors such as seasonal variations in biological conditions
Lmproper gutting and washing mechanical damage and filth and changes due to
storage in R3W or shelving may have considerable influence on its shelf-
life Reports such as those of smith et al (1979) clearly showed that in fish
such as the blue whitirlJ (Mioroomesistius poubaeeous there is greater degree
I 51
of seasonal variability than in other gadoid species the overall
acceptability droppirq dramatically once the fish have spawned Fish accepted
for processing for food has to be of a higher standard of quality than fish
accepted for Imredfate sale across the counter to the consumer therefore
there is a need to rreet a minimum score before they could be processed into
food Gradirq is therefore best left to the user sorenson (1971) states
that in establishing limi ts of acceptance an allowance had to be made for
deterioration that would continue to take place during processing and storage
prior to reaching the consimer
The only final criteria of the objectivity of sensory or any other
assessment are results that are reproducible many times which is by definition
a lcnJ-tenn process and in the meantime one requires short-cut indications
that one is headirq in the right direction
Ferhaps a final caution Is necessary as in the YQrds of Ehrenberg and
Shewan (1953) not too much must be expected even the best measuring
instruments occasionally go oot of control
52
60 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baines CR Jones NR am Shewan JM 1965 Technological problems of
measur trq degree of freshness of wet fish and problems of quality
control requirif)J roore knowledge fran fundamental research In he
Technology of fish utilisation ad R Kreuzer Fishi~ News (Books)
p 141
Baines CR and Shewan JM 1965 sensory rrethods for evafuat inq the
quality of white fish Lab practice 14 160-163
Baines CR ltbnnell JoJ Gibson DM lbWgate PF Livi~ston E and
Shewan JM 1969 A taste panel technique for evaluatirq the eati~
quality of frozen cod In Freezi~ and irradiation of fish ad R
Kreuzer Fishi~ News (Books) London p361
Boyd NS and Wilson NDC 1976 A sensory method for evaluatInq the
quality of Snapper (Ch1ysophrys auratus) NZ Journal of Science 19
209-12
Boyd NS Wilson ND and Bjley A 1978 A refrigerated sea water plant
for small boats symposium on fish utilisation technology and
marketi~ in the IPFC region IFFC Proceedi~s 18th session Manila
Philippines FAD Ba~kok p 186-192
Branch AC and Vail AMA 1984 Bri~i~ fish inspection into the
canputer age FltXld Technol Aust 36 in press
Bremner HA Olley J and Ihrower SoJ 1978 CSIIU Iasmanian lEgional
Laboratory OCcasional Paper No4
Bremner HA 1980 Processi~ and freezi~ of the blue grenadier (Maclulonus
novaeselandiae) FltXld Technol Aust 32(8)~ pp 385-393
Bremner J A 1984 QJality - an attitude of mind In he JILlstralian
Fishi~ Industry - today and tanorrow 10-12 July 1984 Launceston
53
Australian MaritUne Cbllege seminar Bapers 224-69
Bremner HA Statham JA am Sykes SJ 1985 Tropical species fran the
north west shelf of Alstralia sensory assessment and acceptability
of fish stored co ice Proceedi~s Sixth session IPR Worki~ Party
on Fish D3chnology and Marketi~ Melbourne 1984 FJID Fish lep 252
supp1
Burford D 1985 Sodiun uptake in MaOlUfOOnUS nooaeselandiae stored in
refrigerated sea water Tasmanian Food Research Unit OCcasional Paper
No9
ltbnnell JJ 1972 OJality control in the fish industry Ibrry Jldvisory
note No 58 IOrty Research Station Aberdeen
ltbnnell JJ 1980 ltbntrol of fish quality Fishi~ ~ws (Books) 2nd ed
Surrey England
OJrran CA Nicolaides L and Al-Alawi ZS 1981 QJality chanqes duri~
iced storage of three carmercially important species of fish fran
Bahrain Trop sci 23(4) 253-268
de Zylva ERA 1974 Effect of fish handli~ at sea on storage quality of
New Zealand Snapper (Chroysophroys aumtus) New Zealand J SCi 17
309-318
Etlira S 1976 A biochemical study on the freshness of fish Bull 1bkai
Reg Fish Res Lab No 88 pp 1-13
Ehrenberg ASC and Shewan JM 1953 he cbjective approach to sensory
tests of food J Sci Food hJric 4 pp 482-489
Herbert RA and Shewan JM 1975 Precursors of the volatile sulphides in
spoili~ North Sea Cod J Sci Food JIlgric 26 1195-1202
lbUwi~ H 1972 Gradi~ of fish in different qualities Institute for
Fishery Products Ijmuiden Unpublished
~ate P 1972 Qrlparison of sensory scor inq systems for raw fish
I 54
Unpubl ished bull ~ ~
~ate P 1978 Measuri~ the quality am acceptability of fish products bull ~
In IPFC Proceedi~s symposiun on fish utilisatial technology and ~
i f~
marketi~ in the IWC region 18th session Manila Ihilippines p
449
fflghes RB and Jones NR 1966 Measurement of hypoxanthine concentrations
in canned herrirg as an index of the freshness of the raw material
with a ocirment oo flavor relations J SCi fOOd middotJlgric 17 434
Jahns FD Howe JL Coduri Jr RJ and Ram Jr AG 1976 A rapid
visual enzyme test to assess fish freshness Food Iechno1 30 (7) 27
Jones NR 1964 ~lems associated with freezi~ very fresh fish
Proceedings Meeting on Fish Iechnology Fish Handling and
Preservation schevenirqen OEC D Paris p 31 bull
Jones NR 1965 Hypoxanthine and other purine containing fractions in fish
muscle as indices of freshness In uthe technology of fish
utilisation ed R Kreuzer Fishi~ rewa (Books) (Drmn p 179
Last PR Scott EOG and Talbot FH 1983 Fishes of Tasmania
Tasmanian Fisheries ~velopnent lUthority lbbart Tasmania pp 238
414
Lima doe santos CAM James D and Ieutscher F 1981 QJidelines for
chilled fish storage experiments FKJ Fish Tech Igt 210
(Dye RM 1954 Ibst rrortem cha~es in the lenses of fish eyes Msessment
of storage tiJm and fish quality J Sci Focx11lgric 5 566-572
Hartin RE Gray RJ H and Pierson MD 1978 QJality assessment of fresh
fish arrl the role of the naturally occurring microflora Focx1
Technol 32 (5) 188
Official Journal of the European oamrnunities No L264 5 ~cember 1970 pp
1-11
bull
55
Technol New Zealand July 1971 pp 31-35
Spinelli J Eklund M and Miyauchi D 1964 Measurement of hypoxanthine
in fish as a method of assessing freshness J Food SCi 29 710
Thrower S oJ am Stafford IA 1981 A roobile unit for ccmparative studies
of chilled storage systems for trawl fish IIF IIR
eatmissions C2 01 02 03 Boston USA 1981-4
Thrower SoJ Bremner HA QJarmby AR Ggtnnan T8 aild Graham KJ
1982 cn-board handlinJ of Q~ish ~ Inportanoeof chillinJ and
gutting Aust Fish 41 (11) 38-41
Tanlinson N bull bull t at 1974 COtparison between refrigerated sea water (with or
without added carbon dioxide) and ice as storage media for fish to be
subsequently frozen Proc IIR C011n 82- 0-3 Tokyo p
waterman J oJ 1982 Qrrposition and QJality of Fish A Dictionary 1brry
Mvisory Note No 87 Torry Research Station Aberdeen
5J
Olley J and letkowsky OA 1973 he role of terrperature function
integration in monitoring of fish spoilage Food Technol New
Zealand 8 (2) 13 15 and 17
Olley J 1977 Iemperature and seafood spoilage In H Proceedings of 1977
SChool for SeafltXld Processorsmiddot ad ~ AF 0 Mello Hawkesbury
Agricultural Oollege p6-2
Olley J 1978 QIality assessment and storage changes In middotCSIRJ Iasmanian bull
leJional Laboratory OCcasional Paper No 4 p 3-1 middot4 Rgenstein J M and ~enstein CE 1981 he shelf-life extension of fesh
fish In Advances in the refrigerated treabnent of fishmiddot
International Institute of Rfrigeration Clmnissions C2 m ra [8
Boston US A 1981-4
leJenstein J 1983 Wlat is fish quality INroFISH Marketing Digest ttgt 6
26-28
Ryder JM 9Jisson OH SCott ON and Fletcher GC 1984 storage of
New Zealand Jack Mackerel ( TmohUMlB notJabullbullbullZandias) in ice
chemical microbiological and sensory assessment J M SCi 49
1453-1456 1477
Shewan JM Macintosh RG rucker CG and Ehrenberg ASC 1953 he
developnent of a numerical ~coring systan for the sensory assessment
of the spoilage of wet white fish stored in ice J SCi Food Jlgric
4 283-298
Smith J GM Hardy R hanson AB Young KW and Parsons E 1979
sane observations 00 the ambient and chill storage of blue whiting
(Mio1om8sistius poutassou) bull In H Advances in Fish SCience and
Technology ad JJ Connell FishinJ News (Books) Surrey England
pp 299-303
SOrensen T 1971 QIality control and fish handling in New zealand Food ~
t c-
o )
~hmiddot r~YiJ lt~
~~f~~ ~
I
Nomooram for comparison of diffGrent scoring systems tor raw T i sn ___ _ J bull )
_U I~ ~Y1 9i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~
I I t I I - _---1------ imiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot __ middot~_ ~ __~_ -_ ~ + ~ _ -~ _ - middotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middot __ G 9 8 7 6 _ 5middot 3
_ - zmmy [ I bull r f II
d _~__ ~ __ _ ~ __ -I-- - ~ L- i~ middoti~ ~ 1-L -~~ lt lt l~tceland 1P i ~ ~ j ~ ~ ~ L~ __ - I ~_ bull _ L j ~- _-
N rv 1 I 1 2 --- - 2~ 3 middot 3middot 4 ~- ~Il ay ~ _ _ middot _ r r
_ _ __ _ _~ ~_ ) - ~ L_ - 1- ~-_ -_ _ _ ~ 19 ~ 8 imiddotmiddot I 6 5 4 3
Do _ _nm~r t I I I r
~ I
_ ~ ~_ ~ t ~ __ i__ t ~ ~ ~ ~ _ q x 1 1i 2 2~ 3v _ Franee I r I l n
I I I i _ - ~ _ _ _- _-- middotmiddot __ middot_middot_middot_middotmiddotmiddotImiddotmiddotmiddot_middot~ _middotmiddotmiddotmiddot-_middotmiddotmiddotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddot ---- - --~ ~-
19oum8 I 7 6 i 5 ~ ~ 4middot 280 J t (
I i
J -- - -_ -__ X ~middotH i__~ -- i_L ~ - l_ middot1-- - 3 I 2Y1 0 4 11z 1 y
E E C I 1
I I I deg deg E I A r Bmiddot - I I C
ltOIl j- ~ ~ c ~--------------
TASTER
DATE
SESSION
~ER middot1
bull You will be given ~bull aamples of cooked fish Please assess the fish for flavour textur~ and
overall liking as though you had purchased them in a takeaway food shop Hark the sample
identification under the face that most closely describes your impressionbull
I
middot5 S shy2 3 4
FLAVOUR
IEXlURE
--
OVERALL UKING
7 bullbull yc ) I _ v J _ _
I1PP~NJIJ( 3 ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE BGRENVZSASS (A)
OBS DAYS-R DMPTS shy
1 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 6 4 3 7 4 6 e 4 5 9 6 1 18 6 10 11 6 18 12 6 18 13 e 13 14 8 16 13 8 13 16 8 17 17 9 18 18 9 18 19 9 bull 19 29 9 19 21 19 19 22 1 21 23 1 19 24 1 2123 11 21 26 11 22 27 11 22 29 11 22 29 12 22 3 12 22 31 12 23 32 12 23 33 13 23 34 13 23 33 13 22 36 13 23 37 14 24 38 14 23 39 14 264 14 25
17 26~ 17 39 43 17 38 44 17 29 43 21 32 46 21 33
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASS(At
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (Xt DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Yt DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9666 R SQUARED 9343 T STATISTIC 231621 INTERCEPT tAt 31799 SLOPE tSt 173399 bull STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 219473
OBSERVATIONS 46 Y DMPT9 XI DAYS-RSW YMIN -18 YMAX 61 YINC e XMIN -19 XMAX 2e9 XINe 2
] y
__ t=- I I 0(I I
JPRH6ELF PRINT MODULE -SYNTAX ERROR
DATABASE J3lGRENVISASS (FIL)
OB8 DAYS-R DMPT8
1 s 1 2 4 5 s 6 6
~ e 8 ~ 9 1 6 19 12 7 11 14 8 12 17 9 13 18 1 14 19 bull 11 17 23 12 21 29
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASSCFIL)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE CX) DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IY) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT ~9963
R SQUARED 992 T STATISTIC 3~36977
INTERCEPT CA) -3~6~41
SLOPE CB) 1~8426
STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 77667
OBSERVATIONS 12 v DMPTS x DAYS-RSW VMIN -2~ VMAX ~~ YINC ~
XMIN -19 XMAX 2~9 XINC 2
]
bull
-SYNTAX ERROR
lPRH6ELF PRINT MODULE
DATABASE BGRENVXSASS (AG)_
OB6
1 2 3 4 ~
6 7 8 9
Hi 11 12 13 14 1~
16 17 -18 19 2 21 22 23 24 2~
26 27 28 29
3 31 32 33 34 3~
36 37 J8
39
4 41 42 43 44 4~
46
DAYS-R
3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 6 6 6 6 8 8
8 bull 8
9 9 9 9
1 1 1 1 11 11 11 11
DMPTS
2 3 3 3 ~
6 ~
~
1 1 1 1 17 18 17 19 2~
2 21 21 21 23 21 23 23 24 24 24
12 24 12 24 12 25 12 25 13 27 13 25 J3 24 13 27 104 26 J04 2S
14 28 14 27 17 28 17 32 17 32 17 31 21 34 21 35
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BORENVISASSCAO)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE IX) DAVS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IV) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9~76~
R SQUARED 917 T STATISTIC 22S6S88 INTERCEPT lA) 323~7
SLOPE lB) 189812 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 269324
OBSERVATIONS 46 Y DM PT6 X DAYS-RSW ~ _01 VMAV 2~ YfNe ~
XMIN -19 XNAX 2l9 XINC 2
]
9YNTA)( ERROR bull ]PRN6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE BGRENVXSASS
OB6 DAY6-R DMPTS
1 3 1 2 3 1 3 3 1 4 3 1 5 4 1 6 4 4 7 4 3 9 4 1 9 6 6 18 6 6
11 6 6 12 6 6 13 9 8
14 9 9 15 8 8 16 8 9 l 9 18 19 9 11 19 9 12 28 9 12 21 18 12 22 18 14 23 18 11 24 18 14 25 11 15 26 11 13 27 11 15 29 11 15 29 12 17 3 12 18 31 12 19 32 12 18gJ l~ 34 13 18 3~ 13 18 36 13 19 37 14 19 JB 14 19 39 14 19 48 14 19 41 17 19 42 17 23 43 17 21 44 17 20
-(EEC)
q~ 21 23 q6 21 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASSCEEC)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE IX) DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IY) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 96691 R SQUARED 93q9 T STATISTIC 2~14824
INTERCEPT IA) -238937 SLOPE IB) 146219 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 1S28eS
OBSERVATIONS q6 Y DMPTS X DAYS-RSW YMIN -2q YMAX ~5 YINC ~
XMIN -19 XMAX 259 XJNC 2
l
SYNTAX ERROR lPRM8ELF PRINT MODULE
-
bull
APPENJ)K 4 -
DATABASE WHZTXNG VXSASS (A) bull
OBS DAYS-I
1 1 2 1 3 1 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 ~
9 5 9 5 Ii 7 11 7 12 7 13 9 14 9 1~ 9
016 11 17 11 19 11
DMPTS
1 1 1 1 2 2 4 3 5 a 7
9 13 15 bull 13 16 14 1~
019 13 2 8 28 13 16 21 13 20 22 15 24 23 1~ 24 24 15 25 25 17 29 26 17 29 27 17 38 29 19 30 29 19 38 38 19 32 31 21 33 32 21 32 33 21 32 34 23 32 3~ 23 32 36 23 34
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASSIA)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE tX) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE tV) qMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 98514 R SQUARED 9785 T STATISTIC 3344414 INTERCEPT tAt -245163 SLOPE CBt 166958 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 286799
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS x DAYS-ICE
YMIN -22 YMAX lS7 YINC lS- XMIN -19 XMAX 259 XINC 2
]
I
J
-8YNTAX ERROR
]PRM6ELF PRINT MODULE shyDATABASE WHITING VISASS (AG)
OB8 DAYS-I DMPT8
1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 4 3 1 ~ 3 2 6 3 2 7 ~ 4 9 ~ 3 9 ~ ~
18 7 18 11 7 9 12 7 18 13 9 1~
14 9 17 1~ 9 1~
16 11 18 17 11 16 18 11 17 19 13 22 28 13 18 21 13 22 22 1~ 26 23 1~ 27 24 1~ 28 2~ 17 32 26 17 32 27 17 33 28 19 34 29 19 34 38 19 36 31 21 37 32 21 36 33 21 36 34 23 36 3~ 23 36 36 23 38
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITINO VISASS(AO)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAY8-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Y) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 986~2
R SQUARED 973 T STATISTIC 3~B167B
INTERCEPT CAl -272~33
SLOPE CBI 197S63 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 221294
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS X DAYS-ICE YHIN -19~ YHAX ~9~ YINC ~
XHIN -19 XHAX 2~9 XINC 2
]
-SYNTAX ERROR lPRM6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASS (EEC)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 2 1 3 1 4 3 ~ 3 1 6 3 1 7 ~ 2 8 ~ 2 9 ~ 3
1 7 3 11 7 3 12 7 3 13 9 6 14 9 6 bull 1~ 9 7 16 11 7 17 11 8 18 11 7 19 13 11 2 13 1 21 13 12 22 1~ 13 23 1~ 1~
24 1~ 17 2~ 17 19 26 17 18 27 17 19 28 19 29 29 19 23 39 19 22 31 21 24 32 21 23 33 21 24
34 23 2J 3~ 23 26 36 23 27
I ELF SCATTER MODULE I DATABASE WHITING VISA88CEEC)I I INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (~) DAYS-ICE I
DEPENDENT VARIABLE (VI DMPTS I bull
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9a2~3
R SQUARED 96~3
T STATISTIC 387a73~
INTERCEPT (A) -4142 SLOPE (8) 12873 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 173287
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS ~ DAYS-ICE YMIN -29 YMA~ ~1 VINC ~
XMIN -19 ~MA~ 2~9 ~INC 2
J
-SYNTAX ERROR JPRM6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHITING VXSASSmiddot(FXL)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 2 3 1 3 ~ 5 4 7 4 ~ 9 9 6 11 13 7 13 1~
e 1~ 16 9 17 19 18 19 21 11 21 24 12 23 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASB(FJLI
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Y) DMPTS
bull bullbull 4~
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE CV) DMPTSr
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 982~3
R SQUARED 96~3
T STATISTIC 3S7873~ t bullbullf CINTERCEPT CA) -4142
SLOPE CB) 12873 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 173287
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS XI DAYS-ICE YMINmiddot~28 YMAKI 1 YINC ~
XMIN -I9XMAX 2~9 XINC2
]
-SYNTAX ERROR ]PRH6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHXTXNG VXSASS (FXL)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 S 2 3 1 1 5 3 4 7 4 5 9 9 6 11 13 7 13 1~
9 15 16 9 17 19 1 19 21 11 21 24 12 23 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE I WHITING VISAS8(FIL)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE CX)I DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE CY) DMPT8
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 99289 R SQUARED 9858 T STATISTIC 2638123 INTERCEPT CA) -243706 SLOPE CB) 124476 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 112846
SLOPE 10) 124476 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 112846
ObullbulllfftVTrOHSO 12 VI DHPTS XI DAVS-ICE VMIN -27 VHAX e2 VINe e XHIN -19 XHAX 2e9 gtcINe 2
]
-8VNTAX ERROR
fi
rr
[bull
SJ
in i
bullol
r~
bull bull
n i
o o o o
~
o~ o
o - l
N~ o ~
o o o
Q
Q o o
a
c -~_
Q
_
_ Q
_9_
0
o ~-
O
_
Q
lI
oJ ~
v
~ ~
~-
-
- -1
---h
---1
---I
I
I
1
~ ((9 ~ J las 0 - ~~ U -lt) az E~-~gl~~1--~~---------- ~) 1)
11 ~ - 11 HI ~~
I bull M~
~ -~ ~~ IJ~ I J ismiddotJ I Q l~
k tl I 01 re lr - 91 br I ~I ( -0 71P g I CJ tt
I I J 000 0 0 w I 0) NlNN1tl 30 hIflJ I t IC (~4ID(r ~ Wi
_ f-- -------- bull fyen ~=y ~~r I I I I I I I 0 0 00 00 ( ~) -Fr~ ~ fj)
-0 I 0 I Ole 17 10 0 ( ~ AI )middot P1~ 0 0 00 Q hItIrS ~7I -~~ (J
t -r------0 bull
_-~_ middotmiddotmiddot_middot~middotmiddotmiddot)-middot7~)
lrrT I 01 0
0 tFmiddot~~i ~ 1 o 00 Omiddot (~ -W ~r f (JJ___~ _______ _ l I I 71 I -_---_ - M-~ ~ I
J I Z-tf ~ ~ ~fI t1 11f ( )) CI I I I i I 00 r11-7[ c I C bull aofl7r_ ~ ~z ~ 1t~Ji ) ( --_--------i---shye l~~~ I f~) I I J I
I II i bull Q ( N~T fE ~I )
~JiP _- -___ ----shy
_
~ 7Yr 0) ~(J ~ I e I t I ~ l I J I I 1 I I I(I 0 0 (~~yen~ M -p~P71 JPtJIJs 0
i euror (1l~J IlLriJlllr1JI ~~J I ~()(1OP I I r I I 0 I ( t t I ( jIfS 7fS ~~I ~ )
I
I 1 I( IN 10~ lb~ qItJ gtr~j f o (~)I(~) I I 0 I (t~ ~~) I I Jbull o 0 J I ~ l 0 a i S(jJ t t t tI tI C I C I J I I I J I 0 I (n~rlP PI4t -I) t
- -I
-I -I-I I II-I I I-I r bull
-----(rtb Ii If p~) PNl17T7~b ~y~ 7
10 IIt1v I 0 1~L CIJ tN IfIfW1IIJ JI11i JN~I HJ3
---Y p~ALY~_ ~~ Yl2-- 1)
yenvr 1amp f111l
-
~
~~
~
II
o 0
~cgt
(
) Q
oa
oo
o
oo
o o
a
o
~
P
t
oo
c
oo
a -
o
oo
o
o -
o
-o
-
-
lJ
I~ I~
Jl ~rIpound i IAlffzfjjsectj 7df- utl kf J OG lie rCOIpound ~IIE(T r
7tU
~
~ ~
~ ~
~
-shy~
~
MYI f)lySLM~ 1 (JAy ISo~r 11 ~~) e ()~t ~I01) r I joy f o~y lOJ 17~JJlII1~ 16 fiti -t1 It r ~17J~~flu~1h 111H 7U 1111111shyIllf Jr(11Jr I fhJo
~ ) ~ I1 J J-4 ~ J 2 JJ ~poundol ~ ] t4 cl -7 eJ uJ cJJJ wI~ wI l shy w c at amp 74 -t ~ ut 4 I
SkIN 000 o 0 0o 0 0 o 00 I o I I I I 3 3 3l) t 3 3 31 s 3ltt
a I I I I I o IfYU I 2 I JI I I000 )l~ 1~1 S 3 ~S 3 5 335
GILtJ I J I o (J 0 I (I I I ~ t 2shy~I I s 3 ]] 2 0 (J 3 ~ ~ t 3 3 AlvItUiU i l I I ls)z oJ lJ 0 a (J ~ 0o 0 0 a a aTff1ttJR II r 1
1 I ~ I I I I 1~E
Cdt47tl7 I I ~ ~t( a a 0O(O I Io I~ 00 000deg a 0wO 0 0 0 o 0 0 o~ 00VUipound811 ~ J I
tJ I Oe6rlllr I I I I 2 2]l2 ~ 3 S 3 S ~ 3o a 0 (J () 0 I 333 1 $ 3
If~euMI LU~ 2l 3000o (J 0 o 0 0 J 2 2shy 331a deg (1 ~ 2 Jshy
i I 000amp1 0 I I 1TIUUpound
lAcltJdJE 00deg00o 0 0 ooalOOO 0 0 I I I 1OdOa deg 0 11 2 I r I I I IbullI
I I h~r~Eu I ( 0 0 CJ 0 o (J a 2 ~ 30001011 0 1 J 1010 I I L II 2 l 2l 22 2 1
sKIN GLLt I f I~J) GlIIl) 0 (I a I do 0 0 I 0 Il~t l~o 0 0 ~ 3 3 3 s 3 3 3 33s1331
i7tJ7l11 Ibull I shy i66 ~o
(J ~ 0 1 0 It3331l J t 1 1shy 1~ ~afJllc 11 Irrshy It ~1 1111 20 J3 u
(])JtUJ61 (l) (1) (Ir)(0) (J)(I) (If) (19) (u) (~r)(J4)
I r f
I
I
i I
I i
II I ((
f
II Ii
p ()
Q
0_
_ 00
0
00
00
00
0
o o o 0
00
0
0 _
o Q
0
0
o
0
00
0
-
0 0
0
middot0
0
o oo
0
o Q
o oo o o
- ~
~
~ ~~pound
w
i -shy
o
co
- --
shy
o o o
~
~_
~
0
-shyJJ
-----l--~
-J
J IJ
f
J
J)
o 0
00
_ 0
0
o (gt
0
o ()
o
0
0 0
0
()
()
o 0
0
o 0
0
_
_ -
-----1
-----shy
Q
0 0
o ~-IJ~ulJ-
u
lJcllJ_-_~IJamp
o o
Q
I---+----I---+----I----I~-
_Ilpound
llD
lIlI
Il
~I
IIIl
I_II
II5
l__
IIlIa
IllP
=lII
Il1
rl
ll
IlIl
IlIII
llII
IlJl
IIl
IIlIl_
IIrII
G3i
mta
isectID
it
llll~
1~=wampampftUla
_
au
U
Lamp
WJN
AJ
poundmiddotJI
IiIamp
3flJ
a
uac
ampa
f
shy
I~middottn 0~L fi 5L middottlu~ fo_~r ( ) 1poundc [CtJRl -ffl(pound1 r~~ rlt1c- J c-ru
-- I
1SllJ7~
lt l)~ J )IIr M ~-t s ~~ OIl middot )If 10 JAY II 041
J- Olt i1 )lir iI DIY IT- IMy11
1~middot6f1 14f1- ~imiddot -- J _ middotAfmiddot IIrk middot Jiamp -ffh~11 rtr Il ~M gt27P- ill Ill ~lllY ~~7rlf JC 1- ~ r 1M 11
r ~ F16F r~h FIjFi ~~I)r r~Fr
5 Fc II -i~fIoi l 1 fj t t Fr c r amp t 1= ~ r ~ F r rtI ~
- -
sION o (j o 0 0 o 0 a I I I I I I I I 2 I t t I-r J~L) z~z~ 2~J ~ z a ~ ~ 33 - -ol t 1 2
~ poundys-s 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I I lt t 2 t t 4 ~z ~ 2l~ ~ ~ 1 Z 3zi3p33 3 333 3 3 3 - - ~ rl~ a 0 a (1 a a o 1 I 1 I 1-2 12 t ltt a ~ l J tll~ ~~~) 2 2 2 2- ~Jll 21 13 33 ~
- ~ MIIi(UlA~
degCt1C 11 )l
FipoundSI- eli CeoD o 0 (J 0 I I I I I I 1 1 I I 1 I Jl~] l2 22- z ~ 2 2 22 11 2-3 -Sfvpound
j
CIJiCVlt-tICN I I I 1 ( I I I 2 2 t ~ t~ )2 2~21 2$ 2 t _~ 3AIJJN(j- P (J dO o C a a o 0 00 1 I I I I - --
V~7r~ ~ c~u N
(TKWW~ CO~ o I oc I I J I I I I 1 2 I 2 2 1- ) t~l2 2- 22 2 ) 2 ~2- 1222 2 2 ll 2L -- -~VClLAl I
a 0 0 0 01 I 0 2 1 2 2 J5r 4 E i H CA I I
-I I I I I I I I J J 12( ~ 12 1 2 1 2-I TfI_ 21 1-1- 1 1 ~ 1
~ I middot_0-__-- I
~ 1
ffCACIpound coo 000lt=1 o 0 0 0 btJCt) o a () (J I I I I I I I I111 I I I 1 I I -~-aD CD lJ a a 0 0 ~ ~ UlrAfllN o 0 a IJ e e 0 C) (JdegOo ecJao co (10 (1 o I I I I I I I I 1 I I III I I I I z --
i tiN ~4r L~~ 2- li ~ a~ 8M) CUmiddot c d (J 0 (J () I I I 1 1 1
I 1 I I f t I II tl-loI 21 1 t 33 - -
-Iffl1-
J I I I I i- 2 I 11~SC~E ~ t 1 o ~ 04-t 1J 11 1 11t IS~ IfS J1 I 1 I If I IJ 1 r~]u ze uu __
bull ttlUIG
(I) l~) (6) (II) ~ (~) 6s-)llIt lCUI CJ (Ii) (~) vmiddot (II) (19~ ---
I t f
I
~ I
~ I
Ii
I I
Ii I II f
~ (
--)raquo~ middot-~~-~-I~~IliiI~~-middotComiddot~-d-b~middotmiddotmiddotmiddot_ ~ ~ middoth-~_middot--~H~~middot~gt
Other Occasional Papers in the series
1 A salinity monitor for irrigation pumps by EOMIEZITIS
2 Wine liqueur and fish products acceptability trials 47th ANZAAS Congress Hobart 1976 by HABREMNER TLLEWIS and ARQUARMBY
3 Abalone silage an exercise in the conservation of waste by JUNE OLLEY
4 Course notes contributed by the CSIRO Tasmanian Food Research Unit to a workshop on fish handling and quality control Hobart Oct3rd-5th 1978 by HABREMNER JUNE OLLEY and SJTHROWER
5 Difficulties with generalized least squares regression in forest modelling by PWWEST
6 Metabolism of zinc cadmium and copper in rats fed shellfish highly contaminated with heavy metals by SJTHROWER JUNE OLLEY and MAUREEN McDERMOTT
7 Hygiene control in seafood processing by SJTHROWER
1
ABSTRACT
Accumulation of demerit points with time of storage of blue grenadier (M
novaeae landiaev in refrigerated sea water (I~W) and blue rock whi t ing (H
eemifaeeiatcq in ice was fourd to be highly correlated and occurred in an
approximately linear fashion irrespective of the method of scoring used
1he scoring system developed by the TFRJ was fourrl to be the easiest
quickest and rrost reliable method for quality assessment of fish The changes
in tOO appearance of the eyes and the odour developrent of the gills are the
most obvious and valuable indicators of change in quality when using the TFRU
or the EEl freshness scores while the appearance and odour of the fish flesh
seems to be the most obvious indicator when assessing the filleted samples
1he acceptabil ity taste panel results indicate that M nauaeeelandiae stored
in RSW had a shelf-life of 14 days whilst H semifasciata stored in ice had a
shelf-life of 17 days ~ cut-off point at which spoilage of the samples
WDUld have rendered the quality of the fish samples to be unacceptable fran
the consumer point of view would be those equivalent to the accumulated
demerit point of gt29 for the TFRU (gutted and ungutted) scores and gt21 for the
EEC ard filleted sample scores
2
1 00 rsrromcrros
110 QUality and QUality Asses~nt of Fish
QJality is difficult to define since it means different things to
different people One general definition is degree of excellence
According to waterman (1982) quality of food is the SLD1 of those attributes
that govern its acceptability to the buyer or consumer and quality assessment
is the estLmation or measurement of one or more quality factors as a means of
determining quality before exercising control
Bremner (1984) defined quality as that attitude of mind that approach
that event that state of being when everything is right hus until a
seafood is eaten its quality can only be surmised indirectly harever
seafoods do possess a set of properties or characteristics that for practical
purposes can be related with quality
In cxmnerce quality limits are set by what the custcrner is prepared to
pay for generally the custcrner will pay more for fish that he considers to be
of higher quality and will continue to buy as long as quality remains
constant The relationship between quality and marketing is therefore
governed by the sophistication of the consuner ( ta Zylva 1974) Sore of the
more important factors that determine quality fran the custcrners point of
view are species ease of preparation appearance odour flavour freshness
size presence or absence of bones and filth absence of specific
microorganisms condition packaging and composition (Oonnell 1972)
Freshness is the most important quality factor to the consumer thus
assessnent of freshness is vital in quality control kcording to Baines et
al (1965) the term freshness is employed to describe the presence or
absence of deterioration Ib many however freshness involves the concept of
newness in which time is an important factor In other words the fish
technologist is not only concerned with quality at the mrnent of examination
3
but of the products potential shelf-life M accurate measure of st~age
1_ time under kn~ conditions would allow hLm to calculate the remaining life of
the product and its potential for processing
Fish quality depends on tenperature time and hygiene Factors such as
spontaneous chemical changes autolysis and microbial attack produce
deteriorations fran the point of catching until final putrefaction
Measurements of sane of these deteriorations have been invoked as indices of
freshness
he measurement of trimethylamine (lMA) other spoilage cxrrpounds and the
bacteria themselves as indicators of quality has been reviewed recently by
Martin et al (1978) hey stated that in order to define effective indicators
of seafocxi quality the food technologist must be prepared to examine each
species of seafood individually its environment its composition its
harvesting and its handling
A lUIllber of different tests may be used for estimating the degree of
spoilage in fish these include total volatile bases (TVa) total volatile
reducing substances volatile armonia volatile acids total volatilo
nitrogen indole refractive index of the eye fluid electrical resistance of
the fish flesh total bacterial numbers and organoleptic tests hese methods
are discussed under the headings chemical methods physical methods
microbiological methods and sensory methods bel~
120 Chemical Methods
Although not universal in acceptance or applicability the trLmethylamine
(TMA) determination has became one of the established procedures for
determining fish quality Its use as an indicator of spoilage in fresh fish
have also been proposed by the Codex AlLmentarius crnmittee on fish and
fishery products (Olley 1977) his is despite the fact that there is ample
4
evidence that the same ClfDUnt of 1MA is accanpanied by different ClfDUnts of
spoilage even within the same species
Several investigators (Spinelli et aI 1984 Jones 1965) have expressed
reservations regardirq the use of IMA as an index of quality for fresh fish
not inq that 1MA values fail to give an adequate Iod icetIon of early autolytic
quality chanqes aOO preferrirq hypoxanthfne detenninations instead MA as
would be expected of a bacterial product is not useful in detenninilg quality
deteriorations which occur durirq frozen storage FIrthenoore the shape of
the fish will markedly influence the arrount of IMA meaaured in ng per 100 g
fish (Bremner et aI 1978) Trimethylamine is roost sensitive as an indicator
of the later stages of spoilage whereas Chemical tests for dimethylamine are
most valuable in the early stages of spoilage
Ryder et al (1984) foond that the bacterial metabol Ic end products (1VB
and MA) were less useful as objective measurements of freshness in Jack
Mackerel (TrochuflUB nooaezelandiae) hey also reported that the pH was not a
gcxxl indicator of early storage changes and lEA values could not be used to
detennine loss of acceptability or eoo of shelf-life Recently it has became
apparent that the sulphur canpounds and mercaptans may be importantH2S
detenninants of fish odour and flavour (~rbert and Shewan 1975)
Measurement of MA IMA or amoonia requires a laboratory am assistant of
matriculation standard who has had sane weeks of practice in the IOOthod
Neither the Codex Alimentarius CoITInittee or the EEl (Ccmoon Market) lay down
samplilg procedures
Another quality assessment lOOasurement involves the nucleotides aoo their
degradation products Early studies with cod carp Pacific Salmgtn Lemon
sole haddock and plaice revealed that post-mortem nucleotide degradation in
fish muscle proceeds prbnarily via the followirq sequence of reactions ATP -)
AMP -) IMP -) IID -) Hx -) Xa -) UA where KrP = Jldenosine 5-triphosphate AMP
5
= Jldenosine 5-IOCgtoophosphate IMP = Inosine 5-IOCgtoophosphate lID = Inosine j
Hx = Hypoxanthine xa = Xpnthine am UA = Uric acid loo ~tages in this
degradative sequence have been considered as objective indices of quality shy
dephosphorylation of IMP am formation of hypoxanthine IMP reportedly
possesses properties as a flavour enhancer in fish mrscle COnsequently its
breakdawn may contribute to and be correlated with the loss of fresh flavour
in sane species SCme difficulties however may arise fran using IMP
dephosphorylatioo as a s inqle quality index eg the pattern of nucleotide
breakdown in invertebrate seafood species may differ in same key respects fran
that fourrl in vertebrate species he rate of IMP decanposition in the muscle
also differs between species (Ehira 1976) Accordi~ to Martin et al (1978)
the rrost serious limitation imposed by an IMP index may be that the reaction
is substantially complete well within the edible storage life of a number of
species Its major value then may be as an indicator of fresh flavour loss
during early storage
Unlike IMP concentrations of hypoxanthine (Hx) have been shown to
increase steadily throughout the useful storage life of a number of fish
species (Hughes and Jones 1966) Hypoxanthine formation is a result of both
autolytic am bacterial activities hus it also has advantages over the 1MA
assay Hx may be correlated with flavour loss caused by autolytic activities
durirg early storage am with bacterial spoilage during extended storage to
derive a prediction of useful storage life Also the IMA test is of no value
for freshwater fish because these either do not contain or contain very little
trimethylamine oxide Hx may also be used to determine the quali ty of canned
herrirg at the tirre of processing since hypoxanthine concentrations neither
increase nor decrease duri~ heat process inq and subsequent storage (Hughes
ard Jones 1966) 1MA concentrations on the other hand are unstable during
heat process inq lbNever different species of fish produce hypoxanthine by
6
different routes and at different speeds Each lustralian species ttOUld have
to be examined in turn am the hypoxanthine test related to sensory grades
tbte that the Canadian redfish and flounder had produced the maximum amgtunt of
hypoxanthine 10llg before they becarre unacceptable while the swordfish had
only produced a fifth of the arount when it became unacceptable to a taste
panel (Olley 1978) The hypoxanthine test requires laboratory facilities and
same equipment but recently the use of sLmple paper strips have been reported
(Jahns et aI 1976)
The main disadvantages of nucleotide assays are that they are apt to vary
even arro~ individuals within a species Sufficient samples need to be used
to reduce this variability
All the chemical roothods discussed above depend on measuring the
concentration of certain chemical substances in the flesh and since the sample
is destroyed in the process they cannot be used to test every fish in a
batch In any case variation between fishes in the sarre batch makes chemical
tests for quality a task requiring a statistician (Olley 1977) All the
methods require the use of a laboratory or fairly elaborate facilities and
also they oo rot apply to all species and products alike
130 Physical Methods
Love (1954) described a roothod which correlates the turbidity of the eye
lenses of fish with storage tiroo of iced fish kept in a roan of fairly
constant air temperature He found that it is possible by examination of 20
or more lenses to assess the storage tiroo with an error of not roore than 1
day M advantage of this roothod is that since only the eyes have to be
raroved in sampling the fish remains saleable as headed dressed fish or as
fillets ~ver1 the roothod had many limitations such as difficulty in
manipulation and matchi~ of the lenses which have to be done in good diffused
7
daylight at least 20 lenses are required for each estllnation which is rather
tedious for routine work and also it is not applicable where fish had not been
kept all the time in ice under the standard conditions eg bulk stowage of
fish with ice on a trawler may result in deviation fran the conditions of box
stolage in an insulated roan
he GR Ibrrymeter is a battery pc7ot1ered hand-held instnunent that rreasures
certain dialectric properties of fish skin which charge wi th the
tiJretemperature history of the fish fbWever readi~s on a large mrnber of
samples have to be taken and averaged bull Although it is a rapid simple
objective and rDn-destructive method of estllnati~ the quality of fresh fish
it has the followilkJ disadvanteqesj large variation in readirg fran fish to
fish readi~ varies with physical damage to fish1 cha~e of readi~ with time
varies with species and also may be insensitive at later stages of spo i Laqe
Curran et al (1981) reported that the GR Ibrrymeter was not particularly
successful with both the purple emperor (L6thoinus l6ntjan) ard the Spanish
mackerel ( Scomberomorue oonmereons since the readirgs obtained do not
correlate very well with the taste panel results
140 Microbiological Methods
he rootine microbiological testirg that is performed under normal
industry operations is normally restricted to enumeration of nonpathogenic
microorganisms hose frost frequently used are the standard plate count and
enumeration of indicator organisms such as the coliform group Beoher-ichia
coli aM Staphylococcus aureus
Food handl i nq practices beyond the pr-imary processors control make
standard aerobic plate count (APe) a difficult quality assessment tool to use
generally he total nunber of bacteria is not the sole determinant of
8
quali ty since certain microbial groups are rrore apt to cause spoilage than
others These groups can be given a selective advantage for growth by the way
the product is processed or stored furthermore the determination of
bacterial counts while they are of value to research requires too much time
before results are known and can also be expensive for routine testing
Representative samples have to be taken for bacterial examination because the
fish or product is destroyed during the test Interpreting the results of
bacterial testing is a task for experts who should be consulted when
necessary bull
Detection and enumeration of indicator bacteria such as the coliform
group E ooli and S auroeu8 were considered for many years to indicate the
potential presence of pathoqenic microorganisms NM this inference has been
questioned and these groups are no longer considered a reliable method for
predicting the presence of such pathogens (Martin et aL1978) bull
According to Olley and Ratkowsky (1973) there is in fact no simple index
of quality and a thorough knowledge of the oamplete temperature history of the
fish is the only true indicator of freshness This is so because at higher
temperatures bacteria divide in half more rapidly Therefore the
relationship between bacterial growth with production of spoilage canpounds
and temperature is not a straight line rut a curve he curve relates rate of
spoilage of these commodities at temperatures between aoe and 25dege to the rate
at which they would spoil at aoe hus at aoe the relative rate is 1 and at
Rate at temperature (tOe)any other temperature the relative rate is Rate at a be
Bremner et at (1978) have coined the term ICE FOID for this relative rate
ie so many times faster than the ccmnodity would spoil on ice and
lCETIME as equivalent storage time on ice = lCEFOID x time in days
The curve has also been converted into tabular form to enable conversion
of the temperature history of the catch into equivalent storage time
on ice under ideal conditions However the concept of relative rate of
9
spoilage with temperature can only apply if fishing oonditions are kept
constant
150 sensory Methods
Currently the best way to detenmine fish freshness still requires the use
of a taste panel (Regenstein and Regenstein 1981) A number of taste panel
techniques for assessing the quality of unfrozen fish species have been
described am are in use in different parts of the world These techniques
vary in cbjective and ccrrplexity but are of three main types Firstly there
are those which categorise the fish on the basis of its acceptability for
eatirq secondly there are those which categorise the fish on the basis of
well-defined characteristics which change duri~ storage Thirdly there are
techniques which include elements of both of these types Techniques of the
first type usually anploy a single gradi~ or hedonic (like-dislike) scale
whilst those of the second type anploy descriptions of various characteristics
(Baines et aI 1969)
The ultimate criterion of fish quality is the flavour and texture of the
cooked fish HcMever taste panel evaluations of cooked fish are timeshy
consiminq and relatively few samples can be tested at anyone time It is
therefore highly desirable to be able to make an assessment of eati~ quality
by exanini~ the raw fish My atterrpt to raise the quality of raw fish as it
reaches the consumer is critically dependent on the development of a
convenient and consistent rrethod of quality assessment based on raw fish
Fortunately eat inq quality of cooked fish can be correlated with the
appearance odour and texture of the whole raw fish Boyd and Wilson (1976)
when evaluat inq the quality of snapper (Chroysophfys aufatus) by a sensory
method found that there is close relationship between the raw attributes of
gill odour and general appearance with those of odour texture am flavour of
10
the cooked fish
The use of ooject ive tests at dockside or even on inspection within the
plant is not considered to be practical in the normal routine of inspection of
fresh ard frozen fish products as almost all of the coject Ive tests require
laboratories am so becare rather rerooved fran the busy fisherman processor
or factory foreman A nuch simpler piece of apparatus is the eye or the N)Se
(olley 1977) Sensory tests are always controversial as they require an
inspector although the canny buyer is in fact applying his senses of smell
am visual acuity in a similar fashion W9 accept the wine faster and wcxgtl
classer so why not the fish grader (Bremner 1984) Therefore a test that
correlated well with freshnessquality and that could operate on the market or
in the factory would be of considerable value to an efficient industry (Baines
et aI 1965)
Howgate (1978) also considered the sensory rrethods to be far better than
non-sensory methods which are not suitable for consumer testing whilst
Connell (1972) states that in general the sensory rrethod of assessing
freshness is the best at present for quality control purposes
As fish spoils its snell taste appearance and feel go through
characteristic am well defined stages that trained experts or experienced
staff can consistently recognise It is convenient to attach a number or
score to each stage so that the assessor can award the appropriate score to
each fish or batch of fish Alternatively the mere recognition of each stage
ard acceptance or rejection of fish on this basis may be all that is
necessary Different species and products spoil in different ways The
numerical system us irq an objective panel developed at the Ibrry IEsearch
Station by Shewan et al (1953) is probably the ultUnate critical evaluation of
fish freshness available at this time It was created for the determination
of storage time of whole Net fish l6Jenstein and Iegenstein (1981) in using
11
this nunerical system reported that the cooked freshness scores are generally
higher (better) than expected at that storage t irre for whole wet fish A
freshness score of 55 on the Ibrry scale seemed the appropriate endpoint for
their definition of shelf-life This would nonnally be reached with ideal
iced-at-sea fish about twelve days from catch sooner for fillets Freshness
scorirq systems are I1C1laquo available fran Ibrry Research station for most UK
ccmnercial species and systems are available for both the raw and cooked
fish HoweveF there is still no standard scorirq system to be used
internationally he countries in the EEC ~or instance use scoring systems
which differ both in scale length am in characteristics measured Most
systems use the same scale length for all features examined but the United
Kingdon am Icelarrl use scales of 10 to 0 for odour and 5 to 0 for other
characteristics ibwgate (1972) describes the effort to construct a rorogram
for oonvert inq fran one scorinq system to another (Appendix 1) de Zylva
(1974) expanded the Ibrry score sheet to include marks for flesh colour and
texture belly flap discoloration stainiBJ of backbone am colour of
kidney he scoring system was designed for ~w Zealand snapper and gave
excellent negative linear correlations between score am days of storage
legenstein (1983) presents the way in which Ibrry has in turn incorporated
other characteristics into the score sheet for raw fish Groupings of several
characteristics to give a score requires more expertise than scoring
individual points as is done by de Zylva
However the use of a point or scoring system in which higher points are
given for high quality attributes would mean the requirements of more
kllC7filedge of the fish and the tester mist be experienced and knCM the
qualities of the fish previously Therefore it is too species dependent
his problem can be overcare by using the demerit system with points being
allotted in several categories for defects as they becare obvious and one can
I
12
learn as one goes along in each situation he demerit points that were given
to the various selected quality attributes could be weighted in such a way as
to produce an approximately linear change in score with storage time (Branch
and Vail 1985)
It might also be desirable OCIlInercially to specify a uniform mrnber of
days of shelf-life fran the pack date to consumption he length of shelfshy
life ctgttained for fish depends on the initial age and quality of the fish the
tirre of the pack am the time am temperature of storage before am after
packing In practical terns the ultimate measure of the effect(s) of shelf-
life extension treatments on the final quality of the fish is consumer
satisfaction (Regenstein aoo Regenstein 1981)
A tentative grading systan for fresh fish based on sensory assessment of
fish had been described by IbUwing (1972)
160 The Ideal Method
Forty years of research ootably in the UK Canada and Japan have gone
into objective methods for measuring fish quality (Bremner et al 1978)
There is as yet 00 single universal test for all species nor for that
matter any wholly satisfactory test for individual species
The ideal rrethod hOlJld be one that is cheap oon-destructive easy to
use oot subject to much variation or fatigue having rapid response and wide
application sensory tests have the advantages of being non-destructive 00
equipnent required adaptable to species and assessing the market value
Althcogh sensory tests are usually condemned as a subjective test which
requires training am experience am are also said to be easily open to
abuse this can be reduced if a simple rapid and less descriptive rrethod
could be fourd - possibly with the use of demerit point scores Therefore
this study aims at assessing the use of sensory techniques based on the
13
demerit point scores developed for raw whole (gutted and ungutted) and
filleted fish samples of Australian fish species stored in ice and RSW It
also discusses the results of the acceptability taste panels on the cooked
fish samples
The two oammercially ~rtant Australian fish species used in this study
were the blue grenadier am the blue rock whiting he blue grenadier is
currently Tasmanias major oammercial finfish and the recent annual production
of the fishery exceeds 100 tonnes (Last et aI 1983)~ he blue rock whiti~
is the only Australian member of the family that has any commercial
importance It occurs mainly in Bass strait and the sheltered bays of South
eastern Tasmania The flesh is delicately flavoured but very soft
200 MATERIALS lIND MEIHgt[s
210 Sample preparation
211 Fish stored in RSW
Blue grenadier used in this study were caught on the 15th lugust 1984 at
a depth of 300 fathans off Sandy Cape on the west coast of Tasmania (Lat
41deg20S IDrq144deg40 E) by demersal trawl They were taken fran the deck
irnnediately am dropped into a refrigerated seawater (RSW) tank in a net bag
(tanp -1degC) The fish was reported to be handled quite roughly on board
Sore of the fish had already gone into rigor at this stage he fish were
transported to the CnID lasrnanian Food lesearch Uni t (TFRJ) laboratories in
Hobart and were already to days old on arrival The f ish were then placed in
the RSW box tank of the rrobile unit (the design and construction of which were
described by Thrower and Stafford 1981) and was kept at -1degC for the duration
of the storage trial which lasted for about three weeks Four fish were
rerroved at each samplirq tine (Table 1) for sensory assessment Length
14
measurements to the fork of the tail were also noted ~e fish were then
filleted and samples frozen at -lBoe for later assessment of their
acceptability by taste panel
212 Fish stored in ice
For the sensory assessment of fish stored in ice guidelines similar to
those given by Lima dos Santos et al (981) were used ~e blue rock whiting
also known as the weedy whiting was used ~e whiting were caught on the
afternoon of 23rd August 1984 by demersal trawl in 18 to 25 m waters oft
Eastern Tasmania On arrival at the TFRJ laboratories in I-bbart at 11 45 am
on the fol Lowirq day the f ish were re- iced at a ratio of 21 (ice f ish) in
insulated plastic boxes of size 66 x 41 x 28 em with provision for drainage
of melt water Flake ice was used ~e ice was topped up daily and renewed
once a week The boxes of i ced f ish were then kept in a cool roan set at a
temperature of 0deg to -1dege ~ree fish were removed for sensory assessment at
each sampling time (Table 1) over a period of rmre than three weeks of ice
storage 100 fish samples were then frozen at -18dege until needed for the
acceptability taste panel
Table 1
sampling regirre for fish stored in R3Wice
Blue Grenadier Diys in R3W 3 4 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 17 21
Sample code N D G L S R K T U P M 0
Whiting Diys in ice 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Sample code 0 M D G T S N R P U L K
15
220 Sensory assessment of the whole (gutted and ungutted) raw fish samples
Both the blue grenadier stored in lOW and the whi t i nq stored in ice were
progressively assessed by using the sense organs of sight smell and touch tor
changes in general appearance odour and texture with storage tine by giving
the appropriate demeri t scores according to the score sheets as shown in
Tables 2 and 3 IVo types of score sheets were used Table 2 shows the
sensory assessment score sheet orig inally developed for the assessment of
gemfish (Thrower et al 1982) It has been simplified and weighted (Branch
and Vail 1985) to provide accumulated increases in demerit points as the t i sn
change in odour texture and appearance during storage with the max imum
accumulated demerit point scores of 35 for the urx]utted samples and 39 tor tte
gutted samples The total scor irq for gutted fish differs fran that descr ibeo
by Bremner (1984) and Branch and Vail (1985) in that the demerit points for
the belly cavity have been added to those for the whole fish
The whole and gutted raw fish were also assessed by using the freshness
score sheet developed by the Council of the European COl1nunities (Official
Journal of the European Qmnunities 1970) but with slight rrodification marie
in its scor irq method in that the scor irq was reversed to provide accumulateri
increases in demerit points as in the TFRJ score sheet (Table 2) with a
maximun accumulated demerit score of 30 (Table 3) The samples were scored by
H Abd R who had had no previous experience with the score sheet
230 Sensory Assessment of the frozen filleted raw fish samples
Samples of the whole and gutted fish of both species were then filleted
ard frozen at -18degC until required for the organoleptic acceptability test
panel fillets were thawed by holding for about 16 hours (overnight) in still
air at 4degC The thawed fillets of both the blue grenadier and whi t i nq were
then assessed by the sense organs of sight smell and touch by using the scor-e
sheet for filleted sample as shown in Table 4 nle score sheet was developed
16
able 1
FIlt U Snorr bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullnt oore hbullbull t ( ( 1Ii~ ANI) tlNtJuTreo)
1_middotAnlJ lmiddot
rlSB IDDII
UIUIl~ (VBci9ht~i9ht8lDullDUll
o 1 2 3
SitU ( rimSoft) o 1
SCALBS (r1mSlLoomiddotmiddotLoobullbull ) o 12
r r SLIMB (AbbullbullntSlSlimiddotysliyVSliy)
o 123
S1IrnraS (pr-Ri90rRi90rPot-Ri90r) o 1 2
BYBS Clarity (ClbullbullrISlCloudyCloudy) 012
Shape (HoralslsunknSunkn) 012
Irill (ViiblHot Viibl) IJ 1
Blood (No BloodSlBloodyVBloody) o 1 2
GILLS Colour (VDark)Charaotritio (SlDark) (vradd)(Slradd)
2o 1 Kucou (AbbullbullntKoderatmiddotBxcbullbullbulliv)
o 1 2 S bullbullll (rrbullbullh 01ly) Pihy8talpoll~
(MetalliaSaved) 1 2 3
BELLI Dicoloration (AbbullbullntDetatablmiddotModratmiddotBxobullbullbulliy) 012 3
Finanbullbullbull ( rira80ftBurt) o 1 2
VENT Condition (bobullbulldy)Noraal (SlBrbullbullk) (Opening)(Bxudbullbull )
2o 1 Sbullbulln (rrbullbullhReutralrihy8poilt)
o 2 3
BELLI CAVIn Stain (OpalbullbullontGryihlmiddotllow-Brown) o 1 2
Blood (RdDark RdBrown)
o 1 z
--
17
UJE 3
Etc SENSORY A$fE4St4fN[ ~(oIlL~
SCALE OF MARKING - FRESHNESS
CRITERIA shypoundu1LRt
Abullbullbullbullbullment Mara-bull thc r1ah 0 1 2- 3tszhL
AppearanceinIIMlISJ Skin
Eye
Gill
Flbullbullshycut f ssm abdomusn
Colour the~
vertebral column
Organs
Oright iridescent I bright pigmenta- pigmentation in (1) dull pigmenta tion no i tion but not the process of pigmentation discolouration Ius trous becoming dis-
mucus opaquemucus aqueous i coloured and dull
mucus slightlytransparen t
cloudy ~UCU9 milky
convex (bulging) convex and flat (1) concave in cornea tran- slightly sunken cornea the centre parent cornea Ughtly opalescent cornea milky pupil black opalescent pupil pupil grey bright
pupil black opaque dull
-shining colour less coloured becoming dis- (1) yellmiish no mucus a few traces of coloured mucus milky
cloar mucus mucus opaque
blueish trans- dull velvety slightly opaque (1) opaque lucid smooth waxy shining without any change in the colour sUgh tly original colour changed
(I) reduncoloured sl1 gh tly pink pink
kidneys and kidneys and kidneys (1) kidneys residues of resJdues of resicJuos of r bullbullidue of other other organs other organs other organs organs and blood bright red the dull red blood and blood brownish game as the becoming palo red blood inside discolbured the aorta
(1) or in a more advanced bull ta te of decay
I
bull
Flesh
Vertebtal Column
Peritonium
Gills kin abdominal cavity
18
(eontd)
SCALE OF MARKING - FRESHNESS
CRITERIA
Assessment Mark 0 1 2
Physical eOId ton
firm and elas tic surface smooth
breaks ins tead of coming away
totally adherent to the flesh
seaweed
less elastic
adherent
adherent
Smell bull
not of seaweed but not bad
slightly soft (flaccid) Ie elastic surfacente waxy velvety and dull
slightly adherent
slightly adherent
slightly sour
3
(1) soft (flaccid) scales ebullbullil y detached from skin sur face ra ther wrinkled inclining to mealy
(1) not dherent
1( ) not adherent
(1) sour
(1) or in a more advanced stat of decay
_ shy-- -
19
Table 4
Filleted Sample Score Sheet
r
TREATMENT F ILIEIS DATE REMOJAL (THAWED)
FISH IDENr
EASE OF FILLETING (Easysl difficultdifficult)
012
APPEARANCE (a) Oolour of flesh (TranslucentSl discolouredSl opaqueopaque)
o 1 2 3
(b) Blood stains (AbsentDetectableModerateExcessive)
012 3
(c) Clotting (UnclottedSlclottedModclottedExcessclotted)
012 3
(d) Skin Oolour (VbrightBrightSldullOU11)
o 1 2 3
TEXTURE FirmS1 softSoft
o 1 2
ClDClJR (FreshNeutralStaleSpoilt)
012 3
CONJITION (a) Gaping (AbsentDetectableModerateExcessive)
o 1 2 3
(b) Bruising (AbsentSlightSevere)
012
(c) Wetness (NmnalS1 dry orMod dry orExcess dryness or
SldripModdrip Freezer bJrn or Excessdrip
012 3
(d) Autolysis (Absentmoderatesevere) (Disco1ourations) 0 1 2
(e) Parasites (Absentmoderatesevere) ( Infestations) 0 1 2
(f) Other discolourations (Absentpresent) or contaminants (bones membranes tissues etc) 0 1
EASE OF SKINNING (EasySldifficultdifficult)
012
20
by the author after a literature search and observations made during the preshy
liminary part of the study It has a maxUnum accumulated demerit score of 34
240 ~anoleptic Acceptability Panel of the cooked fish
Filleted samples of both fish species which had been frozen in a cold
roan at -18dege and then thawed as above were used for the acceptability taste
panels The fillets were skinned am cut into 30 to 40 g pieces crumbed and
deep fried (Bremner et ale 1985) Three or four treatments were cooked
simultaneously at each session am the fish served with packets of take-away
french fries Tcrnato sauce vinegar and salt were available Each of the
samples were randanised in such a way so as to give a high degree of balance
(Table 5 and 6) Letters that represent the samples were also picked
randanly The fish was assessed by 20 panellists employed at the Tasmanian
lEgional Laboratory and experienced with facial hedonic scaling for flavour
texture am overall acceptability using the General Foods Smiley scale
(Appendix 2) Salt was rot rrentioned with the 9niley questionaire for blue
grenadier so that the panel should have ro preconceiVed prejudices
250 Statistics
tata fran the sensory assessment of the whole gutted and ungutted raw
fish (both TFRJ am EEl score sheets) am fran the sensory assessrrent of the
frozen filleted raw fish samples of both the blue grenadier stored in RSW am
whiting stored in ice were analysed for correlation using the ELF scatter
module (Appendix 3 and 4)
The acceptability taste panel assessment scores for flavour texture and
overall liking of the toKgt species of fish were subjected to analysis of
variance using the Genstat package (Appendix 5 and 6)
22
Table 6
Order of presentation of cooked whiting samples to the acceptability taste panelists
Order of presentation of samples Panelist
session I session II
1 OTP rm 2 MUS KR 3 sm INL
4 IKJ GKR
5 ror NK
6shy USM UN ~
7 OOP RLD
B HUT NKD
9 USO RiL
10 SMP LGN
11 IMT GIltN
12 nxgt KRD
Note
8angtle code OM 0 G T S N R P U L K
storage time in ice (days) 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
23
300 RESULIS
310 Physical Characteristic of M novaeaelandiae
rran the forty-six fish examined the mean fork lerqth was found to be
762 an (range 609 to 838 an) A few of the fish examined had well shy
developed roes and their digestive tracts were found to be relatively empty
320 Physical Characteristics of the H ssmifasoiata
rran a total of thirty-six fish examined the rrean weight of the fish was
fourrl to be 662 g (range 27 to 186 g) am the mean fork length was 183 em
(range 156 to 265 an)
330 sensory assessment of the raw blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
he results of the sensory assessrrent of the r2M blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW by the four rrerhods of scoring are given as average total
accumulated demerit point scores as shown in Table 7 Figure 1 shoes the
graph of demerit point versus days in RSW by the four rrethods of sensory
assessment used Table 9 shltJtS the correlation analysis
340 sensory assessment of the raw whitirq samples stored in ice
he results of the sensory assessment of the r2M whitirq samples stored
in ice by the four methods of scoring are given as average total accumuLated
demerit point scores as shown in Table 8 Figure 2 shltJtS the graph of demerit
point versus days in ice of the four nethods of sensory assessment used Table
9 shltJtS the correlation analysis
350 Attributes contributing to total score
Attributes that contribute to total score usirq the TFRJ scores (ungutted
and gutted) EEC scores and the filleted sample scores are as shewn in Tables
10 - 14
24
Table 7
Total demerit points fran sensory assessment of blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
Average lbta1 Demerit Rgtint SCores
[)lye in RW TFRJ scores TFRJ scores EEl scores Filleted Sample (urvJut t ed ) (gutted) (gutted) SCores
3 3 3 1 1
4 5 5 2 3
6 10 10 6 6
8 16 18 9 8
9 19 21 11 10
10 20 22 13 12
11shy 22 24 15 14
12 23 25 18 17
13 24 26 19 18
14 25 27 19 19
17 29 31 21 23
21 33 35 25 29
Note
Maximum possible scores for (1) IlRJ scores (ungutted is 35
( 11) IlRJ scores (gutted) is 29
( 11i) EEX scores (gutted) is 30
( iv) Filleted sample scores is 32
amptV
35j
3l~
en Ishy 25Z-0 Q
3)-~
bullbullbull 0
bull 0 0bull 0
bull 0 0 6shy abull A ~
~
bull 0
~
6shy
bull 0
6shy
I) 01
-W 0i A15W ~ Q A
~
6shy~101- bull 90 TFRU SCORES (ungutted)
6shy~ bullbull TFRU SCORES (gutt~d i
bull ~
4 6- 6- EEC SCORES 5~
~ ~ FILLETED SAMPLE SCORES ~
6 4 I J I I I
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
DAYS IN RSW
Figl Demerit Points Versus Days in RSW For Blue Grenadier Samples
Fig 2 Demerit Points Versus Days in ice For Whiting Samples I
27
Table 8
TOtal demerit points from sensory assessment of whi tirq samples stored in ice
Average TOtal Demerit Foint SCores
rays in ice TFRJ scores TFRJ scores EEC scores Fi 11eted sample (urqutted) (gutted) (gutted) (gutted)
1 1 1 0 0 3 2 2 1 1
5 4 4 2 3
7 7 9 3 4
9 13 15 6 9
n 15 17 7 13
13 19 21 11 15
15 24 27 15 16
17 29 32 19 18
19 31 35 22 21
21 32 36 24 24
23 33 37 26 26
Note
MaXllnum possible scores for (i) TFRJ scores (urqutted) is 35 ( ii) TFRJ scores (gutted) is 39 ( iii) EEC scores (gutted) is 30 ( iv) Filleted sample scores is 32
28
Table 9
Relationship between tLme and demerit points for fish stored in RSW
Method of Visual Assessment
y- intercept slope correlation
M novaBMBlandias
TFRJ (urqutted ~les) 032 175 097
TFRJ (gutted samples) 032 190 096
EEl -231 146 097
Filleted samplesbull
-357 158 099
H sBmifasoiata
TFRJ (urqutted samples) -245 167 099
TFRJ (gutted samples) -273 187 099
EOC -414 129 098
Filleted samples -244 125 099
ltshy
--------------- ------------------------------------------
------------- - ------------- -------- ------
Table 10
Attributes contributing to total score using TFRO scores (gutted and ungutted)
Attributes involved in score change Score
Blue grenadier in RSW Whiting in ice
Stiffness Eyes - clarity blood Slllne Stiffness Eyes - clarity shape and blood lt10 Gills - smell Vent - smell SlBne Gills - colour smell and mucous
Vent - smell Belly cavity - stains and blood
Appearance Eyes-shape Stiffness Gills - smell colour and mucous Skin
Stiffness appearance gill-smell Scales belly-discolouration and firmness
N so
gt10lt20 SCales belly - discolouration and firmness Vent - smell Vent - smell and condition Belly cavity - stains and blood
Appearance Slllne Eyes - clarity shape Appearance SlBne Scales Skin blood and iris Gills - colour Eyes - clarity and shape
gt20lt30 Belly - discolouration Gills - mucous smell am colour Vent - condi tion and smell Belly cavity shy blood
Appearance Gills - mucous and smell SlBne Eyes - iris am blood Belly - discolouration and firmness Belly - discolouration and firmness
gt30 Vent - condition and smell Vent - condition Belly cavity - blood Belly cavity - stains
Table 11
Attributes contribut irq to total score us irq EEC scores
Attributes involved in score change
Score Blue grenadier in RSW W1iting in ice
lt7 Appearance - skin eyes gills organs Physical condition - flesh Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and organs Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skins eyes gills flesh Appearance-eyes and organs atv
vertebral column and organs Physical condition-flesh and peritoneum gt7lt14 Physical condition - flesh Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-eyes flesh and vertebral Appearance-skin gills and organs column Physical condition-flesh vertebral column
gt14lt21 Physical condition-vertebal column and and peritoneum peritoneum Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and vertebral column vertebral column
gt21 Physical condition-flesh and peritoneum Physical cOndition-flesh vertebral column Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity and peri toneum bull
Table 12
Attributes contributing to total score using filleted sample scores
Score
lt5
Attributes involved in score change
Blue grenadier in RSW
Appearance - blood stains skin colour ltXIour - flesh
M1iting in ice
----- shy -------------- shy
Appearance - skin colour odour - flesh Cbndition - gaping wetness
Appearance - colour of flesh Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Texture - flesh skin colour ltgt gt5lt10 Cbndition - gaping bruising wetness Ease of filleting
Texture - flesh
Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Appearance - colour of flesh clotting skin clotting skin colour skin colour
gt10lt20 odour - flesh odour - flesh Cbndition - gaping wetness autolysis COndition - gaping bruising wetness other discolourations autolysis and other discolouration Ease of skinning
Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains skin colour clotting
gt20 Texture - flesh Texture - flesh odour - flesh Odour shy flesh COndition - gaping bruising wetness Cbndition - wetness autolysis autolysis Ease of skinring
32
Table 13
Diff~rent emphasis in scoring systems for whole fish as between the EEl and TFID
Attribute Number of potential demerit points TFRJ EEl
1Ippearance (general) 3 0
skin ) scales 6 3
slime
Stiffness (Rigor) 2 0
Eyes 7 3
Gills 7 6
Belly 5 0
Vent 5 0
Belly cavity 4 3
Flesh cut fram abdomen 0 3
Flesh texture 0 3
Vertebral column 0 6
Internal organs 0 3
33
360 Relative merits of the scoring systems
The four scor irq methcds were used on the same samples of t ish Any
sample had therefore deteriorated to the same extent on anyone day Figs 3
am 4 shew the scores converted to percentages of possible deroorit point
scores The discrepancy in the accumulation of demerit points between the EEC
am TFRJ scor irq methods is clearly shown IEference to Table 2 3 am 13
shOool that this is caused by the lack of questions regarding rigor looseness
of scales condition of belly am vent am the qroupinq of colour am mucous
in the gills as single po i nts thus halving the potent Ia I gill demerit point
score canparison of the tO species in Table 9 ShONS that the rate of
accumulation of demerit pgtints was more consistent for the TFRU system than by
the EEX scor i oq methltXl or by scorinq of fillets
370 Time taken to score the fish
The average time taken to score an individual fish using the TFPlJ
(unqutted) scores TFRJ (gutted) scores EEX scores am the filleted aamp Le
scores were found to be 1 min 25 sec 1 min 55 sec 3 min 45 sec and 1 min 50
sec respectively The EEX score sheet is more t iroe consumioq in that more than
one question is asked about an attribute for the giving of only one demerit
point this requires conscious thought
380 Acceptability taste panel results of blue grenadier samples bull Figures 5 6 am 7 shOool the mean taste panel scores in graphic form for
flavour texture and overall acceptability of cooked blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW table 14 shows the results of the statistical analysis
390 Acceptability taste panel results of whiting samples
Figures 8 9 am 10 shOool the mean taste panel scores in graphic form for
flavour texture and overall acceptability of cooked whiting samples stored in
ice table 15 shows the results of the statistical analysis
WHITING STORED IN ICE o TFRU SCORES (ungutted)
bull TFRU SCORES (gutted)
b EEC SCORES
FILLETED SAMPLE SCORES
100bull e ~ e b
i 6
bull NW
oIJ-a A A-
(J0 t A~ 0 ~ AC)
C) -e ~~-
C) a 50 A
A w
Iz ~
~ - W e A0 c a ~ ~ A-a ~ l ~ A
w -~
~ X ~ W -e I c ~ ~ ibull I I I I
4 8 12 16 20 24
DAYS IN ICE FIG4
36
- flavourshy
-e s-e l ~ v
5middotIU
STORAGrf IN R sWDAYS
rlCoS Ttutfc pcr1 rcbull
rf oj bl jtlJ~r - jlqVGurc acccr~b
21179 0 2 136 843
~ 0 u 5middot0YI
oJ J l ofmiddot$ 1 e
tu 4middot0
VI
~ 3middot5
3middot0
TelC-lue X bull -e III
~ Gmiddotftv
ct 5middot03
V1
-J -f-SshyU 2
~ 40 t
3-~
~ bullbull0 5 0
~ 17 21A ISII
PAY- IITDRAGamp fbilW
FIG6 I Tq1-c pltnd rc-utl ojbllfcJrcftaJIr bull I~M144 Q Cc(r~blfly
r 411q~~ An~Plf bUIJlfM F llh J~Lld Pt-DoL B fpound)1
gt1 NI ~~eusr SJAVlt1
D ~II
(ffIt1~JP IIID bull U J 1i
-IyoJC )-tlICf p --lInraquoJ Ix-Pc ~1rb1 r I ef
Ma2j NI a~v2loJ$
til
1Ia ~AO (IIp~lJa~e
01
secto
00
s
05
5
o~
~
0pound
s
0
smiddot
o~
07
1 ~ ~ ~ ~
r~
B
~
rv t gtshy 2
~ ~ 11
~ 7shyIn r
~ () 0 1) m ~
~ gtshyz -
(fII~q~~ 7~ P
IItJ1o -~~f(ll p ~I I~U J ~t~L 0 ~ middot~II I
IDI 8~ middot lta ~
~ QS
middotS ~ ~ 0 z
r Smiddot II
S 1d 0-$ 111 r- l gtshy r
V fr~
~llCf-J a-PcJ~ U~middotJO
4lp~dmiddotyIb 6middot~1f np)t -~11M fo --IIhen IJutJel ~bl
Table 14
Acceptability of deep fried blue grenadier samples stored in FSW
rays in R3W
Acceptability 3 4 6 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 17 21
Flavour 50a 50a 4S a 51a 50a 51a 50a 4Sa 49a 53a 41b 35b
Texture 49bc 51abc 4S bed 52ab 4Sbed 53ab 52abc 52ab 4Sbed 55a 46cd 43d
OJerall 50ab 51ab 47be 52ab 4Sb 5lab 52ab 50ab 47b 54 a 41c 35d
abc
d
significantly different (pltOOOl)
significantly different (pltOOl) W so
Table 15
Acceptability of deep fried whiting samples stored in ice
rays in ice
Acceptability 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Flavour 5Sab 59a 59a 60a 59a 5S ab 51b 54ab 53ab 37c 37c 31c
Texture 59ab 59a 53bed 5S ab 63a 59ab 47cde 54be 56ab 55ab 44e 46de
OJera11 57ab 5S ab 59ab 60a 60a 5Sab 52b 53ab 55ab 42c 36cd 31d
abcde significantly different (Plt0001)
40
~oo DISCUSSION
410 Sensory assessment of the raw blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
he results of sensory assessment on the raw blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW by the four methods of scoring all sheM that there is
progressive increment in total demerit points with storage time for all the
four methods (Table 7) It was also fourxi that the accumulation of demerit
points with time of storage of the fish in ffiW occurred in a saui-linear
fashion for all -the four scoring methods used (Figure 1) he variables (time
of storage and demeritmiddot points score) were all highly correlated (Table 9)
he correlation equation of the TFRJ (ungutted samples) and TFRJ (gutted
sanples) scores were similar roth having a zero time intercept of 032 but
with the TFRJ (gutted samples) scores having a slightly greater slope by 015
he EEC scores and the filleted sample scores roth have lower slopes ie
146 and 158 respectively canpared with the TFRJ (ungutted sample) and TFRJ
(gutted sample) scores of 175 and 190 respectively lbwever the EOC scores
which have the lowest slope have a fairly similar correlation equation with
the filleted sample scores (Table 9) he negative intercepts reflected the
slightly more sigrroid relationship for these samples his suggests that the
TFRJ (gutted) scoring method is the rrost sensitive of the four methods
followed by the TFRJ (ungutted) the filleted sample and the EEC scores
It was also found that after 21 days of storage in RSW the blue
grenadier samples had not reached their maximun possible scores in any of the
four scoring rrethods used (Table 7) he TFRJ (ungutted sample) score only
reached 943 of its possible maximun value whereas the TFRJ (gutted sample)
scores EEC scores and the filleted sample score reached only 897 833 ar~
906 of their possible maximun score his means that all the four methods
of scoring can still be sensitive to changes in the quality of the blue
grenadier samples stored in RSW after 21 days of storage time
41
Figures 1 and 3 also shOVt that the pattern of the graphs of demerit
points against days storage in R3W of the four methcxis of scoring is similar
ie a tendency to be slightly sigmoid fbwever the filleted sanple scores
sean to be rrore sensitive than the EOC scores at the later part of the storage
time ie after 14 days of storage and the scores continued to rise
1be rrost obvious indicator of change for the blue grenadier stored in ffiW
using the TFRJ scores (both gutted and unJUtted sanples) was the eyes (clarity
and blood) followed by odour developnent of the gills (Table 10) his is -
also foond to be true wi th the EOC freshness score (Table 11) Fbr the
filleted sample scores the appearance and odoor of the flesh seems to be the
most obvious indicator of change follOVted by the condition of the fillets such
as gaping bruisin) am wetness (Table 12)
4 20 sensory assessment of the raw whi ting samples stored in ice
1he results of sensory assessment on the rCJl whiting samples stored in
ice by the foor roothods of scoring also shows that there is a progressive
increment in total demerit points with storage time for all the four methods
of scoring (Table 8) Ps with the blue grenadier the aCCLD1UJlation of demerit
points with time of storage of the whiting in ice also occurred in a sernishy
linear fashion for all the foor scoring methods used (Figure 2 and 4) wi th a
slight lag in the initial phase Interestingly this was not observed in the
case of blue grenadier sanples stored in ffiW probably because the first
samplin) of the blue grenadier starts only fran the third day after catch
whereas the first sampling of the whiting starts fran the first day after
catch Also the blue grenadier was handled qu i te roughly on the deck in fact
three oot of the four fish samples on the first rerroval ie the third day
after catching had already showed blood in their eyes
Bremner et al (1985) when using the TFRJ score sheet to assess the
42
quality of four tropical fish species fran the oorth west shelf of hJstralia
(stored in ice) also fourrl that the accumulation of demerit points with time
of storage in ice occurred in a linear fashion
PB wi th blue grenadier the variables (tine of storage ard darneri t points
score) were all highly correlated (Table 9) Also the correlation equation of
the TFRJ (ungutted) ard TFRJ (gutted) scores were similar with the TFJU
(gutted) score having a slightly greater slope by 020 Crable 9) he EEC
scores am filleted sample scores also have lower s lopes l e 129 ard 125
respectively ocmpared to the TFm (ungutted) and (gutted) scores of 167 and
187 respectively However unlike the blue grenadier the filleted samples
of the whi t ing had the 10liest slope he more sensi tive na ture of the EEC
scores as canpared to the filleted sample scores in the case of the whiting
especially after 12 days storage in ice can be explained by the snaller size
of the whitirlJ (fork length ranging fran 156 to 265 an) as canpared to the
size of the blue grenadier (fork length ranging 809 to 838 an) the snaller
fish terrl to spoil faster especially the interior parts of the fish PB the
EEC scores depend nuch on the sensory assessment of the interior parts of the
fish such as the appearance and condition of the flesh vertebral colwnn
interior organs per i toneun and abdaninal cavity (Table 3) which makes up more
than 18 demerit points out of the total possible maxinun of 30 the
sensitiveness of its score is thus self-explanatory in the case of whiting
Connell (1980) explained that large fish keep marginally better than small
fish because larger fish have a smaller surface to volume ratio so that in the
same tUne less of their interior is affected
The above results confirmed the previous suggestion that the TFRU
(gutted) scorIoq methcrl is the roost sensitive of the four methods It was
found that after 23 days of storage in ice the whiting scmples had not
reached the maximun possible scores in any of the four methods used (Table
43
8) The 1FIU (UBJutted) scores had reached only 94-3 of its possible maximum
value whereas the TFRJ (gutted) scores EOC scores am the filleted sample
scores reached only 94 9 867 and 81 3 of their poea Ible maximum score
Therefore all the four methods of scoriBJ can still be sensitive to changes
in quality of the whiting samples stored in ice after 23 days of storage tUne
Ihe roost obvious irxHcator of chaDJe for the whiting stored in ice using
the TFIU score sheet was the eyes (clarity shape and blcxxl) followed by the
develqxnent of -colour odour and nucous of the gills (fable 10) Bremner et
al (1985) when working with four tropical species f~ the north west shelf of
Australia also found that the most obvious indicator of change for fish stored
in ice was the eyes (their clarity am shape) follCAtled by odour developnent
and colour changes in the gills This was also found in the case of blue
grenadier in ~ discussed earlier OJrran et al (1981) when investigating
the quality changes duriBJ iced storage of three carmercially important
species of fish fran Bahrein also found that of the visual and olfactory
assessments gill odour showed the roost pranise as a quality control index
Pgain this is also found to be true with the EOC freshness score of both the
blue grenadier and the whitiBJ (Table 11) AccordiBJ to ~ate (1972) it
was generally agreed that odour of the gills is the most sensitive measure of
freshness but the visual appearance of the eyes gills arxi skin was quicker to
use in practice on the market
For the filleted sample scores of the whiting the most obvious indicator
of chanqe was the appearance and odour of the flesh (Table 12) This too
agreed with the findiBJs for blue grenadier stored in ffiW
AccordiBJ to Baines et al (1969) with fish eatiBJ is related to four
main attributes or quality factors viz appearance odour and texture of the
rCM and cooked fish and in the latter also flavour he ultimate purpose of
testing the raw fish is to estimate the eating quality which is here taken to
44
mean the degree of freshness of flavour Acoording to Baines and Shewan
(1965) the mostreliable test for predicting flavour sqore is raw odour
430 The ease aM difficulties of using the four methods of scoring
It was found that the TFRJ (ungutted) scores was the easiest and quickest
method to use as it takes on average only about 1 min 25 sec to score a fish
canpared to 1 min 55 sec 3 min 45 sec ard 1 min 50 sec for the TFRJ
(gutted) EOC and the filleted sample scores he E~ score was found to be
the roost tedious besides taking the longest time to soore a fish
he TFIU (ungutted) scores also have the advantage of not requiring a
knife in order to score ard also were less IOOSSY to work with canpared to all
the other nethods Also the attributes to be assessed were arranged and
organised in such a way in the score sheet that it is easy to score a fish
starting from assessing the apparance and skin and ending with the condition
and smell of the vent
440 Acceptability taste panel results of the blue grenadier samples
441 Flavour acceptability
Figure 5 shc7ws the flavour acceptability of the deep fried samples of
blue grenadier Samples stored in R3W for less than 17 days were found
statistically (Table 14) to be indistinguishable (Plt0001) fran each other
then there was a significant fall in the flavour acceptability of the samples
stored in RSW for 17 days onwards he sarrtgtle stored for 21 days had a still
lower mean value of 35 but it was not significantly different fran the
semple stored for 17 days which had a nean value of 41 It is interesting to
note that despite the progressive increase in sodiun uptake of the blue
grenadier samples stored in RSW from about 7115 35 mg sodium(lOO g tissue
initially to 724 33 mglOO g tissue on the 16th day aM to 729 17 mglOO g
45
tissue on the 21st day (Burford 1984) the panelists seem not to be
negatively affected by the increasing salt content of the samples with storage
tUne and in fact some of the panelists added more salt to their samples I
111is result contradicts statements made by previous reseachers that the
storage life using R3W may be limited by increases in salt content in the fish
flesh (Boyd et aI 1978) he maximun desirable salt content according to
Tcm1inson et al (1974) as quoted by Boyd et al (1978) is about 05 but at
the 16th day ofmiddot RgtW storage the salt content fOllNj In the flesh of blue
grenadier samples was already more than 07 fbwever the panelist only ate
40g pieces it might have been a different case if the fish has been as a
whole meal
442 Texture acceptability
Figure 6 shows the texture acceptability of the deep fried blue grenadier
samples stored in R3W eespf te sane apparent abberant values (such as the
high rrean of 55 for the sample stored for 14 days in RSW) it is obvious that
the texture acceptability showed a significant decreasing trend (pltOOl) from
seventeen days of storage onwards The abberant texture values are possibly
due to the fact that the fish texture might have been masked by the bread
crunbs used to coat the fish samples before deep fryi~ This agrees with the
observations of Bremner et al (1985) wtxgt found that the inherent textural
softness of P piotiue and the tougheni~ on storage of N peroni i detected by
a profile panel usilYJ steamed fillets were no lo~er noticeable when the fish
was deep fried in batter Bremner (1980) also reported that despi te the
softness of the raw flesh the cooked flesh of blue grenadier is reasonably
firm
46
433 OVerall acceptability
The overall acceptability of the deep fried blue grenadier samples stored
in R)W (figure 7) seems to follCM a similar pattern to its flavour
acceptability (figure 5)~ in which a significant fall in overall acceptability
was only observed fran the samples held fran 17 days in RSW onwards (pltO 001)
as shawn in Tablel4
rnus all the above results showed that there was a significant fall in
flavour texture and overall acceptability of blue ~renadier from 17 days of
R)W storage onwards which was found to be equivalent to the accumulated
demerit point scores of 29 of the TFRJ (ungutted) scoresr 31 of the TFRl
(gutted) scoresr 21 of the EOC scores and 23 of the filleted sample
scores Jones (1964) states that the acceptability of a fish is a function of
its suitability for further processing and of its inmediate appearance its
texture its odour and its flavour
450 Acceptability taste panel results of the whiting samples
451 Flavour acceptability
Figure 8 shows the flavour acceptability of the deep fried whiting
samples stored in ice rtle twelve sample times could be analysed individually
since the means if analysed by canbining adjacent sample times to give six
sample groups are in fact the means of the adjacent times if analysed
individually it was found that samples of the first nine renovals i se up to
17 days of storage in ice are more or less indistinguishable (abberant value
at 7th removal) he last three removals ie samples stored in ice for 19
21 and 23 days were found to be of significantly lower flavour acceptability
(p lt 0001) as shawn in Table 5
47
452 Texture acceptability
Except for the abberation at the 7th remgtval i 9 at day 13 of ice
storage there is a significant reduction of texture acceptability at the 21 II
and 23 days of ice storage (p lt0001) as shown by figure 9 and Table5 t
II
I 453 Over~ll acceptability
he overal I acceptability of the whiting sanples stored in ice is very
much similar to its f Lavour acceptability except at day 19 of ice storage
where the ovaral I acceptability shows a higher mean of 42 carpared to the
flavoor acceptability mean of 37 (figure 10 and Table 5) here is however a
significant sudden drop to lOil scores fran the lOth removal ie day 19 of
storage in ice (p lt0001)
hus all the above results for whitifVJ sanples showed that there was a
significant fall in flavCXJr and overall acceptability fram 19 days ice storage
onwards which is equivalent to the accumulated demerit points of 31 of the
TFRJ (unqutted) scores 35 of the TFRJ (gutted) scores 22 of the EEC
scores and 21 of the filleted sample scores he results are interesti~ in
that the oorresponding total accLDnulated demerit points at the time when
significant falls in flavour texture and overall acceptability of the blue
grenadier and whiting samples stored in I5W and ice respectively were quite
similar
500 CONCLUSION
510 Feasibility of using demerit points
Accumulation of demerit points with time of storage of M
in RM and H eemifaeaiatia in ice was found to be highly
occurred in a semi-linear fashion irrespective of the method of
novas8slandiae
correlated and
scori~ used
- _ ~uo_a~_bull--_--I e -Ii --
48
1he slopes of the lines (rate of accumulation of demerit points) and its
relative spoilage rate were found to be similar for the ttoO species provided
the sane method of scoring is employed 1his tends to suggest that the method
is possibly independent of species am methods of storage or at least
applicable to the two species in RSW and ice respectively
TIle TFRJ (ungutted) scores were foum to be the easiest arrl quickest
method to use although the TFRJ (gutted) scores were the roost sensitive 1he
EEX freshness scores were hClgtlever foum to be the JOOSt tedious aod difficult bull I
to use besides taking more than twice the time taken to score a fish ocmpared
to the TFRJ (ungut ted) scores
Although there were slig~t differences between the ttoO species in those
characteristics where changes were first made (Table 10 11 and 12) there is
enough evidence to conclude that the changes in the appearance of the eyes am
the odour developnent of the gills are the JOOSt obvious arrl valuable indicator
of charqe in quality when using the TFIU or the EEl scores while the
appearance am odour of the fish flesh seems to be the JOOSt obvious indicator
when assessing the filleted sample
1he shelf-life of M navaezelandiae stored in RSW was found to be 14 days
(less than 17 days) whilst that of H semifasoiata stored in ice was fourrl to
be 17 days (less than 19 days) beyond which the fish had developed spoilage
characteristics that were disliked by the acceptability taste panel
1he cut-off point at which spoilage of the samples would have rendered
the quality of the fish sample to be unacceptable fran the consumers point of
view ~ld be that equivalent to the accumulated demerit point of gt29 for the
TFRJ (gutted arrl ungutted) scores am gt21 for the EOC and filleted sample
scores
This study thus confinned the potential use of demerit points such as the
TFRJ (ungutted) scores as an easy quick cheap non-destructive and reliable
49
method of sensory assessment of fish quality In fact Branch and Vail (1985)
had studied the possible use of a prototype pocket-sized computer to determine
the condition and shelf-life of temperate and tropical species of fish based
on data that is derived fran the sensory score sheets for the assessment of
fish quality developed at the (SIRgt Division of fbod lEsearch Iasmanian Fbod
Research Unit (TFlU) Hobart
520 RJrpose for which demerit points are to be used
Many scor i oq systerrs are used to predict the nunber of days fish have
been stored on ice and in nore recent years ICETIME (equivalent days on
ice) I ard thus through years of experience the taste panel acceptability of
the fish I
However fish is sold on appearance and a scoring system may be used for
assessirg marketability of whole or gutted fish or fillets or for setting
standards in bulk buying The EEC scoring system is used for example at
fish markets at first point of sale to grade the fish and establish
withdrawal prices A IbrryShewan type system is often used as a purohas i nq
specification from finn to firm
Before a final demerit point system is selected for any COlIOOdity its
ultimate purpose should be established For example the demerit points
chosen for whole fish which nost closely resemble the rate of change of
demerit points for fillets of that species might be the most useful
A linear rate of change of demerit points with time is nose favoured
because it enables prediction of remaining shelf-life ConstJJrer
unacceptability should be at a point where perhaps 75 of the demerit points
have been accrued Further scores would still be available for categories
such as suitable for fish meal D3merit points are not an indication of the
acceptability of fish as eaten where off-odours flavours and fillet
50
tdiscolouration are masked by batters or curries Their correlation with the
iodours flavours off odours aod off flavours of steamed fish are currently ~
~
~being examined by other workers at the Tasmanian ~ Research unit and highly
significant correlations are found Even when fish are subsequently eaten
battered or curried demerit points give a good indication of remaining shelf
life Thus whitiOJ with a Smiley flavour score of 58 after 1 day on ice
has a nlU gutted demerit score of 1 and a high quality life (eaten crumbed
and fried) of a further 16 days while whitiOJ stored for 11 days on ice with
the sane flavour score has a gutted demerit score of 17 and a further shelf
life of 6 days
530 SUggestion for further work
Ib ascertain its potentially wide application as a simple quick and
technically sound methcxi of assessing fish quality many more studies using
other species of fish both temperate and tropical species and in various
storage conditions should be undertaken using a demerit point scorIrq system
such as that developed by the TFlU
The score sheet has proved invaluable when sending individuals untrained
researchers away on distant water fishing trips Ps yet 00 standard
deviations have been detennined using a team of assessors with coded samples
of unknown history This may require a separate group design
The effect of lean fish and fatty fish on the scores should also be
studied because factors such as seasonal variations in biological conditions
Lmproper gutting and washing mechanical damage and filth and changes due to
storage in R3W or shelving may have considerable influence on its shelf-
life Reports such as those of smith et al (1979) clearly showed that in fish
such as the blue whitirlJ (Mioroomesistius poubaeeous there is greater degree
I 51
of seasonal variability than in other gadoid species the overall
acceptability droppirq dramatically once the fish have spawned Fish accepted
for processing for food has to be of a higher standard of quality than fish
accepted for Imredfate sale across the counter to the consumer therefore
there is a need to rreet a minimum score before they could be processed into
food Gradirq is therefore best left to the user sorenson (1971) states
that in establishing limi ts of acceptance an allowance had to be made for
deterioration that would continue to take place during processing and storage
prior to reaching the consimer
The only final criteria of the objectivity of sensory or any other
assessment are results that are reproducible many times which is by definition
a lcnJ-tenn process and in the meantime one requires short-cut indications
that one is headirq in the right direction
Ferhaps a final caution Is necessary as in the YQrds of Ehrenberg and
Shewan (1953) not too much must be expected even the best measuring
instruments occasionally go oot of control
52
60 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baines CR Jones NR am Shewan JM 1965 Technological problems of
measur trq degree of freshness of wet fish and problems of quality
control requirif)J roore knowledge fran fundamental research In he
Technology of fish utilisation ad R Kreuzer Fishi~ News (Books)
p 141
Baines CR and Shewan JM 1965 sensory rrethods for evafuat inq the
quality of white fish Lab practice 14 160-163
Baines CR ltbnnell JoJ Gibson DM lbWgate PF Livi~ston E and
Shewan JM 1969 A taste panel technique for evaluatirq the eati~
quality of frozen cod In Freezi~ and irradiation of fish ad R
Kreuzer Fishi~ News (Books) London p361
Boyd NS and Wilson NDC 1976 A sensory method for evaluatInq the
quality of Snapper (Ch1ysophrys auratus) NZ Journal of Science 19
209-12
Boyd NS Wilson ND and Bjley A 1978 A refrigerated sea water plant
for small boats symposium on fish utilisation technology and
marketi~ in the IPFC region IFFC Proceedi~s 18th session Manila
Philippines FAD Ba~kok p 186-192
Branch AC and Vail AMA 1984 Bri~i~ fish inspection into the
canputer age FltXld Technol Aust 36 in press
Bremner HA Olley J and Ihrower SoJ 1978 CSIIU Iasmanian lEgional
Laboratory OCcasional Paper No4
Bremner HA 1980 Processi~ and freezi~ of the blue grenadier (Maclulonus
novaeselandiae) FltXld Technol Aust 32(8)~ pp 385-393
Bremner J A 1984 QJality - an attitude of mind In he JILlstralian
Fishi~ Industry - today and tanorrow 10-12 July 1984 Launceston
53
Australian MaritUne Cbllege seminar Bapers 224-69
Bremner HA Statham JA am Sykes SJ 1985 Tropical species fran the
north west shelf of Alstralia sensory assessment and acceptability
of fish stored co ice Proceedi~s Sixth session IPR Worki~ Party
on Fish D3chnology and Marketi~ Melbourne 1984 FJID Fish lep 252
supp1
Burford D 1985 Sodiun uptake in MaOlUfOOnUS nooaeselandiae stored in
refrigerated sea water Tasmanian Food Research Unit OCcasional Paper
No9
ltbnnell JJ 1972 OJality control in the fish industry Ibrry Jldvisory
note No 58 IOrty Research Station Aberdeen
ltbnnell JJ 1980 ltbntrol of fish quality Fishi~ ~ws (Books) 2nd ed
Surrey England
OJrran CA Nicolaides L and Al-Alawi ZS 1981 QJality chanqes duri~
iced storage of three carmercially important species of fish fran
Bahrain Trop sci 23(4) 253-268
de Zylva ERA 1974 Effect of fish handli~ at sea on storage quality of
New Zealand Snapper (Chroysophroys aumtus) New Zealand J SCi 17
309-318
Etlira S 1976 A biochemical study on the freshness of fish Bull 1bkai
Reg Fish Res Lab No 88 pp 1-13
Ehrenberg ASC and Shewan JM 1953 he cbjective approach to sensory
tests of food J Sci Food hJric 4 pp 482-489
Herbert RA and Shewan JM 1975 Precursors of the volatile sulphides in
spoili~ North Sea Cod J Sci Food JIlgric 26 1195-1202
lbUwi~ H 1972 Gradi~ of fish in different qualities Institute for
Fishery Products Ijmuiden Unpublished
~ate P 1972 Qrlparison of sensory scor inq systems for raw fish
I 54
Unpubl ished bull ~ ~
~ate P 1978 Measuri~ the quality am acceptability of fish products bull ~
In IPFC Proceedi~s symposiun on fish utilisatial technology and ~
i f~
marketi~ in the IWC region 18th session Manila Ihilippines p
449
fflghes RB and Jones NR 1966 Measurement of hypoxanthine concentrations
in canned herrirg as an index of the freshness of the raw material
with a ocirment oo flavor relations J SCi fOOd middotJlgric 17 434
Jahns FD Howe JL Coduri Jr RJ and Ram Jr AG 1976 A rapid
visual enzyme test to assess fish freshness Food Iechno1 30 (7) 27
Jones NR 1964 ~lems associated with freezi~ very fresh fish
Proceedings Meeting on Fish Iechnology Fish Handling and
Preservation schevenirqen OEC D Paris p 31 bull
Jones NR 1965 Hypoxanthine and other purine containing fractions in fish
muscle as indices of freshness In uthe technology of fish
utilisation ed R Kreuzer Fishi~ rewa (Books) (Drmn p 179
Last PR Scott EOG and Talbot FH 1983 Fishes of Tasmania
Tasmanian Fisheries ~velopnent lUthority lbbart Tasmania pp 238
414
Lima doe santos CAM James D and Ieutscher F 1981 QJidelines for
chilled fish storage experiments FKJ Fish Tech Igt 210
(Dye RM 1954 Ibst rrortem cha~es in the lenses of fish eyes Msessment
of storage tiJm and fish quality J Sci Focx11lgric 5 566-572
Hartin RE Gray RJ H and Pierson MD 1978 QJality assessment of fresh
fish arrl the role of the naturally occurring microflora Focx1
Technol 32 (5) 188
Official Journal of the European oamrnunities No L264 5 ~cember 1970 pp
1-11
bull
55
Technol New Zealand July 1971 pp 31-35
Spinelli J Eklund M and Miyauchi D 1964 Measurement of hypoxanthine
in fish as a method of assessing freshness J Food SCi 29 710
Thrower S oJ am Stafford IA 1981 A roobile unit for ccmparative studies
of chilled storage systems for trawl fish IIF IIR
eatmissions C2 01 02 03 Boston USA 1981-4
Thrower SoJ Bremner HA QJarmby AR Ggtnnan T8 aild Graham KJ
1982 cn-board handlinJ of Q~ish ~ Inportanoeof chillinJ and
gutting Aust Fish 41 (11) 38-41
Tanlinson N bull bull t at 1974 COtparison between refrigerated sea water (with or
without added carbon dioxide) and ice as storage media for fish to be
subsequently frozen Proc IIR C011n 82- 0-3 Tokyo p
waterman J oJ 1982 Qrrposition and QJality of Fish A Dictionary 1brry
Mvisory Note No 87 Torry Research Station Aberdeen
5J
Olley J and letkowsky OA 1973 he role of terrperature function
integration in monitoring of fish spoilage Food Technol New
Zealand 8 (2) 13 15 and 17
Olley J 1977 Iemperature and seafood spoilage In H Proceedings of 1977
SChool for SeafltXld Processorsmiddot ad ~ AF 0 Mello Hawkesbury
Agricultural Oollege p6-2
Olley J 1978 QIality assessment and storage changes In middotCSIRJ Iasmanian bull
leJional Laboratory OCcasional Paper No 4 p 3-1 middot4 Rgenstein J M and ~enstein CE 1981 he shelf-life extension of fesh
fish In Advances in the refrigerated treabnent of fishmiddot
International Institute of Rfrigeration Clmnissions C2 m ra [8
Boston US A 1981-4
leJenstein J 1983 Wlat is fish quality INroFISH Marketing Digest ttgt 6
26-28
Ryder JM 9Jisson OH SCott ON and Fletcher GC 1984 storage of
New Zealand Jack Mackerel ( TmohUMlB notJabullbullbullZandias) in ice
chemical microbiological and sensory assessment J M SCi 49
1453-1456 1477
Shewan JM Macintosh RG rucker CG and Ehrenberg ASC 1953 he
developnent of a numerical ~coring systan for the sensory assessment
of the spoilage of wet white fish stored in ice J SCi Food Jlgric
4 283-298
Smith J GM Hardy R hanson AB Young KW and Parsons E 1979
sane observations 00 the ambient and chill storage of blue whiting
(Mio1om8sistius poutassou) bull In H Advances in Fish SCience and
Technology ad JJ Connell FishinJ News (Books) Surrey England
pp 299-303
SOrensen T 1971 QIality control and fish handling in New zealand Food ~
t c-
o )
~hmiddot r~YiJ lt~
~~f~~ ~
I
Nomooram for comparison of diffGrent scoring systems tor raw T i sn ___ _ J bull )
_U I~ ~Y1 9i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~
I I t I I - _---1------ imiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot __ middot~_ ~ __~_ -_ ~ + ~ _ -~ _ - middotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middot __ G 9 8 7 6 _ 5middot 3
_ - zmmy [ I bull r f II
d _~__ ~ __ _ ~ __ -I-- - ~ L- i~ middoti~ ~ 1-L -~~ lt lt l~tceland 1P i ~ ~ j ~ ~ ~ L~ __ - I ~_ bull _ L j ~- _-
N rv 1 I 1 2 --- - 2~ 3 middot 3middot 4 ~- ~Il ay ~ _ _ middot _ r r
_ _ __ _ _~ ~_ ) - ~ L_ - 1- ~-_ -_ _ _ ~ 19 ~ 8 imiddotmiddot I 6 5 4 3
Do _ _nm~r t I I I r
~ I
_ ~ ~_ ~ t ~ __ i__ t ~ ~ ~ ~ _ q x 1 1i 2 2~ 3v _ Franee I r I l n
I I I i _ - ~ _ _ _- _-- middotmiddot __ middot_middot_middot_middotmiddotmiddotImiddotmiddotmiddot_middot~ _middotmiddotmiddotmiddot-_middotmiddotmiddotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddot ---- - --~ ~-
19oum8 I 7 6 i 5 ~ ~ 4middot 280 J t (
I i
J -- - -_ -__ X ~middotH i__~ -- i_L ~ - l_ middot1-- - 3 I 2Y1 0 4 11z 1 y
E E C I 1
I I I deg deg E I A r Bmiddot - I I C
ltOIl j- ~ ~ c ~--------------
TASTER
DATE
SESSION
~ER middot1
bull You will be given ~bull aamples of cooked fish Please assess the fish for flavour textur~ and
overall liking as though you had purchased them in a takeaway food shop Hark the sample
identification under the face that most closely describes your impressionbull
I
middot5 S shy2 3 4
FLAVOUR
IEXlURE
--
OVERALL UKING
7 bullbull yc ) I _ v J _ _
I1PP~NJIJ( 3 ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE BGRENVZSASS (A)
OBS DAYS-R DMPTS shy
1 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 6 4 3 7 4 6 e 4 5 9 6 1 18 6 10 11 6 18 12 6 18 13 e 13 14 8 16 13 8 13 16 8 17 17 9 18 18 9 18 19 9 bull 19 29 9 19 21 19 19 22 1 21 23 1 19 24 1 2123 11 21 26 11 22 27 11 22 29 11 22 29 12 22 3 12 22 31 12 23 32 12 23 33 13 23 34 13 23 33 13 22 36 13 23 37 14 24 38 14 23 39 14 264 14 25
17 26~ 17 39 43 17 38 44 17 29 43 21 32 46 21 33
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASS(At
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (Xt DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Yt DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9666 R SQUARED 9343 T STATISTIC 231621 INTERCEPT tAt 31799 SLOPE tSt 173399 bull STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 219473
OBSERVATIONS 46 Y DMPT9 XI DAYS-RSW YMIN -18 YMAX 61 YINC e XMIN -19 XMAX 2e9 XINe 2
] y
__ t=- I I 0(I I
JPRH6ELF PRINT MODULE -SYNTAX ERROR
DATABASE J3lGRENVISASS (FIL)
OB8 DAYS-R DMPT8
1 s 1 2 4 5 s 6 6
~ e 8 ~ 9 1 6 19 12 7 11 14 8 12 17 9 13 18 1 14 19 bull 11 17 23 12 21 29
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASSCFIL)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE CX) DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IY) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT ~9963
R SQUARED 992 T STATISTIC 3~36977
INTERCEPT CA) -3~6~41
SLOPE CB) 1~8426
STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 77667
OBSERVATIONS 12 v DMPTS x DAYS-RSW VMIN -2~ VMAX ~~ YINC ~
XMIN -19 XMAX 2~9 XINC 2
]
bull
-SYNTAX ERROR
lPRH6ELF PRINT MODULE
DATABASE BGRENVXSASS (AG)_
OB6
1 2 3 4 ~
6 7 8 9
Hi 11 12 13 14 1~
16 17 -18 19 2 21 22 23 24 2~
26 27 28 29
3 31 32 33 34 3~
36 37 J8
39
4 41 42 43 44 4~
46
DAYS-R
3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 6 6 6 6 8 8
8 bull 8
9 9 9 9
1 1 1 1 11 11 11 11
DMPTS
2 3 3 3 ~
6 ~
~
1 1 1 1 17 18 17 19 2~
2 21 21 21 23 21 23 23 24 24 24
12 24 12 24 12 25 12 25 13 27 13 25 J3 24 13 27 104 26 J04 2S
14 28 14 27 17 28 17 32 17 32 17 31 21 34 21 35
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BORENVISASSCAO)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE IX) DAVS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IV) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9~76~
R SQUARED 917 T STATISTIC 22S6S88 INTERCEPT lA) 323~7
SLOPE lB) 189812 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 269324
OBSERVATIONS 46 Y DM PT6 X DAYS-RSW ~ _01 VMAV 2~ YfNe ~
XMIN -19 XNAX 2l9 XINC 2
]
9YNTA)( ERROR bull ]PRN6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE BGRENVXSASS
OB6 DAY6-R DMPTS
1 3 1 2 3 1 3 3 1 4 3 1 5 4 1 6 4 4 7 4 3 9 4 1 9 6 6 18 6 6
11 6 6 12 6 6 13 9 8
14 9 9 15 8 8 16 8 9 l 9 18 19 9 11 19 9 12 28 9 12 21 18 12 22 18 14 23 18 11 24 18 14 25 11 15 26 11 13 27 11 15 29 11 15 29 12 17 3 12 18 31 12 19 32 12 18gJ l~ 34 13 18 3~ 13 18 36 13 19 37 14 19 JB 14 19 39 14 19 48 14 19 41 17 19 42 17 23 43 17 21 44 17 20
-(EEC)
q~ 21 23 q6 21 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASSCEEC)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE IX) DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IY) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 96691 R SQUARED 93q9 T STATISTIC 2~14824
INTERCEPT IA) -238937 SLOPE IB) 146219 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 1S28eS
OBSERVATIONS q6 Y DMPTS X DAYS-RSW YMIN -2q YMAX ~5 YINC ~
XMIN -19 XMAX 259 XJNC 2
l
SYNTAX ERROR lPRM8ELF PRINT MODULE
-
bull
APPENJ)K 4 -
DATABASE WHZTXNG VXSASS (A) bull
OBS DAYS-I
1 1 2 1 3 1 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 ~
9 5 9 5 Ii 7 11 7 12 7 13 9 14 9 1~ 9
016 11 17 11 19 11
DMPTS
1 1 1 1 2 2 4 3 5 a 7
9 13 15 bull 13 16 14 1~
019 13 2 8 28 13 16 21 13 20 22 15 24 23 1~ 24 24 15 25 25 17 29 26 17 29 27 17 38 29 19 30 29 19 38 38 19 32 31 21 33 32 21 32 33 21 32 34 23 32 3~ 23 32 36 23 34
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASSIA)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE tX) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE tV) qMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 98514 R SQUARED 9785 T STATISTIC 3344414 INTERCEPT tAt -245163 SLOPE CBt 166958 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 286799
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS x DAYS-ICE
YMIN -22 YMAX lS7 YINC lS- XMIN -19 XMAX 259 XINC 2
]
I
J
-8YNTAX ERROR
]PRM6ELF PRINT MODULE shyDATABASE WHITING VISASS (AG)
OB8 DAYS-I DMPT8
1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 4 3 1 ~ 3 2 6 3 2 7 ~ 4 9 ~ 3 9 ~ ~
18 7 18 11 7 9 12 7 18 13 9 1~
14 9 17 1~ 9 1~
16 11 18 17 11 16 18 11 17 19 13 22 28 13 18 21 13 22 22 1~ 26 23 1~ 27 24 1~ 28 2~ 17 32 26 17 32 27 17 33 28 19 34 29 19 34 38 19 36 31 21 37 32 21 36 33 21 36 34 23 36 3~ 23 36 36 23 38
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITINO VISASS(AO)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAY8-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Y) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 986~2
R SQUARED 973 T STATISTIC 3~B167B
INTERCEPT CAl -272~33
SLOPE CBI 197S63 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 221294
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS X DAYS-ICE YHIN -19~ YHAX ~9~ YINC ~
XHIN -19 XHAX 2~9 XINC 2
]
-SYNTAX ERROR lPRM6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASS (EEC)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 2 1 3 1 4 3 ~ 3 1 6 3 1 7 ~ 2 8 ~ 2 9 ~ 3
1 7 3 11 7 3 12 7 3 13 9 6 14 9 6 bull 1~ 9 7 16 11 7 17 11 8 18 11 7 19 13 11 2 13 1 21 13 12 22 1~ 13 23 1~ 1~
24 1~ 17 2~ 17 19 26 17 18 27 17 19 28 19 29 29 19 23 39 19 22 31 21 24 32 21 23 33 21 24
34 23 2J 3~ 23 26 36 23 27
I ELF SCATTER MODULE I DATABASE WHITING VISA88CEEC)I I INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (~) DAYS-ICE I
DEPENDENT VARIABLE (VI DMPTS I bull
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9a2~3
R SQUARED 96~3
T STATISTIC 387a73~
INTERCEPT (A) -4142 SLOPE (8) 12873 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 173287
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS ~ DAYS-ICE YMIN -29 YMA~ ~1 VINC ~
XMIN -19 ~MA~ 2~9 ~INC 2
J
-SYNTAX ERROR JPRM6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHITING VXSASSmiddot(FXL)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 2 3 1 3 ~ 5 4 7 4 ~ 9 9 6 11 13 7 13 1~
e 1~ 16 9 17 19 18 19 21 11 21 24 12 23 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASB(FJLI
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Y) DMPTS
bull bullbull 4~
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE CV) DMPTSr
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 982~3
R SQUARED 96~3
T STATISTIC 3S7873~ t bullbullf CINTERCEPT CA) -4142
SLOPE CB) 12873 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 173287
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS XI DAYS-ICE YMINmiddot~28 YMAKI 1 YINC ~
XMIN -I9XMAX 2~9 XINC2
]
-SYNTAX ERROR ]PRH6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHXTXNG VXSASS (FXL)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 S 2 3 1 1 5 3 4 7 4 5 9 9 6 11 13 7 13 1~
9 15 16 9 17 19 1 19 21 11 21 24 12 23 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE I WHITING VISAS8(FIL)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE CX)I DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE CY) DMPT8
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 99289 R SQUARED 9858 T STATISTIC 2638123 INTERCEPT CA) -243706 SLOPE CB) 124476 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 112846
SLOPE 10) 124476 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 112846
ObullbulllfftVTrOHSO 12 VI DHPTS XI DAVS-ICE VMIN -27 VHAX e2 VINe e XHIN -19 XHAX 2e9 gtcINe 2
]
-8VNTAX ERROR
fi
rr
[bull
SJ
in i
bullol
r~
bull bull
n i
o o o o
~
o~ o
o - l
N~ o ~
o o o
Q
Q o o
a
c -~_
Q
_
_ Q
_9_
0
o ~-
O
_
Q
lI
oJ ~
v
~ ~
~-
-
- -1
---h
---1
---I
I
I
1
~ ((9 ~ J las 0 - ~~ U -lt) az E~-~gl~~1--~~---------- ~) 1)
11 ~ - 11 HI ~~
I bull M~
~ -~ ~~ IJ~ I J ismiddotJ I Q l~
k tl I 01 re lr - 91 br I ~I ( -0 71P g I CJ tt
I I J 000 0 0 w I 0) NlNN1tl 30 hIflJ I t IC (~4ID(r ~ Wi
_ f-- -------- bull fyen ~=y ~~r I I I I I I I 0 0 00 00 ( ~) -Fr~ ~ fj)
-0 I 0 I Ole 17 10 0 ( ~ AI )middot P1~ 0 0 00 Q hItIrS ~7I -~~ (J
t -r------0 bull
_-~_ middotmiddotmiddot_middot~middotmiddotmiddot)-middot7~)
lrrT I 01 0
0 tFmiddot~~i ~ 1 o 00 Omiddot (~ -W ~r f (JJ___~ _______ _ l I I 71 I -_---_ - M-~ ~ I
J I Z-tf ~ ~ ~fI t1 11f ( )) CI I I I i I 00 r11-7[ c I C bull aofl7r_ ~ ~z ~ 1t~Ji ) ( --_--------i---shye l~~~ I f~) I I J I
I II i bull Q ( N~T fE ~I )
~JiP _- -___ ----shy
_
~ 7Yr 0) ~(J ~ I e I t I ~ l I J I I 1 I I I(I 0 0 (~~yen~ M -p~P71 JPtJIJs 0
i euror (1l~J IlLriJlllr1JI ~~J I ~()(1OP I I r I I 0 I ( t t I ( jIfS 7fS ~~I ~ )
I
I 1 I( IN 10~ lb~ qItJ gtr~j f o (~)I(~) I I 0 I (t~ ~~) I I Jbull o 0 J I ~ l 0 a i S(jJ t t t tI tI C I C I J I I I J I 0 I (n~rlP PI4t -I) t
- -I
-I -I-I I II-I I I-I r bull
-----(rtb Ii If p~) PNl17T7~b ~y~ 7
10 IIt1v I 0 1~L CIJ tN IfIfW1IIJ JI11i JN~I HJ3
---Y p~ALY~_ ~~ Yl2-- 1)
yenvr 1amp f111l
-
~
~~
~
II
o 0
~cgt
(
) Q
oa
oo
o
oo
o o
a
o
~
P
t
oo
c
oo
a -
o
oo
o
o -
o
-o
-
-
lJ
I~ I~
Jl ~rIpound i IAlffzfjjsectj 7df- utl kf J OG lie rCOIpound ~IIE(T r
7tU
~
~ ~
~ ~
~
-shy~
~
MYI f)lySLM~ 1 (JAy ISo~r 11 ~~) e ()~t ~I01) r I joy f o~y lOJ 17~JJlII1~ 16 fiti -t1 It r ~17J~~flu~1h 111H 7U 1111111shyIllf Jr(11Jr I fhJo
~ ) ~ I1 J J-4 ~ J 2 JJ ~poundol ~ ] t4 cl -7 eJ uJ cJJJ wI~ wI l shy w c at amp 74 -t ~ ut 4 I
SkIN 000 o 0 0o 0 0 o 00 I o I I I I 3 3 3l) t 3 3 31 s 3ltt
a I I I I I o IfYU I 2 I JI I I000 )l~ 1~1 S 3 ~S 3 5 335
GILtJ I J I o (J 0 I (I I I ~ t 2shy~I I s 3 ]] 2 0 (J 3 ~ ~ t 3 3 AlvItUiU i l I I ls)z oJ lJ 0 a (J ~ 0o 0 0 a a aTff1ttJR II r 1
1 I ~ I I I I 1~E
Cdt47tl7 I I ~ ~t( a a 0O(O I Io I~ 00 000deg a 0wO 0 0 0 o 0 0 o~ 00VUipound811 ~ J I
tJ I Oe6rlllr I I I I 2 2]l2 ~ 3 S 3 S ~ 3o a 0 (J () 0 I 333 1 $ 3
If~euMI LU~ 2l 3000o (J 0 o 0 0 J 2 2shy 331a deg (1 ~ 2 Jshy
i I 000amp1 0 I I 1TIUUpound
lAcltJdJE 00deg00o 0 0 ooalOOO 0 0 I I I 1OdOa deg 0 11 2 I r I I I IbullI
I I h~r~Eu I ( 0 0 CJ 0 o (J a 2 ~ 30001011 0 1 J 1010 I I L II 2 l 2l 22 2 1
sKIN GLLt I f I~J) GlIIl) 0 (I a I do 0 0 I 0 Il~t l~o 0 0 ~ 3 3 3 s 3 3 3 33s1331
i7tJ7l11 Ibull I shy i66 ~o
(J ~ 0 1 0 It3331l J t 1 1shy 1~ ~afJllc 11 Irrshy It ~1 1111 20 J3 u
(])JtUJ61 (l) (1) (Ir)(0) (J)(I) (If) (19) (u) (~r)(J4)
I r f
I
I
i I
I i
II I ((
f
II Ii
p ()
Q
0_
_ 00
0
00
00
00
0
o o o 0
00
0
0 _
o Q
0
0
o
0
00
0
-
0 0
0
middot0
0
o oo
0
o Q
o oo o o
- ~
~
~ ~~pound
w
i -shy
o
co
- --
shy
o o o
~
~_
~
0
-shyJJ
-----l--~
-J
J IJ
f
J
J)
o 0
00
_ 0
0
o (gt
0
o ()
o
0
0 0
0
()
()
o 0
0
o 0
0
_
_ -
-----1
-----shy
Q
0 0
o ~-IJ~ulJ-
u
lJcllJ_-_~IJamp
o o
Q
I---+----I---+----I----I~-
_Ilpound
llD
lIlI
Il
~I
IIIl
I_II
II5
l__
IIlIa
IllP
=lII
Il1
rl
ll
IlIl
IlIII
llII
IlJl
IIl
IIlIl_
IIrII
G3i
mta
isectID
it
llll~
1~=wampampftUla
_
au
U
Lamp
WJN
AJ
poundmiddotJI
IiIamp
3flJ
a
uac
ampa
f
shy
I~middottn 0~L fi 5L middottlu~ fo_~r ( ) 1poundc [CtJRl -ffl(pound1 r~~ rlt1c- J c-ru
-- I
1SllJ7~
lt l)~ J )IIr M ~-t s ~~ OIl middot )If 10 JAY II 041
J- Olt i1 )lir iI DIY IT- IMy11
1~middot6f1 14f1- ~imiddot -- J _ middotAfmiddot IIrk middot Jiamp -ffh~11 rtr Il ~M gt27P- ill Ill ~lllY ~~7rlf JC 1- ~ r 1M 11
r ~ F16F r~h FIjFi ~~I)r r~Fr
5 Fc II -i~fIoi l 1 fj t t Fr c r amp t 1= ~ r ~ F r rtI ~
- -
sION o (j o 0 0 o 0 a I I I I I I I I 2 I t t I-r J~L) z~z~ 2~J ~ z a ~ ~ 33 - -ol t 1 2
~ poundys-s 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I I lt t 2 t t 4 ~z ~ 2l~ ~ ~ 1 Z 3zi3p33 3 333 3 3 3 - - ~ rl~ a 0 a (1 a a o 1 I 1 I 1-2 12 t ltt a ~ l J tll~ ~~~) 2 2 2 2- ~Jll 21 13 33 ~
- ~ MIIi(UlA~
degCt1C 11 )l
FipoundSI- eli CeoD o 0 (J 0 I I I I I I 1 1 I I 1 I Jl~] l2 22- z ~ 2 2 22 11 2-3 -Sfvpound
j
CIJiCVlt-tICN I I I 1 ( I I I 2 2 t ~ t~ )2 2~21 2$ 2 t _~ 3AIJJN(j- P (J dO o C a a o 0 00 1 I I I I - --
V~7r~ ~ c~u N
(TKWW~ CO~ o I oc I I J I I I I 1 2 I 2 2 1- ) t~l2 2- 22 2 ) 2 ~2- 1222 2 2 ll 2L -- -~VClLAl I
a 0 0 0 01 I 0 2 1 2 2 J5r 4 E i H CA I I
-I I I I I I I I J J 12( ~ 12 1 2 1 2-I TfI_ 21 1-1- 1 1 ~ 1
~ I middot_0-__-- I
~ 1
ffCACIpound coo 000lt=1 o 0 0 0 btJCt) o a () (J I I I I I I I I111 I I I 1 I I -~-aD CD lJ a a 0 0 ~ ~ UlrAfllN o 0 a IJ e e 0 C) (JdegOo ecJao co (10 (1 o I I I I I I I I 1 I I III I I I I z --
i tiN ~4r L~~ 2- li ~ a~ 8M) CUmiddot c d (J 0 (J () I I I 1 1 1
I 1 I I f t I II tl-loI 21 1 t 33 - -
-Iffl1-
J I I I I i- 2 I 11~SC~E ~ t 1 o ~ 04-t 1J 11 1 11t IS~ IfS J1 I 1 I If I IJ 1 r~]u ze uu __
bull ttlUIG
(I) l~) (6) (II) ~ (~) 6s-)llIt lCUI CJ (Ii) (~) vmiddot (II) (19~ ---
I t f
I
~ I
~ I
Ii
I I
Ii I II f
~ (
--)raquo~ middot-~~-~-I~~IliiI~~-middotComiddot~-d-b~middotmiddotmiddotmiddot_ ~ ~ middoth-~_middot--~H~~middot~gt
Other Occasional Papers in the series
1 A salinity monitor for irrigation pumps by EOMIEZITIS
2 Wine liqueur and fish products acceptability trials 47th ANZAAS Congress Hobart 1976 by HABREMNER TLLEWIS and ARQUARMBY
3 Abalone silage an exercise in the conservation of waste by JUNE OLLEY
4 Course notes contributed by the CSIRO Tasmanian Food Research Unit to a workshop on fish handling and quality control Hobart Oct3rd-5th 1978 by HABREMNER JUNE OLLEY and SJTHROWER
5 Difficulties with generalized least squares regression in forest modelling by PWWEST
6 Metabolism of zinc cadmium and copper in rats fed shellfish highly contaminated with heavy metals by SJTHROWER JUNE OLLEY and MAUREEN McDERMOTT
7 Hygiene control in seafood processing by SJTHROWER
2
1 00 rsrromcrros
110 QUality and QUality Asses~nt of Fish
QJality is difficult to define since it means different things to
different people One general definition is degree of excellence
According to waterman (1982) quality of food is the SLD1 of those attributes
that govern its acceptability to the buyer or consumer and quality assessment
is the estLmation or measurement of one or more quality factors as a means of
determining quality before exercising control
Bremner (1984) defined quality as that attitude of mind that approach
that event that state of being when everything is right hus until a
seafood is eaten its quality can only be surmised indirectly harever
seafoods do possess a set of properties or characteristics that for practical
purposes can be related with quality
In cxmnerce quality limits are set by what the custcrner is prepared to
pay for generally the custcrner will pay more for fish that he considers to be
of higher quality and will continue to buy as long as quality remains
constant The relationship between quality and marketing is therefore
governed by the sophistication of the consuner ( ta Zylva 1974) Sore of the
more important factors that determine quality fran the custcrners point of
view are species ease of preparation appearance odour flavour freshness
size presence or absence of bones and filth absence of specific
microorganisms condition packaging and composition (Oonnell 1972)
Freshness is the most important quality factor to the consumer thus
assessnent of freshness is vital in quality control kcording to Baines et
al (1965) the term freshness is employed to describe the presence or
absence of deterioration Ib many however freshness involves the concept of
newness in which time is an important factor In other words the fish
technologist is not only concerned with quality at the mrnent of examination
3
but of the products potential shelf-life M accurate measure of st~age
1_ time under kn~ conditions would allow hLm to calculate the remaining life of
the product and its potential for processing
Fish quality depends on tenperature time and hygiene Factors such as
spontaneous chemical changes autolysis and microbial attack produce
deteriorations fran the point of catching until final putrefaction
Measurements of sane of these deteriorations have been invoked as indices of
freshness
he measurement of trimethylamine (lMA) other spoilage cxrrpounds and the
bacteria themselves as indicators of quality has been reviewed recently by
Martin et al (1978) hey stated that in order to define effective indicators
of seafocxi quality the food technologist must be prepared to examine each
species of seafood individually its environment its composition its
harvesting and its handling
A lUIllber of different tests may be used for estimating the degree of
spoilage in fish these include total volatile bases (TVa) total volatile
reducing substances volatile armonia volatile acids total volatilo
nitrogen indole refractive index of the eye fluid electrical resistance of
the fish flesh total bacterial numbers and organoleptic tests hese methods
are discussed under the headings chemical methods physical methods
microbiological methods and sensory methods bel~
120 Chemical Methods
Although not universal in acceptance or applicability the trLmethylamine
(TMA) determination has became one of the established procedures for
determining fish quality Its use as an indicator of spoilage in fresh fish
have also been proposed by the Codex AlLmentarius crnmittee on fish and
fishery products (Olley 1977) his is despite the fact that there is ample
4
evidence that the same ClfDUnt of 1MA is accanpanied by different ClfDUnts of
spoilage even within the same species
Several investigators (Spinelli et aI 1984 Jones 1965) have expressed
reservations regardirq the use of IMA as an index of quality for fresh fish
not inq that 1MA values fail to give an adequate Iod icetIon of early autolytic
quality chanqes aOO preferrirq hypoxanthfne detenninations instead MA as
would be expected of a bacterial product is not useful in detenninilg quality
deteriorations which occur durirq frozen storage FIrthenoore the shape of
the fish will markedly influence the arrount of IMA meaaured in ng per 100 g
fish (Bremner et aI 1978) Trimethylamine is roost sensitive as an indicator
of the later stages of spoilage whereas Chemical tests for dimethylamine are
most valuable in the early stages of spoilage
Ryder et al (1984) foond that the bacterial metabol Ic end products (1VB
and MA) were less useful as objective measurements of freshness in Jack
Mackerel (TrochuflUB nooaezelandiae) hey also reported that the pH was not a
gcxxl indicator of early storage changes and lEA values could not be used to
detennine loss of acceptability or eoo of shelf-life Recently it has became
apparent that the sulphur canpounds and mercaptans may be importantH2S
detenninants of fish odour and flavour (~rbert and Shewan 1975)
Measurement of MA IMA or amoonia requires a laboratory am assistant of
matriculation standard who has had sane weeks of practice in the IOOthod
Neither the Codex Alimentarius CoITInittee or the EEl (Ccmoon Market) lay down
samplilg procedures
Another quality assessment lOOasurement involves the nucleotides aoo their
degradation products Early studies with cod carp Pacific Salmgtn Lemon
sole haddock and plaice revealed that post-mortem nucleotide degradation in
fish muscle proceeds prbnarily via the followirq sequence of reactions ATP -)
AMP -) IMP -) IID -) Hx -) Xa -) UA where KrP = Jldenosine 5-triphosphate AMP
5
= Jldenosine 5-IOCgtoophosphate IMP = Inosine 5-IOCgtoophosphate lID = Inosine j
Hx = Hypoxanthine xa = Xpnthine am UA = Uric acid loo ~tages in this
degradative sequence have been considered as objective indices of quality shy
dephosphorylation of IMP am formation of hypoxanthine IMP reportedly
possesses properties as a flavour enhancer in fish mrscle COnsequently its
breakdawn may contribute to and be correlated with the loss of fresh flavour
in sane species SCme difficulties however may arise fran using IMP
dephosphorylatioo as a s inqle quality index eg the pattern of nucleotide
breakdown in invertebrate seafood species may differ in same key respects fran
that fourrl in vertebrate species he rate of IMP decanposition in the muscle
also differs between species (Ehira 1976) Accordi~ to Martin et al (1978)
the rrost serious limitation imposed by an IMP index may be that the reaction
is substantially complete well within the edible storage life of a number of
species Its major value then may be as an indicator of fresh flavour loss
during early storage
Unlike IMP concentrations of hypoxanthine (Hx) have been shown to
increase steadily throughout the useful storage life of a number of fish
species (Hughes and Jones 1966) Hypoxanthine formation is a result of both
autolytic am bacterial activities hus it also has advantages over the 1MA
assay Hx may be correlated with flavour loss caused by autolytic activities
durirg early storage am with bacterial spoilage during extended storage to
derive a prediction of useful storage life Also the IMA test is of no value
for freshwater fish because these either do not contain or contain very little
trimethylamine oxide Hx may also be used to determine the quali ty of canned
herrirg at the tirre of processing since hypoxanthine concentrations neither
increase nor decrease duri~ heat process inq and subsequent storage (Hughes
ard Jones 1966) 1MA concentrations on the other hand are unstable during
heat process inq lbNever different species of fish produce hypoxanthine by
6
different routes and at different speeds Each lustralian species ttOUld have
to be examined in turn am the hypoxanthine test related to sensory grades
tbte that the Canadian redfish and flounder had produced the maximum amgtunt of
hypoxanthine 10llg before they becarre unacceptable while the swordfish had
only produced a fifth of the arount when it became unacceptable to a taste
panel (Olley 1978) The hypoxanthine test requires laboratory facilities and
same equipment but recently the use of sLmple paper strips have been reported
(Jahns et aI 1976)
The main disadvantages of nucleotide assays are that they are apt to vary
even arro~ individuals within a species Sufficient samples need to be used
to reduce this variability
All the chemical roothods discussed above depend on measuring the
concentration of certain chemical substances in the flesh and since the sample
is destroyed in the process they cannot be used to test every fish in a
batch In any case variation between fishes in the sarre batch makes chemical
tests for quality a task requiring a statistician (Olley 1977) All the
methods require the use of a laboratory or fairly elaborate facilities and
also they oo rot apply to all species and products alike
130 Physical Methods
Love (1954) described a roothod which correlates the turbidity of the eye
lenses of fish with storage tiroo of iced fish kept in a roan of fairly
constant air temperature He found that it is possible by examination of 20
or more lenses to assess the storage tiroo with an error of not roore than 1
day M advantage of this roothod is that since only the eyes have to be
raroved in sampling the fish remains saleable as headed dressed fish or as
fillets ~ver1 the roothod had many limitations such as difficulty in
manipulation and matchi~ of the lenses which have to be done in good diffused
7
daylight at least 20 lenses are required for each estllnation which is rather
tedious for routine work and also it is not applicable where fish had not been
kept all the time in ice under the standard conditions eg bulk stowage of
fish with ice on a trawler may result in deviation fran the conditions of box
stolage in an insulated roan
he GR Ibrrymeter is a battery pc7ot1ered hand-held instnunent that rreasures
certain dialectric properties of fish skin which charge wi th the
tiJretemperature history of the fish fbWever readi~s on a large mrnber of
samples have to be taken and averaged bull Although it is a rapid simple
objective and rDn-destructive method of estllnati~ the quality of fresh fish
it has the followilkJ disadvanteqesj large variation in readirg fran fish to
fish readi~ varies with physical damage to fish1 cha~e of readi~ with time
varies with species and also may be insensitive at later stages of spo i Laqe
Curran et al (1981) reported that the GR Ibrrymeter was not particularly
successful with both the purple emperor (L6thoinus l6ntjan) ard the Spanish
mackerel ( Scomberomorue oonmereons since the readirgs obtained do not
correlate very well with the taste panel results
140 Microbiological Methods
he rootine microbiological testirg that is performed under normal
industry operations is normally restricted to enumeration of nonpathogenic
microorganisms hose frost frequently used are the standard plate count and
enumeration of indicator organisms such as the coliform group Beoher-ichia
coli aM Staphylococcus aureus
Food handl i nq practices beyond the pr-imary processors control make
standard aerobic plate count (APe) a difficult quality assessment tool to use
generally he total nunber of bacteria is not the sole determinant of
8
quali ty since certain microbial groups are rrore apt to cause spoilage than
others These groups can be given a selective advantage for growth by the way
the product is processed or stored furthermore the determination of
bacterial counts while they are of value to research requires too much time
before results are known and can also be expensive for routine testing
Representative samples have to be taken for bacterial examination because the
fish or product is destroyed during the test Interpreting the results of
bacterial testing is a task for experts who should be consulted when
necessary bull
Detection and enumeration of indicator bacteria such as the coliform
group E ooli and S auroeu8 were considered for many years to indicate the
potential presence of pathoqenic microorganisms NM this inference has been
questioned and these groups are no longer considered a reliable method for
predicting the presence of such pathogens (Martin et aL1978) bull
According to Olley and Ratkowsky (1973) there is in fact no simple index
of quality and a thorough knowledge of the oamplete temperature history of the
fish is the only true indicator of freshness This is so because at higher
temperatures bacteria divide in half more rapidly Therefore the
relationship between bacterial growth with production of spoilage canpounds
and temperature is not a straight line rut a curve he curve relates rate of
spoilage of these commodities at temperatures between aoe and 25dege to the rate
at which they would spoil at aoe hus at aoe the relative rate is 1 and at
Rate at temperature (tOe)any other temperature the relative rate is Rate at a be
Bremner et at (1978) have coined the term ICE FOID for this relative rate
ie so many times faster than the ccmnodity would spoil on ice and
lCETIME as equivalent storage time on ice = lCEFOID x time in days
The curve has also been converted into tabular form to enable conversion
of the temperature history of the catch into equivalent storage time
on ice under ideal conditions However the concept of relative rate of
9
spoilage with temperature can only apply if fishing oonditions are kept
constant
150 sensory Methods
Currently the best way to detenmine fish freshness still requires the use
of a taste panel (Regenstein and Regenstein 1981) A number of taste panel
techniques for assessing the quality of unfrozen fish species have been
described am are in use in different parts of the world These techniques
vary in cbjective and ccrrplexity but are of three main types Firstly there
are those which categorise the fish on the basis of its acceptability for
eatirq secondly there are those which categorise the fish on the basis of
well-defined characteristics which change duri~ storage Thirdly there are
techniques which include elements of both of these types Techniques of the
first type usually anploy a single gradi~ or hedonic (like-dislike) scale
whilst those of the second type anploy descriptions of various characteristics
(Baines et aI 1969)
The ultimate criterion of fish quality is the flavour and texture of the
cooked fish HcMever taste panel evaluations of cooked fish are timeshy
consiminq and relatively few samples can be tested at anyone time It is
therefore highly desirable to be able to make an assessment of eati~ quality
by exanini~ the raw fish My atterrpt to raise the quality of raw fish as it
reaches the consumer is critically dependent on the development of a
convenient and consistent rrethod of quality assessment based on raw fish
Fortunately eat inq quality of cooked fish can be correlated with the
appearance odour and texture of the whole raw fish Boyd and Wilson (1976)
when evaluat inq the quality of snapper (Chroysophfys aufatus) by a sensory
method found that there is close relationship between the raw attributes of
gill odour and general appearance with those of odour texture am flavour of
10
the cooked fish
The use of ooject ive tests at dockside or even on inspection within the
plant is not considered to be practical in the normal routine of inspection of
fresh ard frozen fish products as almost all of the coject Ive tests require
laboratories am so becare rather rerooved fran the busy fisherman processor
or factory foreman A nuch simpler piece of apparatus is the eye or the N)Se
(olley 1977) Sensory tests are always controversial as they require an
inspector although the canny buyer is in fact applying his senses of smell
am visual acuity in a similar fashion W9 accept the wine faster and wcxgtl
classer so why not the fish grader (Bremner 1984) Therefore a test that
correlated well with freshnessquality and that could operate on the market or
in the factory would be of considerable value to an efficient industry (Baines
et aI 1965)
Howgate (1978) also considered the sensory rrethods to be far better than
non-sensory methods which are not suitable for consumer testing whilst
Connell (1972) states that in general the sensory rrethod of assessing
freshness is the best at present for quality control purposes
As fish spoils its snell taste appearance and feel go through
characteristic am well defined stages that trained experts or experienced
staff can consistently recognise It is convenient to attach a number or
score to each stage so that the assessor can award the appropriate score to
each fish or batch of fish Alternatively the mere recognition of each stage
ard acceptance or rejection of fish on this basis may be all that is
necessary Different species and products spoil in different ways The
numerical system us irq an objective panel developed at the Ibrry IEsearch
Station by Shewan et al (1953) is probably the ultUnate critical evaluation of
fish freshness available at this time It was created for the determination
of storage time of whole Net fish l6Jenstein and Iegenstein (1981) in using
11
this nunerical system reported that the cooked freshness scores are generally
higher (better) than expected at that storage t irre for whole wet fish A
freshness score of 55 on the Ibrry scale seemed the appropriate endpoint for
their definition of shelf-life This would nonnally be reached with ideal
iced-at-sea fish about twelve days from catch sooner for fillets Freshness
scorirq systems are I1C1laquo available fran Ibrry Research station for most UK
ccmnercial species and systems are available for both the raw and cooked
fish HoweveF there is still no standard scorirq system to be used
internationally he countries in the EEC ~or instance use scoring systems
which differ both in scale length am in characteristics measured Most
systems use the same scale length for all features examined but the United
Kingdon am Icelarrl use scales of 10 to 0 for odour and 5 to 0 for other
characteristics ibwgate (1972) describes the effort to construct a rorogram
for oonvert inq fran one scorinq system to another (Appendix 1) de Zylva
(1974) expanded the Ibrry score sheet to include marks for flesh colour and
texture belly flap discoloration stainiBJ of backbone am colour of
kidney he scoring system was designed for ~w Zealand snapper and gave
excellent negative linear correlations between score am days of storage
legenstein (1983) presents the way in which Ibrry has in turn incorporated
other characteristics into the score sheet for raw fish Groupings of several
characteristics to give a score requires more expertise than scoring
individual points as is done by de Zylva
However the use of a point or scoring system in which higher points are
given for high quality attributes would mean the requirements of more
kllC7filedge of the fish and the tester mist be experienced and knCM the
qualities of the fish previously Therefore it is too species dependent
his problem can be overcare by using the demerit system with points being
allotted in several categories for defects as they becare obvious and one can
I
12
learn as one goes along in each situation he demerit points that were given
to the various selected quality attributes could be weighted in such a way as
to produce an approximately linear change in score with storage time (Branch
and Vail 1985)
It might also be desirable OCIlInercially to specify a uniform mrnber of
days of shelf-life fran the pack date to consumption he length of shelfshy
life ctgttained for fish depends on the initial age and quality of the fish the
tirre of the pack am the time am temperature of storage before am after
packing In practical terns the ultimate measure of the effect(s) of shelf-
life extension treatments on the final quality of the fish is consumer
satisfaction (Regenstein aoo Regenstein 1981)
A tentative grading systan for fresh fish based on sensory assessment of
fish had been described by IbUwing (1972)
160 The Ideal Method
Forty years of research ootably in the UK Canada and Japan have gone
into objective methods for measuring fish quality (Bremner et al 1978)
There is as yet 00 single universal test for all species nor for that
matter any wholly satisfactory test for individual species
The ideal rrethod hOlJld be one that is cheap oon-destructive easy to
use oot subject to much variation or fatigue having rapid response and wide
application sensory tests have the advantages of being non-destructive 00
equipnent required adaptable to species and assessing the market value
Althcogh sensory tests are usually condemned as a subjective test which
requires training am experience am are also said to be easily open to
abuse this can be reduced if a simple rapid and less descriptive rrethod
could be fourd - possibly with the use of demerit point scores Therefore
this study aims at assessing the use of sensory techniques based on the
13
demerit point scores developed for raw whole (gutted and ungutted) and
filleted fish samples of Australian fish species stored in ice and RSW It
also discusses the results of the acceptability taste panels on the cooked
fish samples
The two oammercially ~rtant Australian fish species used in this study
were the blue grenadier am the blue rock whiting he blue grenadier is
currently Tasmanias major oammercial finfish and the recent annual production
of the fishery exceeds 100 tonnes (Last et aI 1983)~ he blue rock whiti~
is the only Australian member of the family that has any commercial
importance It occurs mainly in Bass strait and the sheltered bays of South
eastern Tasmania The flesh is delicately flavoured but very soft
200 MATERIALS lIND MEIHgt[s
210 Sample preparation
211 Fish stored in RSW
Blue grenadier used in this study were caught on the 15th lugust 1984 at
a depth of 300 fathans off Sandy Cape on the west coast of Tasmania (Lat
41deg20S IDrq144deg40 E) by demersal trawl They were taken fran the deck
irnnediately am dropped into a refrigerated seawater (RSW) tank in a net bag
(tanp -1degC) The fish was reported to be handled quite roughly on board
Sore of the fish had already gone into rigor at this stage he fish were
transported to the CnID lasrnanian Food lesearch Uni t (TFRJ) laboratories in
Hobart and were already to days old on arrival The f ish were then placed in
the RSW box tank of the rrobile unit (the design and construction of which were
described by Thrower and Stafford 1981) and was kept at -1degC for the duration
of the storage trial which lasted for about three weeks Four fish were
rerroved at each samplirq tine (Table 1) for sensory assessment Length
14
measurements to the fork of the tail were also noted ~e fish were then
filleted and samples frozen at -lBoe for later assessment of their
acceptability by taste panel
212 Fish stored in ice
For the sensory assessment of fish stored in ice guidelines similar to
those given by Lima dos Santos et al (981) were used ~e blue rock whiting
also known as the weedy whiting was used ~e whiting were caught on the
afternoon of 23rd August 1984 by demersal trawl in 18 to 25 m waters oft
Eastern Tasmania On arrival at the TFRJ laboratories in I-bbart at 11 45 am
on the fol Lowirq day the f ish were re- iced at a ratio of 21 (ice f ish) in
insulated plastic boxes of size 66 x 41 x 28 em with provision for drainage
of melt water Flake ice was used ~e ice was topped up daily and renewed
once a week The boxes of i ced f ish were then kept in a cool roan set at a
temperature of 0deg to -1dege ~ree fish were removed for sensory assessment at
each sampling time (Table 1) over a period of rmre than three weeks of ice
storage 100 fish samples were then frozen at -18dege until needed for the
acceptability taste panel
Table 1
sampling regirre for fish stored in R3Wice
Blue Grenadier Diys in R3W 3 4 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 17 21
Sample code N D G L S R K T U P M 0
Whiting Diys in ice 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Sample code 0 M D G T S N R P U L K
15
220 Sensory assessment of the whole (gutted and ungutted) raw fish samples
Both the blue grenadier stored in lOW and the whi t i nq stored in ice were
progressively assessed by using the sense organs of sight smell and touch tor
changes in general appearance odour and texture with storage tine by giving
the appropriate demeri t scores according to the score sheets as shown in
Tables 2 and 3 IVo types of score sheets were used Table 2 shows the
sensory assessment score sheet orig inally developed for the assessment of
gemfish (Thrower et al 1982) It has been simplified and weighted (Branch
and Vail 1985) to provide accumulated increases in demerit points as the t i sn
change in odour texture and appearance during storage with the max imum
accumulated demerit point scores of 35 for the urx]utted samples and 39 tor tte
gutted samples The total scor irq for gutted fish differs fran that descr ibeo
by Bremner (1984) and Branch and Vail (1985) in that the demerit points for
the belly cavity have been added to those for the whole fish
The whole and gutted raw fish were also assessed by using the freshness
score sheet developed by the Council of the European COl1nunities (Official
Journal of the European Qmnunities 1970) but with slight rrodification marie
in its scor irq method in that the scor irq was reversed to provide accumulateri
increases in demerit points as in the TFRJ score sheet (Table 2) with a
maximun accumulated demerit score of 30 (Table 3) The samples were scored by
H Abd R who had had no previous experience with the score sheet
230 Sensory Assessment of the frozen filleted raw fish samples
Samples of the whole and gutted fish of both species were then filleted
ard frozen at -18degC until required for the organoleptic acceptability test
panel fillets were thawed by holding for about 16 hours (overnight) in still
air at 4degC The thawed fillets of both the blue grenadier and whi t i nq were
then assessed by the sense organs of sight smell and touch by using the scor-e
sheet for filleted sample as shown in Table 4 nle score sheet was developed
16
able 1
FIlt U Snorr bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullnt oore hbullbull t ( ( 1Ii~ ANI) tlNtJuTreo)
1_middotAnlJ lmiddot
rlSB IDDII
UIUIl~ (VBci9ht~i9ht8lDullDUll
o 1 2 3
SitU ( rimSoft) o 1
SCALBS (r1mSlLoomiddotmiddotLoobullbull ) o 12
r r SLIMB (AbbullbullntSlSlimiddotysliyVSliy)
o 123
S1IrnraS (pr-Ri90rRi90rPot-Ri90r) o 1 2
BYBS Clarity (ClbullbullrISlCloudyCloudy) 012
Shape (HoralslsunknSunkn) 012
Irill (ViiblHot Viibl) IJ 1
Blood (No BloodSlBloodyVBloody) o 1 2
GILLS Colour (VDark)Charaotritio (SlDark) (vradd)(Slradd)
2o 1 Kucou (AbbullbullntKoderatmiddotBxcbullbullbulliv)
o 1 2 S bullbullll (rrbullbullh 01ly) Pihy8talpoll~
(MetalliaSaved) 1 2 3
BELLI Dicoloration (AbbullbullntDetatablmiddotModratmiddotBxobullbullbulliy) 012 3
Finanbullbullbull ( rira80ftBurt) o 1 2
VENT Condition (bobullbulldy)Noraal (SlBrbullbullk) (Opening)(Bxudbullbull )
2o 1 Sbullbulln (rrbullbullhReutralrihy8poilt)
o 2 3
BELLI CAVIn Stain (OpalbullbullontGryihlmiddotllow-Brown) o 1 2
Blood (RdDark RdBrown)
o 1 z
--
17
UJE 3
Etc SENSORY A$fE4St4fN[ ~(oIlL~
SCALE OF MARKING - FRESHNESS
CRITERIA shypoundu1LRt
Abullbullbullbullbullment Mara-bull thc r1ah 0 1 2- 3tszhL
AppearanceinIIMlISJ Skin
Eye
Gill
Flbullbullshycut f ssm abdomusn
Colour the~
vertebral column
Organs
Oright iridescent I bright pigmenta- pigmentation in (1) dull pigmenta tion no i tion but not the process of pigmentation discolouration Ius trous becoming dis-
mucus opaquemucus aqueous i coloured and dull
mucus slightlytransparen t
cloudy ~UCU9 milky
convex (bulging) convex and flat (1) concave in cornea tran- slightly sunken cornea the centre parent cornea Ughtly opalescent cornea milky pupil black opalescent pupil pupil grey bright
pupil black opaque dull
-shining colour less coloured becoming dis- (1) yellmiish no mucus a few traces of coloured mucus milky
cloar mucus mucus opaque
blueish trans- dull velvety slightly opaque (1) opaque lucid smooth waxy shining without any change in the colour sUgh tly original colour changed
(I) reduncoloured sl1 gh tly pink pink
kidneys and kidneys and kidneys (1) kidneys residues of resJdues of resicJuos of r bullbullidue of other other organs other organs other organs organs and blood bright red the dull red blood and blood brownish game as the becoming palo red blood inside discolbured the aorta
(1) or in a more advanced bull ta te of decay
I
bull
Flesh
Vertebtal Column
Peritonium
Gills kin abdominal cavity
18
(eontd)
SCALE OF MARKING - FRESHNESS
CRITERIA
Assessment Mark 0 1 2
Physical eOId ton
firm and elas tic surface smooth
breaks ins tead of coming away
totally adherent to the flesh
seaweed
less elastic
adherent
adherent
Smell bull
not of seaweed but not bad
slightly soft (flaccid) Ie elastic surfacente waxy velvety and dull
slightly adherent
slightly adherent
slightly sour
3
(1) soft (flaccid) scales ebullbullil y detached from skin sur face ra ther wrinkled inclining to mealy
(1) not dherent
1( ) not adherent
(1) sour
(1) or in a more advanced stat of decay
_ shy-- -
19
Table 4
Filleted Sample Score Sheet
r
TREATMENT F ILIEIS DATE REMOJAL (THAWED)
FISH IDENr
EASE OF FILLETING (Easysl difficultdifficult)
012
APPEARANCE (a) Oolour of flesh (TranslucentSl discolouredSl opaqueopaque)
o 1 2 3
(b) Blood stains (AbsentDetectableModerateExcessive)
012 3
(c) Clotting (UnclottedSlclottedModclottedExcessclotted)
012 3
(d) Skin Oolour (VbrightBrightSldullOU11)
o 1 2 3
TEXTURE FirmS1 softSoft
o 1 2
ClDClJR (FreshNeutralStaleSpoilt)
012 3
CONJITION (a) Gaping (AbsentDetectableModerateExcessive)
o 1 2 3
(b) Bruising (AbsentSlightSevere)
012
(c) Wetness (NmnalS1 dry orMod dry orExcess dryness or
SldripModdrip Freezer bJrn or Excessdrip
012 3
(d) Autolysis (Absentmoderatesevere) (Disco1ourations) 0 1 2
(e) Parasites (Absentmoderatesevere) ( Infestations) 0 1 2
(f) Other discolourations (Absentpresent) or contaminants (bones membranes tissues etc) 0 1
EASE OF SKINNING (EasySldifficultdifficult)
012
20
by the author after a literature search and observations made during the preshy
liminary part of the study It has a maxUnum accumulated demerit score of 34
240 ~anoleptic Acceptability Panel of the cooked fish
Filleted samples of both fish species which had been frozen in a cold
roan at -18dege and then thawed as above were used for the acceptability taste
panels The fillets were skinned am cut into 30 to 40 g pieces crumbed and
deep fried (Bremner et ale 1985) Three or four treatments were cooked
simultaneously at each session am the fish served with packets of take-away
french fries Tcrnato sauce vinegar and salt were available Each of the
samples were randanised in such a way so as to give a high degree of balance
(Table 5 and 6) Letters that represent the samples were also picked
randanly The fish was assessed by 20 panellists employed at the Tasmanian
lEgional Laboratory and experienced with facial hedonic scaling for flavour
texture am overall acceptability using the General Foods Smiley scale
(Appendix 2) Salt was rot rrentioned with the 9niley questionaire for blue
grenadier so that the panel should have ro preconceiVed prejudices
250 Statistics
tata fran the sensory assessment of the whole gutted and ungutted raw
fish (both TFRJ am EEl score sheets) am fran the sensory assessrrent of the
frozen filleted raw fish samples of both the blue grenadier stored in RSW am
whiting stored in ice were analysed for correlation using the ELF scatter
module (Appendix 3 and 4)
The acceptability taste panel assessment scores for flavour texture and
overall liking of the toKgt species of fish were subjected to analysis of
variance using the Genstat package (Appendix 5 and 6)
22
Table 6
Order of presentation of cooked whiting samples to the acceptability taste panelists
Order of presentation of samples Panelist
session I session II
1 OTP rm 2 MUS KR 3 sm INL
4 IKJ GKR
5 ror NK
6shy USM UN ~
7 OOP RLD
B HUT NKD
9 USO RiL
10 SMP LGN
11 IMT GIltN
12 nxgt KRD
Note
8angtle code OM 0 G T S N R P U L K
storage time in ice (days) 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
23
300 RESULIS
310 Physical Characteristic of M novaeaelandiae
rran the forty-six fish examined the mean fork lerqth was found to be
762 an (range 609 to 838 an) A few of the fish examined had well shy
developed roes and their digestive tracts were found to be relatively empty
320 Physical Characteristics of the H ssmifasoiata
rran a total of thirty-six fish examined the rrean weight of the fish was
fourrl to be 662 g (range 27 to 186 g) am the mean fork length was 183 em
(range 156 to 265 an)
330 sensory assessment of the raw blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
he results of the sensory assessrrent of the r2M blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW by the four rrerhods of scoring are given as average total
accumulated demerit point scores as shown in Table 7 Figure 1 shoes the
graph of demerit point versus days in RSW by the four rrethods of sensory
assessment used Table 9 shltJtS the correlation analysis
340 sensory assessment of the raw whitirq samples stored in ice
he results of the sensory assessment of the r2M whitirq samples stored
in ice by the four methods of scoring are given as average total accumuLated
demerit point scores as shown in Table 8 Figure 2 shltJtS the graph of demerit
point versus days in ice of the four nethods of sensory assessment used Table
9 shltJtS the correlation analysis
350 Attributes contributing to total score
Attributes that contribute to total score usirq the TFRJ scores (ungutted
and gutted) EEC scores and the filleted sample scores are as shewn in Tables
10 - 14
24
Table 7
Total demerit points fran sensory assessment of blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
Average lbta1 Demerit Rgtint SCores
[)lye in RW TFRJ scores TFRJ scores EEl scores Filleted Sample (urvJut t ed ) (gutted) (gutted) SCores
3 3 3 1 1
4 5 5 2 3
6 10 10 6 6
8 16 18 9 8
9 19 21 11 10
10 20 22 13 12
11shy 22 24 15 14
12 23 25 18 17
13 24 26 19 18
14 25 27 19 19
17 29 31 21 23
21 33 35 25 29
Note
Maximum possible scores for (1) IlRJ scores (ungutted is 35
( 11) IlRJ scores (gutted) is 29
( 11i) EEX scores (gutted) is 30
( iv) Filleted sample scores is 32
amptV
35j
3l~
en Ishy 25Z-0 Q
3)-~
bullbullbull 0
bull 0 0bull 0
bull 0 0 6shy abull A ~
~
bull 0
~
6shy
bull 0
6shy
I) 01
-W 0i A15W ~ Q A
~
6shy~101- bull 90 TFRU SCORES (ungutted)
6shy~ bullbull TFRU SCORES (gutt~d i
bull ~
4 6- 6- EEC SCORES 5~
~ ~ FILLETED SAMPLE SCORES ~
6 4 I J I I I
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
DAYS IN RSW
Figl Demerit Points Versus Days in RSW For Blue Grenadier Samples
Fig 2 Demerit Points Versus Days in ice For Whiting Samples I
27
Table 8
TOtal demerit points from sensory assessment of whi tirq samples stored in ice
Average TOtal Demerit Foint SCores
rays in ice TFRJ scores TFRJ scores EEC scores Fi 11eted sample (urqutted) (gutted) (gutted) (gutted)
1 1 1 0 0 3 2 2 1 1
5 4 4 2 3
7 7 9 3 4
9 13 15 6 9
n 15 17 7 13
13 19 21 11 15
15 24 27 15 16
17 29 32 19 18
19 31 35 22 21
21 32 36 24 24
23 33 37 26 26
Note
MaXllnum possible scores for (i) TFRJ scores (urqutted) is 35 ( ii) TFRJ scores (gutted) is 39 ( iii) EEC scores (gutted) is 30 ( iv) Filleted sample scores is 32
28
Table 9
Relationship between tLme and demerit points for fish stored in RSW
Method of Visual Assessment
y- intercept slope correlation
M novaBMBlandias
TFRJ (urqutted ~les) 032 175 097
TFRJ (gutted samples) 032 190 096
EEl -231 146 097
Filleted samplesbull
-357 158 099
H sBmifasoiata
TFRJ (urqutted samples) -245 167 099
TFRJ (gutted samples) -273 187 099
EOC -414 129 098
Filleted samples -244 125 099
ltshy
--------------- ------------------------------------------
------------- - ------------- -------- ------
Table 10
Attributes contributing to total score using TFRO scores (gutted and ungutted)
Attributes involved in score change Score
Blue grenadier in RSW Whiting in ice
Stiffness Eyes - clarity blood Slllne Stiffness Eyes - clarity shape and blood lt10 Gills - smell Vent - smell SlBne Gills - colour smell and mucous
Vent - smell Belly cavity - stains and blood
Appearance Eyes-shape Stiffness Gills - smell colour and mucous Skin
Stiffness appearance gill-smell Scales belly-discolouration and firmness
N so
gt10lt20 SCales belly - discolouration and firmness Vent - smell Vent - smell and condition Belly cavity - stains and blood
Appearance Slllne Eyes - clarity shape Appearance SlBne Scales Skin blood and iris Gills - colour Eyes - clarity and shape
gt20lt30 Belly - discolouration Gills - mucous smell am colour Vent - condi tion and smell Belly cavity shy blood
Appearance Gills - mucous and smell SlBne Eyes - iris am blood Belly - discolouration and firmness Belly - discolouration and firmness
gt30 Vent - condition and smell Vent - condition Belly cavity - blood Belly cavity - stains
Table 11
Attributes contribut irq to total score us irq EEC scores
Attributes involved in score change
Score Blue grenadier in RSW W1iting in ice
lt7 Appearance - skin eyes gills organs Physical condition - flesh Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and organs Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skins eyes gills flesh Appearance-eyes and organs atv
vertebral column and organs Physical condition-flesh and peritoneum gt7lt14 Physical condition - flesh Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-eyes flesh and vertebral Appearance-skin gills and organs column Physical condition-flesh vertebral column
gt14lt21 Physical condition-vertebal column and and peritoneum peritoneum Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and vertebral column vertebral column
gt21 Physical condition-flesh and peritoneum Physical cOndition-flesh vertebral column Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity and peri toneum bull
Table 12
Attributes contributing to total score using filleted sample scores
Score
lt5
Attributes involved in score change
Blue grenadier in RSW
Appearance - blood stains skin colour ltXIour - flesh
M1iting in ice
----- shy -------------- shy
Appearance - skin colour odour - flesh Cbndition - gaping wetness
Appearance - colour of flesh Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Texture - flesh skin colour ltgt gt5lt10 Cbndition - gaping bruising wetness Ease of filleting
Texture - flesh
Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Appearance - colour of flesh clotting skin clotting skin colour skin colour
gt10lt20 odour - flesh odour - flesh Cbndition - gaping wetness autolysis COndition - gaping bruising wetness other discolourations autolysis and other discolouration Ease of skinning
Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains skin colour clotting
gt20 Texture - flesh Texture - flesh odour - flesh Odour shy flesh COndition - gaping bruising wetness Cbndition - wetness autolysis autolysis Ease of skinring
32
Table 13
Diff~rent emphasis in scoring systems for whole fish as between the EEl and TFID
Attribute Number of potential demerit points TFRJ EEl
1Ippearance (general) 3 0
skin ) scales 6 3
slime
Stiffness (Rigor) 2 0
Eyes 7 3
Gills 7 6
Belly 5 0
Vent 5 0
Belly cavity 4 3
Flesh cut fram abdomen 0 3
Flesh texture 0 3
Vertebral column 0 6
Internal organs 0 3
33
360 Relative merits of the scoring systems
The four scor irq methcds were used on the same samples of t ish Any
sample had therefore deteriorated to the same extent on anyone day Figs 3
am 4 shew the scores converted to percentages of possible deroorit point
scores The discrepancy in the accumulation of demerit points between the EEC
am TFRJ scor irq methods is clearly shown IEference to Table 2 3 am 13
shOool that this is caused by the lack of questions regarding rigor looseness
of scales condition of belly am vent am the qroupinq of colour am mucous
in the gills as single po i nts thus halving the potent Ia I gill demerit point
score canparison of the tO species in Table 9 ShONS that the rate of
accumulation of demerit pgtints was more consistent for the TFRU system than by
the EEX scor i oq methltXl or by scorinq of fillets
370 Time taken to score the fish
The average time taken to score an individual fish using the TFPlJ
(unqutted) scores TFRJ (gutted) scores EEX scores am the filleted aamp Le
scores were found to be 1 min 25 sec 1 min 55 sec 3 min 45 sec and 1 min 50
sec respectively The EEX score sheet is more t iroe consumioq in that more than
one question is asked about an attribute for the giving of only one demerit
point this requires conscious thought
380 Acceptability taste panel results of blue grenadier samples bull Figures 5 6 am 7 shOool the mean taste panel scores in graphic form for
flavour texture and overall acceptability of cooked blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW table 14 shows the results of the statistical analysis
390 Acceptability taste panel results of whiting samples
Figures 8 9 am 10 shOool the mean taste panel scores in graphic form for
flavour texture and overall acceptability of cooked whiting samples stored in
ice table 15 shows the results of the statistical analysis
WHITING STORED IN ICE o TFRU SCORES (ungutted)
bull TFRU SCORES (gutted)
b EEC SCORES
FILLETED SAMPLE SCORES
100bull e ~ e b
i 6
bull NW
oIJ-a A A-
(J0 t A~ 0 ~ AC)
C) -e ~~-
C) a 50 A
A w
Iz ~
~ - W e A0 c a ~ ~ A-a ~ l ~ A
w -~
~ X ~ W -e I c ~ ~ ibull I I I I
4 8 12 16 20 24
DAYS IN ICE FIG4
36
- flavourshy
-e s-e l ~ v
5middotIU
STORAGrf IN R sWDAYS
rlCoS Ttutfc pcr1 rcbull
rf oj bl jtlJ~r - jlqVGurc acccr~b
21179 0 2 136 843
~ 0 u 5middot0YI
oJ J l ofmiddot$ 1 e
tu 4middot0
VI
~ 3middot5
3middot0
TelC-lue X bull -e III
~ Gmiddotftv
ct 5middot03
V1
-J -f-SshyU 2
~ 40 t
3-~
~ bullbull0 5 0
~ 17 21A ISII
PAY- IITDRAGamp fbilW
FIG6 I Tq1-c pltnd rc-utl ojbllfcJrcftaJIr bull I~M144 Q Cc(r~blfly
r 411q~~ An~Plf bUIJlfM F llh J~Lld Pt-DoL B fpound)1
gt1 NI ~~eusr SJAVlt1
D ~II
(ffIt1~JP IIID bull U J 1i
-IyoJC )-tlICf p --lInraquoJ Ix-Pc ~1rb1 r I ef
Ma2j NI a~v2loJ$
til
1Ia ~AO (IIp~lJa~e
01
secto
00
s
05
5
o~
~
0pound
s
0
smiddot
o~
07
1 ~ ~ ~ ~
r~
B
~
rv t gtshy 2
~ ~ 11
~ 7shyIn r
~ () 0 1) m ~
~ gtshyz -
(fII~q~~ 7~ P
IItJ1o -~~f(ll p ~I I~U J ~t~L 0 ~ middot~II I
IDI 8~ middot lta ~
~ QS
middotS ~ ~ 0 z
r Smiddot II
S 1d 0-$ 111 r- l gtshy r
V fr~
~llCf-J a-PcJ~ U~middotJO
4lp~dmiddotyIb 6middot~1f np)t -~11M fo --IIhen IJutJel ~bl
Table 14
Acceptability of deep fried blue grenadier samples stored in FSW
rays in R3W
Acceptability 3 4 6 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 17 21
Flavour 50a 50a 4S a 51a 50a 51a 50a 4Sa 49a 53a 41b 35b
Texture 49bc 51abc 4S bed 52ab 4Sbed 53ab 52abc 52ab 4Sbed 55a 46cd 43d
OJerall 50ab 51ab 47be 52ab 4Sb 5lab 52ab 50ab 47b 54 a 41c 35d
abc
d
significantly different (pltOOOl)
significantly different (pltOOl) W so
Table 15
Acceptability of deep fried whiting samples stored in ice
rays in ice
Acceptability 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Flavour 5Sab 59a 59a 60a 59a 5S ab 51b 54ab 53ab 37c 37c 31c
Texture 59ab 59a 53bed 5S ab 63a 59ab 47cde 54be 56ab 55ab 44e 46de
OJera11 57ab 5S ab 59ab 60a 60a 5Sab 52b 53ab 55ab 42c 36cd 31d
abcde significantly different (Plt0001)
40
~oo DISCUSSION
410 Sensory assessment of the raw blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
he results of sensory assessment on the raw blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW by the four methods of scoring all sheM that there is
progressive increment in total demerit points with storage time for all the
four methods (Table 7) It was also fourxi that the accumulation of demerit
points with time of storage of the fish in ffiW occurred in a saui-linear
fashion for all -the four scoring methods used (Figure 1) he variables (time
of storage and demeritmiddot points score) were all highly correlated (Table 9)
he correlation equation of the TFRJ (ungutted samples) and TFRJ (gutted
sanples) scores were similar roth having a zero time intercept of 032 but
with the TFRJ (gutted samples) scores having a slightly greater slope by 015
he EEC scores and the filleted sample scores roth have lower slopes ie
146 and 158 respectively canpared with the TFRJ (ungutted sample) and TFRJ
(gutted sample) scores of 175 and 190 respectively lbwever the EOC scores
which have the lowest slope have a fairly similar correlation equation with
the filleted sample scores (Table 9) he negative intercepts reflected the
slightly more sigrroid relationship for these samples his suggests that the
TFRJ (gutted) scoring method is the rrost sensitive of the four methods
followed by the TFRJ (ungutted) the filleted sample and the EEC scores
It was also found that after 21 days of storage in RSW the blue
grenadier samples had not reached their maximun possible scores in any of the
four scoring rrethods used (Table 7) he TFRJ (ungutted sample) score only
reached 943 of its possible maximun value whereas the TFRJ (gutted sample)
scores EEC scores and the filleted sample score reached only 897 833 ar~
906 of their possible maximun score his means that all the four methods
of scoring can still be sensitive to changes in the quality of the blue
grenadier samples stored in RSW after 21 days of storage time
41
Figures 1 and 3 also shOVt that the pattern of the graphs of demerit
points against days storage in R3W of the four methcxis of scoring is similar
ie a tendency to be slightly sigmoid fbwever the filleted sanple scores
sean to be rrore sensitive than the EOC scores at the later part of the storage
time ie after 14 days of storage and the scores continued to rise
1be rrost obvious indicator of change for the blue grenadier stored in ffiW
using the TFRJ scores (both gutted and unJUtted sanples) was the eyes (clarity
and blood) followed by odour developnent of the gills (Table 10) his is -
also foond to be true wi th the EOC freshness score (Table 11) Fbr the
filleted sample scores the appearance and odoor of the flesh seems to be the
most obvious indicator of change follOVted by the condition of the fillets such
as gaping bruisin) am wetness (Table 12)
4 20 sensory assessment of the raw whi ting samples stored in ice
1he results of sensory assessment on the rCJl whiting samples stored in
ice by the foor roothods of scoring also shows that there is a progressive
increment in total demerit points with storage time for all the four methods
of scoring (Table 8) Ps with the blue grenadier the aCCLD1UJlation of demerit
points with time of storage of the whiting in ice also occurred in a sernishy
linear fashion for all the foor scoring methods used (Figure 2 and 4) wi th a
slight lag in the initial phase Interestingly this was not observed in the
case of blue grenadier sanples stored in ffiW probably because the first
samplin) of the blue grenadier starts only fran the third day after catch
whereas the first sampling of the whiting starts fran the first day after
catch Also the blue grenadier was handled qu i te roughly on the deck in fact
three oot of the four fish samples on the first rerroval ie the third day
after catching had already showed blood in their eyes
Bremner et al (1985) when using the TFRJ score sheet to assess the
42
quality of four tropical fish species fran the oorth west shelf of hJstralia
(stored in ice) also fourrl that the accumulation of demerit points with time
of storage in ice occurred in a linear fashion
PB wi th blue grenadier the variables (tine of storage ard darneri t points
score) were all highly correlated (Table 9) Also the correlation equation of
the TFRJ (ungutted) ard TFRJ (gutted) scores were similar with the TFJU
(gutted) score having a slightly greater slope by 020 Crable 9) he EEC
scores am filleted sample scores also have lower s lopes l e 129 ard 125
respectively ocmpared to the TFm (ungutted) and (gutted) scores of 167 and
187 respectively However unlike the blue grenadier the filleted samples
of the whi t ing had the 10liest slope he more sensi tive na ture of the EEC
scores as canpared to the filleted sample scores in the case of the whiting
especially after 12 days storage in ice can be explained by the snaller size
of the whitirlJ (fork length ranging fran 156 to 265 an) as canpared to the
size of the blue grenadier (fork length ranging 809 to 838 an) the snaller
fish terrl to spoil faster especially the interior parts of the fish PB the
EEC scores depend nuch on the sensory assessment of the interior parts of the
fish such as the appearance and condition of the flesh vertebral colwnn
interior organs per i toneun and abdaninal cavity (Table 3) which makes up more
than 18 demerit points out of the total possible maxinun of 30 the
sensitiveness of its score is thus self-explanatory in the case of whiting
Connell (1980) explained that large fish keep marginally better than small
fish because larger fish have a smaller surface to volume ratio so that in the
same tUne less of their interior is affected
The above results confirmed the previous suggestion that the TFRU
(gutted) scorIoq methcrl is the roost sensitive of the four methods It was
found that after 23 days of storage in ice the whiting scmples had not
reached the maximun possible scores in any of the four methods used (Table
43
8) The 1FIU (UBJutted) scores had reached only 94-3 of its possible maximum
value whereas the TFRJ (gutted) scores EOC scores am the filleted sample
scores reached only 94 9 867 and 81 3 of their poea Ible maximum score
Therefore all the four methods of scoriBJ can still be sensitive to changes
in quality of the whiting samples stored in ice after 23 days of storage tUne
Ihe roost obvious irxHcator of chaDJe for the whiting stored in ice using
the TFIU score sheet was the eyes (clarity shape and blcxxl) followed by the
develqxnent of -colour odour and nucous of the gills (fable 10) Bremner et
al (1985) when working with four tropical species f~ the north west shelf of
Australia also found that the most obvious indicator of change for fish stored
in ice was the eyes (their clarity am shape) follCAtled by odour developnent
and colour changes in the gills This was also found in the case of blue
grenadier in ~ discussed earlier OJrran et al (1981) when investigating
the quality changes duriBJ iced storage of three carmercially important
species of fish fran Bahrein also found that of the visual and olfactory
assessments gill odour showed the roost pranise as a quality control index
Pgain this is also found to be true with the EOC freshness score of both the
blue grenadier and the whitiBJ (Table 11) AccordiBJ to ~ate (1972) it
was generally agreed that odour of the gills is the most sensitive measure of
freshness but the visual appearance of the eyes gills arxi skin was quicker to
use in practice on the market
For the filleted sample scores of the whiting the most obvious indicator
of chanqe was the appearance and odour of the flesh (Table 12) This too
agreed with the findiBJs for blue grenadier stored in ffiW
AccordiBJ to Baines et al (1969) with fish eatiBJ is related to four
main attributes or quality factors viz appearance odour and texture of the
rCM and cooked fish and in the latter also flavour he ultimate purpose of
testing the raw fish is to estimate the eating quality which is here taken to
44
mean the degree of freshness of flavour Acoording to Baines and Shewan
(1965) the mostreliable test for predicting flavour sqore is raw odour
430 The ease aM difficulties of using the four methods of scoring
It was found that the TFRJ (ungutted) scores was the easiest and quickest
method to use as it takes on average only about 1 min 25 sec to score a fish
canpared to 1 min 55 sec 3 min 45 sec ard 1 min 50 sec for the TFRJ
(gutted) EOC and the filleted sample scores he E~ score was found to be
the roost tedious besides taking the longest time to soore a fish
he TFIU (ungutted) scores also have the advantage of not requiring a
knife in order to score ard also were less IOOSSY to work with canpared to all
the other nethods Also the attributes to be assessed were arranged and
organised in such a way in the score sheet that it is easy to score a fish
starting from assessing the apparance and skin and ending with the condition
and smell of the vent
440 Acceptability taste panel results of the blue grenadier samples
441 Flavour acceptability
Figure 5 shc7ws the flavour acceptability of the deep fried samples of
blue grenadier Samples stored in R3W for less than 17 days were found
statistically (Table 14) to be indistinguishable (Plt0001) fran each other
then there was a significant fall in the flavour acceptability of the samples
stored in RSW for 17 days onwards he sarrtgtle stored for 21 days had a still
lower mean value of 35 but it was not significantly different fran the
semple stored for 17 days which had a nean value of 41 It is interesting to
note that despite the progressive increase in sodiun uptake of the blue
grenadier samples stored in RSW from about 7115 35 mg sodium(lOO g tissue
initially to 724 33 mglOO g tissue on the 16th day aM to 729 17 mglOO g
45
tissue on the 21st day (Burford 1984) the panelists seem not to be
negatively affected by the increasing salt content of the samples with storage
tUne and in fact some of the panelists added more salt to their samples I
111is result contradicts statements made by previous reseachers that the
storage life using R3W may be limited by increases in salt content in the fish
flesh (Boyd et aI 1978) he maximun desirable salt content according to
Tcm1inson et al (1974) as quoted by Boyd et al (1978) is about 05 but at
the 16th day ofmiddot RgtW storage the salt content fOllNj In the flesh of blue
grenadier samples was already more than 07 fbwever the panelist only ate
40g pieces it might have been a different case if the fish has been as a
whole meal
442 Texture acceptability
Figure 6 shows the texture acceptability of the deep fried blue grenadier
samples stored in R3W eespf te sane apparent abberant values (such as the
high rrean of 55 for the sample stored for 14 days in RSW) it is obvious that
the texture acceptability showed a significant decreasing trend (pltOOl) from
seventeen days of storage onwards The abberant texture values are possibly
due to the fact that the fish texture might have been masked by the bread
crunbs used to coat the fish samples before deep fryi~ This agrees with the
observations of Bremner et al (1985) wtxgt found that the inherent textural
softness of P piotiue and the tougheni~ on storage of N peroni i detected by
a profile panel usilYJ steamed fillets were no lo~er noticeable when the fish
was deep fried in batter Bremner (1980) also reported that despi te the
softness of the raw flesh the cooked flesh of blue grenadier is reasonably
firm
46
433 OVerall acceptability
The overall acceptability of the deep fried blue grenadier samples stored
in R)W (figure 7) seems to follCM a similar pattern to its flavour
acceptability (figure 5)~ in which a significant fall in overall acceptability
was only observed fran the samples held fran 17 days in RSW onwards (pltO 001)
as shawn in Tablel4
rnus all the above results showed that there was a significant fall in
flavour texture and overall acceptability of blue ~renadier from 17 days of
R)W storage onwards which was found to be equivalent to the accumulated
demerit point scores of 29 of the TFRJ (ungutted) scoresr 31 of the TFRl
(gutted) scoresr 21 of the EOC scores and 23 of the filleted sample
scores Jones (1964) states that the acceptability of a fish is a function of
its suitability for further processing and of its inmediate appearance its
texture its odour and its flavour
450 Acceptability taste panel results of the whiting samples
451 Flavour acceptability
Figure 8 shows the flavour acceptability of the deep fried whiting
samples stored in ice rtle twelve sample times could be analysed individually
since the means if analysed by canbining adjacent sample times to give six
sample groups are in fact the means of the adjacent times if analysed
individually it was found that samples of the first nine renovals i se up to
17 days of storage in ice are more or less indistinguishable (abberant value
at 7th removal) he last three removals ie samples stored in ice for 19
21 and 23 days were found to be of significantly lower flavour acceptability
(p lt 0001) as shawn in Table 5
47
452 Texture acceptability
Except for the abberation at the 7th remgtval i 9 at day 13 of ice
storage there is a significant reduction of texture acceptability at the 21 II
and 23 days of ice storage (p lt0001) as shown by figure 9 and Table5 t
II
I 453 Over~ll acceptability
he overal I acceptability of the whiting sanples stored in ice is very
much similar to its f Lavour acceptability except at day 19 of ice storage
where the ovaral I acceptability shows a higher mean of 42 carpared to the
flavoor acceptability mean of 37 (figure 10 and Table 5) here is however a
significant sudden drop to lOil scores fran the lOth removal ie day 19 of
storage in ice (p lt0001)
hus all the above results for whitifVJ sanples showed that there was a
significant fall in flavCXJr and overall acceptability fram 19 days ice storage
onwards which is equivalent to the accumulated demerit points of 31 of the
TFRJ (unqutted) scores 35 of the TFRJ (gutted) scores 22 of the EEC
scores and 21 of the filleted sample scores he results are interesti~ in
that the oorresponding total accLDnulated demerit points at the time when
significant falls in flavour texture and overall acceptability of the blue
grenadier and whiting samples stored in I5W and ice respectively were quite
similar
500 CONCLUSION
510 Feasibility of using demerit points
Accumulation of demerit points with time of storage of M
in RM and H eemifaeaiatia in ice was found to be highly
occurred in a semi-linear fashion irrespective of the method of
novas8slandiae
correlated and
scori~ used
- _ ~uo_a~_bull--_--I e -Ii --
48
1he slopes of the lines (rate of accumulation of demerit points) and its
relative spoilage rate were found to be similar for the ttoO species provided
the sane method of scoring is employed 1his tends to suggest that the method
is possibly independent of species am methods of storage or at least
applicable to the two species in RSW and ice respectively
TIle TFRJ (ungutted) scores were foum to be the easiest arrl quickest
method to use although the TFRJ (gutted) scores were the roost sensitive 1he
EEX freshness scores were hClgtlever foum to be the JOOSt tedious aod difficult bull I
to use besides taking more than twice the time taken to score a fish ocmpared
to the TFRJ (ungut ted) scores
Although there were slig~t differences between the ttoO species in those
characteristics where changes were first made (Table 10 11 and 12) there is
enough evidence to conclude that the changes in the appearance of the eyes am
the odour developnent of the gills are the JOOSt obvious arrl valuable indicator
of charqe in quality when using the TFIU or the EEl scores while the
appearance am odour of the fish flesh seems to be the JOOSt obvious indicator
when assessing the filleted sample
1he shelf-life of M navaezelandiae stored in RSW was found to be 14 days
(less than 17 days) whilst that of H semifasoiata stored in ice was fourrl to
be 17 days (less than 19 days) beyond which the fish had developed spoilage
characteristics that were disliked by the acceptability taste panel
1he cut-off point at which spoilage of the samples would have rendered
the quality of the fish sample to be unacceptable fran the consumers point of
view ~ld be that equivalent to the accumulated demerit point of gt29 for the
TFRJ (gutted arrl ungutted) scores am gt21 for the EOC and filleted sample
scores
This study thus confinned the potential use of demerit points such as the
TFRJ (ungutted) scores as an easy quick cheap non-destructive and reliable
49
method of sensory assessment of fish quality In fact Branch and Vail (1985)
had studied the possible use of a prototype pocket-sized computer to determine
the condition and shelf-life of temperate and tropical species of fish based
on data that is derived fran the sensory score sheets for the assessment of
fish quality developed at the (SIRgt Division of fbod lEsearch Iasmanian Fbod
Research Unit (TFlU) Hobart
520 RJrpose for which demerit points are to be used
Many scor i oq systerrs are used to predict the nunber of days fish have
been stored on ice and in nore recent years ICETIME (equivalent days on
ice) I ard thus through years of experience the taste panel acceptability of
the fish I
However fish is sold on appearance and a scoring system may be used for
assessirg marketability of whole or gutted fish or fillets or for setting
standards in bulk buying The EEC scoring system is used for example at
fish markets at first point of sale to grade the fish and establish
withdrawal prices A IbrryShewan type system is often used as a purohas i nq
specification from finn to firm
Before a final demerit point system is selected for any COlIOOdity its
ultimate purpose should be established For example the demerit points
chosen for whole fish which nost closely resemble the rate of change of
demerit points for fillets of that species might be the most useful
A linear rate of change of demerit points with time is nose favoured
because it enables prediction of remaining shelf-life ConstJJrer
unacceptability should be at a point where perhaps 75 of the demerit points
have been accrued Further scores would still be available for categories
such as suitable for fish meal D3merit points are not an indication of the
acceptability of fish as eaten where off-odours flavours and fillet
50
tdiscolouration are masked by batters or curries Their correlation with the
iodours flavours off odours aod off flavours of steamed fish are currently ~
~
~being examined by other workers at the Tasmanian ~ Research unit and highly
significant correlations are found Even when fish are subsequently eaten
battered or curried demerit points give a good indication of remaining shelf
life Thus whitiOJ with a Smiley flavour score of 58 after 1 day on ice
has a nlU gutted demerit score of 1 and a high quality life (eaten crumbed
and fried) of a further 16 days while whitiOJ stored for 11 days on ice with
the sane flavour score has a gutted demerit score of 17 and a further shelf
life of 6 days
530 SUggestion for further work
Ib ascertain its potentially wide application as a simple quick and
technically sound methcxi of assessing fish quality many more studies using
other species of fish both temperate and tropical species and in various
storage conditions should be undertaken using a demerit point scorIrq system
such as that developed by the TFlU
The score sheet has proved invaluable when sending individuals untrained
researchers away on distant water fishing trips Ps yet 00 standard
deviations have been detennined using a team of assessors with coded samples
of unknown history This may require a separate group design
The effect of lean fish and fatty fish on the scores should also be
studied because factors such as seasonal variations in biological conditions
Lmproper gutting and washing mechanical damage and filth and changes due to
storage in R3W or shelving may have considerable influence on its shelf-
life Reports such as those of smith et al (1979) clearly showed that in fish
such as the blue whitirlJ (Mioroomesistius poubaeeous there is greater degree
I 51
of seasonal variability than in other gadoid species the overall
acceptability droppirq dramatically once the fish have spawned Fish accepted
for processing for food has to be of a higher standard of quality than fish
accepted for Imredfate sale across the counter to the consumer therefore
there is a need to rreet a minimum score before they could be processed into
food Gradirq is therefore best left to the user sorenson (1971) states
that in establishing limi ts of acceptance an allowance had to be made for
deterioration that would continue to take place during processing and storage
prior to reaching the consimer
The only final criteria of the objectivity of sensory or any other
assessment are results that are reproducible many times which is by definition
a lcnJ-tenn process and in the meantime one requires short-cut indications
that one is headirq in the right direction
Ferhaps a final caution Is necessary as in the YQrds of Ehrenberg and
Shewan (1953) not too much must be expected even the best measuring
instruments occasionally go oot of control
52
60 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baines CR Jones NR am Shewan JM 1965 Technological problems of
measur trq degree of freshness of wet fish and problems of quality
control requirif)J roore knowledge fran fundamental research In he
Technology of fish utilisation ad R Kreuzer Fishi~ News (Books)
p 141
Baines CR and Shewan JM 1965 sensory rrethods for evafuat inq the
quality of white fish Lab practice 14 160-163
Baines CR ltbnnell JoJ Gibson DM lbWgate PF Livi~ston E and
Shewan JM 1969 A taste panel technique for evaluatirq the eati~
quality of frozen cod In Freezi~ and irradiation of fish ad R
Kreuzer Fishi~ News (Books) London p361
Boyd NS and Wilson NDC 1976 A sensory method for evaluatInq the
quality of Snapper (Ch1ysophrys auratus) NZ Journal of Science 19
209-12
Boyd NS Wilson ND and Bjley A 1978 A refrigerated sea water plant
for small boats symposium on fish utilisation technology and
marketi~ in the IPFC region IFFC Proceedi~s 18th session Manila
Philippines FAD Ba~kok p 186-192
Branch AC and Vail AMA 1984 Bri~i~ fish inspection into the
canputer age FltXld Technol Aust 36 in press
Bremner HA Olley J and Ihrower SoJ 1978 CSIIU Iasmanian lEgional
Laboratory OCcasional Paper No4
Bremner HA 1980 Processi~ and freezi~ of the blue grenadier (Maclulonus
novaeselandiae) FltXld Technol Aust 32(8)~ pp 385-393
Bremner J A 1984 QJality - an attitude of mind In he JILlstralian
Fishi~ Industry - today and tanorrow 10-12 July 1984 Launceston
53
Australian MaritUne Cbllege seminar Bapers 224-69
Bremner HA Statham JA am Sykes SJ 1985 Tropical species fran the
north west shelf of Alstralia sensory assessment and acceptability
of fish stored co ice Proceedi~s Sixth session IPR Worki~ Party
on Fish D3chnology and Marketi~ Melbourne 1984 FJID Fish lep 252
supp1
Burford D 1985 Sodiun uptake in MaOlUfOOnUS nooaeselandiae stored in
refrigerated sea water Tasmanian Food Research Unit OCcasional Paper
No9
ltbnnell JJ 1972 OJality control in the fish industry Ibrry Jldvisory
note No 58 IOrty Research Station Aberdeen
ltbnnell JJ 1980 ltbntrol of fish quality Fishi~ ~ws (Books) 2nd ed
Surrey England
OJrran CA Nicolaides L and Al-Alawi ZS 1981 QJality chanqes duri~
iced storage of three carmercially important species of fish fran
Bahrain Trop sci 23(4) 253-268
de Zylva ERA 1974 Effect of fish handli~ at sea on storage quality of
New Zealand Snapper (Chroysophroys aumtus) New Zealand J SCi 17
309-318
Etlira S 1976 A biochemical study on the freshness of fish Bull 1bkai
Reg Fish Res Lab No 88 pp 1-13
Ehrenberg ASC and Shewan JM 1953 he cbjective approach to sensory
tests of food J Sci Food hJric 4 pp 482-489
Herbert RA and Shewan JM 1975 Precursors of the volatile sulphides in
spoili~ North Sea Cod J Sci Food JIlgric 26 1195-1202
lbUwi~ H 1972 Gradi~ of fish in different qualities Institute for
Fishery Products Ijmuiden Unpublished
~ate P 1972 Qrlparison of sensory scor inq systems for raw fish
I 54
Unpubl ished bull ~ ~
~ate P 1978 Measuri~ the quality am acceptability of fish products bull ~
In IPFC Proceedi~s symposiun on fish utilisatial technology and ~
i f~
marketi~ in the IWC region 18th session Manila Ihilippines p
449
fflghes RB and Jones NR 1966 Measurement of hypoxanthine concentrations
in canned herrirg as an index of the freshness of the raw material
with a ocirment oo flavor relations J SCi fOOd middotJlgric 17 434
Jahns FD Howe JL Coduri Jr RJ and Ram Jr AG 1976 A rapid
visual enzyme test to assess fish freshness Food Iechno1 30 (7) 27
Jones NR 1964 ~lems associated with freezi~ very fresh fish
Proceedings Meeting on Fish Iechnology Fish Handling and
Preservation schevenirqen OEC D Paris p 31 bull
Jones NR 1965 Hypoxanthine and other purine containing fractions in fish
muscle as indices of freshness In uthe technology of fish
utilisation ed R Kreuzer Fishi~ rewa (Books) (Drmn p 179
Last PR Scott EOG and Talbot FH 1983 Fishes of Tasmania
Tasmanian Fisheries ~velopnent lUthority lbbart Tasmania pp 238
414
Lima doe santos CAM James D and Ieutscher F 1981 QJidelines for
chilled fish storage experiments FKJ Fish Tech Igt 210
(Dye RM 1954 Ibst rrortem cha~es in the lenses of fish eyes Msessment
of storage tiJm and fish quality J Sci Focx11lgric 5 566-572
Hartin RE Gray RJ H and Pierson MD 1978 QJality assessment of fresh
fish arrl the role of the naturally occurring microflora Focx1
Technol 32 (5) 188
Official Journal of the European oamrnunities No L264 5 ~cember 1970 pp
1-11
bull
55
Technol New Zealand July 1971 pp 31-35
Spinelli J Eklund M and Miyauchi D 1964 Measurement of hypoxanthine
in fish as a method of assessing freshness J Food SCi 29 710
Thrower S oJ am Stafford IA 1981 A roobile unit for ccmparative studies
of chilled storage systems for trawl fish IIF IIR
eatmissions C2 01 02 03 Boston USA 1981-4
Thrower SoJ Bremner HA QJarmby AR Ggtnnan T8 aild Graham KJ
1982 cn-board handlinJ of Q~ish ~ Inportanoeof chillinJ and
gutting Aust Fish 41 (11) 38-41
Tanlinson N bull bull t at 1974 COtparison between refrigerated sea water (with or
without added carbon dioxide) and ice as storage media for fish to be
subsequently frozen Proc IIR C011n 82- 0-3 Tokyo p
waterman J oJ 1982 Qrrposition and QJality of Fish A Dictionary 1brry
Mvisory Note No 87 Torry Research Station Aberdeen
5J
Olley J and letkowsky OA 1973 he role of terrperature function
integration in monitoring of fish spoilage Food Technol New
Zealand 8 (2) 13 15 and 17
Olley J 1977 Iemperature and seafood spoilage In H Proceedings of 1977
SChool for SeafltXld Processorsmiddot ad ~ AF 0 Mello Hawkesbury
Agricultural Oollege p6-2
Olley J 1978 QIality assessment and storage changes In middotCSIRJ Iasmanian bull
leJional Laboratory OCcasional Paper No 4 p 3-1 middot4 Rgenstein J M and ~enstein CE 1981 he shelf-life extension of fesh
fish In Advances in the refrigerated treabnent of fishmiddot
International Institute of Rfrigeration Clmnissions C2 m ra [8
Boston US A 1981-4
leJenstein J 1983 Wlat is fish quality INroFISH Marketing Digest ttgt 6
26-28
Ryder JM 9Jisson OH SCott ON and Fletcher GC 1984 storage of
New Zealand Jack Mackerel ( TmohUMlB notJabullbullbullZandias) in ice
chemical microbiological and sensory assessment J M SCi 49
1453-1456 1477
Shewan JM Macintosh RG rucker CG and Ehrenberg ASC 1953 he
developnent of a numerical ~coring systan for the sensory assessment
of the spoilage of wet white fish stored in ice J SCi Food Jlgric
4 283-298
Smith J GM Hardy R hanson AB Young KW and Parsons E 1979
sane observations 00 the ambient and chill storage of blue whiting
(Mio1om8sistius poutassou) bull In H Advances in Fish SCience and
Technology ad JJ Connell FishinJ News (Books) Surrey England
pp 299-303
SOrensen T 1971 QIality control and fish handling in New zealand Food ~
t c-
o )
~hmiddot r~YiJ lt~
~~f~~ ~
I
Nomooram for comparison of diffGrent scoring systems tor raw T i sn ___ _ J bull )
_U I~ ~Y1 9i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~
I I t I I - _---1------ imiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot __ middot~_ ~ __~_ -_ ~ + ~ _ -~ _ - middotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middot __ G 9 8 7 6 _ 5middot 3
_ - zmmy [ I bull r f II
d _~__ ~ __ _ ~ __ -I-- - ~ L- i~ middoti~ ~ 1-L -~~ lt lt l~tceland 1P i ~ ~ j ~ ~ ~ L~ __ - I ~_ bull _ L j ~- _-
N rv 1 I 1 2 --- - 2~ 3 middot 3middot 4 ~- ~Il ay ~ _ _ middot _ r r
_ _ __ _ _~ ~_ ) - ~ L_ - 1- ~-_ -_ _ _ ~ 19 ~ 8 imiddotmiddot I 6 5 4 3
Do _ _nm~r t I I I r
~ I
_ ~ ~_ ~ t ~ __ i__ t ~ ~ ~ ~ _ q x 1 1i 2 2~ 3v _ Franee I r I l n
I I I i _ - ~ _ _ _- _-- middotmiddot __ middot_middot_middot_middotmiddotmiddotImiddotmiddotmiddot_middot~ _middotmiddotmiddotmiddot-_middotmiddotmiddotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddot ---- - --~ ~-
19oum8 I 7 6 i 5 ~ ~ 4middot 280 J t (
I i
J -- - -_ -__ X ~middotH i__~ -- i_L ~ - l_ middot1-- - 3 I 2Y1 0 4 11z 1 y
E E C I 1
I I I deg deg E I A r Bmiddot - I I C
ltOIl j- ~ ~ c ~--------------
TASTER
DATE
SESSION
~ER middot1
bull You will be given ~bull aamples of cooked fish Please assess the fish for flavour textur~ and
overall liking as though you had purchased them in a takeaway food shop Hark the sample
identification under the face that most closely describes your impressionbull
I
middot5 S shy2 3 4
FLAVOUR
IEXlURE
--
OVERALL UKING
7 bullbull yc ) I _ v J _ _
I1PP~NJIJ( 3 ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE BGRENVZSASS (A)
OBS DAYS-R DMPTS shy
1 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 6 4 3 7 4 6 e 4 5 9 6 1 18 6 10 11 6 18 12 6 18 13 e 13 14 8 16 13 8 13 16 8 17 17 9 18 18 9 18 19 9 bull 19 29 9 19 21 19 19 22 1 21 23 1 19 24 1 2123 11 21 26 11 22 27 11 22 29 11 22 29 12 22 3 12 22 31 12 23 32 12 23 33 13 23 34 13 23 33 13 22 36 13 23 37 14 24 38 14 23 39 14 264 14 25
17 26~ 17 39 43 17 38 44 17 29 43 21 32 46 21 33
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASS(At
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (Xt DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Yt DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9666 R SQUARED 9343 T STATISTIC 231621 INTERCEPT tAt 31799 SLOPE tSt 173399 bull STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 219473
OBSERVATIONS 46 Y DMPT9 XI DAYS-RSW YMIN -18 YMAX 61 YINC e XMIN -19 XMAX 2e9 XINe 2
] y
__ t=- I I 0(I I
JPRH6ELF PRINT MODULE -SYNTAX ERROR
DATABASE J3lGRENVISASS (FIL)
OB8 DAYS-R DMPT8
1 s 1 2 4 5 s 6 6
~ e 8 ~ 9 1 6 19 12 7 11 14 8 12 17 9 13 18 1 14 19 bull 11 17 23 12 21 29
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASSCFIL)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE CX) DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IY) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT ~9963
R SQUARED 992 T STATISTIC 3~36977
INTERCEPT CA) -3~6~41
SLOPE CB) 1~8426
STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 77667
OBSERVATIONS 12 v DMPTS x DAYS-RSW VMIN -2~ VMAX ~~ YINC ~
XMIN -19 XMAX 2~9 XINC 2
]
bull
-SYNTAX ERROR
lPRH6ELF PRINT MODULE
DATABASE BGRENVXSASS (AG)_
OB6
1 2 3 4 ~
6 7 8 9
Hi 11 12 13 14 1~
16 17 -18 19 2 21 22 23 24 2~
26 27 28 29
3 31 32 33 34 3~
36 37 J8
39
4 41 42 43 44 4~
46
DAYS-R
3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 6 6 6 6 8 8
8 bull 8
9 9 9 9
1 1 1 1 11 11 11 11
DMPTS
2 3 3 3 ~
6 ~
~
1 1 1 1 17 18 17 19 2~
2 21 21 21 23 21 23 23 24 24 24
12 24 12 24 12 25 12 25 13 27 13 25 J3 24 13 27 104 26 J04 2S
14 28 14 27 17 28 17 32 17 32 17 31 21 34 21 35
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BORENVISASSCAO)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE IX) DAVS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IV) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9~76~
R SQUARED 917 T STATISTIC 22S6S88 INTERCEPT lA) 323~7
SLOPE lB) 189812 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 269324
OBSERVATIONS 46 Y DM PT6 X DAYS-RSW ~ _01 VMAV 2~ YfNe ~
XMIN -19 XNAX 2l9 XINC 2
]
9YNTA)( ERROR bull ]PRN6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE BGRENVXSASS
OB6 DAY6-R DMPTS
1 3 1 2 3 1 3 3 1 4 3 1 5 4 1 6 4 4 7 4 3 9 4 1 9 6 6 18 6 6
11 6 6 12 6 6 13 9 8
14 9 9 15 8 8 16 8 9 l 9 18 19 9 11 19 9 12 28 9 12 21 18 12 22 18 14 23 18 11 24 18 14 25 11 15 26 11 13 27 11 15 29 11 15 29 12 17 3 12 18 31 12 19 32 12 18gJ l~ 34 13 18 3~ 13 18 36 13 19 37 14 19 JB 14 19 39 14 19 48 14 19 41 17 19 42 17 23 43 17 21 44 17 20
-(EEC)
q~ 21 23 q6 21 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASSCEEC)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE IX) DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IY) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 96691 R SQUARED 93q9 T STATISTIC 2~14824
INTERCEPT IA) -238937 SLOPE IB) 146219 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 1S28eS
OBSERVATIONS q6 Y DMPTS X DAYS-RSW YMIN -2q YMAX ~5 YINC ~
XMIN -19 XMAX 259 XJNC 2
l
SYNTAX ERROR lPRM8ELF PRINT MODULE
-
bull
APPENJ)K 4 -
DATABASE WHZTXNG VXSASS (A) bull
OBS DAYS-I
1 1 2 1 3 1 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 ~
9 5 9 5 Ii 7 11 7 12 7 13 9 14 9 1~ 9
016 11 17 11 19 11
DMPTS
1 1 1 1 2 2 4 3 5 a 7
9 13 15 bull 13 16 14 1~
019 13 2 8 28 13 16 21 13 20 22 15 24 23 1~ 24 24 15 25 25 17 29 26 17 29 27 17 38 29 19 30 29 19 38 38 19 32 31 21 33 32 21 32 33 21 32 34 23 32 3~ 23 32 36 23 34
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASSIA)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE tX) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE tV) qMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 98514 R SQUARED 9785 T STATISTIC 3344414 INTERCEPT tAt -245163 SLOPE CBt 166958 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 286799
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS x DAYS-ICE
YMIN -22 YMAX lS7 YINC lS- XMIN -19 XMAX 259 XINC 2
]
I
J
-8YNTAX ERROR
]PRM6ELF PRINT MODULE shyDATABASE WHITING VISASS (AG)
OB8 DAYS-I DMPT8
1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 4 3 1 ~ 3 2 6 3 2 7 ~ 4 9 ~ 3 9 ~ ~
18 7 18 11 7 9 12 7 18 13 9 1~
14 9 17 1~ 9 1~
16 11 18 17 11 16 18 11 17 19 13 22 28 13 18 21 13 22 22 1~ 26 23 1~ 27 24 1~ 28 2~ 17 32 26 17 32 27 17 33 28 19 34 29 19 34 38 19 36 31 21 37 32 21 36 33 21 36 34 23 36 3~ 23 36 36 23 38
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITINO VISASS(AO)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAY8-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Y) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 986~2
R SQUARED 973 T STATISTIC 3~B167B
INTERCEPT CAl -272~33
SLOPE CBI 197S63 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 221294
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS X DAYS-ICE YHIN -19~ YHAX ~9~ YINC ~
XHIN -19 XHAX 2~9 XINC 2
]
-SYNTAX ERROR lPRM6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASS (EEC)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 2 1 3 1 4 3 ~ 3 1 6 3 1 7 ~ 2 8 ~ 2 9 ~ 3
1 7 3 11 7 3 12 7 3 13 9 6 14 9 6 bull 1~ 9 7 16 11 7 17 11 8 18 11 7 19 13 11 2 13 1 21 13 12 22 1~ 13 23 1~ 1~
24 1~ 17 2~ 17 19 26 17 18 27 17 19 28 19 29 29 19 23 39 19 22 31 21 24 32 21 23 33 21 24
34 23 2J 3~ 23 26 36 23 27
I ELF SCATTER MODULE I DATABASE WHITING VISA88CEEC)I I INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (~) DAYS-ICE I
DEPENDENT VARIABLE (VI DMPTS I bull
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9a2~3
R SQUARED 96~3
T STATISTIC 387a73~
INTERCEPT (A) -4142 SLOPE (8) 12873 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 173287
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS ~ DAYS-ICE YMIN -29 YMA~ ~1 VINC ~
XMIN -19 ~MA~ 2~9 ~INC 2
J
-SYNTAX ERROR JPRM6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHITING VXSASSmiddot(FXL)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 2 3 1 3 ~ 5 4 7 4 ~ 9 9 6 11 13 7 13 1~
e 1~ 16 9 17 19 18 19 21 11 21 24 12 23 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASB(FJLI
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Y) DMPTS
bull bullbull 4~
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE CV) DMPTSr
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 982~3
R SQUARED 96~3
T STATISTIC 3S7873~ t bullbullf CINTERCEPT CA) -4142
SLOPE CB) 12873 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 173287
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS XI DAYS-ICE YMINmiddot~28 YMAKI 1 YINC ~
XMIN -I9XMAX 2~9 XINC2
]
-SYNTAX ERROR ]PRH6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHXTXNG VXSASS (FXL)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 S 2 3 1 1 5 3 4 7 4 5 9 9 6 11 13 7 13 1~
9 15 16 9 17 19 1 19 21 11 21 24 12 23 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE I WHITING VISAS8(FIL)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE CX)I DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE CY) DMPT8
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 99289 R SQUARED 9858 T STATISTIC 2638123 INTERCEPT CA) -243706 SLOPE CB) 124476 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 112846
SLOPE 10) 124476 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 112846
ObullbulllfftVTrOHSO 12 VI DHPTS XI DAVS-ICE VMIN -27 VHAX e2 VINe e XHIN -19 XHAX 2e9 gtcINe 2
]
-8VNTAX ERROR
fi
rr
[bull
SJ
in i
bullol
r~
bull bull
n i
o o o o
~
o~ o
o - l
N~ o ~
o o o
Q
Q o o
a
c -~_
Q
_
_ Q
_9_
0
o ~-
O
_
Q
lI
oJ ~
v
~ ~
~-
-
- -1
---h
---1
---I
I
I
1
~ ((9 ~ J las 0 - ~~ U -lt) az E~-~gl~~1--~~---------- ~) 1)
11 ~ - 11 HI ~~
I bull M~
~ -~ ~~ IJ~ I J ismiddotJ I Q l~
k tl I 01 re lr - 91 br I ~I ( -0 71P g I CJ tt
I I J 000 0 0 w I 0) NlNN1tl 30 hIflJ I t IC (~4ID(r ~ Wi
_ f-- -------- bull fyen ~=y ~~r I I I I I I I 0 0 00 00 ( ~) -Fr~ ~ fj)
-0 I 0 I Ole 17 10 0 ( ~ AI )middot P1~ 0 0 00 Q hItIrS ~7I -~~ (J
t -r------0 bull
_-~_ middotmiddotmiddot_middot~middotmiddotmiddot)-middot7~)
lrrT I 01 0
0 tFmiddot~~i ~ 1 o 00 Omiddot (~ -W ~r f (JJ___~ _______ _ l I I 71 I -_---_ - M-~ ~ I
J I Z-tf ~ ~ ~fI t1 11f ( )) CI I I I i I 00 r11-7[ c I C bull aofl7r_ ~ ~z ~ 1t~Ji ) ( --_--------i---shye l~~~ I f~) I I J I
I II i bull Q ( N~T fE ~I )
~JiP _- -___ ----shy
_
~ 7Yr 0) ~(J ~ I e I t I ~ l I J I I 1 I I I(I 0 0 (~~yen~ M -p~P71 JPtJIJs 0
i euror (1l~J IlLriJlllr1JI ~~J I ~()(1OP I I r I I 0 I ( t t I ( jIfS 7fS ~~I ~ )
I
I 1 I( IN 10~ lb~ qItJ gtr~j f o (~)I(~) I I 0 I (t~ ~~) I I Jbull o 0 J I ~ l 0 a i S(jJ t t t tI tI C I C I J I I I J I 0 I (n~rlP PI4t -I) t
- -I
-I -I-I I II-I I I-I r bull
-----(rtb Ii If p~) PNl17T7~b ~y~ 7
10 IIt1v I 0 1~L CIJ tN IfIfW1IIJ JI11i JN~I HJ3
---Y p~ALY~_ ~~ Yl2-- 1)
yenvr 1amp f111l
-
~
~~
~
II
o 0
~cgt
(
) Q
oa
oo
o
oo
o o
a
o
~
P
t
oo
c
oo
a -
o
oo
o
o -
o
-o
-
-
lJ
I~ I~
Jl ~rIpound i IAlffzfjjsectj 7df- utl kf J OG lie rCOIpound ~IIE(T r
7tU
~
~ ~
~ ~
~
-shy~
~
MYI f)lySLM~ 1 (JAy ISo~r 11 ~~) e ()~t ~I01) r I joy f o~y lOJ 17~JJlII1~ 16 fiti -t1 It r ~17J~~flu~1h 111H 7U 1111111shyIllf Jr(11Jr I fhJo
~ ) ~ I1 J J-4 ~ J 2 JJ ~poundol ~ ] t4 cl -7 eJ uJ cJJJ wI~ wI l shy w c at amp 74 -t ~ ut 4 I
SkIN 000 o 0 0o 0 0 o 00 I o I I I I 3 3 3l) t 3 3 31 s 3ltt
a I I I I I o IfYU I 2 I JI I I000 )l~ 1~1 S 3 ~S 3 5 335
GILtJ I J I o (J 0 I (I I I ~ t 2shy~I I s 3 ]] 2 0 (J 3 ~ ~ t 3 3 AlvItUiU i l I I ls)z oJ lJ 0 a (J ~ 0o 0 0 a a aTff1ttJR II r 1
1 I ~ I I I I 1~E
Cdt47tl7 I I ~ ~t( a a 0O(O I Io I~ 00 000deg a 0wO 0 0 0 o 0 0 o~ 00VUipound811 ~ J I
tJ I Oe6rlllr I I I I 2 2]l2 ~ 3 S 3 S ~ 3o a 0 (J () 0 I 333 1 $ 3
If~euMI LU~ 2l 3000o (J 0 o 0 0 J 2 2shy 331a deg (1 ~ 2 Jshy
i I 000amp1 0 I I 1TIUUpound
lAcltJdJE 00deg00o 0 0 ooalOOO 0 0 I I I 1OdOa deg 0 11 2 I r I I I IbullI
I I h~r~Eu I ( 0 0 CJ 0 o (J a 2 ~ 30001011 0 1 J 1010 I I L II 2 l 2l 22 2 1
sKIN GLLt I f I~J) GlIIl) 0 (I a I do 0 0 I 0 Il~t l~o 0 0 ~ 3 3 3 s 3 3 3 33s1331
i7tJ7l11 Ibull I shy i66 ~o
(J ~ 0 1 0 It3331l J t 1 1shy 1~ ~afJllc 11 Irrshy It ~1 1111 20 J3 u
(])JtUJ61 (l) (1) (Ir)(0) (J)(I) (If) (19) (u) (~r)(J4)
I r f
I
I
i I
I i
II I ((
f
II Ii
p ()
Q
0_
_ 00
0
00
00
00
0
o o o 0
00
0
0 _
o Q
0
0
o
0
00
0
-
0 0
0
middot0
0
o oo
0
o Q
o oo o o
- ~
~
~ ~~pound
w
i -shy
o
co
- --
shy
o o o
~
~_
~
0
-shyJJ
-----l--~
-J
J IJ
f
J
J)
o 0
00
_ 0
0
o (gt
0
o ()
o
0
0 0
0
()
()
o 0
0
o 0
0
_
_ -
-----1
-----shy
Q
0 0
o ~-IJ~ulJ-
u
lJcllJ_-_~IJamp
o o
Q
I---+----I---+----I----I~-
_Ilpound
llD
lIlI
Il
~I
IIIl
I_II
II5
l__
IIlIa
IllP
=lII
Il1
rl
ll
IlIl
IlIII
llII
IlJl
IIl
IIlIl_
IIrII
G3i
mta
isectID
it
llll~
1~=wampampftUla
_
au
U
Lamp
WJN
AJ
poundmiddotJI
IiIamp
3flJ
a
uac
ampa
f
shy
I~middottn 0~L fi 5L middottlu~ fo_~r ( ) 1poundc [CtJRl -ffl(pound1 r~~ rlt1c- J c-ru
-- I
1SllJ7~
lt l)~ J )IIr M ~-t s ~~ OIl middot )If 10 JAY II 041
J- Olt i1 )lir iI DIY IT- IMy11
1~middot6f1 14f1- ~imiddot -- J _ middotAfmiddot IIrk middot Jiamp -ffh~11 rtr Il ~M gt27P- ill Ill ~lllY ~~7rlf JC 1- ~ r 1M 11
r ~ F16F r~h FIjFi ~~I)r r~Fr
5 Fc II -i~fIoi l 1 fj t t Fr c r amp t 1= ~ r ~ F r rtI ~
- -
sION o (j o 0 0 o 0 a I I I I I I I I 2 I t t I-r J~L) z~z~ 2~J ~ z a ~ ~ 33 - -ol t 1 2
~ poundys-s 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I I lt t 2 t t 4 ~z ~ 2l~ ~ ~ 1 Z 3zi3p33 3 333 3 3 3 - - ~ rl~ a 0 a (1 a a o 1 I 1 I 1-2 12 t ltt a ~ l J tll~ ~~~) 2 2 2 2- ~Jll 21 13 33 ~
- ~ MIIi(UlA~
degCt1C 11 )l
FipoundSI- eli CeoD o 0 (J 0 I I I I I I 1 1 I I 1 I Jl~] l2 22- z ~ 2 2 22 11 2-3 -Sfvpound
j
CIJiCVlt-tICN I I I 1 ( I I I 2 2 t ~ t~ )2 2~21 2$ 2 t _~ 3AIJJN(j- P (J dO o C a a o 0 00 1 I I I I - --
V~7r~ ~ c~u N
(TKWW~ CO~ o I oc I I J I I I I 1 2 I 2 2 1- ) t~l2 2- 22 2 ) 2 ~2- 1222 2 2 ll 2L -- -~VClLAl I
a 0 0 0 01 I 0 2 1 2 2 J5r 4 E i H CA I I
-I I I I I I I I J J 12( ~ 12 1 2 1 2-I TfI_ 21 1-1- 1 1 ~ 1
~ I middot_0-__-- I
~ 1
ffCACIpound coo 000lt=1 o 0 0 0 btJCt) o a () (J I I I I I I I I111 I I I 1 I I -~-aD CD lJ a a 0 0 ~ ~ UlrAfllN o 0 a IJ e e 0 C) (JdegOo ecJao co (10 (1 o I I I I I I I I 1 I I III I I I I z --
i tiN ~4r L~~ 2- li ~ a~ 8M) CUmiddot c d (J 0 (J () I I I 1 1 1
I 1 I I f t I II tl-loI 21 1 t 33 - -
-Iffl1-
J I I I I i- 2 I 11~SC~E ~ t 1 o ~ 04-t 1J 11 1 11t IS~ IfS J1 I 1 I If I IJ 1 r~]u ze uu __
bull ttlUIG
(I) l~) (6) (II) ~ (~) 6s-)llIt lCUI CJ (Ii) (~) vmiddot (II) (19~ ---
I t f
I
~ I
~ I
Ii
I I
Ii I II f
~ (
--)raquo~ middot-~~-~-I~~IliiI~~-middotComiddot~-d-b~middotmiddotmiddotmiddot_ ~ ~ middoth-~_middot--~H~~middot~gt
Other Occasional Papers in the series
1 A salinity monitor for irrigation pumps by EOMIEZITIS
2 Wine liqueur and fish products acceptability trials 47th ANZAAS Congress Hobart 1976 by HABREMNER TLLEWIS and ARQUARMBY
3 Abalone silage an exercise in the conservation of waste by JUNE OLLEY
4 Course notes contributed by the CSIRO Tasmanian Food Research Unit to a workshop on fish handling and quality control Hobart Oct3rd-5th 1978 by HABREMNER JUNE OLLEY and SJTHROWER
5 Difficulties with generalized least squares regression in forest modelling by PWWEST
6 Metabolism of zinc cadmium and copper in rats fed shellfish highly contaminated with heavy metals by SJTHROWER JUNE OLLEY and MAUREEN McDERMOTT
7 Hygiene control in seafood processing by SJTHROWER
3
but of the products potential shelf-life M accurate measure of st~age
1_ time under kn~ conditions would allow hLm to calculate the remaining life of
the product and its potential for processing
Fish quality depends on tenperature time and hygiene Factors such as
spontaneous chemical changes autolysis and microbial attack produce
deteriorations fran the point of catching until final putrefaction
Measurements of sane of these deteriorations have been invoked as indices of
freshness
he measurement of trimethylamine (lMA) other spoilage cxrrpounds and the
bacteria themselves as indicators of quality has been reviewed recently by
Martin et al (1978) hey stated that in order to define effective indicators
of seafocxi quality the food technologist must be prepared to examine each
species of seafood individually its environment its composition its
harvesting and its handling
A lUIllber of different tests may be used for estimating the degree of
spoilage in fish these include total volatile bases (TVa) total volatile
reducing substances volatile armonia volatile acids total volatilo
nitrogen indole refractive index of the eye fluid electrical resistance of
the fish flesh total bacterial numbers and organoleptic tests hese methods
are discussed under the headings chemical methods physical methods
microbiological methods and sensory methods bel~
120 Chemical Methods
Although not universal in acceptance or applicability the trLmethylamine
(TMA) determination has became one of the established procedures for
determining fish quality Its use as an indicator of spoilage in fresh fish
have also been proposed by the Codex AlLmentarius crnmittee on fish and
fishery products (Olley 1977) his is despite the fact that there is ample
4
evidence that the same ClfDUnt of 1MA is accanpanied by different ClfDUnts of
spoilage even within the same species
Several investigators (Spinelli et aI 1984 Jones 1965) have expressed
reservations regardirq the use of IMA as an index of quality for fresh fish
not inq that 1MA values fail to give an adequate Iod icetIon of early autolytic
quality chanqes aOO preferrirq hypoxanthfne detenninations instead MA as
would be expected of a bacterial product is not useful in detenninilg quality
deteriorations which occur durirq frozen storage FIrthenoore the shape of
the fish will markedly influence the arrount of IMA meaaured in ng per 100 g
fish (Bremner et aI 1978) Trimethylamine is roost sensitive as an indicator
of the later stages of spoilage whereas Chemical tests for dimethylamine are
most valuable in the early stages of spoilage
Ryder et al (1984) foond that the bacterial metabol Ic end products (1VB
and MA) were less useful as objective measurements of freshness in Jack
Mackerel (TrochuflUB nooaezelandiae) hey also reported that the pH was not a
gcxxl indicator of early storage changes and lEA values could not be used to
detennine loss of acceptability or eoo of shelf-life Recently it has became
apparent that the sulphur canpounds and mercaptans may be importantH2S
detenninants of fish odour and flavour (~rbert and Shewan 1975)
Measurement of MA IMA or amoonia requires a laboratory am assistant of
matriculation standard who has had sane weeks of practice in the IOOthod
Neither the Codex Alimentarius CoITInittee or the EEl (Ccmoon Market) lay down
samplilg procedures
Another quality assessment lOOasurement involves the nucleotides aoo their
degradation products Early studies with cod carp Pacific Salmgtn Lemon
sole haddock and plaice revealed that post-mortem nucleotide degradation in
fish muscle proceeds prbnarily via the followirq sequence of reactions ATP -)
AMP -) IMP -) IID -) Hx -) Xa -) UA where KrP = Jldenosine 5-triphosphate AMP
5
= Jldenosine 5-IOCgtoophosphate IMP = Inosine 5-IOCgtoophosphate lID = Inosine j
Hx = Hypoxanthine xa = Xpnthine am UA = Uric acid loo ~tages in this
degradative sequence have been considered as objective indices of quality shy
dephosphorylation of IMP am formation of hypoxanthine IMP reportedly
possesses properties as a flavour enhancer in fish mrscle COnsequently its
breakdawn may contribute to and be correlated with the loss of fresh flavour
in sane species SCme difficulties however may arise fran using IMP
dephosphorylatioo as a s inqle quality index eg the pattern of nucleotide
breakdown in invertebrate seafood species may differ in same key respects fran
that fourrl in vertebrate species he rate of IMP decanposition in the muscle
also differs between species (Ehira 1976) Accordi~ to Martin et al (1978)
the rrost serious limitation imposed by an IMP index may be that the reaction
is substantially complete well within the edible storage life of a number of
species Its major value then may be as an indicator of fresh flavour loss
during early storage
Unlike IMP concentrations of hypoxanthine (Hx) have been shown to
increase steadily throughout the useful storage life of a number of fish
species (Hughes and Jones 1966) Hypoxanthine formation is a result of both
autolytic am bacterial activities hus it also has advantages over the 1MA
assay Hx may be correlated with flavour loss caused by autolytic activities
durirg early storage am with bacterial spoilage during extended storage to
derive a prediction of useful storage life Also the IMA test is of no value
for freshwater fish because these either do not contain or contain very little
trimethylamine oxide Hx may also be used to determine the quali ty of canned
herrirg at the tirre of processing since hypoxanthine concentrations neither
increase nor decrease duri~ heat process inq and subsequent storage (Hughes
ard Jones 1966) 1MA concentrations on the other hand are unstable during
heat process inq lbNever different species of fish produce hypoxanthine by
6
different routes and at different speeds Each lustralian species ttOUld have
to be examined in turn am the hypoxanthine test related to sensory grades
tbte that the Canadian redfish and flounder had produced the maximum amgtunt of
hypoxanthine 10llg before they becarre unacceptable while the swordfish had
only produced a fifth of the arount when it became unacceptable to a taste
panel (Olley 1978) The hypoxanthine test requires laboratory facilities and
same equipment but recently the use of sLmple paper strips have been reported
(Jahns et aI 1976)
The main disadvantages of nucleotide assays are that they are apt to vary
even arro~ individuals within a species Sufficient samples need to be used
to reduce this variability
All the chemical roothods discussed above depend on measuring the
concentration of certain chemical substances in the flesh and since the sample
is destroyed in the process they cannot be used to test every fish in a
batch In any case variation between fishes in the sarre batch makes chemical
tests for quality a task requiring a statistician (Olley 1977) All the
methods require the use of a laboratory or fairly elaborate facilities and
also they oo rot apply to all species and products alike
130 Physical Methods
Love (1954) described a roothod which correlates the turbidity of the eye
lenses of fish with storage tiroo of iced fish kept in a roan of fairly
constant air temperature He found that it is possible by examination of 20
or more lenses to assess the storage tiroo with an error of not roore than 1
day M advantage of this roothod is that since only the eyes have to be
raroved in sampling the fish remains saleable as headed dressed fish or as
fillets ~ver1 the roothod had many limitations such as difficulty in
manipulation and matchi~ of the lenses which have to be done in good diffused
7
daylight at least 20 lenses are required for each estllnation which is rather
tedious for routine work and also it is not applicable where fish had not been
kept all the time in ice under the standard conditions eg bulk stowage of
fish with ice on a trawler may result in deviation fran the conditions of box
stolage in an insulated roan
he GR Ibrrymeter is a battery pc7ot1ered hand-held instnunent that rreasures
certain dialectric properties of fish skin which charge wi th the
tiJretemperature history of the fish fbWever readi~s on a large mrnber of
samples have to be taken and averaged bull Although it is a rapid simple
objective and rDn-destructive method of estllnati~ the quality of fresh fish
it has the followilkJ disadvanteqesj large variation in readirg fran fish to
fish readi~ varies with physical damage to fish1 cha~e of readi~ with time
varies with species and also may be insensitive at later stages of spo i Laqe
Curran et al (1981) reported that the GR Ibrrymeter was not particularly
successful with both the purple emperor (L6thoinus l6ntjan) ard the Spanish
mackerel ( Scomberomorue oonmereons since the readirgs obtained do not
correlate very well with the taste panel results
140 Microbiological Methods
he rootine microbiological testirg that is performed under normal
industry operations is normally restricted to enumeration of nonpathogenic
microorganisms hose frost frequently used are the standard plate count and
enumeration of indicator organisms such as the coliform group Beoher-ichia
coli aM Staphylococcus aureus
Food handl i nq practices beyond the pr-imary processors control make
standard aerobic plate count (APe) a difficult quality assessment tool to use
generally he total nunber of bacteria is not the sole determinant of
8
quali ty since certain microbial groups are rrore apt to cause spoilage than
others These groups can be given a selective advantage for growth by the way
the product is processed or stored furthermore the determination of
bacterial counts while they are of value to research requires too much time
before results are known and can also be expensive for routine testing
Representative samples have to be taken for bacterial examination because the
fish or product is destroyed during the test Interpreting the results of
bacterial testing is a task for experts who should be consulted when
necessary bull
Detection and enumeration of indicator bacteria such as the coliform
group E ooli and S auroeu8 were considered for many years to indicate the
potential presence of pathoqenic microorganisms NM this inference has been
questioned and these groups are no longer considered a reliable method for
predicting the presence of such pathogens (Martin et aL1978) bull
According to Olley and Ratkowsky (1973) there is in fact no simple index
of quality and a thorough knowledge of the oamplete temperature history of the
fish is the only true indicator of freshness This is so because at higher
temperatures bacteria divide in half more rapidly Therefore the
relationship between bacterial growth with production of spoilage canpounds
and temperature is not a straight line rut a curve he curve relates rate of
spoilage of these commodities at temperatures between aoe and 25dege to the rate
at which they would spoil at aoe hus at aoe the relative rate is 1 and at
Rate at temperature (tOe)any other temperature the relative rate is Rate at a be
Bremner et at (1978) have coined the term ICE FOID for this relative rate
ie so many times faster than the ccmnodity would spoil on ice and
lCETIME as equivalent storage time on ice = lCEFOID x time in days
The curve has also been converted into tabular form to enable conversion
of the temperature history of the catch into equivalent storage time
on ice under ideal conditions However the concept of relative rate of
9
spoilage with temperature can only apply if fishing oonditions are kept
constant
150 sensory Methods
Currently the best way to detenmine fish freshness still requires the use
of a taste panel (Regenstein and Regenstein 1981) A number of taste panel
techniques for assessing the quality of unfrozen fish species have been
described am are in use in different parts of the world These techniques
vary in cbjective and ccrrplexity but are of three main types Firstly there
are those which categorise the fish on the basis of its acceptability for
eatirq secondly there are those which categorise the fish on the basis of
well-defined characteristics which change duri~ storage Thirdly there are
techniques which include elements of both of these types Techniques of the
first type usually anploy a single gradi~ or hedonic (like-dislike) scale
whilst those of the second type anploy descriptions of various characteristics
(Baines et aI 1969)
The ultimate criterion of fish quality is the flavour and texture of the
cooked fish HcMever taste panel evaluations of cooked fish are timeshy
consiminq and relatively few samples can be tested at anyone time It is
therefore highly desirable to be able to make an assessment of eati~ quality
by exanini~ the raw fish My atterrpt to raise the quality of raw fish as it
reaches the consumer is critically dependent on the development of a
convenient and consistent rrethod of quality assessment based on raw fish
Fortunately eat inq quality of cooked fish can be correlated with the
appearance odour and texture of the whole raw fish Boyd and Wilson (1976)
when evaluat inq the quality of snapper (Chroysophfys aufatus) by a sensory
method found that there is close relationship between the raw attributes of
gill odour and general appearance with those of odour texture am flavour of
10
the cooked fish
The use of ooject ive tests at dockside or even on inspection within the
plant is not considered to be practical in the normal routine of inspection of
fresh ard frozen fish products as almost all of the coject Ive tests require
laboratories am so becare rather rerooved fran the busy fisherman processor
or factory foreman A nuch simpler piece of apparatus is the eye or the N)Se
(olley 1977) Sensory tests are always controversial as they require an
inspector although the canny buyer is in fact applying his senses of smell
am visual acuity in a similar fashion W9 accept the wine faster and wcxgtl
classer so why not the fish grader (Bremner 1984) Therefore a test that
correlated well with freshnessquality and that could operate on the market or
in the factory would be of considerable value to an efficient industry (Baines
et aI 1965)
Howgate (1978) also considered the sensory rrethods to be far better than
non-sensory methods which are not suitable for consumer testing whilst
Connell (1972) states that in general the sensory rrethod of assessing
freshness is the best at present for quality control purposes
As fish spoils its snell taste appearance and feel go through
characteristic am well defined stages that trained experts or experienced
staff can consistently recognise It is convenient to attach a number or
score to each stage so that the assessor can award the appropriate score to
each fish or batch of fish Alternatively the mere recognition of each stage
ard acceptance or rejection of fish on this basis may be all that is
necessary Different species and products spoil in different ways The
numerical system us irq an objective panel developed at the Ibrry IEsearch
Station by Shewan et al (1953) is probably the ultUnate critical evaluation of
fish freshness available at this time It was created for the determination
of storage time of whole Net fish l6Jenstein and Iegenstein (1981) in using
11
this nunerical system reported that the cooked freshness scores are generally
higher (better) than expected at that storage t irre for whole wet fish A
freshness score of 55 on the Ibrry scale seemed the appropriate endpoint for
their definition of shelf-life This would nonnally be reached with ideal
iced-at-sea fish about twelve days from catch sooner for fillets Freshness
scorirq systems are I1C1laquo available fran Ibrry Research station for most UK
ccmnercial species and systems are available for both the raw and cooked
fish HoweveF there is still no standard scorirq system to be used
internationally he countries in the EEC ~or instance use scoring systems
which differ both in scale length am in characteristics measured Most
systems use the same scale length for all features examined but the United
Kingdon am Icelarrl use scales of 10 to 0 for odour and 5 to 0 for other
characteristics ibwgate (1972) describes the effort to construct a rorogram
for oonvert inq fran one scorinq system to another (Appendix 1) de Zylva
(1974) expanded the Ibrry score sheet to include marks for flesh colour and
texture belly flap discoloration stainiBJ of backbone am colour of
kidney he scoring system was designed for ~w Zealand snapper and gave
excellent negative linear correlations between score am days of storage
legenstein (1983) presents the way in which Ibrry has in turn incorporated
other characteristics into the score sheet for raw fish Groupings of several
characteristics to give a score requires more expertise than scoring
individual points as is done by de Zylva
However the use of a point or scoring system in which higher points are
given for high quality attributes would mean the requirements of more
kllC7filedge of the fish and the tester mist be experienced and knCM the
qualities of the fish previously Therefore it is too species dependent
his problem can be overcare by using the demerit system with points being
allotted in several categories for defects as they becare obvious and one can
I
12
learn as one goes along in each situation he demerit points that were given
to the various selected quality attributes could be weighted in such a way as
to produce an approximately linear change in score with storage time (Branch
and Vail 1985)
It might also be desirable OCIlInercially to specify a uniform mrnber of
days of shelf-life fran the pack date to consumption he length of shelfshy
life ctgttained for fish depends on the initial age and quality of the fish the
tirre of the pack am the time am temperature of storage before am after
packing In practical terns the ultimate measure of the effect(s) of shelf-
life extension treatments on the final quality of the fish is consumer
satisfaction (Regenstein aoo Regenstein 1981)
A tentative grading systan for fresh fish based on sensory assessment of
fish had been described by IbUwing (1972)
160 The Ideal Method
Forty years of research ootably in the UK Canada and Japan have gone
into objective methods for measuring fish quality (Bremner et al 1978)
There is as yet 00 single universal test for all species nor for that
matter any wholly satisfactory test for individual species
The ideal rrethod hOlJld be one that is cheap oon-destructive easy to
use oot subject to much variation or fatigue having rapid response and wide
application sensory tests have the advantages of being non-destructive 00
equipnent required adaptable to species and assessing the market value
Althcogh sensory tests are usually condemned as a subjective test which
requires training am experience am are also said to be easily open to
abuse this can be reduced if a simple rapid and less descriptive rrethod
could be fourd - possibly with the use of demerit point scores Therefore
this study aims at assessing the use of sensory techniques based on the
13
demerit point scores developed for raw whole (gutted and ungutted) and
filleted fish samples of Australian fish species stored in ice and RSW It
also discusses the results of the acceptability taste panels on the cooked
fish samples
The two oammercially ~rtant Australian fish species used in this study
were the blue grenadier am the blue rock whiting he blue grenadier is
currently Tasmanias major oammercial finfish and the recent annual production
of the fishery exceeds 100 tonnes (Last et aI 1983)~ he blue rock whiti~
is the only Australian member of the family that has any commercial
importance It occurs mainly in Bass strait and the sheltered bays of South
eastern Tasmania The flesh is delicately flavoured but very soft
200 MATERIALS lIND MEIHgt[s
210 Sample preparation
211 Fish stored in RSW
Blue grenadier used in this study were caught on the 15th lugust 1984 at
a depth of 300 fathans off Sandy Cape on the west coast of Tasmania (Lat
41deg20S IDrq144deg40 E) by demersal trawl They were taken fran the deck
irnnediately am dropped into a refrigerated seawater (RSW) tank in a net bag
(tanp -1degC) The fish was reported to be handled quite roughly on board
Sore of the fish had already gone into rigor at this stage he fish were
transported to the CnID lasrnanian Food lesearch Uni t (TFRJ) laboratories in
Hobart and were already to days old on arrival The f ish were then placed in
the RSW box tank of the rrobile unit (the design and construction of which were
described by Thrower and Stafford 1981) and was kept at -1degC for the duration
of the storage trial which lasted for about three weeks Four fish were
rerroved at each samplirq tine (Table 1) for sensory assessment Length
14
measurements to the fork of the tail were also noted ~e fish were then
filleted and samples frozen at -lBoe for later assessment of their
acceptability by taste panel
212 Fish stored in ice
For the sensory assessment of fish stored in ice guidelines similar to
those given by Lima dos Santos et al (981) were used ~e blue rock whiting
also known as the weedy whiting was used ~e whiting were caught on the
afternoon of 23rd August 1984 by demersal trawl in 18 to 25 m waters oft
Eastern Tasmania On arrival at the TFRJ laboratories in I-bbart at 11 45 am
on the fol Lowirq day the f ish were re- iced at a ratio of 21 (ice f ish) in
insulated plastic boxes of size 66 x 41 x 28 em with provision for drainage
of melt water Flake ice was used ~e ice was topped up daily and renewed
once a week The boxes of i ced f ish were then kept in a cool roan set at a
temperature of 0deg to -1dege ~ree fish were removed for sensory assessment at
each sampling time (Table 1) over a period of rmre than three weeks of ice
storage 100 fish samples were then frozen at -18dege until needed for the
acceptability taste panel
Table 1
sampling regirre for fish stored in R3Wice
Blue Grenadier Diys in R3W 3 4 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 17 21
Sample code N D G L S R K T U P M 0
Whiting Diys in ice 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Sample code 0 M D G T S N R P U L K
15
220 Sensory assessment of the whole (gutted and ungutted) raw fish samples
Both the blue grenadier stored in lOW and the whi t i nq stored in ice were
progressively assessed by using the sense organs of sight smell and touch tor
changes in general appearance odour and texture with storage tine by giving
the appropriate demeri t scores according to the score sheets as shown in
Tables 2 and 3 IVo types of score sheets were used Table 2 shows the
sensory assessment score sheet orig inally developed for the assessment of
gemfish (Thrower et al 1982) It has been simplified and weighted (Branch
and Vail 1985) to provide accumulated increases in demerit points as the t i sn
change in odour texture and appearance during storage with the max imum
accumulated demerit point scores of 35 for the urx]utted samples and 39 tor tte
gutted samples The total scor irq for gutted fish differs fran that descr ibeo
by Bremner (1984) and Branch and Vail (1985) in that the demerit points for
the belly cavity have been added to those for the whole fish
The whole and gutted raw fish were also assessed by using the freshness
score sheet developed by the Council of the European COl1nunities (Official
Journal of the European Qmnunities 1970) but with slight rrodification marie
in its scor irq method in that the scor irq was reversed to provide accumulateri
increases in demerit points as in the TFRJ score sheet (Table 2) with a
maximun accumulated demerit score of 30 (Table 3) The samples were scored by
H Abd R who had had no previous experience with the score sheet
230 Sensory Assessment of the frozen filleted raw fish samples
Samples of the whole and gutted fish of both species were then filleted
ard frozen at -18degC until required for the organoleptic acceptability test
panel fillets were thawed by holding for about 16 hours (overnight) in still
air at 4degC The thawed fillets of both the blue grenadier and whi t i nq were
then assessed by the sense organs of sight smell and touch by using the scor-e
sheet for filleted sample as shown in Table 4 nle score sheet was developed
16
able 1
FIlt U Snorr bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullnt oore hbullbull t ( ( 1Ii~ ANI) tlNtJuTreo)
1_middotAnlJ lmiddot
rlSB IDDII
UIUIl~ (VBci9ht~i9ht8lDullDUll
o 1 2 3
SitU ( rimSoft) o 1
SCALBS (r1mSlLoomiddotmiddotLoobullbull ) o 12
r r SLIMB (AbbullbullntSlSlimiddotysliyVSliy)
o 123
S1IrnraS (pr-Ri90rRi90rPot-Ri90r) o 1 2
BYBS Clarity (ClbullbullrISlCloudyCloudy) 012
Shape (HoralslsunknSunkn) 012
Irill (ViiblHot Viibl) IJ 1
Blood (No BloodSlBloodyVBloody) o 1 2
GILLS Colour (VDark)Charaotritio (SlDark) (vradd)(Slradd)
2o 1 Kucou (AbbullbullntKoderatmiddotBxcbullbullbulliv)
o 1 2 S bullbullll (rrbullbullh 01ly) Pihy8talpoll~
(MetalliaSaved) 1 2 3
BELLI Dicoloration (AbbullbullntDetatablmiddotModratmiddotBxobullbullbulliy) 012 3
Finanbullbullbull ( rira80ftBurt) o 1 2
VENT Condition (bobullbulldy)Noraal (SlBrbullbullk) (Opening)(Bxudbullbull )
2o 1 Sbullbulln (rrbullbullhReutralrihy8poilt)
o 2 3
BELLI CAVIn Stain (OpalbullbullontGryihlmiddotllow-Brown) o 1 2
Blood (RdDark RdBrown)
o 1 z
--
17
UJE 3
Etc SENSORY A$fE4St4fN[ ~(oIlL~
SCALE OF MARKING - FRESHNESS
CRITERIA shypoundu1LRt
Abullbullbullbullbullment Mara-bull thc r1ah 0 1 2- 3tszhL
AppearanceinIIMlISJ Skin
Eye
Gill
Flbullbullshycut f ssm abdomusn
Colour the~
vertebral column
Organs
Oright iridescent I bright pigmenta- pigmentation in (1) dull pigmenta tion no i tion but not the process of pigmentation discolouration Ius trous becoming dis-
mucus opaquemucus aqueous i coloured and dull
mucus slightlytransparen t
cloudy ~UCU9 milky
convex (bulging) convex and flat (1) concave in cornea tran- slightly sunken cornea the centre parent cornea Ughtly opalescent cornea milky pupil black opalescent pupil pupil grey bright
pupil black opaque dull
-shining colour less coloured becoming dis- (1) yellmiish no mucus a few traces of coloured mucus milky
cloar mucus mucus opaque
blueish trans- dull velvety slightly opaque (1) opaque lucid smooth waxy shining without any change in the colour sUgh tly original colour changed
(I) reduncoloured sl1 gh tly pink pink
kidneys and kidneys and kidneys (1) kidneys residues of resJdues of resicJuos of r bullbullidue of other other organs other organs other organs organs and blood bright red the dull red blood and blood brownish game as the becoming palo red blood inside discolbured the aorta
(1) or in a more advanced bull ta te of decay
I
bull
Flesh
Vertebtal Column
Peritonium
Gills kin abdominal cavity
18
(eontd)
SCALE OF MARKING - FRESHNESS
CRITERIA
Assessment Mark 0 1 2
Physical eOId ton
firm and elas tic surface smooth
breaks ins tead of coming away
totally adherent to the flesh
seaweed
less elastic
adherent
adherent
Smell bull
not of seaweed but not bad
slightly soft (flaccid) Ie elastic surfacente waxy velvety and dull
slightly adherent
slightly adherent
slightly sour
3
(1) soft (flaccid) scales ebullbullil y detached from skin sur face ra ther wrinkled inclining to mealy
(1) not dherent
1( ) not adherent
(1) sour
(1) or in a more advanced stat of decay
_ shy-- -
19
Table 4
Filleted Sample Score Sheet
r
TREATMENT F ILIEIS DATE REMOJAL (THAWED)
FISH IDENr
EASE OF FILLETING (Easysl difficultdifficult)
012
APPEARANCE (a) Oolour of flesh (TranslucentSl discolouredSl opaqueopaque)
o 1 2 3
(b) Blood stains (AbsentDetectableModerateExcessive)
012 3
(c) Clotting (UnclottedSlclottedModclottedExcessclotted)
012 3
(d) Skin Oolour (VbrightBrightSldullOU11)
o 1 2 3
TEXTURE FirmS1 softSoft
o 1 2
ClDClJR (FreshNeutralStaleSpoilt)
012 3
CONJITION (a) Gaping (AbsentDetectableModerateExcessive)
o 1 2 3
(b) Bruising (AbsentSlightSevere)
012
(c) Wetness (NmnalS1 dry orMod dry orExcess dryness or
SldripModdrip Freezer bJrn or Excessdrip
012 3
(d) Autolysis (Absentmoderatesevere) (Disco1ourations) 0 1 2
(e) Parasites (Absentmoderatesevere) ( Infestations) 0 1 2
(f) Other discolourations (Absentpresent) or contaminants (bones membranes tissues etc) 0 1
EASE OF SKINNING (EasySldifficultdifficult)
012
20
by the author after a literature search and observations made during the preshy
liminary part of the study It has a maxUnum accumulated demerit score of 34
240 ~anoleptic Acceptability Panel of the cooked fish
Filleted samples of both fish species which had been frozen in a cold
roan at -18dege and then thawed as above were used for the acceptability taste
panels The fillets were skinned am cut into 30 to 40 g pieces crumbed and
deep fried (Bremner et ale 1985) Three or four treatments were cooked
simultaneously at each session am the fish served with packets of take-away
french fries Tcrnato sauce vinegar and salt were available Each of the
samples were randanised in such a way so as to give a high degree of balance
(Table 5 and 6) Letters that represent the samples were also picked
randanly The fish was assessed by 20 panellists employed at the Tasmanian
lEgional Laboratory and experienced with facial hedonic scaling for flavour
texture am overall acceptability using the General Foods Smiley scale
(Appendix 2) Salt was rot rrentioned with the 9niley questionaire for blue
grenadier so that the panel should have ro preconceiVed prejudices
250 Statistics
tata fran the sensory assessment of the whole gutted and ungutted raw
fish (both TFRJ am EEl score sheets) am fran the sensory assessrrent of the
frozen filleted raw fish samples of both the blue grenadier stored in RSW am
whiting stored in ice were analysed for correlation using the ELF scatter
module (Appendix 3 and 4)
The acceptability taste panel assessment scores for flavour texture and
overall liking of the toKgt species of fish were subjected to analysis of
variance using the Genstat package (Appendix 5 and 6)
22
Table 6
Order of presentation of cooked whiting samples to the acceptability taste panelists
Order of presentation of samples Panelist
session I session II
1 OTP rm 2 MUS KR 3 sm INL
4 IKJ GKR
5 ror NK
6shy USM UN ~
7 OOP RLD
B HUT NKD
9 USO RiL
10 SMP LGN
11 IMT GIltN
12 nxgt KRD
Note
8angtle code OM 0 G T S N R P U L K
storage time in ice (days) 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
23
300 RESULIS
310 Physical Characteristic of M novaeaelandiae
rran the forty-six fish examined the mean fork lerqth was found to be
762 an (range 609 to 838 an) A few of the fish examined had well shy
developed roes and their digestive tracts were found to be relatively empty
320 Physical Characteristics of the H ssmifasoiata
rran a total of thirty-six fish examined the rrean weight of the fish was
fourrl to be 662 g (range 27 to 186 g) am the mean fork length was 183 em
(range 156 to 265 an)
330 sensory assessment of the raw blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
he results of the sensory assessrrent of the r2M blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW by the four rrerhods of scoring are given as average total
accumulated demerit point scores as shown in Table 7 Figure 1 shoes the
graph of demerit point versus days in RSW by the four rrethods of sensory
assessment used Table 9 shltJtS the correlation analysis
340 sensory assessment of the raw whitirq samples stored in ice
he results of the sensory assessment of the r2M whitirq samples stored
in ice by the four methods of scoring are given as average total accumuLated
demerit point scores as shown in Table 8 Figure 2 shltJtS the graph of demerit
point versus days in ice of the four nethods of sensory assessment used Table
9 shltJtS the correlation analysis
350 Attributes contributing to total score
Attributes that contribute to total score usirq the TFRJ scores (ungutted
and gutted) EEC scores and the filleted sample scores are as shewn in Tables
10 - 14
24
Table 7
Total demerit points fran sensory assessment of blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
Average lbta1 Demerit Rgtint SCores
[)lye in RW TFRJ scores TFRJ scores EEl scores Filleted Sample (urvJut t ed ) (gutted) (gutted) SCores
3 3 3 1 1
4 5 5 2 3
6 10 10 6 6
8 16 18 9 8
9 19 21 11 10
10 20 22 13 12
11shy 22 24 15 14
12 23 25 18 17
13 24 26 19 18
14 25 27 19 19
17 29 31 21 23
21 33 35 25 29
Note
Maximum possible scores for (1) IlRJ scores (ungutted is 35
( 11) IlRJ scores (gutted) is 29
( 11i) EEX scores (gutted) is 30
( iv) Filleted sample scores is 32
amptV
35j
3l~
en Ishy 25Z-0 Q
3)-~
bullbullbull 0
bull 0 0bull 0
bull 0 0 6shy abull A ~
~
bull 0
~
6shy
bull 0
6shy
I) 01
-W 0i A15W ~ Q A
~
6shy~101- bull 90 TFRU SCORES (ungutted)
6shy~ bullbull TFRU SCORES (gutt~d i
bull ~
4 6- 6- EEC SCORES 5~
~ ~ FILLETED SAMPLE SCORES ~
6 4 I J I I I
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
DAYS IN RSW
Figl Demerit Points Versus Days in RSW For Blue Grenadier Samples
Fig 2 Demerit Points Versus Days in ice For Whiting Samples I
27
Table 8
TOtal demerit points from sensory assessment of whi tirq samples stored in ice
Average TOtal Demerit Foint SCores
rays in ice TFRJ scores TFRJ scores EEC scores Fi 11eted sample (urqutted) (gutted) (gutted) (gutted)
1 1 1 0 0 3 2 2 1 1
5 4 4 2 3
7 7 9 3 4
9 13 15 6 9
n 15 17 7 13
13 19 21 11 15
15 24 27 15 16
17 29 32 19 18
19 31 35 22 21
21 32 36 24 24
23 33 37 26 26
Note
MaXllnum possible scores for (i) TFRJ scores (urqutted) is 35 ( ii) TFRJ scores (gutted) is 39 ( iii) EEC scores (gutted) is 30 ( iv) Filleted sample scores is 32
28
Table 9
Relationship between tLme and demerit points for fish stored in RSW
Method of Visual Assessment
y- intercept slope correlation
M novaBMBlandias
TFRJ (urqutted ~les) 032 175 097
TFRJ (gutted samples) 032 190 096
EEl -231 146 097
Filleted samplesbull
-357 158 099
H sBmifasoiata
TFRJ (urqutted samples) -245 167 099
TFRJ (gutted samples) -273 187 099
EOC -414 129 098
Filleted samples -244 125 099
ltshy
--------------- ------------------------------------------
------------- - ------------- -------- ------
Table 10
Attributes contributing to total score using TFRO scores (gutted and ungutted)
Attributes involved in score change Score
Blue grenadier in RSW Whiting in ice
Stiffness Eyes - clarity blood Slllne Stiffness Eyes - clarity shape and blood lt10 Gills - smell Vent - smell SlBne Gills - colour smell and mucous
Vent - smell Belly cavity - stains and blood
Appearance Eyes-shape Stiffness Gills - smell colour and mucous Skin
Stiffness appearance gill-smell Scales belly-discolouration and firmness
N so
gt10lt20 SCales belly - discolouration and firmness Vent - smell Vent - smell and condition Belly cavity - stains and blood
Appearance Slllne Eyes - clarity shape Appearance SlBne Scales Skin blood and iris Gills - colour Eyes - clarity and shape
gt20lt30 Belly - discolouration Gills - mucous smell am colour Vent - condi tion and smell Belly cavity shy blood
Appearance Gills - mucous and smell SlBne Eyes - iris am blood Belly - discolouration and firmness Belly - discolouration and firmness
gt30 Vent - condition and smell Vent - condition Belly cavity - blood Belly cavity - stains
Table 11
Attributes contribut irq to total score us irq EEC scores
Attributes involved in score change
Score Blue grenadier in RSW W1iting in ice
lt7 Appearance - skin eyes gills organs Physical condition - flesh Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and organs Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skins eyes gills flesh Appearance-eyes and organs atv
vertebral column and organs Physical condition-flesh and peritoneum gt7lt14 Physical condition - flesh Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-eyes flesh and vertebral Appearance-skin gills and organs column Physical condition-flesh vertebral column
gt14lt21 Physical condition-vertebal column and and peritoneum peritoneum Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and vertebral column vertebral column
gt21 Physical condition-flesh and peritoneum Physical cOndition-flesh vertebral column Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity and peri toneum bull
Table 12
Attributes contributing to total score using filleted sample scores
Score
lt5
Attributes involved in score change
Blue grenadier in RSW
Appearance - blood stains skin colour ltXIour - flesh
M1iting in ice
----- shy -------------- shy
Appearance - skin colour odour - flesh Cbndition - gaping wetness
Appearance - colour of flesh Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Texture - flesh skin colour ltgt gt5lt10 Cbndition - gaping bruising wetness Ease of filleting
Texture - flesh
Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Appearance - colour of flesh clotting skin clotting skin colour skin colour
gt10lt20 odour - flesh odour - flesh Cbndition - gaping wetness autolysis COndition - gaping bruising wetness other discolourations autolysis and other discolouration Ease of skinning
Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains skin colour clotting
gt20 Texture - flesh Texture - flesh odour - flesh Odour shy flesh COndition - gaping bruising wetness Cbndition - wetness autolysis autolysis Ease of skinring
32
Table 13
Diff~rent emphasis in scoring systems for whole fish as between the EEl and TFID
Attribute Number of potential demerit points TFRJ EEl
1Ippearance (general) 3 0
skin ) scales 6 3
slime
Stiffness (Rigor) 2 0
Eyes 7 3
Gills 7 6
Belly 5 0
Vent 5 0
Belly cavity 4 3
Flesh cut fram abdomen 0 3
Flesh texture 0 3
Vertebral column 0 6
Internal organs 0 3
33
360 Relative merits of the scoring systems
The four scor irq methcds were used on the same samples of t ish Any
sample had therefore deteriorated to the same extent on anyone day Figs 3
am 4 shew the scores converted to percentages of possible deroorit point
scores The discrepancy in the accumulation of demerit points between the EEC
am TFRJ scor irq methods is clearly shown IEference to Table 2 3 am 13
shOool that this is caused by the lack of questions regarding rigor looseness
of scales condition of belly am vent am the qroupinq of colour am mucous
in the gills as single po i nts thus halving the potent Ia I gill demerit point
score canparison of the tO species in Table 9 ShONS that the rate of
accumulation of demerit pgtints was more consistent for the TFRU system than by
the EEX scor i oq methltXl or by scorinq of fillets
370 Time taken to score the fish
The average time taken to score an individual fish using the TFPlJ
(unqutted) scores TFRJ (gutted) scores EEX scores am the filleted aamp Le
scores were found to be 1 min 25 sec 1 min 55 sec 3 min 45 sec and 1 min 50
sec respectively The EEX score sheet is more t iroe consumioq in that more than
one question is asked about an attribute for the giving of only one demerit
point this requires conscious thought
380 Acceptability taste panel results of blue grenadier samples bull Figures 5 6 am 7 shOool the mean taste panel scores in graphic form for
flavour texture and overall acceptability of cooked blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW table 14 shows the results of the statistical analysis
390 Acceptability taste panel results of whiting samples
Figures 8 9 am 10 shOool the mean taste panel scores in graphic form for
flavour texture and overall acceptability of cooked whiting samples stored in
ice table 15 shows the results of the statistical analysis
WHITING STORED IN ICE o TFRU SCORES (ungutted)
bull TFRU SCORES (gutted)
b EEC SCORES
FILLETED SAMPLE SCORES
100bull e ~ e b
i 6
bull NW
oIJ-a A A-
(J0 t A~ 0 ~ AC)
C) -e ~~-
C) a 50 A
A w
Iz ~
~ - W e A0 c a ~ ~ A-a ~ l ~ A
w -~
~ X ~ W -e I c ~ ~ ibull I I I I
4 8 12 16 20 24
DAYS IN ICE FIG4
36
- flavourshy
-e s-e l ~ v
5middotIU
STORAGrf IN R sWDAYS
rlCoS Ttutfc pcr1 rcbull
rf oj bl jtlJ~r - jlqVGurc acccr~b
21179 0 2 136 843
~ 0 u 5middot0YI
oJ J l ofmiddot$ 1 e
tu 4middot0
VI
~ 3middot5
3middot0
TelC-lue X bull -e III
~ Gmiddotftv
ct 5middot03
V1
-J -f-SshyU 2
~ 40 t
3-~
~ bullbull0 5 0
~ 17 21A ISII
PAY- IITDRAGamp fbilW
FIG6 I Tq1-c pltnd rc-utl ojbllfcJrcftaJIr bull I~M144 Q Cc(r~blfly
r 411q~~ An~Plf bUIJlfM F llh J~Lld Pt-DoL B fpound)1
gt1 NI ~~eusr SJAVlt1
D ~II
(ffIt1~JP IIID bull U J 1i
-IyoJC )-tlICf p --lInraquoJ Ix-Pc ~1rb1 r I ef
Ma2j NI a~v2loJ$
til
1Ia ~AO (IIp~lJa~e
01
secto
00
s
05
5
o~
~
0pound
s
0
smiddot
o~
07
1 ~ ~ ~ ~
r~
B
~
rv t gtshy 2
~ ~ 11
~ 7shyIn r
~ () 0 1) m ~
~ gtshyz -
(fII~q~~ 7~ P
IItJ1o -~~f(ll p ~I I~U J ~t~L 0 ~ middot~II I
IDI 8~ middot lta ~
~ QS
middotS ~ ~ 0 z
r Smiddot II
S 1d 0-$ 111 r- l gtshy r
V fr~
~llCf-J a-PcJ~ U~middotJO
4lp~dmiddotyIb 6middot~1f np)t -~11M fo --IIhen IJutJel ~bl
Table 14
Acceptability of deep fried blue grenadier samples stored in FSW
rays in R3W
Acceptability 3 4 6 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 17 21
Flavour 50a 50a 4S a 51a 50a 51a 50a 4Sa 49a 53a 41b 35b
Texture 49bc 51abc 4S bed 52ab 4Sbed 53ab 52abc 52ab 4Sbed 55a 46cd 43d
OJerall 50ab 51ab 47be 52ab 4Sb 5lab 52ab 50ab 47b 54 a 41c 35d
abc
d
significantly different (pltOOOl)
significantly different (pltOOl) W so
Table 15
Acceptability of deep fried whiting samples stored in ice
rays in ice
Acceptability 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Flavour 5Sab 59a 59a 60a 59a 5S ab 51b 54ab 53ab 37c 37c 31c
Texture 59ab 59a 53bed 5S ab 63a 59ab 47cde 54be 56ab 55ab 44e 46de
OJera11 57ab 5S ab 59ab 60a 60a 5Sab 52b 53ab 55ab 42c 36cd 31d
abcde significantly different (Plt0001)
40
~oo DISCUSSION
410 Sensory assessment of the raw blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
he results of sensory assessment on the raw blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW by the four methods of scoring all sheM that there is
progressive increment in total demerit points with storage time for all the
four methods (Table 7) It was also fourxi that the accumulation of demerit
points with time of storage of the fish in ffiW occurred in a saui-linear
fashion for all -the four scoring methods used (Figure 1) he variables (time
of storage and demeritmiddot points score) were all highly correlated (Table 9)
he correlation equation of the TFRJ (ungutted samples) and TFRJ (gutted
sanples) scores were similar roth having a zero time intercept of 032 but
with the TFRJ (gutted samples) scores having a slightly greater slope by 015
he EEC scores and the filleted sample scores roth have lower slopes ie
146 and 158 respectively canpared with the TFRJ (ungutted sample) and TFRJ
(gutted sample) scores of 175 and 190 respectively lbwever the EOC scores
which have the lowest slope have a fairly similar correlation equation with
the filleted sample scores (Table 9) he negative intercepts reflected the
slightly more sigrroid relationship for these samples his suggests that the
TFRJ (gutted) scoring method is the rrost sensitive of the four methods
followed by the TFRJ (ungutted) the filleted sample and the EEC scores
It was also found that after 21 days of storage in RSW the blue
grenadier samples had not reached their maximun possible scores in any of the
four scoring rrethods used (Table 7) he TFRJ (ungutted sample) score only
reached 943 of its possible maximun value whereas the TFRJ (gutted sample)
scores EEC scores and the filleted sample score reached only 897 833 ar~
906 of their possible maximun score his means that all the four methods
of scoring can still be sensitive to changes in the quality of the blue
grenadier samples stored in RSW after 21 days of storage time
41
Figures 1 and 3 also shOVt that the pattern of the graphs of demerit
points against days storage in R3W of the four methcxis of scoring is similar
ie a tendency to be slightly sigmoid fbwever the filleted sanple scores
sean to be rrore sensitive than the EOC scores at the later part of the storage
time ie after 14 days of storage and the scores continued to rise
1be rrost obvious indicator of change for the blue grenadier stored in ffiW
using the TFRJ scores (both gutted and unJUtted sanples) was the eyes (clarity
and blood) followed by odour developnent of the gills (Table 10) his is -
also foond to be true wi th the EOC freshness score (Table 11) Fbr the
filleted sample scores the appearance and odoor of the flesh seems to be the
most obvious indicator of change follOVted by the condition of the fillets such
as gaping bruisin) am wetness (Table 12)
4 20 sensory assessment of the raw whi ting samples stored in ice
1he results of sensory assessment on the rCJl whiting samples stored in
ice by the foor roothods of scoring also shows that there is a progressive
increment in total demerit points with storage time for all the four methods
of scoring (Table 8) Ps with the blue grenadier the aCCLD1UJlation of demerit
points with time of storage of the whiting in ice also occurred in a sernishy
linear fashion for all the foor scoring methods used (Figure 2 and 4) wi th a
slight lag in the initial phase Interestingly this was not observed in the
case of blue grenadier sanples stored in ffiW probably because the first
samplin) of the blue grenadier starts only fran the third day after catch
whereas the first sampling of the whiting starts fran the first day after
catch Also the blue grenadier was handled qu i te roughly on the deck in fact
three oot of the four fish samples on the first rerroval ie the third day
after catching had already showed blood in their eyes
Bremner et al (1985) when using the TFRJ score sheet to assess the
42
quality of four tropical fish species fran the oorth west shelf of hJstralia
(stored in ice) also fourrl that the accumulation of demerit points with time
of storage in ice occurred in a linear fashion
PB wi th blue grenadier the variables (tine of storage ard darneri t points
score) were all highly correlated (Table 9) Also the correlation equation of
the TFRJ (ungutted) ard TFRJ (gutted) scores were similar with the TFJU
(gutted) score having a slightly greater slope by 020 Crable 9) he EEC
scores am filleted sample scores also have lower s lopes l e 129 ard 125
respectively ocmpared to the TFm (ungutted) and (gutted) scores of 167 and
187 respectively However unlike the blue grenadier the filleted samples
of the whi t ing had the 10liest slope he more sensi tive na ture of the EEC
scores as canpared to the filleted sample scores in the case of the whiting
especially after 12 days storage in ice can be explained by the snaller size
of the whitirlJ (fork length ranging fran 156 to 265 an) as canpared to the
size of the blue grenadier (fork length ranging 809 to 838 an) the snaller
fish terrl to spoil faster especially the interior parts of the fish PB the
EEC scores depend nuch on the sensory assessment of the interior parts of the
fish such as the appearance and condition of the flesh vertebral colwnn
interior organs per i toneun and abdaninal cavity (Table 3) which makes up more
than 18 demerit points out of the total possible maxinun of 30 the
sensitiveness of its score is thus self-explanatory in the case of whiting
Connell (1980) explained that large fish keep marginally better than small
fish because larger fish have a smaller surface to volume ratio so that in the
same tUne less of their interior is affected
The above results confirmed the previous suggestion that the TFRU
(gutted) scorIoq methcrl is the roost sensitive of the four methods It was
found that after 23 days of storage in ice the whiting scmples had not
reached the maximun possible scores in any of the four methods used (Table
43
8) The 1FIU (UBJutted) scores had reached only 94-3 of its possible maximum
value whereas the TFRJ (gutted) scores EOC scores am the filleted sample
scores reached only 94 9 867 and 81 3 of their poea Ible maximum score
Therefore all the four methods of scoriBJ can still be sensitive to changes
in quality of the whiting samples stored in ice after 23 days of storage tUne
Ihe roost obvious irxHcator of chaDJe for the whiting stored in ice using
the TFIU score sheet was the eyes (clarity shape and blcxxl) followed by the
develqxnent of -colour odour and nucous of the gills (fable 10) Bremner et
al (1985) when working with four tropical species f~ the north west shelf of
Australia also found that the most obvious indicator of change for fish stored
in ice was the eyes (their clarity am shape) follCAtled by odour developnent
and colour changes in the gills This was also found in the case of blue
grenadier in ~ discussed earlier OJrran et al (1981) when investigating
the quality changes duriBJ iced storage of three carmercially important
species of fish fran Bahrein also found that of the visual and olfactory
assessments gill odour showed the roost pranise as a quality control index
Pgain this is also found to be true with the EOC freshness score of both the
blue grenadier and the whitiBJ (Table 11) AccordiBJ to ~ate (1972) it
was generally agreed that odour of the gills is the most sensitive measure of
freshness but the visual appearance of the eyes gills arxi skin was quicker to
use in practice on the market
For the filleted sample scores of the whiting the most obvious indicator
of chanqe was the appearance and odour of the flesh (Table 12) This too
agreed with the findiBJs for blue grenadier stored in ffiW
AccordiBJ to Baines et al (1969) with fish eatiBJ is related to four
main attributes or quality factors viz appearance odour and texture of the
rCM and cooked fish and in the latter also flavour he ultimate purpose of
testing the raw fish is to estimate the eating quality which is here taken to
44
mean the degree of freshness of flavour Acoording to Baines and Shewan
(1965) the mostreliable test for predicting flavour sqore is raw odour
430 The ease aM difficulties of using the four methods of scoring
It was found that the TFRJ (ungutted) scores was the easiest and quickest
method to use as it takes on average only about 1 min 25 sec to score a fish
canpared to 1 min 55 sec 3 min 45 sec ard 1 min 50 sec for the TFRJ
(gutted) EOC and the filleted sample scores he E~ score was found to be
the roost tedious besides taking the longest time to soore a fish
he TFIU (ungutted) scores also have the advantage of not requiring a
knife in order to score ard also were less IOOSSY to work with canpared to all
the other nethods Also the attributes to be assessed were arranged and
organised in such a way in the score sheet that it is easy to score a fish
starting from assessing the apparance and skin and ending with the condition
and smell of the vent
440 Acceptability taste panel results of the blue grenadier samples
441 Flavour acceptability
Figure 5 shc7ws the flavour acceptability of the deep fried samples of
blue grenadier Samples stored in R3W for less than 17 days were found
statistically (Table 14) to be indistinguishable (Plt0001) fran each other
then there was a significant fall in the flavour acceptability of the samples
stored in RSW for 17 days onwards he sarrtgtle stored for 21 days had a still
lower mean value of 35 but it was not significantly different fran the
semple stored for 17 days which had a nean value of 41 It is interesting to
note that despite the progressive increase in sodiun uptake of the blue
grenadier samples stored in RSW from about 7115 35 mg sodium(lOO g tissue
initially to 724 33 mglOO g tissue on the 16th day aM to 729 17 mglOO g
45
tissue on the 21st day (Burford 1984) the panelists seem not to be
negatively affected by the increasing salt content of the samples with storage
tUne and in fact some of the panelists added more salt to their samples I
111is result contradicts statements made by previous reseachers that the
storage life using R3W may be limited by increases in salt content in the fish
flesh (Boyd et aI 1978) he maximun desirable salt content according to
Tcm1inson et al (1974) as quoted by Boyd et al (1978) is about 05 but at
the 16th day ofmiddot RgtW storage the salt content fOllNj In the flesh of blue
grenadier samples was already more than 07 fbwever the panelist only ate
40g pieces it might have been a different case if the fish has been as a
whole meal
442 Texture acceptability
Figure 6 shows the texture acceptability of the deep fried blue grenadier
samples stored in R3W eespf te sane apparent abberant values (such as the
high rrean of 55 for the sample stored for 14 days in RSW) it is obvious that
the texture acceptability showed a significant decreasing trend (pltOOl) from
seventeen days of storage onwards The abberant texture values are possibly
due to the fact that the fish texture might have been masked by the bread
crunbs used to coat the fish samples before deep fryi~ This agrees with the
observations of Bremner et al (1985) wtxgt found that the inherent textural
softness of P piotiue and the tougheni~ on storage of N peroni i detected by
a profile panel usilYJ steamed fillets were no lo~er noticeable when the fish
was deep fried in batter Bremner (1980) also reported that despi te the
softness of the raw flesh the cooked flesh of blue grenadier is reasonably
firm
46
433 OVerall acceptability
The overall acceptability of the deep fried blue grenadier samples stored
in R)W (figure 7) seems to follCM a similar pattern to its flavour
acceptability (figure 5)~ in which a significant fall in overall acceptability
was only observed fran the samples held fran 17 days in RSW onwards (pltO 001)
as shawn in Tablel4
rnus all the above results showed that there was a significant fall in
flavour texture and overall acceptability of blue ~renadier from 17 days of
R)W storage onwards which was found to be equivalent to the accumulated
demerit point scores of 29 of the TFRJ (ungutted) scoresr 31 of the TFRl
(gutted) scoresr 21 of the EOC scores and 23 of the filleted sample
scores Jones (1964) states that the acceptability of a fish is a function of
its suitability for further processing and of its inmediate appearance its
texture its odour and its flavour
450 Acceptability taste panel results of the whiting samples
451 Flavour acceptability
Figure 8 shows the flavour acceptability of the deep fried whiting
samples stored in ice rtle twelve sample times could be analysed individually
since the means if analysed by canbining adjacent sample times to give six
sample groups are in fact the means of the adjacent times if analysed
individually it was found that samples of the first nine renovals i se up to
17 days of storage in ice are more or less indistinguishable (abberant value
at 7th removal) he last three removals ie samples stored in ice for 19
21 and 23 days were found to be of significantly lower flavour acceptability
(p lt 0001) as shawn in Table 5
47
452 Texture acceptability
Except for the abberation at the 7th remgtval i 9 at day 13 of ice
storage there is a significant reduction of texture acceptability at the 21 II
and 23 days of ice storage (p lt0001) as shown by figure 9 and Table5 t
II
I 453 Over~ll acceptability
he overal I acceptability of the whiting sanples stored in ice is very
much similar to its f Lavour acceptability except at day 19 of ice storage
where the ovaral I acceptability shows a higher mean of 42 carpared to the
flavoor acceptability mean of 37 (figure 10 and Table 5) here is however a
significant sudden drop to lOil scores fran the lOth removal ie day 19 of
storage in ice (p lt0001)
hus all the above results for whitifVJ sanples showed that there was a
significant fall in flavCXJr and overall acceptability fram 19 days ice storage
onwards which is equivalent to the accumulated demerit points of 31 of the
TFRJ (unqutted) scores 35 of the TFRJ (gutted) scores 22 of the EEC
scores and 21 of the filleted sample scores he results are interesti~ in
that the oorresponding total accLDnulated demerit points at the time when
significant falls in flavour texture and overall acceptability of the blue
grenadier and whiting samples stored in I5W and ice respectively were quite
similar
500 CONCLUSION
510 Feasibility of using demerit points
Accumulation of demerit points with time of storage of M
in RM and H eemifaeaiatia in ice was found to be highly
occurred in a semi-linear fashion irrespective of the method of
novas8slandiae
correlated and
scori~ used
- _ ~uo_a~_bull--_--I e -Ii --
48
1he slopes of the lines (rate of accumulation of demerit points) and its
relative spoilage rate were found to be similar for the ttoO species provided
the sane method of scoring is employed 1his tends to suggest that the method
is possibly independent of species am methods of storage or at least
applicable to the two species in RSW and ice respectively
TIle TFRJ (ungutted) scores were foum to be the easiest arrl quickest
method to use although the TFRJ (gutted) scores were the roost sensitive 1he
EEX freshness scores were hClgtlever foum to be the JOOSt tedious aod difficult bull I
to use besides taking more than twice the time taken to score a fish ocmpared
to the TFRJ (ungut ted) scores
Although there were slig~t differences between the ttoO species in those
characteristics where changes were first made (Table 10 11 and 12) there is
enough evidence to conclude that the changes in the appearance of the eyes am
the odour developnent of the gills are the JOOSt obvious arrl valuable indicator
of charqe in quality when using the TFIU or the EEl scores while the
appearance am odour of the fish flesh seems to be the JOOSt obvious indicator
when assessing the filleted sample
1he shelf-life of M navaezelandiae stored in RSW was found to be 14 days
(less than 17 days) whilst that of H semifasoiata stored in ice was fourrl to
be 17 days (less than 19 days) beyond which the fish had developed spoilage
characteristics that were disliked by the acceptability taste panel
1he cut-off point at which spoilage of the samples would have rendered
the quality of the fish sample to be unacceptable fran the consumers point of
view ~ld be that equivalent to the accumulated demerit point of gt29 for the
TFRJ (gutted arrl ungutted) scores am gt21 for the EOC and filleted sample
scores
This study thus confinned the potential use of demerit points such as the
TFRJ (ungutted) scores as an easy quick cheap non-destructive and reliable
49
method of sensory assessment of fish quality In fact Branch and Vail (1985)
had studied the possible use of a prototype pocket-sized computer to determine
the condition and shelf-life of temperate and tropical species of fish based
on data that is derived fran the sensory score sheets for the assessment of
fish quality developed at the (SIRgt Division of fbod lEsearch Iasmanian Fbod
Research Unit (TFlU) Hobart
520 RJrpose for which demerit points are to be used
Many scor i oq systerrs are used to predict the nunber of days fish have
been stored on ice and in nore recent years ICETIME (equivalent days on
ice) I ard thus through years of experience the taste panel acceptability of
the fish I
However fish is sold on appearance and a scoring system may be used for
assessirg marketability of whole or gutted fish or fillets or for setting
standards in bulk buying The EEC scoring system is used for example at
fish markets at first point of sale to grade the fish and establish
withdrawal prices A IbrryShewan type system is often used as a purohas i nq
specification from finn to firm
Before a final demerit point system is selected for any COlIOOdity its
ultimate purpose should be established For example the demerit points
chosen for whole fish which nost closely resemble the rate of change of
demerit points for fillets of that species might be the most useful
A linear rate of change of demerit points with time is nose favoured
because it enables prediction of remaining shelf-life ConstJJrer
unacceptability should be at a point where perhaps 75 of the demerit points
have been accrued Further scores would still be available for categories
such as suitable for fish meal D3merit points are not an indication of the
acceptability of fish as eaten where off-odours flavours and fillet
50
tdiscolouration are masked by batters or curries Their correlation with the
iodours flavours off odours aod off flavours of steamed fish are currently ~
~
~being examined by other workers at the Tasmanian ~ Research unit and highly
significant correlations are found Even when fish are subsequently eaten
battered or curried demerit points give a good indication of remaining shelf
life Thus whitiOJ with a Smiley flavour score of 58 after 1 day on ice
has a nlU gutted demerit score of 1 and a high quality life (eaten crumbed
and fried) of a further 16 days while whitiOJ stored for 11 days on ice with
the sane flavour score has a gutted demerit score of 17 and a further shelf
life of 6 days
530 SUggestion for further work
Ib ascertain its potentially wide application as a simple quick and
technically sound methcxi of assessing fish quality many more studies using
other species of fish both temperate and tropical species and in various
storage conditions should be undertaken using a demerit point scorIrq system
such as that developed by the TFlU
The score sheet has proved invaluable when sending individuals untrained
researchers away on distant water fishing trips Ps yet 00 standard
deviations have been detennined using a team of assessors with coded samples
of unknown history This may require a separate group design
The effect of lean fish and fatty fish on the scores should also be
studied because factors such as seasonal variations in biological conditions
Lmproper gutting and washing mechanical damage and filth and changes due to
storage in R3W or shelving may have considerable influence on its shelf-
life Reports such as those of smith et al (1979) clearly showed that in fish
such as the blue whitirlJ (Mioroomesistius poubaeeous there is greater degree
I 51
of seasonal variability than in other gadoid species the overall
acceptability droppirq dramatically once the fish have spawned Fish accepted
for processing for food has to be of a higher standard of quality than fish
accepted for Imredfate sale across the counter to the consumer therefore
there is a need to rreet a minimum score before they could be processed into
food Gradirq is therefore best left to the user sorenson (1971) states
that in establishing limi ts of acceptance an allowance had to be made for
deterioration that would continue to take place during processing and storage
prior to reaching the consimer
The only final criteria of the objectivity of sensory or any other
assessment are results that are reproducible many times which is by definition
a lcnJ-tenn process and in the meantime one requires short-cut indications
that one is headirq in the right direction
Ferhaps a final caution Is necessary as in the YQrds of Ehrenberg and
Shewan (1953) not too much must be expected even the best measuring
instruments occasionally go oot of control
52
60 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baines CR Jones NR am Shewan JM 1965 Technological problems of
measur trq degree of freshness of wet fish and problems of quality
control requirif)J roore knowledge fran fundamental research In he
Technology of fish utilisation ad R Kreuzer Fishi~ News (Books)
p 141
Baines CR and Shewan JM 1965 sensory rrethods for evafuat inq the
quality of white fish Lab practice 14 160-163
Baines CR ltbnnell JoJ Gibson DM lbWgate PF Livi~ston E and
Shewan JM 1969 A taste panel technique for evaluatirq the eati~
quality of frozen cod In Freezi~ and irradiation of fish ad R
Kreuzer Fishi~ News (Books) London p361
Boyd NS and Wilson NDC 1976 A sensory method for evaluatInq the
quality of Snapper (Ch1ysophrys auratus) NZ Journal of Science 19
209-12
Boyd NS Wilson ND and Bjley A 1978 A refrigerated sea water plant
for small boats symposium on fish utilisation technology and
marketi~ in the IPFC region IFFC Proceedi~s 18th session Manila
Philippines FAD Ba~kok p 186-192
Branch AC and Vail AMA 1984 Bri~i~ fish inspection into the
canputer age FltXld Technol Aust 36 in press
Bremner HA Olley J and Ihrower SoJ 1978 CSIIU Iasmanian lEgional
Laboratory OCcasional Paper No4
Bremner HA 1980 Processi~ and freezi~ of the blue grenadier (Maclulonus
novaeselandiae) FltXld Technol Aust 32(8)~ pp 385-393
Bremner J A 1984 QJality - an attitude of mind In he JILlstralian
Fishi~ Industry - today and tanorrow 10-12 July 1984 Launceston
53
Australian MaritUne Cbllege seminar Bapers 224-69
Bremner HA Statham JA am Sykes SJ 1985 Tropical species fran the
north west shelf of Alstralia sensory assessment and acceptability
of fish stored co ice Proceedi~s Sixth session IPR Worki~ Party
on Fish D3chnology and Marketi~ Melbourne 1984 FJID Fish lep 252
supp1
Burford D 1985 Sodiun uptake in MaOlUfOOnUS nooaeselandiae stored in
refrigerated sea water Tasmanian Food Research Unit OCcasional Paper
No9
ltbnnell JJ 1972 OJality control in the fish industry Ibrry Jldvisory
note No 58 IOrty Research Station Aberdeen
ltbnnell JJ 1980 ltbntrol of fish quality Fishi~ ~ws (Books) 2nd ed
Surrey England
OJrran CA Nicolaides L and Al-Alawi ZS 1981 QJality chanqes duri~
iced storage of three carmercially important species of fish fran
Bahrain Trop sci 23(4) 253-268
de Zylva ERA 1974 Effect of fish handli~ at sea on storage quality of
New Zealand Snapper (Chroysophroys aumtus) New Zealand J SCi 17
309-318
Etlira S 1976 A biochemical study on the freshness of fish Bull 1bkai
Reg Fish Res Lab No 88 pp 1-13
Ehrenberg ASC and Shewan JM 1953 he cbjective approach to sensory
tests of food J Sci Food hJric 4 pp 482-489
Herbert RA and Shewan JM 1975 Precursors of the volatile sulphides in
spoili~ North Sea Cod J Sci Food JIlgric 26 1195-1202
lbUwi~ H 1972 Gradi~ of fish in different qualities Institute for
Fishery Products Ijmuiden Unpublished
~ate P 1972 Qrlparison of sensory scor inq systems for raw fish
I 54
Unpubl ished bull ~ ~
~ate P 1978 Measuri~ the quality am acceptability of fish products bull ~
In IPFC Proceedi~s symposiun on fish utilisatial technology and ~
i f~
marketi~ in the IWC region 18th session Manila Ihilippines p
449
fflghes RB and Jones NR 1966 Measurement of hypoxanthine concentrations
in canned herrirg as an index of the freshness of the raw material
with a ocirment oo flavor relations J SCi fOOd middotJlgric 17 434
Jahns FD Howe JL Coduri Jr RJ and Ram Jr AG 1976 A rapid
visual enzyme test to assess fish freshness Food Iechno1 30 (7) 27
Jones NR 1964 ~lems associated with freezi~ very fresh fish
Proceedings Meeting on Fish Iechnology Fish Handling and
Preservation schevenirqen OEC D Paris p 31 bull
Jones NR 1965 Hypoxanthine and other purine containing fractions in fish
muscle as indices of freshness In uthe technology of fish
utilisation ed R Kreuzer Fishi~ rewa (Books) (Drmn p 179
Last PR Scott EOG and Talbot FH 1983 Fishes of Tasmania
Tasmanian Fisheries ~velopnent lUthority lbbart Tasmania pp 238
414
Lima doe santos CAM James D and Ieutscher F 1981 QJidelines for
chilled fish storage experiments FKJ Fish Tech Igt 210
(Dye RM 1954 Ibst rrortem cha~es in the lenses of fish eyes Msessment
of storage tiJm and fish quality J Sci Focx11lgric 5 566-572
Hartin RE Gray RJ H and Pierson MD 1978 QJality assessment of fresh
fish arrl the role of the naturally occurring microflora Focx1
Technol 32 (5) 188
Official Journal of the European oamrnunities No L264 5 ~cember 1970 pp
1-11
bull
55
Technol New Zealand July 1971 pp 31-35
Spinelli J Eklund M and Miyauchi D 1964 Measurement of hypoxanthine
in fish as a method of assessing freshness J Food SCi 29 710
Thrower S oJ am Stafford IA 1981 A roobile unit for ccmparative studies
of chilled storage systems for trawl fish IIF IIR
eatmissions C2 01 02 03 Boston USA 1981-4
Thrower SoJ Bremner HA QJarmby AR Ggtnnan T8 aild Graham KJ
1982 cn-board handlinJ of Q~ish ~ Inportanoeof chillinJ and
gutting Aust Fish 41 (11) 38-41
Tanlinson N bull bull t at 1974 COtparison between refrigerated sea water (with or
without added carbon dioxide) and ice as storage media for fish to be
subsequently frozen Proc IIR C011n 82- 0-3 Tokyo p
waterman J oJ 1982 Qrrposition and QJality of Fish A Dictionary 1brry
Mvisory Note No 87 Torry Research Station Aberdeen
5J
Olley J and letkowsky OA 1973 he role of terrperature function
integration in monitoring of fish spoilage Food Technol New
Zealand 8 (2) 13 15 and 17
Olley J 1977 Iemperature and seafood spoilage In H Proceedings of 1977
SChool for SeafltXld Processorsmiddot ad ~ AF 0 Mello Hawkesbury
Agricultural Oollege p6-2
Olley J 1978 QIality assessment and storage changes In middotCSIRJ Iasmanian bull
leJional Laboratory OCcasional Paper No 4 p 3-1 middot4 Rgenstein J M and ~enstein CE 1981 he shelf-life extension of fesh
fish In Advances in the refrigerated treabnent of fishmiddot
International Institute of Rfrigeration Clmnissions C2 m ra [8
Boston US A 1981-4
leJenstein J 1983 Wlat is fish quality INroFISH Marketing Digest ttgt 6
26-28
Ryder JM 9Jisson OH SCott ON and Fletcher GC 1984 storage of
New Zealand Jack Mackerel ( TmohUMlB notJabullbullbullZandias) in ice
chemical microbiological and sensory assessment J M SCi 49
1453-1456 1477
Shewan JM Macintosh RG rucker CG and Ehrenberg ASC 1953 he
developnent of a numerical ~coring systan for the sensory assessment
of the spoilage of wet white fish stored in ice J SCi Food Jlgric
4 283-298
Smith J GM Hardy R hanson AB Young KW and Parsons E 1979
sane observations 00 the ambient and chill storage of blue whiting
(Mio1om8sistius poutassou) bull In H Advances in Fish SCience and
Technology ad JJ Connell FishinJ News (Books) Surrey England
pp 299-303
SOrensen T 1971 QIality control and fish handling in New zealand Food ~
t c-
o )
~hmiddot r~YiJ lt~
~~f~~ ~
I
Nomooram for comparison of diffGrent scoring systems tor raw T i sn ___ _ J bull )
_U I~ ~Y1 9i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~
I I t I I - _---1------ imiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot __ middot~_ ~ __~_ -_ ~ + ~ _ -~ _ - middotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middot __ G 9 8 7 6 _ 5middot 3
_ - zmmy [ I bull r f II
d _~__ ~ __ _ ~ __ -I-- - ~ L- i~ middoti~ ~ 1-L -~~ lt lt l~tceland 1P i ~ ~ j ~ ~ ~ L~ __ - I ~_ bull _ L j ~- _-
N rv 1 I 1 2 --- - 2~ 3 middot 3middot 4 ~- ~Il ay ~ _ _ middot _ r r
_ _ __ _ _~ ~_ ) - ~ L_ - 1- ~-_ -_ _ _ ~ 19 ~ 8 imiddotmiddot I 6 5 4 3
Do _ _nm~r t I I I r
~ I
_ ~ ~_ ~ t ~ __ i__ t ~ ~ ~ ~ _ q x 1 1i 2 2~ 3v _ Franee I r I l n
I I I i _ - ~ _ _ _- _-- middotmiddot __ middot_middot_middot_middotmiddotmiddotImiddotmiddotmiddot_middot~ _middotmiddotmiddotmiddot-_middotmiddotmiddotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddot ---- - --~ ~-
19oum8 I 7 6 i 5 ~ ~ 4middot 280 J t (
I i
J -- - -_ -__ X ~middotH i__~ -- i_L ~ - l_ middot1-- - 3 I 2Y1 0 4 11z 1 y
E E C I 1
I I I deg deg E I A r Bmiddot - I I C
ltOIl j- ~ ~ c ~--------------
TASTER
DATE
SESSION
~ER middot1
bull You will be given ~bull aamples of cooked fish Please assess the fish for flavour textur~ and
overall liking as though you had purchased them in a takeaway food shop Hark the sample
identification under the face that most closely describes your impressionbull
I
middot5 S shy2 3 4
FLAVOUR
IEXlURE
--
OVERALL UKING
7 bullbull yc ) I _ v J _ _
I1PP~NJIJ( 3 ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE BGRENVZSASS (A)
OBS DAYS-R DMPTS shy
1 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 6 4 3 7 4 6 e 4 5 9 6 1 18 6 10 11 6 18 12 6 18 13 e 13 14 8 16 13 8 13 16 8 17 17 9 18 18 9 18 19 9 bull 19 29 9 19 21 19 19 22 1 21 23 1 19 24 1 2123 11 21 26 11 22 27 11 22 29 11 22 29 12 22 3 12 22 31 12 23 32 12 23 33 13 23 34 13 23 33 13 22 36 13 23 37 14 24 38 14 23 39 14 264 14 25
17 26~ 17 39 43 17 38 44 17 29 43 21 32 46 21 33
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASS(At
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (Xt DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Yt DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9666 R SQUARED 9343 T STATISTIC 231621 INTERCEPT tAt 31799 SLOPE tSt 173399 bull STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 219473
OBSERVATIONS 46 Y DMPT9 XI DAYS-RSW YMIN -18 YMAX 61 YINC e XMIN -19 XMAX 2e9 XINe 2
] y
__ t=- I I 0(I I
JPRH6ELF PRINT MODULE -SYNTAX ERROR
DATABASE J3lGRENVISASS (FIL)
OB8 DAYS-R DMPT8
1 s 1 2 4 5 s 6 6
~ e 8 ~ 9 1 6 19 12 7 11 14 8 12 17 9 13 18 1 14 19 bull 11 17 23 12 21 29
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASSCFIL)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE CX) DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IY) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT ~9963
R SQUARED 992 T STATISTIC 3~36977
INTERCEPT CA) -3~6~41
SLOPE CB) 1~8426
STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 77667
OBSERVATIONS 12 v DMPTS x DAYS-RSW VMIN -2~ VMAX ~~ YINC ~
XMIN -19 XMAX 2~9 XINC 2
]
bull
-SYNTAX ERROR
lPRH6ELF PRINT MODULE
DATABASE BGRENVXSASS (AG)_
OB6
1 2 3 4 ~
6 7 8 9
Hi 11 12 13 14 1~
16 17 -18 19 2 21 22 23 24 2~
26 27 28 29
3 31 32 33 34 3~
36 37 J8
39
4 41 42 43 44 4~
46
DAYS-R
3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 6 6 6 6 8 8
8 bull 8
9 9 9 9
1 1 1 1 11 11 11 11
DMPTS
2 3 3 3 ~
6 ~
~
1 1 1 1 17 18 17 19 2~
2 21 21 21 23 21 23 23 24 24 24
12 24 12 24 12 25 12 25 13 27 13 25 J3 24 13 27 104 26 J04 2S
14 28 14 27 17 28 17 32 17 32 17 31 21 34 21 35
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BORENVISASSCAO)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE IX) DAVS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IV) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9~76~
R SQUARED 917 T STATISTIC 22S6S88 INTERCEPT lA) 323~7
SLOPE lB) 189812 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 269324
OBSERVATIONS 46 Y DM PT6 X DAYS-RSW ~ _01 VMAV 2~ YfNe ~
XMIN -19 XNAX 2l9 XINC 2
]
9YNTA)( ERROR bull ]PRN6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE BGRENVXSASS
OB6 DAY6-R DMPTS
1 3 1 2 3 1 3 3 1 4 3 1 5 4 1 6 4 4 7 4 3 9 4 1 9 6 6 18 6 6
11 6 6 12 6 6 13 9 8
14 9 9 15 8 8 16 8 9 l 9 18 19 9 11 19 9 12 28 9 12 21 18 12 22 18 14 23 18 11 24 18 14 25 11 15 26 11 13 27 11 15 29 11 15 29 12 17 3 12 18 31 12 19 32 12 18gJ l~ 34 13 18 3~ 13 18 36 13 19 37 14 19 JB 14 19 39 14 19 48 14 19 41 17 19 42 17 23 43 17 21 44 17 20
-(EEC)
q~ 21 23 q6 21 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASSCEEC)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE IX) DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IY) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 96691 R SQUARED 93q9 T STATISTIC 2~14824
INTERCEPT IA) -238937 SLOPE IB) 146219 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 1S28eS
OBSERVATIONS q6 Y DMPTS X DAYS-RSW YMIN -2q YMAX ~5 YINC ~
XMIN -19 XMAX 259 XJNC 2
l
SYNTAX ERROR lPRM8ELF PRINT MODULE
-
bull
APPENJ)K 4 -
DATABASE WHZTXNG VXSASS (A) bull
OBS DAYS-I
1 1 2 1 3 1 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 ~
9 5 9 5 Ii 7 11 7 12 7 13 9 14 9 1~ 9
016 11 17 11 19 11
DMPTS
1 1 1 1 2 2 4 3 5 a 7
9 13 15 bull 13 16 14 1~
019 13 2 8 28 13 16 21 13 20 22 15 24 23 1~ 24 24 15 25 25 17 29 26 17 29 27 17 38 29 19 30 29 19 38 38 19 32 31 21 33 32 21 32 33 21 32 34 23 32 3~ 23 32 36 23 34
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASSIA)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE tX) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE tV) qMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 98514 R SQUARED 9785 T STATISTIC 3344414 INTERCEPT tAt -245163 SLOPE CBt 166958 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 286799
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS x DAYS-ICE
YMIN -22 YMAX lS7 YINC lS- XMIN -19 XMAX 259 XINC 2
]
I
J
-8YNTAX ERROR
]PRM6ELF PRINT MODULE shyDATABASE WHITING VISASS (AG)
OB8 DAYS-I DMPT8
1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 4 3 1 ~ 3 2 6 3 2 7 ~ 4 9 ~ 3 9 ~ ~
18 7 18 11 7 9 12 7 18 13 9 1~
14 9 17 1~ 9 1~
16 11 18 17 11 16 18 11 17 19 13 22 28 13 18 21 13 22 22 1~ 26 23 1~ 27 24 1~ 28 2~ 17 32 26 17 32 27 17 33 28 19 34 29 19 34 38 19 36 31 21 37 32 21 36 33 21 36 34 23 36 3~ 23 36 36 23 38
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITINO VISASS(AO)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAY8-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Y) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 986~2
R SQUARED 973 T STATISTIC 3~B167B
INTERCEPT CAl -272~33
SLOPE CBI 197S63 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 221294
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS X DAYS-ICE YHIN -19~ YHAX ~9~ YINC ~
XHIN -19 XHAX 2~9 XINC 2
]
-SYNTAX ERROR lPRM6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASS (EEC)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 2 1 3 1 4 3 ~ 3 1 6 3 1 7 ~ 2 8 ~ 2 9 ~ 3
1 7 3 11 7 3 12 7 3 13 9 6 14 9 6 bull 1~ 9 7 16 11 7 17 11 8 18 11 7 19 13 11 2 13 1 21 13 12 22 1~ 13 23 1~ 1~
24 1~ 17 2~ 17 19 26 17 18 27 17 19 28 19 29 29 19 23 39 19 22 31 21 24 32 21 23 33 21 24
34 23 2J 3~ 23 26 36 23 27
I ELF SCATTER MODULE I DATABASE WHITING VISA88CEEC)I I INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (~) DAYS-ICE I
DEPENDENT VARIABLE (VI DMPTS I bull
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9a2~3
R SQUARED 96~3
T STATISTIC 387a73~
INTERCEPT (A) -4142 SLOPE (8) 12873 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 173287
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS ~ DAYS-ICE YMIN -29 YMA~ ~1 VINC ~
XMIN -19 ~MA~ 2~9 ~INC 2
J
-SYNTAX ERROR JPRM6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHITING VXSASSmiddot(FXL)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 2 3 1 3 ~ 5 4 7 4 ~ 9 9 6 11 13 7 13 1~
e 1~ 16 9 17 19 18 19 21 11 21 24 12 23 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASB(FJLI
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Y) DMPTS
bull bullbull 4~
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE CV) DMPTSr
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 982~3
R SQUARED 96~3
T STATISTIC 3S7873~ t bullbullf CINTERCEPT CA) -4142
SLOPE CB) 12873 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 173287
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS XI DAYS-ICE YMINmiddot~28 YMAKI 1 YINC ~
XMIN -I9XMAX 2~9 XINC2
]
-SYNTAX ERROR ]PRH6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHXTXNG VXSASS (FXL)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 S 2 3 1 1 5 3 4 7 4 5 9 9 6 11 13 7 13 1~
9 15 16 9 17 19 1 19 21 11 21 24 12 23 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE I WHITING VISAS8(FIL)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE CX)I DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE CY) DMPT8
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 99289 R SQUARED 9858 T STATISTIC 2638123 INTERCEPT CA) -243706 SLOPE CB) 124476 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 112846
SLOPE 10) 124476 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 112846
ObullbulllfftVTrOHSO 12 VI DHPTS XI DAVS-ICE VMIN -27 VHAX e2 VINe e XHIN -19 XHAX 2e9 gtcINe 2
]
-8VNTAX ERROR
fi
rr
[bull
SJ
in i
bullol
r~
bull bull
n i
o o o o
~
o~ o
o - l
N~ o ~
o o o
Q
Q o o
a
c -~_
Q
_
_ Q
_9_
0
o ~-
O
_
Q
lI
oJ ~
v
~ ~
~-
-
- -1
---h
---1
---I
I
I
1
~ ((9 ~ J las 0 - ~~ U -lt) az E~-~gl~~1--~~---------- ~) 1)
11 ~ - 11 HI ~~
I bull M~
~ -~ ~~ IJ~ I J ismiddotJ I Q l~
k tl I 01 re lr - 91 br I ~I ( -0 71P g I CJ tt
I I J 000 0 0 w I 0) NlNN1tl 30 hIflJ I t IC (~4ID(r ~ Wi
_ f-- -------- bull fyen ~=y ~~r I I I I I I I 0 0 00 00 ( ~) -Fr~ ~ fj)
-0 I 0 I Ole 17 10 0 ( ~ AI )middot P1~ 0 0 00 Q hItIrS ~7I -~~ (J
t -r------0 bull
_-~_ middotmiddotmiddot_middot~middotmiddotmiddot)-middot7~)
lrrT I 01 0
0 tFmiddot~~i ~ 1 o 00 Omiddot (~ -W ~r f (JJ___~ _______ _ l I I 71 I -_---_ - M-~ ~ I
J I Z-tf ~ ~ ~fI t1 11f ( )) CI I I I i I 00 r11-7[ c I C bull aofl7r_ ~ ~z ~ 1t~Ji ) ( --_--------i---shye l~~~ I f~) I I J I
I II i bull Q ( N~T fE ~I )
~JiP _- -___ ----shy
_
~ 7Yr 0) ~(J ~ I e I t I ~ l I J I I 1 I I I(I 0 0 (~~yen~ M -p~P71 JPtJIJs 0
i euror (1l~J IlLriJlllr1JI ~~J I ~()(1OP I I r I I 0 I ( t t I ( jIfS 7fS ~~I ~ )
I
I 1 I( IN 10~ lb~ qItJ gtr~j f o (~)I(~) I I 0 I (t~ ~~) I I Jbull o 0 J I ~ l 0 a i S(jJ t t t tI tI C I C I J I I I J I 0 I (n~rlP PI4t -I) t
- -I
-I -I-I I II-I I I-I r bull
-----(rtb Ii If p~) PNl17T7~b ~y~ 7
10 IIt1v I 0 1~L CIJ tN IfIfW1IIJ JI11i JN~I HJ3
---Y p~ALY~_ ~~ Yl2-- 1)
yenvr 1amp f111l
-
~
~~
~
II
o 0
~cgt
(
) Q
oa
oo
o
oo
o o
a
o
~
P
t
oo
c
oo
a -
o
oo
o
o -
o
-o
-
-
lJ
I~ I~
Jl ~rIpound i IAlffzfjjsectj 7df- utl kf J OG lie rCOIpound ~IIE(T r
7tU
~
~ ~
~ ~
~
-shy~
~
MYI f)lySLM~ 1 (JAy ISo~r 11 ~~) e ()~t ~I01) r I joy f o~y lOJ 17~JJlII1~ 16 fiti -t1 It r ~17J~~flu~1h 111H 7U 1111111shyIllf Jr(11Jr I fhJo
~ ) ~ I1 J J-4 ~ J 2 JJ ~poundol ~ ] t4 cl -7 eJ uJ cJJJ wI~ wI l shy w c at amp 74 -t ~ ut 4 I
SkIN 000 o 0 0o 0 0 o 00 I o I I I I 3 3 3l) t 3 3 31 s 3ltt
a I I I I I o IfYU I 2 I JI I I000 )l~ 1~1 S 3 ~S 3 5 335
GILtJ I J I o (J 0 I (I I I ~ t 2shy~I I s 3 ]] 2 0 (J 3 ~ ~ t 3 3 AlvItUiU i l I I ls)z oJ lJ 0 a (J ~ 0o 0 0 a a aTff1ttJR II r 1
1 I ~ I I I I 1~E
Cdt47tl7 I I ~ ~t( a a 0O(O I Io I~ 00 000deg a 0wO 0 0 0 o 0 0 o~ 00VUipound811 ~ J I
tJ I Oe6rlllr I I I I 2 2]l2 ~ 3 S 3 S ~ 3o a 0 (J () 0 I 333 1 $ 3
If~euMI LU~ 2l 3000o (J 0 o 0 0 J 2 2shy 331a deg (1 ~ 2 Jshy
i I 000amp1 0 I I 1TIUUpound
lAcltJdJE 00deg00o 0 0 ooalOOO 0 0 I I I 1OdOa deg 0 11 2 I r I I I IbullI
I I h~r~Eu I ( 0 0 CJ 0 o (J a 2 ~ 30001011 0 1 J 1010 I I L II 2 l 2l 22 2 1
sKIN GLLt I f I~J) GlIIl) 0 (I a I do 0 0 I 0 Il~t l~o 0 0 ~ 3 3 3 s 3 3 3 33s1331
i7tJ7l11 Ibull I shy i66 ~o
(J ~ 0 1 0 It3331l J t 1 1shy 1~ ~afJllc 11 Irrshy It ~1 1111 20 J3 u
(])JtUJ61 (l) (1) (Ir)(0) (J)(I) (If) (19) (u) (~r)(J4)
I r f
I
I
i I
I i
II I ((
f
II Ii
p ()
Q
0_
_ 00
0
00
00
00
0
o o o 0
00
0
0 _
o Q
0
0
o
0
00
0
-
0 0
0
middot0
0
o oo
0
o Q
o oo o o
- ~
~
~ ~~pound
w
i -shy
o
co
- --
shy
o o o
~
~_
~
0
-shyJJ
-----l--~
-J
J IJ
f
J
J)
o 0
00
_ 0
0
o (gt
0
o ()
o
0
0 0
0
()
()
o 0
0
o 0
0
_
_ -
-----1
-----shy
Q
0 0
o ~-IJ~ulJ-
u
lJcllJ_-_~IJamp
o o
Q
I---+----I---+----I----I~-
_Ilpound
llD
lIlI
Il
~I
IIIl
I_II
II5
l__
IIlIa
IllP
=lII
Il1
rl
ll
IlIl
IlIII
llII
IlJl
IIl
IIlIl_
IIrII
G3i
mta
isectID
it
llll~
1~=wampampftUla
_
au
U
Lamp
WJN
AJ
poundmiddotJI
IiIamp
3flJ
a
uac
ampa
f
shy
I~middottn 0~L fi 5L middottlu~ fo_~r ( ) 1poundc [CtJRl -ffl(pound1 r~~ rlt1c- J c-ru
-- I
1SllJ7~
lt l)~ J )IIr M ~-t s ~~ OIl middot )If 10 JAY II 041
J- Olt i1 )lir iI DIY IT- IMy11
1~middot6f1 14f1- ~imiddot -- J _ middotAfmiddot IIrk middot Jiamp -ffh~11 rtr Il ~M gt27P- ill Ill ~lllY ~~7rlf JC 1- ~ r 1M 11
r ~ F16F r~h FIjFi ~~I)r r~Fr
5 Fc II -i~fIoi l 1 fj t t Fr c r amp t 1= ~ r ~ F r rtI ~
- -
sION o (j o 0 0 o 0 a I I I I I I I I 2 I t t I-r J~L) z~z~ 2~J ~ z a ~ ~ 33 - -ol t 1 2
~ poundys-s 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I I lt t 2 t t 4 ~z ~ 2l~ ~ ~ 1 Z 3zi3p33 3 333 3 3 3 - - ~ rl~ a 0 a (1 a a o 1 I 1 I 1-2 12 t ltt a ~ l J tll~ ~~~) 2 2 2 2- ~Jll 21 13 33 ~
- ~ MIIi(UlA~
degCt1C 11 )l
FipoundSI- eli CeoD o 0 (J 0 I I I I I I 1 1 I I 1 I Jl~] l2 22- z ~ 2 2 22 11 2-3 -Sfvpound
j
CIJiCVlt-tICN I I I 1 ( I I I 2 2 t ~ t~ )2 2~21 2$ 2 t _~ 3AIJJN(j- P (J dO o C a a o 0 00 1 I I I I - --
V~7r~ ~ c~u N
(TKWW~ CO~ o I oc I I J I I I I 1 2 I 2 2 1- ) t~l2 2- 22 2 ) 2 ~2- 1222 2 2 ll 2L -- -~VClLAl I
a 0 0 0 01 I 0 2 1 2 2 J5r 4 E i H CA I I
-I I I I I I I I J J 12( ~ 12 1 2 1 2-I TfI_ 21 1-1- 1 1 ~ 1
~ I middot_0-__-- I
~ 1
ffCACIpound coo 000lt=1 o 0 0 0 btJCt) o a () (J I I I I I I I I111 I I I 1 I I -~-aD CD lJ a a 0 0 ~ ~ UlrAfllN o 0 a IJ e e 0 C) (JdegOo ecJao co (10 (1 o I I I I I I I I 1 I I III I I I I z --
i tiN ~4r L~~ 2- li ~ a~ 8M) CUmiddot c d (J 0 (J () I I I 1 1 1
I 1 I I f t I II tl-loI 21 1 t 33 - -
-Iffl1-
J I I I I i- 2 I 11~SC~E ~ t 1 o ~ 04-t 1J 11 1 11t IS~ IfS J1 I 1 I If I IJ 1 r~]u ze uu __
bull ttlUIG
(I) l~) (6) (II) ~ (~) 6s-)llIt lCUI CJ (Ii) (~) vmiddot (II) (19~ ---
I t f
I
~ I
~ I
Ii
I I
Ii I II f
~ (
--)raquo~ middot-~~-~-I~~IliiI~~-middotComiddot~-d-b~middotmiddotmiddotmiddot_ ~ ~ middoth-~_middot--~H~~middot~gt
Other Occasional Papers in the series
1 A salinity monitor for irrigation pumps by EOMIEZITIS
2 Wine liqueur and fish products acceptability trials 47th ANZAAS Congress Hobart 1976 by HABREMNER TLLEWIS and ARQUARMBY
3 Abalone silage an exercise in the conservation of waste by JUNE OLLEY
4 Course notes contributed by the CSIRO Tasmanian Food Research Unit to a workshop on fish handling and quality control Hobart Oct3rd-5th 1978 by HABREMNER JUNE OLLEY and SJTHROWER
5 Difficulties with generalized least squares regression in forest modelling by PWWEST
6 Metabolism of zinc cadmium and copper in rats fed shellfish highly contaminated with heavy metals by SJTHROWER JUNE OLLEY and MAUREEN McDERMOTT
7 Hygiene control in seafood processing by SJTHROWER
4
evidence that the same ClfDUnt of 1MA is accanpanied by different ClfDUnts of
spoilage even within the same species
Several investigators (Spinelli et aI 1984 Jones 1965) have expressed
reservations regardirq the use of IMA as an index of quality for fresh fish
not inq that 1MA values fail to give an adequate Iod icetIon of early autolytic
quality chanqes aOO preferrirq hypoxanthfne detenninations instead MA as
would be expected of a bacterial product is not useful in detenninilg quality
deteriorations which occur durirq frozen storage FIrthenoore the shape of
the fish will markedly influence the arrount of IMA meaaured in ng per 100 g
fish (Bremner et aI 1978) Trimethylamine is roost sensitive as an indicator
of the later stages of spoilage whereas Chemical tests for dimethylamine are
most valuable in the early stages of spoilage
Ryder et al (1984) foond that the bacterial metabol Ic end products (1VB
and MA) were less useful as objective measurements of freshness in Jack
Mackerel (TrochuflUB nooaezelandiae) hey also reported that the pH was not a
gcxxl indicator of early storage changes and lEA values could not be used to
detennine loss of acceptability or eoo of shelf-life Recently it has became
apparent that the sulphur canpounds and mercaptans may be importantH2S
detenninants of fish odour and flavour (~rbert and Shewan 1975)
Measurement of MA IMA or amoonia requires a laboratory am assistant of
matriculation standard who has had sane weeks of practice in the IOOthod
Neither the Codex Alimentarius CoITInittee or the EEl (Ccmoon Market) lay down
samplilg procedures
Another quality assessment lOOasurement involves the nucleotides aoo their
degradation products Early studies with cod carp Pacific Salmgtn Lemon
sole haddock and plaice revealed that post-mortem nucleotide degradation in
fish muscle proceeds prbnarily via the followirq sequence of reactions ATP -)
AMP -) IMP -) IID -) Hx -) Xa -) UA where KrP = Jldenosine 5-triphosphate AMP
5
= Jldenosine 5-IOCgtoophosphate IMP = Inosine 5-IOCgtoophosphate lID = Inosine j
Hx = Hypoxanthine xa = Xpnthine am UA = Uric acid loo ~tages in this
degradative sequence have been considered as objective indices of quality shy
dephosphorylation of IMP am formation of hypoxanthine IMP reportedly
possesses properties as a flavour enhancer in fish mrscle COnsequently its
breakdawn may contribute to and be correlated with the loss of fresh flavour
in sane species SCme difficulties however may arise fran using IMP
dephosphorylatioo as a s inqle quality index eg the pattern of nucleotide
breakdown in invertebrate seafood species may differ in same key respects fran
that fourrl in vertebrate species he rate of IMP decanposition in the muscle
also differs between species (Ehira 1976) Accordi~ to Martin et al (1978)
the rrost serious limitation imposed by an IMP index may be that the reaction
is substantially complete well within the edible storage life of a number of
species Its major value then may be as an indicator of fresh flavour loss
during early storage
Unlike IMP concentrations of hypoxanthine (Hx) have been shown to
increase steadily throughout the useful storage life of a number of fish
species (Hughes and Jones 1966) Hypoxanthine formation is a result of both
autolytic am bacterial activities hus it also has advantages over the 1MA
assay Hx may be correlated with flavour loss caused by autolytic activities
durirg early storage am with bacterial spoilage during extended storage to
derive a prediction of useful storage life Also the IMA test is of no value
for freshwater fish because these either do not contain or contain very little
trimethylamine oxide Hx may also be used to determine the quali ty of canned
herrirg at the tirre of processing since hypoxanthine concentrations neither
increase nor decrease duri~ heat process inq and subsequent storage (Hughes
ard Jones 1966) 1MA concentrations on the other hand are unstable during
heat process inq lbNever different species of fish produce hypoxanthine by
6
different routes and at different speeds Each lustralian species ttOUld have
to be examined in turn am the hypoxanthine test related to sensory grades
tbte that the Canadian redfish and flounder had produced the maximum amgtunt of
hypoxanthine 10llg before they becarre unacceptable while the swordfish had
only produced a fifth of the arount when it became unacceptable to a taste
panel (Olley 1978) The hypoxanthine test requires laboratory facilities and
same equipment but recently the use of sLmple paper strips have been reported
(Jahns et aI 1976)
The main disadvantages of nucleotide assays are that they are apt to vary
even arro~ individuals within a species Sufficient samples need to be used
to reduce this variability
All the chemical roothods discussed above depend on measuring the
concentration of certain chemical substances in the flesh and since the sample
is destroyed in the process they cannot be used to test every fish in a
batch In any case variation between fishes in the sarre batch makes chemical
tests for quality a task requiring a statistician (Olley 1977) All the
methods require the use of a laboratory or fairly elaborate facilities and
also they oo rot apply to all species and products alike
130 Physical Methods
Love (1954) described a roothod which correlates the turbidity of the eye
lenses of fish with storage tiroo of iced fish kept in a roan of fairly
constant air temperature He found that it is possible by examination of 20
or more lenses to assess the storage tiroo with an error of not roore than 1
day M advantage of this roothod is that since only the eyes have to be
raroved in sampling the fish remains saleable as headed dressed fish or as
fillets ~ver1 the roothod had many limitations such as difficulty in
manipulation and matchi~ of the lenses which have to be done in good diffused
7
daylight at least 20 lenses are required for each estllnation which is rather
tedious for routine work and also it is not applicable where fish had not been
kept all the time in ice under the standard conditions eg bulk stowage of
fish with ice on a trawler may result in deviation fran the conditions of box
stolage in an insulated roan
he GR Ibrrymeter is a battery pc7ot1ered hand-held instnunent that rreasures
certain dialectric properties of fish skin which charge wi th the
tiJretemperature history of the fish fbWever readi~s on a large mrnber of
samples have to be taken and averaged bull Although it is a rapid simple
objective and rDn-destructive method of estllnati~ the quality of fresh fish
it has the followilkJ disadvanteqesj large variation in readirg fran fish to
fish readi~ varies with physical damage to fish1 cha~e of readi~ with time
varies with species and also may be insensitive at later stages of spo i Laqe
Curran et al (1981) reported that the GR Ibrrymeter was not particularly
successful with both the purple emperor (L6thoinus l6ntjan) ard the Spanish
mackerel ( Scomberomorue oonmereons since the readirgs obtained do not
correlate very well with the taste panel results
140 Microbiological Methods
he rootine microbiological testirg that is performed under normal
industry operations is normally restricted to enumeration of nonpathogenic
microorganisms hose frost frequently used are the standard plate count and
enumeration of indicator organisms such as the coliform group Beoher-ichia
coli aM Staphylococcus aureus
Food handl i nq practices beyond the pr-imary processors control make
standard aerobic plate count (APe) a difficult quality assessment tool to use
generally he total nunber of bacteria is not the sole determinant of
8
quali ty since certain microbial groups are rrore apt to cause spoilage than
others These groups can be given a selective advantage for growth by the way
the product is processed or stored furthermore the determination of
bacterial counts while they are of value to research requires too much time
before results are known and can also be expensive for routine testing
Representative samples have to be taken for bacterial examination because the
fish or product is destroyed during the test Interpreting the results of
bacterial testing is a task for experts who should be consulted when
necessary bull
Detection and enumeration of indicator bacteria such as the coliform
group E ooli and S auroeu8 were considered for many years to indicate the
potential presence of pathoqenic microorganisms NM this inference has been
questioned and these groups are no longer considered a reliable method for
predicting the presence of such pathogens (Martin et aL1978) bull
According to Olley and Ratkowsky (1973) there is in fact no simple index
of quality and a thorough knowledge of the oamplete temperature history of the
fish is the only true indicator of freshness This is so because at higher
temperatures bacteria divide in half more rapidly Therefore the
relationship between bacterial growth with production of spoilage canpounds
and temperature is not a straight line rut a curve he curve relates rate of
spoilage of these commodities at temperatures between aoe and 25dege to the rate
at which they would spoil at aoe hus at aoe the relative rate is 1 and at
Rate at temperature (tOe)any other temperature the relative rate is Rate at a be
Bremner et at (1978) have coined the term ICE FOID for this relative rate
ie so many times faster than the ccmnodity would spoil on ice and
lCETIME as equivalent storage time on ice = lCEFOID x time in days
The curve has also been converted into tabular form to enable conversion
of the temperature history of the catch into equivalent storage time
on ice under ideal conditions However the concept of relative rate of
9
spoilage with temperature can only apply if fishing oonditions are kept
constant
150 sensory Methods
Currently the best way to detenmine fish freshness still requires the use
of a taste panel (Regenstein and Regenstein 1981) A number of taste panel
techniques for assessing the quality of unfrozen fish species have been
described am are in use in different parts of the world These techniques
vary in cbjective and ccrrplexity but are of three main types Firstly there
are those which categorise the fish on the basis of its acceptability for
eatirq secondly there are those which categorise the fish on the basis of
well-defined characteristics which change duri~ storage Thirdly there are
techniques which include elements of both of these types Techniques of the
first type usually anploy a single gradi~ or hedonic (like-dislike) scale
whilst those of the second type anploy descriptions of various characteristics
(Baines et aI 1969)
The ultimate criterion of fish quality is the flavour and texture of the
cooked fish HcMever taste panel evaluations of cooked fish are timeshy
consiminq and relatively few samples can be tested at anyone time It is
therefore highly desirable to be able to make an assessment of eati~ quality
by exanini~ the raw fish My atterrpt to raise the quality of raw fish as it
reaches the consumer is critically dependent on the development of a
convenient and consistent rrethod of quality assessment based on raw fish
Fortunately eat inq quality of cooked fish can be correlated with the
appearance odour and texture of the whole raw fish Boyd and Wilson (1976)
when evaluat inq the quality of snapper (Chroysophfys aufatus) by a sensory
method found that there is close relationship between the raw attributes of
gill odour and general appearance with those of odour texture am flavour of
10
the cooked fish
The use of ooject ive tests at dockside or even on inspection within the
plant is not considered to be practical in the normal routine of inspection of
fresh ard frozen fish products as almost all of the coject Ive tests require
laboratories am so becare rather rerooved fran the busy fisherman processor
or factory foreman A nuch simpler piece of apparatus is the eye or the N)Se
(olley 1977) Sensory tests are always controversial as they require an
inspector although the canny buyer is in fact applying his senses of smell
am visual acuity in a similar fashion W9 accept the wine faster and wcxgtl
classer so why not the fish grader (Bremner 1984) Therefore a test that
correlated well with freshnessquality and that could operate on the market or
in the factory would be of considerable value to an efficient industry (Baines
et aI 1965)
Howgate (1978) also considered the sensory rrethods to be far better than
non-sensory methods which are not suitable for consumer testing whilst
Connell (1972) states that in general the sensory rrethod of assessing
freshness is the best at present for quality control purposes
As fish spoils its snell taste appearance and feel go through
characteristic am well defined stages that trained experts or experienced
staff can consistently recognise It is convenient to attach a number or
score to each stage so that the assessor can award the appropriate score to
each fish or batch of fish Alternatively the mere recognition of each stage
ard acceptance or rejection of fish on this basis may be all that is
necessary Different species and products spoil in different ways The
numerical system us irq an objective panel developed at the Ibrry IEsearch
Station by Shewan et al (1953) is probably the ultUnate critical evaluation of
fish freshness available at this time It was created for the determination
of storage time of whole Net fish l6Jenstein and Iegenstein (1981) in using
11
this nunerical system reported that the cooked freshness scores are generally
higher (better) than expected at that storage t irre for whole wet fish A
freshness score of 55 on the Ibrry scale seemed the appropriate endpoint for
their definition of shelf-life This would nonnally be reached with ideal
iced-at-sea fish about twelve days from catch sooner for fillets Freshness
scorirq systems are I1C1laquo available fran Ibrry Research station for most UK
ccmnercial species and systems are available for both the raw and cooked
fish HoweveF there is still no standard scorirq system to be used
internationally he countries in the EEC ~or instance use scoring systems
which differ both in scale length am in characteristics measured Most
systems use the same scale length for all features examined but the United
Kingdon am Icelarrl use scales of 10 to 0 for odour and 5 to 0 for other
characteristics ibwgate (1972) describes the effort to construct a rorogram
for oonvert inq fran one scorinq system to another (Appendix 1) de Zylva
(1974) expanded the Ibrry score sheet to include marks for flesh colour and
texture belly flap discoloration stainiBJ of backbone am colour of
kidney he scoring system was designed for ~w Zealand snapper and gave
excellent negative linear correlations between score am days of storage
legenstein (1983) presents the way in which Ibrry has in turn incorporated
other characteristics into the score sheet for raw fish Groupings of several
characteristics to give a score requires more expertise than scoring
individual points as is done by de Zylva
However the use of a point or scoring system in which higher points are
given for high quality attributes would mean the requirements of more
kllC7filedge of the fish and the tester mist be experienced and knCM the
qualities of the fish previously Therefore it is too species dependent
his problem can be overcare by using the demerit system with points being
allotted in several categories for defects as they becare obvious and one can
I
12
learn as one goes along in each situation he demerit points that were given
to the various selected quality attributes could be weighted in such a way as
to produce an approximately linear change in score with storage time (Branch
and Vail 1985)
It might also be desirable OCIlInercially to specify a uniform mrnber of
days of shelf-life fran the pack date to consumption he length of shelfshy
life ctgttained for fish depends on the initial age and quality of the fish the
tirre of the pack am the time am temperature of storage before am after
packing In practical terns the ultimate measure of the effect(s) of shelf-
life extension treatments on the final quality of the fish is consumer
satisfaction (Regenstein aoo Regenstein 1981)
A tentative grading systan for fresh fish based on sensory assessment of
fish had been described by IbUwing (1972)
160 The Ideal Method
Forty years of research ootably in the UK Canada and Japan have gone
into objective methods for measuring fish quality (Bremner et al 1978)
There is as yet 00 single universal test for all species nor for that
matter any wholly satisfactory test for individual species
The ideal rrethod hOlJld be one that is cheap oon-destructive easy to
use oot subject to much variation or fatigue having rapid response and wide
application sensory tests have the advantages of being non-destructive 00
equipnent required adaptable to species and assessing the market value
Althcogh sensory tests are usually condemned as a subjective test which
requires training am experience am are also said to be easily open to
abuse this can be reduced if a simple rapid and less descriptive rrethod
could be fourd - possibly with the use of demerit point scores Therefore
this study aims at assessing the use of sensory techniques based on the
13
demerit point scores developed for raw whole (gutted and ungutted) and
filleted fish samples of Australian fish species stored in ice and RSW It
also discusses the results of the acceptability taste panels on the cooked
fish samples
The two oammercially ~rtant Australian fish species used in this study
were the blue grenadier am the blue rock whiting he blue grenadier is
currently Tasmanias major oammercial finfish and the recent annual production
of the fishery exceeds 100 tonnes (Last et aI 1983)~ he blue rock whiti~
is the only Australian member of the family that has any commercial
importance It occurs mainly in Bass strait and the sheltered bays of South
eastern Tasmania The flesh is delicately flavoured but very soft
200 MATERIALS lIND MEIHgt[s
210 Sample preparation
211 Fish stored in RSW
Blue grenadier used in this study were caught on the 15th lugust 1984 at
a depth of 300 fathans off Sandy Cape on the west coast of Tasmania (Lat
41deg20S IDrq144deg40 E) by demersal trawl They were taken fran the deck
irnnediately am dropped into a refrigerated seawater (RSW) tank in a net bag
(tanp -1degC) The fish was reported to be handled quite roughly on board
Sore of the fish had already gone into rigor at this stage he fish were
transported to the CnID lasrnanian Food lesearch Uni t (TFRJ) laboratories in
Hobart and were already to days old on arrival The f ish were then placed in
the RSW box tank of the rrobile unit (the design and construction of which were
described by Thrower and Stafford 1981) and was kept at -1degC for the duration
of the storage trial which lasted for about three weeks Four fish were
rerroved at each samplirq tine (Table 1) for sensory assessment Length
14
measurements to the fork of the tail were also noted ~e fish were then
filleted and samples frozen at -lBoe for later assessment of their
acceptability by taste panel
212 Fish stored in ice
For the sensory assessment of fish stored in ice guidelines similar to
those given by Lima dos Santos et al (981) were used ~e blue rock whiting
also known as the weedy whiting was used ~e whiting were caught on the
afternoon of 23rd August 1984 by demersal trawl in 18 to 25 m waters oft
Eastern Tasmania On arrival at the TFRJ laboratories in I-bbart at 11 45 am
on the fol Lowirq day the f ish were re- iced at a ratio of 21 (ice f ish) in
insulated plastic boxes of size 66 x 41 x 28 em with provision for drainage
of melt water Flake ice was used ~e ice was topped up daily and renewed
once a week The boxes of i ced f ish were then kept in a cool roan set at a
temperature of 0deg to -1dege ~ree fish were removed for sensory assessment at
each sampling time (Table 1) over a period of rmre than three weeks of ice
storage 100 fish samples were then frozen at -18dege until needed for the
acceptability taste panel
Table 1
sampling regirre for fish stored in R3Wice
Blue Grenadier Diys in R3W 3 4 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 17 21
Sample code N D G L S R K T U P M 0
Whiting Diys in ice 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Sample code 0 M D G T S N R P U L K
15
220 Sensory assessment of the whole (gutted and ungutted) raw fish samples
Both the blue grenadier stored in lOW and the whi t i nq stored in ice were
progressively assessed by using the sense organs of sight smell and touch tor
changes in general appearance odour and texture with storage tine by giving
the appropriate demeri t scores according to the score sheets as shown in
Tables 2 and 3 IVo types of score sheets were used Table 2 shows the
sensory assessment score sheet orig inally developed for the assessment of
gemfish (Thrower et al 1982) It has been simplified and weighted (Branch
and Vail 1985) to provide accumulated increases in demerit points as the t i sn
change in odour texture and appearance during storage with the max imum
accumulated demerit point scores of 35 for the urx]utted samples and 39 tor tte
gutted samples The total scor irq for gutted fish differs fran that descr ibeo
by Bremner (1984) and Branch and Vail (1985) in that the demerit points for
the belly cavity have been added to those for the whole fish
The whole and gutted raw fish were also assessed by using the freshness
score sheet developed by the Council of the European COl1nunities (Official
Journal of the European Qmnunities 1970) but with slight rrodification marie
in its scor irq method in that the scor irq was reversed to provide accumulateri
increases in demerit points as in the TFRJ score sheet (Table 2) with a
maximun accumulated demerit score of 30 (Table 3) The samples were scored by
H Abd R who had had no previous experience with the score sheet
230 Sensory Assessment of the frozen filleted raw fish samples
Samples of the whole and gutted fish of both species were then filleted
ard frozen at -18degC until required for the organoleptic acceptability test
panel fillets were thawed by holding for about 16 hours (overnight) in still
air at 4degC The thawed fillets of both the blue grenadier and whi t i nq were
then assessed by the sense organs of sight smell and touch by using the scor-e
sheet for filleted sample as shown in Table 4 nle score sheet was developed
16
able 1
FIlt U Snorr bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullnt oore hbullbull t ( ( 1Ii~ ANI) tlNtJuTreo)
1_middotAnlJ lmiddot
rlSB IDDII
UIUIl~ (VBci9ht~i9ht8lDullDUll
o 1 2 3
SitU ( rimSoft) o 1
SCALBS (r1mSlLoomiddotmiddotLoobullbull ) o 12
r r SLIMB (AbbullbullntSlSlimiddotysliyVSliy)
o 123
S1IrnraS (pr-Ri90rRi90rPot-Ri90r) o 1 2
BYBS Clarity (ClbullbullrISlCloudyCloudy) 012
Shape (HoralslsunknSunkn) 012
Irill (ViiblHot Viibl) IJ 1
Blood (No BloodSlBloodyVBloody) o 1 2
GILLS Colour (VDark)Charaotritio (SlDark) (vradd)(Slradd)
2o 1 Kucou (AbbullbullntKoderatmiddotBxcbullbullbulliv)
o 1 2 S bullbullll (rrbullbullh 01ly) Pihy8talpoll~
(MetalliaSaved) 1 2 3
BELLI Dicoloration (AbbullbullntDetatablmiddotModratmiddotBxobullbullbulliy) 012 3
Finanbullbullbull ( rira80ftBurt) o 1 2
VENT Condition (bobullbulldy)Noraal (SlBrbullbullk) (Opening)(Bxudbullbull )
2o 1 Sbullbulln (rrbullbullhReutralrihy8poilt)
o 2 3
BELLI CAVIn Stain (OpalbullbullontGryihlmiddotllow-Brown) o 1 2
Blood (RdDark RdBrown)
o 1 z
--
17
UJE 3
Etc SENSORY A$fE4St4fN[ ~(oIlL~
SCALE OF MARKING - FRESHNESS
CRITERIA shypoundu1LRt
Abullbullbullbullbullment Mara-bull thc r1ah 0 1 2- 3tszhL
AppearanceinIIMlISJ Skin
Eye
Gill
Flbullbullshycut f ssm abdomusn
Colour the~
vertebral column
Organs
Oright iridescent I bright pigmenta- pigmentation in (1) dull pigmenta tion no i tion but not the process of pigmentation discolouration Ius trous becoming dis-
mucus opaquemucus aqueous i coloured and dull
mucus slightlytransparen t
cloudy ~UCU9 milky
convex (bulging) convex and flat (1) concave in cornea tran- slightly sunken cornea the centre parent cornea Ughtly opalescent cornea milky pupil black opalescent pupil pupil grey bright
pupil black opaque dull
-shining colour less coloured becoming dis- (1) yellmiish no mucus a few traces of coloured mucus milky
cloar mucus mucus opaque
blueish trans- dull velvety slightly opaque (1) opaque lucid smooth waxy shining without any change in the colour sUgh tly original colour changed
(I) reduncoloured sl1 gh tly pink pink
kidneys and kidneys and kidneys (1) kidneys residues of resJdues of resicJuos of r bullbullidue of other other organs other organs other organs organs and blood bright red the dull red blood and blood brownish game as the becoming palo red blood inside discolbured the aorta
(1) or in a more advanced bull ta te of decay
I
bull
Flesh
Vertebtal Column
Peritonium
Gills kin abdominal cavity
18
(eontd)
SCALE OF MARKING - FRESHNESS
CRITERIA
Assessment Mark 0 1 2
Physical eOId ton
firm and elas tic surface smooth
breaks ins tead of coming away
totally adherent to the flesh
seaweed
less elastic
adherent
adherent
Smell bull
not of seaweed but not bad
slightly soft (flaccid) Ie elastic surfacente waxy velvety and dull
slightly adherent
slightly adherent
slightly sour
3
(1) soft (flaccid) scales ebullbullil y detached from skin sur face ra ther wrinkled inclining to mealy
(1) not dherent
1( ) not adherent
(1) sour
(1) or in a more advanced stat of decay
_ shy-- -
19
Table 4
Filleted Sample Score Sheet
r
TREATMENT F ILIEIS DATE REMOJAL (THAWED)
FISH IDENr
EASE OF FILLETING (Easysl difficultdifficult)
012
APPEARANCE (a) Oolour of flesh (TranslucentSl discolouredSl opaqueopaque)
o 1 2 3
(b) Blood stains (AbsentDetectableModerateExcessive)
012 3
(c) Clotting (UnclottedSlclottedModclottedExcessclotted)
012 3
(d) Skin Oolour (VbrightBrightSldullOU11)
o 1 2 3
TEXTURE FirmS1 softSoft
o 1 2
ClDClJR (FreshNeutralStaleSpoilt)
012 3
CONJITION (a) Gaping (AbsentDetectableModerateExcessive)
o 1 2 3
(b) Bruising (AbsentSlightSevere)
012
(c) Wetness (NmnalS1 dry orMod dry orExcess dryness or
SldripModdrip Freezer bJrn or Excessdrip
012 3
(d) Autolysis (Absentmoderatesevere) (Disco1ourations) 0 1 2
(e) Parasites (Absentmoderatesevere) ( Infestations) 0 1 2
(f) Other discolourations (Absentpresent) or contaminants (bones membranes tissues etc) 0 1
EASE OF SKINNING (EasySldifficultdifficult)
012
20
by the author after a literature search and observations made during the preshy
liminary part of the study It has a maxUnum accumulated demerit score of 34
240 ~anoleptic Acceptability Panel of the cooked fish
Filleted samples of both fish species which had been frozen in a cold
roan at -18dege and then thawed as above were used for the acceptability taste
panels The fillets were skinned am cut into 30 to 40 g pieces crumbed and
deep fried (Bremner et ale 1985) Three or four treatments were cooked
simultaneously at each session am the fish served with packets of take-away
french fries Tcrnato sauce vinegar and salt were available Each of the
samples were randanised in such a way so as to give a high degree of balance
(Table 5 and 6) Letters that represent the samples were also picked
randanly The fish was assessed by 20 panellists employed at the Tasmanian
lEgional Laboratory and experienced with facial hedonic scaling for flavour
texture am overall acceptability using the General Foods Smiley scale
(Appendix 2) Salt was rot rrentioned with the 9niley questionaire for blue
grenadier so that the panel should have ro preconceiVed prejudices
250 Statistics
tata fran the sensory assessment of the whole gutted and ungutted raw
fish (both TFRJ am EEl score sheets) am fran the sensory assessrrent of the
frozen filleted raw fish samples of both the blue grenadier stored in RSW am
whiting stored in ice were analysed for correlation using the ELF scatter
module (Appendix 3 and 4)
The acceptability taste panel assessment scores for flavour texture and
overall liking of the toKgt species of fish were subjected to analysis of
variance using the Genstat package (Appendix 5 and 6)
22
Table 6
Order of presentation of cooked whiting samples to the acceptability taste panelists
Order of presentation of samples Panelist
session I session II
1 OTP rm 2 MUS KR 3 sm INL
4 IKJ GKR
5 ror NK
6shy USM UN ~
7 OOP RLD
B HUT NKD
9 USO RiL
10 SMP LGN
11 IMT GIltN
12 nxgt KRD
Note
8angtle code OM 0 G T S N R P U L K
storage time in ice (days) 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
23
300 RESULIS
310 Physical Characteristic of M novaeaelandiae
rran the forty-six fish examined the mean fork lerqth was found to be
762 an (range 609 to 838 an) A few of the fish examined had well shy
developed roes and their digestive tracts were found to be relatively empty
320 Physical Characteristics of the H ssmifasoiata
rran a total of thirty-six fish examined the rrean weight of the fish was
fourrl to be 662 g (range 27 to 186 g) am the mean fork length was 183 em
(range 156 to 265 an)
330 sensory assessment of the raw blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
he results of the sensory assessrrent of the r2M blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW by the four rrerhods of scoring are given as average total
accumulated demerit point scores as shown in Table 7 Figure 1 shoes the
graph of demerit point versus days in RSW by the four rrethods of sensory
assessment used Table 9 shltJtS the correlation analysis
340 sensory assessment of the raw whitirq samples stored in ice
he results of the sensory assessment of the r2M whitirq samples stored
in ice by the four methods of scoring are given as average total accumuLated
demerit point scores as shown in Table 8 Figure 2 shltJtS the graph of demerit
point versus days in ice of the four nethods of sensory assessment used Table
9 shltJtS the correlation analysis
350 Attributes contributing to total score
Attributes that contribute to total score usirq the TFRJ scores (ungutted
and gutted) EEC scores and the filleted sample scores are as shewn in Tables
10 - 14
24
Table 7
Total demerit points fran sensory assessment of blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
Average lbta1 Demerit Rgtint SCores
[)lye in RW TFRJ scores TFRJ scores EEl scores Filleted Sample (urvJut t ed ) (gutted) (gutted) SCores
3 3 3 1 1
4 5 5 2 3
6 10 10 6 6
8 16 18 9 8
9 19 21 11 10
10 20 22 13 12
11shy 22 24 15 14
12 23 25 18 17
13 24 26 19 18
14 25 27 19 19
17 29 31 21 23
21 33 35 25 29
Note
Maximum possible scores for (1) IlRJ scores (ungutted is 35
( 11) IlRJ scores (gutted) is 29
( 11i) EEX scores (gutted) is 30
( iv) Filleted sample scores is 32
amptV
35j
3l~
en Ishy 25Z-0 Q
3)-~
bullbullbull 0
bull 0 0bull 0
bull 0 0 6shy abull A ~
~
bull 0
~
6shy
bull 0
6shy
I) 01
-W 0i A15W ~ Q A
~
6shy~101- bull 90 TFRU SCORES (ungutted)
6shy~ bullbull TFRU SCORES (gutt~d i
bull ~
4 6- 6- EEC SCORES 5~
~ ~ FILLETED SAMPLE SCORES ~
6 4 I J I I I
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
DAYS IN RSW
Figl Demerit Points Versus Days in RSW For Blue Grenadier Samples
Fig 2 Demerit Points Versus Days in ice For Whiting Samples I
27
Table 8
TOtal demerit points from sensory assessment of whi tirq samples stored in ice
Average TOtal Demerit Foint SCores
rays in ice TFRJ scores TFRJ scores EEC scores Fi 11eted sample (urqutted) (gutted) (gutted) (gutted)
1 1 1 0 0 3 2 2 1 1
5 4 4 2 3
7 7 9 3 4
9 13 15 6 9
n 15 17 7 13
13 19 21 11 15
15 24 27 15 16
17 29 32 19 18
19 31 35 22 21
21 32 36 24 24
23 33 37 26 26
Note
MaXllnum possible scores for (i) TFRJ scores (urqutted) is 35 ( ii) TFRJ scores (gutted) is 39 ( iii) EEC scores (gutted) is 30 ( iv) Filleted sample scores is 32
28
Table 9
Relationship between tLme and demerit points for fish stored in RSW
Method of Visual Assessment
y- intercept slope correlation
M novaBMBlandias
TFRJ (urqutted ~les) 032 175 097
TFRJ (gutted samples) 032 190 096
EEl -231 146 097
Filleted samplesbull
-357 158 099
H sBmifasoiata
TFRJ (urqutted samples) -245 167 099
TFRJ (gutted samples) -273 187 099
EOC -414 129 098
Filleted samples -244 125 099
ltshy
--------------- ------------------------------------------
------------- - ------------- -------- ------
Table 10
Attributes contributing to total score using TFRO scores (gutted and ungutted)
Attributes involved in score change Score
Blue grenadier in RSW Whiting in ice
Stiffness Eyes - clarity blood Slllne Stiffness Eyes - clarity shape and blood lt10 Gills - smell Vent - smell SlBne Gills - colour smell and mucous
Vent - smell Belly cavity - stains and blood
Appearance Eyes-shape Stiffness Gills - smell colour and mucous Skin
Stiffness appearance gill-smell Scales belly-discolouration and firmness
N so
gt10lt20 SCales belly - discolouration and firmness Vent - smell Vent - smell and condition Belly cavity - stains and blood
Appearance Slllne Eyes - clarity shape Appearance SlBne Scales Skin blood and iris Gills - colour Eyes - clarity and shape
gt20lt30 Belly - discolouration Gills - mucous smell am colour Vent - condi tion and smell Belly cavity shy blood
Appearance Gills - mucous and smell SlBne Eyes - iris am blood Belly - discolouration and firmness Belly - discolouration and firmness
gt30 Vent - condition and smell Vent - condition Belly cavity - blood Belly cavity - stains
Table 11
Attributes contribut irq to total score us irq EEC scores
Attributes involved in score change
Score Blue grenadier in RSW W1iting in ice
lt7 Appearance - skin eyes gills organs Physical condition - flesh Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and organs Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skins eyes gills flesh Appearance-eyes and organs atv
vertebral column and organs Physical condition-flesh and peritoneum gt7lt14 Physical condition - flesh Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-eyes flesh and vertebral Appearance-skin gills and organs column Physical condition-flesh vertebral column
gt14lt21 Physical condition-vertebal column and and peritoneum peritoneum Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and vertebral column vertebral column
gt21 Physical condition-flesh and peritoneum Physical cOndition-flesh vertebral column Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity and peri toneum bull
Table 12
Attributes contributing to total score using filleted sample scores
Score
lt5
Attributes involved in score change
Blue grenadier in RSW
Appearance - blood stains skin colour ltXIour - flesh
M1iting in ice
----- shy -------------- shy
Appearance - skin colour odour - flesh Cbndition - gaping wetness
Appearance - colour of flesh Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Texture - flesh skin colour ltgt gt5lt10 Cbndition - gaping bruising wetness Ease of filleting
Texture - flesh
Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Appearance - colour of flesh clotting skin clotting skin colour skin colour
gt10lt20 odour - flesh odour - flesh Cbndition - gaping wetness autolysis COndition - gaping bruising wetness other discolourations autolysis and other discolouration Ease of skinning
Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains skin colour clotting
gt20 Texture - flesh Texture - flesh odour - flesh Odour shy flesh COndition - gaping bruising wetness Cbndition - wetness autolysis autolysis Ease of skinring
32
Table 13
Diff~rent emphasis in scoring systems for whole fish as between the EEl and TFID
Attribute Number of potential demerit points TFRJ EEl
1Ippearance (general) 3 0
skin ) scales 6 3
slime
Stiffness (Rigor) 2 0
Eyes 7 3
Gills 7 6
Belly 5 0
Vent 5 0
Belly cavity 4 3
Flesh cut fram abdomen 0 3
Flesh texture 0 3
Vertebral column 0 6
Internal organs 0 3
33
360 Relative merits of the scoring systems
The four scor irq methcds were used on the same samples of t ish Any
sample had therefore deteriorated to the same extent on anyone day Figs 3
am 4 shew the scores converted to percentages of possible deroorit point
scores The discrepancy in the accumulation of demerit points between the EEC
am TFRJ scor irq methods is clearly shown IEference to Table 2 3 am 13
shOool that this is caused by the lack of questions regarding rigor looseness
of scales condition of belly am vent am the qroupinq of colour am mucous
in the gills as single po i nts thus halving the potent Ia I gill demerit point
score canparison of the tO species in Table 9 ShONS that the rate of
accumulation of demerit pgtints was more consistent for the TFRU system than by
the EEX scor i oq methltXl or by scorinq of fillets
370 Time taken to score the fish
The average time taken to score an individual fish using the TFPlJ
(unqutted) scores TFRJ (gutted) scores EEX scores am the filleted aamp Le
scores were found to be 1 min 25 sec 1 min 55 sec 3 min 45 sec and 1 min 50
sec respectively The EEX score sheet is more t iroe consumioq in that more than
one question is asked about an attribute for the giving of only one demerit
point this requires conscious thought
380 Acceptability taste panel results of blue grenadier samples bull Figures 5 6 am 7 shOool the mean taste panel scores in graphic form for
flavour texture and overall acceptability of cooked blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW table 14 shows the results of the statistical analysis
390 Acceptability taste panel results of whiting samples
Figures 8 9 am 10 shOool the mean taste panel scores in graphic form for
flavour texture and overall acceptability of cooked whiting samples stored in
ice table 15 shows the results of the statistical analysis
WHITING STORED IN ICE o TFRU SCORES (ungutted)
bull TFRU SCORES (gutted)
b EEC SCORES
FILLETED SAMPLE SCORES
100bull e ~ e b
i 6
bull NW
oIJ-a A A-
(J0 t A~ 0 ~ AC)
C) -e ~~-
C) a 50 A
A w
Iz ~
~ - W e A0 c a ~ ~ A-a ~ l ~ A
w -~
~ X ~ W -e I c ~ ~ ibull I I I I
4 8 12 16 20 24
DAYS IN ICE FIG4
36
- flavourshy
-e s-e l ~ v
5middotIU
STORAGrf IN R sWDAYS
rlCoS Ttutfc pcr1 rcbull
rf oj bl jtlJ~r - jlqVGurc acccr~b
21179 0 2 136 843
~ 0 u 5middot0YI
oJ J l ofmiddot$ 1 e
tu 4middot0
VI
~ 3middot5
3middot0
TelC-lue X bull -e III
~ Gmiddotftv
ct 5middot03
V1
-J -f-SshyU 2
~ 40 t
3-~
~ bullbull0 5 0
~ 17 21A ISII
PAY- IITDRAGamp fbilW
FIG6 I Tq1-c pltnd rc-utl ojbllfcJrcftaJIr bull I~M144 Q Cc(r~blfly
r 411q~~ An~Plf bUIJlfM F llh J~Lld Pt-DoL B fpound)1
gt1 NI ~~eusr SJAVlt1
D ~II
(ffIt1~JP IIID bull U J 1i
-IyoJC )-tlICf p --lInraquoJ Ix-Pc ~1rb1 r I ef
Ma2j NI a~v2loJ$
til
1Ia ~AO (IIp~lJa~e
01
secto
00
s
05
5
o~
~
0pound
s
0
smiddot
o~
07
1 ~ ~ ~ ~
r~
B
~
rv t gtshy 2
~ ~ 11
~ 7shyIn r
~ () 0 1) m ~
~ gtshyz -
(fII~q~~ 7~ P
IItJ1o -~~f(ll p ~I I~U J ~t~L 0 ~ middot~II I
IDI 8~ middot lta ~
~ QS
middotS ~ ~ 0 z
r Smiddot II
S 1d 0-$ 111 r- l gtshy r
V fr~
~llCf-J a-PcJ~ U~middotJO
4lp~dmiddotyIb 6middot~1f np)t -~11M fo --IIhen IJutJel ~bl
Table 14
Acceptability of deep fried blue grenadier samples stored in FSW
rays in R3W
Acceptability 3 4 6 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 17 21
Flavour 50a 50a 4S a 51a 50a 51a 50a 4Sa 49a 53a 41b 35b
Texture 49bc 51abc 4S bed 52ab 4Sbed 53ab 52abc 52ab 4Sbed 55a 46cd 43d
OJerall 50ab 51ab 47be 52ab 4Sb 5lab 52ab 50ab 47b 54 a 41c 35d
abc
d
significantly different (pltOOOl)
significantly different (pltOOl) W so
Table 15
Acceptability of deep fried whiting samples stored in ice
rays in ice
Acceptability 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Flavour 5Sab 59a 59a 60a 59a 5S ab 51b 54ab 53ab 37c 37c 31c
Texture 59ab 59a 53bed 5S ab 63a 59ab 47cde 54be 56ab 55ab 44e 46de
OJera11 57ab 5S ab 59ab 60a 60a 5Sab 52b 53ab 55ab 42c 36cd 31d
abcde significantly different (Plt0001)
40
~oo DISCUSSION
410 Sensory assessment of the raw blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
he results of sensory assessment on the raw blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW by the four methods of scoring all sheM that there is
progressive increment in total demerit points with storage time for all the
four methods (Table 7) It was also fourxi that the accumulation of demerit
points with time of storage of the fish in ffiW occurred in a saui-linear
fashion for all -the four scoring methods used (Figure 1) he variables (time
of storage and demeritmiddot points score) were all highly correlated (Table 9)
he correlation equation of the TFRJ (ungutted samples) and TFRJ (gutted
sanples) scores were similar roth having a zero time intercept of 032 but
with the TFRJ (gutted samples) scores having a slightly greater slope by 015
he EEC scores and the filleted sample scores roth have lower slopes ie
146 and 158 respectively canpared with the TFRJ (ungutted sample) and TFRJ
(gutted sample) scores of 175 and 190 respectively lbwever the EOC scores
which have the lowest slope have a fairly similar correlation equation with
the filleted sample scores (Table 9) he negative intercepts reflected the
slightly more sigrroid relationship for these samples his suggests that the
TFRJ (gutted) scoring method is the rrost sensitive of the four methods
followed by the TFRJ (ungutted) the filleted sample and the EEC scores
It was also found that after 21 days of storage in RSW the blue
grenadier samples had not reached their maximun possible scores in any of the
four scoring rrethods used (Table 7) he TFRJ (ungutted sample) score only
reached 943 of its possible maximun value whereas the TFRJ (gutted sample)
scores EEC scores and the filleted sample score reached only 897 833 ar~
906 of their possible maximun score his means that all the four methods
of scoring can still be sensitive to changes in the quality of the blue
grenadier samples stored in RSW after 21 days of storage time
41
Figures 1 and 3 also shOVt that the pattern of the graphs of demerit
points against days storage in R3W of the four methcxis of scoring is similar
ie a tendency to be slightly sigmoid fbwever the filleted sanple scores
sean to be rrore sensitive than the EOC scores at the later part of the storage
time ie after 14 days of storage and the scores continued to rise
1be rrost obvious indicator of change for the blue grenadier stored in ffiW
using the TFRJ scores (both gutted and unJUtted sanples) was the eyes (clarity
and blood) followed by odour developnent of the gills (Table 10) his is -
also foond to be true wi th the EOC freshness score (Table 11) Fbr the
filleted sample scores the appearance and odoor of the flesh seems to be the
most obvious indicator of change follOVted by the condition of the fillets such
as gaping bruisin) am wetness (Table 12)
4 20 sensory assessment of the raw whi ting samples stored in ice
1he results of sensory assessment on the rCJl whiting samples stored in
ice by the foor roothods of scoring also shows that there is a progressive
increment in total demerit points with storage time for all the four methods
of scoring (Table 8) Ps with the blue grenadier the aCCLD1UJlation of demerit
points with time of storage of the whiting in ice also occurred in a sernishy
linear fashion for all the foor scoring methods used (Figure 2 and 4) wi th a
slight lag in the initial phase Interestingly this was not observed in the
case of blue grenadier sanples stored in ffiW probably because the first
samplin) of the blue grenadier starts only fran the third day after catch
whereas the first sampling of the whiting starts fran the first day after
catch Also the blue grenadier was handled qu i te roughly on the deck in fact
three oot of the four fish samples on the first rerroval ie the third day
after catching had already showed blood in their eyes
Bremner et al (1985) when using the TFRJ score sheet to assess the
42
quality of four tropical fish species fran the oorth west shelf of hJstralia
(stored in ice) also fourrl that the accumulation of demerit points with time
of storage in ice occurred in a linear fashion
PB wi th blue grenadier the variables (tine of storage ard darneri t points
score) were all highly correlated (Table 9) Also the correlation equation of
the TFRJ (ungutted) ard TFRJ (gutted) scores were similar with the TFJU
(gutted) score having a slightly greater slope by 020 Crable 9) he EEC
scores am filleted sample scores also have lower s lopes l e 129 ard 125
respectively ocmpared to the TFm (ungutted) and (gutted) scores of 167 and
187 respectively However unlike the blue grenadier the filleted samples
of the whi t ing had the 10liest slope he more sensi tive na ture of the EEC
scores as canpared to the filleted sample scores in the case of the whiting
especially after 12 days storage in ice can be explained by the snaller size
of the whitirlJ (fork length ranging fran 156 to 265 an) as canpared to the
size of the blue grenadier (fork length ranging 809 to 838 an) the snaller
fish terrl to spoil faster especially the interior parts of the fish PB the
EEC scores depend nuch on the sensory assessment of the interior parts of the
fish such as the appearance and condition of the flesh vertebral colwnn
interior organs per i toneun and abdaninal cavity (Table 3) which makes up more
than 18 demerit points out of the total possible maxinun of 30 the
sensitiveness of its score is thus self-explanatory in the case of whiting
Connell (1980) explained that large fish keep marginally better than small
fish because larger fish have a smaller surface to volume ratio so that in the
same tUne less of their interior is affected
The above results confirmed the previous suggestion that the TFRU
(gutted) scorIoq methcrl is the roost sensitive of the four methods It was
found that after 23 days of storage in ice the whiting scmples had not
reached the maximun possible scores in any of the four methods used (Table
43
8) The 1FIU (UBJutted) scores had reached only 94-3 of its possible maximum
value whereas the TFRJ (gutted) scores EOC scores am the filleted sample
scores reached only 94 9 867 and 81 3 of their poea Ible maximum score
Therefore all the four methods of scoriBJ can still be sensitive to changes
in quality of the whiting samples stored in ice after 23 days of storage tUne
Ihe roost obvious irxHcator of chaDJe for the whiting stored in ice using
the TFIU score sheet was the eyes (clarity shape and blcxxl) followed by the
develqxnent of -colour odour and nucous of the gills (fable 10) Bremner et
al (1985) when working with four tropical species f~ the north west shelf of
Australia also found that the most obvious indicator of change for fish stored
in ice was the eyes (their clarity am shape) follCAtled by odour developnent
and colour changes in the gills This was also found in the case of blue
grenadier in ~ discussed earlier OJrran et al (1981) when investigating
the quality changes duriBJ iced storage of three carmercially important
species of fish fran Bahrein also found that of the visual and olfactory
assessments gill odour showed the roost pranise as a quality control index
Pgain this is also found to be true with the EOC freshness score of both the
blue grenadier and the whitiBJ (Table 11) AccordiBJ to ~ate (1972) it
was generally agreed that odour of the gills is the most sensitive measure of
freshness but the visual appearance of the eyes gills arxi skin was quicker to
use in practice on the market
For the filleted sample scores of the whiting the most obvious indicator
of chanqe was the appearance and odour of the flesh (Table 12) This too
agreed with the findiBJs for blue grenadier stored in ffiW
AccordiBJ to Baines et al (1969) with fish eatiBJ is related to four
main attributes or quality factors viz appearance odour and texture of the
rCM and cooked fish and in the latter also flavour he ultimate purpose of
testing the raw fish is to estimate the eating quality which is here taken to
44
mean the degree of freshness of flavour Acoording to Baines and Shewan
(1965) the mostreliable test for predicting flavour sqore is raw odour
430 The ease aM difficulties of using the four methods of scoring
It was found that the TFRJ (ungutted) scores was the easiest and quickest
method to use as it takes on average only about 1 min 25 sec to score a fish
canpared to 1 min 55 sec 3 min 45 sec ard 1 min 50 sec for the TFRJ
(gutted) EOC and the filleted sample scores he E~ score was found to be
the roost tedious besides taking the longest time to soore a fish
he TFIU (ungutted) scores also have the advantage of not requiring a
knife in order to score ard also were less IOOSSY to work with canpared to all
the other nethods Also the attributes to be assessed were arranged and
organised in such a way in the score sheet that it is easy to score a fish
starting from assessing the apparance and skin and ending with the condition
and smell of the vent
440 Acceptability taste panel results of the blue grenadier samples
441 Flavour acceptability
Figure 5 shc7ws the flavour acceptability of the deep fried samples of
blue grenadier Samples stored in R3W for less than 17 days were found
statistically (Table 14) to be indistinguishable (Plt0001) fran each other
then there was a significant fall in the flavour acceptability of the samples
stored in RSW for 17 days onwards he sarrtgtle stored for 21 days had a still
lower mean value of 35 but it was not significantly different fran the
semple stored for 17 days which had a nean value of 41 It is interesting to
note that despite the progressive increase in sodiun uptake of the blue
grenadier samples stored in RSW from about 7115 35 mg sodium(lOO g tissue
initially to 724 33 mglOO g tissue on the 16th day aM to 729 17 mglOO g
45
tissue on the 21st day (Burford 1984) the panelists seem not to be
negatively affected by the increasing salt content of the samples with storage
tUne and in fact some of the panelists added more salt to their samples I
111is result contradicts statements made by previous reseachers that the
storage life using R3W may be limited by increases in salt content in the fish
flesh (Boyd et aI 1978) he maximun desirable salt content according to
Tcm1inson et al (1974) as quoted by Boyd et al (1978) is about 05 but at
the 16th day ofmiddot RgtW storage the salt content fOllNj In the flesh of blue
grenadier samples was already more than 07 fbwever the panelist only ate
40g pieces it might have been a different case if the fish has been as a
whole meal
442 Texture acceptability
Figure 6 shows the texture acceptability of the deep fried blue grenadier
samples stored in R3W eespf te sane apparent abberant values (such as the
high rrean of 55 for the sample stored for 14 days in RSW) it is obvious that
the texture acceptability showed a significant decreasing trend (pltOOl) from
seventeen days of storage onwards The abberant texture values are possibly
due to the fact that the fish texture might have been masked by the bread
crunbs used to coat the fish samples before deep fryi~ This agrees with the
observations of Bremner et al (1985) wtxgt found that the inherent textural
softness of P piotiue and the tougheni~ on storage of N peroni i detected by
a profile panel usilYJ steamed fillets were no lo~er noticeable when the fish
was deep fried in batter Bremner (1980) also reported that despi te the
softness of the raw flesh the cooked flesh of blue grenadier is reasonably
firm
46
433 OVerall acceptability
The overall acceptability of the deep fried blue grenadier samples stored
in R)W (figure 7) seems to follCM a similar pattern to its flavour
acceptability (figure 5)~ in which a significant fall in overall acceptability
was only observed fran the samples held fran 17 days in RSW onwards (pltO 001)
as shawn in Tablel4
rnus all the above results showed that there was a significant fall in
flavour texture and overall acceptability of blue ~renadier from 17 days of
R)W storage onwards which was found to be equivalent to the accumulated
demerit point scores of 29 of the TFRJ (ungutted) scoresr 31 of the TFRl
(gutted) scoresr 21 of the EOC scores and 23 of the filleted sample
scores Jones (1964) states that the acceptability of a fish is a function of
its suitability for further processing and of its inmediate appearance its
texture its odour and its flavour
450 Acceptability taste panel results of the whiting samples
451 Flavour acceptability
Figure 8 shows the flavour acceptability of the deep fried whiting
samples stored in ice rtle twelve sample times could be analysed individually
since the means if analysed by canbining adjacent sample times to give six
sample groups are in fact the means of the adjacent times if analysed
individually it was found that samples of the first nine renovals i se up to
17 days of storage in ice are more or less indistinguishable (abberant value
at 7th removal) he last three removals ie samples stored in ice for 19
21 and 23 days were found to be of significantly lower flavour acceptability
(p lt 0001) as shawn in Table 5
47
452 Texture acceptability
Except for the abberation at the 7th remgtval i 9 at day 13 of ice
storage there is a significant reduction of texture acceptability at the 21 II
and 23 days of ice storage (p lt0001) as shown by figure 9 and Table5 t
II
I 453 Over~ll acceptability
he overal I acceptability of the whiting sanples stored in ice is very
much similar to its f Lavour acceptability except at day 19 of ice storage
where the ovaral I acceptability shows a higher mean of 42 carpared to the
flavoor acceptability mean of 37 (figure 10 and Table 5) here is however a
significant sudden drop to lOil scores fran the lOth removal ie day 19 of
storage in ice (p lt0001)
hus all the above results for whitifVJ sanples showed that there was a
significant fall in flavCXJr and overall acceptability fram 19 days ice storage
onwards which is equivalent to the accumulated demerit points of 31 of the
TFRJ (unqutted) scores 35 of the TFRJ (gutted) scores 22 of the EEC
scores and 21 of the filleted sample scores he results are interesti~ in
that the oorresponding total accLDnulated demerit points at the time when
significant falls in flavour texture and overall acceptability of the blue
grenadier and whiting samples stored in I5W and ice respectively were quite
similar
500 CONCLUSION
510 Feasibility of using demerit points
Accumulation of demerit points with time of storage of M
in RM and H eemifaeaiatia in ice was found to be highly
occurred in a semi-linear fashion irrespective of the method of
novas8slandiae
correlated and
scori~ used
- _ ~uo_a~_bull--_--I e -Ii --
48
1he slopes of the lines (rate of accumulation of demerit points) and its
relative spoilage rate were found to be similar for the ttoO species provided
the sane method of scoring is employed 1his tends to suggest that the method
is possibly independent of species am methods of storage or at least
applicable to the two species in RSW and ice respectively
TIle TFRJ (ungutted) scores were foum to be the easiest arrl quickest
method to use although the TFRJ (gutted) scores were the roost sensitive 1he
EEX freshness scores were hClgtlever foum to be the JOOSt tedious aod difficult bull I
to use besides taking more than twice the time taken to score a fish ocmpared
to the TFRJ (ungut ted) scores
Although there were slig~t differences between the ttoO species in those
characteristics where changes were first made (Table 10 11 and 12) there is
enough evidence to conclude that the changes in the appearance of the eyes am
the odour developnent of the gills are the JOOSt obvious arrl valuable indicator
of charqe in quality when using the TFIU or the EEl scores while the
appearance am odour of the fish flesh seems to be the JOOSt obvious indicator
when assessing the filleted sample
1he shelf-life of M navaezelandiae stored in RSW was found to be 14 days
(less than 17 days) whilst that of H semifasoiata stored in ice was fourrl to
be 17 days (less than 19 days) beyond which the fish had developed spoilage
characteristics that were disliked by the acceptability taste panel
1he cut-off point at which spoilage of the samples would have rendered
the quality of the fish sample to be unacceptable fran the consumers point of
view ~ld be that equivalent to the accumulated demerit point of gt29 for the
TFRJ (gutted arrl ungutted) scores am gt21 for the EOC and filleted sample
scores
This study thus confinned the potential use of demerit points such as the
TFRJ (ungutted) scores as an easy quick cheap non-destructive and reliable
49
method of sensory assessment of fish quality In fact Branch and Vail (1985)
had studied the possible use of a prototype pocket-sized computer to determine
the condition and shelf-life of temperate and tropical species of fish based
on data that is derived fran the sensory score sheets for the assessment of
fish quality developed at the (SIRgt Division of fbod lEsearch Iasmanian Fbod
Research Unit (TFlU) Hobart
520 RJrpose for which demerit points are to be used
Many scor i oq systerrs are used to predict the nunber of days fish have
been stored on ice and in nore recent years ICETIME (equivalent days on
ice) I ard thus through years of experience the taste panel acceptability of
the fish I
However fish is sold on appearance and a scoring system may be used for
assessirg marketability of whole or gutted fish or fillets or for setting
standards in bulk buying The EEC scoring system is used for example at
fish markets at first point of sale to grade the fish and establish
withdrawal prices A IbrryShewan type system is often used as a purohas i nq
specification from finn to firm
Before a final demerit point system is selected for any COlIOOdity its
ultimate purpose should be established For example the demerit points
chosen for whole fish which nost closely resemble the rate of change of
demerit points for fillets of that species might be the most useful
A linear rate of change of demerit points with time is nose favoured
because it enables prediction of remaining shelf-life ConstJJrer
unacceptability should be at a point where perhaps 75 of the demerit points
have been accrued Further scores would still be available for categories
such as suitable for fish meal D3merit points are not an indication of the
acceptability of fish as eaten where off-odours flavours and fillet
50
tdiscolouration are masked by batters or curries Their correlation with the
iodours flavours off odours aod off flavours of steamed fish are currently ~
~
~being examined by other workers at the Tasmanian ~ Research unit and highly
significant correlations are found Even when fish are subsequently eaten
battered or curried demerit points give a good indication of remaining shelf
life Thus whitiOJ with a Smiley flavour score of 58 after 1 day on ice
has a nlU gutted demerit score of 1 and a high quality life (eaten crumbed
and fried) of a further 16 days while whitiOJ stored for 11 days on ice with
the sane flavour score has a gutted demerit score of 17 and a further shelf
life of 6 days
530 SUggestion for further work
Ib ascertain its potentially wide application as a simple quick and
technically sound methcxi of assessing fish quality many more studies using
other species of fish both temperate and tropical species and in various
storage conditions should be undertaken using a demerit point scorIrq system
such as that developed by the TFlU
The score sheet has proved invaluable when sending individuals untrained
researchers away on distant water fishing trips Ps yet 00 standard
deviations have been detennined using a team of assessors with coded samples
of unknown history This may require a separate group design
The effect of lean fish and fatty fish on the scores should also be
studied because factors such as seasonal variations in biological conditions
Lmproper gutting and washing mechanical damage and filth and changes due to
storage in R3W or shelving may have considerable influence on its shelf-
life Reports such as those of smith et al (1979) clearly showed that in fish
such as the blue whitirlJ (Mioroomesistius poubaeeous there is greater degree
I 51
of seasonal variability than in other gadoid species the overall
acceptability droppirq dramatically once the fish have spawned Fish accepted
for processing for food has to be of a higher standard of quality than fish
accepted for Imredfate sale across the counter to the consumer therefore
there is a need to rreet a minimum score before they could be processed into
food Gradirq is therefore best left to the user sorenson (1971) states
that in establishing limi ts of acceptance an allowance had to be made for
deterioration that would continue to take place during processing and storage
prior to reaching the consimer
The only final criteria of the objectivity of sensory or any other
assessment are results that are reproducible many times which is by definition
a lcnJ-tenn process and in the meantime one requires short-cut indications
that one is headirq in the right direction
Ferhaps a final caution Is necessary as in the YQrds of Ehrenberg and
Shewan (1953) not too much must be expected even the best measuring
instruments occasionally go oot of control
52
60 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baines CR Jones NR am Shewan JM 1965 Technological problems of
measur trq degree of freshness of wet fish and problems of quality
control requirif)J roore knowledge fran fundamental research In he
Technology of fish utilisation ad R Kreuzer Fishi~ News (Books)
p 141
Baines CR and Shewan JM 1965 sensory rrethods for evafuat inq the
quality of white fish Lab practice 14 160-163
Baines CR ltbnnell JoJ Gibson DM lbWgate PF Livi~ston E and
Shewan JM 1969 A taste panel technique for evaluatirq the eati~
quality of frozen cod In Freezi~ and irradiation of fish ad R
Kreuzer Fishi~ News (Books) London p361
Boyd NS and Wilson NDC 1976 A sensory method for evaluatInq the
quality of Snapper (Ch1ysophrys auratus) NZ Journal of Science 19
209-12
Boyd NS Wilson ND and Bjley A 1978 A refrigerated sea water plant
for small boats symposium on fish utilisation technology and
marketi~ in the IPFC region IFFC Proceedi~s 18th session Manila
Philippines FAD Ba~kok p 186-192
Branch AC and Vail AMA 1984 Bri~i~ fish inspection into the
canputer age FltXld Technol Aust 36 in press
Bremner HA Olley J and Ihrower SoJ 1978 CSIIU Iasmanian lEgional
Laboratory OCcasional Paper No4
Bremner HA 1980 Processi~ and freezi~ of the blue grenadier (Maclulonus
novaeselandiae) FltXld Technol Aust 32(8)~ pp 385-393
Bremner J A 1984 QJality - an attitude of mind In he JILlstralian
Fishi~ Industry - today and tanorrow 10-12 July 1984 Launceston
53
Australian MaritUne Cbllege seminar Bapers 224-69
Bremner HA Statham JA am Sykes SJ 1985 Tropical species fran the
north west shelf of Alstralia sensory assessment and acceptability
of fish stored co ice Proceedi~s Sixth session IPR Worki~ Party
on Fish D3chnology and Marketi~ Melbourne 1984 FJID Fish lep 252
supp1
Burford D 1985 Sodiun uptake in MaOlUfOOnUS nooaeselandiae stored in
refrigerated sea water Tasmanian Food Research Unit OCcasional Paper
No9
ltbnnell JJ 1972 OJality control in the fish industry Ibrry Jldvisory
note No 58 IOrty Research Station Aberdeen
ltbnnell JJ 1980 ltbntrol of fish quality Fishi~ ~ws (Books) 2nd ed
Surrey England
OJrran CA Nicolaides L and Al-Alawi ZS 1981 QJality chanqes duri~
iced storage of three carmercially important species of fish fran
Bahrain Trop sci 23(4) 253-268
de Zylva ERA 1974 Effect of fish handli~ at sea on storage quality of
New Zealand Snapper (Chroysophroys aumtus) New Zealand J SCi 17
309-318
Etlira S 1976 A biochemical study on the freshness of fish Bull 1bkai
Reg Fish Res Lab No 88 pp 1-13
Ehrenberg ASC and Shewan JM 1953 he cbjective approach to sensory
tests of food J Sci Food hJric 4 pp 482-489
Herbert RA and Shewan JM 1975 Precursors of the volatile sulphides in
spoili~ North Sea Cod J Sci Food JIlgric 26 1195-1202
lbUwi~ H 1972 Gradi~ of fish in different qualities Institute for
Fishery Products Ijmuiden Unpublished
~ate P 1972 Qrlparison of sensory scor inq systems for raw fish
I 54
Unpubl ished bull ~ ~
~ate P 1978 Measuri~ the quality am acceptability of fish products bull ~
In IPFC Proceedi~s symposiun on fish utilisatial technology and ~
i f~
marketi~ in the IWC region 18th session Manila Ihilippines p
449
fflghes RB and Jones NR 1966 Measurement of hypoxanthine concentrations
in canned herrirg as an index of the freshness of the raw material
with a ocirment oo flavor relations J SCi fOOd middotJlgric 17 434
Jahns FD Howe JL Coduri Jr RJ and Ram Jr AG 1976 A rapid
visual enzyme test to assess fish freshness Food Iechno1 30 (7) 27
Jones NR 1964 ~lems associated with freezi~ very fresh fish
Proceedings Meeting on Fish Iechnology Fish Handling and
Preservation schevenirqen OEC D Paris p 31 bull
Jones NR 1965 Hypoxanthine and other purine containing fractions in fish
muscle as indices of freshness In uthe technology of fish
utilisation ed R Kreuzer Fishi~ rewa (Books) (Drmn p 179
Last PR Scott EOG and Talbot FH 1983 Fishes of Tasmania
Tasmanian Fisheries ~velopnent lUthority lbbart Tasmania pp 238
414
Lima doe santos CAM James D and Ieutscher F 1981 QJidelines for
chilled fish storage experiments FKJ Fish Tech Igt 210
(Dye RM 1954 Ibst rrortem cha~es in the lenses of fish eyes Msessment
of storage tiJm and fish quality J Sci Focx11lgric 5 566-572
Hartin RE Gray RJ H and Pierson MD 1978 QJality assessment of fresh
fish arrl the role of the naturally occurring microflora Focx1
Technol 32 (5) 188
Official Journal of the European oamrnunities No L264 5 ~cember 1970 pp
1-11
bull
55
Technol New Zealand July 1971 pp 31-35
Spinelli J Eklund M and Miyauchi D 1964 Measurement of hypoxanthine
in fish as a method of assessing freshness J Food SCi 29 710
Thrower S oJ am Stafford IA 1981 A roobile unit for ccmparative studies
of chilled storage systems for trawl fish IIF IIR
eatmissions C2 01 02 03 Boston USA 1981-4
Thrower SoJ Bremner HA QJarmby AR Ggtnnan T8 aild Graham KJ
1982 cn-board handlinJ of Q~ish ~ Inportanoeof chillinJ and
gutting Aust Fish 41 (11) 38-41
Tanlinson N bull bull t at 1974 COtparison between refrigerated sea water (with or
without added carbon dioxide) and ice as storage media for fish to be
subsequently frozen Proc IIR C011n 82- 0-3 Tokyo p
waterman J oJ 1982 Qrrposition and QJality of Fish A Dictionary 1brry
Mvisory Note No 87 Torry Research Station Aberdeen
5J
Olley J and letkowsky OA 1973 he role of terrperature function
integration in monitoring of fish spoilage Food Technol New
Zealand 8 (2) 13 15 and 17
Olley J 1977 Iemperature and seafood spoilage In H Proceedings of 1977
SChool for SeafltXld Processorsmiddot ad ~ AF 0 Mello Hawkesbury
Agricultural Oollege p6-2
Olley J 1978 QIality assessment and storage changes In middotCSIRJ Iasmanian bull
leJional Laboratory OCcasional Paper No 4 p 3-1 middot4 Rgenstein J M and ~enstein CE 1981 he shelf-life extension of fesh
fish In Advances in the refrigerated treabnent of fishmiddot
International Institute of Rfrigeration Clmnissions C2 m ra [8
Boston US A 1981-4
leJenstein J 1983 Wlat is fish quality INroFISH Marketing Digest ttgt 6
26-28
Ryder JM 9Jisson OH SCott ON and Fletcher GC 1984 storage of
New Zealand Jack Mackerel ( TmohUMlB notJabullbullbullZandias) in ice
chemical microbiological and sensory assessment J M SCi 49
1453-1456 1477
Shewan JM Macintosh RG rucker CG and Ehrenberg ASC 1953 he
developnent of a numerical ~coring systan for the sensory assessment
of the spoilage of wet white fish stored in ice J SCi Food Jlgric
4 283-298
Smith J GM Hardy R hanson AB Young KW and Parsons E 1979
sane observations 00 the ambient and chill storage of blue whiting
(Mio1om8sistius poutassou) bull In H Advances in Fish SCience and
Technology ad JJ Connell FishinJ News (Books) Surrey England
pp 299-303
SOrensen T 1971 QIality control and fish handling in New zealand Food ~
t c-
o )
~hmiddot r~YiJ lt~
~~f~~ ~
I
Nomooram for comparison of diffGrent scoring systems tor raw T i sn ___ _ J bull )
_U I~ ~Y1 9i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~
I I t I I - _---1------ imiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot __ middot~_ ~ __~_ -_ ~ + ~ _ -~ _ - middotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middot __ G 9 8 7 6 _ 5middot 3
_ - zmmy [ I bull r f II
d _~__ ~ __ _ ~ __ -I-- - ~ L- i~ middoti~ ~ 1-L -~~ lt lt l~tceland 1P i ~ ~ j ~ ~ ~ L~ __ - I ~_ bull _ L j ~- _-
N rv 1 I 1 2 --- - 2~ 3 middot 3middot 4 ~- ~Il ay ~ _ _ middot _ r r
_ _ __ _ _~ ~_ ) - ~ L_ - 1- ~-_ -_ _ _ ~ 19 ~ 8 imiddotmiddot I 6 5 4 3
Do _ _nm~r t I I I r
~ I
_ ~ ~_ ~ t ~ __ i__ t ~ ~ ~ ~ _ q x 1 1i 2 2~ 3v _ Franee I r I l n
I I I i _ - ~ _ _ _- _-- middotmiddot __ middot_middot_middot_middotmiddotmiddotImiddotmiddotmiddot_middot~ _middotmiddotmiddotmiddot-_middotmiddotmiddotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddot ---- - --~ ~-
19oum8 I 7 6 i 5 ~ ~ 4middot 280 J t (
I i
J -- - -_ -__ X ~middotH i__~ -- i_L ~ - l_ middot1-- - 3 I 2Y1 0 4 11z 1 y
E E C I 1
I I I deg deg E I A r Bmiddot - I I C
ltOIl j- ~ ~ c ~--------------
TASTER
DATE
SESSION
~ER middot1
bull You will be given ~bull aamples of cooked fish Please assess the fish for flavour textur~ and
overall liking as though you had purchased them in a takeaway food shop Hark the sample
identification under the face that most closely describes your impressionbull
I
middot5 S shy2 3 4
FLAVOUR
IEXlURE
--
OVERALL UKING
7 bullbull yc ) I _ v J _ _
I1PP~NJIJ( 3 ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE BGRENVZSASS (A)
OBS DAYS-R DMPTS shy
1 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 6 4 3 7 4 6 e 4 5 9 6 1 18 6 10 11 6 18 12 6 18 13 e 13 14 8 16 13 8 13 16 8 17 17 9 18 18 9 18 19 9 bull 19 29 9 19 21 19 19 22 1 21 23 1 19 24 1 2123 11 21 26 11 22 27 11 22 29 11 22 29 12 22 3 12 22 31 12 23 32 12 23 33 13 23 34 13 23 33 13 22 36 13 23 37 14 24 38 14 23 39 14 264 14 25
17 26~ 17 39 43 17 38 44 17 29 43 21 32 46 21 33
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASS(At
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (Xt DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Yt DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9666 R SQUARED 9343 T STATISTIC 231621 INTERCEPT tAt 31799 SLOPE tSt 173399 bull STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 219473
OBSERVATIONS 46 Y DMPT9 XI DAYS-RSW YMIN -18 YMAX 61 YINC e XMIN -19 XMAX 2e9 XINe 2
] y
__ t=- I I 0(I I
JPRH6ELF PRINT MODULE -SYNTAX ERROR
DATABASE J3lGRENVISASS (FIL)
OB8 DAYS-R DMPT8
1 s 1 2 4 5 s 6 6
~ e 8 ~ 9 1 6 19 12 7 11 14 8 12 17 9 13 18 1 14 19 bull 11 17 23 12 21 29
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASSCFIL)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE CX) DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IY) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT ~9963
R SQUARED 992 T STATISTIC 3~36977
INTERCEPT CA) -3~6~41
SLOPE CB) 1~8426
STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 77667
OBSERVATIONS 12 v DMPTS x DAYS-RSW VMIN -2~ VMAX ~~ YINC ~
XMIN -19 XMAX 2~9 XINC 2
]
bull
-SYNTAX ERROR
lPRH6ELF PRINT MODULE
DATABASE BGRENVXSASS (AG)_
OB6
1 2 3 4 ~
6 7 8 9
Hi 11 12 13 14 1~
16 17 -18 19 2 21 22 23 24 2~
26 27 28 29
3 31 32 33 34 3~
36 37 J8
39
4 41 42 43 44 4~
46
DAYS-R
3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 6 6 6 6 8 8
8 bull 8
9 9 9 9
1 1 1 1 11 11 11 11
DMPTS
2 3 3 3 ~
6 ~
~
1 1 1 1 17 18 17 19 2~
2 21 21 21 23 21 23 23 24 24 24
12 24 12 24 12 25 12 25 13 27 13 25 J3 24 13 27 104 26 J04 2S
14 28 14 27 17 28 17 32 17 32 17 31 21 34 21 35
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BORENVISASSCAO)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE IX) DAVS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IV) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9~76~
R SQUARED 917 T STATISTIC 22S6S88 INTERCEPT lA) 323~7
SLOPE lB) 189812 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 269324
OBSERVATIONS 46 Y DM PT6 X DAYS-RSW ~ _01 VMAV 2~ YfNe ~
XMIN -19 XNAX 2l9 XINC 2
]
9YNTA)( ERROR bull ]PRN6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE BGRENVXSASS
OB6 DAY6-R DMPTS
1 3 1 2 3 1 3 3 1 4 3 1 5 4 1 6 4 4 7 4 3 9 4 1 9 6 6 18 6 6
11 6 6 12 6 6 13 9 8
14 9 9 15 8 8 16 8 9 l 9 18 19 9 11 19 9 12 28 9 12 21 18 12 22 18 14 23 18 11 24 18 14 25 11 15 26 11 13 27 11 15 29 11 15 29 12 17 3 12 18 31 12 19 32 12 18gJ l~ 34 13 18 3~ 13 18 36 13 19 37 14 19 JB 14 19 39 14 19 48 14 19 41 17 19 42 17 23 43 17 21 44 17 20
-(EEC)
q~ 21 23 q6 21 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASSCEEC)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE IX) DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IY) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 96691 R SQUARED 93q9 T STATISTIC 2~14824
INTERCEPT IA) -238937 SLOPE IB) 146219 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 1S28eS
OBSERVATIONS q6 Y DMPTS X DAYS-RSW YMIN -2q YMAX ~5 YINC ~
XMIN -19 XMAX 259 XJNC 2
l
SYNTAX ERROR lPRM8ELF PRINT MODULE
-
bull
APPENJ)K 4 -
DATABASE WHZTXNG VXSASS (A) bull
OBS DAYS-I
1 1 2 1 3 1 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 ~
9 5 9 5 Ii 7 11 7 12 7 13 9 14 9 1~ 9
016 11 17 11 19 11
DMPTS
1 1 1 1 2 2 4 3 5 a 7
9 13 15 bull 13 16 14 1~
019 13 2 8 28 13 16 21 13 20 22 15 24 23 1~ 24 24 15 25 25 17 29 26 17 29 27 17 38 29 19 30 29 19 38 38 19 32 31 21 33 32 21 32 33 21 32 34 23 32 3~ 23 32 36 23 34
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASSIA)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE tX) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE tV) qMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 98514 R SQUARED 9785 T STATISTIC 3344414 INTERCEPT tAt -245163 SLOPE CBt 166958 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 286799
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS x DAYS-ICE
YMIN -22 YMAX lS7 YINC lS- XMIN -19 XMAX 259 XINC 2
]
I
J
-8YNTAX ERROR
]PRM6ELF PRINT MODULE shyDATABASE WHITING VISASS (AG)
OB8 DAYS-I DMPT8
1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 4 3 1 ~ 3 2 6 3 2 7 ~ 4 9 ~ 3 9 ~ ~
18 7 18 11 7 9 12 7 18 13 9 1~
14 9 17 1~ 9 1~
16 11 18 17 11 16 18 11 17 19 13 22 28 13 18 21 13 22 22 1~ 26 23 1~ 27 24 1~ 28 2~ 17 32 26 17 32 27 17 33 28 19 34 29 19 34 38 19 36 31 21 37 32 21 36 33 21 36 34 23 36 3~ 23 36 36 23 38
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITINO VISASS(AO)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAY8-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Y) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 986~2
R SQUARED 973 T STATISTIC 3~B167B
INTERCEPT CAl -272~33
SLOPE CBI 197S63 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 221294
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS X DAYS-ICE YHIN -19~ YHAX ~9~ YINC ~
XHIN -19 XHAX 2~9 XINC 2
]
-SYNTAX ERROR lPRM6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASS (EEC)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 2 1 3 1 4 3 ~ 3 1 6 3 1 7 ~ 2 8 ~ 2 9 ~ 3
1 7 3 11 7 3 12 7 3 13 9 6 14 9 6 bull 1~ 9 7 16 11 7 17 11 8 18 11 7 19 13 11 2 13 1 21 13 12 22 1~ 13 23 1~ 1~
24 1~ 17 2~ 17 19 26 17 18 27 17 19 28 19 29 29 19 23 39 19 22 31 21 24 32 21 23 33 21 24
34 23 2J 3~ 23 26 36 23 27
I ELF SCATTER MODULE I DATABASE WHITING VISA88CEEC)I I INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (~) DAYS-ICE I
DEPENDENT VARIABLE (VI DMPTS I bull
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9a2~3
R SQUARED 96~3
T STATISTIC 387a73~
INTERCEPT (A) -4142 SLOPE (8) 12873 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 173287
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS ~ DAYS-ICE YMIN -29 YMA~ ~1 VINC ~
XMIN -19 ~MA~ 2~9 ~INC 2
J
-SYNTAX ERROR JPRM6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHITING VXSASSmiddot(FXL)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 2 3 1 3 ~ 5 4 7 4 ~ 9 9 6 11 13 7 13 1~
e 1~ 16 9 17 19 18 19 21 11 21 24 12 23 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASB(FJLI
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Y) DMPTS
bull bullbull 4~
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE CV) DMPTSr
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 982~3
R SQUARED 96~3
T STATISTIC 3S7873~ t bullbullf CINTERCEPT CA) -4142
SLOPE CB) 12873 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 173287
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS XI DAYS-ICE YMINmiddot~28 YMAKI 1 YINC ~
XMIN -I9XMAX 2~9 XINC2
]
-SYNTAX ERROR ]PRH6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHXTXNG VXSASS (FXL)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 S 2 3 1 1 5 3 4 7 4 5 9 9 6 11 13 7 13 1~
9 15 16 9 17 19 1 19 21 11 21 24 12 23 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE I WHITING VISAS8(FIL)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE CX)I DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE CY) DMPT8
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 99289 R SQUARED 9858 T STATISTIC 2638123 INTERCEPT CA) -243706 SLOPE CB) 124476 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 112846
SLOPE 10) 124476 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 112846
ObullbulllfftVTrOHSO 12 VI DHPTS XI DAVS-ICE VMIN -27 VHAX e2 VINe e XHIN -19 XHAX 2e9 gtcINe 2
]
-8VNTAX ERROR
fi
rr
[bull
SJ
in i
bullol
r~
bull bull
n i
o o o o
~
o~ o
o - l
N~ o ~
o o o
Q
Q o o
a
c -~_
Q
_
_ Q
_9_
0
o ~-
O
_
Q
lI
oJ ~
v
~ ~
~-
-
- -1
---h
---1
---I
I
I
1
~ ((9 ~ J las 0 - ~~ U -lt) az E~-~gl~~1--~~---------- ~) 1)
11 ~ - 11 HI ~~
I bull M~
~ -~ ~~ IJ~ I J ismiddotJ I Q l~
k tl I 01 re lr - 91 br I ~I ( -0 71P g I CJ tt
I I J 000 0 0 w I 0) NlNN1tl 30 hIflJ I t IC (~4ID(r ~ Wi
_ f-- -------- bull fyen ~=y ~~r I I I I I I I 0 0 00 00 ( ~) -Fr~ ~ fj)
-0 I 0 I Ole 17 10 0 ( ~ AI )middot P1~ 0 0 00 Q hItIrS ~7I -~~ (J
t -r------0 bull
_-~_ middotmiddotmiddot_middot~middotmiddotmiddot)-middot7~)
lrrT I 01 0
0 tFmiddot~~i ~ 1 o 00 Omiddot (~ -W ~r f (JJ___~ _______ _ l I I 71 I -_---_ - M-~ ~ I
J I Z-tf ~ ~ ~fI t1 11f ( )) CI I I I i I 00 r11-7[ c I C bull aofl7r_ ~ ~z ~ 1t~Ji ) ( --_--------i---shye l~~~ I f~) I I J I
I II i bull Q ( N~T fE ~I )
~JiP _- -___ ----shy
_
~ 7Yr 0) ~(J ~ I e I t I ~ l I J I I 1 I I I(I 0 0 (~~yen~ M -p~P71 JPtJIJs 0
i euror (1l~J IlLriJlllr1JI ~~J I ~()(1OP I I r I I 0 I ( t t I ( jIfS 7fS ~~I ~ )
I
I 1 I( IN 10~ lb~ qItJ gtr~j f o (~)I(~) I I 0 I (t~ ~~) I I Jbull o 0 J I ~ l 0 a i S(jJ t t t tI tI C I C I J I I I J I 0 I (n~rlP PI4t -I) t
- -I
-I -I-I I II-I I I-I r bull
-----(rtb Ii If p~) PNl17T7~b ~y~ 7
10 IIt1v I 0 1~L CIJ tN IfIfW1IIJ JI11i JN~I HJ3
---Y p~ALY~_ ~~ Yl2-- 1)
yenvr 1amp f111l
-
~
~~
~
II
o 0
~cgt
(
) Q
oa
oo
o
oo
o o
a
o
~
P
t
oo
c
oo
a -
o
oo
o
o -
o
-o
-
-
lJ
I~ I~
Jl ~rIpound i IAlffzfjjsectj 7df- utl kf J OG lie rCOIpound ~IIE(T r
7tU
~
~ ~
~ ~
~
-shy~
~
MYI f)lySLM~ 1 (JAy ISo~r 11 ~~) e ()~t ~I01) r I joy f o~y lOJ 17~JJlII1~ 16 fiti -t1 It r ~17J~~flu~1h 111H 7U 1111111shyIllf Jr(11Jr I fhJo
~ ) ~ I1 J J-4 ~ J 2 JJ ~poundol ~ ] t4 cl -7 eJ uJ cJJJ wI~ wI l shy w c at amp 74 -t ~ ut 4 I
SkIN 000 o 0 0o 0 0 o 00 I o I I I I 3 3 3l) t 3 3 31 s 3ltt
a I I I I I o IfYU I 2 I JI I I000 )l~ 1~1 S 3 ~S 3 5 335
GILtJ I J I o (J 0 I (I I I ~ t 2shy~I I s 3 ]] 2 0 (J 3 ~ ~ t 3 3 AlvItUiU i l I I ls)z oJ lJ 0 a (J ~ 0o 0 0 a a aTff1ttJR II r 1
1 I ~ I I I I 1~E
Cdt47tl7 I I ~ ~t( a a 0O(O I Io I~ 00 000deg a 0wO 0 0 0 o 0 0 o~ 00VUipound811 ~ J I
tJ I Oe6rlllr I I I I 2 2]l2 ~ 3 S 3 S ~ 3o a 0 (J () 0 I 333 1 $ 3
If~euMI LU~ 2l 3000o (J 0 o 0 0 J 2 2shy 331a deg (1 ~ 2 Jshy
i I 000amp1 0 I I 1TIUUpound
lAcltJdJE 00deg00o 0 0 ooalOOO 0 0 I I I 1OdOa deg 0 11 2 I r I I I IbullI
I I h~r~Eu I ( 0 0 CJ 0 o (J a 2 ~ 30001011 0 1 J 1010 I I L II 2 l 2l 22 2 1
sKIN GLLt I f I~J) GlIIl) 0 (I a I do 0 0 I 0 Il~t l~o 0 0 ~ 3 3 3 s 3 3 3 33s1331
i7tJ7l11 Ibull I shy i66 ~o
(J ~ 0 1 0 It3331l J t 1 1shy 1~ ~afJllc 11 Irrshy It ~1 1111 20 J3 u
(])JtUJ61 (l) (1) (Ir)(0) (J)(I) (If) (19) (u) (~r)(J4)
I r f
I
I
i I
I i
II I ((
f
II Ii
p ()
Q
0_
_ 00
0
00
00
00
0
o o o 0
00
0
0 _
o Q
0
0
o
0
00
0
-
0 0
0
middot0
0
o oo
0
o Q
o oo o o
- ~
~
~ ~~pound
w
i -shy
o
co
- --
shy
o o o
~
~_
~
0
-shyJJ
-----l--~
-J
J IJ
f
J
J)
o 0
00
_ 0
0
o (gt
0
o ()
o
0
0 0
0
()
()
o 0
0
o 0
0
_
_ -
-----1
-----shy
Q
0 0
o ~-IJ~ulJ-
u
lJcllJ_-_~IJamp
o o
Q
I---+----I---+----I----I~-
_Ilpound
llD
lIlI
Il
~I
IIIl
I_II
II5
l__
IIlIa
IllP
=lII
Il1
rl
ll
IlIl
IlIII
llII
IlJl
IIl
IIlIl_
IIrII
G3i
mta
isectID
it
llll~
1~=wampampftUla
_
au
U
Lamp
WJN
AJ
poundmiddotJI
IiIamp
3flJ
a
uac
ampa
f
shy
I~middottn 0~L fi 5L middottlu~ fo_~r ( ) 1poundc [CtJRl -ffl(pound1 r~~ rlt1c- J c-ru
-- I
1SllJ7~
lt l)~ J )IIr M ~-t s ~~ OIl middot )If 10 JAY II 041
J- Olt i1 )lir iI DIY IT- IMy11
1~middot6f1 14f1- ~imiddot -- J _ middotAfmiddot IIrk middot Jiamp -ffh~11 rtr Il ~M gt27P- ill Ill ~lllY ~~7rlf JC 1- ~ r 1M 11
r ~ F16F r~h FIjFi ~~I)r r~Fr
5 Fc II -i~fIoi l 1 fj t t Fr c r amp t 1= ~ r ~ F r rtI ~
- -
sION o (j o 0 0 o 0 a I I I I I I I I 2 I t t I-r J~L) z~z~ 2~J ~ z a ~ ~ 33 - -ol t 1 2
~ poundys-s 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I I lt t 2 t t 4 ~z ~ 2l~ ~ ~ 1 Z 3zi3p33 3 333 3 3 3 - - ~ rl~ a 0 a (1 a a o 1 I 1 I 1-2 12 t ltt a ~ l J tll~ ~~~) 2 2 2 2- ~Jll 21 13 33 ~
- ~ MIIi(UlA~
degCt1C 11 )l
FipoundSI- eli CeoD o 0 (J 0 I I I I I I 1 1 I I 1 I Jl~] l2 22- z ~ 2 2 22 11 2-3 -Sfvpound
j
CIJiCVlt-tICN I I I 1 ( I I I 2 2 t ~ t~ )2 2~21 2$ 2 t _~ 3AIJJN(j- P (J dO o C a a o 0 00 1 I I I I - --
V~7r~ ~ c~u N
(TKWW~ CO~ o I oc I I J I I I I 1 2 I 2 2 1- ) t~l2 2- 22 2 ) 2 ~2- 1222 2 2 ll 2L -- -~VClLAl I
a 0 0 0 01 I 0 2 1 2 2 J5r 4 E i H CA I I
-I I I I I I I I J J 12( ~ 12 1 2 1 2-I TfI_ 21 1-1- 1 1 ~ 1
~ I middot_0-__-- I
~ 1
ffCACIpound coo 000lt=1 o 0 0 0 btJCt) o a () (J I I I I I I I I111 I I I 1 I I -~-aD CD lJ a a 0 0 ~ ~ UlrAfllN o 0 a IJ e e 0 C) (JdegOo ecJao co (10 (1 o I I I I I I I I 1 I I III I I I I z --
i tiN ~4r L~~ 2- li ~ a~ 8M) CUmiddot c d (J 0 (J () I I I 1 1 1
I 1 I I f t I II tl-loI 21 1 t 33 - -
-Iffl1-
J I I I I i- 2 I 11~SC~E ~ t 1 o ~ 04-t 1J 11 1 11t IS~ IfS J1 I 1 I If I IJ 1 r~]u ze uu __
bull ttlUIG
(I) l~) (6) (II) ~ (~) 6s-)llIt lCUI CJ (Ii) (~) vmiddot (II) (19~ ---
I t f
I
~ I
~ I
Ii
I I
Ii I II f
~ (
--)raquo~ middot-~~-~-I~~IliiI~~-middotComiddot~-d-b~middotmiddotmiddotmiddot_ ~ ~ middoth-~_middot--~H~~middot~gt
Other Occasional Papers in the series
1 A salinity monitor for irrigation pumps by EOMIEZITIS
2 Wine liqueur and fish products acceptability trials 47th ANZAAS Congress Hobart 1976 by HABREMNER TLLEWIS and ARQUARMBY
3 Abalone silage an exercise in the conservation of waste by JUNE OLLEY
4 Course notes contributed by the CSIRO Tasmanian Food Research Unit to a workshop on fish handling and quality control Hobart Oct3rd-5th 1978 by HABREMNER JUNE OLLEY and SJTHROWER
5 Difficulties with generalized least squares regression in forest modelling by PWWEST
6 Metabolism of zinc cadmium and copper in rats fed shellfish highly contaminated with heavy metals by SJTHROWER JUNE OLLEY and MAUREEN McDERMOTT
7 Hygiene control in seafood processing by SJTHROWER
5
= Jldenosine 5-IOCgtoophosphate IMP = Inosine 5-IOCgtoophosphate lID = Inosine j
Hx = Hypoxanthine xa = Xpnthine am UA = Uric acid loo ~tages in this
degradative sequence have been considered as objective indices of quality shy
dephosphorylation of IMP am formation of hypoxanthine IMP reportedly
possesses properties as a flavour enhancer in fish mrscle COnsequently its
breakdawn may contribute to and be correlated with the loss of fresh flavour
in sane species SCme difficulties however may arise fran using IMP
dephosphorylatioo as a s inqle quality index eg the pattern of nucleotide
breakdown in invertebrate seafood species may differ in same key respects fran
that fourrl in vertebrate species he rate of IMP decanposition in the muscle
also differs between species (Ehira 1976) Accordi~ to Martin et al (1978)
the rrost serious limitation imposed by an IMP index may be that the reaction
is substantially complete well within the edible storage life of a number of
species Its major value then may be as an indicator of fresh flavour loss
during early storage
Unlike IMP concentrations of hypoxanthine (Hx) have been shown to
increase steadily throughout the useful storage life of a number of fish
species (Hughes and Jones 1966) Hypoxanthine formation is a result of both
autolytic am bacterial activities hus it also has advantages over the 1MA
assay Hx may be correlated with flavour loss caused by autolytic activities
durirg early storage am with bacterial spoilage during extended storage to
derive a prediction of useful storage life Also the IMA test is of no value
for freshwater fish because these either do not contain or contain very little
trimethylamine oxide Hx may also be used to determine the quali ty of canned
herrirg at the tirre of processing since hypoxanthine concentrations neither
increase nor decrease duri~ heat process inq and subsequent storage (Hughes
ard Jones 1966) 1MA concentrations on the other hand are unstable during
heat process inq lbNever different species of fish produce hypoxanthine by
6
different routes and at different speeds Each lustralian species ttOUld have
to be examined in turn am the hypoxanthine test related to sensory grades
tbte that the Canadian redfish and flounder had produced the maximum amgtunt of
hypoxanthine 10llg before they becarre unacceptable while the swordfish had
only produced a fifth of the arount when it became unacceptable to a taste
panel (Olley 1978) The hypoxanthine test requires laboratory facilities and
same equipment but recently the use of sLmple paper strips have been reported
(Jahns et aI 1976)
The main disadvantages of nucleotide assays are that they are apt to vary
even arro~ individuals within a species Sufficient samples need to be used
to reduce this variability
All the chemical roothods discussed above depend on measuring the
concentration of certain chemical substances in the flesh and since the sample
is destroyed in the process they cannot be used to test every fish in a
batch In any case variation between fishes in the sarre batch makes chemical
tests for quality a task requiring a statistician (Olley 1977) All the
methods require the use of a laboratory or fairly elaborate facilities and
also they oo rot apply to all species and products alike
130 Physical Methods
Love (1954) described a roothod which correlates the turbidity of the eye
lenses of fish with storage tiroo of iced fish kept in a roan of fairly
constant air temperature He found that it is possible by examination of 20
or more lenses to assess the storage tiroo with an error of not roore than 1
day M advantage of this roothod is that since only the eyes have to be
raroved in sampling the fish remains saleable as headed dressed fish or as
fillets ~ver1 the roothod had many limitations such as difficulty in
manipulation and matchi~ of the lenses which have to be done in good diffused
7
daylight at least 20 lenses are required for each estllnation which is rather
tedious for routine work and also it is not applicable where fish had not been
kept all the time in ice under the standard conditions eg bulk stowage of
fish with ice on a trawler may result in deviation fran the conditions of box
stolage in an insulated roan
he GR Ibrrymeter is a battery pc7ot1ered hand-held instnunent that rreasures
certain dialectric properties of fish skin which charge wi th the
tiJretemperature history of the fish fbWever readi~s on a large mrnber of
samples have to be taken and averaged bull Although it is a rapid simple
objective and rDn-destructive method of estllnati~ the quality of fresh fish
it has the followilkJ disadvanteqesj large variation in readirg fran fish to
fish readi~ varies with physical damage to fish1 cha~e of readi~ with time
varies with species and also may be insensitive at later stages of spo i Laqe
Curran et al (1981) reported that the GR Ibrrymeter was not particularly
successful with both the purple emperor (L6thoinus l6ntjan) ard the Spanish
mackerel ( Scomberomorue oonmereons since the readirgs obtained do not
correlate very well with the taste panel results
140 Microbiological Methods
he rootine microbiological testirg that is performed under normal
industry operations is normally restricted to enumeration of nonpathogenic
microorganisms hose frost frequently used are the standard plate count and
enumeration of indicator organisms such as the coliform group Beoher-ichia
coli aM Staphylococcus aureus
Food handl i nq practices beyond the pr-imary processors control make
standard aerobic plate count (APe) a difficult quality assessment tool to use
generally he total nunber of bacteria is not the sole determinant of
8
quali ty since certain microbial groups are rrore apt to cause spoilage than
others These groups can be given a selective advantage for growth by the way
the product is processed or stored furthermore the determination of
bacterial counts while they are of value to research requires too much time
before results are known and can also be expensive for routine testing
Representative samples have to be taken for bacterial examination because the
fish or product is destroyed during the test Interpreting the results of
bacterial testing is a task for experts who should be consulted when
necessary bull
Detection and enumeration of indicator bacteria such as the coliform
group E ooli and S auroeu8 were considered for many years to indicate the
potential presence of pathoqenic microorganisms NM this inference has been
questioned and these groups are no longer considered a reliable method for
predicting the presence of such pathogens (Martin et aL1978) bull
According to Olley and Ratkowsky (1973) there is in fact no simple index
of quality and a thorough knowledge of the oamplete temperature history of the
fish is the only true indicator of freshness This is so because at higher
temperatures bacteria divide in half more rapidly Therefore the
relationship between bacterial growth with production of spoilage canpounds
and temperature is not a straight line rut a curve he curve relates rate of
spoilage of these commodities at temperatures between aoe and 25dege to the rate
at which they would spoil at aoe hus at aoe the relative rate is 1 and at
Rate at temperature (tOe)any other temperature the relative rate is Rate at a be
Bremner et at (1978) have coined the term ICE FOID for this relative rate
ie so many times faster than the ccmnodity would spoil on ice and
lCETIME as equivalent storage time on ice = lCEFOID x time in days
The curve has also been converted into tabular form to enable conversion
of the temperature history of the catch into equivalent storage time
on ice under ideal conditions However the concept of relative rate of
9
spoilage with temperature can only apply if fishing oonditions are kept
constant
150 sensory Methods
Currently the best way to detenmine fish freshness still requires the use
of a taste panel (Regenstein and Regenstein 1981) A number of taste panel
techniques for assessing the quality of unfrozen fish species have been
described am are in use in different parts of the world These techniques
vary in cbjective and ccrrplexity but are of three main types Firstly there
are those which categorise the fish on the basis of its acceptability for
eatirq secondly there are those which categorise the fish on the basis of
well-defined characteristics which change duri~ storage Thirdly there are
techniques which include elements of both of these types Techniques of the
first type usually anploy a single gradi~ or hedonic (like-dislike) scale
whilst those of the second type anploy descriptions of various characteristics
(Baines et aI 1969)
The ultimate criterion of fish quality is the flavour and texture of the
cooked fish HcMever taste panel evaluations of cooked fish are timeshy
consiminq and relatively few samples can be tested at anyone time It is
therefore highly desirable to be able to make an assessment of eati~ quality
by exanini~ the raw fish My atterrpt to raise the quality of raw fish as it
reaches the consumer is critically dependent on the development of a
convenient and consistent rrethod of quality assessment based on raw fish
Fortunately eat inq quality of cooked fish can be correlated with the
appearance odour and texture of the whole raw fish Boyd and Wilson (1976)
when evaluat inq the quality of snapper (Chroysophfys aufatus) by a sensory
method found that there is close relationship between the raw attributes of
gill odour and general appearance with those of odour texture am flavour of
10
the cooked fish
The use of ooject ive tests at dockside or even on inspection within the
plant is not considered to be practical in the normal routine of inspection of
fresh ard frozen fish products as almost all of the coject Ive tests require
laboratories am so becare rather rerooved fran the busy fisherman processor
or factory foreman A nuch simpler piece of apparatus is the eye or the N)Se
(olley 1977) Sensory tests are always controversial as they require an
inspector although the canny buyer is in fact applying his senses of smell
am visual acuity in a similar fashion W9 accept the wine faster and wcxgtl
classer so why not the fish grader (Bremner 1984) Therefore a test that
correlated well with freshnessquality and that could operate on the market or
in the factory would be of considerable value to an efficient industry (Baines
et aI 1965)
Howgate (1978) also considered the sensory rrethods to be far better than
non-sensory methods which are not suitable for consumer testing whilst
Connell (1972) states that in general the sensory rrethod of assessing
freshness is the best at present for quality control purposes
As fish spoils its snell taste appearance and feel go through
characteristic am well defined stages that trained experts or experienced
staff can consistently recognise It is convenient to attach a number or
score to each stage so that the assessor can award the appropriate score to
each fish or batch of fish Alternatively the mere recognition of each stage
ard acceptance or rejection of fish on this basis may be all that is
necessary Different species and products spoil in different ways The
numerical system us irq an objective panel developed at the Ibrry IEsearch
Station by Shewan et al (1953) is probably the ultUnate critical evaluation of
fish freshness available at this time It was created for the determination
of storage time of whole Net fish l6Jenstein and Iegenstein (1981) in using
11
this nunerical system reported that the cooked freshness scores are generally
higher (better) than expected at that storage t irre for whole wet fish A
freshness score of 55 on the Ibrry scale seemed the appropriate endpoint for
their definition of shelf-life This would nonnally be reached with ideal
iced-at-sea fish about twelve days from catch sooner for fillets Freshness
scorirq systems are I1C1laquo available fran Ibrry Research station for most UK
ccmnercial species and systems are available for both the raw and cooked
fish HoweveF there is still no standard scorirq system to be used
internationally he countries in the EEC ~or instance use scoring systems
which differ both in scale length am in characteristics measured Most
systems use the same scale length for all features examined but the United
Kingdon am Icelarrl use scales of 10 to 0 for odour and 5 to 0 for other
characteristics ibwgate (1972) describes the effort to construct a rorogram
for oonvert inq fran one scorinq system to another (Appendix 1) de Zylva
(1974) expanded the Ibrry score sheet to include marks for flesh colour and
texture belly flap discoloration stainiBJ of backbone am colour of
kidney he scoring system was designed for ~w Zealand snapper and gave
excellent negative linear correlations between score am days of storage
legenstein (1983) presents the way in which Ibrry has in turn incorporated
other characteristics into the score sheet for raw fish Groupings of several
characteristics to give a score requires more expertise than scoring
individual points as is done by de Zylva
However the use of a point or scoring system in which higher points are
given for high quality attributes would mean the requirements of more
kllC7filedge of the fish and the tester mist be experienced and knCM the
qualities of the fish previously Therefore it is too species dependent
his problem can be overcare by using the demerit system with points being
allotted in several categories for defects as they becare obvious and one can
I
12
learn as one goes along in each situation he demerit points that were given
to the various selected quality attributes could be weighted in such a way as
to produce an approximately linear change in score with storage time (Branch
and Vail 1985)
It might also be desirable OCIlInercially to specify a uniform mrnber of
days of shelf-life fran the pack date to consumption he length of shelfshy
life ctgttained for fish depends on the initial age and quality of the fish the
tirre of the pack am the time am temperature of storage before am after
packing In practical terns the ultimate measure of the effect(s) of shelf-
life extension treatments on the final quality of the fish is consumer
satisfaction (Regenstein aoo Regenstein 1981)
A tentative grading systan for fresh fish based on sensory assessment of
fish had been described by IbUwing (1972)
160 The Ideal Method
Forty years of research ootably in the UK Canada and Japan have gone
into objective methods for measuring fish quality (Bremner et al 1978)
There is as yet 00 single universal test for all species nor for that
matter any wholly satisfactory test for individual species
The ideal rrethod hOlJld be one that is cheap oon-destructive easy to
use oot subject to much variation or fatigue having rapid response and wide
application sensory tests have the advantages of being non-destructive 00
equipnent required adaptable to species and assessing the market value
Althcogh sensory tests are usually condemned as a subjective test which
requires training am experience am are also said to be easily open to
abuse this can be reduced if a simple rapid and less descriptive rrethod
could be fourd - possibly with the use of demerit point scores Therefore
this study aims at assessing the use of sensory techniques based on the
13
demerit point scores developed for raw whole (gutted and ungutted) and
filleted fish samples of Australian fish species stored in ice and RSW It
also discusses the results of the acceptability taste panels on the cooked
fish samples
The two oammercially ~rtant Australian fish species used in this study
were the blue grenadier am the blue rock whiting he blue grenadier is
currently Tasmanias major oammercial finfish and the recent annual production
of the fishery exceeds 100 tonnes (Last et aI 1983)~ he blue rock whiti~
is the only Australian member of the family that has any commercial
importance It occurs mainly in Bass strait and the sheltered bays of South
eastern Tasmania The flesh is delicately flavoured but very soft
200 MATERIALS lIND MEIHgt[s
210 Sample preparation
211 Fish stored in RSW
Blue grenadier used in this study were caught on the 15th lugust 1984 at
a depth of 300 fathans off Sandy Cape on the west coast of Tasmania (Lat
41deg20S IDrq144deg40 E) by demersal trawl They were taken fran the deck
irnnediately am dropped into a refrigerated seawater (RSW) tank in a net bag
(tanp -1degC) The fish was reported to be handled quite roughly on board
Sore of the fish had already gone into rigor at this stage he fish were
transported to the CnID lasrnanian Food lesearch Uni t (TFRJ) laboratories in
Hobart and were already to days old on arrival The f ish were then placed in
the RSW box tank of the rrobile unit (the design and construction of which were
described by Thrower and Stafford 1981) and was kept at -1degC for the duration
of the storage trial which lasted for about three weeks Four fish were
rerroved at each samplirq tine (Table 1) for sensory assessment Length
14
measurements to the fork of the tail were also noted ~e fish were then
filleted and samples frozen at -lBoe for later assessment of their
acceptability by taste panel
212 Fish stored in ice
For the sensory assessment of fish stored in ice guidelines similar to
those given by Lima dos Santos et al (981) were used ~e blue rock whiting
also known as the weedy whiting was used ~e whiting were caught on the
afternoon of 23rd August 1984 by demersal trawl in 18 to 25 m waters oft
Eastern Tasmania On arrival at the TFRJ laboratories in I-bbart at 11 45 am
on the fol Lowirq day the f ish were re- iced at a ratio of 21 (ice f ish) in
insulated plastic boxes of size 66 x 41 x 28 em with provision for drainage
of melt water Flake ice was used ~e ice was topped up daily and renewed
once a week The boxes of i ced f ish were then kept in a cool roan set at a
temperature of 0deg to -1dege ~ree fish were removed for sensory assessment at
each sampling time (Table 1) over a period of rmre than three weeks of ice
storage 100 fish samples were then frozen at -18dege until needed for the
acceptability taste panel
Table 1
sampling regirre for fish stored in R3Wice
Blue Grenadier Diys in R3W 3 4 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 17 21
Sample code N D G L S R K T U P M 0
Whiting Diys in ice 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Sample code 0 M D G T S N R P U L K
15
220 Sensory assessment of the whole (gutted and ungutted) raw fish samples
Both the blue grenadier stored in lOW and the whi t i nq stored in ice were
progressively assessed by using the sense organs of sight smell and touch tor
changes in general appearance odour and texture with storage tine by giving
the appropriate demeri t scores according to the score sheets as shown in
Tables 2 and 3 IVo types of score sheets were used Table 2 shows the
sensory assessment score sheet orig inally developed for the assessment of
gemfish (Thrower et al 1982) It has been simplified and weighted (Branch
and Vail 1985) to provide accumulated increases in demerit points as the t i sn
change in odour texture and appearance during storage with the max imum
accumulated demerit point scores of 35 for the urx]utted samples and 39 tor tte
gutted samples The total scor irq for gutted fish differs fran that descr ibeo
by Bremner (1984) and Branch and Vail (1985) in that the demerit points for
the belly cavity have been added to those for the whole fish
The whole and gutted raw fish were also assessed by using the freshness
score sheet developed by the Council of the European COl1nunities (Official
Journal of the European Qmnunities 1970) but with slight rrodification marie
in its scor irq method in that the scor irq was reversed to provide accumulateri
increases in demerit points as in the TFRJ score sheet (Table 2) with a
maximun accumulated demerit score of 30 (Table 3) The samples were scored by
H Abd R who had had no previous experience with the score sheet
230 Sensory Assessment of the frozen filleted raw fish samples
Samples of the whole and gutted fish of both species were then filleted
ard frozen at -18degC until required for the organoleptic acceptability test
panel fillets were thawed by holding for about 16 hours (overnight) in still
air at 4degC The thawed fillets of both the blue grenadier and whi t i nq were
then assessed by the sense organs of sight smell and touch by using the scor-e
sheet for filleted sample as shown in Table 4 nle score sheet was developed
16
able 1
FIlt U Snorr bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullnt oore hbullbull t ( ( 1Ii~ ANI) tlNtJuTreo)
1_middotAnlJ lmiddot
rlSB IDDII
UIUIl~ (VBci9ht~i9ht8lDullDUll
o 1 2 3
SitU ( rimSoft) o 1
SCALBS (r1mSlLoomiddotmiddotLoobullbull ) o 12
r r SLIMB (AbbullbullntSlSlimiddotysliyVSliy)
o 123
S1IrnraS (pr-Ri90rRi90rPot-Ri90r) o 1 2
BYBS Clarity (ClbullbullrISlCloudyCloudy) 012
Shape (HoralslsunknSunkn) 012
Irill (ViiblHot Viibl) IJ 1
Blood (No BloodSlBloodyVBloody) o 1 2
GILLS Colour (VDark)Charaotritio (SlDark) (vradd)(Slradd)
2o 1 Kucou (AbbullbullntKoderatmiddotBxcbullbullbulliv)
o 1 2 S bullbullll (rrbullbullh 01ly) Pihy8talpoll~
(MetalliaSaved) 1 2 3
BELLI Dicoloration (AbbullbullntDetatablmiddotModratmiddotBxobullbullbulliy) 012 3
Finanbullbullbull ( rira80ftBurt) o 1 2
VENT Condition (bobullbulldy)Noraal (SlBrbullbullk) (Opening)(Bxudbullbull )
2o 1 Sbullbulln (rrbullbullhReutralrihy8poilt)
o 2 3
BELLI CAVIn Stain (OpalbullbullontGryihlmiddotllow-Brown) o 1 2
Blood (RdDark RdBrown)
o 1 z
--
17
UJE 3
Etc SENSORY A$fE4St4fN[ ~(oIlL~
SCALE OF MARKING - FRESHNESS
CRITERIA shypoundu1LRt
Abullbullbullbullbullment Mara-bull thc r1ah 0 1 2- 3tszhL
AppearanceinIIMlISJ Skin
Eye
Gill
Flbullbullshycut f ssm abdomusn
Colour the~
vertebral column
Organs
Oright iridescent I bright pigmenta- pigmentation in (1) dull pigmenta tion no i tion but not the process of pigmentation discolouration Ius trous becoming dis-
mucus opaquemucus aqueous i coloured and dull
mucus slightlytransparen t
cloudy ~UCU9 milky
convex (bulging) convex and flat (1) concave in cornea tran- slightly sunken cornea the centre parent cornea Ughtly opalescent cornea milky pupil black opalescent pupil pupil grey bright
pupil black opaque dull
-shining colour less coloured becoming dis- (1) yellmiish no mucus a few traces of coloured mucus milky
cloar mucus mucus opaque
blueish trans- dull velvety slightly opaque (1) opaque lucid smooth waxy shining without any change in the colour sUgh tly original colour changed
(I) reduncoloured sl1 gh tly pink pink
kidneys and kidneys and kidneys (1) kidneys residues of resJdues of resicJuos of r bullbullidue of other other organs other organs other organs organs and blood bright red the dull red blood and blood brownish game as the becoming palo red blood inside discolbured the aorta
(1) or in a more advanced bull ta te of decay
I
bull
Flesh
Vertebtal Column
Peritonium
Gills kin abdominal cavity
18
(eontd)
SCALE OF MARKING - FRESHNESS
CRITERIA
Assessment Mark 0 1 2
Physical eOId ton
firm and elas tic surface smooth
breaks ins tead of coming away
totally adherent to the flesh
seaweed
less elastic
adherent
adherent
Smell bull
not of seaweed but not bad
slightly soft (flaccid) Ie elastic surfacente waxy velvety and dull
slightly adherent
slightly adherent
slightly sour
3
(1) soft (flaccid) scales ebullbullil y detached from skin sur face ra ther wrinkled inclining to mealy
(1) not dherent
1( ) not adherent
(1) sour
(1) or in a more advanced stat of decay
_ shy-- -
19
Table 4
Filleted Sample Score Sheet
r
TREATMENT F ILIEIS DATE REMOJAL (THAWED)
FISH IDENr
EASE OF FILLETING (Easysl difficultdifficult)
012
APPEARANCE (a) Oolour of flesh (TranslucentSl discolouredSl opaqueopaque)
o 1 2 3
(b) Blood stains (AbsentDetectableModerateExcessive)
012 3
(c) Clotting (UnclottedSlclottedModclottedExcessclotted)
012 3
(d) Skin Oolour (VbrightBrightSldullOU11)
o 1 2 3
TEXTURE FirmS1 softSoft
o 1 2
ClDClJR (FreshNeutralStaleSpoilt)
012 3
CONJITION (a) Gaping (AbsentDetectableModerateExcessive)
o 1 2 3
(b) Bruising (AbsentSlightSevere)
012
(c) Wetness (NmnalS1 dry orMod dry orExcess dryness or
SldripModdrip Freezer bJrn or Excessdrip
012 3
(d) Autolysis (Absentmoderatesevere) (Disco1ourations) 0 1 2
(e) Parasites (Absentmoderatesevere) ( Infestations) 0 1 2
(f) Other discolourations (Absentpresent) or contaminants (bones membranes tissues etc) 0 1
EASE OF SKINNING (EasySldifficultdifficult)
012
20
by the author after a literature search and observations made during the preshy
liminary part of the study It has a maxUnum accumulated demerit score of 34
240 ~anoleptic Acceptability Panel of the cooked fish
Filleted samples of both fish species which had been frozen in a cold
roan at -18dege and then thawed as above were used for the acceptability taste
panels The fillets were skinned am cut into 30 to 40 g pieces crumbed and
deep fried (Bremner et ale 1985) Three or four treatments were cooked
simultaneously at each session am the fish served with packets of take-away
french fries Tcrnato sauce vinegar and salt were available Each of the
samples were randanised in such a way so as to give a high degree of balance
(Table 5 and 6) Letters that represent the samples were also picked
randanly The fish was assessed by 20 panellists employed at the Tasmanian
lEgional Laboratory and experienced with facial hedonic scaling for flavour
texture am overall acceptability using the General Foods Smiley scale
(Appendix 2) Salt was rot rrentioned with the 9niley questionaire for blue
grenadier so that the panel should have ro preconceiVed prejudices
250 Statistics
tata fran the sensory assessment of the whole gutted and ungutted raw
fish (both TFRJ am EEl score sheets) am fran the sensory assessrrent of the
frozen filleted raw fish samples of both the blue grenadier stored in RSW am
whiting stored in ice were analysed for correlation using the ELF scatter
module (Appendix 3 and 4)
The acceptability taste panel assessment scores for flavour texture and
overall liking of the toKgt species of fish were subjected to analysis of
variance using the Genstat package (Appendix 5 and 6)
22
Table 6
Order of presentation of cooked whiting samples to the acceptability taste panelists
Order of presentation of samples Panelist
session I session II
1 OTP rm 2 MUS KR 3 sm INL
4 IKJ GKR
5 ror NK
6shy USM UN ~
7 OOP RLD
B HUT NKD
9 USO RiL
10 SMP LGN
11 IMT GIltN
12 nxgt KRD
Note
8angtle code OM 0 G T S N R P U L K
storage time in ice (days) 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
23
300 RESULIS
310 Physical Characteristic of M novaeaelandiae
rran the forty-six fish examined the mean fork lerqth was found to be
762 an (range 609 to 838 an) A few of the fish examined had well shy
developed roes and their digestive tracts were found to be relatively empty
320 Physical Characteristics of the H ssmifasoiata
rran a total of thirty-six fish examined the rrean weight of the fish was
fourrl to be 662 g (range 27 to 186 g) am the mean fork length was 183 em
(range 156 to 265 an)
330 sensory assessment of the raw blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
he results of the sensory assessrrent of the r2M blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW by the four rrerhods of scoring are given as average total
accumulated demerit point scores as shown in Table 7 Figure 1 shoes the
graph of demerit point versus days in RSW by the four rrethods of sensory
assessment used Table 9 shltJtS the correlation analysis
340 sensory assessment of the raw whitirq samples stored in ice
he results of the sensory assessment of the r2M whitirq samples stored
in ice by the four methods of scoring are given as average total accumuLated
demerit point scores as shown in Table 8 Figure 2 shltJtS the graph of demerit
point versus days in ice of the four nethods of sensory assessment used Table
9 shltJtS the correlation analysis
350 Attributes contributing to total score
Attributes that contribute to total score usirq the TFRJ scores (ungutted
and gutted) EEC scores and the filleted sample scores are as shewn in Tables
10 - 14
24
Table 7
Total demerit points fran sensory assessment of blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
Average lbta1 Demerit Rgtint SCores
[)lye in RW TFRJ scores TFRJ scores EEl scores Filleted Sample (urvJut t ed ) (gutted) (gutted) SCores
3 3 3 1 1
4 5 5 2 3
6 10 10 6 6
8 16 18 9 8
9 19 21 11 10
10 20 22 13 12
11shy 22 24 15 14
12 23 25 18 17
13 24 26 19 18
14 25 27 19 19
17 29 31 21 23
21 33 35 25 29
Note
Maximum possible scores for (1) IlRJ scores (ungutted is 35
( 11) IlRJ scores (gutted) is 29
( 11i) EEX scores (gutted) is 30
( iv) Filleted sample scores is 32
amptV
35j
3l~
en Ishy 25Z-0 Q
3)-~
bullbullbull 0
bull 0 0bull 0
bull 0 0 6shy abull A ~
~
bull 0
~
6shy
bull 0
6shy
I) 01
-W 0i A15W ~ Q A
~
6shy~101- bull 90 TFRU SCORES (ungutted)
6shy~ bullbull TFRU SCORES (gutt~d i
bull ~
4 6- 6- EEC SCORES 5~
~ ~ FILLETED SAMPLE SCORES ~
6 4 I J I I I
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
DAYS IN RSW
Figl Demerit Points Versus Days in RSW For Blue Grenadier Samples
Fig 2 Demerit Points Versus Days in ice For Whiting Samples I
27
Table 8
TOtal demerit points from sensory assessment of whi tirq samples stored in ice
Average TOtal Demerit Foint SCores
rays in ice TFRJ scores TFRJ scores EEC scores Fi 11eted sample (urqutted) (gutted) (gutted) (gutted)
1 1 1 0 0 3 2 2 1 1
5 4 4 2 3
7 7 9 3 4
9 13 15 6 9
n 15 17 7 13
13 19 21 11 15
15 24 27 15 16
17 29 32 19 18
19 31 35 22 21
21 32 36 24 24
23 33 37 26 26
Note
MaXllnum possible scores for (i) TFRJ scores (urqutted) is 35 ( ii) TFRJ scores (gutted) is 39 ( iii) EEC scores (gutted) is 30 ( iv) Filleted sample scores is 32
28
Table 9
Relationship between tLme and demerit points for fish stored in RSW
Method of Visual Assessment
y- intercept slope correlation
M novaBMBlandias
TFRJ (urqutted ~les) 032 175 097
TFRJ (gutted samples) 032 190 096
EEl -231 146 097
Filleted samplesbull
-357 158 099
H sBmifasoiata
TFRJ (urqutted samples) -245 167 099
TFRJ (gutted samples) -273 187 099
EOC -414 129 098
Filleted samples -244 125 099
ltshy
--------------- ------------------------------------------
------------- - ------------- -------- ------
Table 10
Attributes contributing to total score using TFRO scores (gutted and ungutted)
Attributes involved in score change Score
Blue grenadier in RSW Whiting in ice
Stiffness Eyes - clarity blood Slllne Stiffness Eyes - clarity shape and blood lt10 Gills - smell Vent - smell SlBne Gills - colour smell and mucous
Vent - smell Belly cavity - stains and blood
Appearance Eyes-shape Stiffness Gills - smell colour and mucous Skin
Stiffness appearance gill-smell Scales belly-discolouration and firmness
N so
gt10lt20 SCales belly - discolouration and firmness Vent - smell Vent - smell and condition Belly cavity - stains and blood
Appearance Slllne Eyes - clarity shape Appearance SlBne Scales Skin blood and iris Gills - colour Eyes - clarity and shape
gt20lt30 Belly - discolouration Gills - mucous smell am colour Vent - condi tion and smell Belly cavity shy blood
Appearance Gills - mucous and smell SlBne Eyes - iris am blood Belly - discolouration and firmness Belly - discolouration and firmness
gt30 Vent - condition and smell Vent - condition Belly cavity - blood Belly cavity - stains
Table 11
Attributes contribut irq to total score us irq EEC scores
Attributes involved in score change
Score Blue grenadier in RSW W1iting in ice
lt7 Appearance - skin eyes gills organs Physical condition - flesh Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and organs Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skins eyes gills flesh Appearance-eyes and organs atv
vertebral column and organs Physical condition-flesh and peritoneum gt7lt14 Physical condition - flesh Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-eyes flesh and vertebral Appearance-skin gills and organs column Physical condition-flesh vertebral column
gt14lt21 Physical condition-vertebal column and and peritoneum peritoneum Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and vertebral column vertebral column
gt21 Physical condition-flesh and peritoneum Physical cOndition-flesh vertebral column Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity and peri toneum bull
Table 12
Attributes contributing to total score using filleted sample scores
Score
lt5
Attributes involved in score change
Blue grenadier in RSW
Appearance - blood stains skin colour ltXIour - flesh
M1iting in ice
----- shy -------------- shy
Appearance - skin colour odour - flesh Cbndition - gaping wetness
Appearance - colour of flesh Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Texture - flesh skin colour ltgt gt5lt10 Cbndition - gaping bruising wetness Ease of filleting
Texture - flesh
Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Appearance - colour of flesh clotting skin clotting skin colour skin colour
gt10lt20 odour - flesh odour - flesh Cbndition - gaping wetness autolysis COndition - gaping bruising wetness other discolourations autolysis and other discolouration Ease of skinning
Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains skin colour clotting
gt20 Texture - flesh Texture - flesh odour - flesh Odour shy flesh COndition - gaping bruising wetness Cbndition - wetness autolysis autolysis Ease of skinring
32
Table 13
Diff~rent emphasis in scoring systems for whole fish as between the EEl and TFID
Attribute Number of potential demerit points TFRJ EEl
1Ippearance (general) 3 0
skin ) scales 6 3
slime
Stiffness (Rigor) 2 0
Eyes 7 3
Gills 7 6
Belly 5 0
Vent 5 0
Belly cavity 4 3
Flesh cut fram abdomen 0 3
Flesh texture 0 3
Vertebral column 0 6
Internal organs 0 3
33
360 Relative merits of the scoring systems
The four scor irq methcds were used on the same samples of t ish Any
sample had therefore deteriorated to the same extent on anyone day Figs 3
am 4 shew the scores converted to percentages of possible deroorit point
scores The discrepancy in the accumulation of demerit points between the EEC
am TFRJ scor irq methods is clearly shown IEference to Table 2 3 am 13
shOool that this is caused by the lack of questions regarding rigor looseness
of scales condition of belly am vent am the qroupinq of colour am mucous
in the gills as single po i nts thus halving the potent Ia I gill demerit point
score canparison of the tO species in Table 9 ShONS that the rate of
accumulation of demerit pgtints was more consistent for the TFRU system than by
the EEX scor i oq methltXl or by scorinq of fillets
370 Time taken to score the fish
The average time taken to score an individual fish using the TFPlJ
(unqutted) scores TFRJ (gutted) scores EEX scores am the filleted aamp Le
scores were found to be 1 min 25 sec 1 min 55 sec 3 min 45 sec and 1 min 50
sec respectively The EEX score sheet is more t iroe consumioq in that more than
one question is asked about an attribute for the giving of only one demerit
point this requires conscious thought
380 Acceptability taste panel results of blue grenadier samples bull Figures 5 6 am 7 shOool the mean taste panel scores in graphic form for
flavour texture and overall acceptability of cooked blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW table 14 shows the results of the statistical analysis
390 Acceptability taste panel results of whiting samples
Figures 8 9 am 10 shOool the mean taste panel scores in graphic form for
flavour texture and overall acceptability of cooked whiting samples stored in
ice table 15 shows the results of the statistical analysis
WHITING STORED IN ICE o TFRU SCORES (ungutted)
bull TFRU SCORES (gutted)
b EEC SCORES
FILLETED SAMPLE SCORES
100bull e ~ e b
i 6
bull NW
oIJ-a A A-
(J0 t A~ 0 ~ AC)
C) -e ~~-
C) a 50 A
A w
Iz ~
~ - W e A0 c a ~ ~ A-a ~ l ~ A
w -~
~ X ~ W -e I c ~ ~ ibull I I I I
4 8 12 16 20 24
DAYS IN ICE FIG4
36
- flavourshy
-e s-e l ~ v
5middotIU
STORAGrf IN R sWDAYS
rlCoS Ttutfc pcr1 rcbull
rf oj bl jtlJ~r - jlqVGurc acccr~b
21179 0 2 136 843
~ 0 u 5middot0YI
oJ J l ofmiddot$ 1 e
tu 4middot0
VI
~ 3middot5
3middot0
TelC-lue X bull -e III
~ Gmiddotftv
ct 5middot03
V1
-J -f-SshyU 2
~ 40 t
3-~
~ bullbull0 5 0
~ 17 21A ISII
PAY- IITDRAGamp fbilW
FIG6 I Tq1-c pltnd rc-utl ojbllfcJrcftaJIr bull I~M144 Q Cc(r~blfly
r 411q~~ An~Plf bUIJlfM F llh J~Lld Pt-DoL B fpound)1
gt1 NI ~~eusr SJAVlt1
D ~II
(ffIt1~JP IIID bull U J 1i
-IyoJC )-tlICf p --lInraquoJ Ix-Pc ~1rb1 r I ef
Ma2j NI a~v2loJ$
til
1Ia ~AO (IIp~lJa~e
01
secto
00
s
05
5
o~
~
0pound
s
0
smiddot
o~
07
1 ~ ~ ~ ~
r~
B
~
rv t gtshy 2
~ ~ 11
~ 7shyIn r
~ () 0 1) m ~
~ gtshyz -
(fII~q~~ 7~ P
IItJ1o -~~f(ll p ~I I~U J ~t~L 0 ~ middot~II I
IDI 8~ middot lta ~
~ QS
middotS ~ ~ 0 z
r Smiddot II
S 1d 0-$ 111 r- l gtshy r
V fr~
~llCf-J a-PcJ~ U~middotJO
4lp~dmiddotyIb 6middot~1f np)t -~11M fo --IIhen IJutJel ~bl
Table 14
Acceptability of deep fried blue grenadier samples stored in FSW
rays in R3W
Acceptability 3 4 6 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 17 21
Flavour 50a 50a 4S a 51a 50a 51a 50a 4Sa 49a 53a 41b 35b
Texture 49bc 51abc 4S bed 52ab 4Sbed 53ab 52abc 52ab 4Sbed 55a 46cd 43d
OJerall 50ab 51ab 47be 52ab 4Sb 5lab 52ab 50ab 47b 54 a 41c 35d
abc
d
significantly different (pltOOOl)
significantly different (pltOOl) W so
Table 15
Acceptability of deep fried whiting samples stored in ice
rays in ice
Acceptability 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Flavour 5Sab 59a 59a 60a 59a 5S ab 51b 54ab 53ab 37c 37c 31c
Texture 59ab 59a 53bed 5S ab 63a 59ab 47cde 54be 56ab 55ab 44e 46de
OJera11 57ab 5S ab 59ab 60a 60a 5Sab 52b 53ab 55ab 42c 36cd 31d
abcde significantly different (Plt0001)
40
~oo DISCUSSION
410 Sensory assessment of the raw blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
he results of sensory assessment on the raw blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW by the four methods of scoring all sheM that there is
progressive increment in total demerit points with storage time for all the
four methods (Table 7) It was also fourxi that the accumulation of demerit
points with time of storage of the fish in ffiW occurred in a saui-linear
fashion for all -the four scoring methods used (Figure 1) he variables (time
of storage and demeritmiddot points score) were all highly correlated (Table 9)
he correlation equation of the TFRJ (ungutted samples) and TFRJ (gutted
sanples) scores were similar roth having a zero time intercept of 032 but
with the TFRJ (gutted samples) scores having a slightly greater slope by 015
he EEC scores and the filleted sample scores roth have lower slopes ie
146 and 158 respectively canpared with the TFRJ (ungutted sample) and TFRJ
(gutted sample) scores of 175 and 190 respectively lbwever the EOC scores
which have the lowest slope have a fairly similar correlation equation with
the filleted sample scores (Table 9) he negative intercepts reflected the
slightly more sigrroid relationship for these samples his suggests that the
TFRJ (gutted) scoring method is the rrost sensitive of the four methods
followed by the TFRJ (ungutted) the filleted sample and the EEC scores
It was also found that after 21 days of storage in RSW the blue
grenadier samples had not reached their maximun possible scores in any of the
four scoring rrethods used (Table 7) he TFRJ (ungutted sample) score only
reached 943 of its possible maximun value whereas the TFRJ (gutted sample)
scores EEC scores and the filleted sample score reached only 897 833 ar~
906 of their possible maximun score his means that all the four methods
of scoring can still be sensitive to changes in the quality of the blue
grenadier samples stored in RSW after 21 days of storage time
41
Figures 1 and 3 also shOVt that the pattern of the graphs of demerit
points against days storage in R3W of the four methcxis of scoring is similar
ie a tendency to be slightly sigmoid fbwever the filleted sanple scores
sean to be rrore sensitive than the EOC scores at the later part of the storage
time ie after 14 days of storage and the scores continued to rise
1be rrost obvious indicator of change for the blue grenadier stored in ffiW
using the TFRJ scores (both gutted and unJUtted sanples) was the eyes (clarity
and blood) followed by odour developnent of the gills (Table 10) his is -
also foond to be true wi th the EOC freshness score (Table 11) Fbr the
filleted sample scores the appearance and odoor of the flesh seems to be the
most obvious indicator of change follOVted by the condition of the fillets such
as gaping bruisin) am wetness (Table 12)
4 20 sensory assessment of the raw whi ting samples stored in ice
1he results of sensory assessment on the rCJl whiting samples stored in
ice by the foor roothods of scoring also shows that there is a progressive
increment in total demerit points with storage time for all the four methods
of scoring (Table 8) Ps with the blue grenadier the aCCLD1UJlation of demerit
points with time of storage of the whiting in ice also occurred in a sernishy
linear fashion for all the foor scoring methods used (Figure 2 and 4) wi th a
slight lag in the initial phase Interestingly this was not observed in the
case of blue grenadier sanples stored in ffiW probably because the first
samplin) of the blue grenadier starts only fran the third day after catch
whereas the first sampling of the whiting starts fran the first day after
catch Also the blue grenadier was handled qu i te roughly on the deck in fact
three oot of the four fish samples on the first rerroval ie the third day
after catching had already showed blood in their eyes
Bremner et al (1985) when using the TFRJ score sheet to assess the
42
quality of four tropical fish species fran the oorth west shelf of hJstralia
(stored in ice) also fourrl that the accumulation of demerit points with time
of storage in ice occurred in a linear fashion
PB wi th blue grenadier the variables (tine of storage ard darneri t points
score) were all highly correlated (Table 9) Also the correlation equation of
the TFRJ (ungutted) ard TFRJ (gutted) scores were similar with the TFJU
(gutted) score having a slightly greater slope by 020 Crable 9) he EEC
scores am filleted sample scores also have lower s lopes l e 129 ard 125
respectively ocmpared to the TFm (ungutted) and (gutted) scores of 167 and
187 respectively However unlike the blue grenadier the filleted samples
of the whi t ing had the 10liest slope he more sensi tive na ture of the EEC
scores as canpared to the filleted sample scores in the case of the whiting
especially after 12 days storage in ice can be explained by the snaller size
of the whitirlJ (fork length ranging fran 156 to 265 an) as canpared to the
size of the blue grenadier (fork length ranging 809 to 838 an) the snaller
fish terrl to spoil faster especially the interior parts of the fish PB the
EEC scores depend nuch on the sensory assessment of the interior parts of the
fish such as the appearance and condition of the flesh vertebral colwnn
interior organs per i toneun and abdaninal cavity (Table 3) which makes up more
than 18 demerit points out of the total possible maxinun of 30 the
sensitiveness of its score is thus self-explanatory in the case of whiting
Connell (1980) explained that large fish keep marginally better than small
fish because larger fish have a smaller surface to volume ratio so that in the
same tUne less of their interior is affected
The above results confirmed the previous suggestion that the TFRU
(gutted) scorIoq methcrl is the roost sensitive of the four methods It was
found that after 23 days of storage in ice the whiting scmples had not
reached the maximun possible scores in any of the four methods used (Table
43
8) The 1FIU (UBJutted) scores had reached only 94-3 of its possible maximum
value whereas the TFRJ (gutted) scores EOC scores am the filleted sample
scores reached only 94 9 867 and 81 3 of their poea Ible maximum score
Therefore all the four methods of scoriBJ can still be sensitive to changes
in quality of the whiting samples stored in ice after 23 days of storage tUne
Ihe roost obvious irxHcator of chaDJe for the whiting stored in ice using
the TFIU score sheet was the eyes (clarity shape and blcxxl) followed by the
develqxnent of -colour odour and nucous of the gills (fable 10) Bremner et
al (1985) when working with four tropical species f~ the north west shelf of
Australia also found that the most obvious indicator of change for fish stored
in ice was the eyes (their clarity am shape) follCAtled by odour developnent
and colour changes in the gills This was also found in the case of blue
grenadier in ~ discussed earlier OJrran et al (1981) when investigating
the quality changes duriBJ iced storage of three carmercially important
species of fish fran Bahrein also found that of the visual and olfactory
assessments gill odour showed the roost pranise as a quality control index
Pgain this is also found to be true with the EOC freshness score of both the
blue grenadier and the whitiBJ (Table 11) AccordiBJ to ~ate (1972) it
was generally agreed that odour of the gills is the most sensitive measure of
freshness but the visual appearance of the eyes gills arxi skin was quicker to
use in practice on the market
For the filleted sample scores of the whiting the most obvious indicator
of chanqe was the appearance and odour of the flesh (Table 12) This too
agreed with the findiBJs for blue grenadier stored in ffiW
AccordiBJ to Baines et al (1969) with fish eatiBJ is related to four
main attributes or quality factors viz appearance odour and texture of the
rCM and cooked fish and in the latter also flavour he ultimate purpose of
testing the raw fish is to estimate the eating quality which is here taken to
44
mean the degree of freshness of flavour Acoording to Baines and Shewan
(1965) the mostreliable test for predicting flavour sqore is raw odour
430 The ease aM difficulties of using the four methods of scoring
It was found that the TFRJ (ungutted) scores was the easiest and quickest
method to use as it takes on average only about 1 min 25 sec to score a fish
canpared to 1 min 55 sec 3 min 45 sec ard 1 min 50 sec for the TFRJ
(gutted) EOC and the filleted sample scores he E~ score was found to be
the roost tedious besides taking the longest time to soore a fish
he TFIU (ungutted) scores also have the advantage of not requiring a
knife in order to score ard also were less IOOSSY to work with canpared to all
the other nethods Also the attributes to be assessed were arranged and
organised in such a way in the score sheet that it is easy to score a fish
starting from assessing the apparance and skin and ending with the condition
and smell of the vent
440 Acceptability taste panel results of the blue grenadier samples
441 Flavour acceptability
Figure 5 shc7ws the flavour acceptability of the deep fried samples of
blue grenadier Samples stored in R3W for less than 17 days were found
statistically (Table 14) to be indistinguishable (Plt0001) fran each other
then there was a significant fall in the flavour acceptability of the samples
stored in RSW for 17 days onwards he sarrtgtle stored for 21 days had a still
lower mean value of 35 but it was not significantly different fran the
semple stored for 17 days which had a nean value of 41 It is interesting to
note that despite the progressive increase in sodiun uptake of the blue
grenadier samples stored in RSW from about 7115 35 mg sodium(lOO g tissue
initially to 724 33 mglOO g tissue on the 16th day aM to 729 17 mglOO g
45
tissue on the 21st day (Burford 1984) the panelists seem not to be
negatively affected by the increasing salt content of the samples with storage
tUne and in fact some of the panelists added more salt to their samples I
111is result contradicts statements made by previous reseachers that the
storage life using R3W may be limited by increases in salt content in the fish
flesh (Boyd et aI 1978) he maximun desirable salt content according to
Tcm1inson et al (1974) as quoted by Boyd et al (1978) is about 05 but at
the 16th day ofmiddot RgtW storage the salt content fOllNj In the flesh of blue
grenadier samples was already more than 07 fbwever the panelist only ate
40g pieces it might have been a different case if the fish has been as a
whole meal
442 Texture acceptability
Figure 6 shows the texture acceptability of the deep fried blue grenadier
samples stored in R3W eespf te sane apparent abberant values (such as the
high rrean of 55 for the sample stored for 14 days in RSW) it is obvious that
the texture acceptability showed a significant decreasing trend (pltOOl) from
seventeen days of storage onwards The abberant texture values are possibly
due to the fact that the fish texture might have been masked by the bread
crunbs used to coat the fish samples before deep fryi~ This agrees with the
observations of Bremner et al (1985) wtxgt found that the inherent textural
softness of P piotiue and the tougheni~ on storage of N peroni i detected by
a profile panel usilYJ steamed fillets were no lo~er noticeable when the fish
was deep fried in batter Bremner (1980) also reported that despi te the
softness of the raw flesh the cooked flesh of blue grenadier is reasonably
firm
46
433 OVerall acceptability
The overall acceptability of the deep fried blue grenadier samples stored
in R)W (figure 7) seems to follCM a similar pattern to its flavour
acceptability (figure 5)~ in which a significant fall in overall acceptability
was only observed fran the samples held fran 17 days in RSW onwards (pltO 001)
as shawn in Tablel4
rnus all the above results showed that there was a significant fall in
flavour texture and overall acceptability of blue ~renadier from 17 days of
R)W storage onwards which was found to be equivalent to the accumulated
demerit point scores of 29 of the TFRJ (ungutted) scoresr 31 of the TFRl
(gutted) scoresr 21 of the EOC scores and 23 of the filleted sample
scores Jones (1964) states that the acceptability of a fish is a function of
its suitability for further processing and of its inmediate appearance its
texture its odour and its flavour
450 Acceptability taste panel results of the whiting samples
451 Flavour acceptability
Figure 8 shows the flavour acceptability of the deep fried whiting
samples stored in ice rtle twelve sample times could be analysed individually
since the means if analysed by canbining adjacent sample times to give six
sample groups are in fact the means of the adjacent times if analysed
individually it was found that samples of the first nine renovals i se up to
17 days of storage in ice are more or less indistinguishable (abberant value
at 7th removal) he last three removals ie samples stored in ice for 19
21 and 23 days were found to be of significantly lower flavour acceptability
(p lt 0001) as shawn in Table 5
47
452 Texture acceptability
Except for the abberation at the 7th remgtval i 9 at day 13 of ice
storage there is a significant reduction of texture acceptability at the 21 II
and 23 days of ice storage (p lt0001) as shown by figure 9 and Table5 t
II
I 453 Over~ll acceptability
he overal I acceptability of the whiting sanples stored in ice is very
much similar to its f Lavour acceptability except at day 19 of ice storage
where the ovaral I acceptability shows a higher mean of 42 carpared to the
flavoor acceptability mean of 37 (figure 10 and Table 5) here is however a
significant sudden drop to lOil scores fran the lOth removal ie day 19 of
storage in ice (p lt0001)
hus all the above results for whitifVJ sanples showed that there was a
significant fall in flavCXJr and overall acceptability fram 19 days ice storage
onwards which is equivalent to the accumulated demerit points of 31 of the
TFRJ (unqutted) scores 35 of the TFRJ (gutted) scores 22 of the EEC
scores and 21 of the filleted sample scores he results are interesti~ in
that the oorresponding total accLDnulated demerit points at the time when
significant falls in flavour texture and overall acceptability of the blue
grenadier and whiting samples stored in I5W and ice respectively were quite
similar
500 CONCLUSION
510 Feasibility of using demerit points
Accumulation of demerit points with time of storage of M
in RM and H eemifaeaiatia in ice was found to be highly
occurred in a semi-linear fashion irrespective of the method of
novas8slandiae
correlated and
scori~ used
- _ ~uo_a~_bull--_--I e -Ii --
48
1he slopes of the lines (rate of accumulation of demerit points) and its
relative spoilage rate were found to be similar for the ttoO species provided
the sane method of scoring is employed 1his tends to suggest that the method
is possibly independent of species am methods of storage or at least
applicable to the two species in RSW and ice respectively
TIle TFRJ (ungutted) scores were foum to be the easiest arrl quickest
method to use although the TFRJ (gutted) scores were the roost sensitive 1he
EEX freshness scores were hClgtlever foum to be the JOOSt tedious aod difficult bull I
to use besides taking more than twice the time taken to score a fish ocmpared
to the TFRJ (ungut ted) scores
Although there were slig~t differences between the ttoO species in those
characteristics where changes were first made (Table 10 11 and 12) there is
enough evidence to conclude that the changes in the appearance of the eyes am
the odour developnent of the gills are the JOOSt obvious arrl valuable indicator
of charqe in quality when using the TFIU or the EEl scores while the
appearance am odour of the fish flesh seems to be the JOOSt obvious indicator
when assessing the filleted sample
1he shelf-life of M navaezelandiae stored in RSW was found to be 14 days
(less than 17 days) whilst that of H semifasoiata stored in ice was fourrl to
be 17 days (less than 19 days) beyond which the fish had developed spoilage
characteristics that were disliked by the acceptability taste panel
1he cut-off point at which spoilage of the samples would have rendered
the quality of the fish sample to be unacceptable fran the consumers point of
view ~ld be that equivalent to the accumulated demerit point of gt29 for the
TFRJ (gutted arrl ungutted) scores am gt21 for the EOC and filleted sample
scores
This study thus confinned the potential use of demerit points such as the
TFRJ (ungutted) scores as an easy quick cheap non-destructive and reliable
49
method of sensory assessment of fish quality In fact Branch and Vail (1985)
had studied the possible use of a prototype pocket-sized computer to determine
the condition and shelf-life of temperate and tropical species of fish based
on data that is derived fran the sensory score sheets for the assessment of
fish quality developed at the (SIRgt Division of fbod lEsearch Iasmanian Fbod
Research Unit (TFlU) Hobart
520 RJrpose for which demerit points are to be used
Many scor i oq systerrs are used to predict the nunber of days fish have
been stored on ice and in nore recent years ICETIME (equivalent days on
ice) I ard thus through years of experience the taste panel acceptability of
the fish I
However fish is sold on appearance and a scoring system may be used for
assessirg marketability of whole or gutted fish or fillets or for setting
standards in bulk buying The EEC scoring system is used for example at
fish markets at first point of sale to grade the fish and establish
withdrawal prices A IbrryShewan type system is often used as a purohas i nq
specification from finn to firm
Before a final demerit point system is selected for any COlIOOdity its
ultimate purpose should be established For example the demerit points
chosen for whole fish which nost closely resemble the rate of change of
demerit points for fillets of that species might be the most useful
A linear rate of change of demerit points with time is nose favoured
because it enables prediction of remaining shelf-life ConstJJrer
unacceptability should be at a point where perhaps 75 of the demerit points
have been accrued Further scores would still be available for categories
such as suitable for fish meal D3merit points are not an indication of the
acceptability of fish as eaten where off-odours flavours and fillet
50
tdiscolouration are masked by batters or curries Their correlation with the
iodours flavours off odours aod off flavours of steamed fish are currently ~
~
~being examined by other workers at the Tasmanian ~ Research unit and highly
significant correlations are found Even when fish are subsequently eaten
battered or curried demerit points give a good indication of remaining shelf
life Thus whitiOJ with a Smiley flavour score of 58 after 1 day on ice
has a nlU gutted demerit score of 1 and a high quality life (eaten crumbed
and fried) of a further 16 days while whitiOJ stored for 11 days on ice with
the sane flavour score has a gutted demerit score of 17 and a further shelf
life of 6 days
530 SUggestion for further work
Ib ascertain its potentially wide application as a simple quick and
technically sound methcxi of assessing fish quality many more studies using
other species of fish both temperate and tropical species and in various
storage conditions should be undertaken using a demerit point scorIrq system
such as that developed by the TFlU
The score sheet has proved invaluable when sending individuals untrained
researchers away on distant water fishing trips Ps yet 00 standard
deviations have been detennined using a team of assessors with coded samples
of unknown history This may require a separate group design
The effect of lean fish and fatty fish on the scores should also be
studied because factors such as seasonal variations in biological conditions
Lmproper gutting and washing mechanical damage and filth and changes due to
storage in R3W or shelving may have considerable influence on its shelf-
life Reports such as those of smith et al (1979) clearly showed that in fish
such as the blue whitirlJ (Mioroomesistius poubaeeous there is greater degree
I 51
of seasonal variability than in other gadoid species the overall
acceptability droppirq dramatically once the fish have spawned Fish accepted
for processing for food has to be of a higher standard of quality than fish
accepted for Imredfate sale across the counter to the consumer therefore
there is a need to rreet a minimum score before they could be processed into
food Gradirq is therefore best left to the user sorenson (1971) states
that in establishing limi ts of acceptance an allowance had to be made for
deterioration that would continue to take place during processing and storage
prior to reaching the consimer
The only final criteria of the objectivity of sensory or any other
assessment are results that are reproducible many times which is by definition
a lcnJ-tenn process and in the meantime one requires short-cut indications
that one is headirq in the right direction
Ferhaps a final caution Is necessary as in the YQrds of Ehrenberg and
Shewan (1953) not too much must be expected even the best measuring
instruments occasionally go oot of control
52
60 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baines CR Jones NR am Shewan JM 1965 Technological problems of
measur trq degree of freshness of wet fish and problems of quality
control requirif)J roore knowledge fran fundamental research In he
Technology of fish utilisation ad R Kreuzer Fishi~ News (Books)
p 141
Baines CR and Shewan JM 1965 sensory rrethods for evafuat inq the
quality of white fish Lab practice 14 160-163
Baines CR ltbnnell JoJ Gibson DM lbWgate PF Livi~ston E and
Shewan JM 1969 A taste panel technique for evaluatirq the eati~
quality of frozen cod In Freezi~ and irradiation of fish ad R
Kreuzer Fishi~ News (Books) London p361
Boyd NS and Wilson NDC 1976 A sensory method for evaluatInq the
quality of Snapper (Ch1ysophrys auratus) NZ Journal of Science 19
209-12
Boyd NS Wilson ND and Bjley A 1978 A refrigerated sea water plant
for small boats symposium on fish utilisation technology and
marketi~ in the IPFC region IFFC Proceedi~s 18th session Manila
Philippines FAD Ba~kok p 186-192
Branch AC and Vail AMA 1984 Bri~i~ fish inspection into the
canputer age FltXld Technol Aust 36 in press
Bremner HA Olley J and Ihrower SoJ 1978 CSIIU Iasmanian lEgional
Laboratory OCcasional Paper No4
Bremner HA 1980 Processi~ and freezi~ of the blue grenadier (Maclulonus
novaeselandiae) FltXld Technol Aust 32(8)~ pp 385-393
Bremner J A 1984 QJality - an attitude of mind In he JILlstralian
Fishi~ Industry - today and tanorrow 10-12 July 1984 Launceston
53
Australian MaritUne Cbllege seminar Bapers 224-69
Bremner HA Statham JA am Sykes SJ 1985 Tropical species fran the
north west shelf of Alstralia sensory assessment and acceptability
of fish stored co ice Proceedi~s Sixth session IPR Worki~ Party
on Fish D3chnology and Marketi~ Melbourne 1984 FJID Fish lep 252
supp1
Burford D 1985 Sodiun uptake in MaOlUfOOnUS nooaeselandiae stored in
refrigerated sea water Tasmanian Food Research Unit OCcasional Paper
No9
ltbnnell JJ 1972 OJality control in the fish industry Ibrry Jldvisory
note No 58 IOrty Research Station Aberdeen
ltbnnell JJ 1980 ltbntrol of fish quality Fishi~ ~ws (Books) 2nd ed
Surrey England
OJrran CA Nicolaides L and Al-Alawi ZS 1981 QJality chanqes duri~
iced storage of three carmercially important species of fish fran
Bahrain Trop sci 23(4) 253-268
de Zylva ERA 1974 Effect of fish handli~ at sea on storage quality of
New Zealand Snapper (Chroysophroys aumtus) New Zealand J SCi 17
309-318
Etlira S 1976 A biochemical study on the freshness of fish Bull 1bkai
Reg Fish Res Lab No 88 pp 1-13
Ehrenberg ASC and Shewan JM 1953 he cbjective approach to sensory
tests of food J Sci Food hJric 4 pp 482-489
Herbert RA and Shewan JM 1975 Precursors of the volatile sulphides in
spoili~ North Sea Cod J Sci Food JIlgric 26 1195-1202
lbUwi~ H 1972 Gradi~ of fish in different qualities Institute for
Fishery Products Ijmuiden Unpublished
~ate P 1972 Qrlparison of sensory scor inq systems for raw fish
I 54
Unpubl ished bull ~ ~
~ate P 1978 Measuri~ the quality am acceptability of fish products bull ~
In IPFC Proceedi~s symposiun on fish utilisatial technology and ~
i f~
marketi~ in the IWC region 18th session Manila Ihilippines p
449
fflghes RB and Jones NR 1966 Measurement of hypoxanthine concentrations
in canned herrirg as an index of the freshness of the raw material
with a ocirment oo flavor relations J SCi fOOd middotJlgric 17 434
Jahns FD Howe JL Coduri Jr RJ and Ram Jr AG 1976 A rapid
visual enzyme test to assess fish freshness Food Iechno1 30 (7) 27
Jones NR 1964 ~lems associated with freezi~ very fresh fish
Proceedings Meeting on Fish Iechnology Fish Handling and
Preservation schevenirqen OEC D Paris p 31 bull
Jones NR 1965 Hypoxanthine and other purine containing fractions in fish
muscle as indices of freshness In uthe technology of fish
utilisation ed R Kreuzer Fishi~ rewa (Books) (Drmn p 179
Last PR Scott EOG and Talbot FH 1983 Fishes of Tasmania
Tasmanian Fisheries ~velopnent lUthority lbbart Tasmania pp 238
414
Lima doe santos CAM James D and Ieutscher F 1981 QJidelines for
chilled fish storage experiments FKJ Fish Tech Igt 210
(Dye RM 1954 Ibst rrortem cha~es in the lenses of fish eyes Msessment
of storage tiJm and fish quality J Sci Focx11lgric 5 566-572
Hartin RE Gray RJ H and Pierson MD 1978 QJality assessment of fresh
fish arrl the role of the naturally occurring microflora Focx1
Technol 32 (5) 188
Official Journal of the European oamrnunities No L264 5 ~cember 1970 pp
1-11
bull
55
Technol New Zealand July 1971 pp 31-35
Spinelli J Eklund M and Miyauchi D 1964 Measurement of hypoxanthine
in fish as a method of assessing freshness J Food SCi 29 710
Thrower S oJ am Stafford IA 1981 A roobile unit for ccmparative studies
of chilled storage systems for trawl fish IIF IIR
eatmissions C2 01 02 03 Boston USA 1981-4
Thrower SoJ Bremner HA QJarmby AR Ggtnnan T8 aild Graham KJ
1982 cn-board handlinJ of Q~ish ~ Inportanoeof chillinJ and
gutting Aust Fish 41 (11) 38-41
Tanlinson N bull bull t at 1974 COtparison between refrigerated sea water (with or
without added carbon dioxide) and ice as storage media for fish to be
subsequently frozen Proc IIR C011n 82- 0-3 Tokyo p
waterman J oJ 1982 Qrrposition and QJality of Fish A Dictionary 1brry
Mvisory Note No 87 Torry Research Station Aberdeen
5J
Olley J and letkowsky OA 1973 he role of terrperature function
integration in monitoring of fish spoilage Food Technol New
Zealand 8 (2) 13 15 and 17
Olley J 1977 Iemperature and seafood spoilage In H Proceedings of 1977
SChool for SeafltXld Processorsmiddot ad ~ AF 0 Mello Hawkesbury
Agricultural Oollege p6-2
Olley J 1978 QIality assessment and storage changes In middotCSIRJ Iasmanian bull
leJional Laboratory OCcasional Paper No 4 p 3-1 middot4 Rgenstein J M and ~enstein CE 1981 he shelf-life extension of fesh
fish In Advances in the refrigerated treabnent of fishmiddot
International Institute of Rfrigeration Clmnissions C2 m ra [8
Boston US A 1981-4
leJenstein J 1983 Wlat is fish quality INroFISH Marketing Digest ttgt 6
26-28
Ryder JM 9Jisson OH SCott ON and Fletcher GC 1984 storage of
New Zealand Jack Mackerel ( TmohUMlB notJabullbullbullZandias) in ice
chemical microbiological and sensory assessment J M SCi 49
1453-1456 1477
Shewan JM Macintosh RG rucker CG and Ehrenberg ASC 1953 he
developnent of a numerical ~coring systan for the sensory assessment
of the spoilage of wet white fish stored in ice J SCi Food Jlgric
4 283-298
Smith J GM Hardy R hanson AB Young KW and Parsons E 1979
sane observations 00 the ambient and chill storage of blue whiting
(Mio1om8sistius poutassou) bull In H Advances in Fish SCience and
Technology ad JJ Connell FishinJ News (Books) Surrey England
pp 299-303
SOrensen T 1971 QIality control and fish handling in New zealand Food ~
t c-
o )
~hmiddot r~YiJ lt~
~~f~~ ~
I
Nomooram for comparison of diffGrent scoring systems tor raw T i sn ___ _ J bull )
_U I~ ~Y1 9i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~
I I t I I - _---1------ imiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot __ middot~_ ~ __~_ -_ ~ + ~ _ -~ _ - middotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middot __ G 9 8 7 6 _ 5middot 3
_ - zmmy [ I bull r f II
d _~__ ~ __ _ ~ __ -I-- - ~ L- i~ middoti~ ~ 1-L -~~ lt lt l~tceland 1P i ~ ~ j ~ ~ ~ L~ __ - I ~_ bull _ L j ~- _-
N rv 1 I 1 2 --- - 2~ 3 middot 3middot 4 ~- ~Il ay ~ _ _ middot _ r r
_ _ __ _ _~ ~_ ) - ~ L_ - 1- ~-_ -_ _ _ ~ 19 ~ 8 imiddotmiddot I 6 5 4 3
Do _ _nm~r t I I I r
~ I
_ ~ ~_ ~ t ~ __ i__ t ~ ~ ~ ~ _ q x 1 1i 2 2~ 3v _ Franee I r I l n
I I I i _ - ~ _ _ _- _-- middotmiddot __ middot_middot_middot_middotmiddotmiddotImiddotmiddotmiddot_middot~ _middotmiddotmiddotmiddot-_middotmiddotmiddotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddot ---- - --~ ~-
19oum8 I 7 6 i 5 ~ ~ 4middot 280 J t (
I i
J -- - -_ -__ X ~middotH i__~ -- i_L ~ - l_ middot1-- - 3 I 2Y1 0 4 11z 1 y
E E C I 1
I I I deg deg E I A r Bmiddot - I I C
ltOIl j- ~ ~ c ~--------------
TASTER
DATE
SESSION
~ER middot1
bull You will be given ~bull aamples of cooked fish Please assess the fish for flavour textur~ and
overall liking as though you had purchased them in a takeaway food shop Hark the sample
identification under the face that most closely describes your impressionbull
I
middot5 S shy2 3 4
FLAVOUR
IEXlURE
--
OVERALL UKING
7 bullbull yc ) I _ v J _ _
I1PP~NJIJ( 3 ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE BGRENVZSASS (A)
OBS DAYS-R DMPTS shy
1 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 6 4 3 7 4 6 e 4 5 9 6 1 18 6 10 11 6 18 12 6 18 13 e 13 14 8 16 13 8 13 16 8 17 17 9 18 18 9 18 19 9 bull 19 29 9 19 21 19 19 22 1 21 23 1 19 24 1 2123 11 21 26 11 22 27 11 22 29 11 22 29 12 22 3 12 22 31 12 23 32 12 23 33 13 23 34 13 23 33 13 22 36 13 23 37 14 24 38 14 23 39 14 264 14 25
17 26~ 17 39 43 17 38 44 17 29 43 21 32 46 21 33
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASS(At
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (Xt DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Yt DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9666 R SQUARED 9343 T STATISTIC 231621 INTERCEPT tAt 31799 SLOPE tSt 173399 bull STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 219473
OBSERVATIONS 46 Y DMPT9 XI DAYS-RSW YMIN -18 YMAX 61 YINC e XMIN -19 XMAX 2e9 XINe 2
] y
__ t=- I I 0(I I
JPRH6ELF PRINT MODULE -SYNTAX ERROR
DATABASE J3lGRENVISASS (FIL)
OB8 DAYS-R DMPT8
1 s 1 2 4 5 s 6 6
~ e 8 ~ 9 1 6 19 12 7 11 14 8 12 17 9 13 18 1 14 19 bull 11 17 23 12 21 29
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASSCFIL)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE CX) DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IY) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT ~9963
R SQUARED 992 T STATISTIC 3~36977
INTERCEPT CA) -3~6~41
SLOPE CB) 1~8426
STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 77667
OBSERVATIONS 12 v DMPTS x DAYS-RSW VMIN -2~ VMAX ~~ YINC ~
XMIN -19 XMAX 2~9 XINC 2
]
bull
-SYNTAX ERROR
lPRH6ELF PRINT MODULE
DATABASE BGRENVXSASS (AG)_
OB6
1 2 3 4 ~
6 7 8 9
Hi 11 12 13 14 1~
16 17 -18 19 2 21 22 23 24 2~
26 27 28 29
3 31 32 33 34 3~
36 37 J8
39
4 41 42 43 44 4~
46
DAYS-R
3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 6 6 6 6 8 8
8 bull 8
9 9 9 9
1 1 1 1 11 11 11 11
DMPTS
2 3 3 3 ~
6 ~
~
1 1 1 1 17 18 17 19 2~
2 21 21 21 23 21 23 23 24 24 24
12 24 12 24 12 25 12 25 13 27 13 25 J3 24 13 27 104 26 J04 2S
14 28 14 27 17 28 17 32 17 32 17 31 21 34 21 35
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BORENVISASSCAO)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE IX) DAVS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IV) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9~76~
R SQUARED 917 T STATISTIC 22S6S88 INTERCEPT lA) 323~7
SLOPE lB) 189812 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 269324
OBSERVATIONS 46 Y DM PT6 X DAYS-RSW ~ _01 VMAV 2~ YfNe ~
XMIN -19 XNAX 2l9 XINC 2
]
9YNTA)( ERROR bull ]PRN6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE BGRENVXSASS
OB6 DAY6-R DMPTS
1 3 1 2 3 1 3 3 1 4 3 1 5 4 1 6 4 4 7 4 3 9 4 1 9 6 6 18 6 6
11 6 6 12 6 6 13 9 8
14 9 9 15 8 8 16 8 9 l 9 18 19 9 11 19 9 12 28 9 12 21 18 12 22 18 14 23 18 11 24 18 14 25 11 15 26 11 13 27 11 15 29 11 15 29 12 17 3 12 18 31 12 19 32 12 18gJ l~ 34 13 18 3~ 13 18 36 13 19 37 14 19 JB 14 19 39 14 19 48 14 19 41 17 19 42 17 23 43 17 21 44 17 20
-(EEC)
q~ 21 23 q6 21 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASSCEEC)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE IX) DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IY) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 96691 R SQUARED 93q9 T STATISTIC 2~14824
INTERCEPT IA) -238937 SLOPE IB) 146219 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 1S28eS
OBSERVATIONS q6 Y DMPTS X DAYS-RSW YMIN -2q YMAX ~5 YINC ~
XMIN -19 XMAX 259 XJNC 2
l
SYNTAX ERROR lPRM8ELF PRINT MODULE
-
bull
APPENJ)K 4 -
DATABASE WHZTXNG VXSASS (A) bull
OBS DAYS-I
1 1 2 1 3 1 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 ~
9 5 9 5 Ii 7 11 7 12 7 13 9 14 9 1~ 9
016 11 17 11 19 11
DMPTS
1 1 1 1 2 2 4 3 5 a 7
9 13 15 bull 13 16 14 1~
019 13 2 8 28 13 16 21 13 20 22 15 24 23 1~ 24 24 15 25 25 17 29 26 17 29 27 17 38 29 19 30 29 19 38 38 19 32 31 21 33 32 21 32 33 21 32 34 23 32 3~ 23 32 36 23 34
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASSIA)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE tX) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE tV) qMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 98514 R SQUARED 9785 T STATISTIC 3344414 INTERCEPT tAt -245163 SLOPE CBt 166958 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 286799
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS x DAYS-ICE
YMIN -22 YMAX lS7 YINC lS- XMIN -19 XMAX 259 XINC 2
]
I
J
-8YNTAX ERROR
]PRM6ELF PRINT MODULE shyDATABASE WHITING VISASS (AG)
OB8 DAYS-I DMPT8
1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 4 3 1 ~ 3 2 6 3 2 7 ~ 4 9 ~ 3 9 ~ ~
18 7 18 11 7 9 12 7 18 13 9 1~
14 9 17 1~ 9 1~
16 11 18 17 11 16 18 11 17 19 13 22 28 13 18 21 13 22 22 1~ 26 23 1~ 27 24 1~ 28 2~ 17 32 26 17 32 27 17 33 28 19 34 29 19 34 38 19 36 31 21 37 32 21 36 33 21 36 34 23 36 3~ 23 36 36 23 38
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITINO VISASS(AO)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAY8-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Y) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 986~2
R SQUARED 973 T STATISTIC 3~B167B
INTERCEPT CAl -272~33
SLOPE CBI 197S63 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 221294
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS X DAYS-ICE YHIN -19~ YHAX ~9~ YINC ~
XHIN -19 XHAX 2~9 XINC 2
]
-SYNTAX ERROR lPRM6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASS (EEC)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 2 1 3 1 4 3 ~ 3 1 6 3 1 7 ~ 2 8 ~ 2 9 ~ 3
1 7 3 11 7 3 12 7 3 13 9 6 14 9 6 bull 1~ 9 7 16 11 7 17 11 8 18 11 7 19 13 11 2 13 1 21 13 12 22 1~ 13 23 1~ 1~
24 1~ 17 2~ 17 19 26 17 18 27 17 19 28 19 29 29 19 23 39 19 22 31 21 24 32 21 23 33 21 24
34 23 2J 3~ 23 26 36 23 27
I ELF SCATTER MODULE I DATABASE WHITING VISA88CEEC)I I INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (~) DAYS-ICE I
DEPENDENT VARIABLE (VI DMPTS I bull
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9a2~3
R SQUARED 96~3
T STATISTIC 387a73~
INTERCEPT (A) -4142 SLOPE (8) 12873 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 173287
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS ~ DAYS-ICE YMIN -29 YMA~ ~1 VINC ~
XMIN -19 ~MA~ 2~9 ~INC 2
J
-SYNTAX ERROR JPRM6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHITING VXSASSmiddot(FXL)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 2 3 1 3 ~ 5 4 7 4 ~ 9 9 6 11 13 7 13 1~
e 1~ 16 9 17 19 18 19 21 11 21 24 12 23 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASB(FJLI
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Y) DMPTS
bull bullbull 4~
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE CV) DMPTSr
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 982~3
R SQUARED 96~3
T STATISTIC 3S7873~ t bullbullf CINTERCEPT CA) -4142
SLOPE CB) 12873 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 173287
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS XI DAYS-ICE YMINmiddot~28 YMAKI 1 YINC ~
XMIN -I9XMAX 2~9 XINC2
]
-SYNTAX ERROR ]PRH6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHXTXNG VXSASS (FXL)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 S 2 3 1 1 5 3 4 7 4 5 9 9 6 11 13 7 13 1~
9 15 16 9 17 19 1 19 21 11 21 24 12 23 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE I WHITING VISAS8(FIL)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE CX)I DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE CY) DMPT8
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 99289 R SQUARED 9858 T STATISTIC 2638123 INTERCEPT CA) -243706 SLOPE CB) 124476 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 112846
SLOPE 10) 124476 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 112846
ObullbulllfftVTrOHSO 12 VI DHPTS XI DAVS-ICE VMIN -27 VHAX e2 VINe e XHIN -19 XHAX 2e9 gtcINe 2
]
-8VNTAX ERROR
fi
rr
[bull
SJ
in i
bullol
r~
bull bull
n i
o o o o
~
o~ o
o - l
N~ o ~
o o o
Q
Q o o
a
c -~_
Q
_
_ Q
_9_
0
o ~-
O
_
Q
lI
oJ ~
v
~ ~
~-
-
- -1
---h
---1
---I
I
I
1
~ ((9 ~ J las 0 - ~~ U -lt) az E~-~gl~~1--~~---------- ~) 1)
11 ~ - 11 HI ~~
I bull M~
~ -~ ~~ IJ~ I J ismiddotJ I Q l~
k tl I 01 re lr - 91 br I ~I ( -0 71P g I CJ tt
I I J 000 0 0 w I 0) NlNN1tl 30 hIflJ I t IC (~4ID(r ~ Wi
_ f-- -------- bull fyen ~=y ~~r I I I I I I I 0 0 00 00 ( ~) -Fr~ ~ fj)
-0 I 0 I Ole 17 10 0 ( ~ AI )middot P1~ 0 0 00 Q hItIrS ~7I -~~ (J
t -r------0 bull
_-~_ middotmiddotmiddot_middot~middotmiddotmiddot)-middot7~)
lrrT I 01 0
0 tFmiddot~~i ~ 1 o 00 Omiddot (~ -W ~r f (JJ___~ _______ _ l I I 71 I -_---_ - M-~ ~ I
J I Z-tf ~ ~ ~fI t1 11f ( )) CI I I I i I 00 r11-7[ c I C bull aofl7r_ ~ ~z ~ 1t~Ji ) ( --_--------i---shye l~~~ I f~) I I J I
I II i bull Q ( N~T fE ~I )
~JiP _- -___ ----shy
_
~ 7Yr 0) ~(J ~ I e I t I ~ l I J I I 1 I I I(I 0 0 (~~yen~ M -p~P71 JPtJIJs 0
i euror (1l~J IlLriJlllr1JI ~~J I ~()(1OP I I r I I 0 I ( t t I ( jIfS 7fS ~~I ~ )
I
I 1 I( IN 10~ lb~ qItJ gtr~j f o (~)I(~) I I 0 I (t~ ~~) I I Jbull o 0 J I ~ l 0 a i S(jJ t t t tI tI C I C I J I I I J I 0 I (n~rlP PI4t -I) t
- -I
-I -I-I I II-I I I-I r bull
-----(rtb Ii If p~) PNl17T7~b ~y~ 7
10 IIt1v I 0 1~L CIJ tN IfIfW1IIJ JI11i JN~I HJ3
---Y p~ALY~_ ~~ Yl2-- 1)
yenvr 1amp f111l
-
~
~~
~
II
o 0
~cgt
(
) Q
oa
oo
o
oo
o o
a
o
~
P
t
oo
c
oo
a -
o
oo
o
o -
o
-o
-
-
lJ
I~ I~
Jl ~rIpound i IAlffzfjjsectj 7df- utl kf J OG lie rCOIpound ~IIE(T r
7tU
~
~ ~
~ ~
~
-shy~
~
MYI f)lySLM~ 1 (JAy ISo~r 11 ~~) e ()~t ~I01) r I joy f o~y lOJ 17~JJlII1~ 16 fiti -t1 It r ~17J~~flu~1h 111H 7U 1111111shyIllf Jr(11Jr I fhJo
~ ) ~ I1 J J-4 ~ J 2 JJ ~poundol ~ ] t4 cl -7 eJ uJ cJJJ wI~ wI l shy w c at amp 74 -t ~ ut 4 I
SkIN 000 o 0 0o 0 0 o 00 I o I I I I 3 3 3l) t 3 3 31 s 3ltt
a I I I I I o IfYU I 2 I JI I I000 )l~ 1~1 S 3 ~S 3 5 335
GILtJ I J I o (J 0 I (I I I ~ t 2shy~I I s 3 ]] 2 0 (J 3 ~ ~ t 3 3 AlvItUiU i l I I ls)z oJ lJ 0 a (J ~ 0o 0 0 a a aTff1ttJR II r 1
1 I ~ I I I I 1~E
Cdt47tl7 I I ~ ~t( a a 0O(O I Io I~ 00 000deg a 0wO 0 0 0 o 0 0 o~ 00VUipound811 ~ J I
tJ I Oe6rlllr I I I I 2 2]l2 ~ 3 S 3 S ~ 3o a 0 (J () 0 I 333 1 $ 3
If~euMI LU~ 2l 3000o (J 0 o 0 0 J 2 2shy 331a deg (1 ~ 2 Jshy
i I 000amp1 0 I I 1TIUUpound
lAcltJdJE 00deg00o 0 0 ooalOOO 0 0 I I I 1OdOa deg 0 11 2 I r I I I IbullI
I I h~r~Eu I ( 0 0 CJ 0 o (J a 2 ~ 30001011 0 1 J 1010 I I L II 2 l 2l 22 2 1
sKIN GLLt I f I~J) GlIIl) 0 (I a I do 0 0 I 0 Il~t l~o 0 0 ~ 3 3 3 s 3 3 3 33s1331
i7tJ7l11 Ibull I shy i66 ~o
(J ~ 0 1 0 It3331l J t 1 1shy 1~ ~afJllc 11 Irrshy It ~1 1111 20 J3 u
(])JtUJ61 (l) (1) (Ir)(0) (J)(I) (If) (19) (u) (~r)(J4)
I r f
I
I
i I
I i
II I ((
f
II Ii
p ()
Q
0_
_ 00
0
00
00
00
0
o o o 0
00
0
0 _
o Q
0
0
o
0
00
0
-
0 0
0
middot0
0
o oo
0
o Q
o oo o o
- ~
~
~ ~~pound
w
i -shy
o
co
- --
shy
o o o
~
~_
~
0
-shyJJ
-----l--~
-J
J IJ
f
J
J)
o 0
00
_ 0
0
o (gt
0
o ()
o
0
0 0
0
()
()
o 0
0
o 0
0
_
_ -
-----1
-----shy
Q
0 0
o ~-IJ~ulJ-
u
lJcllJ_-_~IJamp
o o
Q
I---+----I---+----I----I~-
_Ilpound
llD
lIlI
Il
~I
IIIl
I_II
II5
l__
IIlIa
IllP
=lII
Il1
rl
ll
IlIl
IlIII
llII
IlJl
IIl
IIlIl_
IIrII
G3i
mta
isectID
it
llll~
1~=wampampftUla
_
au
U
Lamp
WJN
AJ
poundmiddotJI
IiIamp
3flJ
a
uac
ampa
f
shy
I~middottn 0~L fi 5L middottlu~ fo_~r ( ) 1poundc [CtJRl -ffl(pound1 r~~ rlt1c- J c-ru
-- I
1SllJ7~
lt l)~ J )IIr M ~-t s ~~ OIl middot )If 10 JAY II 041
J- Olt i1 )lir iI DIY IT- IMy11
1~middot6f1 14f1- ~imiddot -- J _ middotAfmiddot IIrk middot Jiamp -ffh~11 rtr Il ~M gt27P- ill Ill ~lllY ~~7rlf JC 1- ~ r 1M 11
r ~ F16F r~h FIjFi ~~I)r r~Fr
5 Fc II -i~fIoi l 1 fj t t Fr c r amp t 1= ~ r ~ F r rtI ~
- -
sION o (j o 0 0 o 0 a I I I I I I I I 2 I t t I-r J~L) z~z~ 2~J ~ z a ~ ~ 33 - -ol t 1 2
~ poundys-s 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I I lt t 2 t t 4 ~z ~ 2l~ ~ ~ 1 Z 3zi3p33 3 333 3 3 3 - - ~ rl~ a 0 a (1 a a o 1 I 1 I 1-2 12 t ltt a ~ l J tll~ ~~~) 2 2 2 2- ~Jll 21 13 33 ~
- ~ MIIi(UlA~
degCt1C 11 )l
FipoundSI- eli CeoD o 0 (J 0 I I I I I I 1 1 I I 1 I Jl~] l2 22- z ~ 2 2 22 11 2-3 -Sfvpound
j
CIJiCVlt-tICN I I I 1 ( I I I 2 2 t ~ t~ )2 2~21 2$ 2 t _~ 3AIJJN(j- P (J dO o C a a o 0 00 1 I I I I - --
V~7r~ ~ c~u N
(TKWW~ CO~ o I oc I I J I I I I 1 2 I 2 2 1- ) t~l2 2- 22 2 ) 2 ~2- 1222 2 2 ll 2L -- -~VClLAl I
a 0 0 0 01 I 0 2 1 2 2 J5r 4 E i H CA I I
-I I I I I I I I J J 12( ~ 12 1 2 1 2-I TfI_ 21 1-1- 1 1 ~ 1
~ I middot_0-__-- I
~ 1
ffCACIpound coo 000lt=1 o 0 0 0 btJCt) o a () (J I I I I I I I I111 I I I 1 I I -~-aD CD lJ a a 0 0 ~ ~ UlrAfllN o 0 a IJ e e 0 C) (JdegOo ecJao co (10 (1 o I I I I I I I I 1 I I III I I I I z --
i tiN ~4r L~~ 2- li ~ a~ 8M) CUmiddot c d (J 0 (J () I I I 1 1 1
I 1 I I f t I II tl-loI 21 1 t 33 - -
-Iffl1-
J I I I I i- 2 I 11~SC~E ~ t 1 o ~ 04-t 1J 11 1 11t IS~ IfS J1 I 1 I If I IJ 1 r~]u ze uu __
bull ttlUIG
(I) l~) (6) (II) ~ (~) 6s-)llIt lCUI CJ (Ii) (~) vmiddot (II) (19~ ---
I t f
I
~ I
~ I
Ii
I I
Ii I II f
~ (
--)raquo~ middot-~~-~-I~~IliiI~~-middotComiddot~-d-b~middotmiddotmiddotmiddot_ ~ ~ middoth-~_middot--~H~~middot~gt
Other Occasional Papers in the series
1 A salinity monitor for irrigation pumps by EOMIEZITIS
2 Wine liqueur and fish products acceptability trials 47th ANZAAS Congress Hobart 1976 by HABREMNER TLLEWIS and ARQUARMBY
3 Abalone silage an exercise in the conservation of waste by JUNE OLLEY
4 Course notes contributed by the CSIRO Tasmanian Food Research Unit to a workshop on fish handling and quality control Hobart Oct3rd-5th 1978 by HABREMNER JUNE OLLEY and SJTHROWER
5 Difficulties with generalized least squares regression in forest modelling by PWWEST
6 Metabolism of zinc cadmium and copper in rats fed shellfish highly contaminated with heavy metals by SJTHROWER JUNE OLLEY and MAUREEN McDERMOTT
7 Hygiene control in seafood processing by SJTHROWER
6
different routes and at different speeds Each lustralian species ttOUld have
to be examined in turn am the hypoxanthine test related to sensory grades
tbte that the Canadian redfish and flounder had produced the maximum amgtunt of
hypoxanthine 10llg before they becarre unacceptable while the swordfish had
only produced a fifth of the arount when it became unacceptable to a taste
panel (Olley 1978) The hypoxanthine test requires laboratory facilities and
same equipment but recently the use of sLmple paper strips have been reported
(Jahns et aI 1976)
The main disadvantages of nucleotide assays are that they are apt to vary
even arro~ individuals within a species Sufficient samples need to be used
to reduce this variability
All the chemical roothods discussed above depend on measuring the
concentration of certain chemical substances in the flesh and since the sample
is destroyed in the process they cannot be used to test every fish in a
batch In any case variation between fishes in the sarre batch makes chemical
tests for quality a task requiring a statistician (Olley 1977) All the
methods require the use of a laboratory or fairly elaborate facilities and
also they oo rot apply to all species and products alike
130 Physical Methods
Love (1954) described a roothod which correlates the turbidity of the eye
lenses of fish with storage tiroo of iced fish kept in a roan of fairly
constant air temperature He found that it is possible by examination of 20
or more lenses to assess the storage tiroo with an error of not roore than 1
day M advantage of this roothod is that since only the eyes have to be
raroved in sampling the fish remains saleable as headed dressed fish or as
fillets ~ver1 the roothod had many limitations such as difficulty in
manipulation and matchi~ of the lenses which have to be done in good diffused
7
daylight at least 20 lenses are required for each estllnation which is rather
tedious for routine work and also it is not applicable where fish had not been
kept all the time in ice under the standard conditions eg bulk stowage of
fish with ice on a trawler may result in deviation fran the conditions of box
stolage in an insulated roan
he GR Ibrrymeter is a battery pc7ot1ered hand-held instnunent that rreasures
certain dialectric properties of fish skin which charge wi th the
tiJretemperature history of the fish fbWever readi~s on a large mrnber of
samples have to be taken and averaged bull Although it is a rapid simple
objective and rDn-destructive method of estllnati~ the quality of fresh fish
it has the followilkJ disadvanteqesj large variation in readirg fran fish to
fish readi~ varies with physical damage to fish1 cha~e of readi~ with time
varies with species and also may be insensitive at later stages of spo i Laqe
Curran et al (1981) reported that the GR Ibrrymeter was not particularly
successful with both the purple emperor (L6thoinus l6ntjan) ard the Spanish
mackerel ( Scomberomorue oonmereons since the readirgs obtained do not
correlate very well with the taste panel results
140 Microbiological Methods
he rootine microbiological testirg that is performed under normal
industry operations is normally restricted to enumeration of nonpathogenic
microorganisms hose frost frequently used are the standard plate count and
enumeration of indicator organisms such as the coliform group Beoher-ichia
coli aM Staphylococcus aureus
Food handl i nq practices beyond the pr-imary processors control make
standard aerobic plate count (APe) a difficult quality assessment tool to use
generally he total nunber of bacteria is not the sole determinant of
8
quali ty since certain microbial groups are rrore apt to cause spoilage than
others These groups can be given a selective advantage for growth by the way
the product is processed or stored furthermore the determination of
bacterial counts while they are of value to research requires too much time
before results are known and can also be expensive for routine testing
Representative samples have to be taken for bacterial examination because the
fish or product is destroyed during the test Interpreting the results of
bacterial testing is a task for experts who should be consulted when
necessary bull
Detection and enumeration of indicator bacteria such as the coliform
group E ooli and S auroeu8 were considered for many years to indicate the
potential presence of pathoqenic microorganisms NM this inference has been
questioned and these groups are no longer considered a reliable method for
predicting the presence of such pathogens (Martin et aL1978) bull
According to Olley and Ratkowsky (1973) there is in fact no simple index
of quality and a thorough knowledge of the oamplete temperature history of the
fish is the only true indicator of freshness This is so because at higher
temperatures bacteria divide in half more rapidly Therefore the
relationship between bacterial growth with production of spoilage canpounds
and temperature is not a straight line rut a curve he curve relates rate of
spoilage of these commodities at temperatures between aoe and 25dege to the rate
at which they would spoil at aoe hus at aoe the relative rate is 1 and at
Rate at temperature (tOe)any other temperature the relative rate is Rate at a be
Bremner et at (1978) have coined the term ICE FOID for this relative rate
ie so many times faster than the ccmnodity would spoil on ice and
lCETIME as equivalent storage time on ice = lCEFOID x time in days
The curve has also been converted into tabular form to enable conversion
of the temperature history of the catch into equivalent storage time
on ice under ideal conditions However the concept of relative rate of
9
spoilage with temperature can only apply if fishing oonditions are kept
constant
150 sensory Methods
Currently the best way to detenmine fish freshness still requires the use
of a taste panel (Regenstein and Regenstein 1981) A number of taste panel
techniques for assessing the quality of unfrozen fish species have been
described am are in use in different parts of the world These techniques
vary in cbjective and ccrrplexity but are of three main types Firstly there
are those which categorise the fish on the basis of its acceptability for
eatirq secondly there are those which categorise the fish on the basis of
well-defined characteristics which change duri~ storage Thirdly there are
techniques which include elements of both of these types Techniques of the
first type usually anploy a single gradi~ or hedonic (like-dislike) scale
whilst those of the second type anploy descriptions of various characteristics
(Baines et aI 1969)
The ultimate criterion of fish quality is the flavour and texture of the
cooked fish HcMever taste panel evaluations of cooked fish are timeshy
consiminq and relatively few samples can be tested at anyone time It is
therefore highly desirable to be able to make an assessment of eati~ quality
by exanini~ the raw fish My atterrpt to raise the quality of raw fish as it
reaches the consumer is critically dependent on the development of a
convenient and consistent rrethod of quality assessment based on raw fish
Fortunately eat inq quality of cooked fish can be correlated with the
appearance odour and texture of the whole raw fish Boyd and Wilson (1976)
when evaluat inq the quality of snapper (Chroysophfys aufatus) by a sensory
method found that there is close relationship between the raw attributes of
gill odour and general appearance with those of odour texture am flavour of
10
the cooked fish
The use of ooject ive tests at dockside or even on inspection within the
plant is not considered to be practical in the normal routine of inspection of
fresh ard frozen fish products as almost all of the coject Ive tests require
laboratories am so becare rather rerooved fran the busy fisherman processor
or factory foreman A nuch simpler piece of apparatus is the eye or the N)Se
(olley 1977) Sensory tests are always controversial as they require an
inspector although the canny buyer is in fact applying his senses of smell
am visual acuity in a similar fashion W9 accept the wine faster and wcxgtl
classer so why not the fish grader (Bremner 1984) Therefore a test that
correlated well with freshnessquality and that could operate on the market or
in the factory would be of considerable value to an efficient industry (Baines
et aI 1965)
Howgate (1978) also considered the sensory rrethods to be far better than
non-sensory methods which are not suitable for consumer testing whilst
Connell (1972) states that in general the sensory rrethod of assessing
freshness is the best at present for quality control purposes
As fish spoils its snell taste appearance and feel go through
characteristic am well defined stages that trained experts or experienced
staff can consistently recognise It is convenient to attach a number or
score to each stage so that the assessor can award the appropriate score to
each fish or batch of fish Alternatively the mere recognition of each stage
ard acceptance or rejection of fish on this basis may be all that is
necessary Different species and products spoil in different ways The
numerical system us irq an objective panel developed at the Ibrry IEsearch
Station by Shewan et al (1953) is probably the ultUnate critical evaluation of
fish freshness available at this time It was created for the determination
of storage time of whole Net fish l6Jenstein and Iegenstein (1981) in using
11
this nunerical system reported that the cooked freshness scores are generally
higher (better) than expected at that storage t irre for whole wet fish A
freshness score of 55 on the Ibrry scale seemed the appropriate endpoint for
their definition of shelf-life This would nonnally be reached with ideal
iced-at-sea fish about twelve days from catch sooner for fillets Freshness
scorirq systems are I1C1laquo available fran Ibrry Research station for most UK
ccmnercial species and systems are available for both the raw and cooked
fish HoweveF there is still no standard scorirq system to be used
internationally he countries in the EEC ~or instance use scoring systems
which differ both in scale length am in characteristics measured Most
systems use the same scale length for all features examined but the United
Kingdon am Icelarrl use scales of 10 to 0 for odour and 5 to 0 for other
characteristics ibwgate (1972) describes the effort to construct a rorogram
for oonvert inq fran one scorinq system to another (Appendix 1) de Zylva
(1974) expanded the Ibrry score sheet to include marks for flesh colour and
texture belly flap discoloration stainiBJ of backbone am colour of
kidney he scoring system was designed for ~w Zealand snapper and gave
excellent negative linear correlations between score am days of storage
legenstein (1983) presents the way in which Ibrry has in turn incorporated
other characteristics into the score sheet for raw fish Groupings of several
characteristics to give a score requires more expertise than scoring
individual points as is done by de Zylva
However the use of a point or scoring system in which higher points are
given for high quality attributes would mean the requirements of more
kllC7filedge of the fish and the tester mist be experienced and knCM the
qualities of the fish previously Therefore it is too species dependent
his problem can be overcare by using the demerit system with points being
allotted in several categories for defects as they becare obvious and one can
I
12
learn as one goes along in each situation he demerit points that were given
to the various selected quality attributes could be weighted in such a way as
to produce an approximately linear change in score with storage time (Branch
and Vail 1985)
It might also be desirable OCIlInercially to specify a uniform mrnber of
days of shelf-life fran the pack date to consumption he length of shelfshy
life ctgttained for fish depends on the initial age and quality of the fish the
tirre of the pack am the time am temperature of storage before am after
packing In practical terns the ultimate measure of the effect(s) of shelf-
life extension treatments on the final quality of the fish is consumer
satisfaction (Regenstein aoo Regenstein 1981)
A tentative grading systan for fresh fish based on sensory assessment of
fish had been described by IbUwing (1972)
160 The Ideal Method
Forty years of research ootably in the UK Canada and Japan have gone
into objective methods for measuring fish quality (Bremner et al 1978)
There is as yet 00 single universal test for all species nor for that
matter any wholly satisfactory test for individual species
The ideal rrethod hOlJld be one that is cheap oon-destructive easy to
use oot subject to much variation or fatigue having rapid response and wide
application sensory tests have the advantages of being non-destructive 00
equipnent required adaptable to species and assessing the market value
Althcogh sensory tests are usually condemned as a subjective test which
requires training am experience am are also said to be easily open to
abuse this can be reduced if a simple rapid and less descriptive rrethod
could be fourd - possibly with the use of demerit point scores Therefore
this study aims at assessing the use of sensory techniques based on the
13
demerit point scores developed for raw whole (gutted and ungutted) and
filleted fish samples of Australian fish species stored in ice and RSW It
also discusses the results of the acceptability taste panels on the cooked
fish samples
The two oammercially ~rtant Australian fish species used in this study
were the blue grenadier am the blue rock whiting he blue grenadier is
currently Tasmanias major oammercial finfish and the recent annual production
of the fishery exceeds 100 tonnes (Last et aI 1983)~ he blue rock whiti~
is the only Australian member of the family that has any commercial
importance It occurs mainly in Bass strait and the sheltered bays of South
eastern Tasmania The flesh is delicately flavoured but very soft
200 MATERIALS lIND MEIHgt[s
210 Sample preparation
211 Fish stored in RSW
Blue grenadier used in this study were caught on the 15th lugust 1984 at
a depth of 300 fathans off Sandy Cape on the west coast of Tasmania (Lat
41deg20S IDrq144deg40 E) by demersal trawl They were taken fran the deck
irnnediately am dropped into a refrigerated seawater (RSW) tank in a net bag
(tanp -1degC) The fish was reported to be handled quite roughly on board
Sore of the fish had already gone into rigor at this stage he fish were
transported to the CnID lasrnanian Food lesearch Uni t (TFRJ) laboratories in
Hobart and were already to days old on arrival The f ish were then placed in
the RSW box tank of the rrobile unit (the design and construction of which were
described by Thrower and Stafford 1981) and was kept at -1degC for the duration
of the storage trial which lasted for about three weeks Four fish were
rerroved at each samplirq tine (Table 1) for sensory assessment Length
14
measurements to the fork of the tail were also noted ~e fish were then
filleted and samples frozen at -lBoe for later assessment of their
acceptability by taste panel
212 Fish stored in ice
For the sensory assessment of fish stored in ice guidelines similar to
those given by Lima dos Santos et al (981) were used ~e blue rock whiting
also known as the weedy whiting was used ~e whiting were caught on the
afternoon of 23rd August 1984 by demersal trawl in 18 to 25 m waters oft
Eastern Tasmania On arrival at the TFRJ laboratories in I-bbart at 11 45 am
on the fol Lowirq day the f ish were re- iced at a ratio of 21 (ice f ish) in
insulated plastic boxes of size 66 x 41 x 28 em with provision for drainage
of melt water Flake ice was used ~e ice was topped up daily and renewed
once a week The boxes of i ced f ish were then kept in a cool roan set at a
temperature of 0deg to -1dege ~ree fish were removed for sensory assessment at
each sampling time (Table 1) over a period of rmre than three weeks of ice
storage 100 fish samples were then frozen at -18dege until needed for the
acceptability taste panel
Table 1
sampling regirre for fish stored in R3Wice
Blue Grenadier Diys in R3W 3 4 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 17 21
Sample code N D G L S R K T U P M 0
Whiting Diys in ice 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Sample code 0 M D G T S N R P U L K
15
220 Sensory assessment of the whole (gutted and ungutted) raw fish samples
Both the blue grenadier stored in lOW and the whi t i nq stored in ice were
progressively assessed by using the sense organs of sight smell and touch tor
changes in general appearance odour and texture with storage tine by giving
the appropriate demeri t scores according to the score sheets as shown in
Tables 2 and 3 IVo types of score sheets were used Table 2 shows the
sensory assessment score sheet orig inally developed for the assessment of
gemfish (Thrower et al 1982) It has been simplified and weighted (Branch
and Vail 1985) to provide accumulated increases in demerit points as the t i sn
change in odour texture and appearance during storage with the max imum
accumulated demerit point scores of 35 for the urx]utted samples and 39 tor tte
gutted samples The total scor irq for gutted fish differs fran that descr ibeo
by Bremner (1984) and Branch and Vail (1985) in that the demerit points for
the belly cavity have been added to those for the whole fish
The whole and gutted raw fish were also assessed by using the freshness
score sheet developed by the Council of the European COl1nunities (Official
Journal of the European Qmnunities 1970) but with slight rrodification marie
in its scor irq method in that the scor irq was reversed to provide accumulateri
increases in demerit points as in the TFRJ score sheet (Table 2) with a
maximun accumulated demerit score of 30 (Table 3) The samples were scored by
H Abd R who had had no previous experience with the score sheet
230 Sensory Assessment of the frozen filleted raw fish samples
Samples of the whole and gutted fish of both species were then filleted
ard frozen at -18degC until required for the organoleptic acceptability test
panel fillets were thawed by holding for about 16 hours (overnight) in still
air at 4degC The thawed fillets of both the blue grenadier and whi t i nq were
then assessed by the sense organs of sight smell and touch by using the scor-e
sheet for filleted sample as shown in Table 4 nle score sheet was developed
16
able 1
FIlt U Snorr bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullnt oore hbullbull t ( ( 1Ii~ ANI) tlNtJuTreo)
1_middotAnlJ lmiddot
rlSB IDDII
UIUIl~ (VBci9ht~i9ht8lDullDUll
o 1 2 3
SitU ( rimSoft) o 1
SCALBS (r1mSlLoomiddotmiddotLoobullbull ) o 12
r r SLIMB (AbbullbullntSlSlimiddotysliyVSliy)
o 123
S1IrnraS (pr-Ri90rRi90rPot-Ri90r) o 1 2
BYBS Clarity (ClbullbullrISlCloudyCloudy) 012
Shape (HoralslsunknSunkn) 012
Irill (ViiblHot Viibl) IJ 1
Blood (No BloodSlBloodyVBloody) o 1 2
GILLS Colour (VDark)Charaotritio (SlDark) (vradd)(Slradd)
2o 1 Kucou (AbbullbullntKoderatmiddotBxcbullbullbulliv)
o 1 2 S bullbullll (rrbullbullh 01ly) Pihy8talpoll~
(MetalliaSaved) 1 2 3
BELLI Dicoloration (AbbullbullntDetatablmiddotModratmiddotBxobullbullbulliy) 012 3
Finanbullbullbull ( rira80ftBurt) o 1 2
VENT Condition (bobullbulldy)Noraal (SlBrbullbullk) (Opening)(Bxudbullbull )
2o 1 Sbullbulln (rrbullbullhReutralrihy8poilt)
o 2 3
BELLI CAVIn Stain (OpalbullbullontGryihlmiddotllow-Brown) o 1 2
Blood (RdDark RdBrown)
o 1 z
--
17
UJE 3
Etc SENSORY A$fE4St4fN[ ~(oIlL~
SCALE OF MARKING - FRESHNESS
CRITERIA shypoundu1LRt
Abullbullbullbullbullment Mara-bull thc r1ah 0 1 2- 3tszhL
AppearanceinIIMlISJ Skin
Eye
Gill
Flbullbullshycut f ssm abdomusn
Colour the~
vertebral column
Organs
Oright iridescent I bright pigmenta- pigmentation in (1) dull pigmenta tion no i tion but not the process of pigmentation discolouration Ius trous becoming dis-
mucus opaquemucus aqueous i coloured and dull
mucus slightlytransparen t
cloudy ~UCU9 milky
convex (bulging) convex and flat (1) concave in cornea tran- slightly sunken cornea the centre parent cornea Ughtly opalescent cornea milky pupil black opalescent pupil pupil grey bright
pupil black opaque dull
-shining colour less coloured becoming dis- (1) yellmiish no mucus a few traces of coloured mucus milky
cloar mucus mucus opaque
blueish trans- dull velvety slightly opaque (1) opaque lucid smooth waxy shining without any change in the colour sUgh tly original colour changed
(I) reduncoloured sl1 gh tly pink pink
kidneys and kidneys and kidneys (1) kidneys residues of resJdues of resicJuos of r bullbullidue of other other organs other organs other organs organs and blood bright red the dull red blood and blood brownish game as the becoming palo red blood inside discolbured the aorta
(1) or in a more advanced bull ta te of decay
I
bull
Flesh
Vertebtal Column
Peritonium
Gills kin abdominal cavity
18
(eontd)
SCALE OF MARKING - FRESHNESS
CRITERIA
Assessment Mark 0 1 2
Physical eOId ton
firm and elas tic surface smooth
breaks ins tead of coming away
totally adherent to the flesh
seaweed
less elastic
adherent
adherent
Smell bull
not of seaweed but not bad
slightly soft (flaccid) Ie elastic surfacente waxy velvety and dull
slightly adherent
slightly adherent
slightly sour
3
(1) soft (flaccid) scales ebullbullil y detached from skin sur face ra ther wrinkled inclining to mealy
(1) not dherent
1( ) not adherent
(1) sour
(1) or in a more advanced stat of decay
_ shy-- -
19
Table 4
Filleted Sample Score Sheet
r
TREATMENT F ILIEIS DATE REMOJAL (THAWED)
FISH IDENr
EASE OF FILLETING (Easysl difficultdifficult)
012
APPEARANCE (a) Oolour of flesh (TranslucentSl discolouredSl opaqueopaque)
o 1 2 3
(b) Blood stains (AbsentDetectableModerateExcessive)
012 3
(c) Clotting (UnclottedSlclottedModclottedExcessclotted)
012 3
(d) Skin Oolour (VbrightBrightSldullOU11)
o 1 2 3
TEXTURE FirmS1 softSoft
o 1 2
ClDClJR (FreshNeutralStaleSpoilt)
012 3
CONJITION (a) Gaping (AbsentDetectableModerateExcessive)
o 1 2 3
(b) Bruising (AbsentSlightSevere)
012
(c) Wetness (NmnalS1 dry orMod dry orExcess dryness or
SldripModdrip Freezer bJrn or Excessdrip
012 3
(d) Autolysis (Absentmoderatesevere) (Disco1ourations) 0 1 2
(e) Parasites (Absentmoderatesevere) ( Infestations) 0 1 2
(f) Other discolourations (Absentpresent) or contaminants (bones membranes tissues etc) 0 1
EASE OF SKINNING (EasySldifficultdifficult)
012
20
by the author after a literature search and observations made during the preshy
liminary part of the study It has a maxUnum accumulated demerit score of 34
240 ~anoleptic Acceptability Panel of the cooked fish
Filleted samples of both fish species which had been frozen in a cold
roan at -18dege and then thawed as above were used for the acceptability taste
panels The fillets were skinned am cut into 30 to 40 g pieces crumbed and
deep fried (Bremner et ale 1985) Three or four treatments were cooked
simultaneously at each session am the fish served with packets of take-away
french fries Tcrnato sauce vinegar and salt were available Each of the
samples were randanised in such a way so as to give a high degree of balance
(Table 5 and 6) Letters that represent the samples were also picked
randanly The fish was assessed by 20 panellists employed at the Tasmanian
lEgional Laboratory and experienced with facial hedonic scaling for flavour
texture am overall acceptability using the General Foods Smiley scale
(Appendix 2) Salt was rot rrentioned with the 9niley questionaire for blue
grenadier so that the panel should have ro preconceiVed prejudices
250 Statistics
tata fran the sensory assessment of the whole gutted and ungutted raw
fish (both TFRJ am EEl score sheets) am fran the sensory assessrrent of the
frozen filleted raw fish samples of both the blue grenadier stored in RSW am
whiting stored in ice were analysed for correlation using the ELF scatter
module (Appendix 3 and 4)
The acceptability taste panel assessment scores for flavour texture and
overall liking of the toKgt species of fish were subjected to analysis of
variance using the Genstat package (Appendix 5 and 6)
22
Table 6
Order of presentation of cooked whiting samples to the acceptability taste panelists
Order of presentation of samples Panelist
session I session II
1 OTP rm 2 MUS KR 3 sm INL
4 IKJ GKR
5 ror NK
6shy USM UN ~
7 OOP RLD
B HUT NKD
9 USO RiL
10 SMP LGN
11 IMT GIltN
12 nxgt KRD
Note
8angtle code OM 0 G T S N R P U L K
storage time in ice (days) 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
23
300 RESULIS
310 Physical Characteristic of M novaeaelandiae
rran the forty-six fish examined the mean fork lerqth was found to be
762 an (range 609 to 838 an) A few of the fish examined had well shy
developed roes and their digestive tracts were found to be relatively empty
320 Physical Characteristics of the H ssmifasoiata
rran a total of thirty-six fish examined the rrean weight of the fish was
fourrl to be 662 g (range 27 to 186 g) am the mean fork length was 183 em
(range 156 to 265 an)
330 sensory assessment of the raw blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
he results of the sensory assessrrent of the r2M blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW by the four rrerhods of scoring are given as average total
accumulated demerit point scores as shown in Table 7 Figure 1 shoes the
graph of demerit point versus days in RSW by the four rrethods of sensory
assessment used Table 9 shltJtS the correlation analysis
340 sensory assessment of the raw whitirq samples stored in ice
he results of the sensory assessment of the r2M whitirq samples stored
in ice by the four methods of scoring are given as average total accumuLated
demerit point scores as shown in Table 8 Figure 2 shltJtS the graph of demerit
point versus days in ice of the four nethods of sensory assessment used Table
9 shltJtS the correlation analysis
350 Attributes contributing to total score
Attributes that contribute to total score usirq the TFRJ scores (ungutted
and gutted) EEC scores and the filleted sample scores are as shewn in Tables
10 - 14
24
Table 7
Total demerit points fran sensory assessment of blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
Average lbta1 Demerit Rgtint SCores
[)lye in RW TFRJ scores TFRJ scores EEl scores Filleted Sample (urvJut t ed ) (gutted) (gutted) SCores
3 3 3 1 1
4 5 5 2 3
6 10 10 6 6
8 16 18 9 8
9 19 21 11 10
10 20 22 13 12
11shy 22 24 15 14
12 23 25 18 17
13 24 26 19 18
14 25 27 19 19
17 29 31 21 23
21 33 35 25 29
Note
Maximum possible scores for (1) IlRJ scores (ungutted is 35
( 11) IlRJ scores (gutted) is 29
( 11i) EEX scores (gutted) is 30
( iv) Filleted sample scores is 32
amptV
35j
3l~
en Ishy 25Z-0 Q
3)-~
bullbullbull 0
bull 0 0bull 0
bull 0 0 6shy abull A ~
~
bull 0
~
6shy
bull 0
6shy
I) 01
-W 0i A15W ~ Q A
~
6shy~101- bull 90 TFRU SCORES (ungutted)
6shy~ bullbull TFRU SCORES (gutt~d i
bull ~
4 6- 6- EEC SCORES 5~
~ ~ FILLETED SAMPLE SCORES ~
6 4 I J I I I
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
DAYS IN RSW
Figl Demerit Points Versus Days in RSW For Blue Grenadier Samples
Fig 2 Demerit Points Versus Days in ice For Whiting Samples I
27
Table 8
TOtal demerit points from sensory assessment of whi tirq samples stored in ice
Average TOtal Demerit Foint SCores
rays in ice TFRJ scores TFRJ scores EEC scores Fi 11eted sample (urqutted) (gutted) (gutted) (gutted)
1 1 1 0 0 3 2 2 1 1
5 4 4 2 3
7 7 9 3 4
9 13 15 6 9
n 15 17 7 13
13 19 21 11 15
15 24 27 15 16
17 29 32 19 18
19 31 35 22 21
21 32 36 24 24
23 33 37 26 26
Note
MaXllnum possible scores for (i) TFRJ scores (urqutted) is 35 ( ii) TFRJ scores (gutted) is 39 ( iii) EEC scores (gutted) is 30 ( iv) Filleted sample scores is 32
28
Table 9
Relationship between tLme and demerit points for fish stored in RSW
Method of Visual Assessment
y- intercept slope correlation
M novaBMBlandias
TFRJ (urqutted ~les) 032 175 097
TFRJ (gutted samples) 032 190 096
EEl -231 146 097
Filleted samplesbull
-357 158 099
H sBmifasoiata
TFRJ (urqutted samples) -245 167 099
TFRJ (gutted samples) -273 187 099
EOC -414 129 098
Filleted samples -244 125 099
ltshy
--------------- ------------------------------------------
------------- - ------------- -------- ------
Table 10
Attributes contributing to total score using TFRO scores (gutted and ungutted)
Attributes involved in score change Score
Blue grenadier in RSW Whiting in ice
Stiffness Eyes - clarity blood Slllne Stiffness Eyes - clarity shape and blood lt10 Gills - smell Vent - smell SlBne Gills - colour smell and mucous
Vent - smell Belly cavity - stains and blood
Appearance Eyes-shape Stiffness Gills - smell colour and mucous Skin
Stiffness appearance gill-smell Scales belly-discolouration and firmness
N so
gt10lt20 SCales belly - discolouration and firmness Vent - smell Vent - smell and condition Belly cavity - stains and blood
Appearance Slllne Eyes - clarity shape Appearance SlBne Scales Skin blood and iris Gills - colour Eyes - clarity and shape
gt20lt30 Belly - discolouration Gills - mucous smell am colour Vent - condi tion and smell Belly cavity shy blood
Appearance Gills - mucous and smell SlBne Eyes - iris am blood Belly - discolouration and firmness Belly - discolouration and firmness
gt30 Vent - condition and smell Vent - condition Belly cavity - blood Belly cavity - stains
Table 11
Attributes contribut irq to total score us irq EEC scores
Attributes involved in score change
Score Blue grenadier in RSW W1iting in ice
lt7 Appearance - skin eyes gills organs Physical condition - flesh Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and organs Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skins eyes gills flesh Appearance-eyes and organs atv
vertebral column and organs Physical condition-flesh and peritoneum gt7lt14 Physical condition - flesh Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-eyes flesh and vertebral Appearance-skin gills and organs column Physical condition-flesh vertebral column
gt14lt21 Physical condition-vertebal column and and peritoneum peritoneum Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and vertebral column vertebral column
gt21 Physical condition-flesh and peritoneum Physical cOndition-flesh vertebral column Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity and peri toneum bull
Table 12
Attributes contributing to total score using filleted sample scores
Score
lt5
Attributes involved in score change
Blue grenadier in RSW
Appearance - blood stains skin colour ltXIour - flesh
M1iting in ice
----- shy -------------- shy
Appearance - skin colour odour - flesh Cbndition - gaping wetness
Appearance - colour of flesh Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Texture - flesh skin colour ltgt gt5lt10 Cbndition - gaping bruising wetness Ease of filleting
Texture - flesh
Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Appearance - colour of flesh clotting skin clotting skin colour skin colour
gt10lt20 odour - flesh odour - flesh Cbndition - gaping wetness autolysis COndition - gaping bruising wetness other discolourations autolysis and other discolouration Ease of skinning
Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains skin colour clotting
gt20 Texture - flesh Texture - flesh odour - flesh Odour shy flesh COndition - gaping bruising wetness Cbndition - wetness autolysis autolysis Ease of skinring
32
Table 13
Diff~rent emphasis in scoring systems for whole fish as between the EEl and TFID
Attribute Number of potential demerit points TFRJ EEl
1Ippearance (general) 3 0
skin ) scales 6 3
slime
Stiffness (Rigor) 2 0
Eyes 7 3
Gills 7 6
Belly 5 0
Vent 5 0
Belly cavity 4 3
Flesh cut fram abdomen 0 3
Flesh texture 0 3
Vertebral column 0 6
Internal organs 0 3
33
360 Relative merits of the scoring systems
The four scor irq methcds were used on the same samples of t ish Any
sample had therefore deteriorated to the same extent on anyone day Figs 3
am 4 shew the scores converted to percentages of possible deroorit point
scores The discrepancy in the accumulation of demerit points between the EEC
am TFRJ scor irq methods is clearly shown IEference to Table 2 3 am 13
shOool that this is caused by the lack of questions regarding rigor looseness
of scales condition of belly am vent am the qroupinq of colour am mucous
in the gills as single po i nts thus halving the potent Ia I gill demerit point
score canparison of the tO species in Table 9 ShONS that the rate of
accumulation of demerit pgtints was more consistent for the TFRU system than by
the EEX scor i oq methltXl or by scorinq of fillets
370 Time taken to score the fish
The average time taken to score an individual fish using the TFPlJ
(unqutted) scores TFRJ (gutted) scores EEX scores am the filleted aamp Le
scores were found to be 1 min 25 sec 1 min 55 sec 3 min 45 sec and 1 min 50
sec respectively The EEX score sheet is more t iroe consumioq in that more than
one question is asked about an attribute for the giving of only one demerit
point this requires conscious thought
380 Acceptability taste panel results of blue grenadier samples bull Figures 5 6 am 7 shOool the mean taste panel scores in graphic form for
flavour texture and overall acceptability of cooked blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW table 14 shows the results of the statistical analysis
390 Acceptability taste panel results of whiting samples
Figures 8 9 am 10 shOool the mean taste panel scores in graphic form for
flavour texture and overall acceptability of cooked whiting samples stored in
ice table 15 shows the results of the statistical analysis
WHITING STORED IN ICE o TFRU SCORES (ungutted)
bull TFRU SCORES (gutted)
b EEC SCORES
FILLETED SAMPLE SCORES
100bull e ~ e b
i 6
bull NW
oIJ-a A A-
(J0 t A~ 0 ~ AC)
C) -e ~~-
C) a 50 A
A w
Iz ~
~ - W e A0 c a ~ ~ A-a ~ l ~ A
w -~
~ X ~ W -e I c ~ ~ ibull I I I I
4 8 12 16 20 24
DAYS IN ICE FIG4
36
- flavourshy
-e s-e l ~ v
5middotIU
STORAGrf IN R sWDAYS
rlCoS Ttutfc pcr1 rcbull
rf oj bl jtlJ~r - jlqVGurc acccr~b
21179 0 2 136 843
~ 0 u 5middot0YI
oJ J l ofmiddot$ 1 e
tu 4middot0
VI
~ 3middot5
3middot0
TelC-lue X bull -e III
~ Gmiddotftv
ct 5middot03
V1
-J -f-SshyU 2
~ 40 t
3-~
~ bullbull0 5 0
~ 17 21A ISII
PAY- IITDRAGamp fbilW
FIG6 I Tq1-c pltnd rc-utl ojbllfcJrcftaJIr bull I~M144 Q Cc(r~blfly
r 411q~~ An~Plf bUIJlfM F llh J~Lld Pt-DoL B fpound)1
gt1 NI ~~eusr SJAVlt1
D ~II
(ffIt1~JP IIID bull U J 1i
-IyoJC )-tlICf p --lInraquoJ Ix-Pc ~1rb1 r I ef
Ma2j NI a~v2loJ$
til
1Ia ~AO (IIp~lJa~e
01
secto
00
s
05
5
o~
~
0pound
s
0
smiddot
o~
07
1 ~ ~ ~ ~
r~
B
~
rv t gtshy 2
~ ~ 11
~ 7shyIn r
~ () 0 1) m ~
~ gtshyz -
(fII~q~~ 7~ P
IItJ1o -~~f(ll p ~I I~U J ~t~L 0 ~ middot~II I
IDI 8~ middot lta ~
~ QS
middotS ~ ~ 0 z
r Smiddot II
S 1d 0-$ 111 r- l gtshy r
V fr~
~llCf-J a-PcJ~ U~middotJO
4lp~dmiddotyIb 6middot~1f np)t -~11M fo --IIhen IJutJel ~bl
Table 14
Acceptability of deep fried blue grenadier samples stored in FSW
rays in R3W
Acceptability 3 4 6 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 17 21
Flavour 50a 50a 4S a 51a 50a 51a 50a 4Sa 49a 53a 41b 35b
Texture 49bc 51abc 4S bed 52ab 4Sbed 53ab 52abc 52ab 4Sbed 55a 46cd 43d
OJerall 50ab 51ab 47be 52ab 4Sb 5lab 52ab 50ab 47b 54 a 41c 35d
abc
d
significantly different (pltOOOl)
significantly different (pltOOl) W so
Table 15
Acceptability of deep fried whiting samples stored in ice
rays in ice
Acceptability 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Flavour 5Sab 59a 59a 60a 59a 5S ab 51b 54ab 53ab 37c 37c 31c
Texture 59ab 59a 53bed 5S ab 63a 59ab 47cde 54be 56ab 55ab 44e 46de
OJera11 57ab 5S ab 59ab 60a 60a 5Sab 52b 53ab 55ab 42c 36cd 31d
abcde significantly different (Plt0001)
40
~oo DISCUSSION
410 Sensory assessment of the raw blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
he results of sensory assessment on the raw blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW by the four methods of scoring all sheM that there is
progressive increment in total demerit points with storage time for all the
four methods (Table 7) It was also fourxi that the accumulation of demerit
points with time of storage of the fish in ffiW occurred in a saui-linear
fashion for all -the four scoring methods used (Figure 1) he variables (time
of storage and demeritmiddot points score) were all highly correlated (Table 9)
he correlation equation of the TFRJ (ungutted samples) and TFRJ (gutted
sanples) scores were similar roth having a zero time intercept of 032 but
with the TFRJ (gutted samples) scores having a slightly greater slope by 015
he EEC scores and the filleted sample scores roth have lower slopes ie
146 and 158 respectively canpared with the TFRJ (ungutted sample) and TFRJ
(gutted sample) scores of 175 and 190 respectively lbwever the EOC scores
which have the lowest slope have a fairly similar correlation equation with
the filleted sample scores (Table 9) he negative intercepts reflected the
slightly more sigrroid relationship for these samples his suggests that the
TFRJ (gutted) scoring method is the rrost sensitive of the four methods
followed by the TFRJ (ungutted) the filleted sample and the EEC scores
It was also found that after 21 days of storage in RSW the blue
grenadier samples had not reached their maximun possible scores in any of the
four scoring rrethods used (Table 7) he TFRJ (ungutted sample) score only
reached 943 of its possible maximun value whereas the TFRJ (gutted sample)
scores EEC scores and the filleted sample score reached only 897 833 ar~
906 of their possible maximun score his means that all the four methods
of scoring can still be sensitive to changes in the quality of the blue
grenadier samples stored in RSW after 21 days of storage time
41
Figures 1 and 3 also shOVt that the pattern of the graphs of demerit
points against days storage in R3W of the four methcxis of scoring is similar
ie a tendency to be slightly sigmoid fbwever the filleted sanple scores
sean to be rrore sensitive than the EOC scores at the later part of the storage
time ie after 14 days of storage and the scores continued to rise
1be rrost obvious indicator of change for the blue grenadier stored in ffiW
using the TFRJ scores (both gutted and unJUtted sanples) was the eyes (clarity
and blood) followed by odour developnent of the gills (Table 10) his is -
also foond to be true wi th the EOC freshness score (Table 11) Fbr the
filleted sample scores the appearance and odoor of the flesh seems to be the
most obvious indicator of change follOVted by the condition of the fillets such
as gaping bruisin) am wetness (Table 12)
4 20 sensory assessment of the raw whi ting samples stored in ice
1he results of sensory assessment on the rCJl whiting samples stored in
ice by the foor roothods of scoring also shows that there is a progressive
increment in total demerit points with storage time for all the four methods
of scoring (Table 8) Ps with the blue grenadier the aCCLD1UJlation of demerit
points with time of storage of the whiting in ice also occurred in a sernishy
linear fashion for all the foor scoring methods used (Figure 2 and 4) wi th a
slight lag in the initial phase Interestingly this was not observed in the
case of blue grenadier sanples stored in ffiW probably because the first
samplin) of the blue grenadier starts only fran the third day after catch
whereas the first sampling of the whiting starts fran the first day after
catch Also the blue grenadier was handled qu i te roughly on the deck in fact
three oot of the four fish samples on the first rerroval ie the third day
after catching had already showed blood in their eyes
Bremner et al (1985) when using the TFRJ score sheet to assess the
42
quality of four tropical fish species fran the oorth west shelf of hJstralia
(stored in ice) also fourrl that the accumulation of demerit points with time
of storage in ice occurred in a linear fashion
PB wi th blue grenadier the variables (tine of storage ard darneri t points
score) were all highly correlated (Table 9) Also the correlation equation of
the TFRJ (ungutted) ard TFRJ (gutted) scores were similar with the TFJU
(gutted) score having a slightly greater slope by 020 Crable 9) he EEC
scores am filleted sample scores also have lower s lopes l e 129 ard 125
respectively ocmpared to the TFm (ungutted) and (gutted) scores of 167 and
187 respectively However unlike the blue grenadier the filleted samples
of the whi t ing had the 10liest slope he more sensi tive na ture of the EEC
scores as canpared to the filleted sample scores in the case of the whiting
especially after 12 days storage in ice can be explained by the snaller size
of the whitirlJ (fork length ranging fran 156 to 265 an) as canpared to the
size of the blue grenadier (fork length ranging 809 to 838 an) the snaller
fish terrl to spoil faster especially the interior parts of the fish PB the
EEC scores depend nuch on the sensory assessment of the interior parts of the
fish such as the appearance and condition of the flesh vertebral colwnn
interior organs per i toneun and abdaninal cavity (Table 3) which makes up more
than 18 demerit points out of the total possible maxinun of 30 the
sensitiveness of its score is thus self-explanatory in the case of whiting
Connell (1980) explained that large fish keep marginally better than small
fish because larger fish have a smaller surface to volume ratio so that in the
same tUne less of their interior is affected
The above results confirmed the previous suggestion that the TFRU
(gutted) scorIoq methcrl is the roost sensitive of the four methods It was
found that after 23 days of storage in ice the whiting scmples had not
reached the maximun possible scores in any of the four methods used (Table
43
8) The 1FIU (UBJutted) scores had reached only 94-3 of its possible maximum
value whereas the TFRJ (gutted) scores EOC scores am the filleted sample
scores reached only 94 9 867 and 81 3 of their poea Ible maximum score
Therefore all the four methods of scoriBJ can still be sensitive to changes
in quality of the whiting samples stored in ice after 23 days of storage tUne
Ihe roost obvious irxHcator of chaDJe for the whiting stored in ice using
the TFIU score sheet was the eyes (clarity shape and blcxxl) followed by the
develqxnent of -colour odour and nucous of the gills (fable 10) Bremner et
al (1985) when working with four tropical species f~ the north west shelf of
Australia also found that the most obvious indicator of change for fish stored
in ice was the eyes (their clarity am shape) follCAtled by odour developnent
and colour changes in the gills This was also found in the case of blue
grenadier in ~ discussed earlier OJrran et al (1981) when investigating
the quality changes duriBJ iced storage of three carmercially important
species of fish fran Bahrein also found that of the visual and olfactory
assessments gill odour showed the roost pranise as a quality control index
Pgain this is also found to be true with the EOC freshness score of both the
blue grenadier and the whitiBJ (Table 11) AccordiBJ to ~ate (1972) it
was generally agreed that odour of the gills is the most sensitive measure of
freshness but the visual appearance of the eyes gills arxi skin was quicker to
use in practice on the market
For the filleted sample scores of the whiting the most obvious indicator
of chanqe was the appearance and odour of the flesh (Table 12) This too
agreed with the findiBJs for blue grenadier stored in ffiW
AccordiBJ to Baines et al (1969) with fish eatiBJ is related to four
main attributes or quality factors viz appearance odour and texture of the
rCM and cooked fish and in the latter also flavour he ultimate purpose of
testing the raw fish is to estimate the eating quality which is here taken to
44
mean the degree of freshness of flavour Acoording to Baines and Shewan
(1965) the mostreliable test for predicting flavour sqore is raw odour
430 The ease aM difficulties of using the four methods of scoring
It was found that the TFRJ (ungutted) scores was the easiest and quickest
method to use as it takes on average only about 1 min 25 sec to score a fish
canpared to 1 min 55 sec 3 min 45 sec ard 1 min 50 sec for the TFRJ
(gutted) EOC and the filleted sample scores he E~ score was found to be
the roost tedious besides taking the longest time to soore a fish
he TFIU (ungutted) scores also have the advantage of not requiring a
knife in order to score ard also were less IOOSSY to work with canpared to all
the other nethods Also the attributes to be assessed were arranged and
organised in such a way in the score sheet that it is easy to score a fish
starting from assessing the apparance and skin and ending with the condition
and smell of the vent
440 Acceptability taste panel results of the blue grenadier samples
441 Flavour acceptability
Figure 5 shc7ws the flavour acceptability of the deep fried samples of
blue grenadier Samples stored in R3W for less than 17 days were found
statistically (Table 14) to be indistinguishable (Plt0001) fran each other
then there was a significant fall in the flavour acceptability of the samples
stored in RSW for 17 days onwards he sarrtgtle stored for 21 days had a still
lower mean value of 35 but it was not significantly different fran the
semple stored for 17 days which had a nean value of 41 It is interesting to
note that despite the progressive increase in sodiun uptake of the blue
grenadier samples stored in RSW from about 7115 35 mg sodium(lOO g tissue
initially to 724 33 mglOO g tissue on the 16th day aM to 729 17 mglOO g
45
tissue on the 21st day (Burford 1984) the panelists seem not to be
negatively affected by the increasing salt content of the samples with storage
tUne and in fact some of the panelists added more salt to their samples I
111is result contradicts statements made by previous reseachers that the
storage life using R3W may be limited by increases in salt content in the fish
flesh (Boyd et aI 1978) he maximun desirable salt content according to
Tcm1inson et al (1974) as quoted by Boyd et al (1978) is about 05 but at
the 16th day ofmiddot RgtW storage the salt content fOllNj In the flesh of blue
grenadier samples was already more than 07 fbwever the panelist only ate
40g pieces it might have been a different case if the fish has been as a
whole meal
442 Texture acceptability
Figure 6 shows the texture acceptability of the deep fried blue grenadier
samples stored in R3W eespf te sane apparent abberant values (such as the
high rrean of 55 for the sample stored for 14 days in RSW) it is obvious that
the texture acceptability showed a significant decreasing trend (pltOOl) from
seventeen days of storage onwards The abberant texture values are possibly
due to the fact that the fish texture might have been masked by the bread
crunbs used to coat the fish samples before deep fryi~ This agrees with the
observations of Bremner et al (1985) wtxgt found that the inherent textural
softness of P piotiue and the tougheni~ on storage of N peroni i detected by
a profile panel usilYJ steamed fillets were no lo~er noticeable when the fish
was deep fried in batter Bremner (1980) also reported that despi te the
softness of the raw flesh the cooked flesh of blue grenadier is reasonably
firm
46
433 OVerall acceptability
The overall acceptability of the deep fried blue grenadier samples stored
in R)W (figure 7) seems to follCM a similar pattern to its flavour
acceptability (figure 5)~ in which a significant fall in overall acceptability
was only observed fran the samples held fran 17 days in RSW onwards (pltO 001)
as shawn in Tablel4
rnus all the above results showed that there was a significant fall in
flavour texture and overall acceptability of blue ~renadier from 17 days of
R)W storage onwards which was found to be equivalent to the accumulated
demerit point scores of 29 of the TFRJ (ungutted) scoresr 31 of the TFRl
(gutted) scoresr 21 of the EOC scores and 23 of the filleted sample
scores Jones (1964) states that the acceptability of a fish is a function of
its suitability for further processing and of its inmediate appearance its
texture its odour and its flavour
450 Acceptability taste panel results of the whiting samples
451 Flavour acceptability
Figure 8 shows the flavour acceptability of the deep fried whiting
samples stored in ice rtle twelve sample times could be analysed individually
since the means if analysed by canbining adjacent sample times to give six
sample groups are in fact the means of the adjacent times if analysed
individually it was found that samples of the first nine renovals i se up to
17 days of storage in ice are more or less indistinguishable (abberant value
at 7th removal) he last three removals ie samples stored in ice for 19
21 and 23 days were found to be of significantly lower flavour acceptability
(p lt 0001) as shawn in Table 5
47
452 Texture acceptability
Except for the abberation at the 7th remgtval i 9 at day 13 of ice
storage there is a significant reduction of texture acceptability at the 21 II
and 23 days of ice storage (p lt0001) as shown by figure 9 and Table5 t
II
I 453 Over~ll acceptability
he overal I acceptability of the whiting sanples stored in ice is very
much similar to its f Lavour acceptability except at day 19 of ice storage
where the ovaral I acceptability shows a higher mean of 42 carpared to the
flavoor acceptability mean of 37 (figure 10 and Table 5) here is however a
significant sudden drop to lOil scores fran the lOth removal ie day 19 of
storage in ice (p lt0001)
hus all the above results for whitifVJ sanples showed that there was a
significant fall in flavCXJr and overall acceptability fram 19 days ice storage
onwards which is equivalent to the accumulated demerit points of 31 of the
TFRJ (unqutted) scores 35 of the TFRJ (gutted) scores 22 of the EEC
scores and 21 of the filleted sample scores he results are interesti~ in
that the oorresponding total accLDnulated demerit points at the time when
significant falls in flavour texture and overall acceptability of the blue
grenadier and whiting samples stored in I5W and ice respectively were quite
similar
500 CONCLUSION
510 Feasibility of using demerit points
Accumulation of demerit points with time of storage of M
in RM and H eemifaeaiatia in ice was found to be highly
occurred in a semi-linear fashion irrespective of the method of
novas8slandiae
correlated and
scori~ used
- _ ~uo_a~_bull--_--I e -Ii --
48
1he slopes of the lines (rate of accumulation of demerit points) and its
relative spoilage rate were found to be similar for the ttoO species provided
the sane method of scoring is employed 1his tends to suggest that the method
is possibly independent of species am methods of storage or at least
applicable to the two species in RSW and ice respectively
TIle TFRJ (ungutted) scores were foum to be the easiest arrl quickest
method to use although the TFRJ (gutted) scores were the roost sensitive 1he
EEX freshness scores were hClgtlever foum to be the JOOSt tedious aod difficult bull I
to use besides taking more than twice the time taken to score a fish ocmpared
to the TFRJ (ungut ted) scores
Although there were slig~t differences between the ttoO species in those
characteristics where changes were first made (Table 10 11 and 12) there is
enough evidence to conclude that the changes in the appearance of the eyes am
the odour developnent of the gills are the JOOSt obvious arrl valuable indicator
of charqe in quality when using the TFIU or the EEl scores while the
appearance am odour of the fish flesh seems to be the JOOSt obvious indicator
when assessing the filleted sample
1he shelf-life of M navaezelandiae stored in RSW was found to be 14 days
(less than 17 days) whilst that of H semifasoiata stored in ice was fourrl to
be 17 days (less than 19 days) beyond which the fish had developed spoilage
characteristics that were disliked by the acceptability taste panel
1he cut-off point at which spoilage of the samples would have rendered
the quality of the fish sample to be unacceptable fran the consumers point of
view ~ld be that equivalent to the accumulated demerit point of gt29 for the
TFRJ (gutted arrl ungutted) scores am gt21 for the EOC and filleted sample
scores
This study thus confinned the potential use of demerit points such as the
TFRJ (ungutted) scores as an easy quick cheap non-destructive and reliable
49
method of sensory assessment of fish quality In fact Branch and Vail (1985)
had studied the possible use of a prototype pocket-sized computer to determine
the condition and shelf-life of temperate and tropical species of fish based
on data that is derived fran the sensory score sheets for the assessment of
fish quality developed at the (SIRgt Division of fbod lEsearch Iasmanian Fbod
Research Unit (TFlU) Hobart
520 RJrpose for which demerit points are to be used
Many scor i oq systerrs are used to predict the nunber of days fish have
been stored on ice and in nore recent years ICETIME (equivalent days on
ice) I ard thus through years of experience the taste panel acceptability of
the fish I
However fish is sold on appearance and a scoring system may be used for
assessirg marketability of whole or gutted fish or fillets or for setting
standards in bulk buying The EEC scoring system is used for example at
fish markets at first point of sale to grade the fish and establish
withdrawal prices A IbrryShewan type system is often used as a purohas i nq
specification from finn to firm
Before a final demerit point system is selected for any COlIOOdity its
ultimate purpose should be established For example the demerit points
chosen for whole fish which nost closely resemble the rate of change of
demerit points for fillets of that species might be the most useful
A linear rate of change of demerit points with time is nose favoured
because it enables prediction of remaining shelf-life ConstJJrer
unacceptability should be at a point where perhaps 75 of the demerit points
have been accrued Further scores would still be available for categories
such as suitable for fish meal D3merit points are not an indication of the
acceptability of fish as eaten where off-odours flavours and fillet
50
tdiscolouration are masked by batters or curries Their correlation with the
iodours flavours off odours aod off flavours of steamed fish are currently ~
~
~being examined by other workers at the Tasmanian ~ Research unit and highly
significant correlations are found Even when fish are subsequently eaten
battered or curried demerit points give a good indication of remaining shelf
life Thus whitiOJ with a Smiley flavour score of 58 after 1 day on ice
has a nlU gutted demerit score of 1 and a high quality life (eaten crumbed
and fried) of a further 16 days while whitiOJ stored for 11 days on ice with
the sane flavour score has a gutted demerit score of 17 and a further shelf
life of 6 days
530 SUggestion for further work
Ib ascertain its potentially wide application as a simple quick and
technically sound methcxi of assessing fish quality many more studies using
other species of fish both temperate and tropical species and in various
storage conditions should be undertaken using a demerit point scorIrq system
such as that developed by the TFlU
The score sheet has proved invaluable when sending individuals untrained
researchers away on distant water fishing trips Ps yet 00 standard
deviations have been detennined using a team of assessors with coded samples
of unknown history This may require a separate group design
The effect of lean fish and fatty fish on the scores should also be
studied because factors such as seasonal variations in biological conditions
Lmproper gutting and washing mechanical damage and filth and changes due to
storage in R3W or shelving may have considerable influence on its shelf-
life Reports such as those of smith et al (1979) clearly showed that in fish
such as the blue whitirlJ (Mioroomesistius poubaeeous there is greater degree
I 51
of seasonal variability than in other gadoid species the overall
acceptability droppirq dramatically once the fish have spawned Fish accepted
for processing for food has to be of a higher standard of quality than fish
accepted for Imredfate sale across the counter to the consumer therefore
there is a need to rreet a minimum score before they could be processed into
food Gradirq is therefore best left to the user sorenson (1971) states
that in establishing limi ts of acceptance an allowance had to be made for
deterioration that would continue to take place during processing and storage
prior to reaching the consimer
The only final criteria of the objectivity of sensory or any other
assessment are results that are reproducible many times which is by definition
a lcnJ-tenn process and in the meantime one requires short-cut indications
that one is headirq in the right direction
Ferhaps a final caution Is necessary as in the YQrds of Ehrenberg and
Shewan (1953) not too much must be expected even the best measuring
instruments occasionally go oot of control
52
60 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baines CR Jones NR am Shewan JM 1965 Technological problems of
measur trq degree of freshness of wet fish and problems of quality
control requirif)J roore knowledge fran fundamental research In he
Technology of fish utilisation ad R Kreuzer Fishi~ News (Books)
p 141
Baines CR and Shewan JM 1965 sensory rrethods for evafuat inq the
quality of white fish Lab practice 14 160-163
Baines CR ltbnnell JoJ Gibson DM lbWgate PF Livi~ston E and
Shewan JM 1969 A taste panel technique for evaluatirq the eati~
quality of frozen cod In Freezi~ and irradiation of fish ad R
Kreuzer Fishi~ News (Books) London p361
Boyd NS and Wilson NDC 1976 A sensory method for evaluatInq the
quality of Snapper (Ch1ysophrys auratus) NZ Journal of Science 19
209-12
Boyd NS Wilson ND and Bjley A 1978 A refrigerated sea water plant
for small boats symposium on fish utilisation technology and
marketi~ in the IPFC region IFFC Proceedi~s 18th session Manila
Philippines FAD Ba~kok p 186-192
Branch AC and Vail AMA 1984 Bri~i~ fish inspection into the
canputer age FltXld Technol Aust 36 in press
Bremner HA Olley J and Ihrower SoJ 1978 CSIIU Iasmanian lEgional
Laboratory OCcasional Paper No4
Bremner HA 1980 Processi~ and freezi~ of the blue grenadier (Maclulonus
novaeselandiae) FltXld Technol Aust 32(8)~ pp 385-393
Bremner J A 1984 QJality - an attitude of mind In he JILlstralian
Fishi~ Industry - today and tanorrow 10-12 July 1984 Launceston
53
Australian MaritUne Cbllege seminar Bapers 224-69
Bremner HA Statham JA am Sykes SJ 1985 Tropical species fran the
north west shelf of Alstralia sensory assessment and acceptability
of fish stored co ice Proceedi~s Sixth session IPR Worki~ Party
on Fish D3chnology and Marketi~ Melbourne 1984 FJID Fish lep 252
supp1
Burford D 1985 Sodiun uptake in MaOlUfOOnUS nooaeselandiae stored in
refrigerated sea water Tasmanian Food Research Unit OCcasional Paper
No9
ltbnnell JJ 1972 OJality control in the fish industry Ibrry Jldvisory
note No 58 IOrty Research Station Aberdeen
ltbnnell JJ 1980 ltbntrol of fish quality Fishi~ ~ws (Books) 2nd ed
Surrey England
OJrran CA Nicolaides L and Al-Alawi ZS 1981 QJality chanqes duri~
iced storage of three carmercially important species of fish fran
Bahrain Trop sci 23(4) 253-268
de Zylva ERA 1974 Effect of fish handli~ at sea on storage quality of
New Zealand Snapper (Chroysophroys aumtus) New Zealand J SCi 17
309-318
Etlira S 1976 A biochemical study on the freshness of fish Bull 1bkai
Reg Fish Res Lab No 88 pp 1-13
Ehrenberg ASC and Shewan JM 1953 he cbjective approach to sensory
tests of food J Sci Food hJric 4 pp 482-489
Herbert RA and Shewan JM 1975 Precursors of the volatile sulphides in
spoili~ North Sea Cod J Sci Food JIlgric 26 1195-1202
lbUwi~ H 1972 Gradi~ of fish in different qualities Institute for
Fishery Products Ijmuiden Unpublished
~ate P 1972 Qrlparison of sensory scor inq systems for raw fish
I 54
Unpubl ished bull ~ ~
~ate P 1978 Measuri~ the quality am acceptability of fish products bull ~
In IPFC Proceedi~s symposiun on fish utilisatial technology and ~
i f~
marketi~ in the IWC region 18th session Manila Ihilippines p
449
fflghes RB and Jones NR 1966 Measurement of hypoxanthine concentrations
in canned herrirg as an index of the freshness of the raw material
with a ocirment oo flavor relations J SCi fOOd middotJlgric 17 434
Jahns FD Howe JL Coduri Jr RJ and Ram Jr AG 1976 A rapid
visual enzyme test to assess fish freshness Food Iechno1 30 (7) 27
Jones NR 1964 ~lems associated with freezi~ very fresh fish
Proceedings Meeting on Fish Iechnology Fish Handling and
Preservation schevenirqen OEC D Paris p 31 bull
Jones NR 1965 Hypoxanthine and other purine containing fractions in fish
muscle as indices of freshness In uthe technology of fish
utilisation ed R Kreuzer Fishi~ rewa (Books) (Drmn p 179
Last PR Scott EOG and Talbot FH 1983 Fishes of Tasmania
Tasmanian Fisheries ~velopnent lUthority lbbart Tasmania pp 238
414
Lima doe santos CAM James D and Ieutscher F 1981 QJidelines for
chilled fish storage experiments FKJ Fish Tech Igt 210
(Dye RM 1954 Ibst rrortem cha~es in the lenses of fish eyes Msessment
of storage tiJm and fish quality J Sci Focx11lgric 5 566-572
Hartin RE Gray RJ H and Pierson MD 1978 QJality assessment of fresh
fish arrl the role of the naturally occurring microflora Focx1
Technol 32 (5) 188
Official Journal of the European oamrnunities No L264 5 ~cember 1970 pp
1-11
bull
55
Technol New Zealand July 1971 pp 31-35
Spinelli J Eklund M and Miyauchi D 1964 Measurement of hypoxanthine
in fish as a method of assessing freshness J Food SCi 29 710
Thrower S oJ am Stafford IA 1981 A roobile unit for ccmparative studies
of chilled storage systems for trawl fish IIF IIR
eatmissions C2 01 02 03 Boston USA 1981-4
Thrower SoJ Bremner HA QJarmby AR Ggtnnan T8 aild Graham KJ
1982 cn-board handlinJ of Q~ish ~ Inportanoeof chillinJ and
gutting Aust Fish 41 (11) 38-41
Tanlinson N bull bull t at 1974 COtparison between refrigerated sea water (with or
without added carbon dioxide) and ice as storage media for fish to be
subsequently frozen Proc IIR C011n 82- 0-3 Tokyo p
waterman J oJ 1982 Qrrposition and QJality of Fish A Dictionary 1brry
Mvisory Note No 87 Torry Research Station Aberdeen
5J
Olley J and letkowsky OA 1973 he role of terrperature function
integration in monitoring of fish spoilage Food Technol New
Zealand 8 (2) 13 15 and 17
Olley J 1977 Iemperature and seafood spoilage In H Proceedings of 1977
SChool for SeafltXld Processorsmiddot ad ~ AF 0 Mello Hawkesbury
Agricultural Oollege p6-2
Olley J 1978 QIality assessment and storage changes In middotCSIRJ Iasmanian bull
leJional Laboratory OCcasional Paper No 4 p 3-1 middot4 Rgenstein J M and ~enstein CE 1981 he shelf-life extension of fesh
fish In Advances in the refrigerated treabnent of fishmiddot
International Institute of Rfrigeration Clmnissions C2 m ra [8
Boston US A 1981-4
leJenstein J 1983 Wlat is fish quality INroFISH Marketing Digest ttgt 6
26-28
Ryder JM 9Jisson OH SCott ON and Fletcher GC 1984 storage of
New Zealand Jack Mackerel ( TmohUMlB notJabullbullbullZandias) in ice
chemical microbiological and sensory assessment J M SCi 49
1453-1456 1477
Shewan JM Macintosh RG rucker CG and Ehrenberg ASC 1953 he
developnent of a numerical ~coring systan for the sensory assessment
of the spoilage of wet white fish stored in ice J SCi Food Jlgric
4 283-298
Smith J GM Hardy R hanson AB Young KW and Parsons E 1979
sane observations 00 the ambient and chill storage of blue whiting
(Mio1om8sistius poutassou) bull In H Advances in Fish SCience and
Technology ad JJ Connell FishinJ News (Books) Surrey England
pp 299-303
SOrensen T 1971 QIality control and fish handling in New zealand Food ~
t c-
o )
~hmiddot r~YiJ lt~
~~f~~ ~
I
Nomooram for comparison of diffGrent scoring systems tor raw T i sn ___ _ J bull )
_U I~ ~Y1 9i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~
I I t I I - _---1------ imiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot __ middot~_ ~ __~_ -_ ~ + ~ _ -~ _ - middotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middot __ G 9 8 7 6 _ 5middot 3
_ - zmmy [ I bull r f II
d _~__ ~ __ _ ~ __ -I-- - ~ L- i~ middoti~ ~ 1-L -~~ lt lt l~tceland 1P i ~ ~ j ~ ~ ~ L~ __ - I ~_ bull _ L j ~- _-
N rv 1 I 1 2 --- - 2~ 3 middot 3middot 4 ~- ~Il ay ~ _ _ middot _ r r
_ _ __ _ _~ ~_ ) - ~ L_ - 1- ~-_ -_ _ _ ~ 19 ~ 8 imiddotmiddot I 6 5 4 3
Do _ _nm~r t I I I r
~ I
_ ~ ~_ ~ t ~ __ i__ t ~ ~ ~ ~ _ q x 1 1i 2 2~ 3v _ Franee I r I l n
I I I i _ - ~ _ _ _- _-- middotmiddot __ middot_middot_middot_middotmiddotmiddotImiddotmiddotmiddot_middot~ _middotmiddotmiddotmiddot-_middotmiddotmiddotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddot ---- - --~ ~-
19oum8 I 7 6 i 5 ~ ~ 4middot 280 J t (
I i
J -- - -_ -__ X ~middotH i__~ -- i_L ~ - l_ middot1-- - 3 I 2Y1 0 4 11z 1 y
E E C I 1
I I I deg deg E I A r Bmiddot - I I C
ltOIl j- ~ ~ c ~--------------
TASTER
DATE
SESSION
~ER middot1
bull You will be given ~bull aamples of cooked fish Please assess the fish for flavour textur~ and
overall liking as though you had purchased them in a takeaway food shop Hark the sample
identification under the face that most closely describes your impressionbull
I
middot5 S shy2 3 4
FLAVOUR
IEXlURE
--
OVERALL UKING
7 bullbull yc ) I _ v J _ _
I1PP~NJIJ( 3 ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE BGRENVZSASS (A)
OBS DAYS-R DMPTS shy
1 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 6 4 3 7 4 6 e 4 5 9 6 1 18 6 10 11 6 18 12 6 18 13 e 13 14 8 16 13 8 13 16 8 17 17 9 18 18 9 18 19 9 bull 19 29 9 19 21 19 19 22 1 21 23 1 19 24 1 2123 11 21 26 11 22 27 11 22 29 11 22 29 12 22 3 12 22 31 12 23 32 12 23 33 13 23 34 13 23 33 13 22 36 13 23 37 14 24 38 14 23 39 14 264 14 25
17 26~ 17 39 43 17 38 44 17 29 43 21 32 46 21 33
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASS(At
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (Xt DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Yt DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9666 R SQUARED 9343 T STATISTIC 231621 INTERCEPT tAt 31799 SLOPE tSt 173399 bull STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 219473
OBSERVATIONS 46 Y DMPT9 XI DAYS-RSW YMIN -18 YMAX 61 YINC e XMIN -19 XMAX 2e9 XINe 2
] y
__ t=- I I 0(I I
JPRH6ELF PRINT MODULE -SYNTAX ERROR
DATABASE J3lGRENVISASS (FIL)
OB8 DAYS-R DMPT8
1 s 1 2 4 5 s 6 6
~ e 8 ~ 9 1 6 19 12 7 11 14 8 12 17 9 13 18 1 14 19 bull 11 17 23 12 21 29
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASSCFIL)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE CX) DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IY) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT ~9963
R SQUARED 992 T STATISTIC 3~36977
INTERCEPT CA) -3~6~41
SLOPE CB) 1~8426
STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 77667
OBSERVATIONS 12 v DMPTS x DAYS-RSW VMIN -2~ VMAX ~~ YINC ~
XMIN -19 XMAX 2~9 XINC 2
]
bull
-SYNTAX ERROR
lPRH6ELF PRINT MODULE
DATABASE BGRENVXSASS (AG)_
OB6
1 2 3 4 ~
6 7 8 9
Hi 11 12 13 14 1~
16 17 -18 19 2 21 22 23 24 2~
26 27 28 29
3 31 32 33 34 3~
36 37 J8
39
4 41 42 43 44 4~
46
DAYS-R
3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 6 6 6 6 8 8
8 bull 8
9 9 9 9
1 1 1 1 11 11 11 11
DMPTS
2 3 3 3 ~
6 ~
~
1 1 1 1 17 18 17 19 2~
2 21 21 21 23 21 23 23 24 24 24
12 24 12 24 12 25 12 25 13 27 13 25 J3 24 13 27 104 26 J04 2S
14 28 14 27 17 28 17 32 17 32 17 31 21 34 21 35
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BORENVISASSCAO)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE IX) DAVS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IV) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9~76~
R SQUARED 917 T STATISTIC 22S6S88 INTERCEPT lA) 323~7
SLOPE lB) 189812 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 269324
OBSERVATIONS 46 Y DM PT6 X DAYS-RSW ~ _01 VMAV 2~ YfNe ~
XMIN -19 XNAX 2l9 XINC 2
]
9YNTA)( ERROR bull ]PRN6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE BGRENVXSASS
OB6 DAY6-R DMPTS
1 3 1 2 3 1 3 3 1 4 3 1 5 4 1 6 4 4 7 4 3 9 4 1 9 6 6 18 6 6
11 6 6 12 6 6 13 9 8
14 9 9 15 8 8 16 8 9 l 9 18 19 9 11 19 9 12 28 9 12 21 18 12 22 18 14 23 18 11 24 18 14 25 11 15 26 11 13 27 11 15 29 11 15 29 12 17 3 12 18 31 12 19 32 12 18gJ l~ 34 13 18 3~ 13 18 36 13 19 37 14 19 JB 14 19 39 14 19 48 14 19 41 17 19 42 17 23 43 17 21 44 17 20
-(EEC)
q~ 21 23 q6 21 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASSCEEC)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE IX) DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IY) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 96691 R SQUARED 93q9 T STATISTIC 2~14824
INTERCEPT IA) -238937 SLOPE IB) 146219 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 1S28eS
OBSERVATIONS q6 Y DMPTS X DAYS-RSW YMIN -2q YMAX ~5 YINC ~
XMIN -19 XMAX 259 XJNC 2
l
SYNTAX ERROR lPRM8ELF PRINT MODULE
-
bull
APPENJ)K 4 -
DATABASE WHZTXNG VXSASS (A) bull
OBS DAYS-I
1 1 2 1 3 1 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 ~
9 5 9 5 Ii 7 11 7 12 7 13 9 14 9 1~ 9
016 11 17 11 19 11
DMPTS
1 1 1 1 2 2 4 3 5 a 7
9 13 15 bull 13 16 14 1~
019 13 2 8 28 13 16 21 13 20 22 15 24 23 1~ 24 24 15 25 25 17 29 26 17 29 27 17 38 29 19 30 29 19 38 38 19 32 31 21 33 32 21 32 33 21 32 34 23 32 3~ 23 32 36 23 34
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASSIA)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE tX) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE tV) qMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 98514 R SQUARED 9785 T STATISTIC 3344414 INTERCEPT tAt -245163 SLOPE CBt 166958 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 286799
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS x DAYS-ICE
YMIN -22 YMAX lS7 YINC lS- XMIN -19 XMAX 259 XINC 2
]
I
J
-8YNTAX ERROR
]PRM6ELF PRINT MODULE shyDATABASE WHITING VISASS (AG)
OB8 DAYS-I DMPT8
1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 4 3 1 ~ 3 2 6 3 2 7 ~ 4 9 ~ 3 9 ~ ~
18 7 18 11 7 9 12 7 18 13 9 1~
14 9 17 1~ 9 1~
16 11 18 17 11 16 18 11 17 19 13 22 28 13 18 21 13 22 22 1~ 26 23 1~ 27 24 1~ 28 2~ 17 32 26 17 32 27 17 33 28 19 34 29 19 34 38 19 36 31 21 37 32 21 36 33 21 36 34 23 36 3~ 23 36 36 23 38
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITINO VISASS(AO)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAY8-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Y) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 986~2
R SQUARED 973 T STATISTIC 3~B167B
INTERCEPT CAl -272~33
SLOPE CBI 197S63 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 221294
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS X DAYS-ICE YHIN -19~ YHAX ~9~ YINC ~
XHIN -19 XHAX 2~9 XINC 2
]
-SYNTAX ERROR lPRM6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASS (EEC)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 2 1 3 1 4 3 ~ 3 1 6 3 1 7 ~ 2 8 ~ 2 9 ~ 3
1 7 3 11 7 3 12 7 3 13 9 6 14 9 6 bull 1~ 9 7 16 11 7 17 11 8 18 11 7 19 13 11 2 13 1 21 13 12 22 1~ 13 23 1~ 1~
24 1~ 17 2~ 17 19 26 17 18 27 17 19 28 19 29 29 19 23 39 19 22 31 21 24 32 21 23 33 21 24
34 23 2J 3~ 23 26 36 23 27
I ELF SCATTER MODULE I DATABASE WHITING VISA88CEEC)I I INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (~) DAYS-ICE I
DEPENDENT VARIABLE (VI DMPTS I bull
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9a2~3
R SQUARED 96~3
T STATISTIC 387a73~
INTERCEPT (A) -4142 SLOPE (8) 12873 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 173287
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS ~ DAYS-ICE YMIN -29 YMA~ ~1 VINC ~
XMIN -19 ~MA~ 2~9 ~INC 2
J
-SYNTAX ERROR JPRM6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHITING VXSASSmiddot(FXL)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 2 3 1 3 ~ 5 4 7 4 ~ 9 9 6 11 13 7 13 1~
e 1~ 16 9 17 19 18 19 21 11 21 24 12 23 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASB(FJLI
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Y) DMPTS
bull bullbull 4~
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE CV) DMPTSr
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 982~3
R SQUARED 96~3
T STATISTIC 3S7873~ t bullbullf CINTERCEPT CA) -4142
SLOPE CB) 12873 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 173287
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS XI DAYS-ICE YMINmiddot~28 YMAKI 1 YINC ~
XMIN -I9XMAX 2~9 XINC2
]
-SYNTAX ERROR ]PRH6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHXTXNG VXSASS (FXL)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 S 2 3 1 1 5 3 4 7 4 5 9 9 6 11 13 7 13 1~
9 15 16 9 17 19 1 19 21 11 21 24 12 23 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE I WHITING VISAS8(FIL)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE CX)I DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE CY) DMPT8
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 99289 R SQUARED 9858 T STATISTIC 2638123 INTERCEPT CA) -243706 SLOPE CB) 124476 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 112846
SLOPE 10) 124476 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 112846
ObullbulllfftVTrOHSO 12 VI DHPTS XI DAVS-ICE VMIN -27 VHAX e2 VINe e XHIN -19 XHAX 2e9 gtcINe 2
]
-8VNTAX ERROR
fi
rr
[bull
SJ
in i
bullol
r~
bull bull
n i
o o o o
~
o~ o
o - l
N~ o ~
o o o
Q
Q o o
a
c -~_
Q
_
_ Q
_9_
0
o ~-
O
_
Q
lI
oJ ~
v
~ ~
~-
-
- -1
---h
---1
---I
I
I
1
~ ((9 ~ J las 0 - ~~ U -lt) az E~-~gl~~1--~~---------- ~) 1)
11 ~ - 11 HI ~~
I bull M~
~ -~ ~~ IJ~ I J ismiddotJ I Q l~
k tl I 01 re lr - 91 br I ~I ( -0 71P g I CJ tt
I I J 000 0 0 w I 0) NlNN1tl 30 hIflJ I t IC (~4ID(r ~ Wi
_ f-- -------- bull fyen ~=y ~~r I I I I I I I 0 0 00 00 ( ~) -Fr~ ~ fj)
-0 I 0 I Ole 17 10 0 ( ~ AI )middot P1~ 0 0 00 Q hItIrS ~7I -~~ (J
t -r------0 bull
_-~_ middotmiddotmiddot_middot~middotmiddotmiddot)-middot7~)
lrrT I 01 0
0 tFmiddot~~i ~ 1 o 00 Omiddot (~ -W ~r f (JJ___~ _______ _ l I I 71 I -_---_ - M-~ ~ I
J I Z-tf ~ ~ ~fI t1 11f ( )) CI I I I i I 00 r11-7[ c I C bull aofl7r_ ~ ~z ~ 1t~Ji ) ( --_--------i---shye l~~~ I f~) I I J I
I II i bull Q ( N~T fE ~I )
~JiP _- -___ ----shy
_
~ 7Yr 0) ~(J ~ I e I t I ~ l I J I I 1 I I I(I 0 0 (~~yen~ M -p~P71 JPtJIJs 0
i euror (1l~J IlLriJlllr1JI ~~J I ~()(1OP I I r I I 0 I ( t t I ( jIfS 7fS ~~I ~ )
I
I 1 I( IN 10~ lb~ qItJ gtr~j f o (~)I(~) I I 0 I (t~ ~~) I I Jbull o 0 J I ~ l 0 a i S(jJ t t t tI tI C I C I J I I I J I 0 I (n~rlP PI4t -I) t
- -I
-I -I-I I II-I I I-I r bull
-----(rtb Ii If p~) PNl17T7~b ~y~ 7
10 IIt1v I 0 1~L CIJ tN IfIfW1IIJ JI11i JN~I HJ3
---Y p~ALY~_ ~~ Yl2-- 1)
yenvr 1amp f111l
-
~
~~
~
II
o 0
~cgt
(
) Q
oa
oo
o
oo
o o
a
o
~
P
t
oo
c
oo
a -
o
oo
o
o -
o
-o
-
-
lJ
I~ I~
Jl ~rIpound i IAlffzfjjsectj 7df- utl kf J OG lie rCOIpound ~IIE(T r
7tU
~
~ ~
~ ~
~
-shy~
~
MYI f)lySLM~ 1 (JAy ISo~r 11 ~~) e ()~t ~I01) r I joy f o~y lOJ 17~JJlII1~ 16 fiti -t1 It r ~17J~~flu~1h 111H 7U 1111111shyIllf Jr(11Jr I fhJo
~ ) ~ I1 J J-4 ~ J 2 JJ ~poundol ~ ] t4 cl -7 eJ uJ cJJJ wI~ wI l shy w c at amp 74 -t ~ ut 4 I
SkIN 000 o 0 0o 0 0 o 00 I o I I I I 3 3 3l) t 3 3 31 s 3ltt
a I I I I I o IfYU I 2 I JI I I000 )l~ 1~1 S 3 ~S 3 5 335
GILtJ I J I o (J 0 I (I I I ~ t 2shy~I I s 3 ]] 2 0 (J 3 ~ ~ t 3 3 AlvItUiU i l I I ls)z oJ lJ 0 a (J ~ 0o 0 0 a a aTff1ttJR II r 1
1 I ~ I I I I 1~E
Cdt47tl7 I I ~ ~t( a a 0O(O I Io I~ 00 000deg a 0wO 0 0 0 o 0 0 o~ 00VUipound811 ~ J I
tJ I Oe6rlllr I I I I 2 2]l2 ~ 3 S 3 S ~ 3o a 0 (J () 0 I 333 1 $ 3
If~euMI LU~ 2l 3000o (J 0 o 0 0 J 2 2shy 331a deg (1 ~ 2 Jshy
i I 000amp1 0 I I 1TIUUpound
lAcltJdJE 00deg00o 0 0 ooalOOO 0 0 I I I 1OdOa deg 0 11 2 I r I I I IbullI
I I h~r~Eu I ( 0 0 CJ 0 o (J a 2 ~ 30001011 0 1 J 1010 I I L II 2 l 2l 22 2 1
sKIN GLLt I f I~J) GlIIl) 0 (I a I do 0 0 I 0 Il~t l~o 0 0 ~ 3 3 3 s 3 3 3 33s1331
i7tJ7l11 Ibull I shy i66 ~o
(J ~ 0 1 0 It3331l J t 1 1shy 1~ ~afJllc 11 Irrshy It ~1 1111 20 J3 u
(])JtUJ61 (l) (1) (Ir)(0) (J)(I) (If) (19) (u) (~r)(J4)
I r f
I
I
i I
I i
II I ((
f
II Ii
p ()
Q
0_
_ 00
0
00
00
00
0
o o o 0
00
0
0 _
o Q
0
0
o
0
00
0
-
0 0
0
middot0
0
o oo
0
o Q
o oo o o
- ~
~
~ ~~pound
w
i -shy
o
co
- --
shy
o o o
~
~_
~
0
-shyJJ
-----l--~
-J
J IJ
f
J
J)
o 0
00
_ 0
0
o (gt
0
o ()
o
0
0 0
0
()
()
o 0
0
o 0
0
_
_ -
-----1
-----shy
Q
0 0
o ~-IJ~ulJ-
u
lJcllJ_-_~IJamp
o o
Q
I---+----I---+----I----I~-
_Ilpound
llD
lIlI
Il
~I
IIIl
I_II
II5
l__
IIlIa
IllP
=lII
Il1
rl
ll
IlIl
IlIII
llII
IlJl
IIl
IIlIl_
IIrII
G3i
mta
isectID
it
llll~
1~=wampampftUla
_
au
U
Lamp
WJN
AJ
poundmiddotJI
IiIamp
3flJ
a
uac
ampa
f
shy
I~middottn 0~L fi 5L middottlu~ fo_~r ( ) 1poundc [CtJRl -ffl(pound1 r~~ rlt1c- J c-ru
-- I
1SllJ7~
lt l)~ J )IIr M ~-t s ~~ OIl middot )If 10 JAY II 041
J- Olt i1 )lir iI DIY IT- IMy11
1~middot6f1 14f1- ~imiddot -- J _ middotAfmiddot IIrk middot Jiamp -ffh~11 rtr Il ~M gt27P- ill Ill ~lllY ~~7rlf JC 1- ~ r 1M 11
r ~ F16F r~h FIjFi ~~I)r r~Fr
5 Fc II -i~fIoi l 1 fj t t Fr c r amp t 1= ~ r ~ F r rtI ~
- -
sION o (j o 0 0 o 0 a I I I I I I I I 2 I t t I-r J~L) z~z~ 2~J ~ z a ~ ~ 33 - -ol t 1 2
~ poundys-s 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I I lt t 2 t t 4 ~z ~ 2l~ ~ ~ 1 Z 3zi3p33 3 333 3 3 3 - - ~ rl~ a 0 a (1 a a o 1 I 1 I 1-2 12 t ltt a ~ l J tll~ ~~~) 2 2 2 2- ~Jll 21 13 33 ~
- ~ MIIi(UlA~
degCt1C 11 )l
FipoundSI- eli CeoD o 0 (J 0 I I I I I I 1 1 I I 1 I Jl~] l2 22- z ~ 2 2 22 11 2-3 -Sfvpound
j
CIJiCVlt-tICN I I I 1 ( I I I 2 2 t ~ t~ )2 2~21 2$ 2 t _~ 3AIJJN(j- P (J dO o C a a o 0 00 1 I I I I - --
V~7r~ ~ c~u N
(TKWW~ CO~ o I oc I I J I I I I 1 2 I 2 2 1- ) t~l2 2- 22 2 ) 2 ~2- 1222 2 2 ll 2L -- -~VClLAl I
a 0 0 0 01 I 0 2 1 2 2 J5r 4 E i H CA I I
-I I I I I I I I J J 12( ~ 12 1 2 1 2-I TfI_ 21 1-1- 1 1 ~ 1
~ I middot_0-__-- I
~ 1
ffCACIpound coo 000lt=1 o 0 0 0 btJCt) o a () (J I I I I I I I I111 I I I 1 I I -~-aD CD lJ a a 0 0 ~ ~ UlrAfllN o 0 a IJ e e 0 C) (JdegOo ecJao co (10 (1 o I I I I I I I I 1 I I III I I I I z --
i tiN ~4r L~~ 2- li ~ a~ 8M) CUmiddot c d (J 0 (J () I I I 1 1 1
I 1 I I f t I II tl-loI 21 1 t 33 - -
-Iffl1-
J I I I I i- 2 I 11~SC~E ~ t 1 o ~ 04-t 1J 11 1 11t IS~ IfS J1 I 1 I If I IJ 1 r~]u ze uu __
bull ttlUIG
(I) l~) (6) (II) ~ (~) 6s-)llIt lCUI CJ (Ii) (~) vmiddot (II) (19~ ---
I t f
I
~ I
~ I
Ii
I I
Ii I II f
~ (
--)raquo~ middot-~~-~-I~~IliiI~~-middotComiddot~-d-b~middotmiddotmiddotmiddot_ ~ ~ middoth-~_middot--~H~~middot~gt
Other Occasional Papers in the series
1 A salinity monitor for irrigation pumps by EOMIEZITIS
2 Wine liqueur and fish products acceptability trials 47th ANZAAS Congress Hobart 1976 by HABREMNER TLLEWIS and ARQUARMBY
3 Abalone silage an exercise in the conservation of waste by JUNE OLLEY
4 Course notes contributed by the CSIRO Tasmanian Food Research Unit to a workshop on fish handling and quality control Hobart Oct3rd-5th 1978 by HABREMNER JUNE OLLEY and SJTHROWER
5 Difficulties with generalized least squares regression in forest modelling by PWWEST
6 Metabolism of zinc cadmium and copper in rats fed shellfish highly contaminated with heavy metals by SJTHROWER JUNE OLLEY and MAUREEN McDERMOTT
7 Hygiene control in seafood processing by SJTHROWER
7
daylight at least 20 lenses are required for each estllnation which is rather
tedious for routine work and also it is not applicable where fish had not been
kept all the time in ice under the standard conditions eg bulk stowage of
fish with ice on a trawler may result in deviation fran the conditions of box
stolage in an insulated roan
he GR Ibrrymeter is a battery pc7ot1ered hand-held instnunent that rreasures
certain dialectric properties of fish skin which charge wi th the
tiJretemperature history of the fish fbWever readi~s on a large mrnber of
samples have to be taken and averaged bull Although it is a rapid simple
objective and rDn-destructive method of estllnati~ the quality of fresh fish
it has the followilkJ disadvanteqesj large variation in readirg fran fish to
fish readi~ varies with physical damage to fish1 cha~e of readi~ with time
varies with species and also may be insensitive at later stages of spo i Laqe
Curran et al (1981) reported that the GR Ibrrymeter was not particularly
successful with both the purple emperor (L6thoinus l6ntjan) ard the Spanish
mackerel ( Scomberomorue oonmereons since the readirgs obtained do not
correlate very well with the taste panel results
140 Microbiological Methods
he rootine microbiological testirg that is performed under normal
industry operations is normally restricted to enumeration of nonpathogenic
microorganisms hose frost frequently used are the standard plate count and
enumeration of indicator organisms such as the coliform group Beoher-ichia
coli aM Staphylococcus aureus
Food handl i nq practices beyond the pr-imary processors control make
standard aerobic plate count (APe) a difficult quality assessment tool to use
generally he total nunber of bacteria is not the sole determinant of
8
quali ty since certain microbial groups are rrore apt to cause spoilage than
others These groups can be given a selective advantage for growth by the way
the product is processed or stored furthermore the determination of
bacterial counts while they are of value to research requires too much time
before results are known and can also be expensive for routine testing
Representative samples have to be taken for bacterial examination because the
fish or product is destroyed during the test Interpreting the results of
bacterial testing is a task for experts who should be consulted when
necessary bull
Detection and enumeration of indicator bacteria such as the coliform
group E ooli and S auroeu8 were considered for many years to indicate the
potential presence of pathoqenic microorganisms NM this inference has been
questioned and these groups are no longer considered a reliable method for
predicting the presence of such pathogens (Martin et aL1978) bull
According to Olley and Ratkowsky (1973) there is in fact no simple index
of quality and a thorough knowledge of the oamplete temperature history of the
fish is the only true indicator of freshness This is so because at higher
temperatures bacteria divide in half more rapidly Therefore the
relationship between bacterial growth with production of spoilage canpounds
and temperature is not a straight line rut a curve he curve relates rate of
spoilage of these commodities at temperatures between aoe and 25dege to the rate
at which they would spoil at aoe hus at aoe the relative rate is 1 and at
Rate at temperature (tOe)any other temperature the relative rate is Rate at a be
Bremner et at (1978) have coined the term ICE FOID for this relative rate
ie so many times faster than the ccmnodity would spoil on ice and
lCETIME as equivalent storage time on ice = lCEFOID x time in days
The curve has also been converted into tabular form to enable conversion
of the temperature history of the catch into equivalent storage time
on ice under ideal conditions However the concept of relative rate of
9
spoilage with temperature can only apply if fishing oonditions are kept
constant
150 sensory Methods
Currently the best way to detenmine fish freshness still requires the use
of a taste panel (Regenstein and Regenstein 1981) A number of taste panel
techniques for assessing the quality of unfrozen fish species have been
described am are in use in different parts of the world These techniques
vary in cbjective and ccrrplexity but are of three main types Firstly there
are those which categorise the fish on the basis of its acceptability for
eatirq secondly there are those which categorise the fish on the basis of
well-defined characteristics which change duri~ storage Thirdly there are
techniques which include elements of both of these types Techniques of the
first type usually anploy a single gradi~ or hedonic (like-dislike) scale
whilst those of the second type anploy descriptions of various characteristics
(Baines et aI 1969)
The ultimate criterion of fish quality is the flavour and texture of the
cooked fish HcMever taste panel evaluations of cooked fish are timeshy
consiminq and relatively few samples can be tested at anyone time It is
therefore highly desirable to be able to make an assessment of eati~ quality
by exanini~ the raw fish My atterrpt to raise the quality of raw fish as it
reaches the consumer is critically dependent on the development of a
convenient and consistent rrethod of quality assessment based on raw fish
Fortunately eat inq quality of cooked fish can be correlated with the
appearance odour and texture of the whole raw fish Boyd and Wilson (1976)
when evaluat inq the quality of snapper (Chroysophfys aufatus) by a sensory
method found that there is close relationship between the raw attributes of
gill odour and general appearance with those of odour texture am flavour of
10
the cooked fish
The use of ooject ive tests at dockside or even on inspection within the
plant is not considered to be practical in the normal routine of inspection of
fresh ard frozen fish products as almost all of the coject Ive tests require
laboratories am so becare rather rerooved fran the busy fisherman processor
or factory foreman A nuch simpler piece of apparatus is the eye or the N)Se
(olley 1977) Sensory tests are always controversial as they require an
inspector although the canny buyer is in fact applying his senses of smell
am visual acuity in a similar fashion W9 accept the wine faster and wcxgtl
classer so why not the fish grader (Bremner 1984) Therefore a test that
correlated well with freshnessquality and that could operate on the market or
in the factory would be of considerable value to an efficient industry (Baines
et aI 1965)
Howgate (1978) also considered the sensory rrethods to be far better than
non-sensory methods which are not suitable for consumer testing whilst
Connell (1972) states that in general the sensory rrethod of assessing
freshness is the best at present for quality control purposes
As fish spoils its snell taste appearance and feel go through
characteristic am well defined stages that trained experts or experienced
staff can consistently recognise It is convenient to attach a number or
score to each stage so that the assessor can award the appropriate score to
each fish or batch of fish Alternatively the mere recognition of each stage
ard acceptance or rejection of fish on this basis may be all that is
necessary Different species and products spoil in different ways The
numerical system us irq an objective panel developed at the Ibrry IEsearch
Station by Shewan et al (1953) is probably the ultUnate critical evaluation of
fish freshness available at this time It was created for the determination
of storage time of whole Net fish l6Jenstein and Iegenstein (1981) in using
11
this nunerical system reported that the cooked freshness scores are generally
higher (better) than expected at that storage t irre for whole wet fish A
freshness score of 55 on the Ibrry scale seemed the appropriate endpoint for
their definition of shelf-life This would nonnally be reached with ideal
iced-at-sea fish about twelve days from catch sooner for fillets Freshness
scorirq systems are I1C1laquo available fran Ibrry Research station for most UK
ccmnercial species and systems are available for both the raw and cooked
fish HoweveF there is still no standard scorirq system to be used
internationally he countries in the EEC ~or instance use scoring systems
which differ both in scale length am in characteristics measured Most
systems use the same scale length for all features examined but the United
Kingdon am Icelarrl use scales of 10 to 0 for odour and 5 to 0 for other
characteristics ibwgate (1972) describes the effort to construct a rorogram
for oonvert inq fran one scorinq system to another (Appendix 1) de Zylva
(1974) expanded the Ibrry score sheet to include marks for flesh colour and
texture belly flap discoloration stainiBJ of backbone am colour of
kidney he scoring system was designed for ~w Zealand snapper and gave
excellent negative linear correlations between score am days of storage
legenstein (1983) presents the way in which Ibrry has in turn incorporated
other characteristics into the score sheet for raw fish Groupings of several
characteristics to give a score requires more expertise than scoring
individual points as is done by de Zylva
However the use of a point or scoring system in which higher points are
given for high quality attributes would mean the requirements of more
kllC7filedge of the fish and the tester mist be experienced and knCM the
qualities of the fish previously Therefore it is too species dependent
his problem can be overcare by using the demerit system with points being
allotted in several categories for defects as they becare obvious and one can
I
12
learn as one goes along in each situation he demerit points that were given
to the various selected quality attributes could be weighted in such a way as
to produce an approximately linear change in score with storage time (Branch
and Vail 1985)
It might also be desirable OCIlInercially to specify a uniform mrnber of
days of shelf-life fran the pack date to consumption he length of shelfshy
life ctgttained for fish depends on the initial age and quality of the fish the
tirre of the pack am the time am temperature of storage before am after
packing In practical terns the ultimate measure of the effect(s) of shelf-
life extension treatments on the final quality of the fish is consumer
satisfaction (Regenstein aoo Regenstein 1981)
A tentative grading systan for fresh fish based on sensory assessment of
fish had been described by IbUwing (1972)
160 The Ideal Method
Forty years of research ootably in the UK Canada and Japan have gone
into objective methods for measuring fish quality (Bremner et al 1978)
There is as yet 00 single universal test for all species nor for that
matter any wholly satisfactory test for individual species
The ideal rrethod hOlJld be one that is cheap oon-destructive easy to
use oot subject to much variation or fatigue having rapid response and wide
application sensory tests have the advantages of being non-destructive 00
equipnent required adaptable to species and assessing the market value
Althcogh sensory tests are usually condemned as a subjective test which
requires training am experience am are also said to be easily open to
abuse this can be reduced if a simple rapid and less descriptive rrethod
could be fourd - possibly with the use of demerit point scores Therefore
this study aims at assessing the use of sensory techniques based on the
13
demerit point scores developed for raw whole (gutted and ungutted) and
filleted fish samples of Australian fish species stored in ice and RSW It
also discusses the results of the acceptability taste panels on the cooked
fish samples
The two oammercially ~rtant Australian fish species used in this study
were the blue grenadier am the blue rock whiting he blue grenadier is
currently Tasmanias major oammercial finfish and the recent annual production
of the fishery exceeds 100 tonnes (Last et aI 1983)~ he blue rock whiti~
is the only Australian member of the family that has any commercial
importance It occurs mainly in Bass strait and the sheltered bays of South
eastern Tasmania The flesh is delicately flavoured but very soft
200 MATERIALS lIND MEIHgt[s
210 Sample preparation
211 Fish stored in RSW
Blue grenadier used in this study were caught on the 15th lugust 1984 at
a depth of 300 fathans off Sandy Cape on the west coast of Tasmania (Lat
41deg20S IDrq144deg40 E) by demersal trawl They were taken fran the deck
irnnediately am dropped into a refrigerated seawater (RSW) tank in a net bag
(tanp -1degC) The fish was reported to be handled quite roughly on board
Sore of the fish had already gone into rigor at this stage he fish were
transported to the CnID lasrnanian Food lesearch Uni t (TFRJ) laboratories in
Hobart and were already to days old on arrival The f ish were then placed in
the RSW box tank of the rrobile unit (the design and construction of which were
described by Thrower and Stafford 1981) and was kept at -1degC for the duration
of the storage trial which lasted for about three weeks Four fish were
rerroved at each samplirq tine (Table 1) for sensory assessment Length
14
measurements to the fork of the tail were also noted ~e fish were then
filleted and samples frozen at -lBoe for later assessment of their
acceptability by taste panel
212 Fish stored in ice
For the sensory assessment of fish stored in ice guidelines similar to
those given by Lima dos Santos et al (981) were used ~e blue rock whiting
also known as the weedy whiting was used ~e whiting were caught on the
afternoon of 23rd August 1984 by demersal trawl in 18 to 25 m waters oft
Eastern Tasmania On arrival at the TFRJ laboratories in I-bbart at 11 45 am
on the fol Lowirq day the f ish were re- iced at a ratio of 21 (ice f ish) in
insulated plastic boxes of size 66 x 41 x 28 em with provision for drainage
of melt water Flake ice was used ~e ice was topped up daily and renewed
once a week The boxes of i ced f ish were then kept in a cool roan set at a
temperature of 0deg to -1dege ~ree fish were removed for sensory assessment at
each sampling time (Table 1) over a period of rmre than three weeks of ice
storage 100 fish samples were then frozen at -18dege until needed for the
acceptability taste panel
Table 1
sampling regirre for fish stored in R3Wice
Blue Grenadier Diys in R3W 3 4 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 17 21
Sample code N D G L S R K T U P M 0
Whiting Diys in ice 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Sample code 0 M D G T S N R P U L K
15
220 Sensory assessment of the whole (gutted and ungutted) raw fish samples
Both the blue grenadier stored in lOW and the whi t i nq stored in ice were
progressively assessed by using the sense organs of sight smell and touch tor
changes in general appearance odour and texture with storage tine by giving
the appropriate demeri t scores according to the score sheets as shown in
Tables 2 and 3 IVo types of score sheets were used Table 2 shows the
sensory assessment score sheet orig inally developed for the assessment of
gemfish (Thrower et al 1982) It has been simplified and weighted (Branch
and Vail 1985) to provide accumulated increases in demerit points as the t i sn
change in odour texture and appearance during storage with the max imum
accumulated demerit point scores of 35 for the urx]utted samples and 39 tor tte
gutted samples The total scor irq for gutted fish differs fran that descr ibeo
by Bremner (1984) and Branch and Vail (1985) in that the demerit points for
the belly cavity have been added to those for the whole fish
The whole and gutted raw fish were also assessed by using the freshness
score sheet developed by the Council of the European COl1nunities (Official
Journal of the European Qmnunities 1970) but with slight rrodification marie
in its scor irq method in that the scor irq was reversed to provide accumulateri
increases in demerit points as in the TFRJ score sheet (Table 2) with a
maximun accumulated demerit score of 30 (Table 3) The samples were scored by
H Abd R who had had no previous experience with the score sheet
230 Sensory Assessment of the frozen filleted raw fish samples
Samples of the whole and gutted fish of both species were then filleted
ard frozen at -18degC until required for the organoleptic acceptability test
panel fillets were thawed by holding for about 16 hours (overnight) in still
air at 4degC The thawed fillets of both the blue grenadier and whi t i nq were
then assessed by the sense organs of sight smell and touch by using the scor-e
sheet for filleted sample as shown in Table 4 nle score sheet was developed
16
able 1
FIlt U Snorr bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullnt oore hbullbull t ( ( 1Ii~ ANI) tlNtJuTreo)
1_middotAnlJ lmiddot
rlSB IDDII
UIUIl~ (VBci9ht~i9ht8lDullDUll
o 1 2 3
SitU ( rimSoft) o 1
SCALBS (r1mSlLoomiddotmiddotLoobullbull ) o 12
r r SLIMB (AbbullbullntSlSlimiddotysliyVSliy)
o 123
S1IrnraS (pr-Ri90rRi90rPot-Ri90r) o 1 2
BYBS Clarity (ClbullbullrISlCloudyCloudy) 012
Shape (HoralslsunknSunkn) 012
Irill (ViiblHot Viibl) IJ 1
Blood (No BloodSlBloodyVBloody) o 1 2
GILLS Colour (VDark)Charaotritio (SlDark) (vradd)(Slradd)
2o 1 Kucou (AbbullbullntKoderatmiddotBxcbullbullbulliv)
o 1 2 S bullbullll (rrbullbullh 01ly) Pihy8talpoll~
(MetalliaSaved) 1 2 3
BELLI Dicoloration (AbbullbullntDetatablmiddotModratmiddotBxobullbullbulliy) 012 3
Finanbullbullbull ( rira80ftBurt) o 1 2
VENT Condition (bobullbulldy)Noraal (SlBrbullbullk) (Opening)(Bxudbullbull )
2o 1 Sbullbulln (rrbullbullhReutralrihy8poilt)
o 2 3
BELLI CAVIn Stain (OpalbullbullontGryihlmiddotllow-Brown) o 1 2
Blood (RdDark RdBrown)
o 1 z
--
17
UJE 3
Etc SENSORY A$fE4St4fN[ ~(oIlL~
SCALE OF MARKING - FRESHNESS
CRITERIA shypoundu1LRt
Abullbullbullbullbullment Mara-bull thc r1ah 0 1 2- 3tszhL
AppearanceinIIMlISJ Skin
Eye
Gill
Flbullbullshycut f ssm abdomusn
Colour the~
vertebral column
Organs
Oright iridescent I bright pigmenta- pigmentation in (1) dull pigmenta tion no i tion but not the process of pigmentation discolouration Ius trous becoming dis-
mucus opaquemucus aqueous i coloured and dull
mucus slightlytransparen t
cloudy ~UCU9 milky
convex (bulging) convex and flat (1) concave in cornea tran- slightly sunken cornea the centre parent cornea Ughtly opalescent cornea milky pupil black opalescent pupil pupil grey bright
pupil black opaque dull
-shining colour less coloured becoming dis- (1) yellmiish no mucus a few traces of coloured mucus milky
cloar mucus mucus opaque
blueish trans- dull velvety slightly opaque (1) opaque lucid smooth waxy shining without any change in the colour sUgh tly original colour changed
(I) reduncoloured sl1 gh tly pink pink
kidneys and kidneys and kidneys (1) kidneys residues of resJdues of resicJuos of r bullbullidue of other other organs other organs other organs organs and blood bright red the dull red blood and blood brownish game as the becoming palo red blood inside discolbured the aorta
(1) or in a more advanced bull ta te of decay
I
bull
Flesh
Vertebtal Column
Peritonium
Gills kin abdominal cavity
18
(eontd)
SCALE OF MARKING - FRESHNESS
CRITERIA
Assessment Mark 0 1 2
Physical eOId ton
firm and elas tic surface smooth
breaks ins tead of coming away
totally adherent to the flesh
seaweed
less elastic
adherent
adherent
Smell bull
not of seaweed but not bad
slightly soft (flaccid) Ie elastic surfacente waxy velvety and dull
slightly adherent
slightly adherent
slightly sour
3
(1) soft (flaccid) scales ebullbullil y detached from skin sur face ra ther wrinkled inclining to mealy
(1) not dherent
1( ) not adherent
(1) sour
(1) or in a more advanced stat of decay
_ shy-- -
19
Table 4
Filleted Sample Score Sheet
r
TREATMENT F ILIEIS DATE REMOJAL (THAWED)
FISH IDENr
EASE OF FILLETING (Easysl difficultdifficult)
012
APPEARANCE (a) Oolour of flesh (TranslucentSl discolouredSl opaqueopaque)
o 1 2 3
(b) Blood stains (AbsentDetectableModerateExcessive)
012 3
(c) Clotting (UnclottedSlclottedModclottedExcessclotted)
012 3
(d) Skin Oolour (VbrightBrightSldullOU11)
o 1 2 3
TEXTURE FirmS1 softSoft
o 1 2
ClDClJR (FreshNeutralStaleSpoilt)
012 3
CONJITION (a) Gaping (AbsentDetectableModerateExcessive)
o 1 2 3
(b) Bruising (AbsentSlightSevere)
012
(c) Wetness (NmnalS1 dry orMod dry orExcess dryness or
SldripModdrip Freezer bJrn or Excessdrip
012 3
(d) Autolysis (Absentmoderatesevere) (Disco1ourations) 0 1 2
(e) Parasites (Absentmoderatesevere) ( Infestations) 0 1 2
(f) Other discolourations (Absentpresent) or contaminants (bones membranes tissues etc) 0 1
EASE OF SKINNING (EasySldifficultdifficult)
012
20
by the author after a literature search and observations made during the preshy
liminary part of the study It has a maxUnum accumulated demerit score of 34
240 ~anoleptic Acceptability Panel of the cooked fish
Filleted samples of both fish species which had been frozen in a cold
roan at -18dege and then thawed as above were used for the acceptability taste
panels The fillets were skinned am cut into 30 to 40 g pieces crumbed and
deep fried (Bremner et ale 1985) Three or four treatments were cooked
simultaneously at each session am the fish served with packets of take-away
french fries Tcrnato sauce vinegar and salt were available Each of the
samples were randanised in such a way so as to give a high degree of balance
(Table 5 and 6) Letters that represent the samples were also picked
randanly The fish was assessed by 20 panellists employed at the Tasmanian
lEgional Laboratory and experienced with facial hedonic scaling for flavour
texture am overall acceptability using the General Foods Smiley scale
(Appendix 2) Salt was rot rrentioned with the 9niley questionaire for blue
grenadier so that the panel should have ro preconceiVed prejudices
250 Statistics
tata fran the sensory assessment of the whole gutted and ungutted raw
fish (both TFRJ am EEl score sheets) am fran the sensory assessrrent of the
frozen filleted raw fish samples of both the blue grenadier stored in RSW am
whiting stored in ice were analysed for correlation using the ELF scatter
module (Appendix 3 and 4)
The acceptability taste panel assessment scores for flavour texture and
overall liking of the toKgt species of fish were subjected to analysis of
variance using the Genstat package (Appendix 5 and 6)
22
Table 6
Order of presentation of cooked whiting samples to the acceptability taste panelists
Order of presentation of samples Panelist
session I session II
1 OTP rm 2 MUS KR 3 sm INL
4 IKJ GKR
5 ror NK
6shy USM UN ~
7 OOP RLD
B HUT NKD
9 USO RiL
10 SMP LGN
11 IMT GIltN
12 nxgt KRD
Note
8angtle code OM 0 G T S N R P U L K
storage time in ice (days) 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
23
300 RESULIS
310 Physical Characteristic of M novaeaelandiae
rran the forty-six fish examined the mean fork lerqth was found to be
762 an (range 609 to 838 an) A few of the fish examined had well shy
developed roes and their digestive tracts were found to be relatively empty
320 Physical Characteristics of the H ssmifasoiata
rran a total of thirty-six fish examined the rrean weight of the fish was
fourrl to be 662 g (range 27 to 186 g) am the mean fork length was 183 em
(range 156 to 265 an)
330 sensory assessment of the raw blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
he results of the sensory assessrrent of the r2M blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW by the four rrerhods of scoring are given as average total
accumulated demerit point scores as shown in Table 7 Figure 1 shoes the
graph of demerit point versus days in RSW by the four rrethods of sensory
assessment used Table 9 shltJtS the correlation analysis
340 sensory assessment of the raw whitirq samples stored in ice
he results of the sensory assessment of the r2M whitirq samples stored
in ice by the four methods of scoring are given as average total accumuLated
demerit point scores as shown in Table 8 Figure 2 shltJtS the graph of demerit
point versus days in ice of the four nethods of sensory assessment used Table
9 shltJtS the correlation analysis
350 Attributes contributing to total score
Attributes that contribute to total score usirq the TFRJ scores (ungutted
and gutted) EEC scores and the filleted sample scores are as shewn in Tables
10 - 14
24
Table 7
Total demerit points fran sensory assessment of blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
Average lbta1 Demerit Rgtint SCores
[)lye in RW TFRJ scores TFRJ scores EEl scores Filleted Sample (urvJut t ed ) (gutted) (gutted) SCores
3 3 3 1 1
4 5 5 2 3
6 10 10 6 6
8 16 18 9 8
9 19 21 11 10
10 20 22 13 12
11shy 22 24 15 14
12 23 25 18 17
13 24 26 19 18
14 25 27 19 19
17 29 31 21 23
21 33 35 25 29
Note
Maximum possible scores for (1) IlRJ scores (ungutted is 35
( 11) IlRJ scores (gutted) is 29
( 11i) EEX scores (gutted) is 30
( iv) Filleted sample scores is 32
amptV
35j
3l~
en Ishy 25Z-0 Q
3)-~
bullbullbull 0
bull 0 0bull 0
bull 0 0 6shy abull A ~
~
bull 0
~
6shy
bull 0
6shy
I) 01
-W 0i A15W ~ Q A
~
6shy~101- bull 90 TFRU SCORES (ungutted)
6shy~ bullbull TFRU SCORES (gutt~d i
bull ~
4 6- 6- EEC SCORES 5~
~ ~ FILLETED SAMPLE SCORES ~
6 4 I J I I I
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
DAYS IN RSW
Figl Demerit Points Versus Days in RSW For Blue Grenadier Samples
Fig 2 Demerit Points Versus Days in ice For Whiting Samples I
27
Table 8
TOtal demerit points from sensory assessment of whi tirq samples stored in ice
Average TOtal Demerit Foint SCores
rays in ice TFRJ scores TFRJ scores EEC scores Fi 11eted sample (urqutted) (gutted) (gutted) (gutted)
1 1 1 0 0 3 2 2 1 1
5 4 4 2 3
7 7 9 3 4
9 13 15 6 9
n 15 17 7 13
13 19 21 11 15
15 24 27 15 16
17 29 32 19 18
19 31 35 22 21
21 32 36 24 24
23 33 37 26 26
Note
MaXllnum possible scores for (i) TFRJ scores (urqutted) is 35 ( ii) TFRJ scores (gutted) is 39 ( iii) EEC scores (gutted) is 30 ( iv) Filleted sample scores is 32
28
Table 9
Relationship between tLme and demerit points for fish stored in RSW
Method of Visual Assessment
y- intercept slope correlation
M novaBMBlandias
TFRJ (urqutted ~les) 032 175 097
TFRJ (gutted samples) 032 190 096
EEl -231 146 097
Filleted samplesbull
-357 158 099
H sBmifasoiata
TFRJ (urqutted samples) -245 167 099
TFRJ (gutted samples) -273 187 099
EOC -414 129 098
Filleted samples -244 125 099
ltshy
--------------- ------------------------------------------
------------- - ------------- -------- ------
Table 10
Attributes contributing to total score using TFRO scores (gutted and ungutted)
Attributes involved in score change Score
Blue grenadier in RSW Whiting in ice
Stiffness Eyes - clarity blood Slllne Stiffness Eyes - clarity shape and blood lt10 Gills - smell Vent - smell SlBne Gills - colour smell and mucous
Vent - smell Belly cavity - stains and blood
Appearance Eyes-shape Stiffness Gills - smell colour and mucous Skin
Stiffness appearance gill-smell Scales belly-discolouration and firmness
N so
gt10lt20 SCales belly - discolouration and firmness Vent - smell Vent - smell and condition Belly cavity - stains and blood
Appearance Slllne Eyes - clarity shape Appearance SlBne Scales Skin blood and iris Gills - colour Eyes - clarity and shape
gt20lt30 Belly - discolouration Gills - mucous smell am colour Vent - condi tion and smell Belly cavity shy blood
Appearance Gills - mucous and smell SlBne Eyes - iris am blood Belly - discolouration and firmness Belly - discolouration and firmness
gt30 Vent - condition and smell Vent - condition Belly cavity - blood Belly cavity - stains
Table 11
Attributes contribut irq to total score us irq EEC scores
Attributes involved in score change
Score Blue grenadier in RSW W1iting in ice
lt7 Appearance - skin eyes gills organs Physical condition - flesh Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and organs Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skins eyes gills flesh Appearance-eyes and organs atv
vertebral column and organs Physical condition-flesh and peritoneum gt7lt14 Physical condition - flesh Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-eyes flesh and vertebral Appearance-skin gills and organs column Physical condition-flesh vertebral column
gt14lt21 Physical condition-vertebal column and and peritoneum peritoneum Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and vertebral column vertebral column
gt21 Physical condition-flesh and peritoneum Physical cOndition-flesh vertebral column Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity and peri toneum bull
Table 12
Attributes contributing to total score using filleted sample scores
Score
lt5
Attributes involved in score change
Blue grenadier in RSW
Appearance - blood stains skin colour ltXIour - flesh
M1iting in ice
----- shy -------------- shy
Appearance - skin colour odour - flesh Cbndition - gaping wetness
Appearance - colour of flesh Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Texture - flesh skin colour ltgt gt5lt10 Cbndition - gaping bruising wetness Ease of filleting
Texture - flesh
Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Appearance - colour of flesh clotting skin clotting skin colour skin colour
gt10lt20 odour - flesh odour - flesh Cbndition - gaping wetness autolysis COndition - gaping bruising wetness other discolourations autolysis and other discolouration Ease of skinning
Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains skin colour clotting
gt20 Texture - flesh Texture - flesh odour - flesh Odour shy flesh COndition - gaping bruising wetness Cbndition - wetness autolysis autolysis Ease of skinring
32
Table 13
Diff~rent emphasis in scoring systems for whole fish as between the EEl and TFID
Attribute Number of potential demerit points TFRJ EEl
1Ippearance (general) 3 0
skin ) scales 6 3
slime
Stiffness (Rigor) 2 0
Eyes 7 3
Gills 7 6
Belly 5 0
Vent 5 0
Belly cavity 4 3
Flesh cut fram abdomen 0 3
Flesh texture 0 3
Vertebral column 0 6
Internal organs 0 3
33
360 Relative merits of the scoring systems
The four scor irq methcds were used on the same samples of t ish Any
sample had therefore deteriorated to the same extent on anyone day Figs 3
am 4 shew the scores converted to percentages of possible deroorit point
scores The discrepancy in the accumulation of demerit points between the EEC
am TFRJ scor irq methods is clearly shown IEference to Table 2 3 am 13
shOool that this is caused by the lack of questions regarding rigor looseness
of scales condition of belly am vent am the qroupinq of colour am mucous
in the gills as single po i nts thus halving the potent Ia I gill demerit point
score canparison of the tO species in Table 9 ShONS that the rate of
accumulation of demerit pgtints was more consistent for the TFRU system than by
the EEX scor i oq methltXl or by scorinq of fillets
370 Time taken to score the fish
The average time taken to score an individual fish using the TFPlJ
(unqutted) scores TFRJ (gutted) scores EEX scores am the filleted aamp Le
scores were found to be 1 min 25 sec 1 min 55 sec 3 min 45 sec and 1 min 50
sec respectively The EEX score sheet is more t iroe consumioq in that more than
one question is asked about an attribute for the giving of only one demerit
point this requires conscious thought
380 Acceptability taste panel results of blue grenadier samples bull Figures 5 6 am 7 shOool the mean taste panel scores in graphic form for
flavour texture and overall acceptability of cooked blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW table 14 shows the results of the statistical analysis
390 Acceptability taste panel results of whiting samples
Figures 8 9 am 10 shOool the mean taste panel scores in graphic form for
flavour texture and overall acceptability of cooked whiting samples stored in
ice table 15 shows the results of the statistical analysis
WHITING STORED IN ICE o TFRU SCORES (ungutted)
bull TFRU SCORES (gutted)
b EEC SCORES
FILLETED SAMPLE SCORES
100bull e ~ e b
i 6
bull NW
oIJ-a A A-
(J0 t A~ 0 ~ AC)
C) -e ~~-
C) a 50 A
A w
Iz ~
~ - W e A0 c a ~ ~ A-a ~ l ~ A
w -~
~ X ~ W -e I c ~ ~ ibull I I I I
4 8 12 16 20 24
DAYS IN ICE FIG4
36
- flavourshy
-e s-e l ~ v
5middotIU
STORAGrf IN R sWDAYS
rlCoS Ttutfc pcr1 rcbull
rf oj bl jtlJ~r - jlqVGurc acccr~b
21179 0 2 136 843
~ 0 u 5middot0YI
oJ J l ofmiddot$ 1 e
tu 4middot0
VI
~ 3middot5
3middot0
TelC-lue X bull -e III
~ Gmiddotftv
ct 5middot03
V1
-J -f-SshyU 2
~ 40 t
3-~
~ bullbull0 5 0
~ 17 21A ISII
PAY- IITDRAGamp fbilW
FIG6 I Tq1-c pltnd rc-utl ojbllfcJrcftaJIr bull I~M144 Q Cc(r~blfly
r 411q~~ An~Plf bUIJlfM F llh J~Lld Pt-DoL B fpound)1
gt1 NI ~~eusr SJAVlt1
D ~II
(ffIt1~JP IIID bull U J 1i
-IyoJC )-tlICf p --lInraquoJ Ix-Pc ~1rb1 r I ef
Ma2j NI a~v2loJ$
til
1Ia ~AO (IIp~lJa~e
01
secto
00
s
05
5
o~
~
0pound
s
0
smiddot
o~
07
1 ~ ~ ~ ~
r~
B
~
rv t gtshy 2
~ ~ 11
~ 7shyIn r
~ () 0 1) m ~
~ gtshyz -
(fII~q~~ 7~ P
IItJ1o -~~f(ll p ~I I~U J ~t~L 0 ~ middot~II I
IDI 8~ middot lta ~
~ QS
middotS ~ ~ 0 z
r Smiddot II
S 1d 0-$ 111 r- l gtshy r
V fr~
~llCf-J a-PcJ~ U~middotJO
4lp~dmiddotyIb 6middot~1f np)t -~11M fo --IIhen IJutJel ~bl
Table 14
Acceptability of deep fried blue grenadier samples stored in FSW
rays in R3W
Acceptability 3 4 6 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 17 21
Flavour 50a 50a 4S a 51a 50a 51a 50a 4Sa 49a 53a 41b 35b
Texture 49bc 51abc 4S bed 52ab 4Sbed 53ab 52abc 52ab 4Sbed 55a 46cd 43d
OJerall 50ab 51ab 47be 52ab 4Sb 5lab 52ab 50ab 47b 54 a 41c 35d
abc
d
significantly different (pltOOOl)
significantly different (pltOOl) W so
Table 15
Acceptability of deep fried whiting samples stored in ice
rays in ice
Acceptability 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Flavour 5Sab 59a 59a 60a 59a 5S ab 51b 54ab 53ab 37c 37c 31c
Texture 59ab 59a 53bed 5S ab 63a 59ab 47cde 54be 56ab 55ab 44e 46de
OJera11 57ab 5S ab 59ab 60a 60a 5Sab 52b 53ab 55ab 42c 36cd 31d
abcde significantly different (Plt0001)
40
~oo DISCUSSION
410 Sensory assessment of the raw blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
he results of sensory assessment on the raw blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW by the four methods of scoring all sheM that there is
progressive increment in total demerit points with storage time for all the
four methods (Table 7) It was also fourxi that the accumulation of demerit
points with time of storage of the fish in ffiW occurred in a saui-linear
fashion for all -the four scoring methods used (Figure 1) he variables (time
of storage and demeritmiddot points score) were all highly correlated (Table 9)
he correlation equation of the TFRJ (ungutted samples) and TFRJ (gutted
sanples) scores were similar roth having a zero time intercept of 032 but
with the TFRJ (gutted samples) scores having a slightly greater slope by 015
he EEC scores and the filleted sample scores roth have lower slopes ie
146 and 158 respectively canpared with the TFRJ (ungutted sample) and TFRJ
(gutted sample) scores of 175 and 190 respectively lbwever the EOC scores
which have the lowest slope have a fairly similar correlation equation with
the filleted sample scores (Table 9) he negative intercepts reflected the
slightly more sigrroid relationship for these samples his suggests that the
TFRJ (gutted) scoring method is the rrost sensitive of the four methods
followed by the TFRJ (ungutted) the filleted sample and the EEC scores
It was also found that after 21 days of storage in RSW the blue
grenadier samples had not reached their maximun possible scores in any of the
four scoring rrethods used (Table 7) he TFRJ (ungutted sample) score only
reached 943 of its possible maximun value whereas the TFRJ (gutted sample)
scores EEC scores and the filleted sample score reached only 897 833 ar~
906 of their possible maximun score his means that all the four methods
of scoring can still be sensitive to changes in the quality of the blue
grenadier samples stored in RSW after 21 days of storage time
41
Figures 1 and 3 also shOVt that the pattern of the graphs of demerit
points against days storage in R3W of the four methcxis of scoring is similar
ie a tendency to be slightly sigmoid fbwever the filleted sanple scores
sean to be rrore sensitive than the EOC scores at the later part of the storage
time ie after 14 days of storage and the scores continued to rise
1be rrost obvious indicator of change for the blue grenadier stored in ffiW
using the TFRJ scores (both gutted and unJUtted sanples) was the eyes (clarity
and blood) followed by odour developnent of the gills (Table 10) his is -
also foond to be true wi th the EOC freshness score (Table 11) Fbr the
filleted sample scores the appearance and odoor of the flesh seems to be the
most obvious indicator of change follOVted by the condition of the fillets such
as gaping bruisin) am wetness (Table 12)
4 20 sensory assessment of the raw whi ting samples stored in ice
1he results of sensory assessment on the rCJl whiting samples stored in
ice by the foor roothods of scoring also shows that there is a progressive
increment in total demerit points with storage time for all the four methods
of scoring (Table 8) Ps with the blue grenadier the aCCLD1UJlation of demerit
points with time of storage of the whiting in ice also occurred in a sernishy
linear fashion for all the foor scoring methods used (Figure 2 and 4) wi th a
slight lag in the initial phase Interestingly this was not observed in the
case of blue grenadier sanples stored in ffiW probably because the first
samplin) of the blue grenadier starts only fran the third day after catch
whereas the first sampling of the whiting starts fran the first day after
catch Also the blue grenadier was handled qu i te roughly on the deck in fact
three oot of the four fish samples on the first rerroval ie the third day
after catching had already showed blood in their eyes
Bremner et al (1985) when using the TFRJ score sheet to assess the
42
quality of four tropical fish species fran the oorth west shelf of hJstralia
(stored in ice) also fourrl that the accumulation of demerit points with time
of storage in ice occurred in a linear fashion
PB wi th blue grenadier the variables (tine of storage ard darneri t points
score) were all highly correlated (Table 9) Also the correlation equation of
the TFRJ (ungutted) ard TFRJ (gutted) scores were similar with the TFJU
(gutted) score having a slightly greater slope by 020 Crable 9) he EEC
scores am filleted sample scores also have lower s lopes l e 129 ard 125
respectively ocmpared to the TFm (ungutted) and (gutted) scores of 167 and
187 respectively However unlike the blue grenadier the filleted samples
of the whi t ing had the 10liest slope he more sensi tive na ture of the EEC
scores as canpared to the filleted sample scores in the case of the whiting
especially after 12 days storage in ice can be explained by the snaller size
of the whitirlJ (fork length ranging fran 156 to 265 an) as canpared to the
size of the blue grenadier (fork length ranging 809 to 838 an) the snaller
fish terrl to spoil faster especially the interior parts of the fish PB the
EEC scores depend nuch on the sensory assessment of the interior parts of the
fish such as the appearance and condition of the flesh vertebral colwnn
interior organs per i toneun and abdaninal cavity (Table 3) which makes up more
than 18 demerit points out of the total possible maxinun of 30 the
sensitiveness of its score is thus self-explanatory in the case of whiting
Connell (1980) explained that large fish keep marginally better than small
fish because larger fish have a smaller surface to volume ratio so that in the
same tUne less of their interior is affected
The above results confirmed the previous suggestion that the TFRU
(gutted) scorIoq methcrl is the roost sensitive of the four methods It was
found that after 23 days of storage in ice the whiting scmples had not
reached the maximun possible scores in any of the four methods used (Table
43
8) The 1FIU (UBJutted) scores had reached only 94-3 of its possible maximum
value whereas the TFRJ (gutted) scores EOC scores am the filleted sample
scores reached only 94 9 867 and 81 3 of their poea Ible maximum score
Therefore all the four methods of scoriBJ can still be sensitive to changes
in quality of the whiting samples stored in ice after 23 days of storage tUne
Ihe roost obvious irxHcator of chaDJe for the whiting stored in ice using
the TFIU score sheet was the eyes (clarity shape and blcxxl) followed by the
develqxnent of -colour odour and nucous of the gills (fable 10) Bremner et
al (1985) when working with four tropical species f~ the north west shelf of
Australia also found that the most obvious indicator of change for fish stored
in ice was the eyes (their clarity am shape) follCAtled by odour developnent
and colour changes in the gills This was also found in the case of blue
grenadier in ~ discussed earlier OJrran et al (1981) when investigating
the quality changes duriBJ iced storage of three carmercially important
species of fish fran Bahrein also found that of the visual and olfactory
assessments gill odour showed the roost pranise as a quality control index
Pgain this is also found to be true with the EOC freshness score of both the
blue grenadier and the whitiBJ (Table 11) AccordiBJ to ~ate (1972) it
was generally agreed that odour of the gills is the most sensitive measure of
freshness but the visual appearance of the eyes gills arxi skin was quicker to
use in practice on the market
For the filleted sample scores of the whiting the most obvious indicator
of chanqe was the appearance and odour of the flesh (Table 12) This too
agreed with the findiBJs for blue grenadier stored in ffiW
AccordiBJ to Baines et al (1969) with fish eatiBJ is related to four
main attributes or quality factors viz appearance odour and texture of the
rCM and cooked fish and in the latter also flavour he ultimate purpose of
testing the raw fish is to estimate the eating quality which is here taken to
44
mean the degree of freshness of flavour Acoording to Baines and Shewan
(1965) the mostreliable test for predicting flavour sqore is raw odour
430 The ease aM difficulties of using the four methods of scoring
It was found that the TFRJ (ungutted) scores was the easiest and quickest
method to use as it takes on average only about 1 min 25 sec to score a fish
canpared to 1 min 55 sec 3 min 45 sec ard 1 min 50 sec for the TFRJ
(gutted) EOC and the filleted sample scores he E~ score was found to be
the roost tedious besides taking the longest time to soore a fish
he TFIU (ungutted) scores also have the advantage of not requiring a
knife in order to score ard also were less IOOSSY to work with canpared to all
the other nethods Also the attributes to be assessed were arranged and
organised in such a way in the score sheet that it is easy to score a fish
starting from assessing the apparance and skin and ending with the condition
and smell of the vent
440 Acceptability taste panel results of the blue grenadier samples
441 Flavour acceptability
Figure 5 shc7ws the flavour acceptability of the deep fried samples of
blue grenadier Samples stored in R3W for less than 17 days were found
statistically (Table 14) to be indistinguishable (Plt0001) fran each other
then there was a significant fall in the flavour acceptability of the samples
stored in RSW for 17 days onwards he sarrtgtle stored for 21 days had a still
lower mean value of 35 but it was not significantly different fran the
semple stored for 17 days which had a nean value of 41 It is interesting to
note that despite the progressive increase in sodiun uptake of the blue
grenadier samples stored in RSW from about 7115 35 mg sodium(lOO g tissue
initially to 724 33 mglOO g tissue on the 16th day aM to 729 17 mglOO g
45
tissue on the 21st day (Burford 1984) the panelists seem not to be
negatively affected by the increasing salt content of the samples with storage
tUne and in fact some of the panelists added more salt to their samples I
111is result contradicts statements made by previous reseachers that the
storage life using R3W may be limited by increases in salt content in the fish
flesh (Boyd et aI 1978) he maximun desirable salt content according to
Tcm1inson et al (1974) as quoted by Boyd et al (1978) is about 05 but at
the 16th day ofmiddot RgtW storage the salt content fOllNj In the flesh of blue
grenadier samples was already more than 07 fbwever the panelist only ate
40g pieces it might have been a different case if the fish has been as a
whole meal
442 Texture acceptability
Figure 6 shows the texture acceptability of the deep fried blue grenadier
samples stored in R3W eespf te sane apparent abberant values (such as the
high rrean of 55 for the sample stored for 14 days in RSW) it is obvious that
the texture acceptability showed a significant decreasing trend (pltOOl) from
seventeen days of storage onwards The abberant texture values are possibly
due to the fact that the fish texture might have been masked by the bread
crunbs used to coat the fish samples before deep fryi~ This agrees with the
observations of Bremner et al (1985) wtxgt found that the inherent textural
softness of P piotiue and the tougheni~ on storage of N peroni i detected by
a profile panel usilYJ steamed fillets were no lo~er noticeable when the fish
was deep fried in batter Bremner (1980) also reported that despi te the
softness of the raw flesh the cooked flesh of blue grenadier is reasonably
firm
46
433 OVerall acceptability
The overall acceptability of the deep fried blue grenadier samples stored
in R)W (figure 7) seems to follCM a similar pattern to its flavour
acceptability (figure 5)~ in which a significant fall in overall acceptability
was only observed fran the samples held fran 17 days in RSW onwards (pltO 001)
as shawn in Tablel4
rnus all the above results showed that there was a significant fall in
flavour texture and overall acceptability of blue ~renadier from 17 days of
R)W storage onwards which was found to be equivalent to the accumulated
demerit point scores of 29 of the TFRJ (ungutted) scoresr 31 of the TFRl
(gutted) scoresr 21 of the EOC scores and 23 of the filleted sample
scores Jones (1964) states that the acceptability of a fish is a function of
its suitability for further processing and of its inmediate appearance its
texture its odour and its flavour
450 Acceptability taste panel results of the whiting samples
451 Flavour acceptability
Figure 8 shows the flavour acceptability of the deep fried whiting
samples stored in ice rtle twelve sample times could be analysed individually
since the means if analysed by canbining adjacent sample times to give six
sample groups are in fact the means of the adjacent times if analysed
individually it was found that samples of the first nine renovals i se up to
17 days of storage in ice are more or less indistinguishable (abberant value
at 7th removal) he last three removals ie samples stored in ice for 19
21 and 23 days were found to be of significantly lower flavour acceptability
(p lt 0001) as shawn in Table 5
47
452 Texture acceptability
Except for the abberation at the 7th remgtval i 9 at day 13 of ice
storage there is a significant reduction of texture acceptability at the 21 II
and 23 days of ice storage (p lt0001) as shown by figure 9 and Table5 t
II
I 453 Over~ll acceptability
he overal I acceptability of the whiting sanples stored in ice is very
much similar to its f Lavour acceptability except at day 19 of ice storage
where the ovaral I acceptability shows a higher mean of 42 carpared to the
flavoor acceptability mean of 37 (figure 10 and Table 5) here is however a
significant sudden drop to lOil scores fran the lOth removal ie day 19 of
storage in ice (p lt0001)
hus all the above results for whitifVJ sanples showed that there was a
significant fall in flavCXJr and overall acceptability fram 19 days ice storage
onwards which is equivalent to the accumulated demerit points of 31 of the
TFRJ (unqutted) scores 35 of the TFRJ (gutted) scores 22 of the EEC
scores and 21 of the filleted sample scores he results are interesti~ in
that the oorresponding total accLDnulated demerit points at the time when
significant falls in flavour texture and overall acceptability of the blue
grenadier and whiting samples stored in I5W and ice respectively were quite
similar
500 CONCLUSION
510 Feasibility of using demerit points
Accumulation of demerit points with time of storage of M
in RM and H eemifaeaiatia in ice was found to be highly
occurred in a semi-linear fashion irrespective of the method of
novas8slandiae
correlated and
scori~ used
- _ ~uo_a~_bull--_--I e -Ii --
48
1he slopes of the lines (rate of accumulation of demerit points) and its
relative spoilage rate were found to be similar for the ttoO species provided
the sane method of scoring is employed 1his tends to suggest that the method
is possibly independent of species am methods of storage or at least
applicable to the two species in RSW and ice respectively
TIle TFRJ (ungutted) scores were foum to be the easiest arrl quickest
method to use although the TFRJ (gutted) scores were the roost sensitive 1he
EEX freshness scores were hClgtlever foum to be the JOOSt tedious aod difficult bull I
to use besides taking more than twice the time taken to score a fish ocmpared
to the TFRJ (ungut ted) scores
Although there were slig~t differences between the ttoO species in those
characteristics where changes were first made (Table 10 11 and 12) there is
enough evidence to conclude that the changes in the appearance of the eyes am
the odour developnent of the gills are the JOOSt obvious arrl valuable indicator
of charqe in quality when using the TFIU or the EEl scores while the
appearance am odour of the fish flesh seems to be the JOOSt obvious indicator
when assessing the filleted sample
1he shelf-life of M navaezelandiae stored in RSW was found to be 14 days
(less than 17 days) whilst that of H semifasoiata stored in ice was fourrl to
be 17 days (less than 19 days) beyond which the fish had developed spoilage
characteristics that were disliked by the acceptability taste panel
1he cut-off point at which spoilage of the samples would have rendered
the quality of the fish sample to be unacceptable fran the consumers point of
view ~ld be that equivalent to the accumulated demerit point of gt29 for the
TFRJ (gutted arrl ungutted) scores am gt21 for the EOC and filleted sample
scores
This study thus confinned the potential use of demerit points such as the
TFRJ (ungutted) scores as an easy quick cheap non-destructive and reliable
49
method of sensory assessment of fish quality In fact Branch and Vail (1985)
had studied the possible use of a prototype pocket-sized computer to determine
the condition and shelf-life of temperate and tropical species of fish based
on data that is derived fran the sensory score sheets for the assessment of
fish quality developed at the (SIRgt Division of fbod lEsearch Iasmanian Fbod
Research Unit (TFlU) Hobart
520 RJrpose for which demerit points are to be used
Many scor i oq systerrs are used to predict the nunber of days fish have
been stored on ice and in nore recent years ICETIME (equivalent days on
ice) I ard thus through years of experience the taste panel acceptability of
the fish I
However fish is sold on appearance and a scoring system may be used for
assessirg marketability of whole or gutted fish or fillets or for setting
standards in bulk buying The EEC scoring system is used for example at
fish markets at first point of sale to grade the fish and establish
withdrawal prices A IbrryShewan type system is often used as a purohas i nq
specification from finn to firm
Before a final demerit point system is selected for any COlIOOdity its
ultimate purpose should be established For example the demerit points
chosen for whole fish which nost closely resemble the rate of change of
demerit points for fillets of that species might be the most useful
A linear rate of change of demerit points with time is nose favoured
because it enables prediction of remaining shelf-life ConstJJrer
unacceptability should be at a point where perhaps 75 of the demerit points
have been accrued Further scores would still be available for categories
such as suitable for fish meal D3merit points are not an indication of the
acceptability of fish as eaten where off-odours flavours and fillet
50
tdiscolouration are masked by batters or curries Their correlation with the
iodours flavours off odours aod off flavours of steamed fish are currently ~
~
~being examined by other workers at the Tasmanian ~ Research unit and highly
significant correlations are found Even when fish are subsequently eaten
battered or curried demerit points give a good indication of remaining shelf
life Thus whitiOJ with a Smiley flavour score of 58 after 1 day on ice
has a nlU gutted demerit score of 1 and a high quality life (eaten crumbed
and fried) of a further 16 days while whitiOJ stored for 11 days on ice with
the sane flavour score has a gutted demerit score of 17 and a further shelf
life of 6 days
530 SUggestion for further work
Ib ascertain its potentially wide application as a simple quick and
technically sound methcxi of assessing fish quality many more studies using
other species of fish both temperate and tropical species and in various
storage conditions should be undertaken using a demerit point scorIrq system
such as that developed by the TFlU
The score sheet has proved invaluable when sending individuals untrained
researchers away on distant water fishing trips Ps yet 00 standard
deviations have been detennined using a team of assessors with coded samples
of unknown history This may require a separate group design
The effect of lean fish and fatty fish on the scores should also be
studied because factors such as seasonal variations in biological conditions
Lmproper gutting and washing mechanical damage and filth and changes due to
storage in R3W or shelving may have considerable influence on its shelf-
life Reports such as those of smith et al (1979) clearly showed that in fish
such as the blue whitirlJ (Mioroomesistius poubaeeous there is greater degree
I 51
of seasonal variability than in other gadoid species the overall
acceptability droppirq dramatically once the fish have spawned Fish accepted
for processing for food has to be of a higher standard of quality than fish
accepted for Imredfate sale across the counter to the consumer therefore
there is a need to rreet a minimum score before they could be processed into
food Gradirq is therefore best left to the user sorenson (1971) states
that in establishing limi ts of acceptance an allowance had to be made for
deterioration that would continue to take place during processing and storage
prior to reaching the consimer
The only final criteria of the objectivity of sensory or any other
assessment are results that are reproducible many times which is by definition
a lcnJ-tenn process and in the meantime one requires short-cut indications
that one is headirq in the right direction
Ferhaps a final caution Is necessary as in the YQrds of Ehrenberg and
Shewan (1953) not too much must be expected even the best measuring
instruments occasionally go oot of control
52
60 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baines CR Jones NR am Shewan JM 1965 Technological problems of
measur trq degree of freshness of wet fish and problems of quality
control requirif)J roore knowledge fran fundamental research In he
Technology of fish utilisation ad R Kreuzer Fishi~ News (Books)
p 141
Baines CR and Shewan JM 1965 sensory rrethods for evafuat inq the
quality of white fish Lab practice 14 160-163
Baines CR ltbnnell JoJ Gibson DM lbWgate PF Livi~ston E and
Shewan JM 1969 A taste panel technique for evaluatirq the eati~
quality of frozen cod In Freezi~ and irradiation of fish ad R
Kreuzer Fishi~ News (Books) London p361
Boyd NS and Wilson NDC 1976 A sensory method for evaluatInq the
quality of Snapper (Ch1ysophrys auratus) NZ Journal of Science 19
209-12
Boyd NS Wilson ND and Bjley A 1978 A refrigerated sea water plant
for small boats symposium on fish utilisation technology and
marketi~ in the IPFC region IFFC Proceedi~s 18th session Manila
Philippines FAD Ba~kok p 186-192
Branch AC and Vail AMA 1984 Bri~i~ fish inspection into the
canputer age FltXld Technol Aust 36 in press
Bremner HA Olley J and Ihrower SoJ 1978 CSIIU Iasmanian lEgional
Laboratory OCcasional Paper No4
Bremner HA 1980 Processi~ and freezi~ of the blue grenadier (Maclulonus
novaeselandiae) FltXld Technol Aust 32(8)~ pp 385-393
Bremner J A 1984 QJality - an attitude of mind In he JILlstralian
Fishi~ Industry - today and tanorrow 10-12 July 1984 Launceston
53
Australian MaritUne Cbllege seminar Bapers 224-69
Bremner HA Statham JA am Sykes SJ 1985 Tropical species fran the
north west shelf of Alstralia sensory assessment and acceptability
of fish stored co ice Proceedi~s Sixth session IPR Worki~ Party
on Fish D3chnology and Marketi~ Melbourne 1984 FJID Fish lep 252
supp1
Burford D 1985 Sodiun uptake in MaOlUfOOnUS nooaeselandiae stored in
refrigerated sea water Tasmanian Food Research Unit OCcasional Paper
No9
ltbnnell JJ 1972 OJality control in the fish industry Ibrry Jldvisory
note No 58 IOrty Research Station Aberdeen
ltbnnell JJ 1980 ltbntrol of fish quality Fishi~ ~ws (Books) 2nd ed
Surrey England
OJrran CA Nicolaides L and Al-Alawi ZS 1981 QJality chanqes duri~
iced storage of three carmercially important species of fish fran
Bahrain Trop sci 23(4) 253-268
de Zylva ERA 1974 Effect of fish handli~ at sea on storage quality of
New Zealand Snapper (Chroysophroys aumtus) New Zealand J SCi 17
309-318
Etlira S 1976 A biochemical study on the freshness of fish Bull 1bkai
Reg Fish Res Lab No 88 pp 1-13
Ehrenberg ASC and Shewan JM 1953 he cbjective approach to sensory
tests of food J Sci Food hJric 4 pp 482-489
Herbert RA and Shewan JM 1975 Precursors of the volatile sulphides in
spoili~ North Sea Cod J Sci Food JIlgric 26 1195-1202
lbUwi~ H 1972 Gradi~ of fish in different qualities Institute for
Fishery Products Ijmuiden Unpublished
~ate P 1972 Qrlparison of sensory scor inq systems for raw fish
I 54
Unpubl ished bull ~ ~
~ate P 1978 Measuri~ the quality am acceptability of fish products bull ~
In IPFC Proceedi~s symposiun on fish utilisatial technology and ~
i f~
marketi~ in the IWC region 18th session Manila Ihilippines p
449
fflghes RB and Jones NR 1966 Measurement of hypoxanthine concentrations
in canned herrirg as an index of the freshness of the raw material
with a ocirment oo flavor relations J SCi fOOd middotJlgric 17 434
Jahns FD Howe JL Coduri Jr RJ and Ram Jr AG 1976 A rapid
visual enzyme test to assess fish freshness Food Iechno1 30 (7) 27
Jones NR 1964 ~lems associated with freezi~ very fresh fish
Proceedings Meeting on Fish Iechnology Fish Handling and
Preservation schevenirqen OEC D Paris p 31 bull
Jones NR 1965 Hypoxanthine and other purine containing fractions in fish
muscle as indices of freshness In uthe technology of fish
utilisation ed R Kreuzer Fishi~ rewa (Books) (Drmn p 179
Last PR Scott EOG and Talbot FH 1983 Fishes of Tasmania
Tasmanian Fisheries ~velopnent lUthority lbbart Tasmania pp 238
414
Lima doe santos CAM James D and Ieutscher F 1981 QJidelines for
chilled fish storage experiments FKJ Fish Tech Igt 210
(Dye RM 1954 Ibst rrortem cha~es in the lenses of fish eyes Msessment
of storage tiJm and fish quality J Sci Focx11lgric 5 566-572
Hartin RE Gray RJ H and Pierson MD 1978 QJality assessment of fresh
fish arrl the role of the naturally occurring microflora Focx1
Technol 32 (5) 188
Official Journal of the European oamrnunities No L264 5 ~cember 1970 pp
1-11
bull
55
Technol New Zealand July 1971 pp 31-35
Spinelli J Eklund M and Miyauchi D 1964 Measurement of hypoxanthine
in fish as a method of assessing freshness J Food SCi 29 710
Thrower S oJ am Stafford IA 1981 A roobile unit for ccmparative studies
of chilled storage systems for trawl fish IIF IIR
eatmissions C2 01 02 03 Boston USA 1981-4
Thrower SoJ Bremner HA QJarmby AR Ggtnnan T8 aild Graham KJ
1982 cn-board handlinJ of Q~ish ~ Inportanoeof chillinJ and
gutting Aust Fish 41 (11) 38-41
Tanlinson N bull bull t at 1974 COtparison between refrigerated sea water (with or
without added carbon dioxide) and ice as storage media for fish to be
subsequently frozen Proc IIR C011n 82- 0-3 Tokyo p
waterman J oJ 1982 Qrrposition and QJality of Fish A Dictionary 1brry
Mvisory Note No 87 Torry Research Station Aberdeen
5J
Olley J and letkowsky OA 1973 he role of terrperature function
integration in monitoring of fish spoilage Food Technol New
Zealand 8 (2) 13 15 and 17
Olley J 1977 Iemperature and seafood spoilage In H Proceedings of 1977
SChool for SeafltXld Processorsmiddot ad ~ AF 0 Mello Hawkesbury
Agricultural Oollege p6-2
Olley J 1978 QIality assessment and storage changes In middotCSIRJ Iasmanian bull
leJional Laboratory OCcasional Paper No 4 p 3-1 middot4 Rgenstein J M and ~enstein CE 1981 he shelf-life extension of fesh
fish In Advances in the refrigerated treabnent of fishmiddot
International Institute of Rfrigeration Clmnissions C2 m ra [8
Boston US A 1981-4
leJenstein J 1983 Wlat is fish quality INroFISH Marketing Digest ttgt 6
26-28
Ryder JM 9Jisson OH SCott ON and Fletcher GC 1984 storage of
New Zealand Jack Mackerel ( TmohUMlB notJabullbullbullZandias) in ice
chemical microbiological and sensory assessment J M SCi 49
1453-1456 1477
Shewan JM Macintosh RG rucker CG and Ehrenberg ASC 1953 he
developnent of a numerical ~coring systan for the sensory assessment
of the spoilage of wet white fish stored in ice J SCi Food Jlgric
4 283-298
Smith J GM Hardy R hanson AB Young KW and Parsons E 1979
sane observations 00 the ambient and chill storage of blue whiting
(Mio1om8sistius poutassou) bull In H Advances in Fish SCience and
Technology ad JJ Connell FishinJ News (Books) Surrey England
pp 299-303
SOrensen T 1971 QIality control and fish handling in New zealand Food ~
t c-
o )
~hmiddot r~YiJ lt~
~~f~~ ~
I
Nomooram for comparison of diffGrent scoring systems tor raw T i sn ___ _ J bull )
_U I~ ~Y1 9i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~
I I t I I - _---1------ imiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot __ middot~_ ~ __~_ -_ ~ + ~ _ -~ _ - middotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middot __ G 9 8 7 6 _ 5middot 3
_ - zmmy [ I bull r f II
d _~__ ~ __ _ ~ __ -I-- - ~ L- i~ middoti~ ~ 1-L -~~ lt lt l~tceland 1P i ~ ~ j ~ ~ ~ L~ __ - I ~_ bull _ L j ~- _-
N rv 1 I 1 2 --- - 2~ 3 middot 3middot 4 ~- ~Il ay ~ _ _ middot _ r r
_ _ __ _ _~ ~_ ) - ~ L_ - 1- ~-_ -_ _ _ ~ 19 ~ 8 imiddotmiddot I 6 5 4 3
Do _ _nm~r t I I I r
~ I
_ ~ ~_ ~ t ~ __ i__ t ~ ~ ~ ~ _ q x 1 1i 2 2~ 3v _ Franee I r I l n
I I I i _ - ~ _ _ _- _-- middotmiddot __ middot_middot_middot_middotmiddotmiddotImiddotmiddotmiddot_middot~ _middotmiddotmiddotmiddot-_middotmiddotmiddotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddot ---- - --~ ~-
19oum8 I 7 6 i 5 ~ ~ 4middot 280 J t (
I i
J -- - -_ -__ X ~middotH i__~ -- i_L ~ - l_ middot1-- - 3 I 2Y1 0 4 11z 1 y
E E C I 1
I I I deg deg E I A r Bmiddot - I I C
ltOIl j- ~ ~ c ~--------------
TASTER
DATE
SESSION
~ER middot1
bull You will be given ~bull aamples of cooked fish Please assess the fish for flavour textur~ and
overall liking as though you had purchased them in a takeaway food shop Hark the sample
identification under the face that most closely describes your impressionbull
I
middot5 S shy2 3 4
FLAVOUR
IEXlURE
--
OVERALL UKING
7 bullbull yc ) I _ v J _ _
I1PP~NJIJ( 3 ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE BGRENVZSASS (A)
OBS DAYS-R DMPTS shy
1 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 6 4 3 7 4 6 e 4 5 9 6 1 18 6 10 11 6 18 12 6 18 13 e 13 14 8 16 13 8 13 16 8 17 17 9 18 18 9 18 19 9 bull 19 29 9 19 21 19 19 22 1 21 23 1 19 24 1 2123 11 21 26 11 22 27 11 22 29 11 22 29 12 22 3 12 22 31 12 23 32 12 23 33 13 23 34 13 23 33 13 22 36 13 23 37 14 24 38 14 23 39 14 264 14 25
17 26~ 17 39 43 17 38 44 17 29 43 21 32 46 21 33
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASS(At
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (Xt DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Yt DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9666 R SQUARED 9343 T STATISTIC 231621 INTERCEPT tAt 31799 SLOPE tSt 173399 bull STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 219473
OBSERVATIONS 46 Y DMPT9 XI DAYS-RSW YMIN -18 YMAX 61 YINC e XMIN -19 XMAX 2e9 XINe 2
] y
__ t=- I I 0(I I
JPRH6ELF PRINT MODULE -SYNTAX ERROR
DATABASE J3lGRENVISASS (FIL)
OB8 DAYS-R DMPT8
1 s 1 2 4 5 s 6 6
~ e 8 ~ 9 1 6 19 12 7 11 14 8 12 17 9 13 18 1 14 19 bull 11 17 23 12 21 29
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASSCFIL)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE CX) DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IY) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT ~9963
R SQUARED 992 T STATISTIC 3~36977
INTERCEPT CA) -3~6~41
SLOPE CB) 1~8426
STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 77667
OBSERVATIONS 12 v DMPTS x DAYS-RSW VMIN -2~ VMAX ~~ YINC ~
XMIN -19 XMAX 2~9 XINC 2
]
bull
-SYNTAX ERROR
lPRH6ELF PRINT MODULE
DATABASE BGRENVXSASS (AG)_
OB6
1 2 3 4 ~
6 7 8 9
Hi 11 12 13 14 1~
16 17 -18 19 2 21 22 23 24 2~
26 27 28 29
3 31 32 33 34 3~
36 37 J8
39
4 41 42 43 44 4~
46
DAYS-R
3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 6 6 6 6 8 8
8 bull 8
9 9 9 9
1 1 1 1 11 11 11 11
DMPTS
2 3 3 3 ~
6 ~
~
1 1 1 1 17 18 17 19 2~
2 21 21 21 23 21 23 23 24 24 24
12 24 12 24 12 25 12 25 13 27 13 25 J3 24 13 27 104 26 J04 2S
14 28 14 27 17 28 17 32 17 32 17 31 21 34 21 35
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BORENVISASSCAO)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE IX) DAVS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IV) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9~76~
R SQUARED 917 T STATISTIC 22S6S88 INTERCEPT lA) 323~7
SLOPE lB) 189812 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 269324
OBSERVATIONS 46 Y DM PT6 X DAYS-RSW ~ _01 VMAV 2~ YfNe ~
XMIN -19 XNAX 2l9 XINC 2
]
9YNTA)( ERROR bull ]PRN6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE BGRENVXSASS
OB6 DAY6-R DMPTS
1 3 1 2 3 1 3 3 1 4 3 1 5 4 1 6 4 4 7 4 3 9 4 1 9 6 6 18 6 6
11 6 6 12 6 6 13 9 8
14 9 9 15 8 8 16 8 9 l 9 18 19 9 11 19 9 12 28 9 12 21 18 12 22 18 14 23 18 11 24 18 14 25 11 15 26 11 13 27 11 15 29 11 15 29 12 17 3 12 18 31 12 19 32 12 18gJ l~ 34 13 18 3~ 13 18 36 13 19 37 14 19 JB 14 19 39 14 19 48 14 19 41 17 19 42 17 23 43 17 21 44 17 20
-(EEC)
q~ 21 23 q6 21 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASSCEEC)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE IX) DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IY) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 96691 R SQUARED 93q9 T STATISTIC 2~14824
INTERCEPT IA) -238937 SLOPE IB) 146219 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 1S28eS
OBSERVATIONS q6 Y DMPTS X DAYS-RSW YMIN -2q YMAX ~5 YINC ~
XMIN -19 XMAX 259 XJNC 2
l
SYNTAX ERROR lPRM8ELF PRINT MODULE
-
bull
APPENJ)K 4 -
DATABASE WHZTXNG VXSASS (A) bull
OBS DAYS-I
1 1 2 1 3 1 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 ~
9 5 9 5 Ii 7 11 7 12 7 13 9 14 9 1~ 9
016 11 17 11 19 11
DMPTS
1 1 1 1 2 2 4 3 5 a 7
9 13 15 bull 13 16 14 1~
019 13 2 8 28 13 16 21 13 20 22 15 24 23 1~ 24 24 15 25 25 17 29 26 17 29 27 17 38 29 19 30 29 19 38 38 19 32 31 21 33 32 21 32 33 21 32 34 23 32 3~ 23 32 36 23 34
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASSIA)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE tX) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE tV) qMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 98514 R SQUARED 9785 T STATISTIC 3344414 INTERCEPT tAt -245163 SLOPE CBt 166958 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 286799
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS x DAYS-ICE
YMIN -22 YMAX lS7 YINC lS- XMIN -19 XMAX 259 XINC 2
]
I
J
-8YNTAX ERROR
]PRM6ELF PRINT MODULE shyDATABASE WHITING VISASS (AG)
OB8 DAYS-I DMPT8
1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 4 3 1 ~ 3 2 6 3 2 7 ~ 4 9 ~ 3 9 ~ ~
18 7 18 11 7 9 12 7 18 13 9 1~
14 9 17 1~ 9 1~
16 11 18 17 11 16 18 11 17 19 13 22 28 13 18 21 13 22 22 1~ 26 23 1~ 27 24 1~ 28 2~ 17 32 26 17 32 27 17 33 28 19 34 29 19 34 38 19 36 31 21 37 32 21 36 33 21 36 34 23 36 3~ 23 36 36 23 38
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITINO VISASS(AO)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAY8-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Y) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 986~2
R SQUARED 973 T STATISTIC 3~B167B
INTERCEPT CAl -272~33
SLOPE CBI 197S63 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 221294
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS X DAYS-ICE YHIN -19~ YHAX ~9~ YINC ~
XHIN -19 XHAX 2~9 XINC 2
]
-SYNTAX ERROR lPRM6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASS (EEC)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 2 1 3 1 4 3 ~ 3 1 6 3 1 7 ~ 2 8 ~ 2 9 ~ 3
1 7 3 11 7 3 12 7 3 13 9 6 14 9 6 bull 1~ 9 7 16 11 7 17 11 8 18 11 7 19 13 11 2 13 1 21 13 12 22 1~ 13 23 1~ 1~
24 1~ 17 2~ 17 19 26 17 18 27 17 19 28 19 29 29 19 23 39 19 22 31 21 24 32 21 23 33 21 24
34 23 2J 3~ 23 26 36 23 27
I ELF SCATTER MODULE I DATABASE WHITING VISA88CEEC)I I INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (~) DAYS-ICE I
DEPENDENT VARIABLE (VI DMPTS I bull
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9a2~3
R SQUARED 96~3
T STATISTIC 387a73~
INTERCEPT (A) -4142 SLOPE (8) 12873 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 173287
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS ~ DAYS-ICE YMIN -29 YMA~ ~1 VINC ~
XMIN -19 ~MA~ 2~9 ~INC 2
J
-SYNTAX ERROR JPRM6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHITING VXSASSmiddot(FXL)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 2 3 1 3 ~ 5 4 7 4 ~ 9 9 6 11 13 7 13 1~
e 1~ 16 9 17 19 18 19 21 11 21 24 12 23 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASB(FJLI
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Y) DMPTS
bull bullbull 4~
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE CV) DMPTSr
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 982~3
R SQUARED 96~3
T STATISTIC 3S7873~ t bullbullf CINTERCEPT CA) -4142
SLOPE CB) 12873 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 173287
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS XI DAYS-ICE YMINmiddot~28 YMAKI 1 YINC ~
XMIN -I9XMAX 2~9 XINC2
]
-SYNTAX ERROR ]PRH6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHXTXNG VXSASS (FXL)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 S 2 3 1 1 5 3 4 7 4 5 9 9 6 11 13 7 13 1~
9 15 16 9 17 19 1 19 21 11 21 24 12 23 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE I WHITING VISAS8(FIL)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE CX)I DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE CY) DMPT8
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 99289 R SQUARED 9858 T STATISTIC 2638123 INTERCEPT CA) -243706 SLOPE CB) 124476 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 112846
SLOPE 10) 124476 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 112846
ObullbulllfftVTrOHSO 12 VI DHPTS XI DAVS-ICE VMIN -27 VHAX e2 VINe e XHIN -19 XHAX 2e9 gtcINe 2
]
-8VNTAX ERROR
fi
rr
[bull
SJ
in i
bullol
r~
bull bull
n i
o o o o
~
o~ o
o - l
N~ o ~
o o o
Q
Q o o
a
c -~_
Q
_
_ Q
_9_
0
o ~-
O
_
Q
lI
oJ ~
v
~ ~
~-
-
- -1
---h
---1
---I
I
I
1
~ ((9 ~ J las 0 - ~~ U -lt) az E~-~gl~~1--~~---------- ~) 1)
11 ~ - 11 HI ~~
I bull M~
~ -~ ~~ IJ~ I J ismiddotJ I Q l~
k tl I 01 re lr - 91 br I ~I ( -0 71P g I CJ tt
I I J 000 0 0 w I 0) NlNN1tl 30 hIflJ I t IC (~4ID(r ~ Wi
_ f-- -------- bull fyen ~=y ~~r I I I I I I I 0 0 00 00 ( ~) -Fr~ ~ fj)
-0 I 0 I Ole 17 10 0 ( ~ AI )middot P1~ 0 0 00 Q hItIrS ~7I -~~ (J
t -r------0 bull
_-~_ middotmiddotmiddot_middot~middotmiddotmiddot)-middot7~)
lrrT I 01 0
0 tFmiddot~~i ~ 1 o 00 Omiddot (~ -W ~r f (JJ___~ _______ _ l I I 71 I -_---_ - M-~ ~ I
J I Z-tf ~ ~ ~fI t1 11f ( )) CI I I I i I 00 r11-7[ c I C bull aofl7r_ ~ ~z ~ 1t~Ji ) ( --_--------i---shye l~~~ I f~) I I J I
I II i bull Q ( N~T fE ~I )
~JiP _- -___ ----shy
_
~ 7Yr 0) ~(J ~ I e I t I ~ l I J I I 1 I I I(I 0 0 (~~yen~ M -p~P71 JPtJIJs 0
i euror (1l~J IlLriJlllr1JI ~~J I ~()(1OP I I r I I 0 I ( t t I ( jIfS 7fS ~~I ~ )
I
I 1 I( IN 10~ lb~ qItJ gtr~j f o (~)I(~) I I 0 I (t~ ~~) I I Jbull o 0 J I ~ l 0 a i S(jJ t t t tI tI C I C I J I I I J I 0 I (n~rlP PI4t -I) t
- -I
-I -I-I I II-I I I-I r bull
-----(rtb Ii If p~) PNl17T7~b ~y~ 7
10 IIt1v I 0 1~L CIJ tN IfIfW1IIJ JI11i JN~I HJ3
---Y p~ALY~_ ~~ Yl2-- 1)
yenvr 1amp f111l
-
~
~~
~
II
o 0
~cgt
(
) Q
oa
oo
o
oo
o o
a
o
~
P
t
oo
c
oo
a -
o
oo
o
o -
o
-o
-
-
lJ
I~ I~
Jl ~rIpound i IAlffzfjjsectj 7df- utl kf J OG lie rCOIpound ~IIE(T r
7tU
~
~ ~
~ ~
~
-shy~
~
MYI f)lySLM~ 1 (JAy ISo~r 11 ~~) e ()~t ~I01) r I joy f o~y lOJ 17~JJlII1~ 16 fiti -t1 It r ~17J~~flu~1h 111H 7U 1111111shyIllf Jr(11Jr I fhJo
~ ) ~ I1 J J-4 ~ J 2 JJ ~poundol ~ ] t4 cl -7 eJ uJ cJJJ wI~ wI l shy w c at amp 74 -t ~ ut 4 I
SkIN 000 o 0 0o 0 0 o 00 I o I I I I 3 3 3l) t 3 3 31 s 3ltt
a I I I I I o IfYU I 2 I JI I I000 )l~ 1~1 S 3 ~S 3 5 335
GILtJ I J I o (J 0 I (I I I ~ t 2shy~I I s 3 ]] 2 0 (J 3 ~ ~ t 3 3 AlvItUiU i l I I ls)z oJ lJ 0 a (J ~ 0o 0 0 a a aTff1ttJR II r 1
1 I ~ I I I I 1~E
Cdt47tl7 I I ~ ~t( a a 0O(O I Io I~ 00 000deg a 0wO 0 0 0 o 0 0 o~ 00VUipound811 ~ J I
tJ I Oe6rlllr I I I I 2 2]l2 ~ 3 S 3 S ~ 3o a 0 (J () 0 I 333 1 $ 3
If~euMI LU~ 2l 3000o (J 0 o 0 0 J 2 2shy 331a deg (1 ~ 2 Jshy
i I 000amp1 0 I I 1TIUUpound
lAcltJdJE 00deg00o 0 0 ooalOOO 0 0 I I I 1OdOa deg 0 11 2 I r I I I IbullI
I I h~r~Eu I ( 0 0 CJ 0 o (J a 2 ~ 30001011 0 1 J 1010 I I L II 2 l 2l 22 2 1
sKIN GLLt I f I~J) GlIIl) 0 (I a I do 0 0 I 0 Il~t l~o 0 0 ~ 3 3 3 s 3 3 3 33s1331
i7tJ7l11 Ibull I shy i66 ~o
(J ~ 0 1 0 It3331l J t 1 1shy 1~ ~afJllc 11 Irrshy It ~1 1111 20 J3 u
(])JtUJ61 (l) (1) (Ir)(0) (J)(I) (If) (19) (u) (~r)(J4)
I r f
I
I
i I
I i
II I ((
f
II Ii
p ()
Q
0_
_ 00
0
00
00
00
0
o o o 0
00
0
0 _
o Q
0
0
o
0
00
0
-
0 0
0
middot0
0
o oo
0
o Q
o oo o o
- ~
~
~ ~~pound
w
i -shy
o
co
- --
shy
o o o
~
~_
~
0
-shyJJ
-----l--~
-J
J IJ
f
J
J)
o 0
00
_ 0
0
o (gt
0
o ()
o
0
0 0
0
()
()
o 0
0
o 0
0
_
_ -
-----1
-----shy
Q
0 0
o ~-IJ~ulJ-
u
lJcllJ_-_~IJamp
o o
Q
I---+----I---+----I----I~-
_Ilpound
llD
lIlI
Il
~I
IIIl
I_II
II5
l__
IIlIa
IllP
=lII
Il1
rl
ll
IlIl
IlIII
llII
IlJl
IIl
IIlIl_
IIrII
G3i
mta
isectID
it
llll~
1~=wampampftUla
_
au
U
Lamp
WJN
AJ
poundmiddotJI
IiIamp
3flJ
a
uac
ampa
f
shy
I~middottn 0~L fi 5L middottlu~ fo_~r ( ) 1poundc [CtJRl -ffl(pound1 r~~ rlt1c- J c-ru
-- I
1SllJ7~
lt l)~ J )IIr M ~-t s ~~ OIl middot )If 10 JAY II 041
J- Olt i1 )lir iI DIY IT- IMy11
1~middot6f1 14f1- ~imiddot -- J _ middotAfmiddot IIrk middot Jiamp -ffh~11 rtr Il ~M gt27P- ill Ill ~lllY ~~7rlf JC 1- ~ r 1M 11
r ~ F16F r~h FIjFi ~~I)r r~Fr
5 Fc II -i~fIoi l 1 fj t t Fr c r amp t 1= ~ r ~ F r rtI ~
- -
sION o (j o 0 0 o 0 a I I I I I I I I 2 I t t I-r J~L) z~z~ 2~J ~ z a ~ ~ 33 - -ol t 1 2
~ poundys-s 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I I lt t 2 t t 4 ~z ~ 2l~ ~ ~ 1 Z 3zi3p33 3 333 3 3 3 - - ~ rl~ a 0 a (1 a a o 1 I 1 I 1-2 12 t ltt a ~ l J tll~ ~~~) 2 2 2 2- ~Jll 21 13 33 ~
- ~ MIIi(UlA~
degCt1C 11 )l
FipoundSI- eli CeoD o 0 (J 0 I I I I I I 1 1 I I 1 I Jl~] l2 22- z ~ 2 2 22 11 2-3 -Sfvpound
j
CIJiCVlt-tICN I I I 1 ( I I I 2 2 t ~ t~ )2 2~21 2$ 2 t _~ 3AIJJN(j- P (J dO o C a a o 0 00 1 I I I I - --
V~7r~ ~ c~u N
(TKWW~ CO~ o I oc I I J I I I I 1 2 I 2 2 1- ) t~l2 2- 22 2 ) 2 ~2- 1222 2 2 ll 2L -- -~VClLAl I
a 0 0 0 01 I 0 2 1 2 2 J5r 4 E i H CA I I
-I I I I I I I I J J 12( ~ 12 1 2 1 2-I TfI_ 21 1-1- 1 1 ~ 1
~ I middot_0-__-- I
~ 1
ffCACIpound coo 000lt=1 o 0 0 0 btJCt) o a () (J I I I I I I I I111 I I I 1 I I -~-aD CD lJ a a 0 0 ~ ~ UlrAfllN o 0 a IJ e e 0 C) (JdegOo ecJao co (10 (1 o I I I I I I I I 1 I I III I I I I z --
i tiN ~4r L~~ 2- li ~ a~ 8M) CUmiddot c d (J 0 (J () I I I 1 1 1
I 1 I I f t I II tl-loI 21 1 t 33 - -
-Iffl1-
J I I I I i- 2 I 11~SC~E ~ t 1 o ~ 04-t 1J 11 1 11t IS~ IfS J1 I 1 I If I IJ 1 r~]u ze uu __
bull ttlUIG
(I) l~) (6) (II) ~ (~) 6s-)llIt lCUI CJ (Ii) (~) vmiddot (II) (19~ ---
I t f
I
~ I
~ I
Ii
I I
Ii I II f
~ (
--)raquo~ middot-~~-~-I~~IliiI~~-middotComiddot~-d-b~middotmiddotmiddotmiddot_ ~ ~ middoth-~_middot--~H~~middot~gt
Other Occasional Papers in the series
1 A salinity monitor for irrigation pumps by EOMIEZITIS
2 Wine liqueur and fish products acceptability trials 47th ANZAAS Congress Hobart 1976 by HABREMNER TLLEWIS and ARQUARMBY
3 Abalone silage an exercise in the conservation of waste by JUNE OLLEY
4 Course notes contributed by the CSIRO Tasmanian Food Research Unit to a workshop on fish handling and quality control Hobart Oct3rd-5th 1978 by HABREMNER JUNE OLLEY and SJTHROWER
5 Difficulties with generalized least squares regression in forest modelling by PWWEST
6 Metabolism of zinc cadmium and copper in rats fed shellfish highly contaminated with heavy metals by SJTHROWER JUNE OLLEY and MAUREEN McDERMOTT
7 Hygiene control in seafood processing by SJTHROWER
8
quali ty since certain microbial groups are rrore apt to cause spoilage than
others These groups can be given a selective advantage for growth by the way
the product is processed or stored furthermore the determination of
bacterial counts while they are of value to research requires too much time
before results are known and can also be expensive for routine testing
Representative samples have to be taken for bacterial examination because the
fish or product is destroyed during the test Interpreting the results of
bacterial testing is a task for experts who should be consulted when
necessary bull
Detection and enumeration of indicator bacteria such as the coliform
group E ooli and S auroeu8 were considered for many years to indicate the
potential presence of pathoqenic microorganisms NM this inference has been
questioned and these groups are no longer considered a reliable method for
predicting the presence of such pathogens (Martin et aL1978) bull
According to Olley and Ratkowsky (1973) there is in fact no simple index
of quality and a thorough knowledge of the oamplete temperature history of the
fish is the only true indicator of freshness This is so because at higher
temperatures bacteria divide in half more rapidly Therefore the
relationship between bacterial growth with production of spoilage canpounds
and temperature is not a straight line rut a curve he curve relates rate of
spoilage of these commodities at temperatures between aoe and 25dege to the rate
at which they would spoil at aoe hus at aoe the relative rate is 1 and at
Rate at temperature (tOe)any other temperature the relative rate is Rate at a be
Bremner et at (1978) have coined the term ICE FOID for this relative rate
ie so many times faster than the ccmnodity would spoil on ice and
lCETIME as equivalent storage time on ice = lCEFOID x time in days
The curve has also been converted into tabular form to enable conversion
of the temperature history of the catch into equivalent storage time
on ice under ideal conditions However the concept of relative rate of
9
spoilage with temperature can only apply if fishing oonditions are kept
constant
150 sensory Methods
Currently the best way to detenmine fish freshness still requires the use
of a taste panel (Regenstein and Regenstein 1981) A number of taste panel
techniques for assessing the quality of unfrozen fish species have been
described am are in use in different parts of the world These techniques
vary in cbjective and ccrrplexity but are of three main types Firstly there
are those which categorise the fish on the basis of its acceptability for
eatirq secondly there are those which categorise the fish on the basis of
well-defined characteristics which change duri~ storage Thirdly there are
techniques which include elements of both of these types Techniques of the
first type usually anploy a single gradi~ or hedonic (like-dislike) scale
whilst those of the second type anploy descriptions of various characteristics
(Baines et aI 1969)
The ultimate criterion of fish quality is the flavour and texture of the
cooked fish HcMever taste panel evaluations of cooked fish are timeshy
consiminq and relatively few samples can be tested at anyone time It is
therefore highly desirable to be able to make an assessment of eati~ quality
by exanini~ the raw fish My atterrpt to raise the quality of raw fish as it
reaches the consumer is critically dependent on the development of a
convenient and consistent rrethod of quality assessment based on raw fish
Fortunately eat inq quality of cooked fish can be correlated with the
appearance odour and texture of the whole raw fish Boyd and Wilson (1976)
when evaluat inq the quality of snapper (Chroysophfys aufatus) by a sensory
method found that there is close relationship between the raw attributes of
gill odour and general appearance with those of odour texture am flavour of
10
the cooked fish
The use of ooject ive tests at dockside or even on inspection within the
plant is not considered to be practical in the normal routine of inspection of
fresh ard frozen fish products as almost all of the coject Ive tests require
laboratories am so becare rather rerooved fran the busy fisherman processor
or factory foreman A nuch simpler piece of apparatus is the eye or the N)Se
(olley 1977) Sensory tests are always controversial as they require an
inspector although the canny buyer is in fact applying his senses of smell
am visual acuity in a similar fashion W9 accept the wine faster and wcxgtl
classer so why not the fish grader (Bremner 1984) Therefore a test that
correlated well with freshnessquality and that could operate on the market or
in the factory would be of considerable value to an efficient industry (Baines
et aI 1965)
Howgate (1978) also considered the sensory rrethods to be far better than
non-sensory methods which are not suitable for consumer testing whilst
Connell (1972) states that in general the sensory rrethod of assessing
freshness is the best at present for quality control purposes
As fish spoils its snell taste appearance and feel go through
characteristic am well defined stages that trained experts or experienced
staff can consistently recognise It is convenient to attach a number or
score to each stage so that the assessor can award the appropriate score to
each fish or batch of fish Alternatively the mere recognition of each stage
ard acceptance or rejection of fish on this basis may be all that is
necessary Different species and products spoil in different ways The
numerical system us irq an objective panel developed at the Ibrry IEsearch
Station by Shewan et al (1953) is probably the ultUnate critical evaluation of
fish freshness available at this time It was created for the determination
of storage time of whole Net fish l6Jenstein and Iegenstein (1981) in using
11
this nunerical system reported that the cooked freshness scores are generally
higher (better) than expected at that storage t irre for whole wet fish A
freshness score of 55 on the Ibrry scale seemed the appropriate endpoint for
their definition of shelf-life This would nonnally be reached with ideal
iced-at-sea fish about twelve days from catch sooner for fillets Freshness
scorirq systems are I1C1laquo available fran Ibrry Research station for most UK
ccmnercial species and systems are available for both the raw and cooked
fish HoweveF there is still no standard scorirq system to be used
internationally he countries in the EEC ~or instance use scoring systems
which differ both in scale length am in characteristics measured Most
systems use the same scale length for all features examined but the United
Kingdon am Icelarrl use scales of 10 to 0 for odour and 5 to 0 for other
characteristics ibwgate (1972) describes the effort to construct a rorogram
for oonvert inq fran one scorinq system to another (Appendix 1) de Zylva
(1974) expanded the Ibrry score sheet to include marks for flesh colour and
texture belly flap discoloration stainiBJ of backbone am colour of
kidney he scoring system was designed for ~w Zealand snapper and gave
excellent negative linear correlations between score am days of storage
legenstein (1983) presents the way in which Ibrry has in turn incorporated
other characteristics into the score sheet for raw fish Groupings of several
characteristics to give a score requires more expertise than scoring
individual points as is done by de Zylva
However the use of a point or scoring system in which higher points are
given for high quality attributes would mean the requirements of more
kllC7filedge of the fish and the tester mist be experienced and knCM the
qualities of the fish previously Therefore it is too species dependent
his problem can be overcare by using the demerit system with points being
allotted in several categories for defects as they becare obvious and one can
I
12
learn as one goes along in each situation he demerit points that were given
to the various selected quality attributes could be weighted in such a way as
to produce an approximately linear change in score with storage time (Branch
and Vail 1985)
It might also be desirable OCIlInercially to specify a uniform mrnber of
days of shelf-life fran the pack date to consumption he length of shelfshy
life ctgttained for fish depends on the initial age and quality of the fish the
tirre of the pack am the time am temperature of storage before am after
packing In practical terns the ultimate measure of the effect(s) of shelf-
life extension treatments on the final quality of the fish is consumer
satisfaction (Regenstein aoo Regenstein 1981)
A tentative grading systan for fresh fish based on sensory assessment of
fish had been described by IbUwing (1972)
160 The Ideal Method
Forty years of research ootably in the UK Canada and Japan have gone
into objective methods for measuring fish quality (Bremner et al 1978)
There is as yet 00 single universal test for all species nor for that
matter any wholly satisfactory test for individual species
The ideal rrethod hOlJld be one that is cheap oon-destructive easy to
use oot subject to much variation or fatigue having rapid response and wide
application sensory tests have the advantages of being non-destructive 00
equipnent required adaptable to species and assessing the market value
Althcogh sensory tests are usually condemned as a subjective test which
requires training am experience am are also said to be easily open to
abuse this can be reduced if a simple rapid and less descriptive rrethod
could be fourd - possibly with the use of demerit point scores Therefore
this study aims at assessing the use of sensory techniques based on the
13
demerit point scores developed for raw whole (gutted and ungutted) and
filleted fish samples of Australian fish species stored in ice and RSW It
also discusses the results of the acceptability taste panels on the cooked
fish samples
The two oammercially ~rtant Australian fish species used in this study
were the blue grenadier am the blue rock whiting he blue grenadier is
currently Tasmanias major oammercial finfish and the recent annual production
of the fishery exceeds 100 tonnes (Last et aI 1983)~ he blue rock whiti~
is the only Australian member of the family that has any commercial
importance It occurs mainly in Bass strait and the sheltered bays of South
eastern Tasmania The flesh is delicately flavoured but very soft
200 MATERIALS lIND MEIHgt[s
210 Sample preparation
211 Fish stored in RSW
Blue grenadier used in this study were caught on the 15th lugust 1984 at
a depth of 300 fathans off Sandy Cape on the west coast of Tasmania (Lat
41deg20S IDrq144deg40 E) by demersal trawl They were taken fran the deck
irnnediately am dropped into a refrigerated seawater (RSW) tank in a net bag
(tanp -1degC) The fish was reported to be handled quite roughly on board
Sore of the fish had already gone into rigor at this stage he fish were
transported to the CnID lasrnanian Food lesearch Uni t (TFRJ) laboratories in
Hobart and were already to days old on arrival The f ish were then placed in
the RSW box tank of the rrobile unit (the design and construction of which were
described by Thrower and Stafford 1981) and was kept at -1degC for the duration
of the storage trial which lasted for about three weeks Four fish were
rerroved at each samplirq tine (Table 1) for sensory assessment Length
14
measurements to the fork of the tail were also noted ~e fish were then
filleted and samples frozen at -lBoe for later assessment of their
acceptability by taste panel
212 Fish stored in ice
For the sensory assessment of fish stored in ice guidelines similar to
those given by Lima dos Santos et al (981) were used ~e blue rock whiting
also known as the weedy whiting was used ~e whiting were caught on the
afternoon of 23rd August 1984 by demersal trawl in 18 to 25 m waters oft
Eastern Tasmania On arrival at the TFRJ laboratories in I-bbart at 11 45 am
on the fol Lowirq day the f ish were re- iced at a ratio of 21 (ice f ish) in
insulated plastic boxes of size 66 x 41 x 28 em with provision for drainage
of melt water Flake ice was used ~e ice was topped up daily and renewed
once a week The boxes of i ced f ish were then kept in a cool roan set at a
temperature of 0deg to -1dege ~ree fish were removed for sensory assessment at
each sampling time (Table 1) over a period of rmre than three weeks of ice
storage 100 fish samples were then frozen at -18dege until needed for the
acceptability taste panel
Table 1
sampling regirre for fish stored in R3Wice
Blue Grenadier Diys in R3W 3 4 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 17 21
Sample code N D G L S R K T U P M 0
Whiting Diys in ice 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Sample code 0 M D G T S N R P U L K
15
220 Sensory assessment of the whole (gutted and ungutted) raw fish samples
Both the blue grenadier stored in lOW and the whi t i nq stored in ice were
progressively assessed by using the sense organs of sight smell and touch tor
changes in general appearance odour and texture with storage tine by giving
the appropriate demeri t scores according to the score sheets as shown in
Tables 2 and 3 IVo types of score sheets were used Table 2 shows the
sensory assessment score sheet orig inally developed for the assessment of
gemfish (Thrower et al 1982) It has been simplified and weighted (Branch
and Vail 1985) to provide accumulated increases in demerit points as the t i sn
change in odour texture and appearance during storage with the max imum
accumulated demerit point scores of 35 for the urx]utted samples and 39 tor tte
gutted samples The total scor irq for gutted fish differs fran that descr ibeo
by Bremner (1984) and Branch and Vail (1985) in that the demerit points for
the belly cavity have been added to those for the whole fish
The whole and gutted raw fish were also assessed by using the freshness
score sheet developed by the Council of the European COl1nunities (Official
Journal of the European Qmnunities 1970) but with slight rrodification marie
in its scor irq method in that the scor irq was reversed to provide accumulateri
increases in demerit points as in the TFRJ score sheet (Table 2) with a
maximun accumulated demerit score of 30 (Table 3) The samples were scored by
H Abd R who had had no previous experience with the score sheet
230 Sensory Assessment of the frozen filleted raw fish samples
Samples of the whole and gutted fish of both species were then filleted
ard frozen at -18degC until required for the organoleptic acceptability test
panel fillets were thawed by holding for about 16 hours (overnight) in still
air at 4degC The thawed fillets of both the blue grenadier and whi t i nq were
then assessed by the sense organs of sight smell and touch by using the scor-e
sheet for filleted sample as shown in Table 4 nle score sheet was developed
16
able 1
FIlt U Snorr bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullnt oore hbullbull t ( ( 1Ii~ ANI) tlNtJuTreo)
1_middotAnlJ lmiddot
rlSB IDDII
UIUIl~ (VBci9ht~i9ht8lDullDUll
o 1 2 3
SitU ( rimSoft) o 1
SCALBS (r1mSlLoomiddotmiddotLoobullbull ) o 12
r r SLIMB (AbbullbullntSlSlimiddotysliyVSliy)
o 123
S1IrnraS (pr-Ri90rRi90rPot-Ri90r) o 1 2
BYBS Clarity (ClbullbullrISlCloudyCloudy) 012
Shape (HoralslsunknSunkn) 012
Irill (ViiblHot Viibl) IJ 1
Blood (No BloodSlBloodyVBloody) o 1 2
GILLS Colour (VDark)Charaotritio (SlDark) (vradd)(Slradd)
2o 1 Kucou (AbbullbullntKoderatmiddotBxcbullbullbulliv)
o 1 2 S bullbullll (rrbullbullh 01ly) Pihy8talpoll~
(MetalliaSaved) 1 2 3
BELLI Dicoloration (AbbullbullntDetatablmiddotModratmiddotBxobullbullbulliy) 012 3
Finanbullbullbull ( rira80ftBurt) o 1 2
VENT Condition (bobullbulldy)Noraal (SlBrbullbullk) (Opening)(Bxudbullbull )
2o 1 Sbullbulln (rrbullbullhReutralrihy8poilt)
o 2 3
BELLI CAVIn Stain (OpalbullbullontGryihlmiddotllow-Brown) o 1 2
Blood (RdDark RdBrown)
o 1 z
--
17
UJE 3
Etc SENSORY A$fE4St4fN[ ~(oIlL~
SCALE OF MARKING - FRESHNESS
CRITERIA shypoundu1LRt
Abullbullbullbullbullment Mara-bull thc r1ah 0 1 2- 3tszhL
AppearanceinIIMlISJ Skin
Eye
Gill
Flbullbullshycut f ssm abdomusn
Colour the~
vertebral column
Organs
Oright iridescent I bright pigmenta- pigmentation in (1) dull pigmenta tion no i tion but not the process of pigmentation discolouration Ius trous becoming dis-
mucus opaquemucus aqueous i coloured and dull
mucus slightlytransparen t
cloudy ~UCU9 milky
convex (bulging) convex and flat (1) concave in cornea tran- slightly sunken cornea the centre parent cornea Ughtly opalescent cornea milky pupil black opalescent pupil pupil grey bright
pupil black opaque dull
-shining colour less coloured becoming dis- (1) yellmiish no mucus a few traces of coloured mucus milky
cloar mucus mucus opaque
blueish trans- dull velvety slightly opaque (1) opaque lucid smooth waxy shining without any change in the colour sUgh tly original colour changed
(I) reduncoloured sl1 gh tly pink pink
kidneys and kidneys and kidneys (1) kidneys residues of resJdues of resicJuos of r bullbullidue of other other organs other organs other organs organs and blood bright red the dull red blood and blood brownish game as the becoming palo red blood inside discolbured the aorta
(1) or in a more advanced bull ta te of decay
I
bull
Flesh
Vertebtal Column
Peritonium
Gills kin abdominal cavity
18
(eontd)
SCALE OF MARKING - FRESHNESS
CRITERIA
Assessment Mark 0 1 2
Physical eOId ton
firm and elas tic surface smooth
breaks ins tead of coming away
totally adherent to the flesh
seaweed
less elastic
adherent
adherent
Smell bull
not of seaweed but not bad
slightly soft (flaccid) Ie elastic surfacente waxy velvety and dull
slightly adherent
slightly adherent
slightly sour
3
(1) soft (flaccid) scales ebullbullil y detached from skin sur face ra ther wrinkled inclining to mealy
(1) not dherent
1( ) not adherent
(1) sour
(1) or in a more advanced stat of decay
_ shy-- -
19
Table 4
Filleted Sample Score Sheet
r
TREATMENT F ILIEIS DATE REMOJAL (THAWED)
FISH IDENr
EASE OF FILLETING (Easysl difficultdifficult)
012
APPEARANCE (a) Oolour of flesh (TranslucentSl discolouredSl opaqueopaque)
o 1 2 3
(b) Blood stains (AbsentDetectableModerateExcessive)
012 3
(c) Clotting (UnclottedSlclottedModclottedExcessclotted)
012 3
(d) Skin Oolour (VbrightBrightSldullOU11)
o 1 2 3
TEXTURE FirmS1 softSoft
o 1 2
ClDClJR (FreshNeutralStaleSpoilt)
012 3
CONJITION (a) Gaping (AbsentDetectableModerateExcessive)
o 1 2 3
(b) Bruising (AbsentSlightSevere)
012
(c) Wetness (NmnalS1 dry orMod dry orExcess dryness or
SldripModdrip Freezer bJrn or Excessdrip
012 3
(d) Autolysis (Absentmoderatesevere) (Disco1ourations) 0 1 2
(e) Parasites (Absentmoderatesevere) ( Infestations) 0 1 2
(f) Other discolourations (Absentpresent) or contaminants (bones membranes tissues etc) 0 1
EASE OF SKINNING (EasySldifficultdifficult)
012
20
by the author after a literature search and observations made during the preshy
liminary part of the study It has a maxUnum accumulated demerit score of 34
240 ~anoleptic Acceptability Panel of the cooked fish
Filleted samples of both fish species which had been frozen in a cold
roan at -18dege and then thawed as above were used for the acceptability taste
panels The fillets were skinned am cut into 30 to 40 g pieces crumbed and
deep fried (Bremner et ale 1985) Three or four treatments were cooked
simultaneously at each session am the fish served with packets of take-away
french fries Tcrnato sauce vinegar and salt were available Each of the
samples were randanised in such a way so as to give a high degree of balance
(Table 5 and 6) Letters that represent the samples were also picked
randanly The fish was assessed by 20 panellists employed at the Tasmanian
lEgional Laboratory and experienced with facial hedonic scaling for flavour
texture am overall acceptability using the General Foods Smiley scale
(Appendix 2) Salt was rot rrentioned with the 9niley questionaire for blue
grenadier so that the panel should have ro preconceiVed prejudices
250 Statistics
tata fran the sensory assessment of the whole gutted and ungutted raw
fish (both TFRJ am EEl score sheets) am fran the sensory assessrrent of the
frozen filleted raw fish samples of both the blue grenadier stored in RSW am
whiting stored in ice were analysed for correlation using the ELF scatter
module (Appendix 3 and 4)
The acceptability taste panel assessment scores for flavour texture and
overall liking of the toKgt species of fish were subjected to analysis of
variance using the Genstat package (Appendix 5 and 6)
22
Table 6
Order of presentation of cooked whiting samples to the acceptability taste panelists
Order of presentation of samples Panelist
session I session II
1 OTP rm 2 MUS KR 3 sm INL
4 IKJ GKR
5 ror NK
6shy USM UN ~
7 OOP RLD
B HUT NKD
9 USO RiL
10 SMP LGN
11 IMT GIltN
12 nxgt KRD
Note
8angtle code OM 0 G T S N R P U L K
storage time in ice (days) 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
23
300 RESULIS
310 Physical Characteristic of M novaeaelandiae
rran the forty-six fish examined the mean fork lerqth was found to be
762 an (range 609 to 838 an) A few of the fish examined had well shy
developed roes and their digestive tracts were found to be relatively empty
320 Physical Characteristics of the H ssmifasoiata
rran a total of thirty-six fish examined the rrean weight of the fish was
fourrl to be 662 g (range 27 to 186 g) am the mean fork length was 183 em
(range 156 to 265 an)
330 sensory assessment of the raw blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
he results of the sensory assessrrent of the r2M blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW by the four rrerhods of scoring are given as average total
accumulated demerit point scores as shown in Table 7 Figure 1 shoes the
graph of demerit point versus days in RSW by the four rrethods of sensory
assessment used Table 9 shltJtS the correlation analysis
340 sensory assessment of the raw whitirq samples stored in ice
he results of the sensory assessment of the r2M whitirq samples stored
in ice by the four methods of scoring are given as average total accumuLated
demerit point scores as shown in Table 8 Figure 2 shltJtS the graph of demerit
point versus days in ice of the four nethods of sensory assessment used Table
9 shltJtS the correlation analysis
350 Attributes contributing to total score
Attributes that contribute to total score usirq the TFRJ scores (ungutted
and gutted) EEC scores and the filleted sample scores are as shewn in Tables
10 - 14
24
Table 7
Total demerit points fran sensory assessment of blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
Average lbta1 Demerit Rgtint SCores
[)lye in RW TFRJ scores TFRJ scores EEl scores Filleted Sample (urvJut t ed ) (gutted) (gutted) SCores
3 3 3 1 1
4 5 5 2 3
6 10 10 6 6
8 16 18 9 8
9 19 21 11 10
10 20 22 13 12
11shy 22 24 15 14
12 23 25 18 17
13 24 26 19 18
14 25 27 19 19
17 29 31 21 23
21 33 35 25 29
Note
Maximum possible scores for (1) IlRJ scores (ungutted is 35
( 11) IlRJ scores (gutted) is 29
( 11i) EEX scores (gutted) is 30
( iv) Filleted sample scores is 32
amptV
35j
3l~
en Ishy 25Z-0 Q
3)-~
bullbullbull 0
bull 0 0bull 0
bull 0 0 6shy abull A ~
~
bull 0
~
6shy
bull 0
6shy
I) 01
-W 0i A15W ~ Q A
~
6shy~101- bull 90 TFRU SCORES (ungutted)
6shy~ bullbull TFRU SCORES (gutt~d i
bull ~
4 6- 6- EEC SCORES 5~
~ ~ FILLETED SAMPLE SCORES ~
6 4 I J I I I
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
DAYS IN RSW
Figl Demerit Points Versus Days in RSW For Blue Grenadier Samples
Fig 2 Demerit Points Versus Days in ice For Whiting Samples I
27
Table 8
TOtal demerit points from sensory assessment of whi tirq samples stored in ice
Average TOtal Demerit Foint SCores
rays in ice TFRJ scores TFRJ scores EEC scores Fi 11eted sample (urqutted) (gutted) (gutted) (gutted)
1 1 1 0 0 3 2 2 1 1
5 4 4 2 3
7 7 9 3 4
9 13 15 6 9
n 15 17 7 13
13 19 21 11 15
15 24 27 15 16
17 29 32 19 18
19 31 35 22 21
21 32 36 24 24
23 33 37 26 26
Note
MaXllnum possible scores for (i) TFRJ scores (urqutted) is 35 ( ii) TFRJ scores (gutted) is 39 ( iii) EEC scores (gutted) is 30 ( iv) Filleted sample scores is 32
28
Table 9
Relationship between tLme and demerit points for fish stored in RSW
Method of Visual Assessment
y- intercept slope correlation
M novaBMBlandias
TFRJ (urqutted ~les) 032 175 097
TFRJ (gutted samples) 032 190 096
EEl -231 146 097
Filleted samplesbull
-357 158 099
H sBmifasoiata
TFRJ (urqutted samples) -245 167 099
TFRJ (gutted samples) -273 187 099
EOC -414 129 098
Filleted samples -244 125 099
ltshy
--------------- ------------------------------------------
------------- - ------------- -------- ------
Table 10
Attributes contributing to total score using TFRO scores (gutted and ungutted)
Attributes involved in score change Score
Blue grenadier in RSW Whiting in ice
Stiffness Eyes - clarity blood Slllne Stiffness Eyes - clarity shape and blood lt10 Gills - smell Vent - smell SlBne Gills - colour smell and mucous
Vent - smell Belly cavity - stains and blood
Appearance Eyes-shape Stiffness Gills - smell colour and mucous Skin
Stiffness appearance gill-smell Scales belly-discolouration and firmness
N so
gt10lt20 SCales belly - discolouration and firmness Vent - smell Vent - smell and condition Belly cavity - stains and blood
Appearance Slllne Eyes - clarity shape Appearance SlBne Scales Skin blood and iris Gills - colour Eyes - clarity and shape
gt20lt30 Belly - discolouration Gills - mucous smell am colour Vent - condi tion and smell Belly cavity shy blood
Appearance Gills - mucous and smell SlBne Eyes - iris am blood Belly - discolouration and firmness Belly - discolouration and firmness
gt30 Vent - condition and smell Vent - condition Belly cavity - blood Belly cavity - stains
Table 11
Attributes contribut irq to total score us irq EEC scores
Attributes involved in score change
Score Blue grenadier in RSW W1iting in ice
lt7 Appearance - skin eyes gills organs Physical condition - flesh Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and organs Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skins eyes gills flesh Appearance-eyes and organs atv
vertebral column and organs Physical condition-flesh and peritoneum gt7lt14 Physical condition - flesh Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-eyes flesh and vertebral Appearance-skin gills and organs column Physical condition-flesh vertebral column
gt14lt21 Physical condition-vertebal column and and peritoneum peritoneum Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and vertebral column vertebral column
gt21 Physical condition-flesh and peritoneum Physical cOndition-flesh vertebral column Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity and peri toneum bull
Table 12
Attributes contributing to total score using filleted sample scores
Score
lt5
Attributes involved in score change
Blue grenadier in RSW
Appearance - blood stains skin colour ltXIour - flesh
M1iting in ice
----- shy -------------- shy
Appearance - skin colour odour - flesh Cbndition - gaping wetness
Appearance - colour of flesh Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Texture - flesh skin colour ltgt gt5lt10 Cbndition - gaping bruising wetness Ease of filleting
Texture - flesh
Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Appearance - colour of flesh clotting skin clotting skin colour skin colour
gt10lt20 odour - flesh odour - flesh Cbndition - gaping wetness autolysis COndition - gaping bruising wetness other discolourations autolysis and other discolouration Ease of skinning
Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains skin colour clotting
gt20 Texture - flesh Texture - flesh odour - flesh Odour shy flesh COndition - gaping bruising wetness Cbndition - wetness autolysis autolysis Ease of skinring
32
Table 13
Diff~rent emphasis in scoring systems for whole fish as between the EEl and TFID
Attribute Number of potential demerit points TFRJ EEl
1Ippearance (general) 3 0
skin ) scales 6 3
slime
Stiffness (Rigor) 2 0
Eyes 7 3
Gills 7 6
Belly 5 0
Vent 5 0
Belly cavity 4 3
Flesh cut fram abdomen 0 3
Flesh texture 0 3
Vertebral column 0 6
Internal organs 0 3
33
360 Relative merits of the scoring systems
The four scor irq methcds were used on the same samples of t ish Any
sample had therefore deteriorated to the same extent on anyone day Figs 3
am 4 shew the scores converted to percentages of possible deroorit point
scores The discrepancy in the accumulation of demerit points between the EEC
am TFRJ scor irq methods is clearly shown IEference to Table 2 3 am 13
shOool that this is caused by the lack of questions regarding rigor looseness
of scales condition of belly am vent am the qroupinq of colour am mucous
in the gills as single po i nts thus halving the potent Ia I gill demerit point
score canparison of the tO species in Table 9 ShONS that the rate of
accumulation of demerit pgtints was more consistent for the TFRU system than by
the EEX scor i oq methltXl or by scorinq of fillets
370 Time taken to score the fish
The average time taken to score an individual fish using the TFPlJ
(unqutted) scores TFRJ (gutted) scores EEX scores am the filleted aamp Le
scores were found to be 1 min 25 sec 1 min 55 sec 3 min 45 sec and 1 min 50
sec respectively The EEX score sheet is more t iroe consumioq in that more than
one question is asked about an attribute for the giving of only one demerit
point this requires conscious thought
380 Acceptability taste panel results of blue grenadier samples bull Figures 5 6 am 7 shOool the mean taste panel scores in graphic form for
flavour texture and overall acceptability of cooked blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW table 14 shows the results of the statistical analysis
390 Acceptability taste panel results of whiting samples
Figures 8 9 am 10 shOool the mean taste panel scores in graphic form for
flavour texture and overall acceptability of cooked whiting samples stored in
ice table 15 shows the results of the statistical analysis
WHITING STORED IN ICE o TFRU SCORES (ungutted)
bull TFRU SCORES (gutted)
b EEC SCORES
FILLETED SAMPLE SCORES
100bull e ~ e b
i 6
bull NW
oIJ-a A A-
(J0 t A~ 0 ~ AC)
C) -e ~~-
C) a 50 A
A w
Iz ~
~ - W e A0 c a ~ ~ A-a ~ l ~ A
w -~
~ X ~ W -e I c ~ ~ ibull I I I I
4 8 12 16 20 24
DAYS IN ICE FIG4
36
- flavourshy
-e s-e l ~ v
5middotIU
STORAGrf IN R sWDAYS
rlCoS Ttutfc pcr1 rcbull
rf oj bl jtlJ~r - jlqVGurc acccr~b
21179 0 2 136 843
~ 0 u 5middot0YI
oJ J l ofmiddot$ 1 e
tu 4middot0
VI
~ 3middot5
3middot0
TelC-lue X bull -e III
~ Gmiddotftv
ct 5middot03
V1
-J -f-SshyU 2
~ 40 t
3-~
~ bullbull0 5 0
~ 17 21A ISII
PAY- IITDRAGamp fbilW
FIG6 I Tq1-c pltnd rc-utl ojbllfcJrcftaJIr bull I~M144 Q Cc(r~blfly
r 411q~~ An~Plf bUIJlfM F llh J~Lld Pt-DoL B fpound)1
gt1 NI ~~eusr SJAVlt1
D ~II
(ffIt1~JP IIID bull U J 1i
-IyoJC )-tlICf p --lInraquoJ Ix-Pc ~1rb1 r I ef
Ma2j NI a~v2loJ$
til
1Ia ~AO (IIp~lJa~e
01
secto
00
s
05
5
o~
~
0pound
s
0
smiddot
o~
07
1 ~ ~ ~ ~
r~
B
~
rv t gtshy 2
~ ~ 11
~ 7shyIn r
~ () 0 1) m ~
~ gtshyz -
(fII~q~~ 7~ P
IItJ1o -~~f(ll p ~I I~U J ~t~L 0 ~ middot~II I
IDI 8~ middot lta ~
~ QS
middotS ~ ~ 0 z
r Smiddot II
S 1d 0-$ 111 r- l gtshy r
V fr~
~llCf-J a-PcJ~ U~middotJO
4lp~dmiddotyIb 6middot~1f np)t -~11M fo --IIhen IJutJel ~bl
Table 14
Acceptability of deep fried blue grenadier samples stored in FSW
rays in R3W
Acceptability 3 4 6 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 17 21
Flavour 50a 50a 4S a 51a 50a 51a 50a 4Sa 49a 53a 41b 35b
Texture 49bc 51abc 4S bed 52ab 4Sbed 53ab 52abc 52ab 4Sbed 55a 46cd 43d
OJerall 50ab 51ab 47be 52ab 4Sb 5lab 52ab 50ab 47b 54 a 41c 35d
abc
d
significantly different (pltOOOl)
significantly different (pltOOl) W so
Table 15
Acceptability of deep fried whiting samples stored in ice
rays in ice
Acceptability 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Flavour 5Sab 59a 59a 60a 59a 5S ab 51b 54ab 53ab 37c 37c 31c
Texture 59ab 59a 53bed 5S ab 63a 59ab 47cde 54be 56ab 55ab 44e 46de
OJera11 57ab 5S ab 59ab 60a 60a 5Sab 52b 53ab 55ab 42c 36cd 31d
abcde significantly different (Plt0001)
40
~oo DISCUSSION
410 Sensory assessment of the raw blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
he results of sensory assessment on the raw blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW by the four methods of scoring all sheM that there is
progressive increment in total demerit points with storage time for all the
four methods (Table 7) It was also fourxi that the accumulation of demerit
points with time of storage of the fish in ffiW occurred in a saui-linear
fashion for all -the four scoring methods used (Figure 1) he variables (time
of storage and demeritmiddot points score) were all highly correlated (Table 9)
he correlation equation of the TFRJ (ungutted samples) and TFRJ (gutted
sanples) scores were similar roth having a zero time intercept of 032 but
with the TFRJ (gutted samples) scores having a slightly greater slope by 015
he EEC scores and the filleted sample scores roth have lower slopes ie
146 and 158 respectively canpared with the TFRJ (ungutted sample) and TFRJ
(gutted sample) scores of 175 and 190 respectively lbwever the EOC scores
which have the lowest slope have a fairly similar correlation equation with
the filleted sample scores (Table 9) he negative intercepts reflected the
slightly more sigrroid relationship for these samples his suggests that the
TFRJ (gutted) scoring method is the rrost sensitive of the four methods
followed by the TFRJ (ungutted) the filleted sample and the EEC scores
It was also found that after 21 days of storage in RSW the blue
grenadier samples had not reached their maximun possible scores in any of the
four scoring rrethods used (Table 7) he TFRJ (ungutted sample) score only
reached 943 of its possible maximun value whereas the TFRJ (gutted sample)
scores EEC scores and the filleted sample score reached only 897 833 ar~
906 of their possible maximun score his means that all the four methods
of scoring can still be sensitive to changes in the quality of the blue
grenadier samples stored in RSW after 21 days of storage time
41
Figures 1 and 3 also shOVt that the pattern of the graphs of demerit
points against days storage in R3W of the four methcxis of scoring is similar
ie a tendency to be slightly sigmoid fbwever the filleted sanple scores
sean to be rrore sensitive than the EOC scores at the later part of the storage
time ie after 14 days of storage and the scores continued to rise
1be rrost obvious indicator of change for the blue grenadier stored in ffiW
using the TFRJ scores (both gutted and unJUtted sanples) was the eyes (clarity
and blood) followed by odour developnent of the gills (Table 10) his is -
also foond to be true wi th the EOC freshness score (Table 11) Fbr the
filleted sample scores the appearance and odoor of the flesh seems to be the
most obvious indicator of change follOVted by the condition of the fillets such
as gaping bruisin) am wetness (Table 12)
4 20 sensory assessment of the raw whi ting samples stored in ice
1he results of sensory assessment on the rCJl whiting samples stored in
ice by the foor roothods of scoring also shows that there is a progressive
increment in total demerit points with storage time for all the four methods
of scoring (Table 8) Ps with the blue grenadier the aCCLD1UJlation of demerit
points with time of storage of the whiting in ice also occurred in a sernishy
linear fashion for all the foor scoring methods used (Figure 2 and 4) wi th a
slight lag in the initial phase Interestingly this was not observed in the
case of blue grenadier sanples stored in ffiW probably because the first
samplin) of the blue grenadier starts only fran the third day after catch
whereas the first sampling of the whiting starts fran the first day after
catch Also the blue grenadier was handled qu i te roughly on the deck in fact
three oot of the four fish samples on the first rerroval ie the third day
after catching had already showed blood in their eyes
Bremner et al (1985) when using the TFRJ score sheet to assess the
42
quality of four tropical fish species fran the oorth west shelf of hJstralia
(stored in ice) also fourrl that the accumulation of demerit points with time
of storage in ice occurred in a linear fashion
PB wi th blue grenadier the variables (tine of storage ard darneri t points
score) were all highly correlated (Table 9) Also the correlation equation of
the TFRJ (ungutted) ard TFRJ (gutted) scores were similar with the TFJU
(gutted) score having a slightly greater slope by 020 Crable 9) he EEC
scores am filleted sample scores also have lower s lopes l e 129 ard 125
respectively ocmpared to the TFm (ungutted) and (gutted) scores of 167 and
187 respectively However unlike the blue grenadier the filleted samples
of the whi t ing had the 10liest slope he more sensi tive na ture of the EEC
scores as canpared to the filleted sample scores in the case of the whiting
especially after 12 days storage in ice can be explained by the snaller size
of the whitirlJ (fork length ranging fran 156 to 265 an) as canpared to the
size of the blue grenadier (fork length ranging 809 to 838 an) the snaller
fish terrl to spoil faster especially the interior parts of the fish PB the
EEC scores depend nuch on the sensory assessment of the interior parts of the
fish such as the appearance and condition of the flesh vertebral colwnn
interior organs per i toneun and abdaninal cavity (Table 3) which makes up more
than 18 demerit points out of the total possible maxinun of 30 the
sensitiveness of its score is thus self-explanatory in the case of whiting
Connell (1980) explained that large fish keep marginally better than small
fish because larger fish have a smaller surface to volume ratio so that in the
same tUne less of their interior is affected
The above results confirmed the previous suggestion that the TFRU
(gutted) scorIoq methcrl is the roost sensitive of the four methods It was
found that after 23 days of storage in ice the whiting scmples had not
reached the maximun possible scores in any of the four methods used (Table
43
8) The 1FIU (UBJutted) scores had reached only 94-3 of its possible maximum
value whereas the TFRJ (gutted) scores EOC scores am the filleted sample
scores reached only 94 9 867 and 81 3 of their poea Ible maximum score
Therefore all the four methods of scoriBJ can still be sensitive to changes
in quality of the whiting samples stored in ice after 23 days of storage tUne
Ihe roost obvious irxHcator of chaDJe for the whiting stored in ice using
the TFIU score sheet was the eyes (clarity shape and blcxxl) followed by the
develqxnent of -colour odour and nucous of the gills (fable 10) Bremner et
al (1985) when working with four tropical species f~ the north west shelf of
Australia also found that the most obvious indicator of change for fish stored
in ice was the eyes (their clarity am shape) follCAtled by odour developnent
and colour changes in the gills This was also found in the case of blue
grenadier in ~ discussed earlier OJrran et al (1981) when investigating
the quality changes duriBJ iced storage of three carmercially important
species of fish fran Bahrein also found that of the visual and olfactory
assessments gill odour showed the roost pranise as a quality control index
Pgain this is also found to be true with the EOC freshness score of both the
blue grenadier and the whitiBJ (Table 11) AccordiBJ to ~ate (1972) it
was generally agreed that odour of the gills is the most sensitive measure of
freshness but the visual appearance of the eyes gills arxi skin was quicker to
use in practice on the market
For the filleted sample scores of the whiting the most obvious indicator
of chanqe was the appearance and odour of the flesh (Table 12) This too
agreed with the findiBJs for blue grenadier stored in ffiW
AccordiBJ to Baines et al (1969) with fish eatiBJ is related to four
main attributes or quality factors viz appearance odour and texture of the
rCM and cooked fish and in the latter also flavour he ultimate purpose of
testing the raw fish is to estimate the eating quality which is here taken to
44
mean the degree of freshness of flavour Acoording to Baines and Shewan
(1965) the mostreliable test for predicting flavour sqore is raw odour
430 The ease aM difficulties of using the four methods of scoring
It was found that the TFRJ (ungutted) scores was the easiest and quickest
method to use as it takes on average only about 1 min 25 sec to score a fish
canpared to 1 min 55 sec 3 min 45 sec ard 1 min 50 sec for the TFRJ
(gutted) EOC and the filleted sample scores he E~ score was found to be
the roost tedious besides taking the longest time to soore a fish
he TFIU (ungutted) scores also have the advantage of not requiring a
knife in order to score ard also were less IOOSSY to work with canpared to all
the other nethods Also the attributes to be assessed were arranged and
organised in such a way in the score sheet that it is easy to score a fish
starting from assessing the apparance and skin and ending with the condition
and smell of the vent
440 Acceptability taste panel results of the blue grenadier samples
441 Flavour acceptability
Figure 5 shc7ws the flavour acceptability of the deep fried samples of
blue grenadier Samples stored in R3W for less than 17 days were found
statistically (Table 14) to be indistinguishable (Plt0001) fran each other
then there was a significant fall in the flavour acceptability of the samples
stored in RSW for 17 days onwards he sarrtgtle stored for 21 days had a still
lower mean value of 35 but it was not significantly different fran the
semple stored for 17 days which had a nean value of 41 It is interesting to
note that despite the progressive increase in sodiun uptake of the blue
grenadier samples stored in RSW from about 7115 35 mg sodium(lOO g tissue
initially to 724 33 mglOO g tissue on the 16th day aM to 729 17 mglOO g
45
tissue on the 21st day (Burford 1984) the panelists seem not to be
negatively affected by the increasing salt content of the samples with storage
tUne and in fact some of the panelists added more salt to their samples I
111is result contradicts statements made by previous reseachers that the
storage life using R3W may be limited by increases in salt content in the fish
flesh (Boyd et aI 1978) he maximun desirable salt content according to
Tcm1inson et al (1974) as quoted by Boyd et al (1978) is about 05 but at
the 16th day ofmiddot RgtW storage the salt content fOllNj In the flesh of blue
grenadier samples was already more than 07 fbwever the panelist only ate
40g pieces it might have been a different case if the fish has been as a
whole meal
442 Texture acceptability
Figure 6 shows the texture acceptability of the deep fried blue grenadier
samples stored in R3W eespf te sane apparent abberant values (such as the
high rrean of 55 for the sample stored for 14 days in RSW) it is obvious that
the texture acceptability showed a significant decreasing trend (pltOOl) from
seventeen days of storage onwards The abberant texture values are possibly
due to the fact that the fish texture might have been masked by the bread
crunbs used to coat the fish samples before deep fryi~ This agrees with the
observations of Bremner et al (1985) wtxgt found that the inherent textural
softness of P piotiue and the tougheni~ on storage of N peroni i detected by
a profile panel usilYJ steamed fillets were no lo~er noticeable when the fish
was deep fried in batter Bremner (1980) also reported that despi te the
softness of the raw flesh the cooked flesh of blue grenadier is reasonably
firm
46
433 OVerall acceptability
The overall acceptability of the deep fried blue grenadier samples stored
in R)W (figure 7) seems to follCM a similar pattern to its flavour
acceptability (figure 5)~ in which a significant fall in overall acceptability
was only observed fran the samples held fran 17 days in RSW onwards (pltO 001)
as shawn in Tablel4
rnus all the above results showed that there was a significant fall in
flavour texture and overall acceptability of blue ~renadier from 17 days of
R)W storage onwards which was found to be equivalent to the accumulated
demerit point scores of 29 of the TFRJ (ungutted) scoresr 31 of the TFRl
(gutted) scoresr 21 of the EOC scores and 23 of the filleted sample
scores Jones (1964) states that the acceptability of a fish is a function of
its suitability for further processing and of its inmediate appearance its
texture its odour and its flavour
450 Acceptability taste panel results of the whiting samples
451 Flavour acceptability
Figure 8 shows the flavour acceptability of the deep fried whiting
samples stored in ice rtle twelve sample times could be analysed individually
since the means if analysed by canbining adjacent sample times to give six
sample groups are in fact the means of the adjacent times if analysed
individually it was found that samples of the first nine renovals i se up to
17 days of storage in ice are more or less indistinguishable (abberant value
at 7th removal) he last three removals ie samples stored in ice for 19
21 and 23 days were found to be of significantly lower flavour acceptability
(p lt 0001) as shawn in Table 5
47
452 Texture acceptability
Except for the abberation at the 7th remgtval i 9 at day 13 of ice
storage there is a significant reduction of texture acceptability at the 21 II
and 23 days of ice storage (p lt0001) as shown by figure 9 and Table5 t
II
I 453 Over~ll acceptability
he overal I acceptability of the whiting sanples stored in ice is very
much similar to its f Lavour acceptability except at day 19 of ice storage
where the ovaral I acceptability shows a higher mean of 42 carpared to the
flavoor acceptability mean of 37 (figure 10 and Table 5) here is however a
significant sudden drop to lOil scores fran the lOth removal ie day 19 of
storage in ice (p lt0001)
hus all the above results for whitifVJ sanples showed that there was a
significant fall in flavCXJr and overall acceptability fram 19 days ice storage
onwards which is equivalent to the accumulated demerit points of 31 of the
TFRJ (unqutted) scores 35 of the TFRJ (gutted) scores 22 of the EEC
scores and 21 of the filleted sample scores he results are interesti~ in
that the oorresponding total accLDnulated demerit points at the time when
significant falls in flavour texture and overall acceptability of the blue
grenadier and whiting samples stored in I5W and ice respectively were quite
similar
500 CONCLUSION
510 Feasibility of using demerit points
Accumulation of demerit points with time of storage of M
in RM and H eemifaeaiatia in ice was found to be highly
occurred in a semi-linear fashion irrespective of the method of
novas8slandiae
correlated and
scori~ used
- _ ~uo_a~_bull--_--I e -Ii --
48
1he slopes of the lines (rate of accumulation of demerit points) and its
relative spoilage rate were found to be similar for the ttoO species provided
the sane method of scoring is employed 1his tends to suggest that the method
is possibly independent of species am methods of storage or at least
applicable to the two species in RSW and ice respectively
TIle TFRJ (ungutted) scores were foum to be the easiest arrl quickest
method to use although the TFRJ (gutted) scores were the roost sensitive 1he
EEX freshness scores were hClgtlever foum to be the JOOSt tedious aod difficult bull I
to use besides taking more than twice the time taken to score a fish ocmpared
to the TFRJ (ungut ted) scores
Although there were slig~t differences between the ttoO species in those
characteristics where changes were first made (Table 10 11 and 12) there is
enough evidence to conclude that the changes in the appearance of the eyes am
the odour developnent of the gills are the JOOSt obvious arrl valuable indicator
of charqe in quality when using the TFIU or the EEl scores while the
appearance am odour of the fish flesh seems to be the JOOSt obvious indicator
when assessing the filleted sample
1he shelf-life of M navaezelandiae stored in RSW was found to be 14 days
(less than 17 days) whilst that of H semifasoiata stored in ice was fourrl to
be 17 days (less than 19 days) beyond which the fish had developed spoilage
characteristics that were disliked by the acceptability taste panel
1he cut-off point at which spoilage of the samples would have rendered
the quality of the fish sample to be unacceptable fran the consumers point of
view ~ld be that equivalent to the accumulated demerit point of gt29 for the
TFRJ (gutted arrl ungutted) scores am gt21 for the EOC and filleted sample
scores
This study thus confinned the potential use of demerit points such as the
TFRJ (ungutted) scores as an easy quick cheap non-destructive and reliable
49
method of sensory assessment of fish quality In fact Branch and Vail (1985)
had studied the possible use of a prototype pocket-sized computer to determine
the condition and shelf-life of temperate and tropical species of fish based
on data that is derived fran the sensory score sheets for the assessment of
fish quality developed at the (SIRgt Division of fbod lEsearch Iasmanian Fbod
Research Unit (TFlU) Hobart
520 RJrpose for which demerit points are to be used
Many scor i oq systerrs are used to predict the nunber of days fish have
been stored on ice and in nore recent years ICETIME (equivalent days on
ice) I ard thus through years of experience the taste panel acceptability of
the fish I
However fish is sold on appearance and a scoring system may be used for
assessirg marketability of whole or gutted fish or fillets or for setting
standards in bulk buying The EEC scoring system is used for example at
fish markets at first point of sale to grade the fish and establish
withdrawal prices A IbrryShewan type system is often used as a purohas i nq
specification from finn to firm
Before a final demerit point system is selected for any COlIOOdity its
ultimate purpose should be established For example the demerit points
chosen for whole fish which nost closely resemble the rate of change of
demerit points for fillets of that species might be the most useful
A linear rate of change of demerit points with time is nose favoured
because it enables prediction of remaining shelf-life ConstJJrer
unacceptability should be at a point where perhaps 75 of the demerit points
have been accrued Further scores would still be available for categories
such as suitable for fish meal D3merit points are not an indication of the
acceptability of fish as eaten where off-odours flavours and fillet
50
tdiscolouration are masked by batters or curries Their correlation with the
iodours flavours off odours aod off flavours of steamed fish are currently ~
~
~being examined by other workers at the Tasmanian ~ Research unit and highly
significant correlations are found Even when fish are subsequently eaten
battered or curried demerit points give a good indication of remaining shelf
life Thus whitiOJ with a Smiley flavour score of 58 after 1 day on ice
has a nlU gutted demerit score of 1 and a high quality life (eaten crumbed
and fried) of a further 16 days while whitiOJ stored for 11 days on ice with
the sane flavour score has a gutted demerit score of 17 and a further shelf
life of 6 days
530 SUggestion for further work
Ib ascertain its potentially wide application as a simple quick and
technically sound methcxi of assessing fish quality many more studies using
other species of fish both temperate and tropical species and in various
storage conditions should be undertaken using a demerit point scorIrq system
such as that developed by the TFlU
The score sheet has proved invaluable when sending individuals untrained
researchers away on distant water fishing trips Ps yet 00 standard
deviations have been detennined using a team of assessors with coded samples
of unknown history This may require a separate group design
The effect of lean fish and fatty fish on the scores should also be
studied because factors such as seasonal variations in biological conditions
Lmproper gutting and washing mechanical damage and filth and changes due to
storage in R3W or shelving may have considerable influence on its shelf-
life Reports such as those of smith et al (1979) clearly showed that in fish
such as the blue whitirlJ (Mioroomesistius poubaeeous there is greater degree
I 51
of seasonal variability than in other gadoid species the overall
acceptability droppirq dramatically once the fish have spawned Fish accepted
for processing for food has to be of a higher standard of quality than fish
accepted for Imredfate sale across the counter to the consumer therefore
there is a need to rreet a minimum score before they could be processed into
food Gradirq is therefore best left to the user sorenson (1971) states
that in establishing limi ts of acceptance an allowance had to be made for
deterioration that would continue to take place during processing and storage
prior to reaching the consimer
The only final criteria of the objectivity of sensory or any other
assessment are results that are reproducible many times which is by definition
a lcnJ-tenn process and in the meantime one requires short-cut indications
that one is headirq in the right direction
Ferhaps a final caution Is necessary as in the YQrds of Ehrenberg and
Shewan (1953) not too much must be expected even the best measuring
instruments occasionally go oot of control
52
60 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baines CR Jones NR am Shewan JM 1965 Technological problems of
measur trq degree of freshness of wet fish and problems of quality
control requirif)J roore knowledge fran fundamental research In he
Technology of fish utilisation ad R Kreuzer Fishi~ News (Books)
p 141
Baines CR and Shewan JM 1965 sensory rrethods for evafuat inq the
quality of white fish Lab practice 14 160-163
Baines CR ltbnnell JoJ Gibson DM lbWgate PF Livi~ston E and
Shewan JM 1969 A taste panel technique for evaluatirq the eati~
quality of frozen cod In Freezi~ and irradiation of fish ad R
Kreuzer Fishi~ News (Books) London p361
Boyd NS and Wilson NDC 1976 A sensory method for evaluatInq the
quality of Snapper (Ch1ysophrys auratus) NZ Journal of Science 19
209-12
Boyd NS Wilson ND and Bjley A 1978 A refrigerated sea water plant
for small boats symposium on fish utilisation technology and
marketi~ in the IPFC region IFFC Proceedi~s 18th session Manila
Philippines FAD Ba~kok p 186-192
Branch AC and Vail AMA 1984 Bri~i~ fish inspection into the
canputer age FltXld Technol Aust 36 in press
Bremner HA Olley J and Ihrower SoJ 1978 CSIIU Iasmanian lEgional
Laboratory OCcasional Paper No4
Bremner HA 1980 Processi~ and freezi~ of the blue grenadier (Maclulonus
novaeselandiae) FltXld Technol Aust 32(8)~ pp 385-393
Bremner J A 1984 QJality - an attitude of mind In he JILlstralian
Fishi~ Industry - today and tanorrow 10-12 July 1984 Launceston
53
Australian MaritUne Cbllege seminar Bapers 224-69
Bremner HA Statham JA am Sykes SJ 1985 Tropical species fran the
north west shelf of Alstralia sensory assessment and acceptability
of fish stored co ice Proceedi~s Sixth session IPR Worki~ Party
on Fish D3chnology and Marketi~ Melbourne 1984 FJID Fish lep 252
supp1
Burford D 1985 Sodiun uptake in MaOlUfOOnUS nooaeselandiae stored in
refrigerated sea water Tasmanian Food Research Unit OCcasional Paper
No9
ltbnnell JJ 1972 OJality control in the fish industry Ibrry Jldvisory
note No 58 IOrty Research Station Aberdeen
ltbnnell JJ 1980 ltbntrol of fish quality Fishi~ ~ws (Books) 2nd ed
Surrey England
OJrran CA Nicolaides L and Al-Alawi ZS 1981 QJality chanqes duri~
iced storage of three carmercially important species of fish fran
Bahrain Trop sci 23(4) 253-268
de Zylva ERA 1974 Effect of fish handli~ at sea on storage quality of
New Zealand Snapper (Chroysophroys aumtus) New Zealand J SCi 17
309-318
Etlira S 1976 A biochemical study on the freshness of fish Bull 1bkai
Reg Fish Res Lab No 88 pp 1-13
Ehrenberg ASC and Shewan JM 1953 he cbjective approach to sensory
tests of food J Sci Food hJric 4 pp 482-489
Herbert RA and Shewan JM 1975 Precursors of the volatile sulphides in
spoili~ North Sea Cod J Sci Food JIlgric 26 1195-1202
lbUwi~ H 1972 Gradi~ of fish in different qualities Institute for
Fishery Products Ijmuiden Unpublished
~ate P 1972 Qrlparison of sensory scor inq systems for raw fish
I 54
Unpubl ished bull ~ ~
~ate P 1978 Measuri~ the quality am acceptability of fish products bull ~
In IPFC Proceedi~s symposiun on fish utilisatial technology and ~
i f~
marketi~ in the IWC region 18th session Manila Ihilippines p
449
fflghes RB and Jones NR 1966 Measurement of hypoxanthine concentrations
in canned herrirg as an index of the freshness of the raw material
with a ocirment oo flavor relations J SCi fOOd middotJlgric 17 434
Jahns FD Howe JL Coduri Jr RJ and Ram Jr AG 1976 A rapid
visual enzyme test to assess fish freshness Food Iechno1 30 (7) 27
Jones NR 1964 ~lems associated with freezi~ very fresh fish
Proceedings Meeting on Fish Iechnology Fish Handling and
Preservation schevenirqen OEC D Paris p 31 bull
Jones NR 1965 Hypoxanthine and other purine containing fractions in fish
muscle as indices of freshness In uthe technology of fish
utilisation ed R Kreuzer Fishi~ rewa (Books) (Drmn p 179
Last PR Scott EOG and Talbot FH 1983 Fishes of Tasmania
Tasmanian Fisheries ~velopnent lUthority lbbart Tasmania pp 238
414
Lima doe santos CAM James D and Ieutscher F 1981 QJidelines for
chilled fish storage experiments FKJ Fish Tech Igt 210
(Dye RM 1954 Ibst rrortem cha~es in the lenses of fish eyes Msessment
of storage tiJm and fish quality J Sci Focx11lgric 5 566-572
Hartin RE Gray RJ H and Pierson MD 1978 QJality assessment of fresh
fish arrl the role of the naturally occurring microflora Focx1
Technol 32 (5) 188
Official Journal of the European oamrnunities No L264 5 ~cember 1970 pp
1-11
bull
55
Technol New Zealand July 1971 pp 31-35
Spinelli J Eklund M and Miyauchi D 1964 Measurement of hypoxanthine
in fish as a method of assessing freshness J Food SCi 29 710
Thrower S oJ am Stafford IA 1981 A roobile unit for ccmparative studies
of chilled storage systems for trawl fish IIF IIR
eatmissions C2 01 02 03 Boston USA 1981-4
Thrower SoJ Bremner HA QJarmby AR Ggtnnan T8 aild Graham KJ
1982 cn-board handlinJ of Q~ish ~ Inportanoeof chillinJ and
gutting Aust Fish 41 (11) 38-41
Tanlinson N bull bull t at 1974 COtparison between refrigerated sea water (with or
without added carbon dioxide) and ice as storage media for fish to be
subsequently frozen Proc IIR C011n 82- 0-3 Tokyo p
waterman J oJ 1982 Qrrposition and QJality of Fish A Dictionary 1brry
Mvisory Note No 87 Torry Research Station Aberdeen
5J
Olley J and letkowsky OA 1973 he role of terrperature function
integration in monitoring of fish spoilage Food Technol New
Zealand 8 (2) 13 15 and 17
Olley J 1977 Iemperature and seafood spoilage In H Proceedings of 1977
SChool for SeafltXld Processorsmiddot ad ~ AF 0 Mello Hawkesbury
Agricultural Oollege p6-2
Olley J 1978 QIality assessment and storage changes In middotCSIRJ Iasmanian bull
leJional Laboratory OCcasional Paper No 4 p 3-1 middot4 Rgenstein J M and ~enstein CE 1981 he shelf-life extension of fesh
fish In Advances in the refrigerated treabnent of fishmiddot
International Institute of Rfrigeration Clmnissions C2 m ra [8
Boston US A 1981-4
leJenstein J 1983 Wlat is fish quality INroFISH Marketing Digest ttgt 6
26-28
Ryder JM 9Jisson OH SCott ON and Fletcher GC 1984 storage of
New Zealand Jack Mackerel ( TmohUMlB notJabullbullbullZandias) in ice
chemical microbiological and sensory assessment J M SCi 49
1453-1456 1477
Shewan JM Macintosh RG rucker CG and Ehrenberg ASC 1953 he
developnent of a numerical ~coring systan for the sensory assessment
of the spoilage of wet white fish stored in ice J SCi Food Jlgric
4 283-298
Smith J GM Hardy R hanson AB Young KW and Parsons E 1979
sane observations 00 the ambient and chill storage of blue whiting
(Mio1om8sistius poutassou) bull In H Advances in Fish SCience and
Technology ad JJ Connell FishinJ News (Books) Surrey England
pp 299-303
SOrensen T 1971 QIality control and fish handling in New zealand Food ~
t c-
o )
~hmiddot r~YiJ lt~
~~f~~ ~
I
Nomooram for comparison of diffGrent scoring systems tor raw T i sn ___ _ J bull )
_U I~ ~Y1 9i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~
I I t I I - _---1------ imiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot __ middot~_ ~ __~_ -_ ~ + ~ _ -~ _ - middotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middot __ G 9 8 7 6 _ 5middot 3
_ - zmmy [ I bull r f II
d _~__ ~ __ _ ~ __ -I-- - ~ L- i~ middoti~ ~ 1-L -~~ lt lt l~tceland 1P i ~ ~ j ~ ~ ~ L~ __ - I ~_ bull _ L j ~- _-
N rv 1 I 1 2 --- - 2~ 3 middot 3middot 4 ~- ~Il ay ~ _ _ middot _ r r
_ _ __ _ _~ ~_ ) - ~ L_ - 1- ~-_ -_ _ _ ~ 19 ~ 8 imiddotmiddot I 6 5 4 3
Do _ _nm~r t I I I r
~ I
_ ~ ~_ ~ t ~ __ i__ t ~ ~ ~ ~ _ q x 1 1i 2 2~ 3v _ Franee I r I l n
I I I i _ - ~ _ _ _- _-- middotmiddot __ middot_middot_middot_middotmiddotmiddotImiddotmiddotmiddot_middot~ _middotmiddotmiddotmiddot-_middotmiddotmiddotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddot ---- - --~ ~-
19oum8 I 7 6 i 5 ~ ~ 4middot 280 J t (
I i
J -- - -_ -__ X ~middotH i__~ -- i_L ~ - l_ middot1-- - 3 I 2Y1 0 4 11z 1 y
E E C I 1
I I I deg deg E I A r Bmiddot - I I C
ltOIl j- ~ ~ c ~--------------
TASTER
DATE
SESSION
~ER middot1
bull You will be given ~bull aamples of cooked fish Please assess the fish for flavour textur~ and
overall liking as though you had purchased them in a takeaway food shop Hark the sample
identification under the face that most closely describes your impressionbull
I
middot5 S shy2 3 4
FLAVOUR
IEXlURE
--
OVERALL UKING
7 bullbull yc ) I _ v J _ _
I1PP~NJIJ( 3 ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE BGRENVZSASS (A)
OBS DAYS-R DMPTS shy
1 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 6 4 3 7 4 6 e 4 5 9 6 1 18 6 10 11 6 18 12 6 18 13 e 13 14 8 16 13 8 13 16 8 17 17 9 18 18 9 18 19 9 bull 19 29 9 19 21 19 19 22 1 21 23 1 19 24 1 2123 11 21 26 11 22 27 11 22 29 11 22 29 12 22 3 12 22 31 12 23 32 12 23 33 13 23 34 13 23 33 13 22 36 13 23 37 14 24 38 14 23 39 14 264 14 25
17 26~ 17 39 43 17 38 44 17 29 43 21 32 46 21 33
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASS(At
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (Xt DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Yt DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9666 R SQUARED 9343 T STATISTIC 231621 INTERCEPT tAt 31799 SLOPE tSt 173399 bull STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 219473
OBSERVATIONS 46 Y DMPT9 XI DAYS-RSW YMIN -18 YMAX 61 YINC e XMIN -19 XMAX 2e9 XINe 2
] y
__ t=- I I 0(I I
JPRH6ELF PRINT MODULE -SYNTAX ERROR
DATABASE J3lGRENVISASS (FIL)
OB8 DAYS-R DMPT8
1 s 1 2 4 5 s 6 6
~ e 8 ~ 9 1 6 19 12 7 11 14 8 12 17 9 13 18 1 14 19 bull 11 17 23 12 21 29
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASSCFIL)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE CX) DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IY) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT ~9963
R SQUARED 992 T STATISTIC 3~36977
INTERCEPT CA) -3~6~41
SLOPE CB) 1~8426
STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 77667
OBSERVATIONS 12 v DMPTS x DAYS-RSW VMIN -2~ VMAX ~~ YINC ~
XMIN -19 XMAX 2~9 XINC 2
]
bull
-SYNTAX ERROR
lPRH6ELF PRINT MODULE
DATABASE BGRENVXSASS (AG)_
OB6
1 2 3 4 ~
6 7 8 9
Hi 11 12 13 14 1~
16 17 -18 19 2 21 22 23 24 2~
26 27 28 29
3 31 32 33 34 3~
36 37 J8
39
4 41 42 43 44 4~
46
DAYS-R
3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 6 6 6 6 8 8
8 bull 8
9 9 9 9
1 1 1 1 11 11 11 11
DMPTS
2 3 3 3 ~
6 ~
~
1 1 1 1 17 18 17 19 2~
2 21 21 21 23 21 23 23 24 24 24
12 24 12 24 12 25 12 25 13 27 13 25 J3 24 13 27 104 26 J04 2S
14 28 14 27 17 28 17 32 17 32 17 31 21 34 21 35
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BORENVISASSCAO)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE IX) DAVS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IV) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9~76~
R SQUARED 917 T STATISTIC 22S6S88 INTERCEPT lA) 323~7
SLOPE lB) 189812 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 269324
OBSERVATIONS 46 Y DM PT6 X DAYS-RSW ~ _01 VMAV 2~ YfNe ~
XMIN -19 XNAX 2l9 XINC 2
]
9YNTA)( ERROR bull ]PRN6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE BGRENVXSASS
OB6 DAY6-R DMPTS
1 3 1 2 3 1 3 3 1 4 3 1 5 4 1 6 4 4 7 4 3 9 4 1 9 6 6 18 6 6
11 6 6 12 6 6 13 9 8
14 9 9 15 8 8 16 8 9 l 9 18 19 9 11 19 9 12 28 9 12 21 18 12 22 18 14 23 18 11 24 18 14 25 11 15 26 11 13 27 11 15 29 11 15 29 12 17 3 12 18 31 12 19 32 12 18gJ l~ 34 13 18 3~ 13 18 36 13 19 37 14 19 JB 14 19 39 14 19 48 14 19 41 17 19 42 17 23 43 17 21 44 17 20
-(EEC)
q~ 21 23 q6 21 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASSCEEC)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE IX) DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IY) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 96691 R SQUARED 93q9 T STATISTIC 2~14824
INTERCEPT IA) -238937 SLOPE IB) 146219 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 1S28eS
OBSERVATIONS q6 Y DMPTS X DAYS-RSW YMIN -2q YMAX ~5 YINC ~
XMIN -19 XMAX 259 XJNC 2
l
SYNTAX ERROR lPRM8ELF PRINT MODULE
-
bull
APPENJ)K 4 -
DATABASE WHZTXNG VXSASS (A) bull
OBS DAYS-I
1 1 2 1 3 1 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 ~
9 5 9 5 Ii 7 11 7 12 7 13 9 14 9 1~ 9
016 11 17 11 19 11
DMPTS
1 1 1 1 2 2 4 3 5 a 7
9 13 15 bull 13 16 14 1~
019 13 2 8 28 13 16 21 13 20 22 15 24 23 1~ 24 24 15 25 25 17 29 26 17 29 27 17 38 29 19 30 29 19 38 38 19 32 31 21 33 32 21 32 33 21 32 34 23 32 3~ 23 32 36 23 34
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASSIA)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE tX) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE tV) qMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 98514 R SQUARED 9785 T STATISTIC 3344414 INTERCEPT tAt -245163 SLOPE CBt 166958 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 286799
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS x DAYS-ICE
YMIN -22 YMAX lS7 YINC lS- XMIN -19 XMAX 259 XINC 2
]
I
J
-8YNTAX ERROR
]PRM6ELF PRINT MODULE shyDATABASE WHITING VISASS (AG)
OB8 DAYS-I DMPT8
1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 4 3 1 ~ 3 2 6 3 2 7 ~ 4 9 ~ 3 9 ~ ~
18 7 18 11 7 9 12 7 18 13 9 1~
14 9 17 1~ 9 1~
16 11 18 17 11 16 18 11 17 19 13 22 28 13 18 21 13 22 22 1~ 26 23 1~ 27 24 1~ 28 2~ 17 32 26 17 32 27 17 33 28 19 34 29 19 34 38 19 36 31 21 37 32 21 36 33 21 36 34 23 36 3~ 23 36 36 23 38
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITINO VISASS(AO)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAY8-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Y) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 986~2
R SQUARED 973 T STATISTIC 3~B167B
INTERCEPT CAl -272~33
SLOPE CBI 197S63 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 221294
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS X DAYS-ICE YHIN -19~ YHAX ~9~ YINC ~
XHIN -19 XHAX 2~9 XINC 2
]
-SYNTAX ERROR lPRM6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASS (EEC)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 2 1 3 1 4 3 ~ 3 1 6 3 1 7 ~ 2 8 ~ 2 9 ~ 3
1 7 3 11 7 3 12 7 3 13 9 6 14 9 6 bull 1~ 9 7 16 11 7 17 11 8 18 11 7 19 13 11 2 13 1 21 13 12 22 1~ 13 23 1~ 1~
24 1~ 17 2~ 17 19 26 17 18 27 17 19 28 19 29 29 19 23 39 19 22 31 21 24 32 21 23 33 21 24
34 23 2J 3~ 23 26 36 23 27
I ELF SCATTER MODULE I DATABASE WHITING VISA88CEEC)I I INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (~) DAYS-ICE I
DEPENDENT VARIABLE (VI DMPTS I bull
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9a2~3
R SQUARED 96~3
T STATISTIC 387a73~
INTERCEPT (A) -4142 SLOPE (8) 12873 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 173287
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS ~ DAYS-ICE YMIN -29 YMA~ ~1 VINC ~
XMIN -19 ~MA~ 2~9 ~INC 2
J
-SYNTAX ERROR JPRM6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHITING VXSASSmiddot(FXL)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 2 3 1 3 ~ 5 4 7 4 ~ 9 9 6 11 13 7 13 1~
e 1~ 16 9 17 19 18 19 21 11 21 24 12 23 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASB(FJLI
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Y) DMPTS
bull bullbull 4~
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE CV) DMPTSr
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 982~3
R SQUARED 96~3
T STATISTIC 3S7873~ t bullbullf CINTERCEPT CA) -4142
SLOPE CB) 12873 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 173287
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS XI DAYS-ICE YMINmiddot~28 YMAKI 1 YINC ~
XMIN -I9XMAX 2~9 XINC2
]
-SYNTAX ERROR ]PRH6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHXTXNG VXSASS (FXL)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 S 2 3 1 1 5 3 4 7 4 5 9 9 6 11 13 7 13 1~
9 15 16 9 17 19 1 19 21 11 21 24 12 23 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE I WHITING VISAS8(FIL)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE CX)I DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE CY) DMPT8
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 99289 R SQUARED 9858 T STATISTIC 2638123 INTERCEPT CA) -243706 SLOPE CB) 124476 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 112846
SLOPE 10) 124476 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 112846
ObullbulllfftVTrOHSO 12 VI DHPTS XI DAVS-ICE VMIN -27 VHAX e2 VINe e XHIN -19 XHAX 2e9 gtcINe 2
]
-8VNTAX ERROR
fi
rr
[bull
SJ
in i
bullol
r~
bull bull
n i
o o o o
~
o~ o
o - l
N~ o ~
o o o
Q
Q o o
a
c -~_
Q
_
_ Q
_9_
0
o ~-
O
_
Q
lI
oJ ~
v
~ ~
~-
-
- -1
---h
---1
---I
I
I
1
~ ((9 ~ J las 0 - ~~ U -lt) az E~-~gl~~1--~~---------- ~) 1)
11 ~ - 11 HI ~~
I bull M~
~ -~ ~~ IJ~ I J ismiddotJ I Q l~
k tl I 01 re lr - 91 br I ~I ( -0 71P g I CJ tt
I I J 000 0 0 w I 0) NlNN1tl 30 hIflJ I t IC (~4ID(r ~ Wi
_ f-- -------- bull fyen ~=y ~~r I I I I I I I 0 0 00 00 ( ~) -Fr~ ~ fj)
-0 I 0 I Ole 17 10 0 ( ~ AI )middot P1~ 0 0 00 Q hItIrS ~7I -~~ (J
t -r------0 bull
_-~_ middotmiddotmiddot_middot~middotmiddotmiddot)-middot7~)
lrrT I 01 0
0 tFmiddot~~i ~ 1 o 00 Omiddot (~ -W ~r f (JJ___~ _______ _ l I I 71 I -_---_ - M-~ ~ I
J I Z-tf ~ ~ ~fI t1 11f ( )) CI I I I i I 00 r11-7[ c I C bull aofl7r_ ~ ~z ~ 1t~Ji ) ( --_--------i---shye l~~~ I f~) I I J I
I II i bull Q ( N~T fE ~I )
~JiP _- -___ ----shy
_
~ 7Yr 0) ~(J ~ I e I t I ~ l I J I I 1 I I I(I 0 0 (~~yen~ M -p~P71 JPtJIJs 0
i euror (1l~J IlLriJlllr1JI ~~J I ~()(1OP I I r I I 0 I ( t t I ( jIfS 7fS ~~I ~ )
I
I 1 I( IN 10~ lb~ qItJ gtr~j f o (~)I(~) I I 0 I (t~ ~~) I I Jbull o 0 J I ~ l 0 a i S(jJ t t t tI tI C I C I J I I I J I 0 I (n~rlP PI4t -I) t
- -I
-I -I-I I II-I I I-I r bull
-----(rtb Ii If p~) PNl17T7~b ~y~ 7
10 IIt1v I 0 1~L CIJ tN IfIfW1IIJ JI11i JN~I HJ3
---Y p~ALY~_ ~~ Yl2-- 1)
yenvr 1amp f111l
-
~
~~
~
II
o 0
~cgt
(
) Q
oa
oo
o
oo
o o
a
o
~
P
t
oo
c
oo
a -
o
oo
o
o -
o
-o
-
-
lJ
I~ I~
Jl ~rIpound i IAlffzfjjsectj 7df- utl kf J OG lie rCOIpound ~IIE(T r
7tU
~
~ ~
~ ~
~
-shy~
~
MYI f)lySLM~ 1 (JAy ISo~r 11 ~~) e ()~t ~I01) r I joy f o~y lOJ 17~JJlII1~ 16 fiti -t1 It r ~17J~~flu~1h 111H 7U 1111111shyIllf Jr(11Jr I fhJo
~ ) ~ I1 J J-4 ~ J 2 JJ ~poundol ~ ] t4 cl -7 eJ uJ cJJJ wI~ wI l shy w c at amp 74 -t ~ ut 4 I
SkIN 000 o 0 0o 0 0 o 00 I o I I I I 3 3 3l) t 3 3 31 s 3ltt
a I I I I I o IfYU I 2 I JI I I000 )l~ 1~1 S 3 ~S 3 5 335
GILtJ I J I o (J 0 I (I I I ~ t 2shy~I I s 3 ]] 2 0 (J 3 ~ ~ t 3 3 AlvItUiU i l I I ls)z oJ lJ 0 a (J ~ 0o 0 0 a a aTff1ttJR II r 1
1 I ~ I I I I 1~E
Cdt47tl7 I I ~ ~t( a a 0O(O I Io I~ 00 000deg a 0wO 0 0 0 o 0 0 o~ 00VUipound811 ~ J I
tJ I Oe6rlllr I I I I 2 2]l2 ~ 3 S 3 S ~ 3o a 0 (J () 0 I 333 1 $ 3
If~euMI LU~ 2l 3000o (J 0 o 0 0 J 2 2shy 331a deg (1 ~ 2 Jshy
i I 000amp1 0 I I 1TIUUpound
lAcltJdJE 00deg00o 0 0 ooalOOO 0 0 I I I 1OdOa deg 0 11 2 I r I I I IbullI
I I h~r~Eu I ( 0 0 CJ 0 o (J a 2 ~ 30001011 0 1 J 1010 I I L II 2 l 2l 22 2 1
sKIN GLLt I f I~J) GlIIl) 0 (I a I do 0 0 I 0 Il~t l~o 0 0 ~ 3 3 3 s 3 3 3 33s1331
i7tJ7l11 Ibull I shy i66 ~o
(J ~ 0 1 0 It3331l J t 1 1shy 1~ ~afJllc 11 Irrshy It ~1 1111 20 J3 u
(])JtUJ61 (l) (1) (Ir)(0) (J)(I) (If) (19) (u) (~r)(J4)
I r f
I
I
i I
I i
II I ((
f
II Ii
p ()
Q
0_
_ 00
0
00
00
00
0
o o o 0
00
0
0 _
o Q
0
0
o
0
00
0
-
0 0
0
middot0
0
o oo
0
o Q
o oo o o
- ~
~
~ ~~pound
w
i -shy
o
co
- --
shy
o o o
~
~_
~
0
-shyJJ
-----l--~
-J
J IJ
f
J
J)
o 0
00
_ 0
0
o (gt
0
o ()
o
0
0 0
0
()
()
o 0
0
o 0
0
_
_ -
-----1
-----shy
Q
0 0
o ~-IJ~ulJ-
u
lJcllJ_-_~IJamp
o o
Q
I---+----I---+----I----I~-
_Ilpound
llD
lIlI
Il
~I
IIIl
I_II
II5
l__
IIlIa
IllP
=lII
Il1
rl
ll
IlIl
IlIII
llII
IlJl
IIl
IIlIl_
IIrII
G3i
mta
isectID
it
llll~
1~=wampampftUla
_
au
U
Lamp
WJN
AJ
poundmiddotJI
IiIamp
3flJ
a
uac
ampa
f
shy
I~middottn 0~L fi 5L middottlu~ fo_~r ( ) 1poundc [CtJRl -ffl(pound1 r~~ rlt1c- J c-ru
-- I
1SllJ7~
lt l)~ J )IIr M ~-t s ~~ OIl middot )If 10 JAY II 041
J- Olt i1 )lir iI DIY IT- IMy11
1~middot6f1 14f1- ~imiddot -- J _ middotAfmiddot IIrk middot Jiamp -ffh~11 rtr Il ~M gt27P- ill Ill ~lllY ~~7rlf JC 1- ~ r 1M 11
r ~ F16F r~h FIjFi ~~I)r r~Fr
5 Fc II -i~fIoi l 1 fj t t Fr c r amp t 1= ~ r ~ F r rtI ~
- -
sION o (j o 0 0 o 0 a I I I I I I I I 2 I t t I-r J~L) z~z~ 2~J ~ z a ~ ~ 33 - -ol t 1 2
~ poundys-s 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I I lt t 2 t t 4 ~z ~ 2l~ ~ ~ 1 Z 3zi3p33 3 333 3 3 3 - - ~ rl~ a 0 a (1 a a o 1 I 1 I 1-2 12 t ltt a ~ l J tll~ ~~~) 2 2 2 2- ~Jll 21 13 33 ~
- ~ MIIi(UlA~
degCt1C 11 )l
FipoundSI- eli CeoD o 0 (J 0 I I I I I I 1 1 I I 1 I Jl~] l2 22- z ~ 2 2 22 11 2-3 -Sfvpound
j
CIJiCVlt-tICN I I I 1 ( I I I 2 2 t ~ t~ )2 2~21 2$ 2 t _~ 3AIJJN(j- P (J dO o C a a o 0 00 1 I I I I - --
V~7r~ ~ c~u N
(TKWW~ CO~ o I oc I I J I I I I 1 2 I 2 2 1- ) t~l2 2- 22 2 ) 2 ~2- 1222 2 2 ll 2L -- -~VClLAl I
a 0 0 0 01 I 0 2 1 2 2 J5r 4 E i H CA I I
-I I I I I I I I J J 12( ~ 12 1 2 1 2-I TfI_ 21 1-1- 1 1 ~ 1
~ I middot_0-__-- I
~ 1
ffCACIpound coo 000lt=1 o 0 0 0 btJCt) o a () (J I I I I I I I I111 I I I 1 I I -~-aD CD lJ a a 0 0 ~ ~ UlrAfllN o 0 a IJ e e 0 C) (JdegOo ecJao co (10 (1 o I I I I I I I I 1 I I III I I I I z --
i tiN ~4r L~~ 2- li ~ a~ 8M) CUmiddot c d (J 0 (J () I I I 1 1 1
I 1 I I f t I II tl-loI 21 1 t 33 - -
-Iffl1-
J I I I I i- 2 I 11~SC~E ~ t 1 o ~ 04-t 1J 11 1 11t IS~ IfS J1 I 1 I If I IJ 1 r~]u ze uu __
bull ttlUIG
(I) l~) (6) (II) ~ (~) 6s-)llIt lCUI CJ (Ii) (~) vmiddot (II) (19~ ---
I t f
I
~ I
~ I
Ii
I I
Ii I II f
~ (
--)raquo~ middot-~~-~-I~~IliiI~~-middotComiddot~-d-b~middotmiddotmiddotmiddot_ ~ ~ middoth-~_middot--~H~~middot~gt
Other Occasional Papers in the series
1 A salinity monitor for irrigation pumps by EOMIEZITIS
2 Wine liqueur and fish products acceptability trials 47th ANZAAS Congress Hobart 1976 by HABREMNER TLLEWIS and ARQUARMBY
3 Abalone silage an exercise in the conservation of waste by JUNE OLLEY
4 Course notes contributed by the CSIRO Tasmanian Food Research Unit to a workshop on fish handling and quality control Hobart Oct3rd-5th 1978 by HABREMNER JUNE OLLEY and SJTHROWER
5 Difficulties with generalized least squares regression in forest modelling by PWWEST
6 Metabolism of zinc cadmium and copper in rats fed shellfish highly contaminated with heavy metals by SJTHROWER JUNE OLLEY and MAUREEN McDERMOTT
7 Hygiene control in seafood processing by SJTHROWER
9
spoilage with temperature can only apply if fishing oonditions are kept
constant
150 sensory Methods
Currently the best way to detenmine fish freshness still requires the use
of a taste panel (Regenstein and Regenstein 1981) A number of taste panel
techniques for assessing the quality of unfrozen fish species have been
described am are in use in different parts of the world These techniques
vary in cbjective and ccrrplexity but are of three main types Firstly there
are those which categorise the fish on the basis of its acceptability for
eatirq secondly there are those which categorise the fish on the basis of
well-defined characteristics which change duri~ storage Thirdly there are
techniques which include elements of both of these types Techniques of the
first type usually anploy a single gradi~ or hedonic (like-dislike) scale
whilst those of the second type anploy descriptions of various characteristics
(Baines et aI 1969)
The ultimate criterion of fish quality is the flavour and texture of the
cooked fish HcMever taste panel evaluations of cooked fish are timeshy
consiminq and relatively few samples can be tested at anyone time It is
therefore highly desirable to be able to make an assessment of eati~ quality
by exanini~ the raw fish My atterrpt to raise the quality of raw fish as it
reaches the consumer is critically dependent on the development of a
convenient and consistent rrethod of quality assessment based on raw fish
Fortunately eat inq quality of cooked fish can be correlated with the
appearance odour and texture of the whole raw fish Boyd and Wilson (1976)
when evaluat inq the quality of snapper (Chroysophfys aufatus) by a sensory
method found that there is close relationship between the raw attributes of
gill odour and general appearance with those of odour texture am flavour of
10
the cooked fish
The use of ooject ive tests at dockside or even on inspection within the
plant is not considered to be practical in the normal routine of inspection of
fresh ard frozen fish products as almost all of the coject Ive tests require
laboratories am so becare rather rerooved fran the busy fisherman processor
or factory foreman A nuch simpler piece of apparatus is the eye or the N)Se
(olley 1977) Sensory tests are always controversial as they require an
inspector although the canny buyer is in fact applying his senses of smell
am visual acuity in a similar fashion W9 accept the wine faster and wcxgtl
classer so why not the fish grader (Bremner 1984) Therefore a test that
correlated well with freshnessquality and that could operate on the market or
in the factory would be of considerable value to an efficient industry (Baines
et aI 1965)
Howgate (1978) also considered the sensory rrethods to be far better than
non-sensory methods which are not suitable for consumer testing whilst
Connell (1972) states that in general the sensory rrethod of assessing
freshness is the best at present for quality control purposes
As fish spoils its snell taste appearance and feel go through
characteristic am well defined stages that trained experts or experienced
staff can consistently recognise It is convenient to attach a number or
score to each stage so that the assessor can award the appropriate score to
each fish or batch of fish Alternatively the mere recognition of each stage
ard acceptance or rejection of fish on this basis may be all that is
necessary Different species and products spoil in different ways The
numerical system us irq an objective panel developed at the Ibrry IEsearch
Station by Shewan et al (1953) is probably the ultUnate critical evaluation of
fish freshness available at this time It was created for the determination
of storage time of whole Net fish l6Jenstein and Iegenstein (1981) in using
11
this nunerical system reported that the cooked freshness scores are generally
higher (better) than expected at that storage t irre for whole wet fish A
freshness score of 55 on the Ibrry scale seemed the appropriate endpoint for
their definition of shelf-life This would nonnally be reached with ideal
iced-at-sea fish about twelve days from catch sooner for fillets Freshness
scorirq systems are I1C1laquo available fran Ibrry Research station for most UK
ccmnercial species and systems are available for both the raw and cooked
fish HoweveF there is still no standard scorirq system to be used
internationally he countries in the EEC ~or instance use scoring systems
which differ both in scale length am in characteristics measured Most
systems use the same scale length for all features examined but the United
Kingdon am Icelarrl use scales of 10 to 0 for odour and 5 to 0 for other
characteristics ibwgate (1972) describes the effort to construct a rorogram
for oonvert inq fran one scorinq system to another (Appendix 1) de Zylva
(1974) expanded the Ibrry score sheet to include marks for flesh colour and
texture belly flap discoloration stainiBJ of backbone am colour of
kidney he scoring system was designed for ~w Zealand snapper and gave
excellent negative linear correlations between score am days of storage
legenstein (1983) presents the way in which Ibrry has in turn incorporated
other characteristics into the score sheet for raw fish Groupings of several
characteristics to give a score requires more expertise than scoring
individual points as is done by de Zylva
However the use of a point or scoring system in which higher points are
given for high quality attributes would mean the requirements of more
kllC7filedge of the fish and the tester mist be experienced and knCM the
qualities of the fish previously Therefore it is too species dependent
his problem can be overcare by using the demerit system with points being
allotted in several categories for defects as they becare obvious and one can
I
12
learn as one goes along in each situation he demerit points that were given
to the various selected quality attributes could be weighted in such a way as
to produce an approximately linear change in score with storage time (Branch
and Vail 1985)
It might also be desirable OCIlInercially to specify a uniform mrnber of
days of shelf-life fran the pack date to consumption he length of shelfshy
life ctgttained for fish depends on the initial age and quality of the fish the
tirre of the pack am the time am temperature of storage before am after
packing In practical terns the ultimate measure of the effect(s) of shelf-
life extension treatments on the final quality of the fish is consumer
satisfaction (Regenstein aoo Regenstein 1981)
A tentative grading systan for fresh fish based on sensory assessment of
fish had been described by IbUwing (1972)
160 The Ideal Method
Forty years of research ootably in the UK Canada and Japan have gone
into objective methods for measuring fish quality (Bremner et al 1978)
There is as yet 00 single universal test for all species nor for that
matter any wholly satisfactory test for individual species
The ideal rrethod hOlJld be one that is cheap oon-destructive easy to
use oot subject to much variation or fatigue having rapid response and wide
application sensory tests have the advantages of being non-destructive 00
equipnent required adaptable to species and assessing the market value
Althcogh sensory tests are usually condemned as a subjective test which
requires training am experience am are also said to be easily open to
abuse this can be reduced if a simple rapid and less descriptive rrethod
could be fourd - possibly with the use of demerit point scores Therefore
this study aims at assessing the use of sensory techniques based on the
13
demerit point scores developed for raw whole (gutted and ungutted) and
filleted fish samples of Australian fish species stored in ice and RSW It
also discusses the results of the acceptability taste panels on the cooked
fish samples
The two oammercially ~rtant Australian fish species used in this study
were the blue grenadier am the blue rock whiting he blue grenadier is
currently Tasmanias major oammercial finfish and the recent annual production
of the fishery exceeds 100 tonnes (Last et aI 1983)~ he blue rock whiti~
is the only Australian member of the family that has any commercial
importance It occurs mainly in Bass strait and the sheltered bays of South
eastern Tasmania The flesh is delicately flavoured but very soft
200 MATERIALS lIND MEIHgt[s
210 Sample preparation
211 Fish stored in RSW
Blue grenadier used in this study were caught on the 15th lugust 1984 at
a depth of 300 fathans off Sandy Cape on the west coast of Tasmania (Lat
41deg20S IDrq144deg40 E) by demersal trawl They were taken fran the deck
irnnediately am dropped into a refrigerated seawater (RSW) tank in a net bag
(tanp -1degC) The fish was reported to be handled quite roughly on board
Sore of the fish had already gone into rigor at this stage he fish were
transported to the CnID lasrnanian Food lesearch Uni t (TFRJ) laboratories in
Hobart and were already to days old on arrival The f ish were then placed in
the RSW box tank of the rrobile unit (the design and construction of which were
described by Thrower and Stafford 1981) and was kept at -1degC for the duration
of the storage trial which lasted for about three weeks Four fish were
rerroved at each samplirq tine (Table 1) for sensory assessment Length
14
measurements to the fork of the tail were also noted ~e fish were then
filleted and samples frozen at -lBoe for later assessment of their
acceptability by taste panel
212 Fish stored in ice
For the sensory assessment of fish stored in ice guidelines similar to
those given by Lima dos Santos et al (981) were used ~e blue rock whiting
also known as the weedy whiting was used ~e whiting were caught on the
afternoon of 23rd August 1984 by demersal trawl in 18 to 25 m waters oft
Eastern Tasmania On arrival at the TFRJ laboratories in I-bbart at 11 45 am
on the fol Lowirq day the f ish were re- iced at a ratio of 21 (ice f ish) in
insulated plastic boxes of size 66 x 41 x 28 em with provision for drainage
of melt water Flake ice was used ~e ice was topped up daily and renewed
once a week The boxes of i ced f ish were then kept in a cool roan set at a
temperature of 0deg to -1dege ~ree fish were removed for sensory assessment at
each sampling time (Table 1) over a period of rmre than three weeks of ice
storage 100 fish samples were then frozen at -18dege until needed for the
acceptability taste panel
Table 1
sampling regirre for fish stored in R3Wice
Blue Grenadier Diys in R3W 3 4 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 17 21
Sample code N D G L S R K T U P M 0
Whiting Diys in ice 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Sample code 0 M D G T S N R P U L K
15
220 Sensory assessment of the whole (gutted and ungutted) raw fish samples
Both the blue grenadier stored in lOW and the whi t i nq stored in ice were
progressively assessed by using the sense organs of sight smell and touch tor
changes in general appearance odour and texture with storage tine by giving
the appropriate demeri t scores according to the score sheets as shown in
Tables 2 and 3 IVo types of score sheets were used Table 2 shows the
sensory assessment score sheet orig inally developed for the assessment of
gemfish (Thrower et al 1982) It has been simplified and weighted (Branch
and Vail 1985) to provide accumulated increases in demerit points as the t i sn
change in odour texture and appearance during storage with the max imum
accumulated demerit point scores of 35 for the urx]utted samples and 39 tor tte
gutted samples The total scor irq for gutted fish differs fran that descr ibeo
by Bremner (1984) and Branch and Vail (1985) in that the demerit points for
the belly cavity have been added to those for the whole fish
The whole and gutted raw fish were also assessed by using the freshness
score sheet developed by the Council of the European COl1nunities (Official
Journal of the European Qmnunities 1970) but with slight rrodification marie
in its scor irq method in that the scor irq was reversed to provide accumulateri
increases in demerit points as in the TFRJ score sheet (Table 2) with a
maximun accumulated demerit score of 30 (Table 3) The samples were scored by
H Abd R who had had no previous experience with the score sheet
230 Sensory Assessment of the frozen filleted raw fish samples
Samples of the whole and gutted fish of both species were then filleted
ard frozen at -18degC until required for the organoleptic acceptability test
panel fillets were thawed by holding for about 16 hours (overnight) in still
air at 4degC The thawed fillets of both the blue grenadier and whi t i nq were
then assessed by the sense organs of sight smell and touch by using the scor-e
sheet for filleted sample as shown in Table 4 nle score sheet was developed
16
able 1
FIlt U Snorr bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullnt oore hbullbull t ( ( 1Ii~ ANI) tlNtJuTreo)
1_middotAnlJ lmiddot
rlSB IDDII
UIUIl~ (VBci9ht~i9ht8lDullDUll
o 1 2 3
SitU ( rimSoft) o 1
SCALBS (r1mSlLoomiddotmiddotLoobullbull ) o 12
r r SLIMB (AbbullbullntSlSlimiddotysliyVSliy)
o 123
S1IrnraS (pr-Ri90rRi90rPot-Ri90r) o 1 2
BYBS Clarity (ClbullbullrISlCloudyCloudy) 012
Shape (HoralslsunknSunkn) 012
Irill (ViiblHot Viibl) IJ 1
Blood (No BloodSlBloodyVBloody) o 1 2
GILLS Colour (VDark)Charaotritio (SlDark) (vradd)(Slradd)
2o 1 Kucou (AbbullbullntKoderatmiddotBxcbullbullbulliv)
o 1 2 S bullbullll (rrbullbullh 01ly) Pihy8talpoll~
(MetalliaSaved) 1 2 3
BELLI Dicoloration (AbbullbullntDetatablmiddotModratmiddotBxobullbullbulliy) 012 3
Finanbullbullbull ( rira80ftBurt) o 1 2
VENT Condition (bobullbulldy)Noraal (SlBrbullbullk) (Opening)(Bxudbullbull )
2o 1 Sbullbulln (rrbullbullhReutralrihy8poilt)
o 2 3
BELLI CAVIn Stain (OpalbullbullontGryihlmiddotllow-Brown) o 1 2
Blood (RdDark RdBrown)
o 1 z
--
17
UJE 3
Etc SENSORY A$fE4St4fN[ ~(oIlL~
SCALE OF MARKING - FRESHNESS
CRITERIA shypoundu1LRt
Abullbullbullbullbullment Mara-bull thc r1ah 0 1 2- 3tszhL
AppearanceinIIMlISJ Skin
Eye
Gill
Flbullbullshycut f ssm abdomusn
Colour the~
vertebral column
Organs
Oright iridescent I bright pigmenta- pigmentation in (1) dull pigmenta tion no i tion but not the process of pigmentation discolouration Ius trous becoming dis-
mucus opaquemucus aqueous i coloured and dull
mucus slightlytransparen t
cloudy ~UCU9 milky
convex (bulging) convex and flat (1) concave in cornea tran- slightly sunken cornea the centre parent cornea Ughtly opalescent cornea milky pupil black opalescent pupil pupil grey bright
pupil black opaque dull
-shining colour less coloured becoming dis- (1) yellmiish no mucus a few traces of coloured mucus milky
cloar mucus mucus opaque
blueish trans- dull velvety slightly opaque (1) opaque lucid smooth waxy shining without any change in the colour sUgh tly original colour changed
(I) reduncoloured sl1 gh tly pink pink
kidneys and kidneys and kidneys (1) kidneys residues of resJdues of resicJuos of r bullbullidue of other other organs other organs other organs organs and blood bright red the dull red blood and blood brownish game as the becoming palo red blood inside discolbured the aorta
(1) or in a more advanced bull ta te of decay
I
bull
Flesh
Vertebtal Column
Peritonium
Gills kin abdominal cavity
18
(eontd)
SCALE OF MARKING - FRESHNESS
CRITERIA
Assessment Mark 0 1 2
Physical eOId ton
firm and elas tic surface smooth
breaks ins tead of coming away
totally adherent to the flesh
seaweed
less elastic
adherent
adherent
Smell bull
not of seaweed but not bad
slightly soft (flaccid) Ie elastic surfacente waxy velvety and dull
slightly adherent
slightly adherent
slightly sour
3
(1) soft (flaccid) scales ebullbullil y detached from skin sur face ra ther wrinkled inclining to mealy
(1) not dherent
1( ) not adherent
(1) sour
(1) or in a more advanced stat of decay
_ shy-- -
19
Table 4
Filleted Sample Score Sheet
r
TREATMENT F ILIEIS DATE REMOJAL (THAWED)
FISH IDENr
EASE OF FILLETING (Easysl difficultdifficult)
012
APPEARANCE (a) Oolour of flesh (TranslucentSl discolouredSl opaqueopaque)
o 1 2 3
(b) Blood stains (AbsentDetectableModerateExcessive)
012 3
(c) Clotting (UnclottedSlclottedModclottedExcessclotted)
012 3
(d) Skin Oolour (VbrightBrightSldullOU11)
o 1 2 3
TEXTURE FirmS1 softSoft
o 1 2
ClDClJR (FreshNeutralStaleSpoilt)
012 3
CONJITION (a) Gaping (AbsentDetectableModerateExcessive)
o 1 2 3
(b) Bruising (AbsentSlightSevere)
012
(c) Wetness (NmnalS1 dry orMod dry orExcess dryness or
SldripModdrip Freezer bJrn or Excessdrip
012 3
(d) Autolysis (Absentmoderatesevere) (Disco1ourations) 0 1 2
(e) Parasites (Absentmoderatesevere) ( Infestations) 0 1 2
(f) Other discolourations (Absentpresent) or contaminants (bones membranes tissues etc) 0 1
EASE OF SKINNING (EasySldifficultdifficult)
012
20
by the author after a literature search and observations made during the preshy
liminary part of the study It has a maxUnum accumulated demerit score of 34
240 ~anoleptic Acceptability Panel of the cooked fish
Filleted samples of both fish species which had been frozen in a cold
roan at -18dege and then thawed as above were used for the acceptability taste
panels The fillets were skinned am cut into 30 to 40 g pieces crumbed and
deep fried (Bremner et ale 1985) Three or four treatments were cooked
simultaneously at each session am the fish served with packets of take-away
french fries Tcrnato sauce vinegar and salt were available Each of the
samples were randanised in such a way so as to give a high degree of balance
(Table 5 and 6) Letters that represent the samples were also picked
randanly The fish was assessed by 20 panellists employed at the Tasmanian
lEgional Laboratory and experienced with facial hedonic scaling for flavour
texture am overall acceptability using the General Foods Smiley scale
(Appendix 2) Salt was rot rrentioned with the 9niley questionaire for blue
grenadier so that the panel should have ro preconceiVed prejudices
250 Statistics
tata fran the sensory assessment of the whole gutted and ungutted raw
fish (both TFRJ am EEl score sheets) am fran the sensory assessrrent of the
frozen filleted raw fish samples of both the blue grenadier stored in RSW am
whiting stored in ice were analysed for correlation using the ELF scatter
module (Appendix 3 and 4)
The acceptability taste panel assessment scores for flavour texture and
overall liking of the toKgt species of fish were subjected to analysis of
variance using the Genstat package (Appendix 5 and 6)
22
Table 6
Order of presentation of cooked whiting samples to the acceptability taste panelists
Order of presentation of samples Panelist
session I session II
1 OTP rm 2 MUS KR 3 sm INL
4 IKJ GKR
5 ror NK
6shy USM UN ~
7 OOP RLD
B HUT NKD
9 USO RiL
10 SMP LGN
11 IMT GIltN
12 nxgt KRD
Note
8angtle code OM 0 G T S N R P U L K
storage time in ice (days) 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
23
300 RESULIS
310 Physical Characteristic of M novaeaelandiae
rran the forty-six fish examined the mean fork lerqth was found to be
762 an (range 609 to 838 an) A few of the fish examined had well shy
developed roes and their digestive tracts were found to be relatively empty
320 Physical Characteristics of the H ssmifasoiata
rran a total of thirty-six fish examined the rrean weight of the fish was
fourrl to be 662 g (range 27 to 186 g) am the mean fork length was 183 em
(range 156 to 265 an)
330 sensory assessment of the raw blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
he results of the sensory assessrrent of the r2M blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW by the four rrerhods of scoring are given as average total
accumulated demerit point scores as shown in Table 7 Figure 1 shoes the
graph of demerit point versus days in RSW by the four rrethods of sensory
assessment used Table 9 shltJtS the correlation analysis
340 sensory assessment of the raw whitirq samples stored in ice
he results of the sensory assessment of the r2M whitirq samples stored
in ice by the four methods of scoring are given as average total accumuLated
demerit point scores as shown in Table 8 Figure 2 shltJtS the graph of demerit
point versus days in ice of the four nethods of sensory assessment used Table
9 shltJtS the correlation analysis
350 Attributes contributing to total score
Attributes that contribute to total score usirq the TFRJ scores (ungutted
and gutted) EEC scores and the filleted sample scores are as shewn in Tables
10 - 14
24
Table 7
Total demerit points fran sensory assessment of blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
Average lbta1 Demerit Rgtint SCores
[)lye in RW TFRJ scores TFRJ scores EEl scores Filleted Sample (urvJut t ed ) (gutted) (gutted) SCores
3 3 3 1 1
4 5 5 2 3
6 10 10 6 6
8 16 18 9 8
9 19 21 11 10
10 20 22 13 12
11shy 22 24 15 14
12 23 25 18 17
13 24 26 19 18
14 25 27 19 19
17 29 31 21 23
21 33 35 25 29
Note
Maximum possible scores for (1) IlRJ scores (ungutted is 35
( 11) IlRJ scores (gutted) is 29
( 11i) EEX scores (gutted) is 30
( iv) Filleted sample scores is 32
amptV
35j
3l~
en Ishy 25Z-0 Q
3)-~
bullbullbull 0
bull 0 0bull 0
bull 0 0 6shy abull A ~
~
bull 0
~
6shy
bull 0
6shy
I) 01
-W 0i A15W ~ Q A
~
6shy~101- bull 90 TFRU SCORES (ungutted)
6shy~ bullbull TFRU SCORES (gutt~d i
bull ~
4 6- 6- EEC SCORES 5~
~ ~ FILLETED SAMPLE SCORES ~
6 4 I J I I I
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
DAYS IN RSW
Figl Demerit Points Versus Days in RSW For Blue Grenadier Samples
Fig 2 Demerit Points Versus Days in ice For Whiting Samples I
27
Table 8
TOtal demerit points from sensory assessment of whi tirq samples stored in ice
Average TOtal Demerit Foint SCores
rays in ice TFRJ scores TFRJ scores EEC scores Fi 11eted sample (urqutted) (gutted) (gutted) (gutted)
1 1 1 0 0 3 2 2 1 1
5 4 4 2 3
7 7 9 3 4
9 13 15 6 9
n 15 17 7 13
13 19 21 11 15
15 24 27 15 16
17 29 32 19 18
19 31 35 22 21
21 32 36 24 24
23 33 37 26 26
Note
MaXllnum possible scores for (i) TFRJ scores (urqutted) is 35 ( ii) TFRJ scores (gutted) is 39 ( iii) EEC scores (gutted) is 30 ( iv) Filleted sample scores is 32
28
Table 9
Relationship between tLme and demerit points for fish stored in RSW
Method of Visual Assessment
y- intercept slope correlation
M novaBMBlandias
TFRJ (urqutted ~les) 032 175 097
TFRJ (gutted samples) 032 190 096
EEl -231 146 097
Filleted samplesbull
-357 158 099
H sBmifasoiata
TFRJ (urqutted samples) -245 167 099
TFRJ (gutted samples) -273 187 099
EOC -414 129 098
Filleted samples -244 125 099
ltshy
--------------- ------------------------------------------
------------- - ------------- -------- ------
Table 10
Attributes contributing to total score using TFRO scores (gutted and ungutted)
Attributes involved in score change Score
Blue grenadier in RSW Whiting in ice
Stiffness Eyes - clarity blood Slllne Stiffness Eyes - clarity shape and blood lt10 Gills - smell Vent - smell SlBne Gills - colour smell and mucous
Vent - smell Belly cavity - stains and blood
Appearance Eyes-shape Stiffness Gills - smell colour and mucous Skin
Stiffness appearance gill-smell Scales belly-discolouration and firmness
N so
gt10lt20 SCales belly - discolouration and firmness Vent - smell Vent - smell and condition Belly cavity - stains and blood
Appearance Slllne Eyes - clarity shape Appearance SlBne Scales Skin blood and iris Gills - colour Eyes - clarity and shape
gt20lt30 Belly - discolouration Gills - mucous smell am colour Vent - condi tion and smell Belly cavity shy blood
Appearance Gills - mucous and smell SlBne Eyes - iris am blood Belly - discolouration and firmness Belly - discolouration and firmness
gt30 Vent - condition and smell Vent - condition Belly cavity - blood Belly cavity - stains
Table 11
Attributes contribut irq to total score us irq EEC scores
Attributes involved in score change
Score Blue grenadier in RSW W1iting in ice
lt7 Appearance - skin eyes gills organs Physical condition - flesh Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and organs Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skins eyes gills flesh Appearance-eyes and organs atv
vertebral column and organs Physical condition-flesh and peritoneum gt7lt14 Physical condition - flesh Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-eyes flesh and vertebral Appearance-skin gills and organs column Physical condition-flesh vertebral column
gt14lt21 Physical condition-vertebal column and and peritoneum peritoneum Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and vertebral column vertebral column
gt21 Physical condition-flesh and peritoneum Physical cOndition-flesh vertebral column Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity and peri toneum bull
Table 12
Attributes contributing to total score using filleted sample scores
Score
lt5
Attributes involved in score change
Blue grenadier in RSW
Appearance - blood stains skin colour ltXIour - flesh
M1iting in ice
----- shy -------------- shy
Appearance - skin colour odour - flesh Cbndition - gaping wetness
Appearance - colour of flesh Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Texture - flesh skin colour ltgt gt5lt10 Cbndition - gaping bruising wetness Ease of filleting
Texture - flesh
Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Appearance - colour of flesh clotting skin clotting skin colour skin colour
gt10lt20 odour - flesh odour - flesh Cbndition - gaping wetness autolysis COndition - gaping bruising wetness other discolourations autolysis and other discolouration Ease of skinning
Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains skin colour clotting
gt20 Texture - flesh Texture - flesh odour - flesh Odour shy flesh COndition - gaping bruising wetness Cbndition - wetness autolysis autolysis Ease of skinring
32
Table 13
Diff~rent emphasis in scoring systems for whole fish as between the EEl and TFID
Attribute Number of potential demerit points TFRJ EEl
1Ippearance (general) 3 0
skin ) scales 6 3
slime
Stiffness (Rigor) 2 0
Eyes 7 3
Gills 7 6
Belly 5 0
Vent 5 0
Belly cavity 4 3
Flesh cut fram abdomen 0 3
Flesh texture 0 3
Vertebral column 0 6
Internal organs 0 3
33
360 Relative merits of the scoring systems
The four scor irq methcds were used on the same samples of t ish Any
sample had therefore deteriorated to the same extent on anyone day Figs 3
am 4 shew the scores converted to percentages of possible deroorit point
scores The discrepancy in the accumulation of demerit points between the EEC
am TFRJ scor irq methods is clearly shown IEference to Table 2 3 am 13
shOool that this is caused by the lack of questions regarding rigor looseness
of scales condition of belly am vent am the qroupinq of colour am mucous
in the gills as single po i nts thus halving the potent Ia I gill demerit point
score canparison of the tO species in Table 9 ShONS that the rate of
accumulation of demerit pgtints was more consistent for the TFRU system than by
the EEX scor i oq methltXl or by scorinq of fillets
370 Time taken to score the fish
The average time taken to score an individual fish using the TFPlJ
(unqutted) scores TFRJ (gutted) scores EEX scores am the filleted aamp Le
scores were found to be 1 min 25 sec 1 min 55 sec 3 min 45 sec and 1 min 50
sec respectively The EEX score sheet is more t iroe consumioq in that more than
one question is asked about an attribute for the giving of only one demerit
point this requires conscious thought
380 Acceptability taste panel results of blue grenadier samples bull Figures 5 6 am 7 shOool the mean taste panel scores in graphic form for
flavour texture and overall acceptability of cooked blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW table 14 shows the results of the statistical analysis
390 Acceptability taste panel results of whiting samples
Figures 8 9 am 10 shOool the mean taste panel scores in graphic form for
flavour texture and overall acceptability of cooked whiting samples stored in
ice table 15 shows the results of the statistical analysis
WHITING STORED IN ICE o TFRU SCORES (ungutted)
bull TFRU SCORES (gutted)
b EEC SCORES
FILLETED SAMPLE SCORES
100bull e ~ e b
i 6
bull NW
oIJ-a A A-
(J0 t A~ 0 ~ AC)
C) -e ~~-
C) a 50 A
A w
Iz ~
~ - W e A0 c a ~ ~ A-a ~ l ~ A
w -~
~ X ~ W -e I c ~ ~ ibull I I I I
4 8 12 16 20 24
DAYS IN ICE FIG4
36
- flavourshy
-e s-e l ~ v
5middotIU
STORAGrf IN R sWDAYS
rlCoS Ttutfc pcr1 rcbull
rf oj bl jtlJ~r - jlqVGurc acccr~b
21179 0 2 136 843
~ 0 u 5middot0YI
oJ J l ofmiddot$ 1 e
tu 4middot0
VI
~ 3middot5
3middot0
TelC-lue X bull -e III
~ Gmiddotftv
ct 5middot03
V1
-J -f-SshyU 2
~ 40 t
3-~
~ bullbull0 5 0
~ 17 21A ISII
PAY- IITDRAGamp fbilW
FIG6 I Tq1-c pltnd rc-utl ojbllfcJrcftaJIr bull I~M144 Q Cc(r~blfly
r 411q~~ An~Plf bUIJlfM F llh J~Lld Pt-DoL B fpound)1
gt1 NI ~~eusr SJAVlt1
D ~II
(ffIt1~JP IIID bull U J 1i
-IyoJC )-tlICf p --lInraquoJ Ix-Pc ~1rb1 r I ef
Ma2j NI a~v2loJ$
til
1Ia ~AO (IIp~lJa~e
01
secto
00
s
05
5
o~
~
0pound
s
0
smiddot
o~
07
1 ~ ~ ~ ~
r~
B
~
rv t gtshy 2
~ ~ 11
~ 7shyIn r
~ () 0 1) m ~
~ gtshyz -
(fII~q~~ 7~ P
IItJ1o -~~f(ll p ~I I~U J ~t~L 0 ~ middot~II I
IDI 8~ middot lta ~
~ QS
middotS ~ ~ 0 z
r Smiddot II
S 1d 0-$ 111 r- l gtshy r
V fr~
~llCf-J a-PcJ~ U~middotJO
4lp~dmiddotyIb 6middot~1f np)t -~11M fo --IIhen IJutJel ~bl
Table 14
Acceptability of deep fried blue grenadier samples stored in FSW
rays in R3W
Acceptability 3 4 6 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 17 21
Flavour 50a 50a 4S a 51a 50a 51a 50a 4Sa 49a 53a 41b 35b
Texture 49bc 51abc 4S bed 52ab 4Sbed 53ab 52abc 52ab 4Sbed 55a 46cd 43d
OJerall 50ab 51ab 47be 52ab 4Sb 5lab 52ab 50ab 47b 54 a 41c 35d
abc
d
significantly different (pltOOOl)
significantly different (pltOOl) W so
Table 15
Acceptability of deep fried whiting samples stored in ice
rays in ice
Acceptability 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Flavour 5Sab 59a 59a 60a 59a 5S ab 51b 54ab 53ab 37c 37c 31c
Texture 59ab 59a 53bed 5S ab 63a 59ab 47cde 54be 56ab 55ab 44e 46de
OJera11 57ab 5S ab 59ab 60a 60a 5Sab 52b 53ab 55ab 42c 36cd 31d
abcde significantly different (Plt0001)
40
~oo DISCUSSION
410 Sensory assessment of the raw blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
he results of sensory assessment on the raw blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW by the four methods of scoring all sheM that there is
progressive increment in total demerit points with storage time for all the
four methods (Table 7) It was also fourxi that the accumulation of demerit
points with time of storage of the fish in ffiW occurred in a saui-linear
fashion for all -the four scoring methods used (Figure 1) he variables (time
of storage and demeritmiddot points score) were all highly correlated (Table 9)
he correlation equation of the TFRJ (ungutted samples) and TFRJ (gutted
sanples) scores were similar roth having a zero time intercept of 032 but
with the TFRJ (gutted samples) scores having a slightly greater slope by 015
he EEC scores and the filleted sample scores roth have lower slopes ie
146 and 158 respectively canpared with the TFRJ (ungutted sample) and TFRJ
(gutted sample) scores of 175 and 190 respectively lbwever the EOC scores
which have the lowest slope have a fairly similar correlation equation with
the filleted sample scores (Table 9) he negative intercepts reflected the
slightly more sigrroid relationship for these samples his suggests that the
TFRJ (gutted) scoring method is the rrost sensitive of the four methods
followed by the TFRJ (ungutted) the filleted sample and the EEC scores
It was also found that after 21 days of storage in RSW the blue
grenadier samples had not reached their maximun possible scores in any of the
four scoring rrethods used (Table 7) he TFRJ (ungutted sample) score only
reached 943 of its possible maximun value whereas the TFRJ (gutted sample)
scores EEC scores and the filleted sample score reached only 897 833 ar~
906 of their possible maximun score his means that all the four methods
of scoring can still be sensitive to changes in the quality of the blue
grenadier samples stored in RSW after 21 days of storage time
41
Figures 1 and 3 also shOVt that the pattern of the graphs of demerit
points against days storage in R3W of the four methcxis of scoring is similar
ie a tendency to be slightly sigmoid fbwever the filleted sanple scores
sean to be rrore sensitive than the EOC scores at the later part of the storage
time ie after 14 days of storage and the scores continued to rise
1be rrost obvious indicator of change for the blue grenadier stored in ffiW
using the TFRJ scores (both gutted and unJUtted sanples) was the eyes (clarity
and blood) followed by odour developnent of the gills (Table 10) his is -
also foond to be true wi th the EOC freshness score (Table 11) Fbr the
filleted sample scores the appearance and odoor of the flesh seems to be the
most obvious indicator of change follOVted by the condition of the fillets such
as gaping bruisin) am wetness (Table 12)
4 20 sensory assessment of the raw whi ting samples stored in ice
1he results of sensory assessment on the rCJl whiting samples stored in
ice by the foor roothods of scoring also shows that there is a progressive
increment in total demerit points with storage time for all the four methods
of scoring (Table 8) Ps with the blue grenadier the aCCLD1UJlation of demerit
points with time of storage of the whiting in ice also occurred in a sernishy
linear fashion for all the foor scoring methods used (Figure 2 and 4) wi th a
slight lag in the initial phase Interestingly this was not observed in the
case of blue grenadier sanples stored in ffiW probably because the first
samplin) of the blue grenadier starts only fran the third day after catch
whereas the first sampling of the whiting starts fran the first day after
catch Also the blue grenadier was handled qu i te roughly on the deck in fact
three oot of the four fish samples on the first rerroval ie the third day
after catching had already showed blood in their eyes
Bremner et al (1985) when using the TFRJ score sheet to assess the
42
quality of four tropical fish species fran the oorth west shelf of hJstralia
(stored in ice) also fourrl that the accumulation of demerit points with time
of storage in ice occurred in a linear fashion
PB wi th blue grenadier the variables (tine of storage ard darneri t points
score) were all highly correlated (Table 9) Also the correlation equation of
the TFRJ (ungutted) ard TFRJ (gutted) scores were similar with the TFJU
(gutted) score having a slightly greater slope by 020 Crable 9) he EEC
scores am filleted sample scores also have lower s lopes l e 129 ard 125
respectively ocmpared to the TFm (ungutted) and (gutted) scores of 167 and
187 respectively However unlike the blue grenadier the filleted samples
of the whi t ing had the 10liest slope he more sensi tive na ture of the EEC
scores as canpared to the filleted sample scores in the case of the whiting
especially after 12 days storage in ice can be explained by the snaller size
of the whitirlJ (fork length ranging fran 156 to 265 an) as canpared to the
size of the blue grenadier (fork length ranging 809 to 838 an) the snaller
fish terrl to spoil faster especially the interior parts of the fish PB the
EEC scores depend nuch on the sensory assessment of the interior parts of the
fish such as the appearance and condition of the flesh vertebral colwnn
interior organs per i toneun and abdaninal cavity (Table 3) which makes up more
than 18 demerit points out of the total possible maxinun of 30 the
sensitiveness of its score is thus self-explanatory in the case of whiting
Connell (1980) explained that large fish keep marginally better than small
fish because larger fish have a smaller surface to volume ratio so that in the
same tUne less of their interior is affected
The above results confirmed the previous suggestion that the TFRU
(gutted) scorIoq methcrl is the roost sensitive of the four methods It was
found that after 23 days of storage in ice the whiting scmples had not
reached the maximun possible scores in any of the four methods used (Table
43
8) The 1FIU (UBJutted) scores had reached only 94-3 of its possible maximum
value whereas the TFRJ (gutted) scores EOC scores am the filleted sample
scores reached only 94 9 867 and 81 3 of their poea Ible maximum score
Therefore all the four methods of scoriBJ can still be sensitive to changes
in quality of the whiting samples stored in ice after 23 days of storage tUne
Ihe roost obvious irxHcator of chaDJe for the whiting stored in ice using
the TFIU score sheet was the eyes (clarity shape and blcxxl) followed by the
develqxnent of -colour odour and nucous of the gills (fable 10) Bremner et
al (1985) when working with four tropical species f~ the north west shelf of
Australia also found that the most obvious indicator of change for fish stored
in ice was the eyes (their clarity am shape) follCAtled by odour developnent
and colour changes in the gills This was also found in the case of blue
grenadier in ~ discussed earlier OJrran et al (1981) when investigating
the quality changes duriBJ iced storage of three carmercially important
species of fish fran Bahrein also found that of the visual and olfactory
assessments gill odour showed the roost pranise as a quality control index
Pgain this is also found to be true with the EOC freshness score of both the
blue grenadier and the whitiBJ (Table 11) AccordiBJ to ~ate (1972) it
was generally agreed that odour of the gills is the most sensitive measure of
freshness but the visual appearance of the eyes gills arxi skin was quicker to
use in practice on the market
For the filleted sample scores of the whiting the most obvious indicator
of chanqe was the appearance and odour of the flesh (Table 12) This too
agreed with the findiBJs for blue grenadier stored in ffiW
AccordiBJ to Baines et al (1969) with fish eatiBJ is related to four
main attributes or quality factors viz appearance odour and texture of the
rCM and cooked fish and in the latter also flavour he ultimate purpose of
testing the raw fish is to estimate the eating quality which is here taken to
44
mean the degree of freshness of flavour Acoording to Baines and Shewan
(1965) the mostreliable test for predicting flavour sqore is raw odour
430 The ease aM difficulties of using the four methods of scoring
It was found that the TFRJ (ungutted) scores was the easiest and quickest
method to use as it takes on average only about 1 min 25 sec to score a fish
canpared to 1 min 55 sec 3 min 45 sec ard 1 min 50 sec for the TFRJ
(gutted) EOC and the filleted sample scores he E~ score was found to be
the roost tedious besides taking the longest time to soore a fish
he TFIU (ungutted) scores also have the advantage of not requiring a
knife in order to score ard also were less IOOSSY to work with canpared to all
the other nethods Also the attributes to be assessed were arranged and
organised in such a way in the score sheet that it is easy to score a fish
starting from assessing the apparance and skin and ending with the condition
and smell of the vent
440 Acceptability taste panel results of the blue grenadier samples
441 Flavour acceptability
Figure 5 shc7ws the flavour acceptability of the deep fried samples of
blue grenadier Samples stored in R3W for less than 17 days were found
statistically (Table 14) to be indistinguishable (Plt0001) fran each other
then there was a significant fall in the flavour acceptability of the samples
stored in RSW for 17 days onwards he sarrtgtle stored for 21 days had a still
lower mean value of 35 but it was not significantly different fran the
semple stored for 17 days which had a nean value of 41 It is interesting to
note that despite the progressive increase in sodiun uptake of the blue
grenadier samples stored in RSW from about 7115 35 mg sodium(lOO g tissue
initially to 724 33 mglOO g tissue on the 16th day aM to 729 17 mglOO g
45
tissue on the 21st day (Burford 1984) the panelists seem not to be
negatively affected by the increasing salt content of the samples with storage
tUne and in fact some of the panelists added more salt to their samples I
111is result contradicts statements made by previous reseachers that the
storage life using R3W may be limited by increases in salt content in the fish
flesh (Boyd et aI 1978) he maximun desirable salt content according to
Tcm1inson et al (1974) as quoted by Boyd et al (1978) is about 05 but at
the 16th day ofmiddot RgtW storage the salt content fOllNj In the flesh of blue
grenadier samples was already more than 07 fbwever the panelist only ate
40g pieces it might have been a different case if the fish has been as a
whole meal
442 Texture acceptability
Figure 6 shows the texture acceptability of the deep fried blue grenadier
samples stored in R3W eespf te sane apparent abberant values (such as the
high rrean of 55 for the sample stored for 14 days in RSW) it is obvious that
the texture acceptability showed a significant decreasing trend (pltOOl) from
seventeen days of storage onwards The abberant texture values are possibly
due to the fact that the fish texture might have been masked by the bread
crunbs used to coat the fish samples before deep fryi~ This agrees with the
observations of Bremner et al (1985) wtxgt found that the inherent textural
softness of P piotiue and the tougheni~ on storage of N peroni i detected by
a profile panel usilYJ steamed fillets were no lo~er noticeable when the fish
was deep fried in batter Bremner (1980) also reported that despi te the
softness of the raw flesh the cooked flesh of blue grenadier is reasonably
firm
46
433 OVerall acceptability
The overall acceptability of the deep fried blue grenadier samples stored
in R)W (figure 7) seems to follCM a similar pattern to its flavour
acceptability (figure 5)~ in which a significant fall in overall acceptability
was only observed fran the samples held fran 17 days in RSW onwards (pltO 001)
as shawn in Tablel4
rnus all the above results showed that there was a significant fall in
flavour texture and overall acceptability of blue ~renadier from 17 days of
R)W storage onwards which was found to be equivalent to the accumulated
demerit point scores of 29 of the TFRJ (ungutted) scoresr 31 of the TFRl
(gutted) scoresr 21 of the EOC scores and 23 of the filleted sample
scores Jones (1964) states that the acceptability of a fish is a function of
its suitability for further processing and of its inmediate appearance its
texture its odour and its flavour
450 Acceptability taste panel results of the whiting samples
451 Flavour acceptability
Figure 8 shows the flavour acceptability of the deep fried whiting
samples stored in ice rtle twelve sample times could be analysed individually
since the means if analysed by canbining adjacent sample times to give six
sample groups are in fact the means of the adjacent times if analysed
individually it was found that samples of the first nine renovals i se up to
17 days of storage in ice are more or less indistinguishable (abberant value
at 7th removal) he last three removals ie samples stored in ice for 19
21 and 23 days were found to be of significantly lower flavour acceptability
(p lt 0001) as shawn in Table 5
47
452 Texture acceptability
Except for the abberation at the 7th remgtval i 9 at day 13 of ice
storage there is a significant reduction of texture acceptability at the 21 II
and 23 days of ice storage (p lt0001) as shown by figure 9 and Table5 t
II
I 453 Over~ll acceptability
he overal I acceptability of the whiting sanples stored in ice is very
much similar to its f Lavour acceptability except at day 19 of ice storage
where the ovaral I acceptability shows a higher mean of 42 carpared to the
flavoor acceptability mean of 37 (figure 10 and Table 5) here is however a
significant sudden drop to lOil scores fran the lOth removal ie day 19 of
storage in ice (p lt0001)
hus all the above results for whitifVJ sanples showed that there was a
significant fall in flavCXJr and overall acceptability fram 19 days ice storage
onwards which is equivalent to the accumulated demerit points of 31 of the
TFRJ (unqutted) scores 35 of the TFRJ (gutted) scores 22 of the EEC
scores and 21 of the filleted sample scores he results are interesti~ in
that the oorresponding total accLDnulated demerit points at the time when
significant falls in flavour texture and overall acceptability of the blue
grenadier and whiting samples stored in I5W and ice respectively were quite
similar
500 CONCLUSION
510 Feasibility of using demerit points
Accumulation of demerit points with time of storage of M
in RM and H eemifaeaiatia in ice was found to be highly
occurred in a semi-linear fashion irrespective of the method of
novas8slandiae
correlated and
scori~ used
- _ ~uo_a~_bull--_--I e -Ii --
48
1he slopes of the lines (rate of accumulation of demerit points) and its
relative spoilage rate were found to be similar for the ttoO species provided
the sane method of scoring is employed 1his tends to suggest that the method
is possibly independent of species am methods of storage or at least
applicable to the two species in RSW and ice respectively
TIle TFRJ (ungutted) scores were foum to be the easiest arrl quickest
method to use although the TFRJ (gutted) scores were the roost sensitive 1he
EEX freshness scores were hClgtlever foum to be the JOOSt tedious aod difficult bull I
to use besides taking more than twice the time taken to score a fish ocmpared
to the TFRJ (ungut ted) scores
Although there were slig~t differences between the ttoO species in those
characteristics where changes were first made (Table 10 11 and 12) there is
enough evidence to conclude that the changes in the appearance of the eyes am
the odour developnent of the gills are the JOOSt obvious arrl valuable indicator
of charqe in quality when using the TFIU or the EEl scores while the
appearance am odour of the fish flesh seems to be the JOOSt obvious indicator
when assessing the filleted sample
1he shelf-life of M navaezelandiae stored in RSW was found to be 14 days
(less than 17 days) whilst that of H semifasoiata stored in ice was fourrl to
be 17 days (less than 19 days) beyond which the fish had developed spoilage
characteristics that were disliked by the acceptability taste panel
1he cut-off point at which spoilage of the samples would have rendered
the quality of the fish sample to be unacceptable fran the consumers point of
view ~ld be that equivalent to the accumulated demerit point of gt29 for the
TFRJ (gutted arrl ungutted) scores am gt21 for the EOC and filleted sample
scores
This study thus confinned the potential use of demerit points such as the
TFRJ (ungutted) scores as an easy quick cheap non-destructive and reliable
49
method of sensory assessment of fish quality In fact Branch and Vail (1985)
had studied the possible use of a prototype pocket-sized computer to determine
the condition and shelf-life of temperate and tropical species of fish based
on data that is derived fran the sensory score sheets for the assessment of
fish quality developed at the (SIRgt Division of fbod lEsearch Iasmanian Fbod
Research Unit (TFlU) Hobart
520 RJrpose for which demerit points are to be used
Many scor i oq systerrs are used to predict the nunber of days fish have
been stored on ice and in nore recent years ICETIME (equivalent days on
ice) I ard thus through years of experience the taste panel acceptability of
the fish I
However fish is sold on appearance and a scoring system may be used for
assessirg marketability of whole or gutted fish or fillets or for setting
standards in bulk buying The EEC scoring system is used for example at
fish markets at first point of sale to grade the fish and establish
withdrawal prices A IbrryShewan type system is often used as a purohas i nq
specification from finn to firm
Before a final demerit point system is selected for any COlIOOdity its
ultimate purpose should be established For example the demerit points
chosen for whole fish which nost closely resemble the rate of change of
demerit points for fillets of that species might be the most useful
A linear rate of change of demerit points with time is nose favoured
because it enables prediction of remaining shelf-life ConstJJrer
unacceptability should be at a point where perhaps 75 of the demerit points
have been accrued Further scores would still be available for categories
such as suitable for fish meal D3merit points are not an indication of the
acceptability of fish as eaten where off-odours flavours and fillet
50
tdiscolouration are masked by batters or curries Their correlation with the
iodours flavours off odours aod off flavours of steamed fish are currently ~
~
~being examined by other workers at the Tasmanian ~ Research unit and highly
significant correlations are found Even when fish are subsequently eaten
battered or curried demerit points give a good indication of remaining shelf
life Thus whitiOJ with a Smiley flavour score of 58 after 1 day on ice
has a nlU gutted demerit score of 1 and a high quality life (eaten crumbed
and fried) of a further 16 days while whitiOJ stored for 11 days on ice with
the sane flavour score has a gutted demerit score of 17 and a further shelf
life of 6 days
530 SUggestion for further work
Ib ascertain its potentially wide application as a simple quick and
technically sound methcxi of assessing fish quality many more studies using
other species of fish both temperate and tropical species and in various
storage conditions should be undertaken using a demerit point scorIrq system
such as that developed by the TFlU
The score sheet has proved invaluable when sending individuals untrained
researchers away on distant water fishing trips Ps yet 00 standard
deviations have been detennined using a team of assessors with coded samples
of unknown history This may require a separate group design
The effect of lean fish and fatty fish on the scores should also be
studied because factors such as seasonal variations in biological conditions
Lmproper gutting and washing mechanical damage and filth and changes due to
storage in R3W or shelving may have considerable influence on its shelf-
life Reports such as those of smith et al (1979) clearly showed that in fish
such as the blue whitirlJ (Mioroomesistius poubaeeous there is greater degree
I 51
of seasonal variability than in other gadoid species the overall
acceptability droppirq dramatically once the fish have spawned Fish accepted
for processing for food has to be of a higher standard of quality than fish
accepted for Imredfate sale across the counter to the consumer therefore
there is a need to rreet a minimum score before they could be processed into
food Gradirq is therefore best left to the user sorenson (1971) states
that in establishing limi ts of acceptance an allowance had to be made for
deterioration that would continue to take place during processing and storage
prior to reaching the consimer
The only final criteria of the objectivity of sensory or any other
assessment are results that are reproducible many times which is by definition
a lcnJ-tenn process and in the meantime one requires short-cut indications
that one is headirq in the right direction
Ferhaps a final caution Is necessary as in the YQrds of Ehrenberg and
Shewan (1953) not too much must be expected even the best measuring
instruments occasionally go oot of control
52
60 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baines CR Jones NR am Shewan JM 1965 Technological problems of
measur trq degree of freshness of wet fish and problems of quality
control requirif)J roore knowledge fran fundamental research In he
Technology of fish utilisation ad R Kreuzer Fishi~ News (Books)
p 141
Baines CR and Shewan JM 1965 sensory rrethods for evafuat inq the
quality of white fish Lab practice 14 160-163
Baines CR ltbnnell JoJ Gibson DM lbWgate PF Livi~ston E and
Shewan JM 1969 A taste panel technique for evaluatirq the eati~
quality of frozen cod In Freezi~ and irradiation of fish ad R
Kreuzer Fishi~ News (Books) London p361
Boyd NS and Wilson NDC 1976 A sensory method for evaluatInq the
quality of Snapper (Ch1ysophrys auratus) NZ Journal of Science 19
209-12
Boyd NS Wilson ND and Bjley A 1978 A refrigerated sea water plant
for small boats symposium on fish utilisation technology and
marketi~ in the IPFC region IFFC Proceedi~s 18th session Manila
Philippines FAD Ba~kok p 186-192
Branch AC and Vail AMA 1984 Bri~i~ fish inspection into the
canputer age FltXld Technol Aust 36 in press
Bremner HA Olley J and Ihrower SoJ 1978 CSIIU Iasmanian lEgional
Laboratory OCcasional Paper No4
Bremner HA 1980 Processi~ and freezi~ of the blue grenadier (Maclulonus
novaeselandiae) FltXld Technol Aust 32(8)~ pp 385-393
Bremner J A 1984 QJality - an attitude of mind In he JILlstralian
Fishi~ Industry - today and tanorrow 10-12 July 1984 Launceston
53
Australian MaritUne Cbllege seminar Bapers 224-69
Bremner HA Statham JA am Sykes SJ 1985 Tropical species fran the
north west shelf of Alstralia sensory assessment and acceptability
of fish stored co ice Proceedi~s Sixth session IPR Worki~ Party
on Fish D3chnology and Marketi~ Melbourne 1984 FJID Fish lep 252
supp1
Burford D 1985 Sodiun uptake in MaOlUfOOnUS nooaeselandiae stored in
refrigerated sea water Tasmanian Food Research Unit OCcasional Paper
No9
ltbnnell JJ 1972 OJality control in the fish industry Ibrry Jldvisory
note No 58 IOrty Research Station Aberdeen
ltbnnell JJ 1980 ltbntrol of fish quality Fishi~ ~ws (Books) 2nd ed
Surrey England
OJrran CA Nicolaides L and Al-Alawi ZS 1981 QJality chanqes duri~
iced storage of three carmercially important species of fish fran
Bahrain Trop sci 23(4) 253-268
de Zylva ERA 1974 Effect of fish handli~ at sea on storage quality of
New Zealand Snapper (Chroysophroys aumtus) New Zealand J SCi 17
309-318
Etlira S 1976 A biochemical study on the freshness of fish Bull 1bkai
Reg Fish Res Lab No 88 pp 1-13
Ehrenberg ASC and Shewan JM 1953 he cbjective approach to sensory
tests of food J Sci Food hJric 4 pp 482-489
Herbert RA and Shewan JM 1975 Precursors of the volatile sulphides in
spoili~ North Sea Cod J Sci Food JIlgric 26 1195-1202
lbUwi~ H 1972 Gradi~ of fish in different qualities Institute for
Fishery Products Ijmuiden Unpublished
~ate P 1972 Qrlparison of sensory scor inq systems for raw fish
I 54
Unpubl ished bull ~ ~
~ate P 1978 Measuri~ the quality am acceptability of fish products bull ~
In IPFC Proceedi~s symposiun on fish utilisatial technology and ~
i f~
marketi~ in the IWC region 18th session Manila Ihilippines p
449
fflghes RB and Jones NR 1966 Measurement of hypoxanthine concentrations
in canned herrirg as an index of the freshness of the raw material
with a ocirment oo flavor relations J SCi fOOd middotJlgric 17 434
Jahns FD Howe JL Coduri Jr RJ and Ram Jr AG 1976 A rapid
visual enzyme test to assess fish freshness Food Iechno1 30 (7) 27
Jones NR 1964 ~lems associated with freezi~ very fresh fish
Proceedings Meeting on Fish Iechnology Fish Handling and
Preservation schevenirqen OEC D Paris p 31 bull
Jones NR 1965 Hypoxanthine and other purine containing fractions in fish
muscle as indices of freshness In uthe technology of fish
utilisation ed R Kreuzer Fishi~ rewa (Books) (Drmn p 179
Last PR Scott EOG and Talbot FH 1983 Fishes of Tasmania
Tasmanian Fisheries ~velopnent lUthority lbbart Tasmania pp 238
414
Lima doe santos CAM James D and Ieutscher F 1981 QJidelines for
chilled fish storage experiments FKJ Fish Tech Igt 210
(Dye RM 1954 Ibst rrortem cha~es in the lenses of fish eyes Msessment
of storage tiJm and fish quality J Sci Focx11lgric 5 566-572
Hartin RE Gray RJ H and Pierson MD 1978 QJality assessment of fresh
fish arrl the role of the naturally occurring microflora Focx1
Technol 32 (5) 188
Official Journal of the European oamrnunities No L264 5 ~cember 1970 pp
1-11
bull
55
Technol New Zealand July 1971 pp 31-35
Spinelli J Eklund M and Miyauchi D 1964 Measurement of hypoxanthine
in fish as a method of assessing freshness J Food SCi 29 710
Thrower S oJ am Stafford IA 1981 A roobile unit for ccmparative studies
of chilled storage systems for trawl fish IIF IIR
eatmissions C2 01 02 03 Boston USA 1981-4
Thrower SoJ Bremner HA QJarmby AR Ggtnnan T8 aild Graham KJ
1982 cn-board handlinJ of Q~ish ~ Inportanoeof chillinJ and
gutting Aust Fish 41 (11) 38-41
Tanlinson N bull bull t at 1974 COtparison between refrigerated sea water (with or
without added carbon dioxide) and ice as storage media for fish to be
subsequently frozen Proc IIR C011n 82- 0-3 Tokyo p
waterman J oJ 1982 Qrrposition and QJality of Fish A Dictionary 1brry
Mvisory Note No 87 Torry Research Station Aberdeen
5J
Olley J and letkowsky OA 1973 he role of terrperature function
integration in monitoring of fish spoilage Food Technol New
Zealand 8 (2) 13 15 and 17
Olley J 1977 Iemperature and seafood spoilage In H Proceedings of 1977
SChool for SeafltXld Processorsmiddot ad ~ AF 0 Mello Hawkesbury
Agricultural Oollege p6-2
Olley J 1978 QIality assessment and storage changes In middotCSIRJ Iasmanian bull
leJional Laboratory OCcasional Paper No 4 p 3-1 middot4 Rgenstein J M and ~enstein CE 1981 he shelf-life extension of fesh
fish In Advances in the refrigerated treabnent of fishmiddot
International Institute of Rfrigeration Clmnissions C2 m ra [8
Boston US A 1981-4
leJenstein J 1983 Wlat is fish quality INroFISH Marketing Digest ttgt 6
26-28
Ryder JM 9Jisson OH SCott ON and Fletcher GC 1984 storage of
New Zealand Jack Mackerel ( TmohUMlB notJabullbullbullZandias) in ice
chemical microbiological and sensory assessment J M SCi 49
1453-1456 1477
Shewan JM Macintosh RG rucker CG and Ehrenberg ASC 1953 he
developnent of a numerical ~coring systan for the sensory assessment
of the spoilage of wet white fish stored in ice J SCi Food Jlgric
4 283-298
Smith J GM Hardy R hanson AB Young KW and Parsons E 1979
sane observations 00 the ambient and chill storage of blue whiting
(Mio1om8sistius poutassou) bull In H Advances in Fish SCience and
Technology ad JJ Connell FishinJ News (Books) Surrey England
pp 299-303
SOrensen T 1971 QIality control and fish handling in New zealand Food ~
t c-
o )
~hmiddot r~YiJ lt~
~~f~~ ~
I
Nomooram for comparison of diffGrent scoring systems tor raw T i sn ___ _ J bull )
_U I~ ~Y1 9i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~
I I t I I - _---1------ imiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot __ middot~_ ~ __~_ -_ ~ + ~ _ -~ _ - middotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middot __ G 9 8 7 6 _ 5middot 3
_ - zmmy [ I bull r f II
d _~__ ~ __ _ ~ __ -I-- - ~ L- i~ middoti~ ~ 1-L -~~ lt lt l~tceland 1P i ~ ~ j ~ ~ ~ L~ __ - I ~_ bull _ L j ~- _-
N rv 1 I 1 2 --- - 2~ 3 middot 3middot 4 ~- ~Il ay ~ _ _ middot _ r r
_ _ __ _ _~ ~_ ) - ~ L_ - 1- ~-_ -_ _ _ ~ 19 ~ 8 imiddotmiddot I 6 5 4 3
Do _ _nm~r t I I I r
~ I
_ ~ ~_ ~ t ~ __ i__ t ~ ~ ~ ~ _ q x 1 1i 2 2~ 3v _ Franee I r I l n
I I I i _ - ~ _ _ _- _-- middotmiddot __ middot_middot_middot_middotmiddotmiddotImiddotmiddotmiddot_middot~ _middotmiddotmiddotmiddot-_middotmiddotmiddotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddot ---- - --~ ~-
19oum8 I 7 6 i 5 ~ ~ 4middot 280 J t (
I i
J -- - -_ -__ X ~middotH i__~ -- i_L ~ - l_ middot1-- - 3 I 2Y1 0 4 11z 1 y
E E C I 1
I I I deg deg E I A r Bmiddot - I I C
ltOIl j- ~ ~ c ~--------------
TASTER
DATE
SESSION
~ER middot1
bull You will be given ~bull aamples of cooked fish Please assess the fish for flavour textur~ and
overall liking as though you had purchased them in a takeaway food shop Hark the sample
identification under the face that most closely describes your impressionbull
I
middot5 S shy2 3 4
FLAVOUR
IEXlURE
--
OVERALL UKING
7 bullbull yc ) I _ v J _ _
I1PP~NJIJ( 3 ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE BGRENVZSASS (A)
OBS DAYS-R DMPTS shy
1 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 6 4 3 7 4 6 e 4 5 9 6 1 18 6 10 11 6 18 12 6 18 13 e 13 14 8 16 13 8 13 16 8 17 17 9 18 18 9 18 19 9 bull 19 29 9 19 21 19 19 22 1 21 23 1 19 24 1 2123 11 21 26 11 22 27 11 22 29 11 22 29 12 22 3 12 22 31 12 23 32 12 23 33 13 23 34 13 23 33 13 22 36 13 23 37 14 24 38 14 23 39 14 264 14 25
17 26~ 17 39 43 17 38 44 17 29 43 21 32 46 21 33
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASS(At
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (Xt DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Yt DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9666 R SQUARED 9343 T STATISTIC 231621 INTERCEPT tAt 31799 SLOPE tSt 173399 bull STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 219473
OBSERVATIONS 46 Y DMPT9 XI DAYS-RSW YMIN -18 YMAX 61 YINC e XMIN -19 XMAX 2e9 XINe 2
] y
__ t=- I I 0(I I
JPRH6ELF PRINT MODULE -SYNTAX ERROR
DATABASE J3lGRENVISASS (FIL)
OB8 DAYS-R DMPT8
1 s 1 2 4 5 s 6 6
~ e 8 ~ 9 1 6 19 12 7 11 14 8 12 17 9 13 18 1 14 19 bull 11 17 23 12 21 29
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASSCFIL)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE CX) DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IY) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT ~9963
R SQUARED 992 T STATISTIC 3~36977
INTERCEPT CA) -3~6~41
SLOPE CB) 1~8426
STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 77667
OBSERVATIONS 12 v DMPTS x DAYS-RSW VMIN -2~ VMAX ~~ YINC ~
XMIN -19 XMAX 2~9 XINC 2
]
bull
-SYNTAX ERROR
lPRH6ELF PRINT MODULE
DATABASE BGRENVXSASS (AG)_
OB6
1 2 3 4 ~
6 7 8 9
Hi 11 12 13 14 1~
16 17 -18 19 2 21 22 23 24 2~
26 27 28 29
3 31 32 33 34 3~
36 37 J8
39
4 41 42 43 44 4~
46
DAYS-R
3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 6 6 6 6 8 8
8 bull 8
9 9 9 9
1 1 1 1 11 11 11 11
DMPTS
2 3 3 3 ~
6 ~
~
1 1 1 1 17 18 17 19 2~
2 21 21 21 23 21 23 23 24 24 24
12 24 12 24 12 25 12 25 13 27 13 25 J3 24 13 27 104 26 J04 2S
14 28 14 27 17 28 17 32 17 32 17 31 21 34 21 35
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BORENVISASSCAO)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE IX) DAVS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IV) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9~76~
R SQUARED 917 T STATISTIC 22S6S88 INTERCEPT lA) 323~7
SLOPE lB) 189812 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 269324
OBSERVATIONS 46 Y DM PT6 X DAYS-RSW ~ _01 VMAV 2~ YfNe ~
XMIN -19 XNAX 2l9 XINC 2
]
9YNTA)( ERROR bull ]PRN6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE BGRENVXSASS
OB6 DAY6-R DMPTS
1 3 1 2 3 1 3 3 1 4 3 1 5 4 1 6 4 4 7 4 3 9 4 1 9 6 6 18 6 6
11 6 6 12 6 6 13 9 8
14 9 9 15 8 8 16 8 9 l 9 18 19 9 11 19 9 12 28 9 12 21 18 12 22 18 14 23 18 11 24 18 14 25 11 15 26 11 13 27 11 15 29 11 15 29 12 17 3 12 18 31 12 19 32 12 18gJ l~ 34 13 18 3~ 13 18 36 13 19 37 14 19 JB 14 19 39 14 19 48 14 19 41 17 19 42 17 23 43 17 21 44 17 20
-(EEC)
q~ 21 23 q6 21 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASSCEEC)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE IX) DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IY) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 96691 R SQUARED 93q9 T STATISTIC 2~14824
INTERCEPT IA) -238937 SLOPE IB) 146219 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 1S28eS
OBSERVATIONS q6 Y DMPTS X DAYS-RSW YMIN -2q YMAX ~5 YINC ~
XMIN -19 XMAX 259 XJNC 2
l
SYNTAX ERROR lPRM8ELF PRINT MODULE
-
bull
APPENJ)K 4 -
DATABASE WHZTXNG VXSASS (A) bull
OBS DAYS-I
1 1 2 1 3 1 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 ~
9 5 9 5 Ii 7 11 7 12 7 13 9 14 9 1~ 9
016 11 17 11 19 11
DMPTS
1 1 1 1 2 2 4 3 5 a 7
9 13 15 bull 13 16 14 1~
019 13 2 8 28 13 16 21 13 20 22 15 24 23 1~ 24 24 15 25 25 17 29 26 17 29 27 17 38 29 19 30 29 19 38 38 19 32 31 21 33 32 21 32 33 21 32 34 23 32 3~ 23 32 36 23 34
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASSIA)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE tX) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE tV) qMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 98514 R SQUARED 9785 T STATISTIC 3344414 INTERCEPT tAt -245163 SLOPE CBt 166958 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 286799
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS x DAYS-ICE
YMIN -22 YMAX lS7 YINC lS- XMIN -19 XMAX 259 XINC 2
]
I
J
-8YNTAX ERROR
]PRM6ELF PRINT MODULE shyDATABASE WHITING VISASS (AG)
OB8 DAYS-I DMPT8
1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 4 3 1 ~ 3 2 6 3 2 7 ~ 4 9 ~ 3 9 ~ ~
18 7 18 11 7 9 12 7 18 13 9 1~
14 9 17 1~ 9 1~
16 11 18 17 11 16 18 11 17 19 13 22 28 13 18 21 13 22 22 1~ 26 23 1~ 27 24 1~ 28 2~ 17 32 26 17 32 27 17 33 28 19 34 29 19 34 38 19 36 31 21 37 32 21 36 33 21 36 34 23 36 3~ 23 36 36 23 38
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITINO VISASS(AO)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAY8-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Y) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 986~2
R SQUARED 973 T STATISTIC 3~B167B
INTERCEPT CAl -272~33
SLOPE CBI 197S63 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 221294
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS X DAYS-ICE YHIN -19~ YHAX ~9~ YINC ~
XHIN -19 XHAX 2~9 XINC 2
]
-SYNTAX ERROR lPRM6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASS (EEC)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 2 1 3 1 4 3 ~ 3 1 6 3 1 7 ~ 2 8 ~ 2 9 ~ 3
1 7 3 11 7 3 12 7 3 13 9 6 14 9 6 bull 1~ 9 7 16 11 7 17 11 8 18 11 7 19 13 11 2 13 1 21 13 12 22 1~ 13 23 1~ 1~
24 1~ 17 2~ 17 19 26 17 18 27 17 19 28 19 29 29 19 23 39 19 22 31 21 24 32 21 23 33 21 24
34 23 2J 3~ 23 26 36 23 27
I ELF SCATTER MODULE I DATABASE WHITING VISA88CEEC)I I INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (~) DAYS-ICE I
DEPENDENT VARIABLE (VI DMPTS I bull
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9a2~3
R SQUARED 96~3
T STATISTIC 387a73~
INTERCEPT (A) -4142 SLOPE (8) 12873 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 173287
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS ~ DAYS-ICE YMIN -29 YMA~ ~1 VINC ~
XMIN -19 ~MA~ 2~9 ~INC 2
J
-SYNTAX ERROR JPRM6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHITING VXSASSmiddot(FXL)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 2 3 1 3 ~ 5 4 7 4 ~ 9 9 6 11 13 7 13 1~
e 1~ 16 9 17 19 18 19 21 11 21 24 12 23 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASB(FJLI
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Y) DMPTS
bull bullbull 4~
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE CV) DMPTSr
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 982~3
R SQUARED 96~3
T STATISTIC 3S7873~ t bullbullf CINTERCEPT CA) -4142
SLOPE CB) 12873 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 173287
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS XI DAYS-ICE YMINmiddot~28 YMAKI 1 YINC ~
XMIN -I9XMAX 2~9 XINC2
]
-SYNTAX ERROR ]PRH6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHXTXNG VXSASS (FXL)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 S 2 3 1 1 5 3 4 7 4 5 9 9 6 11 13 7 13 1~
9 15 16 9 17 19 1 19 21 11 21 24 12 23 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE I WHITING VISAS8(FIL)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE CX)I DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE CY) DMPT8
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 99289 R SQUARED 9858 T STATISTIC 2638123 INTERCEPT CA) -243706 SLOPE CB) 124476 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 112846
SLOPE 10) 124476 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 112846
ObullbulllfftVTrOHSO 12 VI DHPTS XI DAVS-ICE VMIN -27 VHAX e2 VINe e XHIN -19 XHAX 2e9 gtcINe 2
]
-8VNTAX ERROR
fi
rr
[bull
SJ
in i
bullol
r~
bull bull
n i
o o o o
~
o~ o
o - l
N~ o ~
o o o
Q
Q o o
a
c -~_
Q
_
_ Q
_9_
0
o ~-
O
_
Q
lI
oJ ~
v
~ ~
~-
-
- -1
---h
---1
---I
I
I
1
~ ((9 ~ J las 0 - ~~ U -lt) az E~-~gl~~1--~~---------- ~) 1)
11 ~ - 11 HI ~~
I bull M~
~ -~ ~~ IJ~ I J ismiddotJ I Q l~
k tl I 01 re lr - 91 br I ~I ( -0 71P g I CJ tt
I I J 000 0 0 w I 0) NlNN1tl 30 hIflJ I t IC (~4ID(r ~ Wi
_ f-- -------- bull fyen ~=y ~~r I I I I I I I 0 0 00 00 ( ~) -Fr~ ~ fj)
-0 I 0 I Ole 17 10 0 ( ~ AI )middot P1~ 0 0 00 Q hItIrS ~7I -~~ (J
t -r------0 bull
_-~_ middotmiddotmiddot_middot~middotmiddotmiddot)-middot7~)
lrrT I 01 0
0 tFmiddot~~i ~ 1 o 00 Omiddot (~ -W ~r f (JJ___~ _______ _ l I I 71 I -_---_ - M-~ ~ I
J I Z-tf ~ ~ ~fI t1 11f ( )) CI I I I i I 00 r11-7[ c I C bull aofl7r_ ~ ~z ~ 1t~Ji ) ( --_--------i---shye l~~~ I f~) I I J I
I II i bull Q ( N~T fE ~I )
~JiP _- -___ ----shy
_
~ 7Yr 0) ~(J ~ I e I t I ~ l I J I I 1 I I I(I 0 0 (~~yen~ M -p~P71 JPtJIJs 0
i euror (1l~J IlLriJlllr1JI ~~J I ~()(1OP I I r I I 0 I ( t t I ( jIfS 7fS ~~I ~ )
I
I 1 I( IN 10~ lb~ qItJ gtr~j f o (~)I(~) I I 0 I (t~ ~~) I I Jbull o 0 J I ~ l 0 a i S(jJ t t t tI tI C I C I J I I I J I 0 I (n~rlP PI4t -I) t
- -I
-I -I-I I II-I I I-I r bull
-----(rtb Ii If p~) PNl17T7~b ~y~ 7
10 IIt1v I 0 1~L CIJ tN IfIfW1IIJ JI11i JN~I HJ3
---Y p~ALY~_ ~~ Yl2-- 1)
yenvr 1amp f111l
-
~
~~
~
II
o 0
~cgt
(
) Q
oa
oo
o
oo
o o
a
o
~
P
t
oo
c
oo
a -
o
oo
o
o -
o
-o
-
-
lJ
I~ I~
Jl ~rIpound i IAlffzfjjsectj 7df- utl kf J OG lie rCOIpound ~IIE(T r
7tU
~
~ ~
~ ~
~
-shy~
~
MYI f)lySLM~ 1 (JAy ISo~r 11 ~~) e ()~t ~I01) r I joy f o~y lOJ 17~JJlII1~ 16 fiti -t1 It r ~17J~~flu~1h 111H 7U 1111111shyIllf Jr(11Jr I fhJo
~ ) ~ I1 J J-4 ~ J 2 JJ ~poundol ~ ] t4 cl -7 eJ uJ cJJJ wI~ wI l shy w c at amp 74 -t ~ ut 4 I
SkIN 000 o 0 0o 0 0 o 00 I o I I I I 3 3 3l) t 3 3 31 s 3ltt
a I I I I I o IfYU I 2 I JI I I000 )l~ 1~1 S 3 ~S 3 5 335
GILtJ I J I o (J 0 I (I I I ~ t 2shy~I I s 3 ]] 2 0 (J 3 ~ ~ t 3 3 AlvItUiU i l I I ls)z oJ lJ 0 a (J ~ 0o 0 0 a a aTff1ttJR II r 1
1 I ~ I I I I 1~E
Cdt47tl7 I I ~ ~t( a a 0O(O I Io I~ 00 000deg a 0wO 0 0 0 o 0 0 o~ 00VUipound811 ~ J I
tJ I Oe6rlllr I I I I 2 2]l2 ~ 3 S 3 S ~ 3o a 0 (J () 0 I 333 1 $ 3
If~euMI LU~ 2l 3000o (J 0 o 0 0 J 2 2shy 331a deg (1 ~ 2 Jshy
i I 000amp1 0 I I 1TIUUpound
lAcltJdJE 00deg00o 0 0 ooalOOO 0 0 I I I 1OdOa deg 0 11 2 I r I I I IbullI
I I h~r~Eu I ( 0 0 CJ 0 o (J a 2 ~ 30001011 0 1 J 1010 I I L II 2 l 2l 22 2 1
sKIN GLLt I f I~J) GlIIl) 0 (I a I do 0 0 I 0 Il~t l~o 0 0 ~ 3 3 3 s 3 3 3 33s1331
i7tJ7l11 Ibull I shy i66 ~o
(J ~ 0 1 0 It3331l J t 1 1shy 1~ ~afJllc 11 Irrshy It ~1 1111 20 J3 u
(])JtUJ61 (l) (1) (Ir)(0) (J)(I) (If) (19) (u) (~r)(J4)
I r f
I
I
i I
I i
II I ((
f
II Ii
p ()
Q
0_
_ 00
0
00
00
00
0
o o o 0
00
0
0 _
o Q
0
0
o
0
00
0
-
0 0
0
middot0
0
o oo
0
o Q
o oo o o
- ~
~
~ ~~pound
w
i -shy
o
co
- --
shy
o o o
~
~_
~
0
-shyJJ
-----l--~
-J
J IJ
f
J
J)
o 0
00
_ 0
0
o (gt
0
o ()
o
0
0 0
0
()
()
o 0
0
o 0
0
_
_ -
-----1
-----shy
Q
0 0
o ~-IJ~ulJ-
u
lJcllJ_-_~IJamp
o o
Q
I---+----I---+----I----I~-
_Ilpound
llD
lIlI
Il
~I
IIIl
I_II
II5
l__
IIlIa
IllP
=lII
Il1
rl
ll
IlIl
IlIII
llII
IlJl
IIl
IIlIl_
IIrII
G3i
mta
isectID
it
llll~
1~=wampampftUla
_
au
U
Lamp
WJN
AJ
poundmiddotJI
IiIamp
3flJ
a
uac
ampa
f
shy
I~middottn 0~L fi 5L middottlu~ fo_~r ( ) 1poundc [CtJRl -ffl(pound1 r~~ rlt1c- J c-ru
-- I
1SllJ7~
lt l)~ J )IIr M ~-t s ~~ OIl middot )If 10 JAY II 041
J- Olt i1 )lir iI DIY IT- IMy11
1~middot6f1 14f1- ~imiddot -- J _ middotAfmiddot IIrk middot Jiamp -ffh~11 rtr Il ~M gt27P- ill Ill ~lllY ~~7rlf JC 1- ~ r 1M 11
r ~ F16F r~h FIjFi ~~I)r r~Fr
5 Fc II -i~fIoi l 1 fj t t Fr c r amp t 1= ~ r ~ F r rtI ~
- -
sION o (j o 0 0 o 0 a I I I I I I I I 2 I t t I-r J~L) z~z~ 2~J ~ z a ~ ~ 33 - -ol t 1 2
~ poundys-s 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I I lt t 2 t t 4 ~z ~ 2l~ ~ ~ 1 Z 3zi3p33 3 333 3 3 3 - - ~ rl~ a 0 a (1 a a o 1 I 1 I 1-2 12 t ltt a ~ l J tll~ ~~~) 2 2 2 2- ~Jll 21 13 33 ~
- ~ MIIi(UlA~
degCt1C 11 )l
FipoundSI- eli CeoD o 0 (J 0 I I I I I I 1 1 I I 1 I Jl~] l2 22- z ~ 2 2 22 11 2-3 -Sfvpound
j
CIJiCVlt-tICN I I I 1 ( I I I 2 2 t ~ t~ )2 2~21 2$ 2 t _~ 3AIJJN(j- P (J dO o C a a o 0 00 1 I I I I - --
V~7r~ ~ c~u N
(TKWW~ CO~ o I oc I I J I I I I 1 2 I 2 2 1- ) t~l2 2- 22 2 ) 2 ~2- 1222 2 2 ll 2L -- -~VClLAl I
a 0 0 0 01 I 0 2 1 2 2 J5r 4 E i H CA I I
-I I I I I I I I J J 12( ~ 12 1 2 1 2-I TfI_ 21 1-1- 1 1 ~ 1
~ I middot_0-__-- I
~ 1
ffCACIpound coo 000lt=1 o 0 0 0 btJCt) o a () (J I I I I I I I I111 I I I 1 I I -~-aD CD lJ a a 0 0 ~ ~ UlrAfllN o 0 a IJ e e 0 C) (JdegOo ecJao co (10 (1 o I I I I I I I I 1 I I III I I I I z --
i tiN ~4r L~~ 2- li ~ a~ 8M) CUmiddot c d (J 0 (J () I I I 1 1 1
I 1 I I f t I II tl-loI 21 1 t 33 - -
-Iffl1-
J I I I I i- 2 I 11~SC~E ~ t 1 o ~ 04-t 1J 11 1 11t IS~ IfS J1 I 1 I If I IJ 1 r~]u ze uu __
bull ttlUIG
(I) l~) (6) (II) ~ (~) 6s-)llIt lCUI CJ (Ii) (~) vmiddot (II) (19~ ---
I t f
I
~ I
~ I
Ii
I I
Ii I II f
~ (
--)raquo~ middot-~~-~-I~~IliiI~~-middotComiddot~-d-b~middotmiddotmiddotmiddot_ ~ ~ middoth-~_middot--~H~~middot~gt
Other Occasional Papers in the series
1 A salinity monitor for irrigation pumps by EOMIEZITIS
2 Wine liqueur and fish products acceptability trials 47th ANZAAS Congress Hobart 1976 by HABREMNER TLLEWIS and ARQUARMBY
3 Abalone silage an exercise in the conservation of waste by JUNE OLLEY
4 Course notes contributed by the CSIRO Tasmanian Food Research Unit to a workshop on fish handling and quality control Hobart Oct3rd-5th 1978 by HABREMNER JUNE OLLEY and SJTHROWER
5 Difficulties with generalized least squares regression in forest modelling by PWWEST
6 Metabolism of zinc cadmium and copper in rats fed shellfish highly contaminated with heavy metals by SJTHROWER JUNE OLLEY and MAUREEN McDERMOTT
7 Hygiene control in seafood processing by SJTHROWER
10
the cooked fish
The use of ooject ive tests at dockside or even on inspection within the
plant is not considered to be practical in the normal routine of inspection of
fresh ard frozen fish products as almost all of the coject Ive tests require
laboratories am so becare rather rerooved fran the busy fisherman processor
or factory foreman A nuch simpler piece of apparatus is the eye or the N)Se
(olley 1977) Sensory tests are always controversial as they require an
inspector although the canny buyer is in fact applying his senses of smell
am visual acuity in a similar fashion W9 accept the wine faster and wcxgtl
classer so why not the fish grader (Bremner 1984) Therefore a test that
correlated well with freshnessquality and that could operate on the market or
in the factory would be of considerable value to an efficient industry (Baines
et aI 1965)
Howgate (1978) also considered the sensory rrethods to be far better than
non-sensory methods which are not suitable for consumer testing whilst
Connell (1972) states that in general the sensory rrethod of assessing
freshness is the best at present for quality control purposes
As fish spoils its snell taste appearance and feel go through
characteristic am well defined stages that trained experts or experienced
staff can consistently recognise It is convenient to attach a number or
score to each stage so that the assessor can award the appropriate score to
each fish or batch of fish Alternatively the mere recognition of each stage
ard acceptance or rejection of fish on this basis may be all that is
necessary Different species and products spoil in different ways The
numerical system us irq an objective panel developed at the Ibrry IEsearch
Station by Shewan et al (1953) is probably the ultUnate critical evaluation of
fish freshness available at this time It was created for the determination
of storage time of whole Net fish l6Jenstein and Iegenstein (1981) in using
11
this nunerical system reported that the cooked freshness scores are generally
higher (better) than expected at that storage t irre for whole wet fish A
freshness score of 55 on the Ibrry scale seemed the appropriate endpoint for
their definition of shelf-life This would nonnally be reached with ideal
iced-at-sea fish about twelve days from catch sooner for fillets Freshness
scorirq systems are I1C1laquo available fran Ibrry Research station for most UK
ccmnercial species and systems are available for both the raw and cooked
fish HoweveF there is still no standard scorirq system to be used
internationally he countries in the EEC ~or instance use scoring systems
which differ both in scale length am in characteristics measured Most
systems use the same scale length for all features examined but the United
Kingdon am Icelarrl use scales of 10 to 0 for odour and 5 to 0 for other
characteristics ibwgate (1972) describes the effort to construct a rorogram
for oonvert inq fran one scorinq system to another (Appendix 1) de Zylva
(1974) expanded the Ibrry score sheet to include marks for flesh colour and
texture belly flap discoloration stainiBJ of backbone am colour of
kidney he scoring system was designed for ~w Zealand snapper and gave
excellent negative linear correlations between score am days of storage
legenstein (1983) presents the way in which Ibrry has in turn incorporated
other characteristics into the score sheet for raw fish Groupings of several
characteristics to give a score requires more expertise than scoring
individual points as is done by de Zylva
However the use of a point or scoring system in which higher points are
given for high quality attributes would mean the requirements of more
kllC7filedge of the fish and the tester mist be experienced and knCM the
qualities of the fish previously Therefore it is too species dependent
his problem can be overcare by using the demerit system with points being
allotted in several categories for defects as they becare obvious and one can
I
12
learn as one goes along in each situation he demerit points that were given
to the various selected quality attributes could be weighted in such a way as
to produce an approximately linear change in score with storage time (Branch
and Vail 1985)
It might also be desirable OCIlInercially to specify a uniform mrnber of
days of shelf-life fran the pack date to consumption he length of shelfshy
life ctgttained for fish depends on the initial age and quality of the fish the
tirre of the pack am the time am temperature of storage before am after
packing In practical terns the ultimate measure of the effect(s) of shelf-
life extension treatments on the final quality of the fish is consumer
satisfaction (Regenstein aoo Regenstein 1981)
A tentative grading systan for fresh fish based on sensory assessment of
fish had been described by IbUwing (1972)
160 The Ideal Method
Forty years of research ootably in the UK Canada and Japan have gone
into objective methods for measuring fish quality (Bremner et al 1978)
There is as yet 00 single universal test for all species nor for that
matter any wholly satisfactory test for individual species
The ideal rrethod hOlJld be one that is cheap oon-destructive easy to
use oot subject to much variation or fatigue having rapid response and wide
application sensory tests have the advantages of being non-destructive 00
equipnent required adaptable to species and assessing the market value
Althcogh sensory tests are usually condemned as a subjective test which
requires training am experience am are also said to be easily open to
abuse this can be reduced if a simple rapid and less descriptive rrethod
could be fourd - possibly with the use of demerit point scores Therefore
this study aims at assessing the use of sensory techniques based on the
13
demerit point scores developed for raw whole (gutted and ungutted) and
filleted fish samples of Australian fish species stored in ice and RSW It
also discusses the results of the acceptability taste panels on the cooked
fish samples
The two oammercially ~rtant Australian fish species used in this study
were the blue grenadier am the blue rock whiting he blue grenadier is
currently Tasmanias major oammercial finfish and the recent annual production
of the fishery exceeds 100 tonnes (Last et aI 1983)~ he blue rock whiti~
is the only Australian member of the family that has any commercial
importance It occurs mainly in Bass strait and the sheltered bays of South
eastern Tasmania The flesh is delicately flavoured but very soft
200 MATERIALS lIND MEIHgt[s
210 Sample preparation
211 Fish stored in RSW
Blue grenadier used in this study were caught on the 15th lugust 1984 at
a depth of 300 fathans off Sandy Cape on the west coast of Tasmania (Lat
41deg20S IDrq144deg40 E) by demersal trawl They were taken fran the deck
irnnediately am dropped into a refrigerated seawater (RSW) tank in a net bag
(tanp -1degC) The fish was reported to be handled quite roughly on board
Sore of the fish had already gone into rigor at this stage he fish were
transported to the CnID lasrnanian Food lesearch Uni t (TFRJ) laboratories in
Hobart and were already to days old on arrival The f ish were then placed in
the RSW box tank of the rrobile unit (the design and construction of which were
described by Thrower and Stafford 1981) and was kept at -1degC for the duration
of the storage trial which lasted for about three weeks Four fish were
rerroved at each samplirq tine (Table 1) for sensory assessment Length
14
measurements to the fork of the tail were also noted ~e fish were then
filleted and samples frozen at -lBoe for later assessment of their
acceptability by taste panel
212 Fish stored in ice
For the sensory assessment of fish stored in ice guidelines similar to
those given by Lima dos Santos et al (981) were used ~e blue rock whiting
also known as the weedy whiting was used ~e whiting were caught on the
afternoon of 23rd August 1984 by demersal trawl in 18 to 25 m waters oft
Eastern Tasmania On arrival at the TFRJ laboratories in I-bbart at 11 45 am
on the fol Lowirq day the f ish were re- iced at a ratio of 21 (ice f ish) in
insulated plastic boxes of size 66 x 41 x 28 em with provision for drainage
of melt water Flake ice was used ~e ice was topped up daily and renewed
once a week The boxes of i ced f ish were then kept in a cool roan set at a
temperature of 0deg to -1dege ~ree fish were removed for sensory assessment at
each sampling time (Table 1) over a period of rmre than three weeks of ice
storage 100 fish samples were then frozen at -18dege until needed for the
acceptability taste panel
Table 1
sampling regirre for fish stored in R3Wice
Blue Grenadier Diys in R3W 3 4 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 17 21
Sample code N D G L S R K T U P M 0
Whiting Diys in ice 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Sample code 0 M D G T S N R P U L K
15
220 Sensory assessment of the whole (gutted and ungutted) raw fish samples
Both the blue grenadier stored in lOW and the whi t i nq stored in ice were
progressively assessed by using the sense organs of sight smell and touch tor
changes in general appearance odour and texture with storage tine by giving
the appropriate demeri t scores according to the score sheets as shown in
Tables 2 and 3 IVo types of score sheets were used Table 2 shows the
sensory assessment score sheet orig inally developed for the assessment of
gemfish (Thrower et al 1982) It has been simplified and weighted (Branch
and Vail 1985) to provide accumulated increases in demerit points as the t i sn
change in odour texture and appearance during storage with the max imum
accumulated demerit point scores of 35 for the urx]utted samples and 39 tor tte
gutted samples The total scor irq for gutted fish differs fran that descr ibeo
by Bremner (1984) and Branch and Vail (1985) in that the demerit points for
the belly cavity have been added to those for the whole fish
The whole and gutted raw fish were also assessed by using the freshness
score sheet developed by the Council of the European COl1nunities (Official
Journal of the European Qmnunities 1970) but with slight rrodification marie
in its scor irq method in that the scor irq was reversed to provide accumulateri
increases in demerit points as in the TFRJ score sheet (Table 2) with a
maximun accumulated demerit score of 30 (Table 3) The samples were scored by
H Abd R who had had no previous experience with the score sheet
230 Sensory Assessment of the frozen filleted raw fish samples
Samples of the whole and gutted fish of both species were then filleted
ard frozen at -18degC until required for the organoleptic acceptability test
panel fillets were thawed by holding for about 16 hours (overnight) in still
air at 4degC The thawed fillets of both the blue grenadier and whi t i nq were
then assessed by the sense organs of sight smell and touch by using the scor-e
sheet for filleted sample as shown in Table 4 nle score sheet was developed
16
able 1
FIlt U Snorr bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullnt oore hbullbull t ( ( 1Ii~ ANI) tlNtJuTreo)
1_middotAnlJ lmiddot
rlSB IDDII
UIUIl~ (VBci9ht~i9ht8lDullDUll
o 1 2 3
SitU ( rimSoft) o 1
SCALBS (r1mSlLoomiddotmiddotLoobullbull ) o 12
r r SLIMB (AbbullbullntSlSlimiddotysliyVSliy)
o 123
S1IrnraS (pr-Ri90rRi90rPot-Ri90r) o 1 2
BYBS Clarity (ClbullbullrISlCloudyCloudy) 012
Shape (HoralslsunknSunkn) 012
Irill (ViiblHot Viibl) IJ 1
Blood (No BloodSlBloodyVBloody) o 1 2
GILLS Colour (VDark)Charaotritio (SlDark) (vradd)(Slradd)
2o 1 Kucou (AbbullbullntKoderatmiddotBxcbullbullbulliv)
o 1 2 S bullbullll (rrbullbullh 01ly) Pihy8talpoll~
(MetalliaSaved) 1 2 3
BELLI Dicoloration (AbbullbullntDetatablmiddotModratmiddotBxobullbullbulliy) 012 3
Finanbullbullbull ( rira80ftBurt) o 1 2
VENT Condition (bobullbulldy)Noraal (SlBrbullbullk) (Opening)(Bxudbullbull )
2o 1 Sbullbulln (rrbullbullhReutralrihy8poilt)
o 2 3
BELLI CAVIn Stain (OpalbullbullontGryihlmiddotllow-Brown) o 1 2
Blood (RdDark RdBrown)
o 1 z
--
17
UJE 3
Etc SENSORY A$fE4St4fN[ ~(oIlL~
SCALE OF MARKING - FRESHNESS
CRITERIA shypoundu1LRt
Abullbullbullbullbullment Mara-bull thc r1ah 0 1 2- 3tszhL
AppearanceinIIMlISJ Skin
Eye
Gill
Flbullbullshycut f ssm abdomusn
Colour the~
vertebral column
Organs
Oright iridescent I bright pigmenta- pigmentation in (1) dull pigmenta tion no i tion but not the process of pigmentation discolouration Ius trous becoming dis-
mucus opaquemucus aqueous i coloured and dull
mucus slightlytransparen t
cloudy ~UCU9 milky
convex (bulging) convex and flat (1) concave in cornea tran- slightly sunken cornea the centre parent cornea Ughtly opalescent cornea milky pupil black opalescent pupil pupil grey bright
pupil black opaque dull
-shining colour less coloured becoming dis- (1) yellmiish no mucus a few traces of coloured mucus milky
cloar mucus mucus opaque
blueish trans- dull velvety slightly opaque (1) opaque lucid smooth waxy shining without any change in the colour sUgh tly original colour changed
(I) reduncoloured sl1 gh tly pink pink
kidneys and kidneys and kidneys (1) kidneys residues of resJdues of resicJuos of r bullbullidue of other other organs other organs other organs organs and blood bright red the dull red blood and blood brownish game as the becoming palo red blood inside discolbured the aorta
(1) or in a more advanced bull ta te of decay
I
bull
Flesh
Vertebtal Column
Peritonium
Gills kin abdominal cavity
18
(eontd)
SCALE OF MARKING - FRESHNESS
CRITERIA
Assessment Mark 0 1 2
Physical eOId ton
firm and elas tic surface smooth
breaks ins tead of coming away
totally adherent to the flesh
seaweed
less elastic
adherent
adherent
Smell bull
not of seaweed but not bad
slightly soft (flaccid) Ie elastic surfacente waxy velvety and dull
slightly adherent
slightly adherent
slightly sour
3
(1) soft (flaccid) scales ebullbullil y detached from skin sur face ra ther wrinkled inclining to mealy
(1) not dherent
1( ) not adherent
(1) sour
(1) or in a more advanced stat of decay
_ shy-- -
19
Table 4
Filleted Sample Score Sheet
r
TREATMENT F ILIEIS DATE REMOJAL (THAWED)
FISH IDENr
EASE OF FILLETING (Easysl difficultdifficult)
012
APPEARANCE (a) Oolour of flesh (TranslucentSl discolouredSl opaqueopaque)
o 1 2 3
(b) Blood stains (AbsentDetectableModerateExcessive)
012 3
(c) Clotting (UnclottedSlclottedModclottedExcessclotted)
012 3
(d) Skin Oolour (VbrightBrightSldullOU11)
o 1 2 3
TEXTURE FirmS1 softSoft
o 1 2
ClDClJR (FreshNeutralStaleSpoilt)
012 3
CONJITION (a) Gaping (AbsentDetectableModerateExcessive)
o 1 2 3
(b) Bruising (AbsentSlightSevere)
012
(c) Wetness (NmnalS1 dry orMod dry orExcess dryness or
SldripModdrip Freezer bJrn or Excessdrip
012 3
(d) Autolysis (Absentmoderatesevere) (Disco1ourations) 0 1 2
(e) Parasites (Absentmoderatesevere) ( Infestations) 0 1 2
(f) Other discolourations (Absentpresent) or contaminants (bones membranes tissues etc) 0 1
EASE OF SKINNING (EasySldifficultdifficult)
012
20
by the author after a literature search and observations made during the preshy
liminary part of the study It has a maxUnum accumulated demerit score of 34
240 ~anoleptic Acceptability Panel of the cooked fish
Filleted samples of both fish species which had been frozen in a cold
roan at -18dege and then thawed as above were used for the acceptability taste
panels The fillets were skinned am cut into 30 to 40 g pieces crumbed and
deep fried (Bremner et ale 1985) Three or four treatments were cooked
simultaneously at each session am the fish served with packets of take-away
french fries Tcrnato sauce vinegar and salt were available Each of the
samples were randanised in such a way so as to give a high degree of balance
(Table 5 and 6) Letters that represent the samples were also picked
randanly The fish was assessed by 20 panellists employed at the Tasmanian
lEgional Laboratory and experienced with facial hedonic scaling for flavour
texture am overall acceptability using the General Foods Smiley scale
(Appendix 2) Salt was rot rrentioned with the 9niley questionaire for blue
grenadier so that the panel should have ro preconceiVed prejudices
250 Statistics
tata fran the sensory assessment of the whole gutted and ungutted raw
fish (both TFRJ am EEl score sheets) am fran the sensory assessrrent of the
frozen filleted raw fish samples of both the blue grenadier stored in RSW am
whiting stored in ice were analysed for correlation using the ELF scatter
module (Appendix 3 and 4)
The acceptability taste panel assessment scores for flavour texture and
overall liking of the toKgt species of fish were subjected to analysis of
variance using the Genstat package (Appendix 5 and 6)
22
Table 6
Order of presentation of cooked whiting samples to the acceptability taste panelists
Order of presentation of samples Panelist
session I session II
1 OTP rm 2 MUS KR 3 sm INL
4 IKJ GKR
5 ror NK
6shy USM UN ~
7 OOP RLD
B HUT NKD
9 USO RiL
10 SMP LGN
11 IMT GIltN
12 nxgt KRD
Note
8angtle code OM 0 G T S N R P U L K
storage time in ice (days) 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
23
300 RESULIS
310 Physical Characteristic of M novaeaelandiae
rran the forty-six fish examined the mean fork lerqth was found to be
762 an (range 609 to 838 an) A few of the fish examined had well shy
developed roes and their digestive tracts were found to be relatively empty
320 Physical Characteristics of the H ssmifasoiata
rran a total of thirty-six fish examined the rrean weight of the fish was
fourrl to be 662 g (range 27 to 186 g) am the mean fork length was 183 em
(range 156 to 265 an)
330 sensory assessment of the raw blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
he results of the sensory assessrrent of the r2M blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW by the four rrerhods of scoring are given as average total
accumulated demerit point scores as shown in Table 7 Figure 1 shoes the
graph of demerit point versus days in RSW by the four rrethods of sensory
assessment used Table 9 shltJtS the correlation analysis
340 sensory assessment of the raw whitirq samples stored in ice
he results of the sensory assessment of the r2M whitirq samples stored
in ice by the four methods of scoring are given as average total accumuLated
demerit point scores as shown in Table 8 Figure 2 shltJtS the graph of demerit
point versus days in ice of the four nethods of sensory assessment used Table
9 shltJtS the correlation analysis
350 Attributes contributing to total score
Attributes that contribute to total score usirq the TFRJ scores (ungutted
and gutted) EEC scores and the filleted sample scores are as shewn in Tables
10 - 14
24
Table 7
Total demerit points fran sensory assessment of blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
Average lbta1 Demerit Rgtint SCores
[)lye in RW TFRJ scores TFRJ scores EEl scores Filleted Sample (urvJut t ed ) (gutted) (gutted) SCores
3 3 3 1 1
4 5 5 2 3
6 10 10 6 6
8 16 18 9 8
9 19 21 11 10
10 20 22 13 12
11shy 22 24 15 14
12 23 25 18 17
13 24 26 19 18
14 25 27 19 19
17 29 31 21 23
21 33 35 25 29
Note
Maximum possible scores for (1) IlRJ scores (ungutted is 35
( 11) IlRJ scores (gutted) is 29
( 11i) EEX scores (gutted) is 30
( iv) Filleted sample scores is 32
amptV
35j
3l~
en Ishy 25Z-0 Q
3)-~
bullbullbull 0
bull 0 0bull 0
bull 0 0 6shy abull A ~
~
bull 0
~
6shy
bull 0
6shy
I) 01
-W 0i A15W ~ Q A
~
6shy~101- bull 90 TFRU SCORES (ungutted)
6shy~ bullbull TFRU SCORES (gutt~d i
bull ~
4 6- 6- EEC SCORES 5~
~ ~ FILLETED SAMPLE SCORES ~
6 4 I J I I I
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
DAYS IN RSW
Figl Demerit Points Versus Days in RSW For Blue Grenadier Samples
Fig 2 Demerit Points Versus Days in ice For Whiting Samples I
27
Table 8
TOtal demerit points from sensory assessment of whi tirq samples stored in ice
Average TOtal Demerit Foint SCores
rays in ice TFRJ scores TFRJ scores EEC scores Fi 11eted sample (urqutted) (gutted) (gutted) (gutted)
1 1 1 0 0 3 2 2 1 1
5 4 4 2 3
7 7 9 3 4
9 13 15 6 9
n 15 17 7 13
13 19 21 11 15
15 24 27 15 16
17 29 32 19 18
19 31 35 22 21
21 32 36 24 24
23 33 37 26 26
Note
MaXllnum possible scores for (i) TFRJ scores (urqutted) is 35 ( ii) TFRJ scores (gutted) is 39 ( iii) EEC scores (gutted) is 30 ( iv) Filleted sample scores is 32
28
Table 9
Relationship between tLme and demerit points for fish stored in RSW
Method of Visual Assessment
y- intercept slope correlation
M novaBMBlandias
TFRJ (urqutted ~les) 032 175 097
TFRJ (gutted samples) 032 190 096
EEl -231 146 097
Filleted samplesbull
-357 158 099
H sBmifasoiata
TFRJ (urqutted samples) -245 167 099
TFRJ (gutted samples) -273 187 099
EOC -414 129 098
Filleted samples -244 125 099
ltshy
--------------- ------------------------------------------
------------- - ------------- -------- ------
Table 10
Attributes contributing to total score using TFRO scores (gutted and ungutted)
Attributes involved in score change Score
Blue grenadier in RSW Whiting in ice
Stiffness Eyes - clarity blood Slllne Stiffness Eyes - clarity shape and blood lt10 Gills - smell Vent - smell SlBne Gills - colour smell and mucous
Vent - smell Belly cavity - stains and blood
Appearance Eyes-shape Stiffness Gills - smell colour and mucous Skin
Stiffness appearance gill-smell Scales belly-discolouration and firmness
N so
gt10lt20 SCales belly - discolouration and firmness Vent - smell Vent - smell and condition Belly cavity - stains and blood
Appearance Slllne Eyes - clarity shape Appearance SlBne Scales Skin blood and iris Gills - colour Eyes - clarity and shape
gt20lt30 Belly - discolouration Gills - mucous smell am colour Vent - condi tion and smell Belly cavity shy blood
Appearance Gills - mucous and smell SlBne Eyes - iris am blood Belly - discolouration and firmness Belly - discolouration and firmness
gt30 Vent - condition and smell Vent - condition Belly cavity - blood Belly cavity - stains
Table 11
Attributes contribut irq to total score us irq EEC scores
Attributes involved in score change
Score Blue grenadier in RSW W1iting in ice
lt7 Appearance - skin eyes gills organs Physical condition - flesh Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and organs Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skins eyes gills flesh Appearance-eyes and organs atv
vertebral column and organs Physical condition-flesh and peritoneum gt7lt14 Physical condition - flesh Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-eyes flesh and vertebral Appearance-skin gills and organs column Physical condition-flesh vertebral column
gt14lt21 Physical condition-vertebal column and and peritoneum peritoneum Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and vertebral column vertebral column
gt21 Physical condition-flesh and peritoneum Physical cOndition-flesh vertebral column Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity and peri toneum bull
Table 12
Attributes contributing to total score using filleted sample scores
Score
lt5
Attributes involved in score change
Blue grenadier in RSW
Appearance - blood stains skin colour ltXIour - flesh
M1iting in ice
----- shy -------------- shy
Appearance - skin colour odour - flesh Cbndition - gaping wetness
Appearance - colour of flesh Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Texture - flesh skin colour ltgt gt5lt10 Cbndition - gaping bruising wetness Ease of filleting
Texture - flesh
Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Appearance - colour of flesh clotting skin clotting skin colour skin colour
gt10lt20 odour - flesh odour - flesh Cbndition - gaping wetness autolysis COndition - gaping bruising wetness other discolourations autolysis and other discolouration Ease of skinning
Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains skin colour clotting
gt20 Texture - flesh Texture - flesh odour - flesh Odour shy flesh COndition - gaping bruising wetness Cbndition - wetness autolysis autolysis Ease of skinring
32
Table 13
Diff~rent emphasis in scoring systems for whole fish as between the EEl and TFID
Attribute Number of potential demerit points TFRJ EEl
1Ippearance (general) 3 0
skin ) scales 6 3
slime
Stiffness (Rigor) 2 0
Eyes 7 3
Gills 7 6
Belly 5 0
Vent 5 0
Belly cavity 4 3
Flesh cut fram abdomen 0 3
Flesh texture 0 3
Vertebral column 0 6
Internal organs 0 3
33
360 Relative merits of the scoring systems
The four scor irq methcds were used on the same samples of t ish Any
sample had therefore deteriorated to the same extent on anyone day Figs 3
am 4 shew the scores converted to percentages of possible deroorit point
scores The discrepancy in the accumulation of demerit points between the EEC
am TFRJ scor irq methods is clearly shown IEference to Table 2 3 am 13
shOool that this is caused by the lack of questions regarding rigor looseness
of scales condition of belly am vent am the qroupinq of colour am mucous
in the gills as single po i nts thus halving the potent Ia I gill demerit point
score canparison of the tO species in Table 9 ShONS that the rate of
accumulation of demerit pgtints was more consistent for the TFRU system than by
the EEX scor i oq methltXl or by scorinq of fillets
370 Time taken to score the fish
The average time taken to score an individual fish using the TFPlJ
(unqutted) scores TFRJ (gutted) scores EEX scores am the filleted aamp Le
scores were found to be 1 min 25 sec 1 min 55 sec 3 min 45 sec and 1 min 50
sec respectively The EEX score sheet is more t iroe consumioq in that more than
one question is asked about an attribute for the giving of only one demerit
point this requires conscious thought
380 Acceptability taste panel results of blue grenadier samples bull Figures 5 6 am 7 shOool the mean taste panel scores in graphic form for
flavour texture and overall acceptability of cooked blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW table 14 shows the results of the statistical analysis
390 Acceptability taste panel results of whiting samples
Figures 8 9 am 10 shOool the mean taste panel scores in graphic form for
flavour texture and overall acceptability of cooked whiting samples stored in
ice table 15 shows the results of the statistical analysis
WHITING STORED IN ICE o TFRU SCORES (ungutted)
bull TFRU SCORES (gutted)
b EEC SCORES
FILLETED SAMPLE SCORES
100bull e ~ e b
i 6
bull NW
oIJ-a A A-
(J0 t A~ 0 ~ AC)
C) -e ~~-
C) a 50 A
A w
Iz ~
~ - W e A0 c a ~ ~ A-a ~ l ~ A
w -~
~ X ~ W -e I c ~ ~ ibull I I I I
4 8 12 16 20 24
DAYS IN ICE FIG4
36
- flavourshy
-e s-e l ~ v
5middotIU
STORAGrf IN R sWDAYS
rlCoS Ttutfc pcr1 rcbull
rf oj bl jtlJ~r - jlqVGurc acccr~b
21179 0 2 136 843
~ 0 u 5middot0YI
oJ J l ofmiddot$ 1 e
tu 4middot0
VI
~ 3middot5
3middot0
TelC-lue X bull -e III
~ Gmiddotftv
ct 5middot03
V1
-J -f-SshyU 2
~ 40 t
3-~
~ bullbull0 5 0
~ 17 21A ISII
PAY- IITDRAGamp fbilW
FIG6 I Tq1-c pltnd rc-utl ojbllfcJrcftaJIr bull I~M144 Q Cc(r~blfly
r 411q~~ An~Plf bUIJlfM F llh J~Lld Pt-DoL B fpound)1
gt1 NI ~~eusr SJAVlt1
D ~II
(ffIt1~JP IIID bull U J 1i
-IyoJC )-tlICf p --lInraquoJ Ix-Pc ~1rb1 r I ef
Ma2j NI a~v2loJ$
til
1Ia ~AO (IIp~lJa~e
01
secto
00
s
05
5
o~
~
0pound
s
0
smiddot
o~
07
1 ~ ~ ~ ~
r~
B
~
rv t gtshy 2
~ ~ 11
~ 7shyIn r
~ () 0 1) m ~
~ gtshyz -
(fII~q~~ 7~ P
IItJ1o -~~f(ll p ~I I~U J ~t~L 0 ~ middot~II I
IDI 8~ middot lta ~
~ QS
middotS ~ ~ 0 z
r Smiddot II
S 1d 0-$ 111 r- l gtshy r
V fr~
~llCf-J a-PcJ~ U~middotJO
4lp~dmiddotyIb 6middot~1f np)t -~11M fo --IIhen IJutJel ~bl
Table 14
Acceptability of deep fried blue grenadier samples stored in FSW
rays in R3W
Acceptability 3 4 6 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 17 21
Flavour 50a 50a 4S a 51a 50a 51a 50a 4Sa 49a 53a 41b 35b
Texture 49bc 51abc 4S bed 52ab 4Sbed 53ab 52abc 52ab 4Sbed 55a 46cd 43d
OJerall 50ab 51ab 47be 52ab 4Sb 5lab 52ab 50ab 47b 54 a 41c 35d
abc
d
significantly different (pltOOOl)
significantly different (pltOOl) W so
Table 15
Acceptability of deep fried whiting samples stored in ice
rays in ice
Acceptability 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Flavour 5Sab 59a 59a 60a 59a 5S ab 51b 54ab 53ab 37c 37c 31c
Texture 59ab 59a 53bed 5S ab 63a 59ab 47cde 54be 56ab 55ab 44e 46de
OJera11 57ab 5S ab 59ab 60a 60a 5Sab 52b 53ab 55ab 42c 36cd 31d
abcde significantly different (Plt0001)
40
~oo DISCUSSION
410 Sensory assessment of the raw blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
he results of sensory assessment on the raw blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW by the four methods of scoring all sheM that there is
progressive increment in total demerit points with storage time for all the
four methods (Table 7) It was also fourxi that the accumulation of demerit
points with time of storage of the fish in ffiW occurred in a saui-linear
fashion for all -the four scoring methods used (Figure 1) he variables (time
of storage and demeritmiddot points score) were all highly correlated (Table 9)
he correlation equation of the TFRJ (ungutted samples) and TFRJ (gutted
sanples) scores were similar roth having a zero time intercept of 032 but
with the TFRJ (gutted samples) scores having a slightly greater slope by 015
he EEC scores and the filleted sample scores roth have lower slopes ie
146 and 158 respectively canpared with the TFRJ (ungutted sample) and TFRJ
(gutted sample) scores of 175 and 190 respectively lbwever the EOC scores
which have the lowest slope have a fairly similar correlation equation with
the filleted sample scores (Table 9) he negative intercepts reflected the
slightly more sigrroid relationship for these samples his suggests that the
TFRJ (gutted) scoring method is the rrost sensitive of the four methods
followed by the TFRJ (ungutted) the filleted sample and the EEC scores
It was also found that after 21 days of storage in RSW the blue
grenadier samples had not reached their maximun possible scores in any of the
four scoring rrethods used (Table 7) he TFRJ (ungutted sample) score only
reached 943 of its possible maximun value whereas the TFRJ (gutted sample)
scores EEC scores and the filleted sample score reached only 897 833 ar~
906 of their possible maximun score his means that all the four methods
of scoring can still be sensitive to changes in the quality of the blue
grenadier samples stored in RSW after 21 days of storage time
41
Figures 1 and 3 also shOVt that the pattern of the graphs of demerit
points against days storage in R3W of the four methcxis of scoring is similar
ie a tendency to be slightly sigmoid fbwever the filleted sanple scores
sean to be rrore sensitive than the EOC scores at the later part of the storage
time ie after 14 days of storage and the scores continued to rise
1be rrost obvious indicator of change for the blue grenadier stored in ffiW
using the TFRJ scores (both gutted and unJUtted sanples) was the eyes (clarity
and blood) followed by odour developnent of the gills (Table 10) his is -
also foond to be true wi th the EOC freshness score (Table 11) Fbr the
filleted sample scores the appearance and odoor of the flesh seems to be the
most obvious indicator of change follOVted by the condition of the fillets such
as gaping bruisin) am wetness (Table 12)
4 20 sensory assessment of the raw whi ting samples stored in ice
1he results of sensory assessment on the rCJl whiting samples stored in
ice by the foor roothods of scoring also shows that there is a progressive
increment in total demerit points with storage time for all the four methods
of scoring (Table 8) Ps with the blue grenadier the aCCLD1UJlation of demerit
points with time of storage of the whiting in ice also occurred in a sernishy
linear fashion for all the foor scoring methods used (Figure 2 and 4) wi th a
slight lag in the initial phase Interestingly this was not observed in the
case of blue grenadier sanples stored in ffiW probably because the first
samplin) of the blue grenadier starts only fran the third day after catch
whereas the first sampling of the whiting starts fran the first day after
catch Also the blue grenadier was handled qu i te roughly on the deck in fact
three oot of the four fish samples on the first rerroval ie the third day
after catching had already showed blood in their eyes
Bremner et al (1985) when using the TFRJ score sheet to assess the
42
quality of four tropical fish species fran the oorth west shelf of hJstralia
(stored in ice) also fourrl that the accumulation of demerit points with time
of storage in ice occurred in a linear fashion
PB wi th blue grenadier the variables (tine of storage ard darneri t points
score) were all highly correlated (Table 9) Also the correlation equation of
the TFRJ (ungutted) ard TFRJ (gutted) scores were similar with the TFJU
(gutted) score having a slightly greater slope by 020 Crable 9) he EEC
scores am filleted sample scores also have lower s lopes l e 129 ard 125
respectively ocmpared to the TFm (ungutted) and (gutted) scores of 167 and
187 respectively However unlike the blue grenadier the filleted samples
of the whi t ing had the 10liest slope he more sensi tive na ture of the EEC
scores as canpared to the filleted sample scores in the case of the whiting
especially after 12 days storage in ice can be explained by the snaller size
of the whitirlJ (fork length ranging fran 156 to 265 an) as canpared to the
size of the blue grenadier (fork length ranging 809 to 838 an) the snaller
fish terrl to spoil faster especially the interior parts of the fish PB the
EEC scores depend nuch on the sensory assessment of the interior parts of the
fish such as the appearance and condition of the flesh vertebral colwnn
interior organs per i toneun and abdaninal cavity (Table 3) which makes up more
than 18 demerit points out of the total possible maxinun of 30 the
sensitiveness of its score is thus self-explanatory in the case of whiting
Connell (1980) explained that large fish keep marginally better than small
fish because larger fish have a smaller surface to volume ratio so that in the
same tUne less of their interior is affected
The above results confirmed the previous suggestion that the TFRU
(gutted) scorIoq methcrl is the roost sensitive of the four methods It was
found that after 23 days of storage in ice the whiting scmples had not
reached the maximun possible scores in any of the four methods used (Table
43
8) The 1FIU (UBJutted) scores had reached only 94-3 of its possible maximum
value whereas the TFRJ (gutted) scores EOC scores am the filleted sample
scores reached only 94 9 867 and 81 3 of their poea Ible maximum score
Therefore all the four methods of scoriBJ can still be sensitive to changes
in quality of the whiting samples stored in ice after 23 days of storage tUne
Ihe roost obvious irxHcator of chaDJe for the whiting stored in ice using
the TFIU score sheet was the eyes (clarity shape and blcxxl) followed by the
develqxnent of -colour odour and nucous of the gills (fable 10) Bremner et
al (1985) when working with four tropical species f~ the north west shelf of
Australia also found that the most obvious indicator of change for fish stored
in ice was the eyes (their clarity am shape) follCAtled by odour developnent
and colour changes in the gills This was also found in the case of blue
grenadier in ~ discussed earlier OJrran et al (1981) when investigating
the quality changes duriBJ iced storage of three carmercially important
species of fish fran Bahrein also found that of the visual and olfactory
assessments gill odour showed the roost pranise as a quality control index
Pgain this is also found to be true with the EOC freshness score of both the
blue grenadier and the whitiBJ (Table 11) AccordiBJ to ~ate (1972) it
was generally agreed that odour of the gills is the most sensitive measure of
freshness but the visual appearance of the eyes gills arxi skin was quicker to
use in practice on the market
For the filleted sample scores of the whiting the most obvious indicator
of chanqe was the appearance and odour of the flesh (Table 12) This too
agreed with the findiBJs for blue grenadier stored in ffiW
AccordiBJ to Baines et al (1969) with fish eatiBJ is related to four
main attributes or quality factors viz appearance odour and texture of the
rCM and cooked fish and in the latter also flavour he ultimate purpose of
testing the raw fish is to estimate the eating quality which is here taken to
44
mean the degree of freshness of flavour Acoording to Baines and Shewan
(1965) the mostreliable test for predicting flavour sqore is raw odour
430 The ease aM difficulties of using the four methods of scoring
It was found that the TFRJ (ungutted) scores was the easiest and quickest
method to use as it takes on average only about 1 min 25 sec to score a fish
canpared to 1 min 55 sec 3 min 45 sec ard 1 min 50 sec for the TFRJ
(gutted) EOC and the filleted sample scores he E~ score was found to be
the roost tedious besides taking the longest time to soore a fish
he TFIU (ungutted) scores also have the advantage of not requiring a
knife in order to score ard also were less IOOSSY to work with canpared to all
the other nethods Also the attributes to be assessed were arranged and
organised in such a way in the score sheet that it is easy to score a fish
starting from assessing the apparance and skin and ending with the condition
and smell of the vent
440 Acceptability taste panel results of the blue grenadier samples
441 Flavour acceptability
Figure 5 shc7ws the flavour acceptability of the deep fried samples of
blue grenadier Samples stored in R3W for less than 17 days were found
statistically (Table 14) to be indistinguishable (Plt0001) fran each other
then there was a significant fall in the flavour acceptability of the samples
stored in RSW for 17 days onwards he sarrtgtle stored for 21 days had a still
lower mean value of 35 but it was not significantly different fran the
semple stored for 17 days which had a nean value of 41 It is interesting to
note that despite the progressive increase in sodiun uptake of the blue
grenadier samples stored in RSW from about 7115 35 mg sodium(lOO g tissue
initially to 724 33 mglOO g tissue on the 16th day aM to 729 17 mglOO g
45
tissue on the 21st day (Burford 1984) the panelists seem not to be
negatively affected by the increasing salt content of the samples with storage
tUne and in fact some of the panelists added more salt to their samples I
111is result contradicts statements made by previous reseachers that the
storage life using R3W may be limited by increases in salt content in the fish
flesh (Boyd et aI 1978) he maximun desirable salt content according to
Tcm1inson et al (1974) as quoted by Boyd et al (1978) is about 05 but at
the 16th day ofmiddot RgtW storage the salt content fOllNj In the flesh of blue
grenadier samples was already more than 07 fbwever the panelist only ate
40g pieces it might have been a different case if the fish has been as a
whole meal
442 Texture acceptability
Figure 6 shows the texture acceptability of the deep fried blue grenadier
samples stored in R3W eespf te sane apparent abberant values (such as the
high rrean of 55 for the sample stored for 14 days in RSW) it is obvious that
the texture acceptability showed a significant decreasing trend (pltOOl) from
seventeen days of storage onwards The abberant texture values are possibly
due to the fact that the fish texture might have been masked by the bread
crunbs used to coat the fish samples before deep fryi~ This agrees with the
observations of Bremner et al (1985) wtxgt found that the inherent textural
softness of P piotiue and the tougheni~ on storage of N peroni i detected by
a profile panel usilYJ steamed fillets were no lo~er noticeable when the fish
was deep fried in batter Bremner (1980) also reported that despi te the
softness of the raw flesh the cooked flesh of blue grenadier is reasonably
firm
46
433 OVerall acceptability
The overall acceptability of the deep fried blue grenadier samples stored
in R)W (figure 7) seems to follCM a similar pattern to its flavour
acceptability (figure 5)~ in which a significant fall in overall acceptability
was only observed fran the samples held fran 17 days in RSW onwards (pltO 001)
as shawn in Tablel4
rnus all the above results showed that there was a significant fall in
flavour texture and overall acceptability of blue ~renadier from 17 days of
R)W storage onwards which was found to be equivalent to the accumulated
demerit point scores of 29 of the TFRJ (ungutted) scoresr 31 of the TFRl
(gutted) scoresr 21 of the EOC scores and 23 of the filleted sample
scores Jones (1964) states that the acceptability of a fish is a function of
its suitability for further processing and of its inmediate appearance its
texture its odour and its flavour
450 Acceptability taste panel results of the whiting samples
451 Flavour acceptability
Figure 8 shows the flavour acceptability of the deep fried whiting
samples stored in ice rtle twelve sample times could be analysed individually
since the means if analysed by canbining adjacent sample times to give six
sample groups are in fact the means of the adjacent times if analysed
individually it was found that samples of the first nine renovals i se up to
17 days of storage in ice are more or less indistinguishable (abberant value
at 7th removal) he last three removals ie samples stored in ice for 19
21 and 23 days were found to be of significantly lower flavour acceptability
(p lt 0001) as shawn in Table 5
47
452 Texture acceptability
Except for the abberation at the 7th remgtval i 9 at day 13 of ice
storage there is a significant reduction of texture acceptability at the 21 II
and 23 days of ice storage (p lt0001) as shown by figure 9 and Table5 t
II
I 453 Over~ll acceptability
he overal I acceptability of the whiting sanples stored in ice is very
much similar to its f Lavour acceptability except at day 19 of ice storage
where the ovaral I acceptability shows a higher mean of 42 carpared to the
flavoor acceptability mean of 37 (figure 10 and Table 5) here is however a
significant sudden drop to lOil scores fran the lOth removal ie day 19 of
storage in ice (p lt0001)
hus all the above results for whitifVJ sanples showed that there was a
significant fall in flavCXJr and overall acceptability fram 19 days ice storage
onwards which is equivalent to the accumulated demerit points of 31 of the
TFRJ (unqutted) scores 35 of the TFRJ (gutted) scores 22 of the EEC
scores and 21 of the filleted sample scores he results are interesti~ in
that the oorresponding total accLDnulated demerit points at the time when
significant falls in flavour texture and overall acceptability of the blue
grenadier and whiting samples stored in I5W and ice respectively were quite
similar
500 CONCLUSION
510 Feasibility of using demerit points
Accumulation of demerit points with time of storage of M
in RM and H eemifaeaiatia in ice was found to be highly
occurred in a semi-linear fashion irrespective of the method of
novas8slandiae
correlated and
scori~ used
- _ ~uo_a~_bull--_--I e -Ii --
48
1he slopes of the lines (rate of accumulation of demerit points) and its
relative spoilage rate were found to be similar for the ttoO species provided
the sane method of scoring is employed 1his tends to suggest that the method
is possibly independent of species am methods of storage or at least
applicable to the two species in RSW and ice respectively
TIle TFRJ (ungutted) scores were foum to be the easiest arrl quickest
method to use although the TFRJ (gutted) scores were the roost sensitive 1he
EEX freshness scores were hClgtlever foum to be the JOOSt tedious aod difficult bull I
to use besides taking more than twice the time taken to score a fish ocmpared
to the TFRJ (ungut ted) scores
Although there were slig~t differences between the ttoO species in those
characteristics where changes were first made (Table 10 11 and 12) there is
enough evidence to conclude that the changes in the appearance of the eyes am
the odour developnent of the gills are the JOOSt obvious arrl valuable indicator
of charqe in quality when using the TFIU or the EEl scores while the
appearance am odour of the fish flesh seems to be the JOOSt obvious indicator
when assessing the filleted sample
1he shelf-life of M navaezelandiae stored in RSW was found to be 14 days
(less than 17 days) whilst that of H semifasoiata stored in ice was fourrl to
be 17 days (less than 19 days) beyond which the fish had developed spoilage
characteristics that were disliked by the acceptability taste panel
1he cut-off point at which spoilage of the samples would have rendered
the quality of the fish sample to be unacceptable fran the consumers point of
view ~ld be that equivalent to the accumulated demerit point of gt29 for the
TFRJ (gutted arrl ungutted) scores am gt21 for the EOC and filleted sample
scores
This study thus confinned the potential use of demerit points such as the
TFRJ (ungutted) scores as an easy quick cheap non-destructive and reliable
49
method of sensory assessment of fish quality In fact Branch and Vail (1985)
had studied the possible use of a prototype pocket-sized computer to determine
the condition and shelf-life of temperate and tropical species of fish based
on data that is derived fran the sensory score sheets for the assessment of
fish quality developed at the (SIRgt Division of fbod lEsearch Iasmanian Fbod
Research Unit (TFlU) Hobart
520 RJrpose for which demerit points are to be used
Many scor i oq systerrs are used to predict the nunber of days fish have
been stored on ice and in nore recent years ICETIME (equivalent days on
ice) I ard thus through years of experience the taste panel acceptability of
the fish I
However fish is sold on appearance and a scoring system may be used for
assessirg marketability of whole or gutted fish or fillets or for setting
standards in bulk buying The EEC scoring system is used for example at
fish markets at first point of sale to grade the fish and establish
withdrawal prices A IbrryShewan type system is often used as a purohas i nq
specification from finn to firm
Before a final demerit point system is selected for any COlIOOdity its
ultimate purpose should be established For example the demerit points
chosen for whole fish which nost closely resemble the rate of change of
demerit points for fillets of that species might be the most useful
A linear rate of change of demerit points with time is nose favoured
because it enables prediction of remaining shelf-life ConstJJrer
unacceptability should be at a point where perhaps 75 of the demerit points
have been accrued Further scores would still be available for categories
such as suitable for fish meal D3merit points are not an indication of the
acceptability of fish as eaten where off-odours flavours and fillet
50
tdiscolouration are masked by batters or curries Their correlation with the
iodours flavours off odours aod off flavours of steamed fish are currently ~
~
~being examined by other workers at the Tasmanian ~ Research unit and highly
significant correlations are found Even when fish are subsequently eaten
battered or curried demerit points give a good indication of remaining shelf
life Thus whitiOJ with a Smiley flavour score of 58 after 1 day on ice
has a nlU gutted demerit score of 1 and a high quality life (eaten crumbed
and fried) of a further 16 days while whitiOJ stored for 11 days on ice with
the sane flavour score has a gutted demerit score of 17 and a further shelf
life of 6 days
530 SUggestion for further work
Ib ascertain its potentially wide application as a simple quick and
technically sound methcxi of assessing fish quality many more studies using
other species of fish both temperate and tropical species and in various
storage conditions should be undertaken using a demerit point scorIrq system
such as that developed by the TFlU
The score sheet has proved invaluable when sending individuals untrained
researchers away on distant water fishing trips Ps yet 00 standard
deviations have been detennined using a team of assessors with coded samples
of unknown history This may require a separate group design
The effect of lean fish and fatty fish on the scores should also be
studied because factors such as seasonal variations in biological conditions
Lmproper gutting and washing mechanical damage and filth and changes due to
storage in R3W or shelving may have considerable influence on its shelf-
life Reports such as those of smith et al (1979) clearly showed that in fish
such as the blue whitirlJ (Mioroomesistius poubaeeous there is greater degree
I 51
of seasonal variability than in other gadoid species the overall
acceptability droppirq dramatically once the fish have spawned Fish accepted
for processing for food has to be of a higher standard of quality than fish
accepted for Imredfate sale across the counter to the consumer therefore
there is a need to rreet a minimum score before they could be processed into
food Gradirq is therefore best left to the user sorenson (1971) states
that in establishing limi ts of acceptance an allowance had to be made for
deterioration that would continue to take place during processing and storage
prior to reaching the consimer
The only final criteria of the objectivity of sensory or any other
assessment are results that are reproducible many times which is by definition
a lcnJ-tenn process and in the meantime one requires short-cut indications
that one is headirq in the right direction
Ferhaps a final caution Is necessary as in the YQrds of Ehrenberg and
Shewan (1953) not too much must be expected even the best measuring
instruments occasionally go oot of control
52
60 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baines CR Jones NR am Shewan JM 1965 Technological problems of
measur trq degree of freshness of wet fish and problems of quality
control requirif)J roore knowledge fran fundamental research In he
Technology of fish utilisation ad R Kreuzer Fishi~ News (Books)
p 141
Baines CR and Shewan JM 1965 sensory rrethods for evafuat inq the
quality of white fish Lab practice 14 160-163
Baines CR ltbnnell JoJ Gibson DM lbWgate PF Livi~ston E and
Shewan JM 1969 A taste panel technique for evaluatirq the eati~
quality of frozen cod In Freezi~ and irradiation of fish ad R
Kreuzer Fishi~ News (Books) London p361
Boyd NS and Wilson NDC 1976 A sensory method for evaluatInq the
quality of Snapper (Ch1ysophrys auratus) NZ Journal of Science 19
209-12
Boyd NS Wilson ND and Bjley A 1978 A refrigerated sea water plant
for small boats symposium on fish utilisation technology and
marketi~ in the IPFC region IFFC Proceedi~s 18th session Manila
Philippines FAD Ba~kok p 186-192
Branch AC and Vail AMA 1984 Bri~i~ fish inspection into the
canputer age FltXld Technol Aust 36 in press
Bremner HA Olley J and Ihrower SoJ 1978 CSIIU Iasmanian lEgional
Laboratory OCcasional Paper No4
Bremner HA 1980 Processi~ and freezi~ of the blue grenadier (Maclulonus
novaeselandiae) FltXld Technol Aust 32(8)~ pp 385-393
Bremner J A 1984 QJality - an attitude of mind In he JILlstralian
Fishi~ Industry - today and tanorrow 10-12 July 1984 Launceston
53
Australian MaritUne Cbllege seminar Bapers 224-69
Bremner HA Statham JA am Sykes SJ 1985 Tropical species fran the
north west shelf of Alstralia sensory assessment and acceptability
of fish stored co ice Proceedi~s Sixth session IPR Worki~ Party
on Fish D3chnology and Marketi~ Melbourne 1984 FJID Fish lep 252
supp1
Burford D 1985 Sodiun uptake in MaOlUfOOnUS nooaeselandiae stored in
refrigerated sea water Tasmanian Food Research Unit OCcasional Paper
No9
ltbnnell JJ 1972 OJality control in the fish industry Ibrry Jldvisory
note No 58 IOrty Research Station Aberdeen
ltbnnell JJ 1980 ltbntrol of fish quality Fishi~ ~ws (Books) 2nd ed
Surrey England
OJrran CA Nicolaides L and Al-Alawi ZS 1981 QJality chanqes duri~
iced storage of three carmercially important species of fish fran
Bahrain Trop sci 23(4) 253-268
de Zylva ERA 1974 Effect of fish handli~ at sea on storage quality of
New Zealand Snapper (Chroysophroys aumtus) New Zealand J SCi 17
309-318
Etlira S 1976 A biochemical study on the freshness of fish Bull 1bkai
Reg Fish Res Lab No 88 pp 1-13
Ehrenberg ASC and Shewan JM 1953 he cbjective approach to sensory
tests of food J Sci Food hJric 4 pp 482-489
Herbert RA and Shewan JM 1975 Precursors of the volatile sulphides in
spoili~ North Sea Cod J Sci Food JIlgric 26 1195-1202
lbUwi~ H 1972 Gradi~ of fish in different qualities Institute for
Fishery Products Ijmuiden Unpublished
~ate P 1972 Qrlparison of sensory scor inq systems for raw fish
I 54
Unpubl ished bull ~ ~
~ate P 1978 Measuri~ the quality am acceptability of fish products bull ~
In IPFC Proceedi~s symposiun on fish utilisatial technology and ~
i f~
marketi~ in the IWC region 18th session Manila Ihilippines p
449
fflghes RB and Jones NR 1966 Measurement of hypoxanthine concentrations
in canned herrirg as an index of the freshness of the raw material
with a ocirment oo flavor relations J SCi fOOd middotJlgric 17 434
Jahns FD Howe JL Coduri Jr RJ and Ram Jr AG 1976 A rapid
visual enzyme test to assess fish freshness Food Iechno1 30 (7) 27
Jones NR 1964 ~lems associated with freezi~ very fresh fish
Proceedings Meeting on Fish Iechnology Fish Handling and
Preservation schevenirqen OEC D Paris p 31 bull
Jones NR 1965 Hypoxanthine and other purine containing fractions in fish
muscle as indices of freshness In uthe technology of fish
utilisation ed R Kreuzer Fishi~ rewa (Books) (Drmn p 179
Last PR Scott EOG and Talbot FH 1983 Fishes of Tasmania
Tasmanian Fisheries ~velopnent lUthority lbbart Tasmania pp 238
414
Lima doe santos CAM James D and Ieutscher F 1981 QJidelines for
chilled fish storage experiments FKJ Fish Tech Igt 210
(Dye RM 1954 Ibst rrortem cha~es in the lenses of fish eyes Msessment
of storage tiJm and fish quality J Sci Focx11lgric 5 566-572
Hartin RE Gray RJ H and Pierson MD 1978 QJality assessment of fresh
fish arrl the role of the naturally occurring microflora Focx1
Technol 32 (5) 188
Official Journal of the European oamrnunities No L264 5 ~cember 1970 pp
1-11
bull
55
Technol New Zealand July 1971 pp 31-35
Spinelli J Eklund M and Miyauchi D 1964 Measurement of hypoxanthine
in fish as a method of assessing freshness J Food SCi 29 710
Thrower S oJ am Stafford IA 1981 A roobile unit for ccmparative studies
of chilled storage systems for trawl fish IIF IIR
eatmissions C2 01 02 03 Boston USA 1981-4
Thrower SoJ Bremner HA QJarmby AR Ggtnnan T8 aild Graham KJ
1982 cn-board handlinJ of Q~ish ~ Inportanoeof chillinJ and
gutting Aust Fish 41 (11) 38-41
Tanlinson N bull bull t at 1974 COtparison between refrigerated sea water (with or
without added carbon dioxide) and ice as storage media for fish to be
subsequently frozen Proc IIR C011n 82- 0-3 Tokyo p
waterman J oJ 1982 Qrrposition and QJality of Fish A Dictionary 1brry
Mvisory Note No 87 Torry Research Station Aberdeen
5J
Olley J and letkowsky OA 1973 he role of terrperature function
integration in monitoring of fish spoilage Food Technol New
Zealand 8 (2) 13 15 and 17
Olley J 1977 Iemperature and seafood spoilage In H Proceedings of 1977
SChool for SeafltXld Processorsmiddot ad ~ AF 0 Mello Hawkesbury
Agricultural Oollege p6-2
Olley J 1978 QIality assessment and storage changes In middotCSIRJ Iasmanian bull
leJional Laboratory OCcasional Paper No 4 p 3-1 middot4 Rgenstein J M and ~enstein CE 1981 he shelf-life extension of fesh
fish In Advances in the refrigerated treabnent of fishmiddot
International Institute of Rfrigeration Clmnissions C2 m ra [8
Boston US A 1981-4
leJenstein J 1983 Wlat is fish quality INroFISH Marketing Digest ttgt 6
26-28
Ryder JM 9Jisson OH SCott ON and Fletcher GC 1984 storage of
New Zealand Jack Mackerel ( TmohUMlB notJabullbullbullZandias) in ice
chemical microbiological and sensory assessment J M SCi 49
1453-1456 1477
Shewan JM Macintosh RG rucker CG and Ehrenberg ASC 1953 he
developnent of a numerical ~coring systan for the sensory assessment
of the spoilage of wet white fish stored in ice J SCi Food Jlgric
4 283-298
Smith J GM Hardy R hanson AB Young KW and Parsons E 1979
sane observations 00 the ambient and chill storage of blue whiting
(Mio1om8sistius poutassou) bull In H Advances in Fish SCience and
Technology ad JJ Connell FishinJ News (Books) Surrey England
pp 299-303
SOrensen T 1971 QIality control and fish handling in New zealand Food ~
t c-
o )
~hmiddot r~YiJ lt~
~~f~~ ~
I
Nomooram for comparison of diffGrent scoring systems tor raw T i sn ___ _ J bull )
_U I~ ~Y1 9i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~
I I t I I - _---1------ imiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot __ middot~_ ~ __~_ -_ ~ + ~ _ -~ _ - middotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middot __ G 9 8 7 6 _ 5middot 3
_ - zmmy [ I bull r f II
d _~__ ~ __ _ ~ __ -I-- - ~ L- i~ middoti~ ~ 1-L -~~ lt lt l~tceland 1P i ~ ~ j ~ ~ ~ L~ __ - I ~_ bull _ L j ~- _-
N rv 1 I 1 2 --- - 2~ 3 middot 3middot 4 ~- ~Il ay ~ _ _ middot _ r r
_ _ __ _ _~ ~_ ) - ~ L_ - 1- ~-_ -_ _ _ ~ 19 ~ 8 imiddotmiddot I 6 5 4 3
Do _ _nm~r t I I I r
~ I
_ ~ ~_ ~ t ~ __ i__ t ~ ~ ~ ~ _ q x 1 1i 2 2~ 3v _ Franee I r I l n
I I I i _ - ~ _ _ _- _-- middotmiddot __ middot_middot_middot_middotmiddotmiddotImiddotmiddotmiddot_middot~ _middotmiddotmiddotmiddot-_middotmiddotmiddotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddot ---- - --~ ~-
19oum8 I 7 6 i 5 ~ ~ 4middot 280 J t (
I i
J -- - -_ -__ X ~middotH i__~ -- i_L ~ - l_ middot1-- - 3 I 2Y1 0 4 11z 1 y
E E C I 1
I I I deg deg E I A r Bmiddot - I I C
ltOIl j- ~ ~ c ~--------------
TASTER
DATE
SESSION
~ER middot1
bull You will be given ~bull aamples of cooked fish Please assess the fish for flavour textur~ and
overall liking as though you had purchased them in a takeaway food shop Hark the sample
identification under the face that most closely describes your impressionbull
I
middot5 S shy2 3 4
FLAVOUR
IEXlURE
--
OVERALL UKING
7 bullbull yc ) I _ v J _ _
I1PP~NJIJ( 3 ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE BGRENVZSASS (A)
OBS DAYS-R DMPTS shy
1 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 6 4 3 7 4 6 e 4 5 9 6 1 18 6 10 11 6 18 12 6 18 13 e 13 14 8 16 13 8 13 16 8 17 17 9 18 18 9 18 19 9 bull 19 29 9 19 21 19 19 22 1 21 23 1 19 24 1 2123 11 21 26 11 22 27 11 22 29 11 22 29 12 22 3 12 22 31 12 23 32 12 23 33 13 23 34 13 23 33 13 22 36 13 23 37 14 24 38 14 23 39 14 264 14 25
17 26~ 17 39 43 17 38 44 17 29 43 21 32 46 21 33
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASS(At
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (Xt DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Yt DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9666 R SQUARED 9343 T STATISTIC 231621 INTERCEPT tAt 31799 SLOPE tSt 173399 bull STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 219473
OBSERVATIONS 46 Y DMPT9 XI DAYS-RSW YMIN -18 YMAX 61 YINC e XMIN -19 XMAX 2e9 XINe 2
] y
__ t=- I I 0(I I
JPRH6ELF PRINT MODULE -SYNTAX ERROR
DATABASE J3lGRENVISASS (FIL)
OB8 DAYS-R DMPT8
1 s 1 2 4 5 s 6 6
~ e 8 ~ 9 1 6 19 12 7 11 14 8 12 17 9 13 18 1 14 19 bull 11 17 23 12 21 29
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASSCFIL)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE CX) DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IY) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT ~9963
R SQUARED 992 T STATISTIC 3~36977
INTERCEPT CA) -3~6~41
SLOPE CB) 1~8426
STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 77667
OBSERVATIONS 12 v DMPTS x DAYS-RSW VMIN -2~ VMAX ~~ YINC ~
XMIN -19 XMAX 2~9 XINC 2
]
bull
-SYNTAX ERROR
lPRH6ELF PRINT MODULE
DATABASE BGRENVXSASS (AG)_
OB6
1 2 3 4 ~
6 7 8 9
Hi 11 12 13 14 1~
16 17 -18 19 2 21 22 23 24 2~
26 27 28 29
3 31 32 33 34 3~
36 37 J8
39
4 41 42 43 44 4~
46
DAYS-R
3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 6 6 6 6 8 8
8 bull 8
9 9 9 9
1 1 1 1 11 11 11 11
DMPTS
2 3 3 3 ~
6 ~
~
1 1 1 1 17 18 17 19 2~
2 21 21 21 23 21 23 23 24 24 24
12 24 12 24 12 25 12 25 13 27 13 25 J3 24 13 27 104 26 J04 2S
14 28 14 27 17 28 17 32 17 32 17 31 21 34 21 35
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BORENVISASSCAO)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE IX) DAVS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IV) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9~76~
R SQUARED 917 T STATISTIC 22S6S88 INTERCEPT lA) 323~7
SLOPE lB) 189812 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 269324
OBSERVATIONS 46 Y DM PT6 X DAYS-RSW ~ _01 VMAV 2~ YfNe ~
XMIN -19 XNAX 2l9 XINC 2
]
9YNTA)( ERROR bull ]PRN6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE BGRENVXSASS
OB6 DAY6-R DMPTS
1 3 1 2 3 1 3 3 1 4 3 1 5 4 1 6 4 4 7 4 3 9 4 1 9 6 6 18 6 6
11 6 6 12 6 6 13 9 8
14 9 9 15 8 8 16 8 9 l 9 18 19 9 11 19 9 12 28 9 12 21 18 12 22 18 14 23 18 11 24 18 14 25 11 15 26 11 13 27 11 15 29 11 15 29 12 17 3 12 18 31 12 19 32 12 18gJ l~ 34 13 18 3~ 13 18 36 13 19 37 14 19 JB 14 19 39 14 19 48 14 19 41 17 19 42 17 23 43 17 21 44 17 20
-(EEC)
q~ 21 23 q6 21 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASSCEEC)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE IX) DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IY) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 96691 R SQUARED 93q9 T STATISTIC 2~14824
INTERCEPT IA) -238937 SLOPE IB) 146219 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 1S28eS
OBSERVATIONS q6 Y DMPTS X DAYS-RSW YMIN -2q YMAX ~5 YINC ~
XMIN -19 XMAX 259 XJNC 2
l
SYNTAX ERROR lPRM8ELF PRINT MODULE
-
bull
APPENJ)K 4 -
DATABASE WHZTXNG VXSASS (A) bull
OBS DAYS-I
1 1 2 1 3 1 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 ~
9 5 9 5 Ii 7 11 7 12 7 13 9 14 9 1~ 9
016 11 17 11 19 11
DMPTS
1 1 1 1 2 2 4 3 5 a 7
9 13 15 bull 13 16 14 1~
019 13 2 8 28 13 16 21 13 20 22 15 24 23 1~ 24 24 15 25 25 17 29 26 17 29 27 17 38 29 19 30 29 19 38 38 19 32 31 21 33 32 21 32 33 21 32 34 23 32 3~ 23 32 36 23 34
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASSIA)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE tX) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE tV) qMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 98514 R SQUARED 9785 T STATISTIC 3344414 INTERCEPT tAt -245163 SLOPE CBt 166958 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 286799
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS x DAYS-ICE
YMIN -22 YMAX lS7 YINC lS- XMIN -19 XMAX 259 XINC 2
]
I
J
-8YNTAX ERROR
]PRM6ELF PRINT MODULE shyDATABASE WHITING VISASS (AG)
OB8 DAYS-I DMPT8
1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 4 3 1 ~ 3 2 6 3 2 7 ~ 4 9 ~ 3 9 ~ ~
18 7 18 11 7 9 12 7 18 13 9 1~
14 9 17 1~ 9 1~
16 11 18 17 11 16 18 11 17 19 13 22 28 13 18 21 13 22 22 1~ 26 23 1~ 27 24 1~ 28 2~ 17 32 26 17 32 27 17 33 28 19 34 29 19 34 38 19 36 31 21 37 32 21 36 33 21 36 34 23 36 3~ 23 36 36 23 38
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITINO VISASS(AO)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAY8-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Y) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 986~2
R SQUARED 973 T STATISTIC 3~B167B
INTERCEPT CAl -272~33
SLOPE CBI 197S63 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 221294
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS X DAYS-ICE YHIN -19~ YHAX ~9~ YINC ~
XHIN -19 XHAX 2~9 XINC 2
]
-SYNTAX ERROR lPRM6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASS (EEC)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 2 1 3 1 4 3 ~ 3 1 6 3 1 7 ~ 2 8 ~ 2 9 ~ 3
1 7 3 11 7 3 12 7 3 13 9 6 14 9 6 bull 1~ 9 7 16 11 7 17 11 8 18 11 7 19 13 11 2 13 1 21 13 12 22 1~ 13 23 1~ 1~
24 1~ 17 2~ 17 19 26 17 18 27 17 19 28 19 29 29 19 23 39 19 22 31 21 24 32 21 23 33 21 24
34 23 2J 3~ 23 26 36 23 27
I ELF SCATTER MODULE I DATABASE WHITING VISA88CEEC)I I INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (~) DAYS-ICE I
DEPENDENT VARIABLE (VI DMPTS I bull
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9a2~3
R SQUARED 96~3
T STATISTIC 387a73~
INTERCEPT (A) -4142 SLOPE (8) 12873 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 173287
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS ~ DAYS-ICE YMIN -29 YMA~ ~1 VINC ~
XMIN -19 ~MA~ 2~9 ~INC 2
J
-SYNTAX ERROR JPRM6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHITING VXSASSmiddot(FXL)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 2 3 1 3 ~ 5 4 7 4 ~ 9 9 6 11 13 7 13 1~
e 1~ 16 9 17 19 18 19 21 11 21 24 12 23 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASB(FJLI
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Y) DMPTS
bull bullbull 4~
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE CV) DMPTSr
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 982~3
R SQUARED 96~3
T STATISTIC 3S7873~ t bullbullf CINTERCEPT CA) -4142
SLOPE CB) 12873 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 173287
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS XI DAYS-ICE YMINmiddot~28 YMAKI 1 YINC ~
XMIN -I9XMAX 2~9 XINC2
]
-SYNTAX ERROR ]PRH6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHXTXNG VXSASS (FXL)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 S 2 3 1 1 5 3 4 7 4 5 9 9 6 11 13 7 13 1~
9 15 16 9 17 19 1 19 21 11 21 24 12 23 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE I WHITING VISAS8(FIL)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE CX)I DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE CY) DMPT8
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 99289 R SQUARED 9858 T STATISTIC 2638123 INTERCEPT CA) -243706 SLOPE CB) 124476 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 112846
SLOPE 10) 124476 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 112846
ObullbulllfftVTrOHSO 12 VI DHPTS XI DAVS-ICE VMIN -27 VHAX e2 VINe e XHIN -19 XHAX 2e9 gtcINe 2
]
-8VNTAX ERROR
fi
rr
[bull
SJ
in i
bullol
r~
bull bull
n i
o o o o
~
o~ o
o - l
N~ o ~
o o o
Q
Q o o
a
c -~_
Q
_
_ Q
_9_
0
o ~-
O
_
Q
lI
oJ ~
v
~ ~
~-
-
- -1
---h
---1
---I
I
I
1
~ ((9 ~ J las 0 - ~~ U -lt) az E~-~gl~~1--~~---------- ~) 1)
11 ~ - 11 HI ~~
I bull M~
~ -~ ~~ IJ~ I J ismiddotJ I Q l~
k tl I 01 re lr - 91 br I ~I ( -0 71P g I CJ tt
I I J 000 0 0 w I 0) NlNN1tl 30 hIflJ I t IC (~4ID(r ~ Wi
_ f-- -------- bull fyen ~=y ~~r I I I I I I I 0 0 00 00 ( ~) -Fr~ ~ fj)
-0 I 0 I Ole 17 10 0 ( ~ AI )middot P1~ 0 0 00 Q hItIrS ~7I -~~ (J
t -r------0 bull
_-~_ middotmiddotmiddot_middot~middotmiddotmiddot)-middot7~)
lrrT I 01 0
0 tFmiddot~~i ~ 1 o 00 Omiddot (~ -W ~r f (JJ___~ _______ _ l I I 71 I -_---_ - M-~ ~ I
J I Z-tf ~ ~ ~fI t1 11f ( )) CI I I I i I 00 r11-7[ c I C bull aofl7r_ ~ ~z ~ 1t~Ji ) ( --_--------i---shye l~~~ I f~) I I J I
I II i bull Q ( N~T fE ~I )
~JiP _- -___ ----shy
_
~ 7Yr 0) ~(J ~ I e I t I ~ l I J I I 1 I I I(I 0 0 (~~yen~ M -p~P71 JPtJIJs 0
i euror (1l~J IlLriJlllr1JI ~~J I ~()(1OP I I r I I 0 I ( t t I ( jIfS 7fS ~~I ~ )
I
I 1 I( IN 10~ lb~ qItJ gtr~j f o (~)I(~) I I 0 I (t~ ~~) I I Jbull o 0 J I ~ l 0 a i S(jJ t t t tI tI C I C I J I I I J I 0 I (n~rlP PI4t -I) t
- -I
-I -I-I I II-I I I-I r bull
-----(rtb Ii If p~) PNl17T7~b ~y~ 7
10 IIt1v I 0 1~L CIJ tN IfIfW1IIJ JI11i JN~I HJ3
---Y p~ALY~_ ~~ Yl2-- 1)
yenvr 1amp f111l
-
~
~~
~
II
o 0
~cgt
(
) Q
oa
oo
o
oo
o o
a
o
~
P
t
oo
c
oo
a -
o
oo
o
o -
o
-o
-
-
lJ
I~ I~
Jl ~rIpound i IAlffzfjjsectj 7df- utl kf J OG lie rCOIpound ~IIE(T r
7tU
~
~ ~
~ ~
~
-shy~
~
MYI f)lySLM~ 1 (JAy ISo~r 11 ~~) e ()~t ~I01) r I joy f o~y lOJ 17~JJlII1~ 16 fiti -t1 It r ~17J~~flu~1h 111H 7U 1111111shyIllf Jr(11Jr I fhJo
~ ) ~ I1 J J-4 ~ J 2 JJ ~poundol ~ ] t4 cl -7 eJ uJ cJJJ wI~ wI l shy w c at amp 74 -t ~ ut 4 I
SkIN 000 o 0 0o 0 0 o 00 I o I I I I 3 3 3l) t 3 3 31 s 3ltt
a I I I I I o IfYU I 2 I JI I I000 )l~ 1~1 S 3 ~S 3 5 335
GILtJ I J I o (J 0 I (I I I ~ t 2shy~I I s 3 ]] 2 0 (J 3 ~ ~ t 3 3 AlvItUiU i l I I ls)z oJ lJ 0 a (J ~ 0o 0 0 a a aTff1ttJR II r 1
1 I ~ I I I I 1~E
Cdt47tl7 I I ~ ~t( a a 0O(O I Io I~ 00 000deg a 0wO 0 0 0 o 0 0 o~ 00VUipound811 ~ J I
tJ I Oe6rlllr I I I I 2 2]l2 ~ 3 S 3 S ~ 3o a 0 (J () 0 I 333 1 $ 3
If~euMI LU~ 2l 3000o (J 0 o 0 0 J 2 2shy 331a deg (1 ~ 2 Jshy
i I 000amp1 0 I I 1TIUUpound
lAcltJdJE 00deg00o 0 0 ooalOOO 0 0 I I I 1OdOa deg 0 11 2 I r I I I IbullI
I I h~r~Eu I ( 0 0 CJ 0 o (J a 2 ~ 30001011 0 1 J 1010 I I L II 2 l 2l 22 2 1
sKIN GLLt I f I~J) GlIIl) 0 (I a I do 0 0 I 0 Il~t l~o 0 0 ~ 3 3 3 s 3 3 3 33s1331
i7tJ7l11 Ibull I shy i66 ~o
(J ~ 0 1 0 It3331l J t 1 1shy 1~ ~afJllc 11 Irrshy It ~1 1111 20 J3 u
(])JtUJ61 (l) (1) (Ir)(0) (J)(I) (If) (19) (u) (~r)(J4)
I r f
I
I
i I
I i
II I ((
f
II Ii
p ()
Q
0_
_ 00
0
00
00
00
0
o o o 0
00
0
0 _
o Q
0
0
o
0
00
0
-
0 0
0
middot0
0
o oo
0
o Q
o oo o o
- ~
~
~ ~~pound
w
i -shy
o
co
- --
shy
o o o
~
~_
~
0
-shyJJ
-----l--~
-J
J IJ
f
J
J)
o 0
00
_ 0
0
o (gt
0
o ()
o
0
0 0
0
()
()
o 0
0
o 0
0
_
_ -
-----1
-----shy
Q
0 0
o ~-IJ~ulJ-
u
lJcllJ_-_~IJamp
o o
Q
I---+----I---+----I----I~-
_Ilpound
llD
lIlI
Il
~I
IIIl
I_II
II5
l__
IIlIa
IllP
=lII
Il1
rl
ll
IlIl
IlIII
llII
IlJl
IIl
IIlIl_
IIrII
G3i
mta
isectID
it
llll~
1~=wampampftUla
_
au
U
Lamp
WJN
AJ
poundmiddotJI
IiIamp
3flJ
a
uac
ampa
f
shy
I~middottn 0~L fi 5L middottlu~ fo_~r ( ) 1poundc [CtJRl -ffl(pound1 r~~ rlt1c- J c-ru
-- I
1SllJ7~
lt l)~ J )IIr M ~-t s ~~ OIl middot )If 10 JAY II 041
J- Olt i1 )lir iI DIY IT- IMy11
1~middot6f1 14f1- ~imiddot -- J _ middotAfmiddot IIrk middot Jiamp -ffh~11 rtr Il ~M gt27P- ill Ill ~lllY ~~7rlf JC 1- ~ r 1M 11
r ~ F16F r~h FIjFi ~~I)r r~Fr
5 Fc II -i~fIoi l 1 fj t t Fr c r amp t 1= ~ r ~ F r rtI ~
- -
sION o (j o 0 0 o 0 a I I I I I I I I 2 I t t I-r J~L) z~z~ 2~J ~ z a ~ ~ 33 - -ol t 1 2
~ poundys-s 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I I lt t 2 t t 4 ~z ~ 2l~ ~ ~ 1 Z 3zi3p33 3 333 3 3 3 - - ~ rl~ a 0 a (1 a a o 1 I 1 I 1-2 12 t ltt a ~ l J tll~ ~~~) 2 2 2 2- ~Jll 21 13 33 ~
- ~ MIIi(UlA~
degCt1C 11 )l
FipoundSI- eli CeoD o 0 (J 0 I I I I I I 1 1 I I 1 I Jl~] l2 22- z ~ 2 2 22 11 2-3 -Sfvpound
j
CIJiCVlt-tICN I I I 1 ( I I I 2 2 t ~ t~ )2 2~21 2$ 2 t _~ 3AIJJN(j- P (J dO o C a a o 0 00 1 I I I I - --
V~7r~ ~ c~u N
(TKWW~ CO~ o I oc I I J I I I I 1 2 I 2 2 1- ) t~l2 2- 22 2 ) 2 ~2- 1222 2 2 ll 2L -- -~VClLAl I
a 0 0 0 01 I 0 2 1 2 2 J5r 4 E i H CA I I
-I I I I I I I I J J 12( ~ 12 1 2 1 2-I TfI_ 21 1-1- 1 1 ~ 1
~ I middot_0-__-- I
~ 1
ffCACIpound coo 000lt=1 o 0 0 0 btJCt) o a () (J I I I I I I I I111 I I I 1 I I -~-aD CD lJ a a 0 0 ~ ~ UlrAfllN o 0 a IJ e e 0 C) (JdegOo ecJao co (10 (1 o I I I I I I I I 1 I I III I I I I z --
i tiN ~4r L~~ 2- li ~ a~ 8M) CUmiddot c d (J 0 (J () I I I 1 1 1
I 1 I I f t I II tl-loI 21 1 t 33 - -
-Iffl1-
J I I I I i- 2 I 11~SC~E ~ t 1 o ~ 04-t 1J 11 1 11t IS~ IfS J1 I 1 I If I IJ 1 r~]u ze uu __
bull ttlUIG
(I) l~) (6) (II) ~ (~) 6s-)llIt lCUI CJ (Ii) (~) vmiddot (II) (19~ ---
I t f
I
~ I
~ I
Ii
I I
Ii I II f
~ (
--)raquo~ middot-~~-~-I~~IliiI~~-middotComiddot~-d-b~middotmiddotmiddotmiddot_ ~ ~ middoth-~_middot--~H~~middot~gt
Other Occasional Papers in the series
1 A salinity monitor for irrigation pumps by EOMIEZITIS
2 Wine liqueur and fish products acceptability trials 47th ANZAAS Congress Hobart 1976 by HABREMNER TLLEWIS and ARQUARMBY
3 Abalone silage an exercise in the conservation of waste by JUNE OLLEY
4 Course notes contributed by the CSIRO Tasmanian Food Research Unit to a workshop on fish handling and quality control Hobart Oct3rd-5th 1978 by HABREMNER JUNE OLLEY and SJTHROWER
5 Difficulties with generalized least squares regression in forest modelling by PWWEST
6 Metabolism of zinc cadmium and copper in rats fed shellfish highly contaminated with heavy metals by SJTHROWER JUNE OLLEY and MAUREEN McDERMOTT
7 Hygiene control in seafood processing by SJTHROWER
11
this nunerical system reported that the cooked freshness scores are generally
higher (better) than expected at that storage t irre for whole wet fish A
freshness score of 55 on the Ibrry scale seemed the appropriate endpoint for
their definition of shelf-life This would nonnally be reached with ideal
iced-at-sea fish about twelve days from catch sooner for fillets Freshness
scorirq systems are I1C1laquo available fran Ibrry Research station for most UK
ccmnercial species and systems are available for both the raw and cooked
fish HoweveF there is still no standard scorirq system to be used
internationally he countries in the EEC ~or instance use scoring systems
which differ both in scale length am in characteristics measured Most
systems use the same scale length for all features examined but the United
Kingdon am Icelarrl use scales of 10 to 0 for odour and 5 to 0 for other
characteristics ibwgate (1972) describes the effort to construct a rorogram
for oonvert inq fran one scorinq system to another (Appendix 1) de Zylva
(1974) expanded the Ibrry score sheet to include marks for flesh colour and
texture belly flap discoloration stainiBJ of backbone am colour of
kidney he scoring system was designed for ~w Zealand snapper and gave
excellent negative linear correlations between score am days of storage
legenstein (1983) presents the way in which Ibrry has in turn incorporated
other characteristics into the score sheet for raw fish Groupings of several
characteristics to give a score requires more expertise than scoring
individual points as is done by de Zylva
However the use of a point or scoring system in which higher points are
given for high quality attributes would mean the requirements of more
kllC7filedge of the fish and the tester mist be experienced and knCM the
qualities of the fish previously Therefore it is too species dependent
his problem can be overcare by using the demerit system with points being
allotted in several categories for defects as they becare obvious and one can
I
12
learn as one goes along in each situation he demerit points that were given
to the various selected quality attributes could be weighted in such a way as
to produce an approximately linear change in score with storage time (Branch
and Vail 1985)
It might also be desirable OCIlInercially to specify a uniform mrnber of
days of shelf-life fran the pack date to consumption he length of shelfshy
life ctgttained for fish depends on the initial age and quality of the fish the
tirre of the pack am the time am temperature of storage before am after
packing In practical terns the ultimate measure of the effect(s) of shelf-
life extension treatments on the final quality of the fish is consumer
satisfaction (Regenstein aoo Regenstein 1981)
A tentative grading systan for fresh fish based on sensory assessment of
fish had been described by IbUwing (1972)
160 The Ideal Method
Forty years of research ootably in the UK Canada and Japan have gone
into objective methods for measuring fish quality (Bremner et al 1978)
There is as yet 00 single universal test for all species nor for that
matter any wholly satisfactory test for individual species
The ideal rrethod hOlJld be one that is cheap oon-destructive easy to
use oot subject to much variation or fatigue having rapid response and wide
application sensory tests have the advantages of being non-destructive 00
equipnent required adaptable to species and assessing the market value
Althcogh sensory tests are usually condemned as a subjective test which
requires training am experience am are also said to be easily open to
abuse this can be reduced if a simple rapid and less descriptive rrethod
could be fourd - possibly with the use of demerit point scores Therefore
this study aims at assessing the use of sensory techniques based on the
13
demerit point scores developed for raw whole (gutted and ungutted) and
filleted fish samples of Australian fish species stored in ice and RSW It
also discusses the results of the acceptability taste panels on the cooked
fish samples
The two oammercially ~rtant Australian fish species used in this study
were the blue grenadier am the blue rock whiting he blue grenadier is
currently Tasmanias major oammercial finfish and the recent annual production
of the fishery exceeds 100 tonnes (Last et aI 1983)~ he blue rock whiti~
is the only Australian member of the family that has any commercial
importance It occurs mainly in Bass strait and the sheltered bays of South
eastern Tasmania The flesh is delicately flavoured but very soft
200 MATERIALS lIND MEIHgt[s
210 Sample preparation
211 Fish stored in RSW
Blue grenadier used in this study were caught on the 15th lugust 1984 at
a depth of 300 fathans off Sandy Cape on the west coast of Tasmania (Lat
41deg20S IDrq144deg40 E) by demersal trawl They were taken fran the deck
irnnediately am dropped into a refrigerated seawater (RSW) tank in a net bag
(tanp -1degC) The fish was reported to be handled quite roughly on board
Sore of the fish had already gone into rigor at this stage he fish were
transported to the CnID lasrnanian Food lesearch Uni t (TFRJ) laboratories in
Hobart and were already to days old on arrival The f ish were then placed in
the RSW box tank of the rrobile unit (the design and construction of which were
described by Thrower and Stafford 1981) and was kept at -1degC for the duration
of the storage trial which lasted for about three weeks Four fish were
rerroved at each samplirq tine (Table 1) for sensory assessment Length
14
measurements to the fork of the tail were also noted ~e fish were then
filleted and samples frozen at -lBoe for later assessment of their
acceptability by taste panel
212 Fish stored in ice
For the sensory assessment of fish stored in ice guidelines similar to
those given by Lima dos Santos et al (981) were used ~e blue rock whiting
also known as the weedy whiting was used ~e whiting were caught on the
afternoon of 23rd August 1984 by demersal trawl in 18 to 25 m waters oft
Eastern Tasmania On arrival at the TFRJ laboratories in I-bbart at 11 45 am
on the fol Lowirq day the f ish were re- iced at a ratio of 21 (ice f ish) in
insulated plastic boxes of size 66 x 41 x 28 em with provision for drainage
of melt water Flake ice was used ~e ice was topped up daily and renewed
once a week The boxes of i ced f ish were then kept in a cool roan set at a
temperature of 0deg to -1dege ~ree fish were removed for sensory assessment at
each sampling time (Table 1) over a period of rmre than three weeks of ice
storage 100 fish samples were then frozen at -18dege until needed for the
acceptability taste panel
Table 1
sampling regirre for fish stored in R3Wice
Blue Grenadier Diys in R3W 3 4 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 17 21
Sample code N D G L S R K T U P M 0
Whiting Diys in ice 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Sample code 0 M D G T S N R P U L K
15
220 Sensory assessment of the whole (gutted and ungutted) raw fish samples
Both the blue grenadier stored in lOW and the whi t i nq stored in ice were
progressively assessed by using the sense organs of sight smell and touch tor
changes in general appearance odour and texture with storage tine by giving
the appropriate demeri t scores according to the score sheets as shown in
Tables 2 and 3 IVo types of score sheets were used Table 2 shows the
sensory assessment score sheet orig inally developed for the assessment of
gemfish (Thrower et al 1982) It has been simplified and weighted (Branch
and Vail 1985) to provide accumulated increases in demerit points as the t i sn
change in odour texture and appearance during storage with the max imum
accumulated demerit point scores of 35 for the urx]utted samples and 39 tor tte
gutted samples The total scor irq for gutted fish differs fran that descr ibeo
by Bremner (1984) and Branch and Vail (1985) in that the demerit points for
the belly cavity have been added to those for the whole fish
The whole and gutted raw fish were also assessed by using the freshness
score sheet developed by the Council of the European COl1nunities (Official
Journal of the European Qmnunities 1970) but with slight rrodification marie
in its scor irq method in that the scor irq was reversed to provide accumulateri
increases in demerit points as in the TFRJ score sheet (Table 2) with a
maximun accumulated demerit score of 30 (Table 3) The samples were scored by
H Abd R who had had no previous experience with the score sheet
230 Sensory Assessment of the frozen filleted raw fish samples
Samples of the whole and gutted fish of both species were then filleted
ard frozen at -18degC until required for the organoleptic acceptability test
panel fillets were thawed by holding for about 16 hours (overnight) in still
air at 4degC The thawed fillets of both the blue grenadier and whi t i nq were
then assessed by the sense organs of sight smell and touch by using the scor-e
sheet for filleted sample as shown in Table 4 nle score sheet was developed
16
able 1
FIlt U Snorr bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullnt oore hbullbull t ( ( 1Ii~ ANI) tlNtJuTreo)
1_middotAnlJ lmiddot
rlSB IDDII
UIUIl~ (VBci9ht~i9ht8lDullDUll
o 1 2 3
SitU ( rimSoft) o 1
SCALBS (r1mSlLoomiddotmiddotLoobullbull ) o 12
r r SLIMB (AbbullbullntSlSlimiddotysliyVSliy)
o 123
S1IrnraS (pr-Ri90rRi90rPot-Ri90r) o 1 2
BYBS Clarity (ClbullbullrISlCloudyCloudy) 012
Shape (HoralslsunknSunkn) 012
Irill (ViiblHot Viibl) IJ 1
Blood (No BloodSlBloodyVBloody) o 1 2
GILLS Colour (VDark)Charaotritio (SlDark) (vradd)(Slradd)
2o 1 Kucou (AbbullbullntKoderatmiddotBxcbullbullbulliv)
o 1 2 S bullbullll (rrbullbullh 01ly) Pihy8talpoll~
(MetalliaSaved) 1 2 3
BELLI Dicoloration (AbbullbullntDetatablmiddotModratmiddotBxobullbullbulliy) 012 3
Finanbullbullbull ( rira80ftBurt) o 1 2
VENT Condition (bobullbulldy)Noraal (SlBrbullbullk) (Opening)(Bxudbullbull )
2o 1 Sbullbulln (rrbullbullhReutralrihy8poilt)
o 2 3
BELLI CAVIn Stain (OpalbullbullontGryihlmiddotllow-Brown) o 1 2
Blood (RdDark RdBrown)
o 1 z
--
17
UJE 3
Etc SENSORY A$fE4St4fN[ ~(oIlL~
SCALE OF MARKING - FRESHNESS
CRITERIA shypoundu1LRt
Abullbullbullbullbullment Mara-bull thc r1ah 0 1 2- 3tszhL
AppearanceinIIMlISJ Skin
Eye
Gill
Flbullbullshycut f ssm abdomusn
Colour the~
vertebral column
Organs
Oright iridescent I bright pigmenta- pigmentation in (1) dull pigmenta tion no i tion but not the process of pigmentation discolouration Ius trous becoming dis-
mucus opaquemucus aqueous i coloured and dull
mucus slightlytransparen t
cloudy ~UCU9 milky
convex (bulging) convex and flat (1) concave in cornea tran- slightly sunken cornea the centre parent cornea Ughtly opalescent cornea milky pupil black opalescent pupil pupil grey bright
pupil black opaque dull
-shining colour less coloured becoming dis- (1) yellmiish no mucus a few traces of coloured mucus milky
cloar mucus mucus opaque
blueish trans- dull velvety slightly opaque (1) opaque lucid smooth waxy shining without any change in the colour sUgh tly original colour changed
(I) reduncoloured sl1 gh tly pink pink
kidneys and kidneys and kidneys (1) kidneys residues of resJdues of resicJuos of r bullbullidue of other other organs other organs other organs organs and blood bright red the dull red blood and blood brownish game as the becoming palo red blood inside discolbured the aorta
(1) or in a more advanced bull ta te of decay
I
bull
Flesh
Vertebtal Column
Peritonium
Gills kin abdominal cavity
18
(eontd)
SCALE OF MARKING - FRESHNESS
CRITERIA
Assessment Mark 0 1 2
Physical eOId ton
firm and elas tic surface smooth
breaks ins tead of coming away
totally adherent to the flesh
seaweed
less elastic
adherent
adherent
Smell bull
not of seaweed but not bad
slightly soft (flaccid) Ie elastic surfacente waxy velvety and dull
slightly adherent
slightly adherent
slightly sour
3
(1) soft (flaccid) scales ebullbullil y detached from skin sur face ra ther wrinkled inclining to mealy
(1) not dherent
1( ) not adherent
(1) sour
(1) or in a more advanced stat of decay
_ shy-- -
19
Table 4
Filleted Sample Score Sheet
r
TREATMENT F ILIEIS DATE REMOJAL (THAWED)
FISH IDENr
EASE OF FILLETING (Easysl difficultdifficult)
012
APPEARANCE (a) Oolour of flesh (TranslucentSl discolouredSl opaqueopaque)
o 1 2 3
(b) Blood stains (AbsentDetectableModerateExcessive)
012 3
(c) Clotting (UnclottedSlclottedModclottedExcessclotted)
012 3
(d) Skin Oolour (VbrightBrightSldullOU11)
o 1 2 3
TEXTURE FirmS1 softSoft
o 1 2
ClDClJR (FreshNeutralStaleSpoilt)
012 3
CONJITION (a) Gaping (AbsentDetectableModerateExcessive)
o 1 2 3
(b) Bruising (AbsentSlightSevere)
012
(c) Wetness (NmnalS1 dry orMod dry orExcess dryness or
SldripModdrip Freezer bJrn or Excessdrip
012 3
(d) Autolysis (Absentmoderatesevere) (Disco1ourations) 0 1 2
(e) Parasites (Absentmoderatesevere) ( Infestations) 0 1 2
(f) Other discolourations (Absentpresent) or contaminants (bones membranes tissues etc) 0 1
EASE OF SKINNING (EasySldifficultdifficult)
012
20
by the author after a literature search and observations made during the preshy
liminary part of the study It has a maxUnum accumulated demerit score of 34
240 ~anoleptic Acceptability Panel of the cooked fish
Filleted samples of both fish species which had been frozen in a cold
roan at -18dege and then thawed as above were used for the acceptability taste
panels The fillets were skinned am cut into 30 to 40 g pieces crumbed and
deep fried (Bremner et ale 1985) Three or four treatments were cooked
simultaneously at each session am the fish served with packets of take-away
french fries Tcrnato sauce vinegar and salt were available Each of the
samples were randanised in such a way so as to give a high degree of balance
(Table 5 and 6) Letters that represent the samples were also picked
randanly The fish was assessed by 20 panellists employed at the Tasmanian
lEgional Laboratory and experienced with facial hedonic scaling for flavour
texture am overall acceptability using the General Foods Smiley scale
(Appendix 2) Salt was rot rrentioned with the 9niley questionaire for blue
grenadier so that the panel should have ro preconceiVed prejudices
250 Statistics
tata fran the sensory assessment of the whole gutted and ungutted raw
fish (both TFRJ am EEl score sheets) am fran the sensory assessrrent of the
frozen filleted raw fish samples of both the blue grenadier stored in RSW am
whiting stored in ice were analysed for correlation using the ELF scatter
module (Appendix 3 and 4)
The acceptability taste panel assessment scores for flavour texture and
overall liking of the toKgt species of fish were subjected to analysis of
variance using the Genstat package (Appendix 5 and 6)
22
Table 6
Order of presentation of cooked whiting samples to the acceptability taste panelists
Order of presentation of samples Panelist
session I session II
1 OTP rm 2 MUS KR 3 sm INL
4 IKJ GKR
5 ror NK
6shy USM UN ~
7 OOP RLD
B HUT NKD
9 USO RiL
10 SMP LGN
11 IMT GIltN
12 nxgt KRD
Note
8angtle code OM 0 G T S N R P U L K
storage time in ice (days) 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
23
300 RESULIS
310 Physical Characteristic of M novaeaelandiae
rran the forty-six fish examined the mean fork lerqth was found to be
762 an (range 609 to 838 an) A few of the fish examined had well shy
developed roes and their digestive tracts were found to be relatively empty
320 Physical Characteristics of the H ssmifasoiata
rran a total of thirty-six fish examined the rrean weight of the fish was
fourrl to be 662 g (range 27 to 186 g) am the mean fork length was 183 em
(range 156 to 265 an)
330 sensory assessment of the raw blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
he results of the sensory assessrrent of the r2M blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW by the four rrerhods of scoring are given as average total
accumulated demerit point scores as shown in Table 7 Figure 1 shoes the
graph of demerit point versus days in RSW by the four rrethods of sensory
assessment used Table 9 shltJtS the correlation analysis
340 sensory assessment of the raw whitirq samples stored in ice
he results of the sensory assessment of the r2M whitirq samples stored
in ice by the four methods of scoring are given as average total accumuLated
demerit point scores as shown in Table 8 Figure 2 shltJtS the graph of demerit
point versus days in ice of the four nethods of sensory assessment used Table
9 shltJtS the correlation analysis
350 Attributes contributing to total score
Attributes that contribute to total score usirq the TFRJ scores (ungutted
and gutted) EEC scores and the filleted sample scores are as shewn in Tables
10 - 14
24
Table 7
Total demerit points fran sensory assessment of blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
Average lbta1 Demerit Rgtint SCores
[)lye in RW TFRJ scores TFRJ scores EEl scores Filleted Sample (urvJut t ed ) (gutted) (gutted) SCores
3 3 3 1 1
4 5 5 2 3
6 10 10 6 6
8 16 18 9 8
9 19 21 11 10
10 20 22 13 12
11shy 22 24 15 14
12 23 25 18 17
13 24 26 19 18
14 25 27 19 19
17 29 31 21 23
21 33 35 25 29
Note
Maximum possible scores for (1) IlRJ scores (ungutted is 35
( 11) IlRJ scores (gutted) is 29
( 11i) EEX scores (gutted) is 30
( iv) Filleted sample scores is 32
amptV
35j
3l~
en Ishy 25Z-0 Q
3)-~
bullbullbull 0
bull 0 0bull 0
bull 0 0 6shy abull A ~
~
bull 0
~
6shy
bull 0
6shy
I) 01
-W 0i A15W ~ Q A
~
6shy~101- bull 90 TFRU SCORES (ungutted)
6shy~ bullbull TFRU SCORES (gutt~d i
bull ~
4 6- 6- EEC SCORES 5~
~ ~ FILLETED SAMPLE SCORES ~
6 4 I J I I I
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
DAYS IN RSW
Figl Demerit Points Versus Days in RSW For Blue Grenadier Samples
Fig 2 Demerit Points Versus Days in ice For Whiting Samples I
27
Table 8
TOtal demerit points from sensory assessment of whi tirq samples stored in ice
Average TOtal Demerit Foint SCores
rays in ice TFRJ scores TFRJ scores EEC scores Fi 11eted sample (urqutted) (gutted) (gutted) (gutted)
1 1 1 0 0 3 2 2 1 1
5 4 4 2 3
7 7 9 3 4
9 13 15 6 9
n 15 17 7 13
13 19 21 11 15
15 24 27 15 16
17 29 32 19 18
19 31 35 22 21
21 32 36 24 24
23 33 37 26 26
Note
MaXllnum possible scores for (i) TFRJ scores (urqutted) is 35 ( ii) TFRJ scores (gutted) is 39 ( iii) EEC scores (gutted) is 30 ( iv) Filleted sample scores is 32
28
Table 9
Relationship between tLme and demerit points for fish stored in RSW
Method of Visual Assessment
y- intercept slope correlation
M novaBMBlandias
TFRJ (urqutted ~les) 032 175 097
TFRJ (gutted samples) 032 190 096
EEl -231 146 097
Filleted samplesbull
-357 158 099
H sBmifasoiata
TFRJ (urqutted samples) -245 167 099
TFRJ (gutted samples) -273 187 099
EOC -414 129 098
Filleted samples -244 125 099
ltshy
--------------- ------------------------------------------
------------- - ------------- -------- ------
Table 10
Attributes contributing to total score using TFRO scores (gutted and ungutted)
Attributes involved in score change Score
Blue grenadier in RSW Whiting in ice
Stiffness Eyes - clarity blood Slllne Stiffness Eyes - clarity shape and blood lt10 Gills - smell Vent - smell SlBne Gills - colour smell and mucous
Vent - smell Belly cavity - stains and blood
Appearance Eyes-shape Stiffness Gills - smell colour and mucous Skin
Stiffness appearance gill-smell Scales belly-discolouration and firmness
N so
gt10lt20 SCales belly - discolouration and firmness Vent - smell Vent - smell and condition Belly cavity - stains and blood
Appearance Slllne Eyes - clarity shape Appearance SlBne Scales Skin blood and iris Gills - colour Eyes - clarity and shape
gt20lt30 Belly - discolouration Gills - mucous smell am colour Vent - condi tion and smell Belly cavity shy blood
Appearance Gills - mucous and smell SlBne Eyes - iris am blood Belly - discolouration and firmness Belly - discolouration and firmness
gt30 Vent - condition and smell Vent - condition Belly cavity - blood Belly cavity - stains
Table 11
Attributes contribut irq to total score us irq EEC scores
Attributes involved in score change
Score Blue grenadier in RSW W1iting in ice
lt7 Appearance - skin eyes gills organs Physical condition - flesh Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and organs Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skins eyes gills flesh Appearance-eyes and organs atv
vertebral column and organs Physical condition-flesh and peritoneum gt7lt14 Physical condition - flesh Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-eyes flesh and vertebral Appearance-skin gills and organs column Physical condition-flesh vertebral column
gt14lt21 Physical condition-vertebal column and and peritoneum peritoneum Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and vertebral column vertebral column
gt21 Physical condition-flesh and peritoneum Physical cOndition-flesh vertebral column Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity and peri toneum bull
Table 12
Attributes contributing to total score using filleted sample scores
Score
lt5
Attributes involved in score change
Blue grenadier in RSW
Appearance - blood stains skin colour ltXIour - flesh
M1iting in ice
----- shy -------------- shy
Appearance - skin colour odour - flesh Cbndition - gaping wetness
Appearance - colour of flesh Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Texture - flesh skin colour ltgt gt5lt10 Cbndition - gaping bruising wetness Ease of filleting
Texture - flesh
Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Appearance - colour of flesh clotting skin clotting skin colour skin colour
gt10lt20 odour - flesh odour - flesh Cbndition - gaping wetness autolysis COndition - gaping bruising wetness other discolourations autolysis and other discolouration Ease of skinning
Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains skin colour clotting
gt20 Texture - flesh Texture - flesh odour - flesh Odour shy flesh COndition - gaping bruising wetness Cbndition - wetness autolysis autolysis Ease of skinring
32
Table 13
Diff~rent emphasis in scoring systems for whole fish as between the EEl and TFID
Attribute Number of potential demerit points TFRJ EEl
1Ippearance (general) 3 0
skin ) scales 6 3
slime
Stiffness (Rigor) 2 0
Eyes 7 3
Gills 7 6
Belly 5 0
Vent 5 0
Belly cavity 4 3
Flesh cut fram abdomen 0 3
Flesh texture 0 3
Vertebral column 0 6
Internal organs 0 3
33
360 Relative merits of the scoring systems
The four scor irq methcds were used on the same samples of t ish Any
sample had therefore deteriorated to the same extent on anyone day Figs 3
am 4 shew the scores converted to percentages of possible deroorit point
scores The discrepancy in the accumulation of demerit points between the EEC
am TFRJ scor irq methods is clearly shown IEference to Table 2 3 am 13
shOool that this is caused by the lack of questions regarding rigor looseness
of scales condition of belly am vent am the qroupinq of colour am mucous
in the gills as single po i nts thus halving the potent Ia I gill demerit point
score canparison of the tO species in Table 9 ShONS that the rate of
accumulation of demerit pgtints was more consistent for the TFRU system than by
the EEX scor i oq methltXl or by scorinq of fillets
370 Time taken to score the fish
The average time taken to score an individual fish using the TFPlJ
(unqutted) scores TFRJ (gutted) scores EEX scores am the filleted aamp Le
scores were found to be 1 min 25 sec 1 min 55 sec 3 min 45 sec and 1 min 50
sec respectively The EEX score sheet is more t iroe consumioq in that more than
one question is asked about an attribute for the giving of only one demerit
point this requires conscious thought
380 Acceptability taste panel results of blue grenadier samples bull Figures 5 6 am 7 shOool the mean taste panel scores in graphic form for
flavour texture and overall acceptability of cooked blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW table 14 shows the results of the statistical analysis
390 Acceptability taste panel results of whiting samples
Figures 8 9 am 10 shOool the mean taste panel scores in graphic form for
flavour texture and overall acceptability of cooked whiting samples stored in
ice table 15 shows the results of the statistical analysis
WHITING STORED IN ICE o TFRU SCORES (ungutted)
bull TFRU SCORES (gutted)
b EEC SCORES
FILLETED SAMPLE SCORES
100bull e ~ e b
i 6
bull NW
oIJ-a A A-
(J0 t A~ 0 ~ AC)
C) -e ~~-
C) a 50 A
A w
Iz ~
~ - W e A0 c a ~ ~ A-a ~ l ~ A
w -~
~ X ~ W -e I c ~ ~ ibull I I I I
4 8 12 16 20 24
DAYS IN ICE FIG4
36
- flavourshy
-e s-e l ~ v
5middotIU
STORAGrf IN R sWDAYS
rlCoS Ttutfc pcr1 rcbull
rf oj bl jtlJ~r - jlqVGurc acccr~b
21179 0 2 136 843
~ 0 u 5middot0YI
oJ J l ofmiddot$ 1 e
tu 4middot0
VI
~ 3middot5
3middot0
TelC-lue X bull -e III
~ Gmiddotftv
ct 5middot03
V1
-J -f-SshyU 2
~ 40 t
3-~
~ bullbull0 5 0
~ 17 21A ISII
PAY- IITDRAGamp fbilW
FIG6 I Tq1-c pltnd rc-utl ojbllfcJrcftaJIr bull I~M144 Q Cc(r~blfly
r 411q~~ An~Plf bUIJlfM F llh J~Lld Pt-DoL B fpound)1
gt1 NI ~~eusr SJAVlt1
D ~II
(ffIt1~JP IIID bull U J 1i
-IyoJC )-tlICf p --lInraquoJ Ix-Pc ~1rb1 r I ef
Ma2j NI a~v2loJ$
til
1Ia ~AO (IIp~lJa~e
01
secto
00
s
05
5
o~
~
0pound
s
0
smiddot
o~
07
1 ~ ~ ~ ~
r~
B
~
rv t gtshy 2
~ ~ 11
~ 7shyIn r
~ () 0 1) m ~
~ gtshyz -
(fII~q~~ 7~ P
IItJ1o -~~f(ll p ~I I~U J ~t~L 0 ~ middot~II I
IDI 8~ middot lta ~
~ QS
middotS ~ ~ 0 z
r Smiddot II
S 1d 0-$ 111 r- l gtshy r
V fr~
~llCf-J a-PcJ~ U~middotJO
4lp~dmiddotyIb 6middot~1f np)t -~11M fo --IIhen IJutJel ~bl
Table 14
Acceptability of deep fried blue grenadier samples stored in FSW
rays in R3W
Acceptability 3 4 6 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 17 21
Flavour 50a 50a 4S a 51a 50a 51a 50a 4Sa 49a 53a 41b 35b
Texture 49bc 51abc 4S bed 52ab 4Sbed 53ab 52abc 52ab 4Sbed 55a 46cd 43d
OJerall 50ab 51ab 47be 52ab 4Sb 5lab 52ab 50ab 47b 54 a 41c 35d
abc
d
significantly different (pltOOOl)
significantly different (pltOOl) W so
Table 15
Acceptability of deep fried whiting samples stored in ice
rays in ice
Acceptability 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Flavour 5Sab 59a 59a 60a 59a 5S ab 51b 54ab 53ab 37c 37c 31c
Texture 59ab 59a 53bed 5S ab 63a 59ab 47cde 54be 56ab 55ab 44e 46de
OJera11 57ab 5S ab 59ab 60a 60a 5Sab 52b 53ab 55ab 42c 36cd 31d
abcde significantly different (Plt0001)
40
~oo DISCUSSION
410 Sensory assessment of the raw blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
he results of sensory assessment on the raw blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW by the four methods of scoring all sheM that there is
progressive increment in total demerit points with storage time for all the
four methods (Table 7) It was also fourxi that the accumulation of demerit
points with time of storage of the fish in ffiW occurred in a saui-linear
fashion for all -the four scoring methods used (Figure 1) he variables (time
of storage and demeritmiddot points score) were all highly correlated (Table 9)
he correlation equation of the TFRJ (ungutted samples) and TFRJ (gutted
sanples) scores were similar roth having a zero time intercept of 032 but
with the TFRJ (gutted samples) scores having a slightly greater slope by 015
he EEC scores and the filleted sample scores roth have lower slopes ie
146 and 158 respectively canpared with the TFRJ (ungutted sample) and TFRJ
(gutted sample) scores of 175 and 190 respectively lbwever the EOC scores
which have the lowest slope have a fairly similar correlation equation with
the filleted sample scores (Table 9) he negative intercepts reflected the
slightly more sigrroid relationship for these samples his suggests that the
TFRJ (gutted) scoring method is the rrost sensitive of the four methods
followed by the TFRJ (ungutted) the filleted sample and the EEC scores
It was also found that after 21 days of storage in RSW the blue
grenadier samples had not reached their maximun possible scores in any of the
four scoring rrethods used (Table 7) he TFRJ (ungutted sample) score only
reached 943 of its possible maximun value whereas the TFRJ (gutted sample)
scores EEC scores and the filleted sample score reached only 897 833 ar~
906 of their possible maximun score his means that all the four methods
of scoring can still be sensitive to changes in the quality of the blue
grenadier samples stored in RSW after 21 days of storage time
41
Figures 1 and 3 also shOVt that the pattern of the graphs of demerit
points against days storage in R3W of the four methcxis of scoring is similar
ie a tendency to be slightly sigmoid fbwever the filleted sanple scores
sean to be rrore sensitive than the EOC scores at the later part of the storage
time ie after 14 days of storage and the scores continued to rise
1be rrost obvious indicator of change for the blue grenadier stored in ffiW
using the TFRJ scores (both gutted and unJUtted sanples) was the eyes (clarity
and blood) followed by odour developnent of the gills (Table 10) his is -
also foond to be true wi th the EOC freshness score (Table 11) Fbr the
filleted sample scores the appearance and odoor of the flesh seems to be the
most obvious indicator of change follOVted by the condition of the fillets such
as gaping bruisin) am wetness (Table 12)
4 20 sensory assessment of the raw whi ting samples stored in ice
1he results of sensory assessment on the rCJl whiting samples stored in
ice by the foor roothods of scoring also shows that there is a progressive
increment in total demerit points with storage time for all the four methods
of scoring (Table 8) Ps with the blue grenadier the aCCLD1UJlation of demerit
points with time of storage of the whiting in ice also occurred in a sernishy
linear fashion for all the foor scoring methods used (Figure 2 and 4) wi th a
slight lag in the initial phase Interestingly this was not observed in the
case of blue grenadier sanples stored in ffiW probably because the first
samplin) of the blue grenadier starts only fran the third day after catch
whereas the first sampling of the whiting starts fran the first day after
catch Also the blue grenadier was handled qu i te roughly on the deck in fact
three oot of the four fish samples on the first rerroval ie the third day
after catching had already showed blood in their eyes
Bremner et al (1985) when using the TFRJ score sheet to assess the
42
quality of four tropical fish species fran the oorth west shelf of hJstralia
(stored in ice) also fourrl that the accumulation of demerit points with time
of storage in ice occurred in a linear fashion
PB wi th blue grenadier the variables (tine of storage ard darneri t points
score) were all highly correlated (Table 9) Also the correlation equation of
the TFRJ (ungutted) ard TFRJ (gutted) scores were similar with the TFJU
(gutted) score having a slightly greater slope by 020 Crable 9) he EEC
scores am filleted sample scores also have lower s lopes l e 129 ard 125
respectively ocmpared to the TFm (ungutted) and (gutted) scores of 167 and
187 respectively However unlike the blue grenadier the filleted samples
of the whi t ing had the 10liest slope he more sensi tive na ture of the EEC
scores as canpared to the filleted sample scores in the case of the whiting
especially after 12 days storage in ice can be explained by the snaller size
of the whitirlJ (fork length ranging fran 156 to 265 an) as canpared to the
size of the blue grenadier (fork length ranging 809 to 838 an) the snaller
fish terrl to spoil faster especially the interior parts of the fish PB the
EEC scores depend nuch on the sensory assessment of the interior parts of the
fish such as the appearance and condition of the flesh vertebral colwnn
interior organs per i toneun and abdaninal cavity (Table 3) which makes up more
than 18 demerit points out of the total possible maxinun of 30 the
sensitiveness of its score is thus self-explanatory in the case of whiting
Connell (1980) explained that large fish keep marginally better than small
fish because larger fish have a smaller surface to volume ratio so that in the
same tUne less of their interior is affected
The above results confirmed the previous suggestion that the TFRU
(gutted) scorIoq methcrl is the roost sensitive of the four methods It was
found that after 23 days of storage in ice the whiting scmples had not
reached the maximun possible scores in any of the four methods used (Table
43
8) The 1FIU (UBJutted) scores had reached only 94-3 of its possible maximum
value whereas the TFRJ (gutted) scores EOC scores am the filleted sample
scores reached only 94 9 867 and 81 3 of their poea Ible maximum score
Therefore all the four methods of scoriBJ can still be sensitive to changes
in quality of the whiting samples stored in ice after 23 days of storage tUne
Ihe roost obvious irxHcator of chaDJe for the whiting stored in ice using
the TFIU score sheet was the eyes (clarity shape and blcxxl) followed by the
develqxnent of -colour odour and nucous of the gills (fable 10) Bremner et
al (1985) when working with four tropical species f~ the north west shelf of
Australia also found that the most obvious indicator of change for fish stored
in ice was the eyes (their clarity am shape) follCAtled by odour developnent
and colour changes in the gills This was also found in the case of blue
grenadier in ~ discussed earlier OJrran et al (1981) when investigating
the quality changes duriBJ iced storage of three carmercially important
species of fish fran Bahrein also found that of the visual and olfactory
assessments gill odour showed the roost pranise as a quality control index
Pgain this is also found to be true with the EOC freshness score of both the
blue grenadier and the whitiBJ (Table 11) AccordiBJ to ~ate (1972) it
was generally agreed that odour of the gills is the most sensitive measure of
freshness but the visual appearance of the eyes gills arxi skin was quicker to
use in practice on the market
For the filleted sample scores of the whiting the most obvious indicator
of chanqe was the appearance and odour of the flesh (Table 12) This too
agreed with the findiBJs for blue grenadier stored in ffiW
AccordiBJ to Baines et al (1969) with fish eatiBJ is related to four
main attributes or quality factors viz appearance odour and texture of the
rCM and cooked fish and in the latter also flavour he ultimate purpose of
testing the raw fish is to estimate the eating quality which is here taken to
44
mean the degree of freshness of flavour Acoording to Baines and Shewan
(1965) the mostreliable test for predicting flavour sqore is raw odour
430 The ease aM difficulties of using the four methods of scoring
It was found that the TFRJ (ungutted) scores was the easiest and quickest
method to use as it takes on average only about 1 min 25 sec to score a fish
canpared to 1 min 55 sec 3 min 45 sec ard 1 min 50 sec for the TFRJ
(gutted) EOC and the filleted sample scores he E~ score was found to be
the roost tedious besides taking the longest time to soore a fish
he TFIU (ungutted) scores also have the advantage of not requiring a
knife in order to score ard also were less IOOSSY to work with canpared to all
the other nethods Also the attributes to be assessed were arranged and
organised in such a way in the score sheet that it is easy to score a fish
starting from assessing the apparance and skin and ending with the condition
and smell of the vent
440 Acceptability taste panel results of the blue grenadier samples
441 Flavour acceptability
Figure 5 shc7ws the flavour acceptability of the deep fried samples of
blue grenadier Samples stored in R3W for less than 17 days were found
statistically (Table 14) to be indistinguishable (Plt0001) fran each other
then there was a significant fall in the flavour acceptability of the samples
stored in RSW for 17 days onwards he sarrtgtle stored for 21 days had a still
lower mean value of 35 but it was not significantly different fran the
semple stored for 17 days which had a nean value of 41 It is interesting to
note that despite the progressive increase in sodiun uptake of the blue
grenadier samples stored in RSW from about 7115 35 mg sodium(lOO g tissue
initially to 724 33 mglOO g tissue on the 16th day aM to 729 17 mglOO g
45
tissue on the 21st day (Burford 1984) the panelists seem not to be
negatively affected by the increasing salt content of the samples with storage
tUne and in fact some of the panelists added more salt to their samples I
111is result contradicts statements made by previous reseachers that the
storage life using R3W may be limited by increases in salt content in the fish
flesh (Boyd et aI 1978) he maximun desirable salt content according to
Tcm1inson et al (1974) as quoted by Boyd et al (1978) is about 05 but at
the 16th day ofmiddot RgtW storage the salt content fOllNj In the flesh of blue
grenadier samples was already more than 07 fbwever the panelist only ate
40g pieces it might have been a different case if the fish has been as a
whole meal
442 Texture acceptability
Figure 6 shows the texture acceptability of the deep fried blue grenadier
samples stored in R3W eespf te sane apparent abberant values (such as the
high rrean of 55 for the sample stored for 14 days in RSW) it is obvious that
the texture acceptability showed a significant decreasing trend (pltOOl) from
seventeen days of storage onwards The abberant texture values are possibly
due to the fact that the fish texture might have been masked by the bread
crunbs used to coat the fish samples before deep fryi~ This agrees with the
observations of Bremner et al (1985) wtxgt found that the inherent textural
softness of P piotiue and the tougheni~ on storage of N peroni i detected by
a profile panel usilYJ steamed fillets were no lo~er noticeable when the fish
was deep fried in batter Bremner (1980) also reported that despi te the
softness of the raw flesh the cooked flesh of blue grenadier is reasonably
firm
46
433 OVerall acceptability
The overall acceptability of the deep fried blue grenadier samples stored
in R)W (figure 7) seems to follCM a similar pattern to its flavour
acceptability (figure 5)~ in which a significant fall in overall acceptability
was only observed fran the samples held fran 17 days in RSW onwards (pltO 001)
as shawn in Tablel4
rnus all the above results showed that there was a significant fall in
flavour texture and overall acceptability of blue ~renadier from 17 days of
R)W storage onwards which was found to be equivalent to the accumulated
demerit point scores of 29 of the TFRJ (ungutted) scoresr 31 of the TFRl
(gutted) scoresr 21 of the EOC scores and 23 of the filleted sample
scores Jones (1964) states that the acceptability of a fish is a function of
its suitability for further processing and of its inmediate appearance its
texture its odour and its flavour
450 Acceptability taste panel results of the whiting samples
451 Flavour acceptability
Figure 8 shows the flavour acceptability of the deep fried whiting
samples stored in ice rtle twelve sample times could be analysed individually
since the means if analysed by canbining adjacent sample times to give six
sample groups are in fact the means of the adjacent times if analysed
individually it was found that samples of the first nine renovals i se up to
17 days of storage in ice are more or less indistinguishable (abberant value
at 7th removal) he last three removals ie samples stored in ice for 19
21 and 23 days were found to be of significantly lower flavour acceptability
(p lt 0001) as shawn in Table 5
47
452 Texture acceptability
Except for the abberation at the 7th remgtval i 9 at day 13 of ice
storage there is a significant reduction of texture acceptability at the 21 II
and 23 days of ice storage (p lt0001) as shown by figure 9 and Table5 t
II
I 453 Over~ll acceptability
he overal I acceptability of the whiting sanples stored in ice is very
much similar to its f Lavour acceptability except at day 19 of ice storage
where the ovaral I acceptability shows a higher mean of 42 carpared to the
flavoor acceptability mean of 37 (figure 10 and Table 5) here is however a
significant sudden drop to lOil scores fran the lOth removal ie day 19 of
storage in ice (p lt0001)
hus all the above results for whitifVJ sanples showed that there was a
significant fall in flavCXJr and overall acceptability fram 19 days ice storage
onwards which is equivalent to the accumulated demerit points of 31 of the
TFRJ (unqutted) scores 35 of the TFRJ (gutted) scores 22 of the EEC
scores and 21 of the filleted sample scores he results are interesti~ in
that the oorresponding total accLDnulated demerit points at the time when
significant falls in flavour texture and overall acceptability of the blue
grenadier and whiting samples stored in I5W and ice respectively were quite
similar
500 CONCLUSION
510 Feasibility of using demerit points
Accumulation of demerit points with time of storage of M
in RM and H eemifaeaiatia in ice was found to be highly
occurred in a semi-linear fashion irrespective of the method of
novas8slandiae
correlated and
scori~ used
- _ ~uo_a~_bull--_--I e -Ii --
48
1he slopes of the lines (rate of accumulation of demerit points) and its
relative spoilage rate were found to be similar for the ttoO species provided
the sane method of scoring is employed 1his tends to suggest that the method
is possibly independent of species am methods of storage or at least
applicable to the two species in RSW and ice respectively
TIle TFRJ (ungutted) scores were foum to be the easiest arrl quickest
method to use although the TFRJ (gutted) scores were the roost sensitive 1he
EEX freshness scores were hClgtlever foum to be the JOOSt tedious aod difficult bull I
to use besides taking more than twice the time taken to score a fish ocmpared
to the TFRJ (ungut ted) scores
Although there were slig~t differences between the ttoO species in those
characteristics where changes were first made (Table 10 11 and 12) there is
enough evidence to conclude that the changes in the appearance of the eyes am
the odour developnent of the gills are the JOOSt obvious arrl valuable indicator
of charqe in quality when using the TFIU or the EEl scores while the
appearance am odour of the fish flesh seems to be the JOOSt obvious indicator
when assessing the filleted sample
1he shelf-life of M navaezelandiae stored in RSW was found to be 14 days
(less than 17 days) whilst that of H semifasoiata stored in ice was fourrl to
be 17 days (less than 19 days) beyond which the fish had developed spoilage
characteristics that were disliked by the acceptability taste panel
1he cut-off point at which spoilage of the samples would have rendered
the quality of the fish sample to be unacceptable fran the consumers point of
view ~ld be that equivalent to the accumulated demerit point of gt29 for the
TFRJ (gutted arrl ungutted) scores am gt21 for the EOC and filleted sample
scores
This study thus confinned the potential use of demerit points such as the
TFRJ (ungutted) scores as an easy quick cheap non-destructive and reliable
49
method of sensory assessment of fish quality In fact Branch and Vail (1985)
had studied the possible use of a prototype pocket-sized computer to determine
the condition and shelf-life of temperate and tropical species of fish based
on data that is derived fran the sensory score sheets for the assessment of
fish quality developed at the (SIRgt Division of fbod lEsearch Iasmanian Fbod
Research Unit (TFlU) Hobart
520 RJrpose for which demerit points are to be used
Many scor i oq systerrs are used to predict the nunber of days fish have
been stored on ice and in nore recent years ICETIME (equivalent days on
ice) I ard thus through years of experience the taste panel acceptability of
the fish I
However fish is sold on appearance and a scoring system may be used for
assessirg marketability of whole or gutted fish or fillets or for setting
standards in bulk buying The EEC scoring system is used for example at
fish markets at first point of sale to grade the fish and establish
withdrawal prices A IbrryShewan type system is often used as a purohas i nq
specification from finn to firm
Before a final demerit point system is selected for any COlIOOdity its
ultimate purpose should be established For example the demerit points
chosen for whole fish which nost closely resemble the rate of change of
demerit points for fillets of that species might be the most useful
A linear rate of change of demerit points with time is nose favoured
because it enables prediction of remaining shelf-life ConstJJrer
unacceptability should be at a point where perhaps 75 of the demerit points
have been accrued Further scores would still be available for categories
such as suitable for fish meal D3merit points are not an indication of the
acceptability of fish as eaten where off-odours flavours and fillet
50
tdiscolouration are masked by batters or curries Their correlation with the
iodours flavours off odours aod off flavours of steamed fish are currently ~
~
~being examined by other workers at the Tasmanian ~ Research unit and highly
significant correlations are found Even when fish are subsequently eaten
battered or curried demerit points give a good indication of remaining shelf
life Thus whitiOJ with a Smiley flavour score of 58 after 1 day on ice
has a nlU gutted demerit score of 1 and a high quality life (eaten crumbed
and fried) of a further 16 days while whitiOJ stored for 11 days on ice with
the sane flavour score has a gutted demerit score of 17 and a further shelf
life of 6 days
530 SUggestion for further work
Ib ascertain its potentially wide application as a simple quick and
technically sound methcxi of assessing fish quality many more studies using
other species of fish both temperate and tropical species and in various
storage conditions should be undertaken using a demerit point scorIrq system
such as that developed by the TFlU
The score sheet has proved invaluable when sending individuals untrained
researchers away on distant water fishing trips Ps yet 00 standard
deviations have been detennined using a team of assessors with coded samples
of unknown history This may require a separate group design
The effect of lean fish and fatty fish on the scores should also be
studied because factors such as seasonal variations in biological conditions
Lmproper gutting and washing mechanical damage and filth and changes due to
storage in R3W or shelving may have considerable influence on its shelf-
life Reports such as those of smith et al (1979) clearly showed that in fish
such as the blue whitirlJ (Mioroomesistius poubaeeous there is greater degree
I 51
of seasonal variability than in other gadoid species the overall
acceptability droppirq dramatically once the fish have spawned Fish accepted
for processing for food has to be of a higher standard of quality than fish
accepted for Imredfate sale across the counter to the consumer therefore
there is a need to rreet a minimum score before they could be processed into
food Gradirq is therefore best left to the user sorenson (1971) states
that in establishing limi ts of acceptance an allowance had to be made for
deterioration that would continue to take place during processing and storage
prior to reaching the consimer
The only final criteria of the objectivity of sensory or any other
assessment are results that are reproducible many times which is by definition
a lcnJ-tenn process and in the meantime one requires short-cut indications
that one is headirq in the right direction
Ferhaps a final caution Is necessary as in the YQrds of Ehrenberg and
Shewan (1953) not too much must be expected even the best measuring
instruments occasionally go oot of control
52
60 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baines CR Jones NR am Shewan JM 1965 Technological problems of
measur trq degree of freshness of wet fish and problems of quality
control requirif)J roore knowledge fran fundamental research In he
Technology of fish utilisation ad R Kreuzer Fishi~ News (Books)
p 141
Baines CR and Shewan JM 1965 sensory rrethods for evafuat inq the
quality of white fish Lab practice 14 160-163
Baines CR ltbnnell JoJ Gibson DM lbWgate PF Livi~ston E and
Shewan JM 1969 A taste panel technique for evaluatirq the eati~
quality of frozen cod In Freezi~ and irradiation of fish ad R
Kreuzer Fishi~ News (Books) London p361
Boyd NS and Wilson NDC 1976 A sensory method for evaluatInq the
quality of Snapper (Ch1ysophrys auratus) NZ Journal of Science 19
209-12
Boyd NS Wilson ND and Bjley A 1978 A refrigerated sea water plant
for small boats symposium on fish utilisation technology and
marketi~ in the IPFC region IFFC Proceedi~s 18th session Manila
Philippines FAD Ba~kok p 186-192
Branch AC and Vail AMA 1984 Bri~i~ fish inspection into the
canputer age FltXld Technol Aust 36 in press
Bremner HA Olley J and Ihrower SoJ 1978 CSIIU Iasmanian lEgional
Laboratory OCcasional Paper No4
Bremner HA 1980 Processi~ and freezi~ of the blue grenadier (Maclulonus
novaeselandiae) FltXld Technol Aust 32(8)~ pp 385-393
Bremner J A 1984 QJality - an attitude of mind In he JILlstralian
Fishi~ Industry - today and tanorrow 10-12 July 1984 Launceston
53
Australian MaritUne Cbllege seminar Bapers 224-69
Bremner HA Statham JA am Sykes SJ 1985 Tropical species fran the
north west shelf of Alstralia sensory assessment and acceptability
of fish stored co ice Proceedi~s Sixth session IPR Worki~ Party
on Fish D3chnology and Marketi~ Melbourne 1984 FJID Fish lep 252
supp1
Burford D 1985 Sodiun uptake in MaOlUfOOnUS nooaeselandiae stored in
refrigerated sea water Tasmanian Food Research Unit OCcasional Paper
No9
ltbnnell JJ 1972 OJality control in the fish industry Ibrry Jldvisory
note No 58 IOrty Research Station Aberdeen
ltbnnell JJ 1980 ltbntrol of fish quality Fishi~ ~ws (Books) 2nd ed
Surrey England
OJrran CA Nicolaides L and Al-Alawi ZS 1981 QJality chanqes duri~
iced storage of three carmercially important species of fish fran
Bahrain Trop sci 23(4) 253-268
de Zylva ERA 1974 Effect of fish handli~ at sea on storage quality of
New Zealand Snapper (Chroysophroys aumtus) New Zealand J SCi 17
309-318
Etlira S 1976 A biochemical study on the freshness of fish Bull 1bkai
Reg Fish Res Lab No 88 pp 1-13
Ehrenberg ASC and Shewan JM 1953 he cbjective approach to sensory
tests of food J Sci Food hJric 4 pp 482-489
Herbert RA and Shewan JM 1975 Precursors of the volatile sulphides in
spoili~ North Sea Cod J Sci Food JIlgric 26 1195-1202
lbUwi~ H 1972 Gradi~ of fish in different qualities Institute for
Fishery Products Ijmuiden Unpublished
~ate P 1972 Qrlparison of sensory scor inq systems for raw fish
I 54
Unpubl ished bull ~ ~
~ate P 1978 Measuri~ the quality am acceptability of fish products bull ~
In IPFC Proceedi~s symposiun on fish utilisatial technology and ~
i f~
marketi~ in the IWC region 18th session Manila Ihilippines p
449
fflghes RB and Jones NR 1966 Measurement of hypoxanthine concentrations
in canned herrirg as an index of the freshness of the raw material
with a ocirment oo flavor relations J SCi fOOd middotJlgric 17 434
Jahns FD Howe JL Coduri Jr RJ and Ram Jr AG 1976 A rapid
visual enzyme test to assess fish freshness Food Iechno1 30 (7) 27
Jones NR 1964 ~lems associated with freezi~ very fresh fish
Proceedings Meeting on Fish Iechnology Fish Handling and
Preservation schevenirqen OEC D Paris p 31 bull
Jones NR 1965 Hypoxanthine and other purine containing fractions in fish
muscle as indices of freshness In uthe technology of fish
utilisation ed R Kreuzer Fishi~ rewa (Books) (Drmn p 179
Last PR Scott EOG and Talbot FH 1983 Fishes of Tasmania
Tasmanian Fisheries ~velopnent lUthority lbbart Tasmania pp 238
414
Lima doe santos CAM James D and Ieutscher F 1981 QJidelines for
chilled fish storage experiments FKJ Fish Tech Igt 210
(Dye RM 1954 Ibst rrortem cha~es in the lenses of fish eyes Msessment
of storage tiJm and fish quality J Sci Focx11lgric 5 566-572
Hartin RE Gray RJ H and Pierson MD 1978 QJality assessment of fresh
fish arrl the role of the naturally occurring microflora Focx1
Technol 32 (5) 188
Official Journal of the European oamrnunities No L264 5 ~cember 1970 pp
1-11
bull
55
Technol New Zealand July 1971 pp 31-35
Spinelli J Eklund M and Miyauchi D 1964 Measurement of hypoxanthine
in fish as a method of assessing freshness J Food SCi 29 710
Thrower S oJ am Stafford IA 1981 A roobile unit for ccmparative studies
of chilled storage systems for trawl fish IIF IIR
eatmissions C2 01 02 03 Boston USA 1981-4
Thrower SoJ Bremner HA QJarmby AR Ggtnnan T8 aild Graham KJ
1982 cn-board handlinJ of Q~ish ~ Inportanoeof chillinJ and
gutting Aust Fish 41 (11) 38-41
Tanlinson N bull bull t at 1974 COtparison between refrigerated sea water (with or
without added carbon dioxide) and ice as storage media for fish to be
subsequently frozen Proc IIR C011n 82- 0-3 Tokyo p
waterman J oJ 1982 Qrrposition and QJality of Fish A Dictionary 1brry
Mvisory Note No 87 Torry Research Station Aberdeen
5J
Olley J and letkowsky OA 1973 he role of terrperature function
integration in monitoring of fish spoilage Food Technol New
Zealand 8 (2) 13 15 and 17
Olley J 1977 Iemperature and seafood spoilage In H Proceedings of 1977
SChool for SeafltXld Processorsmiddot ad ~ AF 0 Mello Hawkesbury
Agricultural Oollege p6-2
Olley J 1978 QIality assessment and storage changes In middotCSIRJ Iasmanian bull
leJional Laboratory OCcasional Paper No 4 p 3-1 middot4 Rgenstein J M and ~enstein CE 1981 he shelf-life extension of fesh
fish In Advances in the refrigerated treabnent of fishmiddot
International Institute of Rfrigeration Clmnissions C2 m ra [8
Boston US A 1981-4
leJenstein J 1983 Wlat is fish quality INroFISH Marketing Digest ttgt 6
26-28
Ryder JM 9Jisson OH SCott ON and Fletcher GC 1984 storage of
New Zealand Jack Mackerel ( TmohUMlB notJabullbullbullZandias) in ice
chemical microbiological and sensory assessment J M SCi 49
1453-1456 1477
Shewan JM Macintosh RG rucker CG and Ehrenberg ASC 1953 he
developnent of a numerical ~coring systan for the sensory assessment
of the spoilage of wet white fish stored in ice J SCi Food Jlgric
4 283-298
Smith J GM Hardy R hanson AB Young KW and Parsons E 1979
sane observations 00 the ambient and chill storage of blue whiting
(Mio1om8sistius poutassou) bull In H Advances in Fish SCience and
Technology ad JJ Connell FishinJ News (Books) Surrey England
pp 299-303
SOrensen T 1971 QIality control and fish handling in New zealand Food ~
t c-
o )
~hmiddot r~YiJ lt~
~~f~~ ~
I
Nomooram for comparison of diffGrent scoring systems tor raw T i sn ___ _ J bull )
_U I~ ~Y1 9i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~
I I t I I - _---1------ imiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot __ middot~_ ~ __~_ -_ ~ + ~ _ -~ _ - middotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middot __ G 9 8 7 6 _ 5middot 3
_ - zmmy [ I bull r f II
d _~__ ~ __ _ ~ __ -I-- - ~ L- i~ middoti~ ~ 1-L -~~ lt lt l~tceland 1P i ~ ~ j ~ ~ ~ L~ __ - I ~_ bull _ L j ~- _-
N rv 1 I 1 2 --- - 2~ 3 middot 3middot 4 ~- ~Il ay ~ _ _ middot _ r r
_ _ __ _ _~ ~_ ) - ~ L_ - 1- ~-_ -_ _ _ ~ 19 ~ 8 imiddotmiddot I 6 5 4 3
Do _ _nm~r t I I I r
~ I
_ ~ ~_ ~ t ~ __ i__ t ~ ~ ~ ~ _ q x 1 1i 2 2~ 3v _ Franee I r I l n
I I I i _ - ~ _ _ _- _-- middotmiddot __ middot_middot_middot_middotmiddotmiddotImiddotmiddotmiddot_middot~ _middotmiddotmiddotmiddot-_middotmiddotmiddotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddot ---- - --~ ~-
19oum8 I 7 6 i 5 ~ ~ 4middot 280 J t (
I i
J -- - -_ -__ X ~middotH i__~ -- i_L ~ - l_ middot1-- - 3 I 2Y1 0 4 11z 1 y
E E C I 1
I I I deg deg E I A r Bmiddot - I I C
ltOIl j- ~ ~ c ~--------------
TASTER
DATE
SESSION
~ER middot1
bull You will be given ~bull aamples of cooked fish Please assess the fish for flavour textur~ and
overall liking as though you had purchased them in a takeaway food shop Hark the sample
identification under the face that most closely describes your impressionbull
I
middot5 S shy2 3 4
FLAVOUR
IEXlURE
--
OVERALL UKING
7 bullbull yc ) I _ v J _ _
I1PP~NJIJ( 3 ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE BGRENVZSASS (A)
OBS DAYS-R DMPTS shy
1 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 6 4 3 7 4 6 e 4 5 9 6 1 18 6 10 11 6 18 12 6 18 13 e 13 14 8 16 13 8 13 16 8 17 17 9 18 18 9 18 19 9 bull 19 29 9 19 21 19 19 22 1 21 23 1 19 24 1 2123 11 21 26 11 22 27 11 22 29 11 22 29 12 22 3 12 22 31 12 23 32 12 23 33 13 23 34 13 23 33 13 22 36 13 23 37 14 24 38 14 23 39 14 264 14 25
17 26~ 17 39 43 17 38 44 17 29 43 21 32 46 21 33
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASS(At
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (Xt DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Yt DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9666 R SQUARED 9343 T STATISTIC 231621 INTERCEPT tAt 31799 SLOPE tSt 173399 bull STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 219473
OBSERVATIONS 46 Y DMPT9 XI DAYS-RSW YMIN -18 YMAX 61 YINC e XMIN -19 XMAX 2e9 XINe 2
] y
__ t=- I I 0(I I
JPRH6ELF PRINT MODULE -SYNTAX ERROR
DATABASE J3lGRENVISASS (FIL)
OB8 DAYS-R DMPT8
1 s 1 2 4 5 s 6 6
~ e 8 ~ 9 1 6 19 12 7 11 14 8 12 17 9 13 18 1 14 19 bull 11 17 23 12 21 29
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASSCFIL)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE CX) DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IY) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT ~9963
R SQUARED 992 T STATISTIC 3~36977
INTERCEPT CA) -3~6~41
SLOPE CB) 1~8426
STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 77667
OBSERVATIONS 12 v DMPTS x DAYS-RSW VMIN -2~ VMAX ~~ YINC ~
XMIN -19 XMAX 2~9 XINC 2
]
bull
-SYNTAX ERROR
lPRH6ELF PRINT MODULE
DATABASE BGRENVXSASS (AG)_
OB6
1 2 3 4 ~
6 7 8 9
Hi 11 12 13 14 1~
16 17 -18 19 2 21 22 23 24 2~
26 27 28 29
3 31 32 33 34 3~
36 37 J8
39
4 41 42 43 44 4~
46
DAYS-R
3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 6 6 6 6 8 8
8 bull 8
9 9 9 9
1 1 1 1 11 11 11 11
DMPTS
2 3 3 3 ~
6 ~
~
1 1 1 1 17 18 17 19 2~
2 21 21 21 23 21 23 23 24 24 24
12 24 12 24 12 25 12 25 13 27 13 25 J3 24 13 27 104 26 J04 2S
14 28 14 27 17 28 17 32 17 32 17 31 21 34 21 35
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BORENVISASSCAO)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE IX) DAVS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IV) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9~76~
R SQUARED 917 T STATISTIC 22S6S88 INTERCEPT lA) 323~7
SLOPE lB) 189812 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 269324
OBSERVATIONS 46 Y DM PT6 X DAYS-RSW ~ _01 VMAV 2~ YfNe ~
XMIN -19 XNAX 2l9 XINC 2
]
9YNTA)( ERROR bull ]PRN6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE BGRENVXSASS
OB6 DAY6-R DMPTS
1 3 1 2 3 1 3 3 1 4 3 1 5 4 1 6 4 4 7 4 3 9 4 1 9 6 6 18 6 6
11 6 6 12 6 6 13 9 8
14 9 9 15 8 8 16 8 9 l 9 18 19 9 11 19 9 12 28 9 12 21 18 12 22 18 14 23 18 11 24 18 14 25 11 15 26 11 13 27 11 15 29 11 15 29 12 17 3 12 18 31 12 19 32 12 18gJ l~ 34 13 18 3~ 13 18 36 13 19 37 14 19 JB 14 19 39 14 19 48 14 19 41 17 19 42 17 23 43 17 21 44 17 20
-(EEC)
q~ 21 23 q6 21 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASSCEEC)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE IX) DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IY) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 96691 R SQUARED 93q9 T STATISTIC 2~14824
INTERCEPT IA) -238937 SLOPE IB) 146219 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 1S28eS
OBSERVATIONS q6 Y DMPTS X DAYS-RSW YMIN -2q YMAX ~5 YINC ~
XMIN -19 XMAX 259 XJNC 2
l
SYNTAX ERROR lPRM8ELF PRINT MODULE
-
bull
APPENJ)K 4 -
DATABASE WHZTXNG VXSASS (A) bull
OBS DAYS-I
1 1 2 1 3 1 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 ~
9 5 9 5 Ii 7 11 7 12 7 13 9 14 9 1~ 9
016 11 17 11 19 11
DMPTS
1 1 1 1 2 2 4 3 5 a 7
9 13 15 bull 13 16 14 1~
019 13 2 8 28 13 16 21 13 20 22 15 24 23 1~ 24 24 15 25 25 17 29 26 17 29 27 17 38 29 19 30 29 19 38 38 19 32 31 21 33 32 21 32 33 21 32 34 23 32 3~ 23 32 36 23 34
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASSIA)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE tX) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE tV) qMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 98514 R SQUARED 9785 T STATISTIC 3344414 INTERCEPT tAt -245163 SLOPE CBt 166958 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 286799
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS x DAYS-ICE
YMIN -22 YMAX lS7 YINC lS- XMIN -19 XMAX 259 XINC 2
]
I
J
-8YNTAX ERROR
]PRM6ELF PRINT MODULE shyDATABASE WHITING VISASS (AG)
OB8 DAYS-I DMPT8
1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 4 3 1 ~ 3 2 6 3 2 7 ~ 4 9 ~ 3 9 ~ ~
18 7 18 11 7 9 12 7 18 13 9 1~
14 9 17 1~ 9 1~
16 11 18 17 11 16 18 11 17 19 13 22 28 13 18 21 13 22 22 1~ 26 23 1~ 27 24 1~ 28 2~ 17 32 26 17 32 27 17 33 28 19 34 29 19 34 38 19 36 31 21 37 32 21 36 33 21 36 34 23 36 3~ 23 36 36 23 38
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITINO VISASS(AO)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAY8-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Y) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 986~2
R SQUARED 973 T STATISTIC 3~B167B
INTERCEPT CAl -272~33
SLOPE CBI 197S63 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 221294
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS X DAYS-ICE YHIN -19~ YHAX ~9~ YINC ~
XHIN -19 XHAX 2~9 XINC 2
]
-SYNTAX ERROR lPRM6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASS (EEC)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 2 1 3 1 4 3 ~ 3 1 6 3 1 7 ~ 2 8 ~ 2 9 ~ 3
1 7 3 11 7 3 12 7 3 13 9 6 14 9 6 bull 1~ 9 7 16 11 7 17 11 8 18 11 7 19 13 11 2 13 1 21 13 12 22 1~ 13 23 1~ 1~
24 1~ 17 2~ 17 19 26 17 18 27 17 19 28 19 29 29 19 23 39 19 22 31 21 24 32 21 23 33 21 24
34 23 2J 3~ 23 26 36 23 27
I ELF SCATTER MODULE I DATABASE WHITING VISA88CEEC)I I INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (~) DAYS-ICE I
DEPENDENT VARIABLE (VI DMPTS I bull
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9a2~3
R SQUARED 96~3
T STATISTIC 387a73~
INTERCEPT (A) -4142 SLOPE (8) 12873 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 173287
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS ~ DAYS-ICE YMIN -29 YMA~ ~1 VINC ~
XMIN -19 ~MA~ 2~9 ~INC 2
J
-SYNTAX ERROR JPRM6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHITING VXSASSmiddot(FXL)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 2 3 1 3 ~ 5 4 7 4 ~ 9 9 6 11 13 7 13 1~
e 1~ 16 9 17 19 18 19 21 11 21 24 12 23 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASB(FJLI
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Y) DMPTS
bull bullbull 4~
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE CV) DMPTSr
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 982~3
R SQUARED 96~3
T STATISTIC 3S7873~ t bullbullf CINTERCEPT CA) -4142
SLOPE CB) 12873 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 173287
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS XI DAYS-ICE YMINmiddot~28 YMAKI 1 YINC ~
XMIN -I9XMAX 2~9 XINC2
]
-SYNTAX ERROR ]PRH6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHXTXNG VXSASS (FXL)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 S 2 3 1 1 5 3 4 7 4 5 9 9 6 11 13 7 13 1~
9 15 16 9 17 19 1 19 21 11 21 24 12 23 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE I WHITING VISAS8(FIL)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE CX)I DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE CY) DMPT8
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 99289 R SQUARED 9858 T STATISTIC 2638123 INTERCEPT CA) -243706 SLOPE CB) 124476 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 112846
SLOPE 10) 124476 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 112846
ObullbulllfftVTrOHSO 12 VI DHPTS XI DAVS-ICE VMIN -27 VHAX e2 VINe e XHIN -19 XHAX 2e9 gtcINe 2
]
-8VNTAX ERROR
fi
rr
[bull
SJ
in i
bullol
r~
bull bull
n i
o o o o
~
o~ o
o - l
N~ o ~
o o o
Q
Q o o
a
c -~_
Q
_
_ Q
_9_
0
o ~-
O
_
Q
lI
oJ ~
v
~ ~
~-
-
- -1
---h
---1
---I
I
I
1
~ ((9 ~ J las 0 - ~~ U -lt) az E~-~gl~~1--~~---------- ~) 1)
11 ~ - 11 HI ~~
I bull M~
~ -~ ~~ IJ~ I J ismiddotJ I Q l~
k tl I 01 re lr - 91 br I ~I ( -0 71P g I CJ tt
I I J 000 0 0 w I 0) NlNN1tl 30 hIflJ I t IC (~4ID(r ~ Wi
_ f-- -------- bull fyen ~=y ~~r I I I I I I I 0 0 00 00 ( ~) -Fr~ ~ fj)
-0 I 0 I Ole 17 10 0 ( ~ AI )middot P1~ 0 0 00 Q hItIrS ~7I -~~ (J
t -r------0 bull
_-~_ middotmiddotmiddot_middot~middotmiddotmiddot)-middot7~)
lrrT I 01 0
0 tFmiddot~~i ~ 1 o 00 Omiddot (~ -W ~r f (JJ___~ _______ _ l I I 71 I -_---_ - M-~ ~ I
J I Z-tf ~ ~ ~fI t1 11f ( )) CI I I I i I 00 r11-7[ c I C bull aofl7r_ ~ ~z ~ 1t~Ji ) ( --_--------i---shye l~~~ I f~) I I J I
I II i bull Q ( N~T fE ~I )
~JiP _- -___ ----shy
_
~ 7Yr 0) ~(J ~ I e I t I ~ l I J I I 1 I I I(I 0 0 (~~yen~ M -p~P71 JPtJIJs 0
i euror (1l~J IlLriJlllr1JI ~~J I ~()(1OP I I r I I 0 I ( t t I ( jIfS 7fS ~~I ~ )
I
I 1 I( IN 10~ lb~ qItJ gtr~j f o (~)I(~) I I 0 I (t~ ~~) I I Jbull o 0 J I ~ l 0 a i S(jJ t t t tI tI C I C I J I I I J I 0 I (n~rlP PI4t -I) t
- -I
-I -I-I I II-I I I-I r bull
-----(rtb Ii If p~) PNl17T7~b ~y~ 7
10 IIt1v I 0 1~L CIJ tN IfIfW1IIJ JI11i JN~I HJ3
---Y p~ALY~_ ~~ Yl2-- 1)
yenvr 1amp f111l
-
~
~~
~
II
o 0
~cgt
(
) Q
oa
oo
o
oo
o o
a
o
~
P
t
oo
c
oo
a -
o
oo
o
o -
o
-o
-
-
lJ
I~ I~
Jl ~rIpound i IAlffzfjjsectj 7df- utl kf J OG lie rCOIpound ~IIE(T r
7tU
~
~ ~
~ ~
~
-shy~
~
MYI f)lySLM~ 1 (JAy ISo~r 11 ~~) e ()~t ~I01) r I joy f o~y lOJ 17~JJlII1~ 16 fiti -t1 It r ~17J~~flu~1h 111H 7U 1111111shyIllf Jr(11Jr I fhJo
~ ) ~ I1 J J-4 ~ J 2 JJ ~poundol ~ ] t4 cl -7 eJ uJ cJJJ wI~ wI l shy w c at amp 74 -t ~ ut 4 I
SkIN 000 o 0 0o 0 0 o 00 I o I I I I 3 3 3l) t 3 3 31 s 3ltt
a I I I I I o IfYU I 2 I JI I I000 )l~ 1~1 S 3 ~S 3 5 335
GILtJ I J I o (J 0 I (I I I ~ t 2shy~I I s 3 ]] 2 0 (J 3 ~ ~ t 3 3 AlvItUiU i l I I ls)z oJ lJ 0 a (J ~ 0o 0 0 a a aTff1ttJR II r 1
1 I ~ I I I I 1~E
Cdt47tl7 I I ~ ~t( a a 0O(O I Io I~ 00 000deg a 0wO 0 0 0 o 0 0 o~ 00VUipound811 ~ J I
tJ I Oe6rlllr I I I I 2 2]l2 ~ 3 S 3 S ~ 3o a 0 (J () 0 I 333 1 $ 3
If~euMI LU~ 2l 3000o (J 0 o 0 0 J 2 2shy 331a deg (1 ~ 2 Jshy
i I 000amp1 0 I I 1TIUUpound
lAcltJdJE 00deg00o 0 0 ooalOOO 0 0 I I I 1OdOa deg 0 11 2 I r I I I IbullI
I I h~r~Eu I ( 0 0 CJ 0 o (J a 2 ~ 30001011 0 1 J 1010 I I L II 2 l 2l 22 2 1
sKIN GLLt I f I~J) GlIIl) 0 (I a I do 0 0 I 0 Il~t l~o 0 0 ~ 3 3 3 s 3 3 3 33s1331
i7tJ7l11 Ibull I shy i66 ~o
(J ~ 0 1 0 It3331l J t 1 1shy 1~ ~afJllc 11 Irrshy It ~1 1111 20 J3 u
(])JtUJ61 (l) (1) (Ir)(0) (J)(I) (If) (19) (u) (~r)(J4)
I r f
I
I
i I
I i
II I ((
f
II Ii
p ()
Q
0_
_ 00
0
00
00
00
0
o o o 0
00
0
0 _
o Q
0
0
o
0
00
0
-
0 0
0
middot0
0
o oo
0
o Q
o oo o o
- ~
~
~ ~~pound
w
i -shy
o
co
- --
shy
o o o
~
~_
~
0
-shyJJ
-----l--~
-J
J IJ
f
J
J)
o 0
00
_ 0
0
o (gt
0
o ()
o
0
0 0
0
()
()
o 0
0
o 0
0
_
_ -
-----1
-----shy
Q
0 0
o ~-IJ~ulJ-
u
lJcllJ_-_~IJamp
o o
Q
I---+----I---+----I----I~-
_Ilpound
llD
lIlI
Il
~I
IIIl
I_II
II5
l__
IIlIa
IllP
=lII
Il1
rl
ll
IlIl
IlIII
llII
IlJl
IIl
IIlIl_
IIrII
G3i
mta
isectID
it
llll~
1~=wampampftUla
_
au
U
Lamp
WJN
AJ
poundmiddotJI
IiIamp
3flJ
a
uac
ampa
f
shy
I~middottn 0~L fi 5L middottlu~ fo_~r ( ) 1poundc [CtJRl -ffl(pound1 r~~ rlt1c- J c-ru
-- I
1SllJ7~
lt l)~ J )IIr M ~-t s ~~ OIl middot )If 10 JAY II 041
J- Olt i1 )lir iI DIY IT- IMy11
1~middot6f1 14f1- ~imiddot -- J _ middotAfmiddot IIrk middot Jiamp -ffh~11 rtr Il ~M gt27P- ill Ill ~lllY ~~7rlf JC 1- ~ r 1M 11
r ~ F16F r~h FIjFi ~~I)r r~Fr
5 Fc II -i~fIoi l 1 fj t t Fr c r amp t 1= ~ r ~ F r rtI ~
- -
sION o (j o 0 0 o 0 a I I I I I I I I 2 I t t I-r J~L) z~z~ 2~J ~ z a ~ ~ 33 - -ol t 1 2
~ poundys-s 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I I lt t 2 t t 4 ~z ~ 2l~ ~ ~ 1 Z 3zi3p33 3 333 3 3 3 - - ~ rl~ a 0 a (1 a a o 1 I 1 I 1-2 12 t ltt a ~ l J tll~ ~~~) 2 2 2 2- ~Jll 21 13 33 ~
- ~ MIIi(UlA~
degCt1C 11 )l
FipoundSI- eli CeoD o 0 (J 0 I I I I I I 1 1 I I 1 I Jl~] l2 22- z ~ 2 2 22 11 2-3 -Sfvpound
j
CIJiCVlt-tICN I I I 1 ( I I I 2 2 t ~ t~ )2 2~21 2$ 2 t _~ 3AIJJN(j- P (J dO o C a a o 0 00 1 I I I I - --
V~7r~ ~ c~u N
(TKWW~ CO~ o I oc I I J I I I I 1 2 I 2 2 1- ) t~l2 2- 22 2 ) 2 ~2- 1222 2 2 ll 2L -- -~VClLAl I
a 0 0 0 01 I 0 2 1 2 2 J5r 4 E i H CA I I
-I I I I I I I I J J 12( ~ 12 1 2 1 2-I TfI_ 21 1-1- 1 1 ~ 1
~ I middot_0-__-- I
~ 1
ffCACIpound coo 000lt=1 o 0 0 0 btJCt) o a () (J I I I I I I I I111 I I I 1 I I -~-aD CD lJ a a 0 0 ~ ~ UlrAfllN o 0 a IJ e e 0 C) (JdegOo ecJao co (10 (1 o I I I I I I I I 1 I I III I I I I z --
i tiN ~4r L~~ 2- li ~ a~ 8M) CUmiddot c d (J 0 (J () I I I 1 1 1
I 1 I I f t I II tl-loI 21 1 t 33 - -
-Iffl1-
J I I I I i- 2 I 11~SC~E ~ t 1 o ~ 04-t 1J 11 1 11t IS~ IfS J1 I 1 I If I IJ 1 r~]u ze uu __
bull ttlUIG
(I) l~) (6) (II) ~ (~) 6s-)llIt lCUI CJ (Ii) (~) vmiddot (II) (19~ ---
I t f
I
~ I
~ I
Ii
I I
Ii I II f
~ (
--)raquo~ middot-~~-~-I~~IliiI~~-middotComiddot~-d-b~middotmiddotmiddotmiddot_ ~ ~ middoth-~_middot--~H~~middot~gt
Other Occasional Papers in the series
1 A salinity monitor for irrigation pumps by EOMIEZITIS
2 Wine liqueur and fish products acceptability trials 47th ANZAAS Congress Hobart 1976 by HABREMNER TLLEWIS and ARQUARMBY
3 Abalone silage an exercise in the conservation of waste by JUNE OLLEY
4 Course notes contributed by the CSIRO Tasmanian Food Research Unit to a workshop on fish handling and quality control Hobart Oct3rd-5th 1978 by HABREMNER JUNE OLLEY and SJTHROWER
5 Difficulties with generalized least squares regression in forest modelling by PWWEST
6 Metabolism of zinc cadmium and copper in rats fed shellfish highly contaminated with heavy metals by SJTHROWER JUNE OLLEY and MAUREEN McDERMOTT
7 Hygiene control in seafood processing by SJTHROWER
I
12
learn as one goes along in each situation he demerit points that were given
to the various selected quality attributes could be weighted in such a way as
to produce an approximately linear change in score with storage time (Branch
and Vail 1985)
It might also be desirable OCIlInercially to specify a uniform mrnber of
days of shelf-life fran the pack date to consumption he length of shelfshy
life ctgttained for fish depends on the initial age and quality of the fish the
tirre of the pack am the time am temperature of storage before am after
packing In practical terns the ultimate measure of the effect(s) of shelf-
life extension treatments on the final quality of the fish is consumer
satisfaction (Regenstein aoo Regenstein 1981)
A tentative grading systan for fresh fish based on sensory assessment of
fish had been described by IbUwing (1972)
160 The Ideal Method
Forty years of research ootably in the UK Canada and Japan have gone
into objective methods for measuring fish quality (Bremner et al 1978)
There is as yet 00 single universal test for all species nor for that
matter any wholly satisfactory test for individual species
The ideal rrethod hOlJld be one that is cheap oon-destructive easy to
use oot subject to much variation or fatigue having rapid response and wide
application sensory tests have the advantages of being non-destructive 00
equipnent required adaptable to species and assessing the market value
Althcogh sensory tests are usually condemned as a subjective test which
requires training am experience am are also said to be easily open to
abuse this can be reduced if a simple rapid and less descriptive rrethod
could be fourd - possibly with the use of demerit point scores Therefore
this study aims at assessing the use of sensory techniques based on the
13
demerit point scores developed for raw whole (gutted and ungutted) and
filleted fish samples of Australian fish species stored in ice and RSW It
also discusses the results of the acceptability taste panels on the cooked
fish samples
The two oammercially ~rtant Australian fish species used in this study
were the blue grenadier am the blue rock whiting he blue grenadier is
currently Tasmanias major oammercial finfish and the recent annual production
of the fishery exceeds 100 tonnes (Last et aI 1983)~ he blue rock whiti~
is the only Australian member of the family that has any commercial
importance It occurs mainly in Bass strait and the sheltered bays of South
eastern Tasmania The flesh is delicately flavoured but very soft
200 MATERIALS lIND MEIHgt[s
210 Sample preparation
211 Fish stored in RSW
Blue grenadier used in this study were caught on the 15th lugust 1984 at
a depth of 300 fathans off Sandy Cape on the west coast of Tasmania (Lat
41deg20S IDrq144deg40 E) by demersal trawl They were taken fran the deck
irnnediately am dropped into a refrigerated seawater (RSW) tank in a net bag
(tanp -1degC) The fish was reported to be handled quite roughly on board
Sore of the fish had already gone into rigor at this stage he fish were
transported to the CnID lasrnanian Food lesearch Uni t (TFRJ) laboratories in
Hobart and were already to days old on arrival The f ish were then placed in
the RSW box tank of the rrobile unit (the design and construction of which were
described by Thrower and Stafford 1981) and was kept at -1degC for the duration
of the storage trial which lasted for about three weeks Four fish were
rerroved at each samplirq tine (Table 1) for sensory assessment Length
14
measurements to the fork of the tail were also noted ~e fish were then
filleted and samples frozen at -lBoe for later assessment of their
acceptability by taste panel
212 Fish stored in ice
For the sensory assessment of fish stored in ice guidelines similar to
those given by Lima dos Santos et al (981) were used ~e blue rock whiting
also known as the weedy whiting was used ~e whiting were caught on the
afternoon of 23rd August 1984 by demersal trawl in 18 to 25 m waters oft
Eastern Tasmania On arrival at the TFRJ laboratories in I-bbart at 11 45 am
on the fol Lowirq day the f ish were re- iced at a ratio of 21 (ice f ish) in
insulated plastic boxes of size 66 x 41 x 28 em with provision for drainage
of melt water Flake ice was used ~e ice was topped up daily and renewed
once a week The boxes of i ced f ish were then kept in a cool roan set at a
temperature of 0deg to -1dege ~ree fish were removed for sensory assessment at
each sampling time (Table 1) over a period of rmre than three weeks of ice
storage 100 fish samples were then frozen at -18dege until needed for the
acceptability taste panel
Table 1
sampling regirre for fish stored in R3Wice
Blue Grenadier Diys in R3W 3 4 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 17 21
Sample code N D G L S R K T U P M 0
Whiting Diys in ice 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Sample code 0 M D G T S N R P U L K
15
220 Sensory assessment of the whole (gutted and ungutted) raw fish samples
Both the blue grenadier stored in lOW and the whi t i nq stored in ice were
progressively assessed by using the sense organs of sight smell and touch tor
changes in general appearance odour and texture with storage tine by giving
the appropriate demeri t scores according to the score sheets as shown in
Tables 2 and 3 IVo types of score sheets were used Table 2 shows the
sensory assessment score sheet orig inally developed for the assessment of
gemfish (Thrower et al 1982) It has been simplified and weighted (Branch
and Vail 1985) to provide accumulated increases in demerit points as the t i sn
change in odour texture and appearance during storage with the max imum
accumulated demerit point scores of 35 for the urx]utted samples and 39 tor tte
gutted samples The total scor irq for gutted fish differs fran that descr ibeo
by Bremner (1984) and Branch and Vail (1985) in that the demerit points for
the belly cavity have been added to those for the whole fish
The whole and gutted raw fish were also assessed by using the freshness
score sheet developed by the Council of the European COl1nunities (Official
Journal of the European Qmnunities 1970) but with slight rrodification marie
in its scor irq method in that the scor irq was reversed to provide accumulateri
increases in demerit points as in the TFRJ score sheet (Table 2) with a
maximun accumulated demerit score of 30 (Table 3) The samples were scored by
H Abd R who had had no previous experience with the score sheet
230 Sensory Assessment of the frozen filleted raw fish samples
Samples of the whole and gutted fish of both species were then filleted
ard frozen at -18degC until required for the organoleptic acceptability test
panel fillets were thawed by holding for about 16 hours (overnight) in still
air at 4degC The thawed fillets of both the blue grenadier and whi t i nq were
then assessed by the sense organs of sight smell and touch by using the scor-e
sheet for filleted sample as shown in Table 4 nle score sheet was developed
16
able 1
FIlt U Snorr bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullnt oore hbullbull t ( ( 1Ii~ ANI) tlNtJuTreo)
1_middotAnlJ lmiddot
rlSB IDDII
UIUIl~ (VBci9ht~i9ht8lDullDUll
o 1 2 3
SitU ( rimSoft) o 1
SCALBS (r1mSlLoomiddotmiddotLoobullbull ) o 12
r r SLIMB (AbbullbullntSlSlimiddotysliyVSliy)
o 123
S1IrnraS (pr-Ri90rRi90rPot-Ri90r) o 1 2
BYBS Clarity (ClbullbullrISlCloudyCloudy) 012
Shape (HoralslsunknSunkn) 012
Irill (ViiblHot Viibl) IJ 1
Blood (No BloodSlBloodyVBloody) o 1 2
GILLS Colour (VDark)Charaotritio (SlDark) (vradd)(Slradd)
2o 1 Kucou (AbbullbullntKoderatmiddotBxcbullbullbulliv)
o 1 2 S bullbullll (rrbullbullh 01ly) Pihy8talpoll~
(MetalliaSaved) 1 2 3
BELLI Dicoloration (AbbullbullntDetatablmiddotModratmiddotBxobullbullbulliy) 012 3
Finanbullbullbull ( rira80ftBurt) o 1 2
VENT Condition (bobullbulldy)Noraal (SlBrbullbullk) (Opening)(Bxudbullbull )
2o 1 Sbullbulln (rrbullbullhReutralrihy8poilt)
o 2 3
BELLI CAVIn Stain (OpalbullbullontGryihlmiddotllow-Brown) o 1 2
Blood (RdDark RdBrown)
o 1 z
--
17
UJE 3
Etc SENSORY A$fE4St4fN[ ~(oIlL~
SCALE OF MARKING - FRESHNESS
CRITERIA shypoundu1LRt
Abullbullbullbullbullment Mara-bull thc r1ah 0 1 2- 3tszhL
AppearanceinIIMlISJ Skin
Eye
Gill
Flbullbullshycut f ssm abdomusn
Colour the~
vertebral column
Organs
Oright iridescent I bright pigmenta- pigmentation in (1) dull pigmenta tion no i tion but not the process of pigmentation discolouration Ius trous becoming dis-
mucus opaquemucus aqueous i coloured and dull
mucus slightlytransparen t
cloudy ~UCU9 milky
convex (bulging) convex and flat (1) concave in cornea tran- slightly sunken cornea the centre parent cornea Ughtly opalescent cornea milky pupil black opalescent pupil pupil grey bright
pupil black opaque dull
-shining colour less coloured becoming dis- (1) yellmiish no mucus a few traces of coloured mucus milky
cloar mucus mucus opaque
blueish trans- dull velvety slightly opaque (1) opaque lucid smooth waxy shining without any change in the colour sUgh tly original colour changed
(I) reduncoloured sl1 gh tly pink pink
kidneys and kidneys and kidneys (1) kidneys residues of resJdues of resicJuos of r bullbullidue of other other organs other organs other organs organs and blood bright red the dull red blood and blood brownish game as the becoming palo red blood inside discolbured the aorta
(1) or in a more advanced bull ta te of decay
I
bull
Flesh
Vertebtal Column
Peritonium
Gills kin abdominal cavity
18
(eontd)
SCALE OF MARKING - FRESHNESS
CRITERIA
Assessment Mark 0 1 2
Physical eOId ton
firm and elas tic surface smooth
breaks ins tead of coming away
totally adherent to the flesh
seaweed
less elastic
adherent
adherent
Smell bull
not of seaweed but not bad
slightly soft (flaccid) Ie elastic surfacente waxy velvety and dull
slightly adherent
slightly adherent
slightly sour
3
(1) soft (flaccid) scales ebullbullil y detached from skin sur face ra ther wrinkled inclining to mealy
(1) not dherent
1( ) not adherent
(1) sour
(1) or in a more advanced stat of decay
_ shy-- -
19
Table 4
Filleted Sample Score Sheet
r
TREATMENT F ILIEIS DATE REMOJAL (THAWED)
FISH IDENr
EASE OF FILLETING (Easysl difficultdifficult)
012
APPEARANCE (a) Oolour of flesh (TranslucentSl discolouredSl opaqueopaque)
o 1 2 3
(b) Blood stains (AbsentDetectableModerateExcessive)
012 3
(c) Clotting (UnclottedSlclottedModclottedExcessclotted)
012 3
(d) Skin Oolour (VbrightBrightSldullOU11)
o 1 2 3
TEXTURE FirmS1 softSoft
o 1 2
ClDClJR (FreshNeutralStaleSpoilt)
012 3
CONJITION (a) Gaping (AbsentDetectableModerateExcessive)
o 1 2 3
(b) Bruising (AbsentSlightSevere)
012
(c) Wetness (NmnalS1 dry orMod dry orExcess dryness or
SldripModdrip Freezer bJrn or Excessdrip
012 3
(d) Autolysis (Absentmoderatesevere) (Disco1ourations) 0 1 2
(e) Parasites (Absentmoderatesevere) ( Infestations) 0 1 2
(f) Other discolourations (Absentpresent) or contaminants (bones membranes tissues etc) 0 1
EASE OF SKINNING (EasySldifficultdifficult)
012
20
by the author after a literature search and observations made during the preshy
liminary part of the study It has a maxUnum accumulated demerit score of 34
240 ~anoleptic Acceptability Panel of the cooked fish
Filleted samples of both fish species which had been frozen in a cold
roan at -18dege and then thawed as above were used for the acceptability taste
panels The fillets were skinned am cut into 30 to 40 g pieces crumbed and
deep fried (Bremner et ale 1985) Three or four treatments were cooked
simultaneously at each session am the fish served with packets of take-away
french fries Tcrnato sauce vinegar and salt were available Each of the
samples were randanised in such a way so as to give a high degree of balance
(Table 5 and 6) Letters that represent the samples were also picked
randanly The fish was assessed by 20 panellists employed at the Tasmanian
lEgional Laboratory and experienced with facial hedonic scaling for flavour
texture am overall acceptability using the General Foods Smiley scale
(Appendix 2) Salt was rot rrentioned with the 9niley questionaire for blue
grenadier so that the panel should have ro preconceiVed prejudices
250 Statistics
tata fran the sensory assessment of the whole gutted and ungutted raw
fish (both TFRJ am EEl score sheets) am fran the sensory assessrrent of the
frozen filleted raw fish samples of both the blue grenadier stored in RSW am
whiting stored in ice were analysed for correlation using the ELF scatter
module (Appendix 3 and 4)
The acceptability taste panel assessment scores for flavour texture and
overall liking of the toKgt species of fish were subjected to analysis of
variance using the Genstat package (Appendix 5 and 6)
22
Table 6
Order of presentation of cooked whiting samples to the acceptability taste panelists
Order of presentation of samples Panelist
session I session II
1 OTP rm 2 MUS KR 3 sm INL
4 IKJ GKR
5 ror NK
6shy USM UN ~
7 OOP RLD
B HUT NKD
9 USO RiL
10 SMP LGN
11 IMT GIltN
12 nxgt KRD
Note
8angtle code OM 0 G T S N R P U L K
storage time in ice (days) 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
23
300 RESULIS
310 Physical Characteristic of M novaeaelandiae
rran the forty-six fish examined the mean fork lerqth was found to be
762 an (range 609 to 838 an) A few of the fish examined had well shy
developed roes and their digestive tracts were found to be relatively empty
320 Physical Characteristics of the H ssmifasoiata
rran a total of thirty-six fish examined the rrean weight of the fish was
fourrl to be 662 g (range 27 to 186 g) am the mean fork length was 183 em
(range 156 to 265 an)
330 sensory assessment of the raw blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
he results of the sensory assessrrent of the r2M blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW by the four rrerhods of scoring are given as average total
accumulated demerit point scores as shown in Table 7 Figure 1 shoes the
graph of demerit point versus days in RSW by the four rrethods of sensory
assessment used Table 9 shltJtS the correlation analysis
340 sensory assessment of the raw whitirq samples stored in ice
he results of the sensory assessment of the r2M whitirq samples stored
in ice by the four methods of scoring are given as average total accumuLated
demerit point scores as shown in Table 8 Figure 2 shltJtS the graph of demerit
point versus days in ice of the four nethods of sensory assessment used Table
9 shltJtS the correlation analysis
350 Attributes contributing to total score
Attributes that contribute to total score usirq the TFRJ scores (ungutted
and gutted) EEC scores and the filleted sample scores are as shewn in Tables
10 - 14
24
Table 7
Total demerit points fran sensory assessment of blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
Average lbta1 Demerit Rgtint SCores
[)lye in RW TFRJ scores TFRJ scores EEl scores Filleted Sample (urvJut t ed ) (gutted) (gutted) SCores
3 3 3 1 1
4 5 5 2 3
6 10 10 6 6
8 16 18 9 8
9 19 21 11 10
10 20 22 13 12
11shy 22 24 15 14
12 23 25 18 17
13 24 26 19 18
14 25 27 19 19
17 29 31 21 23
21 33 35 25 29
Note
Maximum possible scores for (1) IlRJ scores (ungutted is 35
( 11) IlRJ scores (gutted) is 29
( 11i) EEX scores (gutted) is 30
( iv) Filleted sample scores is 32
amptV
35j
3l~
en Ishy 25Z-0 Q
3)-~
bullbullbull 0
bull 0 0bull 0
bull 0 0 6shy abull A ~
~
bull 0
~
6shy
bull 0
6shy
I) 01
-W 0i A15W ~ Q A
~
6shy~101- bull 90 TFRU SCORES (ungutted)
6shy~ bullbull TFRU SCORES (gutt~d i
bull ~
4 6- 6- EEC SCORES 5~
~ ~ FILLETED SAMPLE SCORES ~
6 4 I J I I I
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
DAYS IN RSW
Figl Demerit Points Versus Days in RSW For Blue Grenadier Samples
Fig 2 Demerit Points Versus Days in ice For Whiting Samples I
27
Table 8
TOtal demerit points from sensory assessment of whi tirq samples stored in ice
Average TOtal Demerit Foint SCores
rays in ice TFRJ scores TFRJ scores EEC scores Fi 11eted sample (urqutted) (gutted) (gutted) (gutted)
1 1 1 0 0 3 2 2 1 1
5 4 4 2 3
7 7 9 3 4
9 13 15 6 9
n 15 17 7 13
13 19 21 11 15
15 24 27 15 16
17 29 32 19 18
19 31 35 22 21
21 32 36 24 24
23 33 37 26 26
Note
MaXllnum possible scores for (i) TFRJ scores (urqutted) is 35 ( ii) TFRJ scores (gutted) is 39 ( iii) EEC scores (gutted) is 30 ( iv) Filleted sample scores is 32
28
Table 9
Relationship between tLme and demerit points for fish stored in RSW
Method of Visual Assessment
y- intercept slope correlation
M novaBMBlandias
TFRJ (urqutted ~les) 032 175 097
TFRJ (gutted samples) 032 190 096
EEl -231 146 097
Filleted samplesbull
-357 158 099
H sBmifasoiata
TFRJ (urqutted samples) -245 167 099
TFRJ (gutted samples) -273 187 099
EOC -414 129 098
Filleted samples -244 125 099
ltshy
--------------- ------------------------------------------
------------- - ------------- -------- ------
Table 10
Attributes contributing to total score using TFRO scores (gutted and ungutted)
Attributes involved in score change Score
Blue grenadier in RSW Whiting in ice
Stiffness Eyes - clarity blood Slllne Stiffness Eyes - clarity shape and blood lt10 Gills - smell Vent - smell SlBne Gills - colour smell and mucous
Vent - smell Belly cavity - stains and blood
Appearance Eyes-shape Stiffness Gills - smell colour and mucous Skin
Stiffness appearance gill-smell Scales belly-discolouration and firmness
N so
gt10lt20 SCales belly - discolouration and firmness Vent - smell Vent - smell and condition Belly cavity - stains and blood
Appearance Slllne Eyes - clarity shape Appearance SlBne Scales Skin blood and iris Gills - colour Eyes - clarity and shape
gt20lt30 Belly - discolouration Gills - mucous smell am colour Vent - condi tion and smell Belly cavity shy blood
Appearance Gills - mucous and smell SlBne Eyes - iris am blood Belly - discolouration and firmness Belly - discolouration and firmness
gt30 Vent - condition and smell Vent - condition Belly cavity - blood Belly cavity - stains
Table 11
Attributes contribut irq to total score us irq EEC scores
Attributes involved in score change
Score Blue grenadier in RSW W1iting in ice
lt7 Appearance - skin eyes gills organs Physical condition - flesh Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and organs Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skins eyes gills flesh Appearance-eyes and organs atv
vertebral column and organs Physical condition-flesh and peritoneum gt7lt14 Physical condition - flesh Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-eyes flesh and vertebral Appearance-skin gills and organs column Physical condition-flesh vertebral column
gt14lt21 Physical condition-vertebal column and and peritoneum peritoneum Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and vertebral column vertebral column
gt21 Physical condition-flesh and peritoneum Physical cOndition-flesh vertebral column Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity and peri toneum bull
Table 12
Attributes contributing to total score using filleted sample scores
Score
lt5
Attributes involved in score change
Blue grenadier in RSW
Appearance - blood stains skin colour ltXIour - flesh
M1iting in ice
----- shy -------------- shy
Appearance - skin colour odour - flesh Cbndition - gaping wetness
Appearance - colour of flesh Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Texture - flesh skin colour ltgt gt5lt10 Cbndition - gaping bruising wetness Ease of filleting
Texture - flesh
Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Appearance - colour of flesh clotting skin clotting skin colour skin colour
gt10lt20 odour - flesh odour - flesh Cbndition - gaping wetness autolysis COndition - gaping bruising wetness other discolourations autolysis and other discolouration Ease of skinning
Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains skin colour clotting
gt20 Texture - flesh Texture - flesh odour - flesh Odour shy flesh COndition - gaping bruising wetness Cbndition - wetness autolysis autolysis Ease of skinring
32
Table 13
Diff~rent emphasis in scoring systems for whole fish as between the EEl and TFID
Attribute Number of potential demerit points TFRJ EEl
1Ippearance (general) 3 0
skin ) scales 6 3
slime
Stiffness (Rigor) 2 0
Eyes 7 3
Gills 7 6
Belly 5 0
Vent 5 0
Belly cavity 4 3
Flesh cut fram abdomen 0 3
Flesh texture 0 3
Vertebral column 0 6
Internal organs 0 3
33
360 Relative merits of the scoring systems
The four scor irq methcds were used on the same samples of t ish Any
sample had therefore deteriorated to the same extent on anyone day Figs 3
am 4 shew the scores converted to percentages of possible deroorit point
scores The discrepancy in the accumulation of demerit points between the EEC
am TFRJ scor irq methods is clearly shown IEference to Table 2 3 am 13
shOool that this is caused by the lack of questions regarding rigor looseness
of scales condition of belly am vent am the qroupinq of colour am mucous
in the gills as single po i nts thus halving the potent Ia I gill demerit point
score canparison of the tO species in Table 9 ShONS that the rate of
accumulation of demerit pgtints was more consistent for the TFRU system than by
the EEX scor i oq methltXl or by scorinq of fillets
370 Time taken to score the fish
The average time taken to score an individual fish using the TFPlJ
(unqutted) scores TFRJ (gutted) scores EEX scores am the filleted aamp Le
scores were found to be 1 min 25 sec 1 min 55 sec 3 min 45 sec and 1 min 50
sec respectively The EEX score sheet is more t iroe consumioq in that more than
one question is asked about an attribute for the giving of only one demerit
point this requires conscious thought
380 Acceptability taste panel results of blue grenadier samples bull Figures 5 6 am 7 shOool the mean taste panel scores in graphic form for
flavour texture and overall acceptability of cooked blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW table 14 shows the results of the statistical analysis
390 Acceptability taste panel results of whiting samples
Figures 8 9 am 10 shOool the mean taste panel scores in graphic form for
flavour texture and overall acceptability of cooked whiting samples stored in
ice table 15 shows the results of the statistical analysis
WHITING STORED IN ICE o TFRU SCORES (ungutted)
bull TFRU SCORES (gutted)
b EEC SCORES
FILLETED SAMPLE SCORES
100bull e ~ e b
i 6
bull NW
oIJ-a A A-
(J0 t A~ 0 ~ AC)
C) -e ~~-
C) a 50 A
A w
Iz ~
~ - W e A0 c a ~ ~ A-a ~ l ~ A
w -~
~ X ~ W -e I c ~ ~ ibull I I I I
4 8 12 16 20 24
DAYS IN ICE FIG4
36
- flavourshy
-e s-e l ~ v
5middotIU
STORAGrf IN R sWDAYS
rlCoS Ttutfc pcr1 rcbull
rf oj bl jtlJ~r - jlqVGurc acccr~b
21179 0 2 136 843
~ 0 u 5middot0YI
oJ J l ofmiddot$ 1 e
tu 4middot0
VI
~ 3middot5
3middot0
TelC-lue X bull -e III
~ Gmiddotftv
ct 5middot03
V1
-J -f-SshyU 2
~ 40 t
3-~
~ bullbull0 5 0
~ 17 21A ISII
PAY- IITDRAGamp fbilW
FIG6 I Tq1-c pltnd rc-utl ojbllfcJrcftaJIr bull I~M144 Q Cc(r~blfly
r 411q~~ An~Plf bUIJlfM F llh J~Lld Pt-DoL B fpound)1
gt1 NI ~~eusr SJAVlt1
D ~II
(ffIt1~JP IIID bull U J 1i
-IyoJC )-tlICf p --lInraquoJ Ix-Pc ~1rb1 r I ef
Ma2j NI a~v2loJ$
til
1Ia ~AO (IIp~lJa~e
01
secto
00
s
05
5
o~
~
0pound
s
0
smiddot
o~
07
1 ~ ~ ~ ~
r~
B
~
rv t gtshy 2
~ ~ 11
~ 7shyIn r
~ () 0 1) m ~
~ gtshyz -
(fII~q~~ 7~ P
IItJ1o -~~f(ll p ~I I~U J ~t~L 0 ~ middot~II I
IDI 8~ middot lta ~
~ QS
middotS ~ ~ 0 z
r Smiddot II
S 1d 0-$ 111 r- l gtshy r
V fr~
~llCf-J a-PcJ~ U~middotJO
4lp~dmiddotyIb 6middot~1f np)t -~11M fo --IIhen IJutJel ~bl
Table 14
Acceptability of deep fried blue grenadier samples stored in FSW
rays in R3W
Acceptability 3 4 6 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 17 21
Flavour 50a 50a 4S a 51a 50a 51a 50a 4Sa 49a 53a 41b 35b
Texture 49bc 51abc 4S bed 52ab 4Sbed 53ab 52abc 52ab 4Sbed 55a 46cd 43d
OJerall 50ab 51ab 47be 52ab 4Sb 5lab 52ab 50ab 47b 54 a 41c 35d
abc
d
significantly different (pltOOOl)
significantly different (pltOOl) W so
Table 15
Acceptability of deep fried whiting samples stored in ice
rays in ice
Acceptability 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Flavour 5Sab 59a 59a 60a 59a 5S ab 51b 54ab 53ab 37c 37c 31c
Texture 59ab 59a 53bed 5S ab 63a 59ab 47cde 54be 56ab 55ab 44e 46de
OJera11 57ab 5S ab 59ab 60a 60a 5Sab 52b 53ab 55ab 42c 36cd 31d
abcde significantly different (Plt0001)
40
~oo DISCUSSION
410 Sensory assessment of the raw blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
he results of sensory assessment on the raw blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW by the four methods of scoring all sheM that there is
progressive increment in total demerit points with storage time for all the
four methods (Table 7) It was also fourxi that the accumulation of demerit
points with time of storage of the fish in ffiW occurred in a saui-linear
fashion for all -the four scoring methods used (Figure 1) he variables (time
of storage and demeritmiddot points score) were all highly correlated (Table 9)
he correlation equation of the TFRJ (ungutted samples) and TFRJ (gutted
sanples) scores were similar roth having a zero time intercept of 032 but
with the TFRJ (gutted samples) scores having a slightly greater slope by 015
he EEC scores and the filleted sample scores roth have lower slopes ie
146 and 158 respectively canpared with the TFRJ (ungutted sample) and TFRJ
(gutted sample) scores of 175 and 190 respectively lbwever the EOC scores
which have the lowest slope have a fairly similar correlation equation with
the filleted sample scores (Table 9) he negative intercepts reflected the
slightly more sigrroid relationship for these samples his suggests that the
TFRJ (gutted) scoring method is the rrost sensitive of the four methods
followed by the TFRJ (ungutted) the filleted sample and the EEC scores
It was also found that after 21 days of storage in RSW the blue
grenadier samples had not reached their maximun possible scores in any of the
four scoring rrethods used (Table 7) he TFRJ (ungutted sample) score only
reached 943 of its possible maximun value whereas the TFRJ (gutted sample)
scores EEC scores and the filleted sample score reached only 897 833 ar~
906 of their possible maximun score his means that all the four methods
of scoring can still be sensitive to changes in the quality of the blue
grenadier samples stored in RSW after 21 days of storage time
41
Figures 1 and 3 also shOVt that the pattern of the graphs of demerit
points against days storage in R3W of the four methcxis of scoring is similar
ie a tendency to be slightly sigmoid fbwever the filleted sanple scores
sean to be rrore sensitive than the EOC scores at the later part of the storage
time ie after 14 days of storage and the scores continued to rise
1be rrost obvious indicator of change for the blue grenadier stored in ffiW
using the TFRJ scores (both gutted and unJUtted sanples) was the eyes (clarity
and blood) followed by odour developnent of the gills (Table 10) his is -
also foond to be true wi th the EOC freshness score (Table 11) Fbr the
filleted sample scores the appearance and odoor of the flesh seems to be the
most obvious indicator of change follOVted by the condition of the fillets such
as gaping bruisin) am wetness (Table 12)
4 20 sensory assessment of the raw whi ting samples stored in ice
1he results of sensory assessment on the rCJl whiting samples stored in
ice by the foor roothods of scoring also shows that there is a progressive
increment in total demerit points with storage time for all the four methods
of scoring (Table 8) Ps with the blue grenadier the aCCLD1UJlation of demerit
points with time of storage of the whiting in ice also occurred in a sernishy
linear fashion for all the foor scoring methods used (Figure 2 and 4) wi th a
slight lag in the initial phase Interestingly this was not observed in the
case of blue grenadier sanples stored in ffiW probably because the first
samplin) of the blue grenadier starts only fran the third day after catch
whereas the first sampling of the whiting starts fran the first day after
catch Also the blue grenadier was handled qu i te roughly on the deck in fact
three oot of the four fish samples on the first rerroval ie the third day
after catching had already showed blood in their eyes
Bremner et al (1985) when using the TFRJ score sheet to assess the
42
quality of four tropical fish species fran the oorth west shelf of hJstralia
(stored in ice) also fourrl that the accumulation of demerit points with time
of storage in ice occurred in a linear fashion
PB wi th blue grenadier the variables (tine of storage ard darneri t points
score) were all highly correlated (Table 9) Also the correlation equation of
the TFRJ (ungutted) ard TFRJ (gutted) scores were similar with the TFJU
(gutted) score having a slightly greater slope by 020 Crable 9) he EEC
scores am filleted sample scores also have lower s lopes l e 129 ard 125
respectively ocmpared to the TFm (ungutted) and (gutted) scores of 167 and
187 respectively However unlike the blue grenadier the filleted samples
of the whi t ing had the 10liest slope he more sensi tive na ture of the EEC
scores as canpared to the filleted sample scores in the case of the whiting
especially after 12 days storage in ice can be explained by the snaller size
of the whitirlJ (fork length ranging fran 156 to 265 an) as canpared to the
size of the blue grenadier (fork length ranging 809 to 838 an) the snaller
fish terrl to spoil faster especially the interior parts of the fish PB the
EEC scores depend nuch on the sensory assessment of the interior parts of the
fish such as the appearance and condition of the flesh vertebral colwnn
interior organs per i toneun and abdaninal cavity (Table 3) which makes up more
than 18 demerit points out of the total possible maxinun of 30 the
sensitiveness of its score is thus self-explanatory in the case of whiting
Connell (1980) explained that large fish keep marginally better than small
fish because larger fish have a smaller surface to volume ratio so that in the
same tUne less of their interior is affected
The above results confirmed the previous suggestion that the TFRU
(gutted) scorIoq methcrl is the roost sensitive of the four methods It was
found that after 23 days of storage in ice the whiting scmples had not
reached the maximun possible scores in any of the four methods used (Table
43
8) The 1FIU (UBJutted) scores had reached only 94-3 of its possible maximum
value whereas the TFRJ (gutted) scores EOC scores am the filleted sample
scores reached only 94 9 867 and 81 3 of their poea Ible maximum score
Therefore all the four methods of scoriBJ can still be sensitive to changes
in quality of the whiting samples stored in ice after 23 days of storage tUne
Ihe roost obvious irxHcator of chaDJe for the whiting stored in ice using
the TFIU score sheet was the eyes (clarity shape and blcxxl) followed by the
develqxnent of -colour odour and nucous of the gills (fable 10) Bremner et
al (1985) when working with four tropical species f~ the north west shelf of
Australia also found that the most obvious indicator of change for fish stored
in ice was the eyes (their clarity am shape) follCAtled by odour developnent
and colour changes in the gills This was also found in the case of blue
grenadier in ~ discussed earlier OJrran et al (1981) when investigating
the quality changes duriBJ iced storage of three carmercially important
species of fish fran Bahrein also found that of the visual and olfactory
assessments gill odour showed the roost pranise as a quality control index
Pgain this is also found to be true with the EOC freshness score of both the
blue grenadier and the whitiBJ (Table 11) AccordiBJ to ~ate (1972) it
was generally agreed that odour of the gills is the most sensitive measure of
freshness but the visual appearance of the eyes gills arxi skin was quicker to
use in practice on the market
For the filleted sample scores of the whiting the most obvious indicator
of chanqe was the appearance and odour of the flesh (Table 12) This too
agreed with the findiBJs for blue grenadier stored in ffiW
AccordiBJ to Baines et al (1969) with fish eatiBJ is related to four
main attributes or quality factors viz appearance odour and texture of the
rCM and cooked fish and in the latter also flavour he ultimate purpose of
testing the raw fish is to estimate the eating quality which is here taken to
44
mean the degree of freshness of flavour Acoording to Baines and Shewan
(1965) the mostreliable test for predicting flavour sqore is raw odour
430 The ease aM difficulties of using the four methods of scoring
It was found that the TFRJ (ungutted) scores was the easiest and quickest
method to use as it takes on average only about 1 min 25 sec to score a fish
canpared to 1 min 55 sec 3 min 45 sec ard 1 min 50 sec for the TFRJ
(gutted) EOC and the filleted sample scores he E~ score was found to be
the roost tedious besides taking the longest time to soore a fish
he TFIU (ungutted) scores also have the advantage of not requiring a
knife in order to score ard also were less IOOSSY to work with canpared to all
the other nethods Also the attributes to be assessed were arranged and
organised in such a way in the score sheet that it is easy to score a fish
starting from assessing the apparance and skin and ending with the condition
and smell of the vent
440 Acceptability taste panel results of the blue grenadier samples
441 Flavour acceptability
Figure 5 shc7ws the flavour acceptability of the deep fried samples of
blue grenadier Samples stored in R3W for less than 17 days were found
statistically (Table 14) to be indistinguishable (Plt0001) fran each other
then there was a significant fall in the flavour acceptability of the samples
stored in RSW for 17 days onwards he sarrtgtle stored for 21 days had a still
lower mean value of 35 but it was not significantly different fran the
semple stored for 17 days which had a nean value of 41 It is interesting to
note that despite the progressive increase in sodiun uptake of the blue
grenadier samples stored in RSW from about 7115 35 mg sodium(lOO g tissue
initially to 724 33 mglOO g tissue on the 16th day aM to 729 17 mglOO g
45
tissue on the 21st day (Burford 1984) the panelists seem not to be
negatively affected by the increasing salt content of the samples with storage
tUne and in fact some of the panelists added more salt to their samples I
111is result contradicts statements made by previous reseachers that the
storage life using R3W may be limited by increases in salt content in the fish
flesh (Boyd et aI 1978) he maximun desirable salt content according to
Tcm1inson et al (1974) as quoted by Boyd et al (1978) is about 05 but at
the 16th day ofmiddot RgtW storage the salt content fOllNj In the flesh of blue
grenadier samples was already more than 07 fbwever the panelist only ate
40g pieces it might have been a different case if the fish has been as a
whole meal
442 Texture acceptability
Figure 6 shows the texture acceptability of the deep fried blue grenadier
samples stored in R3W eespf te sane apparent abberant values (such as the
high rrean of 55 for the sample stored for 14 days in RSW) it is obvious that
the texture acceptability showed a significant decreasing trend (pltOOl) from
seventeen days of storage onwards The abberant texture values are possibly
due to the fact that the fish texture might have been masked by the bread
crunbs used to coat the fish samples before deep fryi~ This agrees with the
observations of Bremner et al (1985) wtxgt found that the inherent textural
softness of P piotiue and the tougheni~ on storage of N peroni i detected by
a profile panel usilYJ steamed fillets were no lo~er noticeable when the fish
was deep fried in batter Bremner (1980) also reported that despi te the
softness of the raw flesh the cooked flesh of blue grenadier is reasonably
firm
46
433 OVerall acceptability
The overall acceptability of the deep fried blue grenadier samples stored
in R)W (figure 7) seems to follCM a similar pattern to its flavour
acceptability (figure 5)~ in which a significant fall in overall acceptability
was only observed fran the samples held fran 17 days in RSW onwards (pltO 001)
as shawn in Tablel4
rnus all the above results showed that there was a significant fall in
flavour texture and overall acceptability of blue ~renadier from 17 days of
R)W storage onwards which was found to be equivalent to the accumulated
demerit point scores of 29 of the TFRJ (ungutted) scoresr 31 of the TFRl
(gutted) scoresr 21 of the EOC scores and 23 of the filleted sample
scores Jones (1964) states that the acceptability of a fish is a function of
its suitability for further processing and of its inmediate appearance its
texture its odour and its flavour
450 Acceptability taste panel results of the whiting samples
451 Flavour acceptability
Figure 8 shows the flavour acceptability of the deep fried whiting
samples stored in ice rtle twelve sample times could be analysed individually
since the means if analysed by canbining adjacent sample times to give six
sample groups are in fact the means of the adjacent times if analysed
individually it was found that samples of the first nine renovals i se up to
17 days of storage in ice are more or less indistinguishable (abberant value
at 7th removal) he last three removals ie samples stored in ice for 19
21 and 23 days were found to be of significantly lower flavour acceptability
(p lt 0001) as shawn in Table 5
47
452 Texture acceptability
Except for the abberation at the 7th remgtval i 9 at day 13 of ice
storage there is a significant reduction of texture acceptability at the 21 II
and 23 days of ice storage (p lt0001) as shown by figure 9 and Table5 t
II
I 453 Over~ll acceptability
he overal I acceptability of the whiting sanples stored in ice is very
much similar to its f Lavour acceptability except at day 19 of ice storage
where the ovaral I acceptability shows a higher mean of 42 carpared to the
flavoor acceptability mean of 37 (figure 10 and Table 5) here is however a
significant sudden drop to lOil scores fran the lOth removal ie day 19 of
storage in ice (p lt0001)
hus all the above results for whitifVJ sanples showed that there was a
significant fall in flavCXJr and overall acceptability fram 19 days ice storage
onwards which is equivalent to the accumulated demerit points of 31 of the
TFRJ (unqutted) scores 35 of the TFRJ (gutted) scores 22 of the EEC
scores and 21 of the filleted sample scores he results are interesti~ in
that the oorresponding total accLDnulated demerit points at the time when
significant falls in flavour texture and overall acceptability of the blue
grenadier and whiting samples stored in I5W and ice respectively were quite
similar
500 CONCLUSION
510 Feasibility of using demerit points
Accumulation of demerit points with time of storage of M
in RM and H eemifaeaiatia in ice was found to be highly
occurred in a semi-linear fashion irrespective of the method of
novas8slandiae
correlated and
scori~ used
- _ ~uo_a~_bull--_--I e -Ii --
48
1he slopes of the lines (rate of accumulation of demerit points) and its
relative spoilage rate were found to be similar for the ttoO species provided
the sane method of scoring is employed 1his tends to suggest that the method
is possibly independent of species am methods of storage or at least
applicable to the two species in RSW and ice respectively
TIle TFRJ (ungutted) scores were foum to be the easiest arrl quickest
method to use although the TFRJ (gutted) scores were the roost sensitive 1he
EEX freshness scores were hClgtlever foum to be the JOOSt tedious aod difficult bull I
to use besides taking more than twice the time taken to score a fish ocmpared
to the TFRJ (ungut ted) scores
Although there were slig~t differences between the ttoO species in those
characteristics where changes were first made (Table 10 11 and 12) there is
enough evidence to conclude that the changes in the appearance of the eyes am
the odour developnent of the gills are the JOOSt obvious arrl valuable indicator
of charqe in quality when using the TFIU or the EEl scores while the
appearance am odour of the fish flesh seems to be the JOOSt obvious indicator
when assessing the filleted sample
1he shelf-life of M navaezelandiae stored in RSW was found to be 14 days
(less than 17 days) whilst that of H semifasoiata stored in ice was fourrl to
be 17 days (less than 19 days) beyond which the fish had developed spoilage
characteristics that were disliked by the acceptability taste panel
1he cut-off point at which spoilage of the samples would have rendered
the quality of the fish sample to be unacceptable fran the consumers point of
view ~ld be that equivalent to the accumulated demerit point of gt29 for the
TFRJ (gutted arrl ungutted) scores am gt21 for the EOC and filleted sample
scores
This study thus confinned the potential use of demerit points such as the
TFRJ (ungutted) scores as an easy quick cheap non-destructive and reliable
49
method of sensory assessment of fish quality In fact Branch and Vail (1985)
had studied the possible use of a prototype pocket-sized computer to determine
the condition and shelf-life of temperate and tropical species of fish based
on data that is derived fran the sensory score sheets for the assessment of
fish quality developed at the (SIRgt Division of fbod lEsearch Iasmanian Fbod
Research Unit (TFlU) Hobart
520 RJrpose for which demerit points are to be used
Many scor i oq systerrs are used to predict the nunber of days fish have
been stored on ice and in nore recent years ICETIME (equivalent days on
ice) I ard thus through years of experience the taste panel acceptability of
the fish I
However fish is sold on appearance and a scoring system may be used for
assessirg marketability of whole or gutted fish or fillets or for setting
standards in bulk buying The EEC scoring system is used for example at
fish markets at first point of sale to grade the fish and establish
withdrawal prices A IbrryShewan type system is often used as a purohas i nq
specification from finn to firm
Before a final demerit point system is selected for any COlIOOdity its
ultimate purpose should be established For example the demerit points
chosen for whole fish which nost closely resemble the rate of change of
demerit points for fillets of that species might be the most useful
A linear rate of change of demerit points with time is nose favoured
because it enables prediction of remaining shelf-life ConstJJrer
unacceptability should be at a point where perhaps 75 of the demerit points
have been accrued Further scores would still be available for categories
such as suitable for fish meal D3merit points are not an indication of the
acceptability of fish as eaten where off-odours flavours and fillet
50
tdiscolouration are masked by batters or curries Their correlation with the
iodours flavours off odours aod off flavours of steamed fish are currently ~
~
~being examined by other workers at the Tasmanian ~ Research unit and highly
significant correlations are found Even when fish are subsequently eaten
battered or curried demerit points give a good indication of remaining shelf
life Thus whitiOJ with a Smiley flavour score of 58 after 1 day on ice
has a nlU gutted demerit score of 1 and a high quality life (eaten crumbed
and fried) of a further 16 days while whitiOJ stored for 11 days on ice with
the sane flavour score has a gutted demerit score of 17 and a further shelf
life of 6 days
530 SUggestion for further work
Ib ascertain its potentially wide application as a simple quick and
technically sound methcxi of assessing fish quality many more studies using
other species of fish both temperate and tropical species and in various
storage conditions should be undertaken using a demerit point scorIrq system
such as that developed by the TFlU
The score sheet has proved invaluable when sending individuals untrained
researchers away on distant water fishing trips Ps yet 00 standard
deviations have been detennined using a team of assessors with coded samples
of unknown history This may require a separate group design
The effect of lean fish and fatty fish on the scores should also be
studied because factors such as seasonal variations in biological conditions
Lmproper gutting and washing mechanical damage and filth and changes due to
storage in R3W or shelving may have considerable influence on its shelf-
life Reports such as those of smith et al (1979) clearly showed that in fish
such as the blue whitirlJ (Mioroomesistius poubaeeous there is greater degree
I 51
of seasonal variability than in other gadoid species the overall
acceptability droppirq dramatically once the fish have spawned Fish accepted
for processing for food has to be of a higher standard of quality than fish
accepted for Imredfate sale across the counter to the consumer therefore
there is a need to rreet a minimum score before they could be processed into
food Gradirq is therefore best left to the user sorenson (1971) states
that in establishing limi ts of acceptance an allowance had to be made for
deterioration that would continue to take place during processing and storage
prior to reaching the consimer
The only final criteria of the objectivity of sensory or any other
assessment are results that are reproducible many times which is by definition
a lcnJ-tenn process and in the meantime one requires short-cut indications
that one is headirq in the right direction
Ferhaps a final caution Is necessary as in the YQrds of Ehrenberg and
Shewan (1953) not too much must be expected even the best measuring
instruments occasionally go oot of control
52
60 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baines CR Jones NR am Shewan JM 1965 Technological problems of
measur trq degree of freshness of wet fish and problems of quality
control requirif)J roore knowledge fran fundamental research In he
Technology of fish utilisation ad R Kreuzer Fishi~ News (Books)
p 141
Baines CR and Shewan JM 1965 sensory rrethods for evafuat inq the
quality of white fish Lab practice 14 160-163
Baines CR ltbnnell JoJ Gibson DM lbWgate PF Livi~ston E and
Shewan JM 1969 A taste panel technique for evaluatirq the eati~
quality of frozen cod In Freezi~ and irradiation of fish ad R
Kreuzer Fishi~ News (Books) London p361
Boyd NS and Wilson NDC 1976 A sensory method for evaluatInq the
quality of Snapper (Ch1ysophrys auratus) NZ Journal of Science 19
209-12
Boyd NS Wilson ND and Bjley A 1978 A refrigerated sea water plant
for small boats symposium on fish utilisation technology and
marketi~ in the IPFC region IFFC Proceedi~s 18th session Manila
Philippines FAD Ba~kok p 186-192
Branch AC and Vail AMA 1984 Bri~i~ fish inspection into the
canputer age FltXld Technol Aust 36 in press
Bremner HA Olley J and Ihrower SoJ 1978 CSIIU Iasmanian lEgional
Laboratory OCcasional Paper No4
Bremner HA 1980 Processi~ and freezi~ of the blue grenadier (Maclulonus
novaeselandiae) FltXld Technol Aust 32(8)~ pp 385-393
Bremner J A 1984 QJality - an attitude of mind In he JILlstralian
Fishi~ Industry - today and tanorrow 10-12 July 1984 Launceston
53
Australian MaritUne Cbllege seminar Bapers 224-69
Bremner HA Statham JA am Sykes SJ 1985 Tropical species fran the
north west shelf of Alstralia sensory assessment and acceptability
of fish stored co ice Proceedi~s Sixth session IPR Worki~ Party
on Fish D3chnology and Marketi~ Melbourne 1984 FJID Fish lep 252
supp1
Burford D 1985 Sodiun uptake in MaOlUfOOnUS nooaeselandiae stored in
refrigerated sea water Tasmanian Food Research Unit OCcasional Paper
No9
ltbnnell JJ 1972 OJality control in the fish industry Ibrry Jldvisory
note No 58 IOrty Research Station Aberdeen
ltbnnell JJ 1980 ltbntrol of fish quality Fishi~ ~ws (Books) 2nd ed
Surrey England
OJrran CA Nicolaides L and Al-Alawi ZS 1981 QJality chanqes duri~
iced storage of three carmercially important species of fish fran
Bahrain Trop sci 23(4) 253-268
de Zylva ERA 1974 Effect of fish handli~ at sea on storage quality of
New Zealand Snapper (Chroysophroys aumtus) New Zealand J SCi 17
309-318
Etlira S 1976 A biochemical study on the freshness of fish Bull 1bkai
Reg Fish Res Lab No 88 pp 1-13
Ehrenberg ASC and Shewan JM 1953 he cbjective approach to sensory
tests of food J Sci Food hJric 4 pp 482-489
Herbert RA and Shewan JM 1975 Precursors of the volatile sulphides in
spoili~ North Sea Cod J Sci Food JIlgric 26 1195-1202
lbUwi~ H 1972 Gradi~ of fish in different qualities Institute for
Fishery Products Ijmuiden Unpublished
~ate P 1972 Qrlparison of sensory scor inq systems for raw fish
I 54
Unpubl ished bull ~ ~
~ate P 1978 Measuri~ the quality am acceptability of fish products bull ~
In IPFC Proceedi~s symposiun on fish utilisatial technology and ~
i f~
marketi~ in the IWC region 18th session Manila Ihilippines p
449
fflghes RB and Jones NR 1966 Measurement of hypoxanthine concentrations
in canned herrirg as an index of the freshness of the raw material
with a ocirment oo flavor relations J SCi fOOd middotJlgric 17 434
Jahns FD Howe JL Coduri Jr RJ and Ram Jr AG 1976 A rapid
visual enzyme test to assess fish freshness Food Iechno1 30 (7) 27
Jones NR 1964 ~lems associated with freezi~ very fresh fish
Proceedings Meeting on Fish Iechnology Fish Handling and
Preservation schevenirqen OEC D Paris p 31 bull
Jones NR 1965 Hypoxanthine and other purine containing fractions in fish
muscle as indices of freshness In uthe technology of fish
utilisation ed R Kreuzer Fishi~ rewa (Books) (Drmn p 179
Last PR Scott EOG and Talbot FH 1983 Fishes of Tasmania
Tasmanian Fisheries ~velopnent lUthority lbbart Tasmania pp 238
414
Lima doe santos CAM James D and Ieutscher F 1981 QJidelines for
chilled fish storage experiments FKJ Fish Tech Igt 210
(Dye RM 1954 Ibst rrortem cha~es in the lenses of fish eyes Msessment
of storage tiJm and fish quality J Sci Focx11lgric 5 566-572
Hartin RE Gray RJ H and Pierson MD 1978 QJality assessment of fresh
fish arrl the role of the naturally occurring microflora Focx1
Technol 32 (5) 188
Official Journal of the European oamrnunities No L264 5 ~cember 1970 pp
1-11
bull
55
Technol New Zealand July 1971 pp 31-35
Spinelli J Eklund M and Miyauchi D 1964 Measurement of hypoxanthine
in fish as a method of assessing freshness J Food SCi 29 710
Thrower S oJ am Stafford IA 1981 A roobile unit for ccmparative studies
of chilled storage systems for trawl fish IIF IIR
eatmissions C2 01 02 03 Boston USA 1981-4
Thrower SoJ Bremner HA QJarmby AR Ggtnnan T8 aild Graham KJ
1982 cn-board handlinJ of Q~ish ~ Inportanoeof chillinJ and
gutting Aust Fish 41 (11) 38-41
Tanlinson N bull bull t at 1974 COtparison between refrigerated sea water (with or
without added carbon dioxide) and ice as storage media for fish to be
subsequently frozen Proc IIR C011n 82- 0-3 Tokyo p
waterman J oJ 1982 Qrrposition and QJality of Fish A Dictionary 1brry
Mvisory Note No 87 Torry Research Station Aberdeen
5J
Olley J and letkowsky OA 1973 he role of terrperature function
integration in monitoring of fish spoilage Food Technol New
Zealand 8 (2) 13 15 and 17
Olley J 1977 Iemperature and seafood spoilage In H Proceedings of 1977
SChool for SeafltXld Processorsmiddot ad ~ AF 0 Mello Hawkesbury
Agricultural Oollege p6-2
Olley J 1978 QIality assessment and storage changes In middotCSIRJ Iasmanian bull
leJional Laboratory OCcasional Paper No 4 p 3-1 middot4 Rgenstein J M and ~enstein CE 1981 he shelf-life extension of fesh
fish In Advances in the refrigerated treabnent of fishmiddot
International Institute of Rfrigeration Clmnissions C2 m ra [8
Boston US A 1981-4
leJenstein J 1983 Wlat is fish quality INroFISH Marketing Digest ttgt 6
26-28
Ryder JM 9Jisson OH SCott ON and Fletcher GC 1984 storage of
New Zealand Jack Mackerel ( TmohUMlB notJabullbullbullZandias) in ice
chemical microbiological and sensory assessment J M SCi 49
1453-1456 1477
Shewan JM Macintosh RG rucker CG and Ehrenberg ASC 1953 he
developnent of a numerical ~coring systan for the sensory assessment
of the spoilage of wet white fish stored in ice J SCi Food Jlgric
4 283-298
Smith J GM Hardy R hanson AB Young KW and Parsons E 1979
sane observations 00 the ambient and chill storage of blue whiting
(Mio1om8sistius poutassou) bull In H Advances in Fish SCience and
Technology ad JJ Connell FishinJ News (Books) Surrey England
pp 299-303
SOrensen T 1971 QIality control and fish handling in New zealand Food ~
t c-
o )
~hmiddot r~YiJ lt~
~~f~~ ~
I
Nomooram for comparison of diffGrent scoring systems tor raw T i sn ___ _ J bull )
_U I~ ~Y1 9i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~
I I t I I - _---1------ imiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot __ middot~_ ~ __~_ -_ ~ + ~ _ -~ _ - middotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middot __ G 9 8 7 6 _ 5middot 3
_ - zmmy [ I bull r f II
d _~__ ~ __ _ ~ __ -I-- - ~ L- i~ middoti~ ~ 1-L -~~ lt lt l~tceland 1P i ~ ~ j ~ ~ ~ L~ __ - I ~_ bull _ L j ~- _-
N rv 1 I 1 2 --- - 2~ 3 middot 3middot 4 ~- ~Il ay ~ _ _ middot _ r r
_ _ __ _ _~ ~_ ) - ~ L_ - 1- ~-_ -_ _ _ ~ 19 ~ 8 imiddotmiddot I 6 5 4 3
Do _ _nm~r t I I I r
~ I
_ ~ ~_ ~ t ~ __ i__ t ~ ~ ~ ~ _ q x 1 1i 2 2~ 3v _ Franee I r I l n
I I I i _ - ~ _ _ _- _-- middotmiddot __ middot_middot_middot_middotmiddotmiddotImiddotmiddotmiddot_middot~ _middotmiddotmiddotmiddot-_middotmiddotmiddotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddot ---- - --~ ~-
19oum8 I 7 6 i 5 ~ ~ 4middot 280 J t (
I i
J -- - -_ -__ X ~middotH i__~ -- i_L ~ - l_ middot1-- - 3 I 2Y1 0 4 11z 1 y
E E C I 1
I I I deg deg E I A r Bmiddot - I I C
ltOIl j- ~ ~ c ~--------------
TASTER
DATE
SESSION
~ER middot1
bull You will be given ~bull aamples of cooked fish Please assess the fish for flavour textur~ and
overall liking as though you had purchased them in a takeaway food shop Hark the sample
identification under the face that most closely describes your impressionbull
I
middot5 S shy2 3 4
FLAVOUR
IEXlURE
--
OVERALL UKING
7 bullbull yc ) I _ v J _ _
I1PP~NJIJ( 3 ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE BGRENVZSASS (A)
OBS DAYS-R DMPTS shy
1 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 6 4 3 7 4 6 e 4 5 9 6 1 18 6 10 11 6 18 12 6 18 13 e 13 14 8 16 13 8 13 16 8 17 17 9 18 18 9 18 19 9 bull 19 29 9 19 21 19 19 22 1 21 23 1 19 24 1 2123 11 21 26 11 22 27 11 22 29 11 22 29 12 22 3 12 22 31 12 23 32 12 23 33 13 23 34 13 23 33 13 22 36 13 23 37 14 24 38 14 23 39 14 264 14 25
17 26~ 17 39 43 17 38 44 17 29 43 21 32 46 21 33
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASS(At
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (Xt DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Yt DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9666 R SQUARED 9343 T STATISTIC 231621 INTERCEPT tAt 31799 SLOPE tSt 173399 bull STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 219473
OBSERVATIONS 46 Y DMPT9 XI DAYS-RSW YMIN -18 YMAX 61 YINC e XMIN -19 XMAX 2e9 XINe 2
] y
__ t=- I I 0(I I
JPRH6ELF PRINT MODULE -SYNTAX ERROR
DATABASE J3lGRENVISASS (FIL)
OB8 DAYS-R DMPT8
1 s 1 2 4 5 s 6 6
~ e 8 ~ 9 1 6 19 12 7 11 14 8 12 17 9 13 18 1 14 19 bull 11 17 23 12 21 29
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASSCFIL)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE CX) DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IY) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT ~9963
R SQUARED 992 T STATISTIC 3~36977
INTERCEPT CA) -3~6~41
SLOPE CB) 1~8426
STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 77667
OBSERVATIONS 12 v DMPTS x DAYS-RSW VMIN -2~ VMAX ~~ YINC ~
XMIN -19 XMAX 2~9 XINC 2
]
bull
-SYNTAX ERROR
lPRH6ELF PRINT MODULE
DATABASE BGRENVXSASS (AG)_
OB6
1 2 3 4 ~
6 7 8 9
Hi 11 12 13 14 1~
16 17 -18 19 2 21 22 23 24 2~
26 27 28 29
3 31 32 33 34 3~
36 37 J8
39
4 41 42 43 44 4~
46
DAYS-R
3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 6 6 6 6 8 8
8 bull 8
9 9 9 9
1 1 1 1 11 11 11 11
DMPTS
2 3 3 3 ~
6 ~
~
1 1 1 1 17 18 17 19 2~
2 21 21 21 23 21 23 23 24 24 24
12 24 12 24 12 25 12 25 13 27 13 25 J3 24 13 27 104 26 J04 2S
14 28 14 27 17 28 17 32 17 32 17 31 21 34 21 35
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BORENVISASSCAO)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE IX) DAVS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IV) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9~76~
R SQUARED 917 T STATISTIC 22S6S88 INTERCEPT lA) 323~7
SLOPE lB) 189812 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 269324
OBSERVATIONS 46 Y DM PT6 X DAYS-RSW ~ _01 VMAV 2~ YfNe ~
XMIN -19 XNAX 2l9 XINC 2
]
9YNTA)( ERROR bull ]PRN6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE BGRENVXSASS
OB6 DAY6-R DMPTS
1 3 1 2 3 1 3 3 1 4 3 1 5 4 1 6 4 4 7 4 3 9 4 1 9 6 6 18 6 6
11 6 6 12 6 6 13 9 8
14 9 9 15 8 8 16 8 9 l 9 18 19 9 11 19 9 12 28 9 12 21 18 12 22 18 14 23 18 11 24 18 14 25 11 15 26 11 13 27 11 15 29 11 15 29 12 17 3 12 18 31 12 19 32 12 18gJ l~ 34 13 18 3~ 13 18 36 13 19 37 14 19 JB 14 19 39 14 19 48 14 19 41 17 19 42 17 23 43 17 21 44 17 20
-(EEC)
q~ 21 23 q6 21 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASSCEEC)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE IX) DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IY) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 96691 R SQUARED 93q9 T STATISTIC 2~14824
INTERCEPT IA) -238937 SLOPE IB) 146219 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 1S28eS
OBSERVATIONS q6 Y DMPTS X DAYS-RSW YMIN -2q YMAX ~5 YINC ~
XMIN -19 XMAX 259 XJNC 2
l
SYNTAX ERROR lPRM8ELF PRINT MODULE
-
bull
APPENJ)K 4 -
DATABASE WHZTXNG VXSASS (A) bull
OBS DAYS-I
1 1 2 1 3 1 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 ~
9 5 9 5 Ii 7 11 7 12 7 13 9 14 9 1~ 9
016 11 17 11 19 11
DMPTS
1 1 1 1 2 2 4 3 5 a 7
9 13 15 bull 13 16 14 1~
019 13 2 8 28 13 16 21 13 20 22 15 24 23 1~ 24 24 15 25 25 17 29 26 17 29 27 17 38 29 19 30 29 19 38 38 19 32 31 21 33 32 21 32 33 21 32 34 23 32 3~ 23 32 36 23 34
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASSIA)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE tX) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE tV) qMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 98514 R SQUARED 9785 T STATISTIC 3344414 INTERCEPT tAt -245163 SLOPE CBt 166958 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 286799
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS x DAYS-ICE
YMIN -22 YMAX lS7 YINC lS- XMIN -19 XMAX 259 XINC 2
]
I
J
-8YNTAX ERROR
]PRM6ELF PRINT MODULE shyDATABASE WHITING VISASS (AG)
OB8 DAYS-I DMPT8
1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 4 3 1 ~ 3 2 6 3 2 7 ~ 4 9 ~ 3 9 ~ ~
18 7 18 11 7 9 12 7 18 13 9 1~
14 9 17 1~ 9 1~
16 11 18 17 11 16 18 11 17 19 13 22 28 13 18 21 13 22 22 1~ 26 23 1~ 27 24 1~ 28 2~ 17 32 26 17 32 27 17 33 28 19 34 29 19 34 38 19 36 31 21 37 32 21 36 33 21 36 34 23 36 3~ 23 36 36 23 38
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITINO VISASS(AO)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAY8-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Y) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 986~2
R SQUARED 973 T STATISTIC 3~B167B
INTERCEPT CAl -272~33
SLOPE CBI 197S63 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 221294
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS X DAYS-ICE YHIN -19~ YHAX ~9~ YINC ~
XHIN -19 XHAX 2~9 XINC 2
]
-SYNTAX ERROR lPRM6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASS (EEC)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 2 1 3 1 4 3 ~ 3 1 6 3 1 7 ~ 2 8 ~ 2 9 ~ 3
1 7 3 11 7 3 12 7 3 13 9 6 14 9 6 bull 1~ 9 7 16 11 7 17 11 8 18 11 7 19 13 11 2 13 1 21 13 12 22 1~ 13 23 1~ 1~
24 1~ 17 2~ 17 19 26 17 18 27 17 19 28 19 29 29 19 23 39 19 22 31 21 24 32 21 23 33 21 24
34 23 2J 3~ 23 26 36 23 27
I ELF SCATTER MODULE I DATABASE WHITING VISA88CEEC)I I INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (~) DAYS-ICE I
DEPENDENT VARIABLE (VI DMPTS I bull
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9a2~3
R SQUARED 96~3
T STATISTIC 387a73~
INTERCEPT (A) -4142 SLOPE (8) 12873 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 173287
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS ~ DAYS-ICE YMIN -29 YMA~ ~1 VINC ~
XMIN -19 ~MA~ 2~9 ~INC 2
J
-SYNTAX ERROR JPRM6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHITING VXSASSmiddot(FXL)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 2 3 1 3 ~ 5 4 7 4 ~ 9 9 6 11 13 7 13 1~
e 1~ 16 9 17 19 18 19 21 11 21 24 12 23 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASB(FJLI
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Y) DMPTS
bull bullbull 4~
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE CV) DMPTSr
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 982~3
R SQUARED 96~3
T STATISTIC 3S7873~ t bullbullf CINTERCEPT CA) -4142
SLOPE CB) 12873 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 173287
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS XI DAYS-ICE YMINmiddot~28 YMAKI 1 YINC ~
XMIN -I9XMAX 2~9 XINC2
]
-SYNTAX ERROR ]PRH6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHXTXNG VXSASS (FXL)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 S 2 3 1 1 5 3 4 7 4 5 9 9 6 11 13 7 13 1~
9 15 16 9 17 19 1 19 21 11 21 24 12 23 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE I WHITING VISAS8(FIL)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE CX)I DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE CY) DMPT8
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 99289 R SQUARED 9858 T STATISTIC 2638123 INTERCEPT CA) -243706 SLOPE CB) 124476 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 112846
SLOPE 10) 124476 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 112846
ObullbulllfftVTrOHSO 12 VI DHPTS XI DAVS-ICE VMIN -27 VHAX e2 VINe e XHIN -19 XHAX 2e9 gtcINe 2
]
-8VNTAX ERROR
fi
rr
[bull
SJ
in i
bullol
r~
bull bull
n i
o o o o
~
o~ o
o - l
N~ o ~
o o o
Q
Q o o
a
c -~_
Q
_
_ Q
_9_
0
o ~-
O
_
Q
lI
oJ ~
v
~ ~
~-
-
- -1
---h
---1
---I
I
I
1
~ ((9 ~ J las 0 - ~~ U -lt) az E~-~gl~~1--~~---------- ~) 1)
11 ~ - 11 HI ~~
I bull M~
~ -~ ~~ IJ~ I J ismiddotJ I Q l~
k tl I 01 re lr - 91 br I ~I ( -0 71P g I CJ tt
I I J 000 0 0 w I 0) NlNN1tl 30 hIflJ I t IC (~4ID(r ~ Wi
_ f-- -------- bull fyen ~=y ~~r I I I I I I I 0 0 00 00 ( ~) -Fr~ ~ fj)
-0 I 0 I Ole 17 10 0 ( ~ AI )middot P1~ 0 0 00 Q hItIrS ~7I -~~ (J
t -r------0 bull
_-~_ middotmiddotmiddot_middot~middotmiddotmiddot)-middot7~)
lrrT I 01 0
0 tFmiddot~~i ~ 1 o 00 Omiddot (~ -W ~r f (JJ___~ _______ _ l I I 71 I -_---_ - M-~ ~ I
J I Z-tf ~ ~ ~fI t1 11f ( )) CI I I I i I 00 r11-7[ c I C bull aofl7r_ ~ ~z ~ 1t~Ji ) ( --_--------i---shye l~~~ I f~) I I J I
I II i bull Q ( N~T fE ~I )
~JiP _- -___ ----shy
_
~ 7Yr 0) ~(J ~ I e I t I ~ l I J I I 1 I I I(I 0 0 (~~yen~ M -p~P71 JPtJIJs 0
i euror (1l~J IlLriJlllr1JI ~~J I ~()(1OP I I r I I 0 I ( t t I ( jIfS 7fS ~~I ~ )
I
I 1 I( IN 10~ lb~ qItJ gtr~j f o (~)I(~) I I 0 I (t~ ~~) I I Jbull o 0 J I ~ l 0 a i S(jJ t t t tI tI C I C I J I I I J I 0 I (n~rlP PI4t -I) t
- -I
-I -I-I I II-I I I-I r bull
-----(rtb Ii If p~) PNl17T7~b ~y~ 7
10 IIt1v I 0 1~L CIJ tN IfIfW1IIJ JI11i JN~I HJ3
---Y p~ALY~_ ~~ Yl2-- 1)
yenvr 1amp f111l
-
~
~~
~
II
o 0
~cgt
(
) Q
oa
oo
o
oo
o o
a
o
~
P
t
oo
c
oo
a -
o
oo
o
o -
o
-o
-
-
lJ
I~ I~
Jl ~rIpound i IAlffzfjjsectj 7df- utl kf J OG lie rCOIpound ~IIE(T r
7tU
~
~ ~
~ ~
~
-shy~
~
MYI f)lySLM~ 1 (JAy ISo~r 11 ~~) e ()~t ~I01) r I joy f o~y lOJ 17~JJlII1~ 16 fiti -t1 It r ~17J~~flu~1h 111H 7U 1111111shyIllf Jr(11Jr I fhJo
~ ) ~ I1 J J-4 ~ J 2 JJ ~poundol ~ ] t4 cl -7 eJ uJ cJJJ wI~ wI l shy w c at amp 74 -t ~ ut 4 I
SkIN 000 o 0 0o 0 0 o 00 I o I I I I 3 3 3l) t 3 3 31 s 3ltt
a I I I I I o IfYU I 2 I JI I I000 )l~ 1~1 S 3 ~S 3 5 335
GILtJ I J I o (J 0 I (I I I ~ t 2shy~I I s 3 ]] 2 0 (J 3 ~ ~ t 3 3 AlvItUiU i l I I ls)z oJ lJ 0 a (J ~ 0o 0 0 a a aTff1ttJR II r 1
1 I ~ I I I I 1~E
Cdt47tl7 I I ~ ~t( a a 0O(O I Io I~ 00 000deg a 0wO 0 0 0 o 0 0 o~ 00VUipound811 ~ J I
tJ I Oe6rlllr I I I I 2 2]l2 ~ 3 S 3 S ~ 3o a 0 (J () 0 I 333 1 $ 3
If~euMI LU~ 2l 3000o (J 0 o 0 0 J 2 2shy 331a deg (1 ~ 2 Jshy
i I 000amp1 0 I I 1TIUUpound
lAcltJdJE 00deg00o 0 0 ooalOOO 0 0 I I I 1OdOa deg 0 11 2 I r I I I IbullI
I I h~r~Eu I ( 0 0 CJ 0 o (J a 2 ~ 30001011 0 1 J 1010 I I L II 2 l 2l 22 2 1
sKIN GLLt I f I~J) GlIIl) 0 (I a I do 0 0 I 0 Il~t l~o 0 0 ~ 3 3 3 s 3 3 3 33s1331
i7tJ7l11 Ibull I shy i66 ~o
(J ~ 0 1 0 It3331l J t 1 1shy 1~ ~afJllc 11 Irrshy It ~1 1111 20 J3 u
(])JtUJ61 (l) (1) (Ir)(0) (J)(I) (If) (19) (u) (~r)(J4)
I r f
I
I
i I
I i
II I ((
f
II Ii
p ()
Q
0_
_ 00
0
00
00
00
0
o o o 0
00
0
0 _
o Q
0
0
o
0
00
0
-
0 0
0
middot0
0
o oo
0
o Q
o oo o o
- ~
~
~ ~~pound
w
i -shy
o
co
- --
shy
o o o
~
~_
~
0
-shyJJ
-----l--~
-J
J IJ
f
J
J)
o 0
00
_ 0
0
o (gt
0
o ()
o
0
0 0
0
()
()
o 0
0
o 0
0
_
_ -
-----1
-----shy
Q
0 0
o ~-IJ~ulJ-
u
lJcllJ_-_~IJamp
o o
Q
I---+----I---+----I----I~-
_Ilpound
llD
lIlI
Il
~I
IIIl
I_II
II5
l__
IIlIa
IllP
=lII
Il1
rl
ll
IlIl
IlIII
llII
IlJl
IIl
IIlIl_
IIrII
G3i
mta
isectID
it
llll~
1~=wampampftUla
_
au
U
Lamp
WJN
AJ
poundmiddotJI
IiIamp
3flJ
a
uac
ampa
f
shy
I~middottn 0~L fi 5L middottlu~ fo_~r ( ) 1poundc [CtJRl -ffl(pound1 r~~ rlt1c- J c-ru
-- I
1SllJ7~
lt l)~ J )IIr M ~-t s ~~ OIl middot )If 10 JAY II 041
J- Olt i1 )lir iI DIY IT- IMy11
1~middot6f1 14f1- ~imiddot -- J _ middotAfmiddot IIrk middot Jiamp -ffh~11 rtr Il ~M gt27P- ill Ill ~lllY ~~7rlf JC 1- ~ r 1M 11
r ~ F16F r~h FIjFi ~~I)r r~Fr
5 Fc II -i~fIoi l 1 fj t t Fr c r amp t 1= ~ r ~ F r rtI ~
- -
sION o (j o 0 0 o 0 a I I I I I I I I 2 I t t I-r J~L) z~z~ 2~J ~ z a ~ ~ 33 - -ol t 1 2
~ poundys-s 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I I lt t 2 t t 4 ~z ~ 2l~ ~ ~ 1 Z 3zi3p33 3 333 3 3 3 - - ~ rl~ a 0 a (1 a a o 1 I 1 I 1-2 12 t ltt a ~ l J tll~ ~~~) 2 2 2 2- ~Jll 21 13 33 ~
- ~ MIIi(UlA~
degCt1C 11 )l
FipoundSI- eli CeoD o 0 (J 0 I I I I I I 1 1 I I 1 I Jl~] l2 22- z ~ 2 2 22 11 2-3 -Sfvpound
j
CIJiCVlt-tICN I I I 1 ( I I I 2 2 t ~ t~ )2 2~21 2$ 2 t _~ 3AIJJN(j- P (J dO o C a a o 0 00 1 I I I I - --
V~7r~ ~ c~u N
(TKWW~ CO~ o I oc I I J I I I I 1 2 I 2 2 1- ) t~l2 2- 22 2 ) 2 ~2- 1222 2 2 ll 2L -- -~VClLAl I
a 0 0 0 01 I 0 2 1 2 2 J5r 4 E i H CA I I
-I I I I I I I I J J 12( ~ 12 1 2 1 2-I TfI_ 21 1-1- 1 1 ~ 1
~ I middot_0-__-- I
~ 1
ffCACIpound coo 000lt=1 o 0 0 0 btJCt) o a () (J I I I I I I I I111 I I I 1 I I -~-aD CD lJ a a 0 0 ~ ~ UlrAfllN o 0 a IJ e e 0 C) (JdegOo ecJao co (10 (1 o I I I I I I I I 1 I I III I I I I z --
i tiN ~4r L~~ 2- li ~ a~ 8M) CUmiddot c d (J 0 (J () I I I 1 1 1
I 1 I I f t I II tl-loI 21 1 t 33 - -
-Iffl1-
J I I I I i- 2 I 11~SC~E ~ t 1 o ~ 04-t 1J 11 1 11t IS~ IfS J1 I 1 I If I IJ 1 r~]u ze uu __
bull ttlUIG
(I) l~) (6) (II) ~ (~) 6s-)llIt lCUI CJ (Ii) (~) vmiddot (II) (19~ ---
I t f
I
~ I
~ I
Ii
I I
Ii I II f
~ (
--)raquo~ middot-~~-~-I~~IliiI~~-middotComiddot~-d-b~middotmiddotmiddotmiddot_ ~ ~ middoth-~_middot--~H~~middot~gt
Other Occasional Papers in the series
1 A salinity monitor for irrigation pumps by EOMIEZITIS
2 Wine liqueur and fish products acceptability trials 47th ANZAAS Congress Hobart 1976 by HABREMNER TLLEWIS and ARQUARMBY
3 Abalone silage an exercise in the conservation of waste by JUNE OLLEY
4 Course notes contributed by the CSIRO Tasmanian Food Research Unit to a workshop on fish handling and quality control Hobart Oct3rd-5th 1978 by HABREMNER JUNE OLLEY and SJTHROWER
5 Difficulties with generalized least squares regression in forest modelling by PWWEST
6 Metabolism of zinc cadmium and copper in rats fed shellfish highly contaminated with heavy metals by SJTHROWER JUNE OLLEY and MAUREEN McDERMOTT
7 Hygiene control in seafood processing by SJTHROWER
13
demerit point scores developed for raw whole (gutted and ungutted) and
filleted fish samples of Australian fish species stored in ice and RSW It
also discusses the results of the acceptability taste panels on the cooked
fish samples
The two oammercially ~rtant Australian fish species used in this study
were the blue grenadier am the blue rock whiting he blue grenadier is
currently Tasmanias major oammercial finfish and the recent annual production
of the fishery exceeds 100 tonnes (Last et aI 1983)~ he blue rock whiti~
is the only Australian member of the family that has any commercial
importance It occurs mainly in Bass strait and the sheltered bays of South
eastern Tasmania The flesh is delicately flavoured but very soft
200 MATERIALS lIND MEIHgt[s
210 Sample preparation
211 Fish stored in RSW
Blue grenadier used in this study were caught on the 15th lugust 1984 at
a depth of 300 fathans off Sandy Cape on the west coast of Tasmania (Lat
41deg20S IDrq144deg40 E) by demersal trawl They were taken fran the deck
irnnediately am dropped into a refrigerated seawater (RSW) tank in a net bag
(tanp -1degC) The fish was reported to be handled quite roughly on board
Sore of the fish had already gone into rigor at this stage he fish were
transported to the CnID lasrnanian Food lesearch Uni t (TFRJ) laboratories in
Hobart and were already to days old on arrival The f ish were then placed in
the RSW box tank of the rrobile unit (the design and construction of which were
described by Thrower and Stafford 1981) and was kept at -1degC for the duration
of the storage trial which lasted for about three weeks Four fish were
rerroved at each samplirq tine (Table 1) for sensory assessment Length
14
measurements to the fork of the tail were also noted ~e fish were then
filleted and samples frozen at -lBoe for later assessment of their
acceptability by taste panel
212 Fish stored in ice
For the sensory assessment of fish stored in ice guidelines similar to
those given by Lima dos Santos et al (981) were used ~e blue rock whiting
also known as the weedy whiting was used ~e whiting were caught on the
afternoon of 23rd August 1984 by demersal trawl in 18 to 25 m waters oft
Eastern Tasmania On arrival at the TFRJ laboratories in I-bbart at 11 45 am
on the fol Lowirq day the f ish were re- iced at a ratio of 21 (ice f ish) in
insulated plastic boxes of size 66 x 41 x 28 em with provision for drainage
of melt water Flake ice was used ~e ice was topped up daily and renewed
once a week The boxes of i ced f ish were then kept in a cool roan set at a
temperature of 0deg to -1dege ~ree fish were removed for sensory assessment at
each sampling time (Table 1) over a period of rmre than three weeks of ice
storage 100 fish samples were then frozen at -18dege until needed for the
acceptability taste panel
Table 1
sampling regirre for fish stored in R3Wice
Blue Grenadier Diys in R3W 3 4 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 17 21
Sample code N D G L S R K T U P M 0
Whiting Diys in ice 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Sample code 0 M D G T S N R P U L K
15
220 Sensory assessment of the whole (gutted and ungutted) raw fish samples
Both the blue grenadier stored in lOW and the whi t i nq stored in ice were
progressively assessed by using the sense organs of sight smell and touch tor
changes in general appearance odour and texture with storage tine by giving
the appropriate demeri t scores according to the score sheets as shown in
Tables 2 and 3 IVo types of score sheets were used Table 2 shows the
sensory assessment score sheet orig inally developed for the assessment of
gemfish (Thrower et al 1982) It has been simplified and weighted (Branch
and Vail 1985) to provide accumulated increases in demerit points as the t i sn
change in odour texture and appearance during storage with the max imum
accumulated demerit point scores of 35 for the urx]utted samples and 39 tor tte
gutted samples The total scor irq for gutted fish differs fran that descr ibeo
by Bremner (1984) and Branch and Vail (1985) in that the demerit points for
the belly cavity have been added to those for the whole fish
The whole and gutted raw fish were also assessed by using the freshness
score sheet developed by the Council of the European COl1nunities (Official
Journal of the European Qmnunities 1970) but with slight rrodification marie
in its scor irq method in that the scor irq was reversed to provide accumulateri
increases in demerit points as in the TFRJ score sheet (Table 2) with a
maximun accumulated demerit score of 30 (Table 3) The samples were scored by
H Abd R who had had no previous experience with the score sheet
230 Sensory Assessment of the frozen filleted raw fish samples
Samples of the whole and gutted fish of both species were then filleted
ard frozen at -18degC until required for the organoleptic acceptability test
panel fillets were thawed by holding for about 16 hours (overnight) in still
air at 4degC The thawed fillets of both the blue grenadier and whi t i nq were
then assessed by the sense organs of sight smell and touch by using the scor-e
sheet for filleted sample as shown in Table 4 nle score sheet was developed
16
able 1
FIlt U Snorr bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullnt oore hbullbull t ( ( 1Ii~ ANI) tlNtJuTreo)
1_middotAnlJ lmiddot
rlSB IDDII
UIUIl~ (VBci9ht~i9ht8lDullDUll
o 1 2 3
SitU ( rimSoft) o 1
SCALBS (r1mSlLoomiddotmiddotLoobullbull ) o 12
r r SLIMB (AbbullbullntSlSlimiddotysliyVSliy)
o 123
S1IrnraS (pr-Ri90rRi90rPot-Ri90r) o 1 2
BYBS Clarity (ClbullbullrISlCloudyCloudy) 012
Shape (HoralslsunknSunkn) 012
Irill (ViiblHot Viibl) IJ 1
Blood (No BloodSlBloodyVBloody) o 1 2
GILLS Colour (VDark)Charaotritio (SlDark) (vradd)(Slradd)
2o 1 Kucou (AbbullbullntKoderatmiddotBxcbullbullbulliv)
o 1 2 S bullbullll (rrbullbullh 01ly) Pihy8talpoll~
(MetalliaSaved) 1 2 3
BELLI Dicoloration (AbbullbullntDetatablmiddotModratmiddotBxobullbullbulliy) 012 3
Finanbullbullbull ( rira80ftBurt) o 1 2
VENT Condition (bobullbulldy)Noraal (SlBrbullbullk) (Opening)(Bxudbullbull )
2o 1 Sbullbulln (rrbullbullhReutralrihy8poilt)
o 2 3
BELLI CAVIn Stain (OpalbullbullontGryihlmiddotllow-Brown) o 1 2
Blood (RdDark RdBrown)
o 1 z
--
17
UJE 3
Etc SENSORY A$fE4St4fN[ ~(oIlL~
SCALE OF MARKING - FRESHNESS
CRITERIA shypoundu1LRt
Abullbullbullbullbullment Mara-bull thc r1ah 0 1 2- 3tszhL
AppearanceinIIMlISJ Skin
Eye
Gill
Flbullbullshycut f ssm abdomusn
Colour the~
vertebral column
Organs
Oright iridescent I bright pigmenta- pigmentation in (1) dull pigmenta tion no i tion but not the process of pigmentation discolouration Ius trous becoming dis-
mucus opaquemucus aqueous i coloured and dull
mucus slightlytransparen t
cloudy ~UCU9 milky
convex (bulging) convex and flat (1) concave in cornea tran- slightly sunken cornea the centre parent cornea Ughtly opalescent cornea milky pupil black opalescent pupil pupil grey bright
pupil black opaque dull
-shining colour less coloured becoming dis- (1) yellmiish no mucus a few traces of coloured mucus milky
cloar mucus mucus opaque
blueish trans- dull velvety slightly opaque (1) opaque lucid smooth waxy shining without any change in the colour sUgh tly original colour changed
(I) reduncoloured sl1 gh tly pink pink
kidneys and kidneys and kidneys (1) kidneys residues of resJdues of resicJuos of r bullbullidue of other other organs other organs other organs organs and blood bright red the dull red blood and blood brownish game as the becoming palo red blood inside discolbured the aorta
(1) or in a more advanced bull ta te of decay
I
bull
Flesh
Vertebtal Column
Peritonium
Gills kin abdominal cavity
18
(eontd)
SCALE OF MARKING - FRESHNESS
CRITERIA
Assessment Mark 0 1 2
Physical eOId ton
firm and elas tic surface smooth
breaks ins tead of coming away
totally adherent to the flesh
seaweed
less elastic
adherent
adherent
Smell bull
not of seaweed but not bad
slightly soft (flaccid) Ie elastic surfacente waxy velvety and dull
slightly adherent
slightly adherent
slightly sour
3
(1) soft (flaccid) scales ebullbullil y detached from skin sur face ra ther wrinkled inclining to mealy
(1) not dherent
1( ) not adherent
(1) sour
(1) or in a more advanced stat of decay
_ shy-- -
19
Table 4
Filleted Sample Score Sheet
r
TREATMENT F ILIEIS DATE REMOJAL (THAWED)
FISH IDENr
EASE OF FILLETING (Easysl difficultdifficult)
012
APPEARANCE (a) Oolour of flesh (TranslucentSl discolouredSl opaqueopaque)
o 1 2 3
(b) Blood stains (AbsentDetectableModerateExcessive)
012 3
(c) Clotting (UnclottedSlclottedModclottedExcessclotted)
012 3
(d) Skin Oolour (VbrightBrightSldullOU11)
o 1 2 3
TEXTURE FirmS1 softSoft
o 1 2
ClDClJR (FreshNeutralStaleSpoilt)
012 3
CONJITION (a) Gaping (AbsentDetectableModerateExcessive)
o 1 2 3
(b) Bruising (AbsentSlightSevere)
012
(c) Wetness (NmnalS1 dry orMod dry orExcess dryness or
SldripModdrip Freezer bJrn or Excessdrip
012 3
(d) Autolysis (Absentmoderatesevere) (Disco1ourations) 0 1 2
(e) Parasites (Absentmoderatesevere) ( Infestations) 0 1 2
(f) Other discolourations (Absentpresent) or contaminants (bones membranes tissues etc) 0 1
EASE OF SKINNING (EasySldifficultdifficult)
012
20
by the author after a literature search and observations made during the preshy
liminary part of the study It has a maxUnum accumulated demerit score of 34
240 ~anoleptic Acceptability Panel of the cooked fish
Filleted samples of both fish species which had been frozen in a cold
roan at -18dege and then thawed as above were used for the acceptability taste
panels The fillets were skinned am cut into 30 to 40 g pieces crumbed and
deep fried (Bremner et ale 1985) Three or four treatments were cooked
simultaneously at each session am the fish served with packets of take-away
french fries Tcrnato sauce vinegar and salt were available Each of the
samples were randanised in such a way so as to give a high degree of balance
(Table 5 and 6) Letters that represent the samples were also picked
randanly The fish was assessed by 20 panellists employed at the Tasmanian
lEgional Laboratory and experienced with facial hedonic scaling for flavour
texture am overall acceptability using the General Foods Smiley scale
(Appendix 2) Salt was rot rrentioned with the 9niley questionaire for blue
grenadier so that the panel should have ro preconceiVed prejudices
250 Statistics
tata fran the sensory assessment of the whole gutted and ungutted raw
fish (both TFRJ am EEl score sheets) am fran the sensory assessrrent of the
frozen filleted raw fish samples of both the blue grenadier stored in RSW am
whiting stored in ice were analysed for correlation using the ELF scatter
module (Appendix 3 and 4)
The acceptability taste panel assessment scores for flavour texture and
overall liking of the toKgt species of fish were subjected to analysis of
variance using the Genstat package (Appendix 5 and 6)
22
Table 6
Order of presentation of cooked whiting samples to the acceptability taste panelists
Order of presentation of samples Panelist
session I session II
1 OTP rm 2 MUS KR 3 sm INL
4 IKJ GKR
5 ror NK
6shy USM UN ~
7 OOP RLD
B HUT NKD
9 USO RiL
10 SMP LGN
11 IMT GIltN
12 nxgt KRD
Note
8angtle code OM 0 G T S N R P U L K
storage time in ice (days) 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
23
300 RESULIS
310 Physical Characteristic of M novaeaelandiae
rran the forty-six fish examined the mean fork lerqth was found to be
762 an (range 609 to 838 an) A few of the fish examined had well shy
developed roes and their digestive tracts were found to be relatively empty
320 Physical Characteristics of the H ssmifasoiata
rran a total of thirty-six fish examined the rrean weight of the fish was
fourrl to be 662 g (range 27 to 186 g) am the mean fork length was 183 em
(range 156 to 265 an)
330 sensory assessment of the raw blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
he results of the sensory assessrrent of the r2M blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW by the four rrerhods of scoring are given as average total
accumulated demerit point scores as shown in Table 7 Figure 1 shoes the
graph of demerit point versus days in RSW by the four rrethods of sensory
assessment used Table 9 shltJtS the correlation analysis
340 sensory assessment of the raw whitirq samples stored in ice
he results of the sensory assessment of the r2M whitirq samples stored
in ice by the four methods of scoring are given as average total accumuLated
demerit point scores as shown in Table 8 Figure 2 shltJtS the graph of demerit
point versus days in ice of the four nethods of sensory assessment used Table
9 shltJtS the correlation analysis
350 Attributes contributing to total score
Attributes that contribute to total score usirq the TFRJ scores (ungutted
and gutted) EEC scores and the filleted sample scores are as shewn in Tables
10 - 14
24
Table 7
Total demerit points fran sensory assessment of blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
Average lbta1 Demerit Rgtint SCores
[)lye in RW TFRJ scores TFRJ scores EEl scores Filleted Sample (urvJut t ed ) (gutted) (gutted) SCores
3 3 3 1 1
4 5 5 2 3
6 10 10 6 6
8 16 18 9 8
9 19 21 11 10
10 20 22 13 12
11shy 22 24 15 14
12 23 25 18 17
13 24 26 19 18
14 25 27 19 19
17 29 31 21 23
21 33 35 25 29
Note
Maximum possible scores for (1) IlRJ scores (ungutted is 35
( 11) IlRJ scores (gutted) is 29
( 11i) EEX scores (gutted) is 30
( iv) Filleted sample scores is 32
amptV
35j
3l~
en Ishy 25Z-0 Q
3)-~
bullbullbull 0
bull 0 0bull 0
bull 0 0 6shy abull A ~
~
bull 0
~
6shy
bull 0
6shy
I) 01
-W 0i A15W ~ Q A
~
6shy~101- bull 90 TFRU SCORES (ungutted)
6shy~ bullbull TFRU SCORES (gutt~d i
bull ~
4 6- 6- EEC SCORES 5~
~ ~ FILLETED SAMPLE SCORES ~
6 4 I J I I I
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
DAYS IN RSW
Figl Demerit Points Versus Days in RSW For Blue Grenadier Samples
Fig 2 Demerit Points Versus Days in ice For Whiting Samples I
27
Table 8
TOtal demerit points from sensory assessment of whi tirq samples stored in ice
Average TOtal Demerit Foint SCores
rays in ice TFRJ scores TFRJ scores EEC scores Fi 11eted sample (urqutted) (gutted) (gutted) (gutted)
1 1 1 0 0 3 2 2 1 1
5 4 4 2 3
7 7 9 3 4
9 13 15 6 9
n 15 17 7 13
13 19 21 11 15
15 24 27 15 16
17 29 32 19 18
19 31 35 22 21
21 32 36 24 24
23 33 37 26 26
Note
MaXllnum possible scores for (i) TFRJ scores (urqutted) is 35 ( ii) TFRJ scores (gutted) is 39 ( iii) EEC scores (gutted) is 30 ( iv) Filleted sample scores is 32
28
Table 9
Relationship between tLme and demerit points for fish stored in RSW
Method of Visual Assessment
y- intercept slope correlation
M novaBMBlandias
TFRJ (urqutted ~les) 032 175 097
TFRJ (gutted samples) 032 190 096
EEl -231 146 097
Filleted samplesbull
-357 158 099
H sBmifasoiata
TFRJ (urqutted samples) -245 167 099
TFRJ (gutted samples) -273 187 099
EOC -414 129 098
Filleted samples -244 125 099
ltshy
--------------- ------------------------------------------
------------- - ------------- -------- ------
Table 10
Attributes contributing to total score using TFRO scores (gutted and ungutted)
Attributes involved in score change Score
Blue grenadier in RSW Whiting in ice
Stiffness Eyes - clarity blood Slllne Stiffness Eyes - clarity shape and blood lt10 Gills - smell Vent - smell SlBne Gills - colour smell and mucous
Vent - smell Belly cavity - stains and blood
Appearance Eyes-shape Stiffness Gills - smell colour and mucous Skin
Stiffness appearance gill-smell Scales belly-discolouration and firmness
N so
gt10lt20 SCales belly - discolouration and firmness Vent - smell Vent - smell and condition Belly cavity - stains and blood
Appearance Slllne Eyes - clarity shape Appearance SlBne Scales Skin blood and iris Gills - colour Eyes - clarity and shape
gt20lt30 Belly - discolouration Gills - mucous smell am colour Vent - condi tion and smell Belly cavity shy blood
Appearance Gills - mucous and smell SlBne Eyes - iris am blood Belly - discolouration and firmness Belly - discolouration and firmness
gt30 Vent - condition and smell Vent - condition Belly cavity - blood Belly cavity - stains
Table 11
Attributes contribut irq to total score us irq EEC scores
Attributes involved in score change
Score Blue grenadier in RSW W1iting in ice
lt7 Appearance - skin eyes gills organs Physical condition - flesh Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and organs Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skins eyes gills flesh Appearance-eyes and organs atv
vertebral column and organs Physical condition-flesh and peritoneum gt7lt14 Physical condition - flesh Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-eyes flesh and vertebral Appearance-skin gills and organs column Physical condition-flesh vertebral column
gt14lt21 Physical condition-vertebal column and and peritoneum peritoneum Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and vertebral column vertebral column
gt21 Physical condition-flesh and peritoneum Physical cOndition-flesh vertebral column Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity and peri toneum bull
Table 12
Attributes contributing to total score using filleted sample scores
Score
lt5
Attributes involved in score change
Blue grenadier in RSW
Appearance - blood stains skin colour ltXIour - flesh
M1iting in ice
----- shy -------------- shy
Appearance - skin colour odour - flesh Cbndition - gaping wetness
Appearance - colour of flesh Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Texture - flesh skin colour ltgt gt5lt10 Cbndition - gaping bruising wetness Ease of filleting
Texture - flesh
Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Appearance - colour of flesh clotting skin clotting skin colour skin colour
gt10lt20 odour - flesh odour - flesh Cbndition - gaping wetness autolysis COndition - gaping bruising wetness other discolourations autolysis and other discolouration Ease of skinning
Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains skin colour clotting
gt20 Texture - flesh Texture - flesh odour - flesh Odour shy flesh COndition - gaping bruising wetness Cbndition - wetness autolysis autolysis Ease of skinring
32
Table 13
Diff~rent emphasis in scoring systems for whole fish as between the EEl and TFID
Attribute Number of potential demerit points TFRJ EEl
1Ippearance (general) 3 0
skin ) scales 6 3
slime
Stiffness (Rigor) 2 0
Eyes 7 3
Gills 7 6
Belly 5 0
Vent 5 0
Belly cavity 4 3
Flesh cut fram abdomen 0 3
Flesh texture 0 3
Vertebral column 0 6
Internal organs 0 3
33
360 Relative merits of the scoring systems
The four scor irq methcds were used on the same samples of t ish Any
sample had therefore deteriorated to the same extent on anyone day Figs 3
am 4 shew the scores converted to percentages of possible deroorit point
scores The discrepancy in the accumulation of demerit points between the EEC
am TFRJ scor irq methods is clearly shown IEference to Table 2 3 am 13
shOool that this is caused by the lack of questions regarding rigor looseness
of scales condition of belly am vent am the qroupinq of colour am mucous
in the gills as single po i nts thus halving the potent Ia I gill demerit point
score canparison of the tO species in Table 9 ShONS that the rate of
accumulation of demerit pgtints was more consistent for the TFRU system than by
the EEX scor i oq methltXl or by scorinq of fillets
370 Time taken to score the fish
The average time taken to score an individual fish using the TFPlJ
(unqutted) scores TFRJ (gutted) scores EEX scores am the filleted aamp Le
scores were found to be 1 min 25 sec 1 min 55 sec 3 min 45 sec and 1 min 50
sec respectively The EEX score sheet is more t iroe consumioq in that more than
one question is asked about an attribute for the giving of only one demerit
point this requires conscious thought
380 Acceptability taste panel results of blue grenadier samples bull Figures 5 6 am 7 shOool the mean taste panel scores in graphic form for
flavour texture and overall acceptability of cooked blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW table 14 shows the results of the statistical analysis
390 Acceptability taste panel results of whiting samples
Figures 8 9 am 10 shOool the mean taste panel scores in graphic form for
flavour texture and overall acceptability of cooked whiting samples stored in
ice table 15 shows the results of the statistical analysis
WHITING STORED IN ICE o TFRU SCORES (ungutted)
bull TFRU SCORES (gutted)
b EEC SCORES
FILLETED SAMPLE SCORES
100bull e ~ e b
i 6
bull NW
oIJ-a A A-
(J0 t A~ 0 ~ AC)
C) -e ~~-
C) a 50 A
A w
Iz ~
~ - W e A0 c a ~ ~ A-a ~ l ~ A
w -~
~ X ~ W -e I c ~ ~ ibull I I I I
4 8 12 16 20 24
DAYS IN ICE FIG4
36
- flavourshy
-e s-e l ~ v
5middotIU
STORAGrf IN R sWDAYS
rlCoS Ttutfc pcr1 rcbull
rf oj bl jtlJ~r - jlqVGurc acccr~b
21179 0 2 136 843
~ 0 u 5middot0YI
oJ J l ofmiddot$ 1 e
tu 4middot0
VI
~ 3middot5
3middot0
TelC-lue X bull -e III
~ Gmiddotftv
ct 5middot03
V1
-J -f-SshyU 2
~ 40 t
3-~
~ bullbull0 5 0
~ 17 21A ISII
PAY- IITDRAGamp fbilW
FIG6 I Tq1-c pltnd rc-utl ojbllfcJrcftaJIr bull I~M144 Q Cc(r~blfly
r 411q~~ An~Plf bUIJlfM F llh J~Lld Pt-DoL B fpound)1
gt1 NI ~~eusr SJAVlt1
D ~II
(ffIt1~JP IIID bull U J 1i
-IyoJC )-tlICf p --lInraquoJ Ix-Pc ~1rb1 r I ef
Ma2j NI a~v2loJ$
til
1Ia ~AO (IIp~lJa~e
01
secto
00
s
05
5
o~
~
0pound
s
0
smiddot
o~
07
1 ~ ~ ~ ~
r~
B
~
rv t gtshy 2
~ ~ 11
~ 7shyIn r
~ () 0 1) m ~
~ gtshyz -
(fII~q~~ 7~ P
IItJ1o -~~f(ll p ~I I~U J ~t~L 0 ~ middot~II I
IDI 8~ middot lta ~
~ QS
middotS ~ ~ 0 z
r Smiddot II
S 1d 0-$ 111 r- l gtshy r
V fr~
~llCf-J a-PcJ~ U~middotJO
4lp~dmiddotyIb 6middot~1f np)t -~11M fo --IIhen IJutJel ~bl
Table 14
Acceptability of deep fried blue grenadier samples stored in FSW
rays in R3W
Acceptability 3 4 6 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 17 21
Flavour 50a 50a 4S a 51a 50a 51a 50a 4Sa 49a 53a 41b 35b
Texture 49bc 51abc 4S bed 52ab 4Sbed 53ab 52abc 52ab 4Sbed 55a 46cd 43d
OJerall 50ab 51ab 47be 52ab 4Sb 5lab 52ab 50ab 47b 54 a 41c 35d
abc
d
significantly different (pltOOOl)
significantly different (pltOOl) W so
Table 15
Acceptability of deep fried whiting samples stored in ice
rays in ice
Acceptability 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Flavour 5Sab 59a 59a 60a 59a 5S ab 51b 54ab 53ab 37c 37c 31c
Texture 59ab 59a 53bed 5S ab 63a 59ab 47cde 54be 56ab 55ab 44e 46de
OJera11 57ab 5S ab 59ab 60a 60a 5Sab 52b 53ab 55ab 42c 36cd 31d
abcde significantly different (Plt0001)
40
~oo DISCUSSION
410 Sensory assessment of the raw blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
he results of sensory assessment on the raw blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW by the four methods of scoring all sheM that there is
progressive increment in total demerit points with storage time for all the
four methods (Table 7) It was also fourxi that the accumulation of demerit
points with time of storage of the fish in ffiW occurred in a saui-linear
fashion for all -the four scoring methods used (Figure 1) he variables (time
of storage and demeritmiddot points score) were all highly correlated (Table 9)
he correlation equation of the TFRJ (ungutted samples) and TFRJ (gutted
sanples) scores were similar roth having a zero time intercept of 032 but
with the TFRJ (gutted samples) scores having a slightly greater slope by 015
he EEC scores and the filleted sample scores roth have lower slopes ie
146 and 158 respectively canpared with the TFRJ (ungutted sample) and TFRJ
(gutted sample) scores of 175 and 190 respectively lbwever the EOC scores
which have the lowest slope have a fairly similar correlation equation with
the filleted sample scores (Table 9) he negative intercepts reflected the
slightly more sigrroid relationship for these samples his suggests that the
TFRJ (gutted) scoring method is the rrost sensitive of the four methods
followed by the TFRJ (ungutted) the filleted sample and the EEC scores
It was also found that after 21 days of storage in RSW the blue
grenadier samples had not reached their maximun possible scores in any of the
four scoring rrethods used (Table 7) he TFRJ (ungutted sample) score only
reached 943 of its possible maximun value whereas the TFRJ (gutted sample)
scores EEC scores and the filleted sample score reached only 897 833 ar~
906 of their possible maximun score his means that all the four methods
of scoring can still be sensitive to changes in the quality of the blue
grenadier samples stored in RSW after 21 days of storage time
41
Figures 1 and 3 also shOVt that the pattern of the graphs of demerit
points against days storage in R3W of the four methcxis of scoring is similar
ie a tendency to be slightly sigmoid fbwever the filleted sanple scores
sean to be rrore sensitive than the EOC scores at the later part of the storage
time ie after 14 days of storage and the scores continued to rise
1be rrost obvious indicator of change for the blue grenadier stored in ffiW
using the TFRJ scores (both gutted and unJUtted sanples) was the eyes (clarity
and blood) followed by odour developnent of the gills (Table 10) his is -
also foond to be true wi th the EOC freshness score (Table 11) Fbr the
filleted sample scores the appearance and odoor of the flesh seems to be the
most obvious indicator of change follOVted by the condition of the fillets such
as gaping bruisin) am wetness (Table 12)
4 20 sensory assessment of the raw whi ting samples stored in ice
1he results of sensory assessment on the rCJl whiting samples stored in
ice by the foor roothods of scoring also shows that there is a progressive
increment in total demerit points with storage time for all the four methods
of scoring (Table 8) Ps with the blue grenadier the aCCLD1UJlation of demerit
points with time of storage of the whiting in ice also occurred in a sernishy
linear fashion for all the foor scoring methods used (Figure 2 and 4) wi th a
slight lag in the initial phase Interestingly this was not observed in the
case of blue grenadier sanples stored in ffiW probably because the first
samplin) of the blue grenadier starts only fran the third day after catch
whereas the first sampling of the whiting starts fran the first day after
catch Also the blue grenadier was handled qu i te roughly on the deck in fact
three oot of the four fish samples on the first rerroval ie the third day
after catching had already showed blood in their eyes
Bremner et al (1985) when using the TFRJ score sheet to assess the
42
quality of four tropical fish species fran the oorth west shelf of hJstralia
(stored in ice) also fourrl that the accumulation of demerit points with time
of storage in ice occurred in a linear fashion
PB wi th blue grenadier the variables (tine of storage ard darneri t points
score) were all highly correlated (Table 9) Also the correlation equation of
the TFRJ (ungutted) ard TFRJ (gutted) scores were similar with the TFJU
(gutted) score having a slightly greater slope by 020 Crable 9) he EEC
scores am filleted sample scores also have lower s lopes l e 129 ard 125
respectively ocmpared to the TFm (ungutted) and (gutted) scores of 167 and
187 respectively However unlike the blue grenadier the filleted samples
of the whi t ing had the 10liest slope he more sensi tive na ture of the EEC
scores as canpared to the filleted sample scores in the case of the whiting
especially after 12 days storage in ice can be explained by the snaller size
of the whitirlJ (fork length ranging fran 156 to 265 an) as canpared to the
size of the blue grenadier (fork length ranging 809 to 838 an) the snaller
fish terrl to spoil faster especially the interior parts of the fish PB the
EEC scores depend nuch on the sensory assessment of the interior parts of the
fish such as the appearance and condition of the flesh vertebral colwnn
interior organs per i toneun and abdaninal cavity (Table 3) which makes up more
than 18 demerit points out of the total possible maxinun of 30 the
sensitiveness of its score is thus self-explanatory in the case of whiting
Connell (1980) explained that large fish keep marginally better than small
fish because larger fish have a smaller surface to volume ratio so that in the
same tUne less of their interior is affected
The above results confirmed the previous suggestion that the TFRU
(gutted) scorIoq methcrl is the roost sensitive of the four methods It was
found that after 23 days of storage in ice the whiting scmples had not
reached the maximun possible scores in any of the four methods used (Table
43
8) The 1FIU (UBJutted) scores had reached only 94-3 of its possible maximum
value whereas the TFRJ (gutted) scores EOC scores am the filleted sample
scores reached only 94 9 867 and 81 3 of their poea Ible maximum score
Therefore all the four methods of scoriBJ can still be sensitive to changes
in quality of the whiting samples stored in ice after 23 days of storage tUne
Ihe roost obvious irxHcator of chaDJe for the whiting stored in ice using
the TFIU score sheet was the eyes (clarity shape and blcxxl) followed by the
develqxnent of -colour odour and nucous of the gills (fable 10) Bremner et
al (1985) when working with four tropical species f~ the north west shelf of
Australia also found that the most obvious indicator of change for fish stored
in ice was the eyes (their clarity am shape) follCAtled by odour developnent
and colour changes in the gills This was also found in the case of blue
grenadier in ~ discussed earlier OJrran et al (1981) when investigating
the quality changes duriBJ iced storage of three carmercially important
species of fish fran Bahrein also found that of the visual and olfactory
assessments gill odour showed the roost pranise as a quality control index
Pgain this is also found to be true with the EOC freshness score of both the
blue grenadier and the whitiBJ (Table 11) AccordiBJ to ~ate (1972) it
was generally agreed that odour of the gills is the most sensitive measure of
freshness but the visual appearance of the eyes gills arxi skin was quicker to
use in practice on the market
For the filleted sample scores of the whiting the most obvious indicator
of chanqe was the appearance and odour of the flesh (Table 12) This too
agreed with the findiBJs for blue grenadier stored in ffiW
AccordiBJ to Baines et al (1969) with fish eatiBJ is related to four
main attributes or quality factors viz appearance odour and texture of the
rCM and cooked fish and in the latter also flavour he ultimate purpose of
testing the raw fish is to estimate the eating quality which is here taken to
44
mean the degree of freshness of flavour Acoording to Baines and Shewan
(1965) the mostreliable test for predicting flavour sqore is raw odour
430 The ease aM difficulties of using the four methods of scoring
It was found that the TFRJ (ungutted) scores was the easiest and quickest
method to use as it takes on average only about 1 min 25 sec to score a fish
canpared to 1 min 55 sec 3 min 45 sec ard 1 min 50 sec for the TFRJ
(gutted) EOC and the filleted sample scores he E~ score was found to be
the roost tedious besides taking the longest time to soore a fish
he TFIU (ungutted) scores also have the advantage of not requiring a
knife in order to score ard also were less IOOSSY to work with canpared to all
the other nethods Also the attributes to be assessed were arranged and
organised in such a way in the score sheet that it is easy to score a fish
starting from assessing the apparance and skin and ending with the condition
and smell of the vent
440 Acceptability taste panel results of the blue grenadier samples
441 Flavour acceptability
Figure 5 shc7ws the flavour acceptability of the deep fried samples of
blue grenadier Samples stored in R3W for less than 17 days were found
statistically (Table 14) to be indistinguishable (Plt0001) fran each other
then there was a significant fall in the flavour acceptability of the samples
stored in RSW for 17 days onwards he sarrtgtle stored for 21 days had a still
lower mean value of 35 but it was not significantly different fran the
semple stored for 17 days which had a nean value of 41 It is interesting to
note that despite the progressive increase in sodiun uptake of the blue
grenadier samples stored in RSW from about 7115 35 mg sodium(lOO g tissue
initially to 724 33 mglOO g tissue on the 16th day aM to 729 17 mglOO g
45
tissue on the 21st day (Burford 1984) the panelists seem not to be
negatively affected by the increasing salt content of the samples with storage
tUne and in fact some of the panelists added more salt to their samples I
111is result contradicts statements made by previous reseachers that the
storage life using R3W may be limited by increases in salt content in the fish
flesh (Boyd et aI 1978) he maximun desirable salt content according to
Tcm1inson et al (1974) as quoted by Boyd et al (1978) is about 05 but at
the 16th day ofmiddot RgtW storage the salt content fOllNj In the flesh of blue
grenadier samples was already more than 07 fbwever the panelist only ate
40g pieces it might have been a different case if the fish has been as a
whole meal
442 Texture acceptability
Figure 6 shows the texture acceptability of the deep fried blue grenadier
samples stored in R3W eespf te sane apparent abberant values (such as the
high rrean of 55 for the sample stored for 14 days in RSW) it is obvious that
the texture acceptability showed a significant decreasing trend (pltOOl) from
seventeen days of storage onwards The abberant texture values are possibly
due to the fact that the fish texture might have been masked by the bread
crunbs used to coat the fish samples before deep fryi~ This agrees with the
observations of Bremner et al (1985) wtxgt found that the inherent textural
softness of P piotiue and the tougheni~ on storage of N peroni i detected by
a profile panel usilYJ steamed fillets were no lo~er noticeable when the fish
was deep fried in batter Bremner (1980) also reported that despi te the
softness of the raw flesh the cooked flesh of blue grenadier is reasonably
firm
46
433 OVerall acceptability
The overall acceptability of the deep fried blue grenadier samples stored
in R)W (figure 7) seems to follCM a similar pattern to its flavour
acceptability (figure 5)~ in which a significant fall in overall acceptability
was only observed fran the samples held fran 17 days in RSW onwards (pltO 001)
as shawn in Tablel4
rnus all the above results showed that there was a significant fall in
flavour texture and overall acceptability of blue ~renadier from 17 days of
R)W storage onwards which was found to be equivalent to the accumulated
demerit point scores of 29 of the TFRJ (ungutted) scoresr 31 of the TFRl
(gutted) scoresr 21 of the EOC scores and 23 of the filleted sample
scores Jones (1964) states that the acceptability of a fish is a function of
its suitability for further processing and of its inmediate appearance its
texture its odour and its flavour
450 Acceptability taste panel results of the whiting samples
451 Flavour acceptability
Figure 8 shows the flavour acceptability of the deep fried whiting
samples stored in ice rtle twelve sample times could be analysed individually
since the means if analysed by canbining adjacent sample times to give six
sample groups are in fact the means of the adjacent times if analysed
individually it was found that samples of the first nine renovals i se up to
17 days of storage in ice are more or less indistinguishable (abberant value
at 7th removal) he last three removals ie samples stored in ice for 19
21 and 23 days were found to be of significantly lower flavour acceptability
(p lt 0001) as shawn in Table 5
47
452 Texture acceptability
Except for the abberation at the 7th remgtval i 9 at day 13 of ice
storage there is a significant reduction of texture acceptability at the 21 II
and 23 days of ice storage (p lt0001) as shown by figure 9 and Table5 t
II
I 453 Over~ll acceptability
he overal I acceptability of the whiting sanples stored in ice is very
much similar to its f Lavour acceptability except at day 19 of ice storage
where the ovaral I acceptability shows a higher mean of 42 carpared to the
flavoor acceptability mean of 37 (figure 10 and Table 5) here is however a
significant sudden drop to lOil scores fran the lOth removal ie day 19 of
storage in ice (p lt0001)
hus all the above results for whitifVJ sanples showed that there was a
significant fall in flavCXJr and overall acceptability fram 19 days ice storage
onwards which is equivalent to the accumulated demerit points of 31 of the
TFRJ (unqutted) scores 35 of the TFRJ (gutted) scores 22 of the EEC
scores and 21 of the filleted sample scores he results are interesti~ in
that the oorresponding total accLDnulated demerit points at the time when
significant falls in flavour texture and overall acceptability of the blue
grenadier and whiting samples stored in I5W and ice respectively were quite
similar
500 CONCLUSION
510 Feasibility of using demerit points
Accumulation of demerit points with time of storage of M
in RM and H eemifaeaiatia in ice was found to be highly
occurred in a semi-linear fashion irrespective of the method of
novas8slandiae
correlated and
scori~ used
- _ ~uo_a~_bull--_--I e -Ii --
48
1he slopes of the lines (rate of accumulation of demerit points) and its
relative spoilage rate were found to be similar for the ttoO species provided
the sane method of scoring is employed 1his tends to suggest that the method
is possibly independent of species am methods of storage or at least
applicable to the two species in RSW and ice respectively
TIle TFRJ (ungutted) scores were foum to be the easiest arrl quickest
method to use although the TFRJ (gutted) scores were the roost sensitive 1he
EEX freshness scores were hClgtlever foum to be the JOOSt tedious aod difficult bull I
to use besides taking more than twice the time taken to score a fish ocmpared
to the TFRJ (ungut ted) scores
Although there were slig~t differences between the ttoO species in those
characteristics where changes were first made (Table 10 11 and 12) there is
enough evidence to conclude that the changes in the appearance of the eyes am
the odour developnent of the gills are the JOOSt obvious arrl valuable indicator
of charqe in quality when using the TFIU or the EEl scores while the
appearance am odour of the fish flesh seems to be the JOOSt obvious indicator
when assessing the filleted sample
1he shelf-life of M navaezelandiae stored in RSW was found to be 14 days
(less than 17 days) whilst that of H semifasoiata stored in ice was fourrl to
be 17 days (less than 19 days) beyond which the fish had developed spoilage
characteristics that were disliked by the acceptability taste panel
1he cut-off point at which spoilage of the samples would have rendered
the quality of the fish sample to be unacceptable fran the consumers point of
view ~ld be that equivalent to the accumulated demerit point of gt29 for the
TFRJ (gutted arrl ungutted) scores am gt21 for the EOC and filleted sample
scores
This study thus confinned the potential use of demerit points such as the
TFRJ (ungutted) scores as an easy quick cheap non-destructive and reliable
49
method of sensory assessment of fish quality In fact Branch and Vail (1985)
had studied the possible use of a prototype pocket-sized computer to determine
the condition and shelf-life of temperate and tropical species of fish based
on data that is derived fran the sensory score sheets for the assessment of
fish quality developed at the (SIRgt Division of fbod lEsearch Iasmanian Fbod
Research Unit (TFlU) Hobart
520 RJrpose for which demerit points are to be used
Many scor i oq systerrs are used to predict the nunber of days fish have
been stored on ice and in nore recent years ICETIME (equivalent days on
ice) I ard thus through years of experience the taste panel acceptability of
the fish I
However fish is sold on appearance and a scoring system may be used for
assessirg marketability of whole or gutted fish or fillets or for setting
standards in bulk buying The EEC scoring system is used for example at
fish markets at first point of sale to grade the fish and establish
withdrawal prices A IbrryShewan type system is often used as a purohas i nq
specification from finn to firm
Before a final demerit point system is selected for any COlIOOdity its
ultimate purpose should be established For example the demerit points
chosen for whole fish which nost closely resemble the rate of change of
demerit points for fillets of that species might be the most useful
A linear rate of change of demerit points with time is nose favoured
because it enables prediction of remaining shelf-life ConstJJrer
unacceptability should be at a point where perhaps 75 of the demerit points
have been accrued Further scores would still be available for categories
such as suitable for fish meal D3merit points are not an indication of the
acceptability of fish as eaten where off-odours flavours and fillet
50
tdiscolouration are masked by batters or curries Their correlation with the
iodours flavours off odours aod off flavours of steamed fish are currently ~
~
~being examined by other workers at the Tasmanian ~ Research unit and highly
significant correlations are found Even when fish are subsequently eaten
battered or curried demerit points give a good indication of remaining shelf
life Thus whitiOJ with a Smiley flavour score of 58 after 1 day on ice
has a nlU gutted demerit score of 1 and a high quality life (eaten crumbed
and fried) of a further 16 days while whitiOJ stored for 11 days on ice with
the sane flavour score has a gutted demerit score of 17 and a further shelf
life of 6 days
530 SUggestion for further work
Ib ascertain its potentially wide application as a simple quick and
technically sound methcxi of assessing fish quality many more studies using
other species of fish both temperate and tropical species and in various
storage conditions should be undertaken using a demerit point scorIrq system
such as that developed by the TFlU
The score sheet has proved invaluable when sending individuals untrained
researchers away on distant water fishing trips Ps yet 00 standard
deviations have been detennined using a team of assessors with coded samples
of unknown history This may require a separate group design
The effect of lean fish and fatty fish on the scores should also be
studied because factors such as seasonal variations in biological conditions
Lmproper gutting and washing mechanical damage and filth and changes due to
storage in R3W or shelving may have considerable influence on its shelf-
life Reports such as those of smith et al (1979) clearly showed that in fish
such as the blue whitirlJ (Mioroomesistius poubaeeous there is greater degree
I 51
of seasonal variability than in other gadoid species the overall
acceptability droppirq dramatically once the fish have spawned Fish accepted
for processing for food has to be of a higher standard of quality than fish
accepted for Imredfate sale across the counter to the consumer therefore
there is a need to rreet a minimum score before they could be processed into
food Gradirq is therefore best left to the user sorenson (1971) states
that in establishing limi ts of acceptance an allowance had to be made for
deterioration that would continue to take place during processing and storage
prior to reaching the consimer
The only final criteria of the objectivity of sensory or any other
assessment are results that are reproducible many times which is by definition
a lcnJ-tenn process and in the meantime one requires short-cut indications
that one is headirq in the right direction
Ferhaps a final caution Is necessary as in the YQrds of Ehrenberg and
Shewan (1953) not too much must be expected even the best measuring
instruments occasionally go oot of control
52
60 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baines CR Jones NR am Shewan JM 1965 Technological problems of
measur trq degree of freshness of wet fish and problems of quality
control requirif)J roore knowledge fran fundamental research In he
Technology of fish utilisation ad R Kreuzer Fishi~ News (Books)
p 141
Baines CR and Shewan JM 1965 sensory rrethods for evafuat inq the
quality of white fish Lab practice 14 160-163
Baines CR ltbnnell JoJ Gibson DM lbWgate PF Livi~ston E and
Shewan JM 1969 A taste panel technique for evaluatirq the eati~
quality of frozen cod In Freezi~ and irradiation of fish ad R
Kreuzer Fishi~ News (Books) London p361
Boyd NS and Wilson NDC 1976 A sensory method for evaluatInq the
quality of Snapper (Ch1ysophrys auratus) NZ Journal of Science 19
209-12
Boyd NS Wilson ND and Bjley A 1978 A refrigerated sea water plant
for small boats symposium on fish utilisation technology and
marketi~ in the IPFC region IFFC Proceedi~s 18th session Manila
Philippines FAD Ba~kok p 186-192
Branch AC and Vail AMA 1984 Bri~i~ fish inspection into the
canputer age FltXld Technol Aust 36 in press
Bremner HA Olley J and Ihrower SoJ 1978 CSIIU Iasmanian lEgional
Laboratory OCcasional Paper No4
Bremner HA 1980 Processi~ and freezi~ of the blue grenadier (Maclulonus
novaeselandiae) FltXld Technol Aust 32(8)~ pp 385-393
Bremner J A 1984 QJality - an attitude of mind In he JILlstralian
Fishi~ Industry - today and tanorrow 10-12 July 1984 Launceston
53
Australian MaritUne Cbllege seminar Bapers 224-69
Bremner HA Statham JA am Sykes SJ 1985 Tropical species fran the
north west shelf of Alstralia sensory assessment and acceptability
of fish stored co ice Proceedi~s Sixth session IPR Worki~ Party
on Fish D3chnology and Marketi~ Melbourne 1984 FJID Fish lep 252
supp1
Burford D 1985 Sodiun uptake in MaOlUfOOnUS nooaeselandiae stored in
refrigerated sea water Tasmanian Food Research Unit OCcasional Paper
No9
ltbnnell JJ 1972 OJality control in the fish industry Ibrry Jldvisory
note No 58 IOrty Research Station Aberdeen
ltbnnell JJ 1980 ltbntrol of fish quality Fishi~ ~ws (Books) 2nd ed
Surrey England
OJrran CA Nicolaides L and Al-Alawi ZS 1981 QJality chanqes duri~
iced storage of three carmercially important species of fish fran
Bahrain Trop sci 23(4) 253-268
de Zylva ERA 1974 Effect of fish handli~ at sea on storage quality of
New Zealand Snapper (Chroysophroys aumtus) New Zealand J SCi 17
309-318
Etlira S 1976 A biochemical study on the freshness of fish Bull 1bkai
Reg Fish Res Lab No 88 pp 1-13
Ehrenberg ASC and Shewan JM 1953 he cbjective approach to sensory
tests of food J Sci Food hJric 4 pp 482-489
Herbert RA and Shewan JM 1975 Precursors of the volatile sulphides in
spoili~ North Sea Cod J Sci Food JIlgric 26 1195-1202
lbUwi~ H 1972 Gradi~ of fish in different qualities Institute for
Fishery Products Ijmuiden Unpublished
~ate P 1972 Qrlparison of sensory scor inq systems for raw fish
I 54
Unpubl ished bull ~ ~
~ate P 1978 Measuri~ the quality am acceptability of fish products bull ~
In IPFC Proceedi~s symposiun on fish utilisatial technology and ~
i f~
marketi~ in the IWC region 18th session Manila Ihilippines p
449
fflghes RB and Jones NR 1966 Measurement of hypoxanthine concentrations
in canned herrirg as an index of the freshness of the raw material
with a ocirment oo flavor relations J SCi fOOd middotJlgric 17 434
Jahns FD Howe JL Coduri Jr RJ and Ram Jr AG 1976 A rapid
visual enzyme test to assess fish freshness Food Iechno1 30 (7) 27
Jones NR 1964 ~lems associated with freezi~ very fresh fish
Proceedings Meeting on Fish Iechnology Fish Handling and
Preservation schevenirqen OEC D Paris p 31 bull
Jones NR 1965 Hypoxanthine and other purine containing fractions in fish
muscle as indices of freshness In uthe technology of fish
utilisation ed R Kreuzer Fishi~ rewa (Books) (Drmn p 179
Last PR Scott EOG and Talbot FH 1983 Fishes of Tasmania
Tasmanian Fisheries ~velopnent lUthority lbbart Tasmania pp 238
414
Lima doe santos CAM James D and Ieutscher F 1981 QJidelines for
chilled fish storage experiments FKJ Fish Tech Igt 210
(Dye RM 1954 Ibst rrortem cha~es in the lenses of fish eyes Msessment
of storage tiJm and fish quality J Sci Focx11lgric 5 566-572
Hartin RE Gray RJ H and Pierson MD 1978 QJality assessment of fresh
fish arrl the role of the naturally occurring microflora Focx1
Technol 32 (5) 188
Official Journal of the European oamrnunities No L264 5 ~cember 1970 pp
1-11
bull
55
Technol New Zealand July 1971 pp 31-35
Spinelli J Eklund M and Miyauchi D 1964 Measurement of hypoxanthine
in fish as a method of assessing freshness J Food SCi 29 710
Thrower S oJ am Stafford IA 1981 A roobile unit for ccmparative studies
of chilled storage systems for trawl fish IIF IIR
eatmissions C2 01 02 03 Boston USA 1981-4
Thrower SoJ Bremner HA QJarmby AR Ggtnnan T8 aild Graham KJ
1982 cn-board handlinJ of Q~ish ~ Inportanoeof chillinJ and
gutting Aust Fish 41 (11) 38-41
Tanlinson N bull bull t at 1974 COtparison between refrigerated sea water (with or
without added carbon dioxide) and ice as storage media for fish to be
subsequently frozen Proc IIR C011n 82- 0-3 Tokyo p
waterman J oJ 1982 Qrrposition and QJality of Fish A Dictionary 1brry
Mvisory Note No 87 Torry Research Station Aberdeen
5J
Olley J and letkowsky OA 1973 he role of terrperature function
integration in monitoring of fish spoilage Food Technol New
Zealand 8 (2) 13 15 and 17
Olley J 1977 Iemperature and seafood spoilage In H Proceedings of 1977
SChool for SeafltXld Processorsmiddot ad ~ AF 0 Mello Hawkesbury
Agricultural Oollege p6-2
Olley J 1978 QIality assessment and storage changes In middotCSIRJ Iasmanian bull
leJional Laboratory OCcasional Paper No 4 p 3-1 middot4 Rgenstein J M and ~enstein CE 1981 he shelf-life extension of fesh
fish In Advances in the refrigerated treabnent of fishmiddot
International Institute of Rfrigeration Clmnissions C2 m ra [8
Boston US A 1981-4
leJenstein J 1983 Wlat is fish quality INroFISH Marketing Digest ttgt 6
26-28
Ryder JM 9Jisson OH SCott ON and Fletcher GC 1984 storage of
New Zealand Jack Mackerel ( TmohUMlB notJabullbullbullZandias) in ice
chemical microbiological and sensory assessment J M SCi 49
1453-1456 1477
Shewan JM Macintosh RG rucker CG and Ehrenberg ASC 1953 he
developnent of a numerical ~coring systan for the sensory assessment
of the spoilage of wet white fish stored in ice J SCi Food Jlgric
4 283-298
Smith J GM Hardy R hanson AB Young KW and Parsons E 1979
sane observations 00 the ambient and chill storage of blue whiting
(Mio1om8sistius poutassou) bull In H Advances in Fish SCience and
Technology ad JJ Connell FishinJ News (Books) Surrey England
pp 299-303
SOrensen T 1971 QIality control and fish handling in New zealand Food ~
t c-
o )
~hmiddot r~YiJ lt~
~~f~~ ~
I
Nomooram for comparison of diffGrent scoring systems tor raw T i sn ___ _ J bull )
_U I~ ~Y1 9i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~
I I t I I - _---1------ imiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot __ middot~_ ~ __~_ -_ ~ + ~ _ -~ _ - middotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middot __ G 9 8 7 6 _ 5middot 3
_ - zmmy [ I bull r f II
d _~__ ~ __ _ ~ __ -I-- - ~ L- i~ middoti~ ~ 1-L -~~ lt lt l~tceland 1P i ~ ~ j ~ ~ ~ L~ __ - I ~_ bull _ L j ~- _-
N rv 1 I 1 2 --- - 2~ 3 middot 3middot 4 ~- ~Il ay ~ _ _ middot _ r r
_ _ __ _ _~ ~_ ) - ~ L_ - 1- ~-_ -_ _ _ ~ 19 ~ 8 imiddotmiddot I 6 5 4 3
Do _ _nm~r t I I I r
~ I
_ ~ ~_ ~ t ~ __ i__ t ~ ~ ~ ~ _ q x 1 1i 2 2~ 3v _ Franee I r I l n
I I I i _ - ~ _ _ _- _-- middotmiddot __ middot_middot_middot_middotmiddotmiddotImiddotmiddotmiddot_middot~ _middotmiddotmiddotmiddot-_middotmiddotmiddotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddot ---- - --~ ~-
19oum8 I 7 6 i 5 ~ ~ 4middot 280 J t (
I i
J -- - -_ -__ X ~middotH i__~ -- i_L ~ - l_ middot1-- - 3 I 2Y1 0 4 11z 1 y
E E C I 1
I I I deg deg E I A r Bmiddot - I I C
ltOIl j- ~ ~ c ~--------------
TASTER
DATE
SESSION
~ER middot1
bull You will be given ~bull aamples of cooked fish Please assess the fish for flavour textur~ and
overall liking as though you had purchased them in a takeaway food shop Hark the sample
identification under the face that most closely describes your impressionbull
I
middot5 S shy2 3 4
FLAVOUR
IEXlURE
--
OVERALL UKING
7 bullbull yc ) I _ v J _ _
I1PP~NJIJ( 3 ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE BGRENVZSASS (A)
OBS DAYS-R DMPTS shy
1 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 6 4 3 7 4 6 e 4 5 9 6 1 18 6 10 11 6 18 12 6 18 13 e 13 14 8 16 13 8 13 16 8 17 17 9 18 18 9 18 19 9 bull 19 29 9 19 21 19 19 22 1 21 23 1 19 24 1 2123 11 21 26 11 22 27 11 22 29 11 22 29 12 22 3 12 22 31 12 23 32 12 23 33 13 23 34 13 23 33 13 22 36 13 23 37 14 24 38 14 23 39 14 264 14 25
17 26~ 17 39 43 17 38 44 17 29 43 21 32 46 21 33
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASS(At
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (Xt DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Yt DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9666 R SQUARED 9343 T STATISTIC 231621 INTERCEPT tAt 31799 SLOPE tSt 173399 bull STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 219473
OBSERVATIONS 46 Y DMPT9 XI DAYS-RSW YMIN -18 YMAX 61 YINC e XMIN -19 XMAX 2e9 XINe 2
] y
__ t=- I I 0(I I
JPRH6ELF PRINT MODULE -SYNTAX ERROR
DATABASE J3lGRENVISASS (FIL)
OB8 DAYS-R DMPT8
1 s 1 2 4 5 s 6 6
~ e 8 ~ 9 1 6 19 12 7 11 14 8 12 17 9 13 18 1 14 19 bull 11 17 23 12 21 29
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASSCFIL)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE CX) DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IY) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT ~9963
R SQUARED 992 T STATISTIC 3~36977
INTERCEPT CA) -3~6~41
SLOPE CB) 1~8426
STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 77667
OBSERVATIONS 12 v DMPTS x DAYS-RSW VMIN -2~ VMAX ~~ YINC ~
XMIN -19 XMAX 2~9 XINC 2
]
bull
-SYNTAX ERROR
lPRH6ELF PRINT MODULE
DATABASE BGRENVXSASS (AG)_
OB6
1 2 3 4 ~
6 7 8 9
Hi 11 12 13 14 1~
16 17 -18 19 2 21 22 23 24 2~
26 27 28 29
3 31 32 33 34 3~
36 37 J8
39
4 41 42 43 44 4~
46
DAYS-R
3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 6 6 6 6 8 8
8 bull 8
9 9 9 9
1 1 1 1 11 11 11 11
DMPTS
2 3 3 3 ~
6 ~
~
1 1 1 1 17 18 17 19 2~
2 21 21 21 23 21 23 23 24 24 24
12 24 12 24 12 25 12 25 13 27 13 25 J3 24 13 27 104 26 J04 2S
14 28 14 27 17 28 17 32 17 32 17 31 21 34 21 35
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BORENVISASSCAO)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE IX) DAVS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IV) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9~76~
R SQUARED 917 T STATISTIC 22S6S88 INTERCEPT lA) 323~7
SLOPE lB) 189812 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 269324
OBSERVATIONS 46 Y DM PT6 X DAYS-RSW ~ _01 VMAV 2~ YfNe ~
XMIN -19 XNAX 2l9 XINC 2
]
9YNTA)( ERROR bull ]PRN6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE BGRENVXSASS
OB6 DAY6-R DMPTS
1 3 1 2 3 1 3 3 1 4 3 1 5 4 1 6 4 4 7 4 3 9 4 1 9 6 6 18 6 6
11 6 6 12 6 6 13 9 8
14 9 9 15 8 8 16 8 9 l 9 18 19 9 11 19 9 12 28 9 12 21 18 12 22 18 14 23 18 11 24 18 14 25 11 15 26 11 13 27 11 15 29 11 15 29 12 17 3 12 18 31 12 19 32 12 18gJ l~ 34 13 18 3~ 13 18 36 13 19 37 14 19 JB 14 19 39 14 19 48 14 19 41 17 19 42 17 23 43 17 21 44 17 20
-(EEC)
q~ 21 23 q6 21 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASSCEEC)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE IX) DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IY) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 96691 R SQUARED 93q9 T STATISTIC 2~14824
INTERCEPT IA) -238937 SLOPE IB) 146219 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 1S28eS
OBSERVATIONS q6 Y DMPTS X DAYS-RSW YMIN -2q YMAX ~5 YINC ~
XMIN -19 XMAX 259 XJNC 2
l
SYNTAX ERROR lPRM8ELF PRINT MODULE
-
bull
APPENJ)K 4 -
DATABASE WHZTXNG VXSASS (A) bull
OBS DAYS-I
1 1 2 1 3 1 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 ~
9 5 9 5 Ii 7 11 7 12 7 13 9 14 9 1~ 9
016 11 17 11 19 11
DMPTS
1 1 1 1 2 2 4 3 5 a 7
9 13 15 bull 13 16 14 1~
019 13 2 8 28 13 16 21 13 20 22 15 24 23 1~ 24 24 15 25 25 17 29 26 17 29 27 17 38 29 19 30 29 19 38 38 19 32 31 21 33 32 21 32 33 21 32 34 23 32 3~ 23 32 36 23 34
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASSIA)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE tX) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE tV) qMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 98514 R SQUARED 9785 T STATISTIC 3344414 INTERCEPT tAt -245163 SLOPE CBt 166958 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 286799
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS x DAYS-ICE
YMIN -22 YMAX lS7 YINC lS- XMIN -19 XMAX 259 XINC 2
]
I
J
-8YNTAX ERROR
]PRM6ELF PRINT MODULE shyDATABASE WHITING VISASS (AG)
OB8 DAYS-I DMPT8
1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 4 3 1 ~ 3 2 6 3 2 7 ~ 4 9 ~ 3 9 ~ ~
18 7 18 11 7 9 12 7 18 13 9 1~
14 9 17 1~ 9 1~
16 11 18 17 11 16 18 11 17 19 13 22 28 13 18 21 13 22 22 1~ 26 23 1~ 27 24 1~ 28 2~ 17 32 26 17 32 27 17 33 28 19 34 29 19 34 38 19 36 31 21 37 32 21 36 33 21 36 34 23 36 3~ 23 36 36 23 38
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITINO VISASS(AO)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAY8-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Y) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 986~2
R SQUARED 973 T STATISTIC 3~B167B
INTERCEPT CAl -272~33
SLOPE CBI 197S63 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 221294
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS X DAYS-ICE YHIN -19~ YHAX ~9~ YINC ~
XHIN -19 XHAX 2~9 XINC 2
]
-SYNTAX ERROR lPRM6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASS (EEC)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 2 1 3 1 4 3 ~ 3 1 6 3 1 7 ~ 2 8 ~ 2 9 ~ 3
1 7 3 11 7 3 12 7 3 13 9 6 14 9 6 bull 1~ 9 7 16 11 7 17 11 8 18 11 7 19 13 11 2 13 1 21 13 12 22 1~ 13 23 1~ 1~
24 1~ 17 2~ 17 19 26 17 18 27 17 19 28 19 29 29 19 23 39 19 22 31 21 24 32 21 23 33 21 24
34 23 2J 3~ 23 26 36 23 27
I ELF SCATTER MODULE I DATABASE WHITING VISA88CEEC)I I INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (~) DAYS-ICE I
DEPENDENT VARIABLE (VI DMPTS I bull
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9a2~3
R SQUARED 96~3
T STATISTIC 387a73~
INTERCEPT (A) -4142 SLOPE (8) 12873 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 173287
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS ~ DAYS-ICE YMIN -29 YMA~ ~1 VINC ~
XMIN -19 ~MA~ 2~9 ~INC 2
J
-SYNTAX ERROR JPRM6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHITING VXSASSmiddot(FXL)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 2 3 1 3 ~ 5 4 7 4 ~ 9 9 6 11 13 7 13 1~
e 1~ 16 9 17 19 18 19 21 11 21 24 12 23 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASB(FJLI
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Y) DMPTS
bull bullbull 4~
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE CV) DMPTSr
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 982~3
R SQUARED 96~3
T STATISTIC 3S7873~ t bullbullf CINTERCEPT CA) -4142
SLOPE CB) 12873 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 173287
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS XI DAYS-ICE YMINmiddot~28 YMAKI 1 YINC ~
XMIN -I9XMAX 2~9 XINC2
]
-SYNTAX ERROR ]PRH6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHXTXNG VXSASS (FXL)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 S 2 3 1 1 5 3 4 7 4 5 9 9 6 11 13 7 13 1~
9 15 16 9 17 19 1 19 21 11 21 24 12 23 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE I WHITING VISAS8(FIL)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE CX)I DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE CY) DMPT8
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 99289 R SQUARED 9858 T STATISTIC 2638123 INTERCEPT CA) -243706 SLOPE CB) 124476 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 112846
SLOPE 10) 124476 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 112846
ObullbulllfftVTrOHSO 12 VI DHPTS XI DAVS-ICE VMIN -27 VHAX e2 VINe e XHIN -19 XHAX 2e9 gtcINe 2
]
-8VNTAX ERROR
fi
rr
[bull
SJ
in i
bullol
r~
bull bull
n i
o o o o
~
o~ o
o - l
N~ o ~
o o o
Q
Q o o
a
c -~_
Q
_
_ Q
_9_
0
o ~-
O
_
Q
lI
oJ ~
v
~ ~
~-
-
- -1
---h
---1
---I
I
I
1
~ ((9 ~ J las 0 - ~~ U -lt) az E~-~gl~~1--~~---------- ~) 1)
11 ~ - 11 HI ~~
I bull M~
~ -~ ~~ IJ~ I J ismiddotJ I Q l~
k tl I 01 re lr - 91 br I ~I ( -0 71P g I CJ tt
I I J 000 0 0 w I 0) NlNN1tl 30 hIflJ I t IC (~4ID(r ~ Wi
_ f-- -------- bull fyen ~=y ~~r I I I I I I I 0 0 00 00 ( ~) -Fr~ ~ fj)
-0 I 0 I Ole 17 10 0 ( ~ AI )middot P1~ 0 0 00 Q hItIrS ~7I -~~ (J
t -r------0 bull
_-~_ middotmiddotmiddot_middot~middotmiddotmiddot)-middot7~)
lrrT I 01 0
0 tFmiddot~~i ~ 1 o 00 Omiddot (~ -W ~r f (JJ___~ _______ _ l I I 71 I -_---_ - M-~ ~ I
J I Z-tf ~ ~ ~fI t1 11f ( )) CI I I I i I 00 r11-7[ c I C bull aofl7r_ ~ ~z ~ 1t~Ji ) ( --_--------i---shye l~~~ I f~) I I J I
I II i bull Q ( N~T fE ~I )
~JiP _- -___ ----shy
_
~ 7Yr 0) ~(J ~ I e I t I ~ l I J I I 1 I I I(I 0 0 (~~yen~ M -p~P71 JPtJIJs 0
i euror (1l~J IlLriJlllr1JI ~~J I ~()(1OP I I r I I 0 I ( t t I ( jIfS 7fS ~~I ~ )
I
I 1 I( IN 10~ lb~ qItJ gtr~j f o (~)I(~) I I 0 I (t~ ~~) I I Jbull o 0 J I ~ l 0 a i S(jJ t t t tI tI C I C I J I I I J I 0 I (n~rlP PI4t -I) t
- -I
-I -I-I I II-I I I-I r bull
-----(rtb Ii If p~) PNl17T7~b ~y~ 7
10 IIt1v I 0 1~L CIJ tN IfIfW1IIJ JI11i JN~I HJ3
---Y p~ALY~_ ~~ Yl2-- 1)
yenvr 1amp f111l
-
~
~~
~
II
o 0
~cgt
(
) Q
oa
oo
o
oo
o o
a
o
~
P
t
oo
c
oo
a -
o
oo
o
o -
o
-o
-
-
lJ
I~ I~
Jl ~rIpound i IAlffzfjjsectj 7df- utl kf J OG lie rCOIpound ~IIE(T r
7tU
~
~ ~
~ ~
~
-shy~
~
MYI f)lySLM~ 1 (JAy ISo~r 11 ~~) e ()~t ~I01) r I joy f o~y lOJ 17~JJlII1~ 16 fiti -t1 It r ~17J~~flu~1h 111H 7U 1111111shyIllf Jr(11Jr I fhJo
~ ) ~ I1 J J-4 ~ J 2 JJ ~poundol ~ ] t4 cl -7 eJ uJ cJJJ wI~ wI l shy w c at amp 74 -t ~ ut 4 I
SkIN 000 o 0 0o 0 0 o 00 I o I I I I 3 3 3l) t 3 3 31 s 3ltt
a I I I I I o IfYU I 2 I JI I I000 )l~ 1~1 S 3 ~S 3 5 335
GILtJ I J I o (J 0 I (I I I ~ t 2shy~I I s 3 ]] 2 0 (J 3 ~ ~ t 3 3 AlvItUiU i l I I ls)z oJ lJ 0 a (J ~ 0o 0 0 a a aTff1ttJR II r 1
1 I ~ I I I I 1~E
Cdt47tl7 I I ~ ~t( a a 0O(O I Io I~ 00 000deg a 0wO 0 0 0 o 0 0 o~ 00VUipound811 ~ J I
tJ I Oe6rlllr I I I I 2 2]l2 ~ 3 S 3 S ~ 3o a 0 (J () 0 I 333 1 $ 3
If~euMI LU~ 2l 3000o (J 0 o 0 0 J 2 2shy 331a deg (1 ~ 2 Jshy
i I 000amp1 0 I I 1TIUUpound
lAcltJdJE 00deg00o 0 0 ooalOOO 0 0 I I I 1OdOa deg 0 11 2 I r I I I IbullI
I I h~r~Eu I ( 0 0 CJ 0 o (J a 2 ~ 30001011 0 1 J 1010 I I L II 2 l 2l 22 2 1
sKIN GLLt I f I~J) GlIIl) 0 (I a I do 0 0 I 0 Il~t l~o 0 0 ~ 3 3 3 s 3 3 3 33s1331
i7tJ7l11 Ibull I shy i66 ~o
(J ~ 0 1 0 It3331l J t 1 1shy 1~ ~afJllc 11 Irrshy It ~1 1111 20 J3 u
(])JtUJ61 (l) (1) (Ir)(0) (J)(I) (If) (19) (u) (~r)(J4)
I r f
I
I
i I
I i
II I ((
f
II Ii
p ()
Q
0_
_ 00
0
00
00
00
0
o o o 0
00
0
0 _
o Q
0
0
o
0
00
0
-
0 0
0
middot0
0
o oo
0
o Q
o oo o o
- ~
~
~ ~~pound
w
i -shy
o
co
- --
shy
o o o
~
~_
~
0
-shyJJ
-----l--~
-J
J IJ
f
J
J)
o 0
00
_ 0
0
o (gt
0
o ()
o
0
0 0
0
()
()
o 0
0
o 0
0
_
_ -
-----1
-----shy
Q
0 0
o ~-IJ~ulJ-
u
lJcllJ_-_~IJamp
o o
Q
I---+----I---+----I----I~-
_Ilpound
llD
lIlI
Il
~I
IIIl
I_II
II5
l__
IIlIa
IllP
=lII
Il1
rl
ll
IlIl
IlIII
llII
IlJl
IIl
IIlIl_
IIrII
G3i
mta
isectID
it
llll~
1~=wampampftUla
_
au
U
Lamp
WJN
AJ
poundmiddotJI
IiIamp
3flJ
a
uac
ampa
f
shy
I~middottn 0~L fi 5L middottlu~ fo_~r ( ) 1poundc [CtJRl -ffl(pound1 r~~ rlt1c- J c-ru
-- I
1SllJ7~
lt l)~ J )IIr M ~-t s ~~ OIl middot )If 10 JAY II 041
J- Olt i1 )lir iI DIY IT- IMy11
1~middot6f1 14f1- ~imiddot -- J _ middotAfmiddot IIrk middot Jiamp -ffh~11 rtr Il ~M gt27P- ill Ill ~lllY ~~7rlf JC 1- ~ r 1M 11
r ~ F16F r~h FIjFi ~~I)r r~Fr
5 Fc II -i~fIoi l 1 fj t t Fr c r amp t 1= ~ r ~ F r rtI ~
- -
sION o (j o 0 0 o 0 a I I I I I I I I 2 I t t I-r J~L) z~z~ 2~J ~ z a ~ ~ 33 - -ol t 1 2
~ poundys-s 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I I lt t 2 t t 4 ~z ~ 2l~ ~ ~ 1 Z 3zi3p33 3 333 3 3 3 - - ~ rl~ a 0 a (1 a a o 1 I 1 I 1-2 12 t ltt a ~ l J tll~ ~~~) 2 2 2 2- ~Jll 21 13 33 ~
- ~ MIIi(UlA~
degCt1C 11 )l
FipoundSI- eli CeoD o 0 (J 0 I I I I I I 1 1 I I 1 I Jl~] l2 22- z ~ 2 2 22 11 2-3 -Sfvpound
j
CIJiCVlt-tICN I I I 1 ( I I I 2 2 t ~ t~ )2 2~21 2$ 2 t _~ 3AIJJN(j- P (J dO o C a a o 0 00 1 I I I I - --
V~7r~ ~ c~u N
(TKWW~ CO~ o I oc I I J I I I I 1 2 I 2 2 1- ) t~l2 2- 22 2 ) 2 ~2- 1222 2 2 ll 2L -- -~VClLAl I
a 0 0 0 01 I 0 2 1 2 2 J5r 4 E i H CA I I
-I I I I I I I I J J 12( ~ 12 1 2 1 2-I TfI_ 21 1-1- 1 1 ~ 1
~ I middot_0-__-- I
~ 1
ffCACIpound coo 000lt=1 o 0 0 0 btJCt) o a () (J I I I I I I I I111 I I I 1 I I -~-aD CD lJ a a 0 0 ~ ~ UlrAfllN o 0 a IJ e e 0 C) (JdegOo ecJao co (10 (1 o I I I I I I I I 1 I I III I I I I z --
i tiN ~4r L~~ 2- li ~ a~ 8M) CUmiddot c d (J 0 (J () I I I 1 1 1
I 1 I I f t I II tl-loI 21 1 t 33 - -
-Iffl1-
J I I I I i- 2 I 11~SC~E ~ t 1 o ~ 04-t 1J 11 1 11t IS~ IfS J1 I 1 I If I IJ 1 r~]u ze uu __
bull ttlUIG
(I) l~) (6) (II) ~ (~) 6s-)llIt lCUI CJ (Ii) (~) vmiddot (II) (19~ ---
I t f
I
~ I
~ I
Ii
I I
Ii I II f
~ (
--)raquo~ middot-~~-~-I~~IliiI~~-middotComiddot~-d-b~middotmiddotmiddotmiddot_ ~ ~ middoth-~_middot--~H~~middot~gt
Other Occasional Papers in the series
1 A salinity monitor for irrigation pumps by EOMIEZITIS
2 Wine liqueur and fish products acceptability trials 47th ANZAAS Congress Hobart 1976 by HABREMNER TLLEWIS and ARQUARMBY
3 Abalone silage an exercise in the conservation of waste by JUNE OLLEY
4 Course notes contributed by the CSIRO Tasmanian Food Research Unit to a workshop on fish handling and quality control Hobart Oct3rd-5th 1978 by HABREMNER JUNE OLLEY and SJTHROWER
5 Difficulties with generalized least squares regression in forest modelling by PWWEST
6 Metabolism of zinc cadmium and copper in rats fed shellfish highly contaminated with heavy metals by SJTHROWER JUNE OLLEY and MAUREEN McDERMOTT
7 Hygiene control in seafood processing by SJTHROWER
14
measurements to the fork of the tail were also noted ~e fish were then
filleted and samples frozen at -lBoe for later assessment of their
acceptability by taste panel
212 Fish stored in ice
For the sensory assessment of fish stored in ice guidelines similar to
those given by Lima dos Santos et al (981) were used ~e blue rock whiting
also known as the weedy whiting was used ~e whiting were caught on the
afternoon of 23rd August 1984 by demersal trawl in 18 to 25 m waters oft
Eastern Tasmania On arrival at the TFRJ laboratories in I-bbart at 11 45 am
on the fol Lowirq day the f ish were re- iced at a ratio of 21 (ice f ish) in
insulated plastic boxes of size 66 x 41 x 28 em with provision for drainage
of melt water Flake ice was used ~e ice was topped up daily and renewed
once a week The boxes of i ced f ish were then kept in a cool roan set at a
temperature of 0deg to -1dege ~ree fish were removed for sensory assessment at
each sampling time (Table 1) over a period of rmre than three weeks of ice
storage 100 fish samples were then frozen at -18dege until needed for the
acceptability taste panel
Table 1
sampling regirre for fish stored in R3Wice
Blue Grenadier Diys in R3W 3 4 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 17 21
Sample code N D G L S R K T U P M 0
Whiting Diys in ice 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Sample code 0 M D G T S N R P U L K
15
220 Sensory assessment of the whole (gutted and ungutted) raw fish samples
Both the blue grenadier stored in lOW and the whi t i nq stored in ice were
progressively assessed by using the sense organs of sight smell and touch tor
changes in general appearance odour and texture with storage tine by giving
the appropriate demeri t scores according to the score sheets as shown in
Tables 2 and 3 IVo types of score sheets were used Table 2 shows the
sensory assessment score sheet orig inally developed for the assessment of
gemfish (Thrower et al 1982) It has been simplified and weighted (Branch
and Vail 1985) to provide accumulated increases in demerit points as the t i sn
change in odour texture and appearance during storage with the max imum
accumulated demerit point scores of 35 for the urx]utted samples and 39 tor tte
gutted samples The total scor irq for gutted fish differs fran that descr ibeo
by Bremner (1984) and Branch and Vail (1985) in that the demerit points for
the belly cavity have been added to those for the whole fish
The whole and gutted raw fish were also assessed by using the freshness
score sheet developed by the Council of the European COl1nunities (Official
Journal of the European Qmnunities 1970) but with slight rrodification marie
in its scor irq method in that the scor irq was reversed to provide accumulateri
increases in demerit points as in the TFRJ score sheet (Table 2) with a
maximun accumulated demerit score of 30 (Table 3) The samples were scored by
H Abd R who had had no previous experience with the score sheet
230 Sensory Assessment of the frozen filleted raw fish samples
Samples of the whole and gutted fish of both species were then filleted
ard frozen at -18degC until required for the organoleptic acceptability test
panel fillets were thawed by holding for about 16 hours (overnight) in still
air at 4degC The thawed fillets of both the blue grenadier and whi t i nq were
then assessed by the sense organs of sight smell and touch by using the scor-e
sheet for filleted sample as shown in Table 4 nle score sheet was developed
16
able 1
FIlt U Snorr bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullnt oore hbullbull t ( ( 1Ii~ ANI) tlNtJuTreo)
1_middotAnlJ lmiddot
rlSB IDDII
UIUIl~ (VBci9ht~i9ht8lDullDUll
o 1 2 3
SitU ( rimSoft) o 1
SCALBS (r1mSlLoomiddotmiddotLoobullbull ) o 12
r r SLIMB (AbbullbullntSlSlimiddotysliyVSliy)
o 123
S1IrnraS (pr-Ri90rRi90rPot-Ri90r) o 1 2
BYBS Clarity (ClbullbullrISlCloudyCloudy) 012
Shape (HoralslsunknSunkn) 012
Irill (ViiblHot Viibl) IJ 1
Blood (No BloodSlBloodyVBloody) o 1 2
GILLS Colour (VDark)Charaotritio (SlDark) (vradd)(Slradd)
2o 1 Kucou (AbbullbullntKoderatmiddotBxcbullbullbulliv)
o 1 2 S bullbullll (rrbullbullh 01ly) Pihy8talpoll~
(MetalliaSaved) 1 2 3
BELLI Dicoloration (AbbullbullntDetatablmiddotModratmiddotBxobullbullbulliy) 012 3
Finanbullbullbull ( rira80ftBurt) o 1 2
VENT Condition (bobullbulldy)Noraal (SlBrbullbullk) (Opening)(Bxudbullbull )
2o 1 Sbullbulln (rrbullbullhReutralrihy8poilt)
o 2 3
BELLI CAVIn Stain (OpalbullbullontGryihlmiddotllow-Brown) o 1 2
Blood (RdDark RdBrown)
o 1 z
--
17
UJE 3
Etc SENSORY A$fE4St4fN[ ~(oIlL~
SCALE OF MARKING - FRESHNESS
CRITERIA shypoundu1LRt
Abullbullbullbullbullment Mara-bull thc r1ah 0 1 2- 3tszhL
AppearanceinIIMlISJ Skin
Eye
Gill
Flbullbullshycut f ssm abdomusn
Colour the~
vertebral column
Organs
Oright iridescent I bright pigmenta- pigmentation in (1) dull pigmenta tion no i tion but not the process of pigmentation discolouration Ius trous becoming dis-
mucus opaquemucus aqueous i coloured and dull
mucus slightlytransparen t
cloudy ~UCU9 milky
convex (bulging) convex and flat (1) concave in cornea tran- slightly sunken cornea the centre parent cornea Ughtly opalescent cornea milky pupil black opalescent pupil pupil grey bright
pupil black opaque dull
-shining colour less coloured becoming dis- (1) yellmiish no mucus a few traces of coloured mucus milky
cloar mucus mucus opaque
blueish trans- dull velvety slightly opaque (1) opaque lucid smooth waxy shining without any change in the colour sUgh tly original colour changed
(I) reduncoloured sl1 gh tly pink pink
kidneys and kidneys and kidneys (1) kidneys residues of resJdues of resicJuos of r bullbullidue of other other organs other organs other organs organs and blood bright red the dull red blood and blood brownish game as the becoming palo red blood inside discolbured the aorta
(1) or in a more advanced bull ta te of decay
I
bull
Flesh
Vertebtal Column
Peritonium
Gills kin abdominal cavity
18
(eontd)
SCALE OF MARKING - FRESHNESS
CRITERIA
Assessment Mark 0 1 2
Physical eOId ton
firm and elas tic surface smooth
breaks ins tead of coming away
totally adherent to the flesh
seaweed
less elastic
adherent
adherent
Smell bull
not of seaweed but not bad
slightly soft (flaccid) Ie elastic surfacente waxy velvety and dull
slightly adherent
slightly adherent
slightly sour
3
(1) soft (flaccid) scales ebullbullil y detached from skin sur face ra ther wrinkled inclining to mealy
(1) not dherent
1( ) not adherent
(1) sour
(1) or in a more advanced stat of decay
_ shy-- -
19
Table 4
Filleted Sample Score Sheet
r
TREATMENT F ILIEIS DATE REMOJAL (THAWED)
FISH IDENr
EASE OF FILLETING (Easysl difficultdifficult)
012
APPEARANCE (a) Oolour of flesh (TranslucentSl discolouredSl opaqueopaque)
o 1 2 3
(b) Blood stains (AbsentDetectableModerateExcessive)
012 3
(c) Clotting (UnclottedSlclottedModclottedExcessclotted)
012 3
(d) Skin Oolour (VbrightBrightSldullOU11)
o 1 2 3
TEXTURE FirmS1 softSoft
o 1 2
ClDClJR (FreshNeutralStaleSpoilt)
012 3
CONJITION (a) Gaping (AbsentDetectableModerateExcessive)
o 1 2 3
(b) Bruising (AbsentSlightSevere)
012
(c) Wetness (NmnalS1 dry orMod dry orExcess dryness or
SldripModdrip Freezer bJrn or Excessdrip
012 3
(d) Autolysis (Absentmoderatesevere) (Disco1ourations) 0 1 2
(e) Parasites (Absentmoderatesevere) ( Infestations) 0 1 2
(f) Other discolourations (Absentpresent) or contaminants (bones membranes tissues etc) 0 1
EASE OF SKINNING (EasySldifficultdifficult)
012
20
by the author after a literature search and observations made during the preshy
liminary part of the study It has a maxUnum accumulated demerit score of 34
240 ~anoleptic Acceptability Panel of the cooked fish
Filleted samples of both fish species which had been frozen in a cold
roan at -18dege and then thawed as above were used for the acceptability taste
panels The fillets were skinned am cut into 30 to 40 g pieces crumbed and
deep fried (Bremner et ale 1985) Three or four treatments were cooked
simultaneously at each session am the fish served with packets of take-away
french fries Tcrnato sauce vinegar and salt were available Each of the
samples were randanised in such a way so as to give a high degree of balance
(Table 5 and 6) Letters that represent the samples were also picked
randanly The fish was assessed by 20 panellists employed at the Tasmanian
lEgional Laboratory and experienced with facial hedonic scaling for flavour
texture am overall acceptability using the General Foods Smiley scale
(Appendix 2) Salt was rot rrentioned with the 9niley questionaire for blue
grenadier so that the panel should have ro preconceiVed prejudices
250 Statistics
tata fran the sensory assessment of the whole gutted and ungutted raw
fish (both TFRJ am EEl score sheets) am fran the sensory assessrrent of the
frozen filleted raw fish samples of both the blue grenadier stored in RSW am
whiting stored in ice were analysed for correlation using the ELF scatter
module (Appendix 3 and 4)
The acceptability taste panel assessment scores for flavour texture and
overall liking of the toKgt species of fish were subjected to analysis of
variance using the Genstat package (Appendix 5 and 6)
22
Table 6
Order of presentation of cooked whiting samples to the acceptability taste panelists
Order of presentation of samples Panelist
session I session II
1 OTP rm 2 MUS KR 3 sm INL
4 IKJ GKR
5 ror NK
6shy USM UN ~
7 OOP RLD
B HUT NKD
9 USO RiL
10 SMP LGN
11 IMT GIltN
12 nxgt KRD
Note
8angtle code OM 0 G T S N R P U L K
storage time in ice (days) 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
23
300 RESULIS
310 Physical Characteristic of M novaeaelandiae
rran the forty-six fish examined the mean fork lerqth was found to be
762 an (range 609 to 838 an) A few of the fish examined had well shy
developed roes and their digestive tracts were found to be relatively empty
320 Physical Characteristics of the H ssmifasoiata
rran a total of thirty-six fish examined the rrean weight of the fish was
fourrl to be 662 g (range 27 to 186 g) am the mean fork length was 183 em
(range 156 to 265 an)
330 sensory assessment of the raw blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
he results of the sensory assessrrent of the r2M blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW by the four rrerhods of scoring are given as average total
accumulated demerit point scores as shown in Table 7 Figure 1 shoes the
graph of demerit point versus days in RSW by the four rrethods of sensory
assessment used Table 9 shltJtS the correlation analysis
340 sensory assessment of the raw whitirq samples stored in ice
he results of the sensory assessment of the r2M whitirq samples stored
in ice by the four methods of scoring are given as average total accumuLated
demerit point scores as shown in Table 8 Figure 2 shltJtS the graph of demerit
point versus days in ice of the four nethods of sensory assessment used Table
9 shltJtS the correlation analysis
350 Attributes contributing to total score
Attributes that contribute to total score usirq the TFRJ scores (ungutted
and gutted) EEC scores and the filleted sample scores are as shewn in Tables
10 - 14
24
Table 7
Total demerit points fran sensory assessment of blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
Average lbta1 Demerit Rgtint SCores
[)lye in RW TFRJ scores TFRJ scores EEl scores Filleted Sample (urvJut t ed ) (gutted) (gutted) SCores
3 3 3 1 1
4 5 5 2 3
6 10 10 6 6
8 16 18 9 8
9 19 21 11 10
10 20 22 13 12
11shy 22 24 15 14
12 23 25 18 17
13 24 26 19 18
14 25 27 19 19
17 29 31 21 23
21 33 35 25 29
Note
Maximum possible scores for (1) IlRJ scores (ungutted is 35
( 11) IlRJ scores (gutted) is 29
( 11i) EEX scores (gutted) is 30
( iv) Filleted sample scores is 32
amptV
35j
3l~
en Ishy 25Z-0 Q
3)-~
bullbullbull 0
bull 0 0bull 0
bull 0 0 6shy abull A ~
~
bull 0
~
6shy
bull 0
6shy
I) 01
-W 0i A15W ~ Q A
~
6shy~101- bull 90 TFRU SCORES (ungutted)
6shy~ bullbull TFRU SCORES (gutt~d i
bull ~
4 6- 6- EEC SCORES 5~
~ ~ FILLETED SAMPLE SCORES ~
6 4 I J I I I
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
DAYS IN RSW
Figl Demerit Points Versus Days in RSW For Blue Grenadier Samples
Fig 2 Demerit Points Versus Days in ice For Whiting Samples I
27
Table 8
TOtal demerit points from sensory assessment of whi tirq samples stored in ice
Average TOtal Demerit Foint SCores
rays in ice TFRJ scores TFRJ scores EEC scores Fi 11eted sample (urqutted) (gutted) (gutted) (gutted)
1 1 1 0 0 3 2 2 1 1
5 4 4 2 3
7 7 9 3 4
9 13 15 6 9
n 15 17 7 13
13 19 21 11 15
15 24 27 15 16
17 29 32 19 18
19 31 35 22 21
21 32 36 24 24
23 33 37 26 26
Note
MaXllnum possible scores for (i) TFRJ scores (urqutted) is 35 ( ii) TFRJ scores (gutted) is 39 ( iii) EEC scores (gutted) is 30 ( iv) Filleted sample scores is 32
28
Table 9
Relationship between tLme and demerit points for fish stored in RSW
Method of Visual Assessment
y- intercept slope correlation
M novaBMBlandias
TFRJ (urqutted ~les) 032 175 097
TFRJ (gutted samples) 032 190 096
EEl -231 146 097
Filleted samplesbull
-357 158 099
H sBmifasoiata
TFRJ (urqutted samples) -245 167 099
TFRJ (gutted samples) -273 187 099
EOC -414 129 098
Filleted samples -244 125 099
ltshy
--------------- ------------------------------------------
------------- - ------------- -------- ------
Table 10
Attributes contributing to total score using TFRO scores (gutted and ungutted)
Attributes involved in score change Score
Blue grenadier in RSW Whiting in ice
Stiffness Eyes - clarity blood Slllne Stiffness Eyes - clarity shape and blood lt10 Gills - smell Vent - smell SlBne Gills - colour smell and mucous
Vent - smell Belly cavity - stains and blood
Appearance Eyes-shape Stiffness Gills - smell colour and mucous Skin
Stiffness appearance gill-smell Scales belly-discolouration and firmness
N so
gt10lt20 SCales belly - discolouration and firmness Vent - smell Vent - smell and condition Belly cavity - stains and blood
Appearance Slllne Eyes - clarity shape Appearance SlBne Scales Skin blood and iris Gills - colour Eyes - clarity and shape
gt20lt30 Belly - discolouration Gills - mucous smell am colour Vent - condi tion and smell Belly cavity shy blood
Appearance Gills - mucous and smell SlBne Eyes - iris am blood Belly - discolouration and firmness Belly - discolouration and firmness
gt30 Vent - condition and smell Vent - condition Belly cavity - blood Belly cavity - stains
Table 11
Attributes contribut irq to total score us irq EEC scores
Attributes involved in score change
Score Blue grenadier in RSW W1iting in ice
lt7 Appearance - skin eyes gills organs Physical condition - flesh Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and organs Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skins eyes gills flesh Appearance-eyes and organs atv
vertebral column and organs Physical condition-flesh and peritoneum gt7lt14 Physical condition - flesh Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-eyes flesh and vertebral Appearance-skin gills and organs column Physical condition-flesh vertebral column
gt14lt21 Physical condition-vertebal column and and peritoneum peritoneum Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity
Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and Appearance-skin eyes gills flesh and vertebral column vertebral column
gt21 Physical condition-flesh and peritoneum Physical cOndition-flesh vertebral column Odour-gills skin and abdominal cavity and peri toneum bull
Table 12
Attributes contributing to total score using filleted sample scores
Score
lt5
Attributes involved in score change
Blue grenadier in RSW
Appearance - blood stains skin colour ltXIour - flesh
M1iting in ice
----- shy -------------- shy
Appearance - skin colour odour - flesh Cbndition - gaping wetness
Appearance - colour of flesh Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Texture - flesh skin colour ltgt gt5lt10 Cbndition - gaping bruising wetness Ease of filleting
Texture - flesh
Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Appearance - colour of flesh clotting skin clotting skin colour skin colour
gt10lt20 odour - flesh odour - flesh Cbndition - gaping wetness autolysis COndition - gaping bruising wetness other discolourations autolysis and other discolouration Ease of skinning
Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains Appearance - colour of flesh blood stains skin colour clotting
gt20 Texture - flesh Texture - flesh odour - flesh Odour shy flesh COndition - gaping bruising wetness Cbndition - wetness autolysis autolysis Ease of skinring
32
Table 13
Diff~rent emphasis in scoring systems for whole fish as between the EEl and TFID
Attribute Number of potential demerit points TFRJ EEl
1Ippearance (general) 3 0
skin ) scales 6 3
slime
Stiffness (Rigor) 2 0
Eyes 7 3
Gills 7 6
Belly 5 0
Vent 5 0
Belly cavity 4 3
Flesh cut fram abdomen 0 3
Flesh texture 0 3
Vertebral column 0 6
Internal organs 0 3
33
360 Relative merits of the scoring systems
The four scor irq methcds were used on the same samples of t ish Any
sample had therefore deteriorated to the same extent on anyone day Figs 3
am 4 shew the scores converted to percentages of possible deroorit point
scores The discrepancy in the accumulation of demerit points between the EEC
am TFRJ scor irq methods is clearly shown IEference to Table 2 3 am 13
shOool that this is caused by the lack of questions regarding rigor looseness
of scales condition of belly am vent am the qroupinq of colour am mucous
in the gills as single po i nts thus halving the potent Ia I gill demerit point
score canparison of the tO species in Table 9 ShONS that the rate of
accumulation of demerit pgtints was more consistent for the TFRU system than by
the EEX scor i oq methltXl or by scorinq of fillets
370 Time taken to score the fish
The average time taken to score an individual fish using the TFPlJ
(unqutted) scores TFRJ (gutted) scores EEX scores am the filleted aamp Le
scores were found to be 1 min 25 sec 1 min 55 sec 3 min 45 sec and 1 min 50
sec respectively The EEX score sheet is more t iroe consumioq in that more than
one question is asked about an attribute for the giving of only one demerit
point this requires conscious thought
380 Acceptability taste panel results of blue grenadier samples bull Figures 5 6 am 7 shOool the mean taste panel scores in graphic form for
flavour texture and overall acceptability of cooked blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW table 14 shows the results of the statistical analysis
390 Acceptability taste panel results of whiting samples
Figures 8 9 am 10 shOool the mean taste panel scores in graphic form for
flavour texture and overall acceptability of cooked whiting samples stored in
ice table 15 shows the results of the statistical analysis
WHITING STORED IN ICE o TFRU SCORES (ungutted)
bull TFRU SCORES (gutted)
b EEC SCORES
FILLETED SAMPLE SCORES
100bull e ~ e b
i 6
bull NW
oIJ-a A A-
(J0 t A~ 0 ~ AC)
C) -e ~~-
C) a 50 A
A w
Iz ~
~ - W e A0 c a ~ ~ A-a ~ l ~ A
w -~
~ X ~ W -e I c ~ ~ ibull I I I I
4 8 12 16 20 24
DAYS IN ICE FIG4
36
- flavourshy
-e s-e l ~ v
5middotIU
STORAGrf IN R sWDAYS
rlCoS Ttutfc pcr1 rcbull
rf oj bl jtlJ~r - jlqVGurc acccr~b
21179 0 2 136 843
~ 0 u 5middot0YI
oJ J l ofmiddot$ 1 e
tu 4middot0
VI
~ 3middot5
3middot0
TelC-lue X bull -e III
~ Gmiddotftv
ct 5middot03
V1
-J -f-SshyU 2
~ 40 t
3-~
~ bullbull0 5 0
~ 17 21A ISII
PAY- IITDRAGamp fbilW
FIG6 I Tq1-c pltnd rc-utl ojbllfcJrcftaJIr bull I~M144 Q Cc(r~blfly
r 411q~~ An~Plf bUIJlfM F llh J~Lld Pt-DoL B fpound)1
gt1 NI ~~eusr SJAVlt1
D ~II
(ffIt1~JP IIID bull U J 1i
-IyoJC )-tlICf p --lInraquoJ Ix-Pc ~1rb1 r I ef
Ma2j NI a~v2loJ$
til
1Ia ~AO (IIp~lJa~e
01
secto
00
s
05
5
o~
~
0pound
s
0
smiddot
o~
07
1 ~ ~ ~ ~
r~
B
~
rv t gtshy 2
~ ~ 11
~ 7shyIn r
~ () 0 1) m ~
~ gtshyz -
(fII~q~~ 7~ P
IItJ1o -~~f(ll p ~I I~U J ~t~L 0 ~ middot~II I
IDI 8~ middot lta ~
~ QS
middotS ~ ~ 0 z
r Smiddot II
S 1d 0-$ 111 r- l gtshy r
V fr~
~llCf-J a-PcJ~ U~middotJO
4lp~dmiddotyIb 6middot~1f np)t -~11M fo --IIhen IJutJel ~bl
Table 14
Acceptability of deep fried blue grenadier samples stored in FSW
rays in R3W
Acceptability 3 4 6 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 17 21
Flavour 50a 50a 4S a 51a 50a 51a 50a 4Sa 49a 53a 41b 35b
Texture 49bc 51abc 4S bed 52ab 4Sbed 53ab 52abc 52ab 4Sbed 55a 46cd 43d
OJerall 50ab 51ab 47be 52ab 4Sb 5lab 52ab 50ab 47b 54 a 41c 35d
abc
d
significantly different (pltOOOl)
significantly different (pltOOl) W so
Table 15
Acceptability of deep fried whiting samples stored in ice
rays in ice
Acceptability 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Flavour 5Sab 59a 59a 60a 59a 5S ab 51b 54ab 53ab 37c 37c 31c
Texture 59ab 59a 53bed 5S ab 63a 59ab 47cde 54be 56ab 55ab 44e 46de
OJera11 57ab 5S ab 59ab 60a 60a 5Sab 52b 53ab 55ab 42c 36cd 31d
abcde significantly different (Plt0001)
40
~oo DISCUSSION
410 Sensory assessment of the raw blue grenadier samples stored in RSW
he results of sensory assessment on the raw blue grenadier samples
stored in RSW by the four methods of scoring all sheM that there is
progressive increment in total demerit points with storage time for all the
four methods (Table 7) It was also fourxi that the accumulation of demerit
points with time of storage of the fish in ffiW occurred in a saui-linear
fashion for all -the four scoring methods used (Figure 1) he variables (time
of storage and demeritmiddot points score) were all highly correlated (Table 9)
he correlation equation of the TFRJ (ungutted samples) and TFRJ (gutted
sanples) scores were similar roth having a zero time intercept of 032 but
with the TFRJ (gutted samples) scores having a slightly greater slope by 015
he EEC scores and the filleted sample scores roth have lower slopes ie
146 and 158 respectively canpared with the TFRJ (ungutted sample) and TFRJ
(gutted sample) scores of 175 and 190 respectively lbwever the EOC scores
which have the lowest slope have a fairly similar correlation equation with
the filleted sample scores (Table 9) he negative intercepts reflected the
slightly more sigrroid relationship for these samples his suggests that the
TFRJ (gutted) scoring method is the rrost sensitive of the four methods
followed by the TFRJ (ungutted) the filleted sample and the EEC scores
It was also found that after 21 days of storage in RSW the blue
grenadier samples had not reached their maximun possible scores in any of the
four scoring rrethods used (Table 7) he TFRJ (ungutted sample) score only
reached 943 of its possible maximun value whereas the TFRJ (gutted sample)
scores EEC scores and the filleted sample score reached only 897 833 ar~
906 of their possible maximun score his means that all the four methods
of scoring can still be sensitive to changes in the quality of the blue
grenadier samples stored in RSW after 21 days of storage time
41
Figures 1 and 3 also shOVt that the pattern of the graphs of demerit
points against days storage in R3W of the four methcxis of scoring is similar
ie a tendency to be slightly sigmoid fbwever the filleted sanple scores
sean to be rrore sensitive than the EOC scores at the later part of the storage
time ie after 14 days of storage and the scores continued to rise
1be rrost obvious indicator of change for the blue grenadier stored in ffiW
using the TFRJ scores (both gutted and unJUtted sanples) was the eyes (clarity
and blood) followed by odour developnent of the gills (Table 10) his is -
also foond to be true wi th the EOC freshness score (Table 11) Fbr the
filleted sample scores the appearance and odoor of the flesh seems to be the
most obvious indicator of change follOVted by the condition of the fillets such
as gaping bruisin) am wetness (Table 12)
4 20 sensory assessment of the raw whi ting samples stored in ice
1he results of sensory assessment on the rCJl whiting samples stored in
ice by the foor roothods of scoring also shows that there is a progressive
increment in total demerit points with storage time for all the four methods
of scoring (Table 8) Ps with the blue grenadier the aCCLD1UJlation of demerit
points with time of storage of the whiting in ice also occurred in a sernishy
linear fashion for all the foor scoring methods used (Figure 2 and 4) wi th a
slight lag in the initial phase Interestingly this was not observed in the
case of blue grenadier sanples stored in ffiW probably because the first
samplin) of the blue grenadier starts only fran the third day after catch
whereas the first sampling of the whiting starts fran the first day after
catch Also the blue grenadier was handled qu i te roughly on the deck in fact
three oot of the four fish samples on the first rerroval ie the third day
after catching had already showed blood in their eyes
Bremner et al (1985) when using the TFRJ score sheet to assess the
42
quality of four tropical fish species fran the oorth west shelf of hJstralia
(stored in ice) also fourrl that the accumulation of demerit points with time
of storage in ice occurred in a linear fashion
PB wi th blue grenadier the variables (tine of storage ard darneri t points
score) were all highly correlated (Table 9) Also the correlation equation of
the TFRJ (ungutted) ard TFRJ (gutted) scores were similar with the TFJU
(gutted) score having a slightly greater slope by 020 Crable 9) he EEC
scores am filleted sample scores also have lower s lopes l e 129 ard 125
respectively ocmpared to the TFm (ungutted) and (gutted) scores of 167 and
187 respectively However unlike the blue grenadier the filleted samples
of the whi t ing had the 10liest slope he more sensi tive na ture of the EEC
scores as canpared to the filleted sample scores in the case of the whiting
especially after 12 days storage in ice can be explained by the snaller size
of the whitirlJ (fork length ranging fran 156 to 265 an) as canpared to the
size of the blue grenadier (fork length ranging 809 to 838 an) the snaller
fish terrl to spoil faster especially the interior parts of the fish PB the
EEC scores depend nuch on the sensory assessment of the interior parts of the
fish such as the appearance and condition of the flesh vertebral colwnn
interior organs per i toneun and abdaninal cavity (Table 3) which makes up more
than 18 demerit points out of the total possible maxinun of 30 the
sensitiveness of its score is thus self-explanatory in the case of whiting
Connell (1980) explained that large fish keep marginally better than small
fish because larger fish have a smaller surface to volume ratio so that in the
same tUne less of their interior is affected
The above results confirmed the previous suggestion that the TFRU
(gutted) scorIoq methcrl is the roost sensitive of the four methods It was
found that after 23 days of storage in ice the whiting scmples had not
reached the maximun possible scores in any of the four methods used (Table
43
8) The 1FIU (UBJutted) scores had reached only 94-3 of its possible maximum
value whereas the TFRJ (gutted) scores EOC scores am the filleted sample
scores reached only 94 9 867 and 81 3 of their poea Ible maximum score
Therefore all the four methods of scoriBJ can still be sensitive to changes
in quality of the whiting samples stored in ice after 23 days of storage tUne
Ihe roost obvious irxHcator of chaDJe for the whiting stored in ice using
the TFIU score sheet was the eyes (clarity shape and blcxxl) followed by the
develqxnent of -colour odour and nucous of the gills (fable 10) Bremner et
al (1985) when working with four tropical species f~ the north west shelf of
Australia also found that the most obvious indicator of change for fish stored
in ice was the eyes (their clarity am shape) follCAtled by odour developnent
and colour changes in the gills This was also found in the case of blue
grenadier in ~ discussed earlier OJrran et al (1981) when investigating
the quality changes duriBJ iced storage of three carmercially important
species of fish fran Bahrein also found that of the visual and olfactory
assessments gill odour showed the roost pranise as a quality control index
Pgain this is also found to be true with the EOC freshness score of both the
blue grenadier and the whitiBJ (Table 11) AccordiBJ to ~ate (1972) it
was generally agreed that odour of the gills is the most sensitive measure of
freshness but the visual appearance of the eyes gills arxi skin was quicker to
use in practice on the market
For the filleted sample scores of the whiting the most obvious indicator
of chanqe was the appearance and odour of the flesh (Table 12) This too
agreed with the findiBJs for blue grenadier stored in ffiW
AccordiBJ to Baines et al (1969) with fish eatiBJ is related to four
main attributes or quality factors viz appearance odour and texture of the
rCM and cooked fish and in the latter also flavour he ultimate purpose of
testing the raw fish is to estimate the eating quality which is here taken to
44
mean the degree of freshness of flavour Acoording to Baines and Shewan
(1965) the mostreliable test for predicting flavour sqore is raw odour
430 The ease aM difficulties of using the four methods of scoring
It was found that the TFRJ (ungutted) scores was the easiest and quickest
method to use as it takes on average only about 1 min 25 sec to score a fish
canpared to 1 min 55 sec 3 min 45 sec ard 1 min 50 sec for the TFRJ
(gutted) EOC and the filleted sample scores he E~ score was found to be
the roost tedious besides taking the longest time to soore a fish
he TFIU (ungutted) scores also have the advantage of not requiring a
knife in order to score ard also were less IOOSSY to work with canpared to all
the other nethods Also the attributes to be assessed were arranged and
organised in such a way in the score sheet that it is easy to score a fish
starting from assessing the apparance and skin and ending with the condition
and smell of the vent
440 Acceptability taste panel results of the blue grenadier samples
441 Flavour acceptability
Figure 5 shc7ws the flavour acceptability of the deep fried samples of
blue grenadier Samples stored in R3W for less than 17 days were found
statistically (Table 14) to be indistinguishable (Plt0001) fran each other
then there was a significant fall in the flavour acceptability of the samples
stored in RSW for 17 days onwards he sarrtgtle stored for 21 days had a still
lower mean value of 35 but it was not significantly different fran the
semple stored for 17 days which had a nean value of 41 It is interesting to
note that despite the progressive increase in sodiun uptake of the blue
grenadier samples stored in RSW from about 7115 35 mg sodium(lOO g tissue
initially to 724 33 mglOO g tissue on the 16th day aM to 729 17 mglOO g
45
tissue on the 21st day (Burford 1984) the panelists seem not to be
negatively affected by the increasing salt content of the samples with storage
tUne and in fact some of the panelists added more salt to their samples I
111is result contradicts statements made by previous reseachers that the
storage life using R3W may be limited by increases in salt content in the fish
flesh (Boyd et aI 1978) he maximun desirable salt content according to
Tcm1inson et al (1974) as quoted by Boyd et al (1978) is about 05 but at
the 16th day ofmiddot RgtW storage the salt content fOllNj In the flesh of blue
grenadier samples was already more than 07 fbwever the panelist only ate
40g pieces it might have been a different case if the fish has been as a
whole meal
442 Texture acceptability
Figure 6 shows the texture acceptability of the deep fried blue grenadier
samples stored in R3W eespf te sane apparent abberant values (such as the
high rrean of 55 for the sample stored for 14 days in RSW) it is obvious that
the texture acceptability showed a significant decreasing trend (pltOOl) from
seventeen days of storage onwards The abberant texture values are possibly
due to the fact that the fish texture might have been masked by the bread
crunbs used to coat the fish samples before deep fryi~ This agrees with the
observations of Bremner et al (1985) wtxgt found that the inherent textural
softness of P piotiue and the tougheni~ on storage of N peroni i detected by
a profile panel usilYJ steamed fillets were no lo~er noticeable when the fish
was deep fried in batter Bremner (1980) also reported that despi te the
softness of the raw flesh the cooked flesh of blue grenadier is reasonably
firm
46
433 OVerall acceptability
The overall acceptability of the deep fried blue grenadier samples stored
in R)W (figure 7) seems to follCM a similar pattern to its flavour
acceptability (figure 5)~ in which a significant fall in overall acceptability
was only observed fran the samples held fran 17 days in RSW onwards (pltO 001)
as shawn in Tablel4
rnus all the above results showed that there was a significant fall in
flavour texture and overall acceptability of blue ~renadier from 17 days of
R)W storage onwards which was found to be equivalent to the accumulated
demerit point scores of 29 of the TFRJ (ungutted) scoresr 31 of the TFRl
(gutted) scoresr 21 of the EOC scores and 23 of the filleted sample
scores Jones (1964) states that the acceptability of a fish is a function of
its suitability for further processing and of its inmediate appearance its
texture its odour and its flavour
450 Acceptability taste panel results of the whiting samples
451 Flavour acceptability
Figure 8 shows the flavour acceptability of the deep fried whiting
samples stored in ice rtle twelve sample times could be analysed individually
since the means if analysed by canbining adjacent sample times to give six
sample groups are in fact the means of the adjacent times if analysed
individually it was found that samples of the first nine renovals i se up to
17 days of storage in ice are more or less indistinguishable (abberant value
at 7th removal) he last three removals ie samples stored in ice for 19
21 and 23 days were found to be of significantly lower flavour acceptability
(p lt 0001) as shawn in Table 5
47
452 Texture acceptability
Except for the abberation at the 7th remgtval i 9 at day 13 of ice
storage there is a significant reduction of texture acceptability at the 21 II
and 23 days of ice storage (p lt0001) as shown by figure 9 and Table5 t
II
I 453 Over~ll acceptability
he overal I acceptability of the whiting sanples stored in ice is very
much similar to its f Lavour acceptability except at day 19 of ice storage
where the ovaral I acceptability shows a higher mean of 42 carpared to the
flavoor acceptability mean of 37 (figure 10 and Table 5) here is however a
significant sudden drop to lOil scores fran the lOth removal ie day 19 of
storage in ice (p lt0001)
hus all the above results for whitifVJ sanples showed that there was a
significant fall in flavCXJr and overall acceptability fram 19 days ice storage
onwards which is equivalent to the accumulated demerit points of 31 of the
TFRJ (unqutted) scores 35 of the TFRJ (gutted) scores 22 of the EEC
scores and 21 of the filleted sample scores he results are interesti~ in
that the oorresponding total accLDnulated demerit points at the time when
significant falls in flavour texture and overall acceptability of the blue
grenadier and whiting samples stored in I5W and ice respectively were quite
similar
500 CONCLUSION
510 Feasibility of using demerit points
Accumulation of demerit points with time of storage of M
in RM and H eemifaeaiatia in ice was found to be highly
occurred in a semi-linear fashion irrespective of the method of
novas8slandiae
correlated and
scori~ used
- _ ~uo_a~_bull--_--I e -Ii --
48
1he slopes of the lines (rate of accumulation of demerit points) and its
relative spoilage rate were found to be similar for the ttoO species provided
the sane method of scoring is employed 1his tends to suggest that the method
is possibly independent of species am methods of storage or at least
applicable to the two species in RSW and ice respectively
TIle TFRJ (ungutted) scores were foum to be the easiest arrl quickest
method to use although the TFRJ (gutted) scores were the roost sensitive 1he
EEX freshness scores were hClgtlever foum to be the JOOSt tedious aod difficult bull I
to use besides taking more than twice the time taken to score a fish ocmpared
to the TFRJ (ungut ted) scores
Although there were slig~t differences between the ttoO species in those
characteristics where changes were first made (Table 10 11 and 12) there is
enough evidence to conclude that the changes in the appearance of the eyes am
the odour developnent of the gills are the JOOSt obvious arrl valuable indicator
of charqe in quality when using the TFIU or the EEl scores while the
appearance am odour of the fish flesh seems to be the JOOSt obvious indicator
when assessing the filleted sample
1he shelf-life of M navaezelandiae stored in RSW was found to be 14 days
(less than 17 days) whilst that of H semifasoiata stored in ice was fourrl to
be 17 days (less than 19 days) beyond which the fish had developed spoilage
characteristics that were disliked by the acceptability taste panel
1he cut-off point at which spoilage of the samples would have rendered
the quality of the fish sample to be unacceptable fran the consumers point of
view ~ld be that equivalent to the accumulated demerit point of gt29 for the
TFRJ (gutted arrl ungutted) scores am gt21 for the EOC and filleted sample
scores
This study thus confinned the potential use of demerit points such as the
TFRJ (ungutted) scores as an easy quick cheap non-destructive and reliable
49
method of sensory assessment of fish quality In fact Branch and Vail (1985)
had studied the possible use of a prototype pocket-sized computer to determine
the condition and shelf-life of temperate and tropical species of fish based
on data that is derived fran the sensory score sheets for the assessment of
fish quality developed at the (SIRgt Division of fbod lEsearch Iasmanian Fbod
Research Unit (TFlU) Hobart
520 RJrpose for which demerit points are to be used
Many scor i oq systerrs are used to predict the nunber of days fish have
been stored on ice and in nore recent years ICETIME (equivalent days on
ice) I ard thus through years of experience the taste panel acceptability of
the fish I
However fish is sold on appearance and a scoring system may be used for
assessirg marketability of whole or gutted fish or fillets or for setting
standards in bulk buying The EEC scoring system is used for example at
fish markets at first point of sale to grade the fish and establish
withdrawal prices A IbrryShewan type system is often used as a purohas i nq
specification from finn to firm
Before a final demerit point system is selected for any COlIOOdity its
ultimate purpose should be established For example the demerit points
chosen for whole fish which nost closely resemble the rate of change of
demerit points for fillets of that species might be the most useful
A linear rate of change of demerit points with time is nose favoured
because it enables prediction of remaining shelf-life ConstJJrer
unacceptability should be at a point where perhaps 75 of the demerit points
have been accrued Further scores would still be available for categories
such as suitable for fish meal D3merit points are not an indication of the
acceptability of fish as eaten where off-odours flavours and fillet
50
tdiscolouration are masked by batters or curries Their correlation with the
iodours flavours off odours aod off flavours of steamed fish are currently ~
~
~being examined by other workers at the Tasmanian ~ Research unit and highly
significant correlations are found Even when fish are subsequently eaten
battered or curried demerit points give a good indication of remaining shelf
life Thus whitiOJ with a Smiley flavour score of 58 after 1 day on ice
has a nlU gutted demerit score of 1 and a high quality life (eaten crumbed
and fried) of a further 16 days while whitiOJ stored for 11 days on ice with
the sane flavour score has a gutted demerit score of 17 and a further shelf
life of 6 days
530 SUggestion for further work
Ib ascertain its potentially wide application as a simple quick and
technically sound methcxi of assessing fish quality many more studies using
other species of fish both temperate and tropical species and in various
storage conditions should be undertaken using a demerit point scorIrq system
such as that developed by the TFlU
The score sheet has proved invaluable when sending individuals untrained
researchers away on distant water fishing trips Ps yet 00 standard
deviations have been detennined using a team of assessors with coded samples
of unknown history This may require a separate group design
The effect of lean fish and fatty fish on the scores should also be
studied because factors such as seasonal variations in biological conditions
Lmproper gutting and washing mechanical damage and filth and changes due to
storage in R3W or shelving may have considerable influence on its shelf-
life Reports such as those of smith et al (1979) clearly showed that in fish
such as the blue whitirlJ (Mioroomesistius poubaeeous there is greater degree
I 51
of seasonal variability than in other gadoid species the overall
acceptability droppirq dramatically once the fish have spawned Fish accepted
for processing for food has to be of a higher standard of quality than fish
accepted for Imredfate sale across the counter to the consumer therefore
there is a need to rreet a minimum score before they could be processed into
food Gradirq is therefore best left to the user sorenson (1971) states
that in establishing limi ts of acceptance an allowance had to be made for
deterioration that would continue to take place during processing and storage
prior to reaching the consimer
The only final criteria of the objectivity of sensory or any other
assessment are results that are reproducible many times which is by definition
a lcnJ-tenn process and in the meantime one requires short-cut indications
that one is headirq in the right direction
Ferhaps a final caution Is necessary as in the YQrds of Ehrenberg and
Shewan (1953) not too much must be expected even the best measuring
instruments occasionally go oot of control
52
60 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baines CR Jones NR am Shewan JM 1965 Technological problems of
measur trq degree of freshness of wet fish and problems of quality
control requirif)J roore knowledge fran fundamental research In he
Technology of fish utilisation ad R Kreuzer Fishi~ News (Books)
p 141
Baines CR and Shewan JM 1965 sensory rrethods for evafuat inq the
quality of white fish Lab practice 14 160-163
Baines CR ltbnnell JoJ Gibson DM lbWgate PF Livi~ston E and
Shewan JM 1969 A taste panel technique for evaluatirq the eati~
quality of frozen cod In Freezi~ and irradiation of fish ad R
Kreuzer Fishi~ News (Books) London p361
Boyd NS and Wilson NDC 1976 A sensory method for evaluatInq the
quality of Snapper (Ch1ysophrys auratus) NZ Journal of Science 19
209-12
Boyd NS Wilson ND and Bjley A 1978 A refrigerated sea water plant
for small boats symposium on fish utilisation technology and
marketi~ in the IPFC region IFFC Proceedi~s 18th session Manila
Philippines FAD Ba~kok p 186-192
Branch AC and Vail AMA 1984 Bri~i~ fish inspection into the
canputer age FltXld Technol Aust 36 in press
Bremner HA Olley J and Ihrower SoJ 1978 CSIIU Iasmanian lEgional
Laboratory OCcasional Paper No4
Bremner HA 1980 Processi~ and freezi~ of the blue grenadier (Maclulonus
novaeselandiae) FltXld Technol Aust 32(8)~ pp 385-393
Bremner J A 1984 QJality - an attitude of mind In he JILlstralian
Fishi~ Industry - today and tanorrow 10-12 July 1984 Launceston
53
Australian MaritUne Cbllege seminar Bapers 224-69
Bremner HA Statham JA am Sykes SJ 1985 Tropical species fran the
north west shelf of Alstralia sensory assessment and acceptability
of fish stored co ice Proceedi~s Sixth session IPR Worki~ Party
on Fish D3chnology and Marketi~ Melbourne 1984 FJID Fish lep 252
supp1
Burford D 1985 Sodiun uptake in MaOlUfOOnUS nooaeselandiae stored in
refrigerated sea water Tasmanian Food Research Unit OCcasional Paper
No9
ltbnnell JJ 1972 OJality control in the fish industry Ibrry Jldvisory
note No 58 IOrty Research Station Aberdeen
ltbnnell JJ 1980 ltbntrol of fish quality Fishi~ ~ws (Books) 2nd ed
Surrey England
OJrran CA Nicolaides L and Al-Alawi ZS 1981 QJality chanqes duri~
iced storage of three carmercially important species of fish fran
Bahrain Trop sci 23(4) 253-268
de Zylva ERA 1974 Effect of fish handli~ at sea on storage quality of
New Zealand Snapper (Chroysophroys aumtus) New Zealand J SCi 17
309-318
Etlira S 1976 A biochemical study on the freshness of fish Bull 1bkai
Reg Fish Res Lab No 88 pp 1-13
Ehrenberg ASC and Shewan JM 1953 he cbjective approach to sensory
tests of food J Sci Food hJric 4 pp 482-489
Herbert RA and Shewan JM 1975 Precursors of the volatile sulphides in
spoili~ North Sea Cod J Sci Food JIlgric 26 1195-1202
lbUwi~ H 1972 Gradi~ of fish in different qualities Institute for
Fishery Products Ijmuiden Unpublished
~ate P 1972 Qrlparison of sensory scor inq systems for raw fish
I 54
Unpubl ished bull ~ ~
~ate P 1978 Measuri~ the quality am acceptability of fish products bull ~
In IPFC Proceedi~s symposiun on fish utilisatial technology and ~
i f~
marketi~ in the IWC region 18th session Manila Ihilippines p
449
fflghes RB and Jones NR 1966 Measurement of hypoxanthine concentrations
in canned herrirg as an index of the freshness of the raw material
with a ocirment oo flavor relations J SCi fOOd middotJlgric 17 434
Jahns FD Howe JL Coduri Jr RJ and Ram Jr AG 1976 A rapid
visual enzyme test to assess fish freshness Food Iechno1 30 (7) 27
Jones NR 1964 ~lems associated with freezi~ very fresh fish
Proceedings Meeting on Fish Iechnology Fish Handling and
Preservation schevenirqen OEC D Paris p 31 bull
Jones NR 1965 Hypoxanthine and other purine containing fractions in fish
muscle as indices of freshness In uthe technology of fish
utilisation ed R Kreuzer Fishi~ rewa (Books) (Drmn p 179
Last PR Scott EOG and Talbot FH 1983 Fishes of Tasmania
Tasmanian Fisheries ~velopnent lUthority lbbart Tasmania pp 238
414
Lima doe santos CAM James D and Ieutscher F 1981 QJidelines for
chilled fish storage experiments FKJ Fish Tech Igt 210
(Dye RM 1954 Ibst rrortem cha~es in the lenses of fish eyes Msessment
of storage tiJm and fish quality J Sci Focx11lgric 5 566-572
Hartin RE Gray RJ H and Pierson MD 1978 QJality assessment of fresh
fish arrl the role of the naturally occurring microflora Focx1
Technol 32 (5) 188
Official Journal of the European oamrnunities No L264 5 ~cember 1970 pp
1-11
bull
55
Technol New Zealand July 1971 pp 31-35
Spinelli J Eklund M and Miyauchi D 1964 Measurement of hypoxanthine
in fish as a method of assessing freshness J Food SCi 29 710
Thrower S oJ am Stafford IA 1981 A roobile unit for ccmparative studies
of chilled storage systems for trawl fish IIF IIR
eatmissions C2 01 02 03 Boston USA 1981-4
Thrower SoJ Bremner HA QJarmby AR Ggtnnan T8 aild Graham KJ
1982 cn-board handlinJ of Q~ish ~ Inportanoeof chillinJ and
gutting Aust Fish 41 (11) 38-41
Tanlinson N bull bull t at 1974 COtparison between refrigerated sea water (with or
without added carbon dioxide) and ice as storage media for fish to be
subsequently frozen Proc IIR C011n 82- 0-3 Tokyo p
waterman J oJ 1982 Qrrposition and QJality of Fish A Dictionary 1brry
Mvisory Note No 87 Torry Research Station Aberdeen
5J
Olley J and letkowsky OA 1973 he role of terrperature function
integration in monitoring of fish spoilage Food Technol New
Zealand 8 (2) 13 15 and 17
Olley J 1977 Iemperature and seafood spoilage In H Proceedings of 1977
SChool for SeafltXld Processorsmiddot ad ~ AF 0 Mello Hawkesbury
Agricultural Oollege p6-2
Olley J 1978 QIality assessment and storage changes In middotCSIRJ Iasmanian bull
leJional Laboratory OCcasional Paper No 4 p 3-1 middot4 Rgenstein J M and ~enstein CE 1981 he shelf-life extension of fesh
fish In Advances in the refrigerated treabnent of fishmiddot
International Institute of Rfrigeration Clmnissions C2 m ra [8
Boston US A 1981-4
leJenstein J 1983 Wlat is fish quality INroFISH Marketing Digest ttgt 6
26-28
Ryder JM 9Jisson OH SCott ON and Fletcher GC 1984 storage of
New Zealand Jack Mackerel ( TmohUMlB notJabullbullbullZandias) in ice
chemical microbiological and sensory assessment J M SCi 49
1453-1456 1477
Shewan JM Macintosh RG rucker CG and Ehrenberg ASC 1953 he
developnent of a numerical ~coring systan for the sensory assessment
of the spoilage of wet white fish stored in ice J SCi Food Jlgric
4 283-298
Smith J GM Hardy R hanson AB Young KW and Parsons E 1979
sane observations 00 the ambient and chill storage of blue whiting
(Mio1om8sistius poutassou) bull In H Advances in Fish SCience and
Technology ad JJ Connell FishinJ News (Books) Surrey England
pp 299-303
SOrensen T 1971 QIality control and fish handling in New zealand Food ~
t c-
o )
~hmiddot r~YiJ lt~
~~f~~ ~
I
Nomooram for comparison of diffGrent scoring systems tor raw T i sn ___ _ J bull )
_U I~ ~Y1 9i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~
I I t I I - _---1------ imiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot __ middot~_ ~ __~_ -_ ~ + ~ _ -~ _ - middotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middot __ G 9 8 7 6 _ 5middot 3
_ - zmmy [ I bull r f II
d _~__ ~ __ _ ~ __ -I-- - ~ L- i~ middoti~ ~ 1-L -~~ lt lt l~tceland 1P i ~ ~ j ~ ~ ~ L~ __ - I ~_ bull _ L j ~- _-
N rv 1 I 1 2 --- - 2~ 3 middot 3middot 4 ~- ~Il ay ~ _ _ middot _ r r
_ _ __ _ _~ ~_ ) - ~ L_ - 1- ~-_ -_ _ _ ~ 19 ~ 8 imiddotmiddot I 6 5 4 3
Do _ _nm~r t I I I r
~ I
_ ~ ~_ ~ t ~ __ i__ t ~ ~ ~ ~ _ q x 1 1i 2 2~ 3v _ Franee I r I l n
I I I i _ - ~ _ _ _- _-- middotmiddot __ middot_middot_middot_middotmiddotmiddotImiddotmiddotmiddot_middot~ _middotmiddotmiddotmiddot-_middotmiddotmiddotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddot ---- - --~ ~-
19oum8 I 7 6 i 5 ~ ~ 4middot 280 J t (
I i
J -- - -_ -__ X ~middotH i__~ -- i_L ~ - l_ middot1-- - 3 I 2Y1 0 4 11z 1 y
E E C I 1
I I I deg deg E I A r Bmiddot - I I C
ltOIl j- ~ ~ c ~--------------
TASTER
DATE
SESSION
~ER middot1
bull You will be given ~bull aamples of cooked fish Please assess the fish for flavour textur~ and
overall liking as though you had purchased them in a takeaway food shop Hark the sample
identification under the face that most closely describes your impressionbull
I
middot5 S shy2 3 4
FLAVOUR
IEXlURE
--
OVERALL UKING
7 bullbull yc ) I _ v J _ _
I1PP~NJIJ( 3 ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE BGRENVZSASS (A)
OBS DAYS-R DMPTS shy
1 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 6 4 3 7 4 6 e 4 5 9 6 1 18 6 10 11 6 18 12 6 18 13 e 13 14 8 16 13 8 13 16 8 17 17 9 18 18 9 18 19 9 bull 19 29 9 19 21 19 19 22 1 21 23 1 19 24 1 2123 11 21 26 11 22 27 11 22 29 11 22 29 12 22 3 12 22 31 12 23 32 12 23 33 13 23 34 13 23 33 13 22 36 13 23 37 14 24 38 14 23 39 14 264 14 25
17 26~ 17 39 43 17 38 44 17 29 43 21 32 46 21 33
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASS(At
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (Xt DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Yt DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9666 R SQUARED 9343 T STATISTIC 231621 INTERCEPT tAt 31799 SLOPE tSt 173399 bull STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 219473
OBSERVATIONS 46 Y DMPT9 XI DAYS-RSW YMIN -18 YMAX 61 YINC e XMIN -19 XMAX 2e9 XINe 2
] y
__ t=- I I 0(I I
JPRH6ELF PRINT MODULE -SYNTAX ERROR
DATABASE J3lGRENVISASS (FIL)
OB8 DAYS-R DMPT8
1 s 1 2 4 5 s 6 6
~ e 8 ~ 9 1 6 19 12 7 11 14 8 12 17 9 13 18 1 14 19 bull 11 17 23 12 21 29
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASSCFIL)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE CX) DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IY) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT ~9963
R SQUARED 992 T STATISTIC 3~36977
INTERCEPT CA) -3~6~41
SLOPE CB) 1~8426
STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 77667
OBSERVATIONS 12 v DMPTS x DAYS-RSW VMIN -2~ VMAX ~~ YINC ~
XMIN -19 XMAX 2~9 XINC 2
]
bull
-SYNTAX ERROR
lPRH6ELF PRINT MODULE
DATABASE BGRENVXSASS (AG)_
OB6
1 2 3 4 ~
6 7 8 9
Hi 11 12 13 14 1~
16 17 -18 19 2 21 22 23 24 2~
26 27 28 29
3 31 32 33 34 3~
36 37 J8
39
4 41 42 43 44 4~
46
DAYS-R
3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 6 6 6 6 8 8
8 bull 8
9 9 9 9
1 1 1 1 11 11 11 11
DMPTS
2 3 3 3 ~
6 ~
~
1 1 1 1 17 18 17 19 2~
2 21 21 21 23 21 23 23 24 24 24
12 24 12 24 12 25 12 25 13 27 13 25 J3 24 13 27 104 26 J04 2S
14 28 14 27 17 28 17 32 17 32 17 31 21 34 21 35
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BORENVISASSCAO)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE IX) DAVS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IV) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9~76~
R SQUARED 917 T STATISTIC 22S6S88 INTERCEPT lA) 323~7
SLOPE lB) 189812 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 269324
OBSERVATIONS 46 Y DM PT6 X DAYS-RSW ~ _01 VMAV 2~ YfNe ~
XMIN -19 XNAX 2l9 XINC 2
]
9YNTA)( ERROR bull ]PRN6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE BGRENVXSASS
OB6 DAY6-R DMPTS
1 3 1 2 3 1 3 3 1 4 3 1 5 4 1 6 4 4 7 4 3 9 4 1 9 6 6 18 6 6
11 6 6 12 6 6 13 9 8
14 9 9 15 8 8 16 8 9 l 9 18 19 9 11 19 9 12 28 9 12 21 18 12 22 18 14 23 18 11 24 18 14 25 11 15 26 11 13 27 11 15 29 11 15 29 12 17 3 12 18 31 12 19 32 12 18gJ l~ 34 13 18 3~ 13 18 36 13 19 37 14 19 JB 14 19 39 14 19 48 14 19 41 17 19 42 17 23 43 17 21 44 17 20
-(EEC)
q~ 21 23 q6 21 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE BGRENVISASSCEEC)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE IX) DAYS-RSW DEPENDENT VARIABLE IY) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 96691 R SQUARED 93q9 T STATISTIC 2~14824
INTERCEPT IA) -238937 SLOPE IB) 146219 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 1S28eS
OBSERVATIONS q6 Y DMPTS X DAYS-RSW YMIN -2q YMAX ~5 YINC ~
XMIN -19 XMAX 259 XJNC 2
l
SYNTAX ERROR lPRM8ELF PRINT MODULE
-
bull
APPENJ)K 4 -
DATABASE WHZTXNG VXSASS (A) bull
OBS DAYS-I
1 1 2 1 3 1 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 ~
9 5 9 5 Ii 7 11 7 12 7 13 9 14 9 1~ 9
016 11 17 11 19 11
DMPTS
1 1 1 1 2 2 4 3 5 a 7
9 13 15 bull 13 16 14 1~
019 13 2 8 28 13 16 21 13 20 22 15 24 23 1~ 24 24 15 25 25 17 29 26 17 29 27 17 38 29 19 30 29 19 38 38 19 32 31 21 33 32 21 32 33 21 32 34 23 32 3~ 23 32 36 23 34
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASSIA)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE tX) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE tV) qMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 98514 R SQUARED 9785 T STATISTIC 3344414 INTERCEPT tAt -245163 SLOPE CBt 166958 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 286799
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS x DAYS-ICE
YMIN -22 YMAX lS7 YINC lS- XMIN -19 XMAX 259 XINC 2
]
I
J
-8YNTAX ERROR
]PRM6ELF PRINT MODULE shyDATABASE WHITING VISASS (AG)
OB8 DAYS-I DMPT8
1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 4 3 1 ~ 3 2 6 3 2 7 ~ 4 9 ~ 3 9 ~ ~
18 7 18 11 7 9 12 7 18 13 9 1~
14 9 17 1~ 9 1~
16 11 18 17 11 16 18 11 17 19 13 22 28 13 18 21 13 22 22 1~ 26 23 1~ 27 24 1~ 28 2~ 17 32 26 17 32 27 17 33 28 19 34 29 19 34 38 19 36 31 21 37 32 21 36 33 21 36 34 23 36 3~ 23 36 36 23 38
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITINO VISASS(AO)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAY8-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Y) DMPTS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 986~2
R SQUARED 973 T STATISTIC 3~B167B
INTERCEPT CAl -272~33
SLOPE CBI 197S63 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 221294
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS X DAYS-ICE YHIN -19~ YHAX ~9~ YINC ~
XHIN -19 XHAX 2~9 XINC 2
]
-SYNTAX ERROR lPRM6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASS (EEC)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 2 1 3 1 4 3 ~ 3 1 6 3 1 7 ~ 2 8 ~ 2 9 ~ 3
1 7 3 11 7 3 12 7 3 13 9 6 14 9 6 bull 1~ 9 7 16 11 7 17 11 8 18 11 7 19 13 11 2 13 1 21 13 12 22 1~ 13 23 1~ 1~
24 1~ 17 2~ 17 19 26 17 18 27 17 19 28 19 29 29 19 23 39 19 22 31 21 24 32 21 23 33 21 24
34 23 2J 3~ 23 26 36 23 27
I ELF SCATTER MODULE I DATABASE WHITING VISA88CEEC)I I INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (~) DAYS-ICE I
DEPENDENT VARIABLE (VI DMPTS I bull
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 9a2~3
R SQUARED 96~3
T STATISTIC 387a73~
INTERCEPT (A) -4142 SLOPE (8) 12873 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 173287
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS ~ DAYS-ICE YMIN -29 YMA~ ~1 VINC ~
XMIN -19 ~MA~ 2~9 ~INC 2
J
-SYNTAX ERROR JPRM6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHITING VXSASSmiddot(FXL)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 2 3 1 3 ~ 5 4 7 4 ~ 9 9 6 11 13 7 13 1~
e 1~ 16 9 17 19 18 19 21 11 21 24 12 23 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE WHITING VISASB(FJLI
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE (Y) DMPTS
bull bullbull 4~
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (X) DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE CV) DMPTSr
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 982~3
R SQUARED 96~3
T STATISTIC 3S7873~ t bullbullf CINTERCEPT CA) -4142
SLOPE CB) 12873 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 173287
OBSERVATIONS 36 Y DMPTS XI DAYS-ICE YMINmiddot~28 YMAKI 1 YINC ~
XMIN -I9XMAX 2~9 XINC2
]
-SYNTAX ERROR ]PRH6ELF PRINT MODULE DATABASE WHXTXNG VXSASS (FXL)
OBS DAYS-I DMPTS
1 1 S 2 3 1 1 5 3 4 7 4 5 9 9 6 11 13 7 13 1~
9 15 16 9 17 19 1 19 21 11 21 24 12 23 26
ELF SCATTER MODULE DATABASE I WHITING VISAS8(FIL)
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE CX)I DAYS-ICE DEPENDENT VARIABLE CY) DMPT8
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 99289 R SQUARED 9858 T STATISTIC 2638123 INTERCEPT CA) -243706 SLOPE CB) 124476 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 112846
SLOPE 10) 124476 STD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 112846
ObullbulllfftVTrOHSO 12 VI DHPTS XI DAVS-ICE VMIN -27 VHAX e2 VINe e XHIN -19 XHAX 2e9 gtcINe 2
]
-8VNTAX ERROR
fi
rr
[bull
SJ
in i
bullol
r~
bull bull
n i
o o o o
~
o~ o
o - l
N~ o ~
o o o
Q
Q o o
a
c -~_
Q
_
_ Q
_9_
0
o ~-
O
_
Q
lI
oJ ~
v
~ ~
~-
-
- -1
---h
---1
---I
I
I
1
~ ((9 ~ J las 0 - ~~ U -lt) az E~-~gl~~1--~~---------- ~) 1)
11 ~ - 11 HI ~~
I bull M~
~ -~ ~~ IJ~ I J ismiddotJ I Q l~
k tl I 01 re lr - 91 br I ~I ( -0 71P g I CJ tt
I I J 000 0 0 w I 0) NlNN1tl 30 hIflJ I t IC (~4ID(r ~ Wi
_ f-- -------- bull fyen ~=y ~~r I I I I I I I 0 0 00 00 ( ~) -Fr~ ~ fj)
-0 I 0 I Ole 17 10 0 ( ~ AI )middot P1~ 0 0 00 Q hItIrS ~7I -~~ (J
t -r------0 bull
_-~_ middotmiddotmiddot_middot~middotmiddotmiddot)-middot7~)
lrrT I 01 0
0 tFmiddot~~i ~ 1 o 00 Omiddot (~ -W ~r f (JJ___~ _______ _ l I I 71 I -_---_ - M-~ ~ I
J I Z-tf ~ ~ ~fI t1 11f ( )) CI I I I i I 00 r11-7[ c I C bull aofl7r_ ~ ~z ~ 1t~Ji ) ( --_--------i---shye l~~~ I f~) I I J I
I II i bull Q ( N~T fE ~I )
~JiP _- -___ ----shy
_
~ 7Yr 0) ~(J ~ I e I t I ~ l I J I I 1 I I I(I 0 0 (~~yen~ M -p~P71 JPtJIJs 0
i euror (1l~J IlLriJlllr1JI ~~J I ~()(1OP I I r I I 0 I ( t t I ( jIfS 7fS ~~I ~ )
I
I 1 I( IN 10~ lb~ qItJ gtr~j f o (~)I(~) I I 0 I (t~ ~~) I I Jbull o 0 J I ~ l 0 a i S(jJ t t t tI tI C I C I J I I I J I 0 I (n~rlP PI4t -I) t
- -I
-I -I-I I II-I I I-I r bull
-----(rtb Ii If p~) PNl17T7~b ~y~ 7
10 IIt1v I 0 1~L CIJ tN IfIfW1IIJ JI11i JN~I HJ3
---Y p~ALY~_ ~~ Yl2-- 1)
yenvr 1amp f111l
-
~
~~
~
II
o 0
~cgt
(
) Q
oa
oo
o
oo
o o
a
o
~
P
t
oo
c
oo
a -
o
oo
o
o -
o
-o
-
-
lJ
I~ I~
Jl ~rIpound i IAlffzfjjsectj 7df- utl kf J OG lie rCOIpound ~IIE(T r
7tU
~
~ ~
~ ~
~
-shy~
~
MYI f)lySLM~ 1 (JAy ISo~r 11 ~~) e ()~t ~I01) r I joy f o~y lOJ 17~JJlII1~ 16 fiti -t1 It r ~17J~~flu~1h 111H 7U 1111111shyIllf Jr(11Jr I fhJo
~ ) ~ I1 J J-4 ~ J 2 JJ ~poundol ~ ] t4 cl -7 eJ uJ cJJJ wI~ wI l shy w c at amp 74 -t ~ ut 4 I
SkIN 000 o 0 0o 0 0 o 00 I o I I I I 3 3 3l) t 3 3 31 s 3ltt
a I I I I I o IfYU I 2 I JI I I000 )l~ 1~1 S 3 ~S 3 5 335
GILtJ I J I o (J 0 I (I I I ~ t 2shy~I I s 3 ]] 2 0 (J 3 ~ ~ t 3 3 AlvItUiU i l I I ls)z oJ lJ 0 a (J ~ 0o 0 0 a a aTff1ttJR II r 1
1 I ~ I I I I 1~E
Cdt47tl7 I I ~ ~t( a a 0O(O I Io I~ 00 000deg a 0wO 0 0 0 o 0 0 o~ 00VUipound811 ~ J I
tJ I Oe6rlllr I I I I 2 2]l2 ~ 3 S 3 S ~ 3o a 0 (J () 0 I 333 1 $ 3
If~euMI LU~ 2l 3000o (J 0 o 0 0 J 2 2shy 331a deg (1 ~ 2 Jshy
i I 000amp1 0 I I 1TIUUpound
lAcltJdJE 00deg00o 0 0 ooalOOO 0 0 I I I 1OdOa deg 0 11 2 I r I I I IbullI
I I h~r~Eu I ( 0 0 CJ 0 o (J a 2 ~ 30001011 0 1 J 1010 I I L II 2 l 2l 22 2 1
sKIN GLLt I f I~J) GlIIl) 0 (I a I do 0 0 I 0 Il~t l~o 0 0 ~ 3 3 3 s 3 3 3 33s1331
i7tJ7l11 Ibull I shy i66 ~o
(J ~ 0 1 0 It3331l J t 1 1shy 1~ ~afJllc 11 Irrshy It ~1 1111 20 J3 u
(])JtUJ61 (l) (1) (Ir)(0) (J)(I) (If) (19) (u) (~r)(J4)
I r f
I
I
i I
I i
II I ((
f
II Ii
p ()
Q
0_
_ 00
0
00
00
00
0
o o o 0
00
0
0 _
o Q
0
0
o
0
00
0
-
0 0
0
middot0
0
o oo
0
o Q
o oo o o
- ~
~
~ ~~pound
w
i -shy
o
co
- --
shy
o o o
~
~_
~
0
-shyJJ
-----l--~
-J
J IJ
f
J
J)
o 0
00
_ 0
0
o (gt
0
o ()
o
0
0 0
0
()
()
o 0
0
o 0
0
_
_ -
-----1
-----shy
Q
0 0
o ~-IJ~ulJ-
u
lJcllJ_-_~IJamp
o o
Q
I---+----I---+----I----I~-
_Ilpound
llD
lIlI
Il
~I
IIIl
I_II
II5
l__
IIlIa
IllP
=lII
Il1
rl
ll
IlIl
IlIII
llII
IlJl
IIl
IIlIl_
IIrII
G3i
mta
isectID
it
llll~
1~=wampampftUla
_
au
U
Lamp
WJN
AJ
poundmiddotJI
IiIamp
3flJ
a
uac
ampa
f
shy
I~middottn 0~L fi 5L middottlu~ fo_~r ( ) 1poundc [CtJRl -ffl(pound1 r~~ rlt1c- J c-ru
-- I
1SllJ7~
lt l)~ J )IIr M ~-t s ~~ OIl middot )If 10 JAY II 041
J- Olt i1 )lir iI DIY IT- IMy11
1~middot6f1 14f1- ~imiddot -- J _ middotAfmiddot IIrk middot Jiamp -ffh~11 rtr Il ~M gt27P- ill Ill ~lllY ~~7rlf JC 1- ~ r 1M 11
r ~ F16F r~h FIjFi ~~I)r r~Fr
5 Fc II -i~fIoi l 1 fj t t Fr c r amp t 1= ~ r ~ F r rtI ~
- -
sION o (j o 0 0 o 0 a I I I I I I I I 2 I t t I-r J~L) z~z~ 2~J ~ z a ~ ~ 33 - -ol t 1 2
~ poundys-s 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I I lt t 2 t t 4 ~z ~ 2l~ ~ ~ 1 Z 3zi3p33 3 333 3 3 3 - - ~ rl~ a 0 a (1 a a o 1 I 1 I 1-2 12 t ltt a ~ l J tll~ ~~~) 2 2 2 2- ~Jll 21 13 33 ~
- ~ MIIi(UlA~
degCt1C 11 )l
FipoundSI- eli CeoD o 0 (J 0 I I I I I I 1 1 I I 1 I Jl~] l2 22- z ~ 2 2 22 11 2-3 -Sfvpound
j
CIJiCVlt-tICN I I I 1 ( I I I 2 2 t ~ t~ )2 2~21 2$ 2 t _~ 3AIJJN(j- P (J dO o C a a o 0 00 1 I I I I - --
V~7r~ ~ c~u N
(TKWW~ CO~ o I oc I I J I I I I 1 2 I 2 2 1- ) t~l2 2- 22 2 ) 2 ~2- 1222 2 2 ll 2L -- -~VClLAl I
a 0 0 0 01 I 0 2 1 2 2 J5r 4 E i H CA I I
-I I I I I I I I J J 12( ~ 12 1 2 1 2-I TfI_ 21 1-1- 1 1 ~ 1
~ I middot_0-__-- I
~ 1
ffCACIpound coo 000lt=1 o 0 0 0 btJCt) o a () (J I I I I I I I I111 I I I 1 I I -~-aD CD lJ a a 0 0 ~ ~ UlrAfllN o 0 a IJ e e 0 C) (JdegOo ecJao co (10 (1 o I I I I I I I I 1 I I III I I I I z --
i tiN ~4r L~~ 2- li ~ a~ 8M) CUmiddot c d (J 0 (J () I I I 1 1 1
I 1 I I f t I II tl-loI 21 1 t 33 - -
-Iffl1-
J I I I I i- 2 I 11~SC~E ~ t 1 o ~ 04-t 1J 11 1 11t IS~ IfS J1 I 1 I If I IJ 1 r~]u ze uu __
bull ttlUIG
(I) l~) (6) (II) ~ (~) 6s-)llIt lCUI CJ (Ii) (~) vmiddot (II) (19~ ---
I t f
I
~ I
~ I
Ii
I I
Ii I II f
~ (
--)raquo~ middot-~~-~-I~~IliiI~~-middotComiddot~-d-b~middotmiddotmiddotmiddot_ ~ ~ middoth-~_middot--~H~~middot~gt
Other Occasional Papers in the series
1 A salinity monitor for irrigation pumps by EOMIEZITIS
2 Wine liqueur and fish products acceptability trials 47th ANZAAS Congress Hobart 1976 by HABREMNER TLLEWIS and ARQUARMBY
3 Abalone silage an exercise in the conservation of waste by JUNE OLLEY
4 Course notes contributed by the CSIRO Tasmanian Food Research Unit to a workshop on fish handling and quality control Hobart Oct3rd-5th 1978 by HABREMNER JUNE OLLEY and SJTHROWER
5 Difficulties with generalized least squares regression in forest modelling by PWWEST
6 Metabolism of zinc cadmium and copper in rats fed shellfish highly contaminated with heavy metals by SJTHROWER JUNE OLLEY and MAUREEN McDERMOTT
7 Hygiene control in seafood processing by SJTHROWER