am - University of Tasmania

84
Q;IR> T1lSMANIAN .RmlOW:. IJB>RA1ORX' OOCIlSlDlAL PAPER 10. 8 ASSESSMENT OF' SENSOR{ TECHNIOJES FOR OJALI'IY ASSESSMENl' OF WSTRALIAN FISH by IIJSSEIN ABO. RAfIotAN * am JUNE OLLEY This 'toOrk was undertaken at the CSIRJ Division of Food R3search, 'nlsmanian FoOO Unit (TFRJ), Hobart, Tasmania, in oo-operat Ion with staff rrenbers The project report was prepared as a partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Graduate Diplana in Fisheries Technology at the School of F.isheries, Australian Maritime College, Beauty Tasmania. * Present Address: stesen Memproses Ikan M .A.R.D.I., Jalan Balik Bukit, I<Uala Trengganu, Trengganu, Malaysia. November 1984.

Transcript of am - University of Tasmania

Page 1: 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

Page 2: am - University of Tasmania

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

Page 3: am - University of Tasmania

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

Page 4: am - University of Tasmania

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

Page 5: am - University of Tasmania

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

Page 6: am - University of Tasmania

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

Page 7: am - University of Tasmania

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

Page 8: am - University of Tasmania

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

Page 9: am - University of Tasmania

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

Page 10: am - University of Tasmania

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

Page 11: am - University of Tasmania

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

Page 12: am - University of Tasmania

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

Page 13: am - University of Tasmania

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

Page 14: am - University of Tasmania

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

Page 15: am - University of Tasmania

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

Page 16: am - University of Tasmania

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

Page 17: am - University of Tasmania

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

Page 18: am - University of Tasmania

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

Page 19: am - University of Tasmania

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

Page 20: am - University of Tasmania

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

Page 21: am - University of Tasmania

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

Page 22: am - University of Tasmania

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

Page 23: am - University of Tasmania
Page 24: am - University of Tasmania
Page 25: am - University of Tasmania
Page 26: am - University of Tasmania
Page 27: am - University of Tasmania
Page 28: am - University of Tasmania
Page 29: am - University of Tasmania
Page 30: am - University of Tasmania
Page 31: am - University of Tasmania
Page 32: am - University of Tasmania
Page 33: am - University of Tasmania
Page 34: am - University of Tasmania
Page 35: am - University of Tasmania
Page 36: am - University of Tasmania
Page 37: am - University of Tasmania
Page 38: am - University of Tasmania
Page 39: am - University of Tasmania
Page 40: am - University of Tasmania
Page 41: am - University of Tasmania
Page 42: am - University of Tasmania
Page 43: am - University of Tasmania
Page 44: am - University of Tasmania
Page 45: am - University of Tasmania
Page 46: am - University of Tasmania
Page 47: am - University of Tasmania
Page 48: am - University of Tasmania
Page 49: am - University of Tasmania
Page 50: am - University of Tasmania
Page 51: am - University of Tasmania
Page 52: am - University of Tasmania
Page 53: am - University of Tasmania
Page 54: am - University of Tasmania
Page 55: am - University of Tasmania
Page 56: am - University of Tasmania
Page 57: am - University of Tasmania
Page 58: am - University of Tasmania
Page 59: am - University of Tasmania
Page 60: am - University of Tasmania
Page 61: am - University of Tasmania
Page 62: am - University of Tasmania
Page 63: am - University of Tasmania
Page 64: am - University of Tasmania
Page 65: am - University of Tasmania
Page 66: am - University of Tasmania
Page 67: am - University of Tasmania
Page 68: am - University of Tasmania
Page 69: am - University of Tasmania
Page 70: am - University of Tasmania
Page 71: am - University of Tasmania
Page 72: am - University of Tasmania
Page 73: am - University of Tasmania
Page 74: am - University of Tasmania
Page 75: am - University of Tasmania
Page 76: am - University of Tasmania
Page 77: am - University of Tasmania
Page 78: am - University of Tasmania
Page 79: am - University of Tasmania
Page 80: am - University of Tasmania
Page 81: am - University of Tasmania
Page 82: am - University of Tasmania