UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Quality enhancement of canned late-run chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) Collins, Lindley Simeon 1989

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1990_A6_7 C64.pdf [ 5.86MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0098099.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0098099-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0098099-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0098099-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0098099-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0098099-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0098099-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0098099-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0098099.ris

Full Text

QUALITY ENHANCEMENT OF CAMMED LATE-RUN CHUM SALMON {ONCORHYNCHUS  KETA) by LINDLEY SIMEON COLLINS Licienciate degree (Food Science), University of Havana, 1985  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES DEPARTMENT OF FOOD SCIENCE  We accept this thesis as conforming to the required  standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA November, 1989 (c) LINDLEY SIMEON COLLINS, 1989  ^ 0  In  presenting this  degree at the  thesis  in  University of  partial  fulfilment  of  of  department  this thesis for or  by  his  or  requirements  British Columbia, I agree that the  freely available for reference and study. I further copying  the  representatives.  an advanced  Library shall make it  agree that permission for extensive  scholarly purposes may be her  for  It  is  granted  by the  understood  that  head of copying  my or  publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.  Department of  Food S c i e n c e  The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada  D  a  t  e  DE-6 (2/88)  22/11/89  ABSTRACT  In t h i s study, a number of experiments were undertaken to i n v e s t i g a t e possible texture  and  methods f o r e f f e c t i v e  flavour  of  canned  late-run  improvement chum  of the  salmon.  These  included removal of the skin and bones from the f i s h , processing of  the  boneless-skinless  treatment using hour  each  two  tripolyphosphate  in  washes with an  time, and  boneless-skinless  steaks  a  steaks and  2%  8%  precanning were brine  retort salt  pouches,  s o l u t i o n f o r one  treatment  soaked  in a  f o r two  brine  in  which  solution  minutes. Only  the  of  10%  fish  of  advanced sexual maturity were used. The  canned  salmon  minutes i n an FMC  was  steam  processed a t 120°C f o r 6 5  l a b o r a t o r y r e t o r t . This was  based on a known  commercial process f o r 307 x 115 cans. Heat penetration s t u d i e s were  carried  out  to  design the  pouched samples. I t was 4 8% l e s s  process  schedules  f o r the  found t h a t the pouched product required  thermal processing  time than  the canned  product to  achieve similar l e t h a l i t y . Sensory r e s u l t s showed t h a t the removal of the skin bones did not produce any s i g n i f i c a n t improvement and  acceptability  difference  between  of the  the  fish.  There  was  in the f l a v o u r no  polyphosphate/brine samples  significant and  untreated (control) samples f o r a l l a t t r i b u t e s tested. The  ii  and  the brine  treatment  also  did not improve  However, there brine  treated  offered  by  the texture  was l e s s detection  of the samples.  of l a t e - r u n  flavour  i n the  samples when compared t o the control. Comments panelists  described  these  samples  as  having  a  s a l t y / b r i n y flavour. Pouched texture  samples  than  had a  the canned  firmer,  drier  product. They also  and more scored  fibrous  better in  terms of l a t e - r u n flavour. Acceptance of the f i s h however was only  moderate.  As  a  consequence,  although  demonstrated an improvement i n the t e x t u r e  this  study  and f l a v o u r of the  pouched l a t e - r u n chum i n comparison t o the canned product, i t was concluded  that  probably be obtained sexual  a  more acceptable  product  could  by using l a t e - r u n salmon of l e s s advanced  maturity.  Results  of  linear  regression  s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s were obtained fibrousness slope  pouched  and chewiness  analysis  showed  between sensory  and instrumental  iii  firmness,  hardness, maximum  and chewiness. However, none of the sensory  were well predicted by the instrumental  that  results.  parameters  TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT  ii  LIST OF TABLES  vi  LIST OF FIGURES  x  LIST OF APPENDICES  xii  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT  xiii  INTRODUCTION  1  LITERATURE REVIEW A. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND (i) Cans (ii) Retort pouches B. THERMAL PROCESSING IN CANS AND RETORT POUCHES (i) Heating media (ii) Heat penetration t e s t s (iii) Methods of data analysis C. QUALITY OF THERMAL PROCESS PRODUCT (i) Retention of quality attributes (ii) Quality of canned late-run chum salmon (iii) Quality of pouched product (iv) Quality of canned fish treated with s a l t s D. MEASUREMENT OF TEXTURAL PROPERTIES  3 3 3 4 6 6 7 9 11 11 12 14 16 18  MATERIALS AND METHODS A. FISH SAMPLE PREPARATION AND SOURCE B. PROCESS DETERMINATION BY HEAT PENETRATION (i) Retort system used (ii) Processing conditions (iii) Heat penetration (iv) Process calculations C. PROCESSING FOR INSTRUMENTAL AND SENSORY ANALYSIS D. SAMPLING AND PRODUCT ANALYSIS (i) Sampling procedure (ii) Sensory Analysis (a) Selection, training and establishing rating scales Texture Flavour (b) Sensory testing (iii) Instrumental technique (iv) Data Analysis  24 24 24 27 28 30 32 33 38 38 40 40 40 44 44 47 49  RESULTS AND DISCUSSION  50 iv  A. PROCESS DETERMINATION B. SENSORY DATA C. INSTRUMENTAL ANALYSIS (i) General Observations (ii) Instrumental measurement of texture D. SUBJECTIVE-INSTRUMENTAL INTERRELATIONS E. VOLUME OF COOK-OUT LIQUID  50 56 69 69 77 97 100  CONCLUSIONS  102  bibliography  10 5  APPENDICES  112  v  LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Classification of textural c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , General Foods Texture Profile Method  based  Table 2 Maturity of chum salmon  on  the 23 25  Table 3 Processing conditions f o r cans and r e t o r t pouches used during process determination work 29 Table 4 Definitions used in sensory profiling of salmon  41  Table 5 Scales used in sensory analysis  43  Table 6 Test conditions a t which the instron was instrumental analysis of chum salmon  operated  Table 7 Heating and cooling parameters f o r chum during process determination work  salmon  during 48 obtained 53  Table 8 Process times used in the product analysis phase of the work and their corresponding l e t h a l i t i e s calculated by Stumbo's method 55 Table 9 Mean panel ratings f o r sensory a t t r i b u t e s of the bonelessskinless salmon steaks and the steaks with skin and bone processed a t 248°F 57 Table 10 Mean panel ratings f o r sensory attributes of brine, polyphosphate/brine, pouch and untreated (control) samples of chum salmon processed at 248°F 58 Table 11 Analysis of variance data boneless-skinless steaks bone processed a t 248°F  f o r sensory studies of the and the steaks with skin and 59  Table 12 vi  Analysis of variance data f o r sensory studies of brine, polyphosphate/brine, pouch and untreated samples of chum salmon processed a t 248°F 60 Table 13 Multiple comparison hypothesis test comparing sensory firmness of the control, brine, polyphosphate/brine and pouched salmon processed at 248°F 62 Table 14 Multiple comparison hypothesis t e s t comparing sensory dryness of the control, brine, polyphosphate/brine and pouched salmon processed a t 248°F 63 Table 15 Multiple comparison hypothesis test comparing sensory fibrousness of the control, brine, polyphosphate/brine and pouched salmon processed a t 248°F 64 Table 16 Multiple comparison hypothesis test comparing sensory chewiness of the control, brine, polyphosphate/brine and pouched samples of salmon processed a t 248°F 65 Table 17 Multiple comparison hypothesis t e s t comparing late-run flavour of the control, brine, polyphosphate/brine and pouched salmon processed a t 248°F 66 Table 18 Multiple comparison hypothesis test comparing overall acceptability of the control, brine, polyphosphate and pouched salmon processed at 248°F 67 Table 19 Means of r e s u l t s obtained by instrumental analysis and their corresponding standard deviations f o r boneless-skinless salmon steaks and steaks with skin and bones processed a t 248°F 80 Table 20 Means of r e s u l t s obtained by instrumental analysis and their corresponding standard deviations for the brine, polyphosphate/brine, pouch and untreated (control) samples of chum salmon processed a t 248°F 81 Table 21 Analysis  of  variance  data  derived vii  from  texture  profile  analysis r e s u l t s of boneless-skinless steaks with skin and bones processed at 248°F  and steaks 82  Table 22 Analysis of variance data f o r texture profile analysis of brine, polyphosphate/brine, pouch and untreated (control) samples of chum salmon processed a t 248°F 83 Table 23 Multiple comparison hypothesis t e s t comparing instrumental results of hardness 1 f o r the brine, polyphosphate/brine, pouch and untreated (control) samples of the processed chum salmon 84 Table 24 Multiple comparison hypothesis t e s t comparing instrumental results f o r hardness 2 of the brine, polyphosphate/brine, pouch and control (untreated) samples of the processed chum salmon 85 Table 25 Multiple comparison hypothesis t e s t comparing instrumental results f o r maximum slope 1 of the brine, polyphate/brine, pouch and untreated (control) samples of the processed chum salmon . 86 Table 26 Multiple comparison hypothesis t e s t comparing instrumental results for maximum slope 2 of the brine, polyphosphate/brine, pouch and untreated (control) samples of the processed chum salmon 87 Table 27 Multiple comparison hypothesis t e s t comparing instrumental results for the gumminess of the brine, polyphosphate/brine, pouch and untreated (control) samples of the processed chum salmon 88 Table 28 Multiple comparison hypothesis t e s t comparing instrumental results for the chewiness of the brine, polyphosphate/brine, pouch and control (untreated) samples of the processed chum salmon 89 Table 29 Coefficient of determination (R ) between instrumental texture scores 2  viii  panel  scores and 98  Table 30 Volume of cook-out liquid obtained brine, polyphosphate/brine, pouch chum salmon at 24 8°F  ix  following processing and control samples  of of 101  LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 External appearance of Grade 3 late-run chum salmon Figure 2 Flow diagram of the procedure used f o r the salmon process in Experiment 1  34 canning 36  Figure 3 External appearance of the Grade 4 late-run chum salmon Figure 4 Flow diagram of the procedure used f o r the salmon process in Experiments 2, 3 and 4 Figure 5 Typical heating and cooling curve processed at 248°F Figure 6 Typical heating and cooling salmon samples  curve  37  canning 39  obtained f o r canned salmon 51 obtained  f o r the pouched 52  Figure 7 Bar diagram showing mean panel ratings f o r firmness of brine, polyphosphate/brine, pouch and untreated (control) samples of processed chum salmon 70 Figure 8 Bar diagram showing mean panel ratings f o r dryness of brine, polyphosphate/brine, pouch and untreated (control) samples of processed chum salmon 71 Figure 9 Bar diagram showing mean panel ratings f o r fibrousness of brine, polyphosphate/brine, pouch and untreated (control) samples of processed chum salmon 72 Figure 10 Bar diagram showing mean panel ratings f o r chewiness of brine, polyphosphate/brine, pouch and untreated (control) samples of processed chum salmon 73 Figure 11 Bar diagram showing mean panel ratings f o r late-run flavour of brine, polyphosphate/brine, pouch and untreated (control) samples of processed chum salmon 74  x  Figure 12 Bar diagram showing mean panel ratings f o r overall acceptability of brine, polyphosphate/brine, pouch and untreated (control) samples of processed chum salmon 75 Figure 13 Typical Force-Time samples  curves  of the processed  Flaked  salmon 78  Figure 14 Bar diagram showing instrumental measurement of hardness f o r brine, polyphosphate/brine, pouch and untreated (control) samples of processed chum salmon 91 Figure 15 Bar diagram showing instrumental measurement of maximum slopes f o r brine, polyphosphate/brine, pouch and untreated (control) samples of processed chum salmon 92 Figure 16 Bar diagram showing instrumental measurement of cohesiveness for brine, polyphosphate/brine, pouch and untreated (control) samples of processed chum salmon 93 Figure 17 Bar diagram showing instrumental measurement of springiness for brine, polyphosphate/brine, pouch and untreated (control) samples of processed chum salmon 94 Figure 18 Bar diagram showing instrumental measurement of gumminess f o r brine, polyphosphate/brine, pouch and untreated (control) samples of processed chum salmon 95 Figure 19 Bar diagram showing instrumental measurement of chewiness f o r brine, polyphosphate/brine, pouch and untreated (control) samples of processed chum salmon 96  xi  LIST OF APPENDICES Page Appendix 1 Definitons of terms and symbols  112  Appendix 11 Estimated process l e t h a l i t y calculations f o r cans  113  Appendix 111 Estimated process time calculations f o r pouches  114  Appendix IV Estimated process l e t h a l i t y calculations f o r pouches  115  Appendix V Questionnaire f o r sensory analysis  116  xii  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT  I will like to express who  have been instrumental  Special mention supervision and  must  this  suggestions  greatly  be  Kitts,  their  Dr.  done. His  appreciated. I am  for  in helping me  throughout  committee,  sincere gratitude to a l l those  made to  work was  supervisory  my  a l l the  T.  helpful  thesis.  Durance  under  whose  stages to  Powrie, Dr.  comments  this  patient assistance, advice  also g r a t e f u l  Dr. W.  complete  and  of the  the  are  members of  B. Skura for  work  and  reviewing  my  Dr.  D.  this  manuscript. A further word of thanks goes to Ms. L. Robinson for her advice  on the operation of the r e t o r t s and to the Canadian  Commonwealth  Scholarship  and  Fellowship  assistance provided throughout my  xiii  study.  Plan  for  the  financial  INTRODUCTION Chum salmon British  salmon  (.Oncorhynchus  family, which i s a very Columbia  but  in  belongs  keta)  important  many  to  seafood  countries  of  the not  the  Pacific only in northern  hemisphere. Nutritionally, they are rich in proteins and vitamin D and are an exceptionally rich source of many of the minerals and nutrients necessary  to l i f e .  Commercially, the  chum i s a low  value item of reduced consumer acceptance because of i t s poor quality.  This  i s especially  true  spawning migration when their a  late-run  odour  and  in the l a t t e r  part  of  their  flesh becomes s o f t and mushy and  flavour  may  develop together  with  an  undesirable dark grey colour. Such undesirable changes have been associated with reduced protein and f a t content, increased water content (Howgate, 197 7), autoxidation of lipids (Josephson et al., 1984), presence of odorous constituents in the skin (Huynh, 1988) and a drop in the muscle pigment responsible f o r the red colour (Huynh, 1988). Overprocessing handling conditions  may  also  (Sikorski  et  contribute  al., 1984)  and  poor  to poor quality. These  changes are recognized as contributing to a major economic loss in  the  value  of  this  important  Columbia. Consequently, this  commercial product  study  was  undertaken  in British to develop  processing methods or conditions which would improve the texture and flavour of canned late-run chum. Studies  have  been  done  1  on  new  product  development  utilizing chum salmon flesh  as the main ingredient e.g. a canned  smoked product using a r t i f i c i a l liquid smoke was prepared (Hyunh, 1989). Nevertheless as  a  traditional  Very l i t t l e  late-run chum salmon i s s t i l l mainly available canned  product  despite  work, on improving the  through changes in process  i t s poor  acceptance.  quality of the raw material  parameters, has been reported  in the  l i t e r a t u r e . It was therefore the purpose of this investigation to study  the e f f e c t s of process  parameters on  the texture  and  flavour of canned late-run chum salmon. The following process (i) processing at  removing  changes were investigated:  of boneless-skinless  flavour  and  odour precursors  skin of the fish. In addition, i t was the  steaks. This  skin and bone would r e s u l t  was  associated  hoped that  aimed  with  the  the removal of  in a more homogeneous product  for which texture might be more precisely measured. (ii) processing  of  steaks  in r e t o r t  allow a reduced cook which was  pouches.  This  would  expected to result in a firmer  texture and possibly better flavour. (iii) addition of s a l t s  to the boneless-skinless  was hoped that this would alter through mediation  steaks. It  the water holding capacity and,  of the Malliard reaction, might alter  2  flavour.  LITERATURE REVIEW  A. HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND  (i) Cans The processing  first  of food  major s t a g e i n cans  A p p e r t i n t h e e a r l y 19th not  quite  understood  1857  t o 1862,  i.e.,  that  present,  provided  Appert's while  contamination and  an e x p l a n a t i o n  heat  process  the  container  between  foods.  showed t h a t  heating  was  n e c e s s a r y t o achieve 186 4  i n this  the f i r s t  Hapgood  were  able  cannery  principle  contributions  bacteria  by Underwood  established  the  and t h e s p o i l a g e o f  responsible  greater  salmon there  and c a n s  t o realize  that  w a t e r was n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o p r e s e r v e the  postprocessing  than  for  spoilage  the boiling  point  s t e r i l i z a t i o n ( G o l d b l i t h , 1972).  and Hapgood. A l t h o u g h  results  prevented  b a c t e r i a were  t o the temperature  between  t h e microrganisms  19th century  thermophilic  and  Around  late  Pasteur,  f o r Appert's accomplishment  had k i l l e d  ( P f l u g , 1987). F u r t h e r in  discoveries of  A t t h a t time t h e p r o c e s s was  ( G o l d b l i t h , 1971). L a t e r ,  relationship  Hume  was t h e s c i e n t i f i c  century.  the hermetic  Prescott  They  i n t h e development o f t h e r m a l  cannery was  was e s t a b l i s h e d b y  nothing  often  exploded,  the temperature  about  Hume and of boiling  f i s h ( C r a n d a l l , 1946). Today,  used by the e a r l y canners i s s t i l l  3  certain  used with t h e  help  of  replace major  modern  equipment. Machinery has  operations  t h a t were  advancements  been  developed  to  once done by hand. In addition,  i n thermobacteriology  by  Bigelow  and  co-  workers (1920), and process technology by B a l l (1923) and Stumbo (1971), among others, have l e d t o s c i e n t i f i c a l l y based methods f o r calculation  of minimum safe  sterilization  processes f o r canned  food s t e r i l i z a t i o n .  (ii) Retort pouches  Development  of  the r e t o r t  pouch  concept began  i n the  United S t a t e s in the e a r l y 1950's. Most of the work was done by the  U.S. Army Natick Development Center, Reynolds Metal Co. and  Continental  Group  Inc. (Lampi,  1977;  Mermelstein,  1978). For  example, i n 1968 a r e l i a b i l i t y study of the pouch was undertaken by  the  U.  S.  Natick  Development  Center.  In  comparing  seal  i n t e g r i t y , s t e r i l i t y and o v e r a l l d e f e c t s i t was found t h a t r e t o r t pouches could be produced t h a t were of equal q u a l i t y t o metal cans. In 1974, the U. S. Department of A g r i c u l t u r e (USDA)  gave  approval f o r use of r e t o r t pouches with a l l meat products. In 197 5, the U. S. Food and Drug Administration asked the USDA to withdraw  this  approval  because  p o l y e s t e r and epoxy components  FDA  was  concerned that  the  of the laminating adhesive used  in the pouch could migrate into the food (Lopez, 1987).  4  In  1977, the FDA issued a regulation f o r high  laminates  which  manufacture materials.  specified  of the pouch Since  then  the  materials  temperature  acceptable  and s e t extraction limits  work  on  the  retort  for  f o r these  pouches  progressed from exploratory investigations to r e l i a b i l i t y  have studies  required to make the pouch a commercial r e a l i t y (Lopez, 1987). The  structure  of the r e t o r t  consists of three layers  pouch in general use today  starting  from  the outside: polyester,  aluminium f o i l and an inner layer of polypropylene or polyolefin. The  outer  layer  of polyester  strength. Aluminium  foil  barrier. The inner layer  film  provides  printability  and  serves  as a moisture, light  and gas  i s heat  sealable and provides an inert  food-contact surface (Mermelstein, 1978; Heintz, 1980). Among  the advantages  of  the  retort  pouch  over  the  cylindrical can i s that i t s thin profile provides greater surface area. This permits more process  times. With  quality, both to  similar  rapid heat  the reduced  heat  and thus  exposure,  products packaged  preparation  rigid  of products  as compared  or cut open and both  pouches take less space  conventional  food  in conventional cans. In addition, empty and  and weigh less than  cans. The individual container cost to the canner the  reduces  improved  sensory and nutritional, i s expected  the pouch can be easily torn full retort  transfer  is less  metal than  containers  presently  in  use. Also,  which  to be heated  to serving  need  5  temperature immersing  can  the  be  accomplished in three  pouch  in boiling  water,  or  to five  minutes  placing  the  by  plastic  container in a microwave oven (Williams et al., 198 2; Lopez, 1987). The main disadvantage i s that filling and sealing equipment for  the pouches  operate  at r e l a t i v e l y  al., 1983). There i s also pouch  seals;  this  a need  requires  slow speed (Williams et  f o r proper  special  inspection  equipment  which  presently available. These f a c t o r s , together with  of the are  not  the need for  new filling and closing equipment have slowed introduction of the retort Japan  pouch and  a  large  Europe  succcessfully years  on  a  scale  variety  sterilized  (Davis, 1981). Nevertheless, in of  low  in r e t o r t  (Lampi, 1980). In recent  acid  pouches  years  several  foods  has  f o r more  been  than  companies  20  in the  United States and Canada have introduced foods packed in r e t o r t pouches to r e t a i l markets (Heintz, 1980).  B. THERMAL PROCESSING  IN CANS AND RETORT POUCHES  (i) Heating media Steam,  steam/air  conventional heating cans  and  retort  mixtures  media  and  available  pouches.  Salmon  water  are  the  potential  f o r thermal processing in in  cans  are  traditionally  processed in steam. Pure steam has the advantage of providing a high  heat  transfer  rate  to  the  6  container  with  rapid  retort  response (Wilson, 1980). Retort mixtures provide heating  pouches  or water  generally  processed  immersion/overpressure  overriding and  are  a i r pressure. Pouch  are  unable  to  in  systems  seals  withstand  steam/air  in order to  are weakened by  the  same  pressure  d i f f e r e n t i a l that  may be sustained by metal cans  Both temperature  and pressure of the media must be controlled  when processing with steam/air mixtures because rate  decreases  with  (Ramaswamy, 1983).  increasing  With  water  both medium temperature  a i r content  heat  of the mixture systems,  also be controlled.  rates are lower than f o r pure  and good circulation must be maintained to prevent stratification  transfer  immersion/overpressure  and pressure must  With water, heat transfer  (Lampi, 1977).  (Lampi, 1977). According to Pflug  conventional r e t o r t s are used  steam  temperature  et al. (1963) i f  f o r the water process extra time  is required f o r heating water at the s t a r t of the cook. In a FMC r e t o r t , however, process water reservoir, thus  reducing come  can be preheated in a separate up time  (Lampi, 1977). Processing  pouches with water also has the disadvantage in that i t may s o i l pouches and cause  scale  build  up on separation  plates  (Pflug,  1963).  (ii) Heat penetration t e s t s To know whether or not a method of sterilizing a packaged  7  food  by application  of heat  processor must f i r s t  will  conduct  food and then use the data  be s u c c e s s f u l and safe, the  a heat  penetration t e s t  on that  obtained to calculate process  time  (Herndon et al., 1968). For slowest  this, heating  thermocouples.  temperature  measurements  are made  point (coldspot) in the filled In  cans,  Ecklund  Type  at the  container  T  using  non-projecting  thermocouples are the main type used to obtain heat penetration data. Appropriate of  errors  t e s t s should be made to determine  introduced  thermocouple  wires  thermocouple  in place  by  and  conduction fittings  (Lopez,  of  heat  required  1987). Ecklund  to  the effect along  the  hold  the  in 1956 published  these correction factors f o r 307 x 409 and smaller cans for his thermocouples. Several methods have been proposed  f o r the insertion of  thermocouple leads into pouches. The thermocouple wires can be inserted  through  a small hole in the pouch wall which i s then  sealed with a silicone sealant. This technique requires overnight drying and curing and the seal  i s susceptible to leaks (Spinak  and Wiley, 198 2). A special packing gland which has a fixture to achieve a seal around used the  compression  the thermocouple can also be  (Pflug e t al., 196 3). This gland may however interfere normal  geometry  obtained from  of the pouch  (Berry, 1979).  with  Receptacles  0. F. Ecklund Inc., which allow the positioning of a  8  r i g i d thermocouple also  be  i n a manner similar t o those used i n cans can  employed. There  is little  information available  to  compare the v a r i o u s methods and t h e r e f o r e the choice of method used depends on the experiences of the i n v e s t i g a t o r .  (iii) Methods of data  analysis  The r e s u l t s of a heat p e n e t r a t i o n t e s t are experimentally derived  heating  calculation  and  cooling  methods  have  been  determinations using these The  General  Method  parameters  (Lopez, 198 7).  developed  for  Various  process  time  parameters. or Accumulative  Lethality  Method, in  which the time-temperature data from a heat p e n e t r a t i o n t e s t i s analyzed f o r determining process l e t h a l i t y , i s the most accurate method  possible  little  flexibility  (Stumbo, 1973). in  However, t h i s  allowing  mathematical  method  provides  determination  of  process changes when v a r i a t i o n s i n conditions occur. In c o n t r a s t , the formula methods allow i n c r e a s e d f l e x i b i l i t y  and reduce  the  amount of c a l c u l a t i o n required to determine process time. B a l l i n 1923 developed of  the most  process  commonly  calculation  a formula method which i s s t i l l one  used  (Spinak  method and  i n the food  Wiley, 1982).  industry f o r  This  method  of  thermal process time c a l c u l a t i o n s has, however, drawn c r i t i c i s m s from  researchers  working  on  the subject. For  example, Ball  assumed t h a t the cooling index ( f ) equals the heating index (fn). =  9  This usually r e s u l t s in underestimates  in approximating  lethality  accumulated  during the cooling period of the process (Spinak and  Wiley,  1982).  A second  factor  (jcrc)  assumption when  assumption  i s equal to 1 . 4 1 . Hayakawa overestimates  Stumbo  and Longley  evaluations  taking into  The  in these  values  measurements rate  Revised  tables  integration  of thermal  temperature  developed histories  equations, using finite difference fw=fc,  e  however, remained. Tung  tables  obtained  and subsequent  provide  estimated reversed that  an  additional  process  lethality  when  Stumbo's  gave  of  histories  generated  use from  planimeter  of  graphs.  of  computer  heat  transfer  simulations. The assumption of  and Garland  small  margin  and this margin  (1978)  use Stumbo's  fc=>fn  the method  of s a f e t y  in  the  of s a f e t y will be  Smith and Tung  the best  estimates  lethality when compared with other formula methods.  10  values.  jc==  plotted on  interpolation  through  fc-<f*. Nevertheless,  method  f o r process  through  method in calculation and mentioned that when will  process  j e>1.41.  the variability  tables were  were  value of heat  published  account  of hand-drawn paper,  i t when  (1966)  commented that this  (1978)  the sterilizing  and underestimates  j « , < 1 . 4 1  lethal  by Ball i s that the cooling lag  (1982)  found  of process  C.  QUALITY  OF  THERMAL  PROCESS  PRODUCT  (i) Retention of q u a l i t y a t t r i b u t e s Food activity  i s thermally  of  microorganisms  storage, result the  treated and/or  in deterioration the  to  consumer.  eliminate  enzymes  of t h e  of  destruction  of  sensory  and  nutritional  properties  of  1977). Among  the q u a l i t y  attributes  that  texture  and  f l a v o u r . In the c a s e  stated  that  the a c c e p t a b i l i t y  However, and  that  reduce  together  enzymes, the  endanger with  occurs  effected  of  are  f i s h i s more  on i t s f l a v o u r t h a n on i t s t e x t u r e (Rasekh  the  (Lund,  o f f i s h , a l t h o u g h i t has  o f cooked  upon  degradation  food  are  the  would,  f o o d o r would  health  microorganisms  or  the been  dependent  e t a l . , 1970; C o n n e l l  and Howgate, 1971; Howgate, 1977), t e x t u r e has a l s o been shown t o be  an  important determinant of p r e f e r e n c e , e s p e c i a l l y  for fish  w i t h mild f l a v o u r c h a r a c t e r (Wesson e t a l . , 1979). I t i s t h e r e f o r e the with  desire a  of  safe  retention  of  the  t h e r m a l p r o c e s s o r t o p r o v i d e the  p r o d u c t , while quality  at  attributes  the  same  such  as  time  consumer  exhibiting  texture  and  good  flavour  ( T e i x e r i a e t a l . , 1975; Lund, 1977). P r o c e s s e s which a r e e q u i v a l e n t in terms the  same  addition,  of  a c c o m p l i s h e d l e t h a l i t y do n o t n e c e s s a r i l y r e s u l t i n retention  the  of  temperature  quality  attributes  sensitivities  of  (Lund,  thermal  1977).  destruction  r a t e s f o r q u a l i t y f a c t o r s a r e l e s s t h a n f o r s p o r e s as  11  In  indicated  by  greater  Z values  f o r quality  factors  (Lund, 1977). As  a  consequence, i t i s possible to improve the quality of a thermally processed food by taking advantage of this fact and by the use of  container  geometry which allows more rapid heat penetration  compared to conventional cans, while at the same time ensuring a safe product (Teixeira et al, 1975).  (ii) Quality of canned l a t e - r u n chum salmon It  i s well  accepted  dependent on the quality product  can be  obtained  that  the quality  of canned  fish i s  of the raw material and an acceptable only  i f good  handling  practices are  observed during processing and freezing. However, in the case of late-run chum salmon, the canned product can be of poor quality due  to a number  of other  factors. For instance, Love  (1980)  explained that the energy that the salmon use to t r a v e l back to their of  spawning  their  grounds i s obtained by drawing from the protein  white muscle  t i s s u e s , as well as lipids in their  liver  and muscle. In f a t t y fish such as salmon, this reduction in lipid is accompanied by an increase in water content of the muscle. As a result, late in their spawning migration, the chum are in poor condition. The breakdown lipid content  of the protein  in the fish prior  and the reduction of  harvest cause the cooked  flesh  to become s o f t and sloppy with a poor mouthfeel (Howgate, 1977). In addition, c h a r a c t e r i s t i c late-run  12  odour and flavour  may  develop  i n  eight and  t h e  i  n  c  n  n  n  e  <  j  d u c t . Josephson et al. (198 4) found  and  et  in  These diamines (putrescine and decarboxylation  of  with the  al. (1988) found  caderverine  the  a  development of  detectable  skin  of  caderverine)  are  the  fish  product can  of  samples.  produced by  the free amino acids within the  quality of  amount  late-run  and are odorous constituents (Staruszkiewez and The  the  carbonyl volatiles derived from  of lipids to be associated  odour. Huynh  putrescine  p r o  carbon alcohol and  e  autoxidation this  a  the  fish t i s s u e s  Bond, 1981).  also be  affected  by  the heat  transfer rate at the  can  surface. Connell (1980) found  that  a  the  heat  for  efficient  steam/air  than  using  mixture pure  steam  under  transfer  rate  pressure  and  i s less this  can  a f f e c t the quality of the final product. Van for  Den  Broeck (1965) suggested  increasing  heat  penetration  several possible  get  a  should  be  dimensions i s as small  as  possible. Another method i s to accelerate the cooling process  by  better quality product. The designed so  during  form and  that at l e a s t one  of the  processing  methods  to  size of the can  dipping or spraying the cans with cold potable water. Quality can also be affected by processing time used must be the  product,  muscular  and  Because of  but bony  sufficient not also  to  parts  ensure of  the  the need to soften  13  only to proper fish  time. The r e t o r t  commercially  sterilize  tenderization  (Sikorski  et  the bones, canned fish  of  the  al., 198 4). is often  heated  at  a  far  greater  temperature  than is required for s t e r i l i z a t i o n and quality  of  achieved  the  if a  product. shorter  whilst s t i l l ensuring The  research  Goldfarb,  higher  processing  a  much longer  this can impair quality  time  may  i s taken  the  time eating  therefore  be  advantage  of  that a safe margin of s a f e t y i s maintained.  e f f o r t s of  1970;  proven the  A  and  Tung  et  several  workers  al., 1975;  Lyon  technical f e a s i b i l i t y of using  (Pflug  and  et  Klose,  al., 1963; 1981)  have  the retortable pouches  for that purpose.  (iii) Quality of pouched product A  number  experiments  of  to  researchers  compare  retort  have  carried  pouches  and  out  cans  processing for  quality  attribute retention. Chen and beans  using  George (1981) in evaluating home-processing  processed in cans contained poorer  texture  and  lower  the  conditions,  quality of  found  that  green beans  slightly more ascorbic acid, but overall  acceptance  than  those  processed in pouches. They f e l t that the texture difference have been related to a shorter  process time and  the  had  may  presence  of lower amount of brine in the pouched product compared to the canned  product. Abou-Fedel  beans packed and  in cans  were lighter  and  Miller  retained l e s s  thiamine and  in colour, more yellow  14  (198 3) found  and  that  ascorbic  softer than  green acid those  processed  in  retort  pouches  of  the  same  processed in r e t o r t pouches were found  volume.  Cherries  to contain significantly  more ascorbic acid, and were more intensely red and firmer than those processed in cans. Comparisons of meat and fish in r e t o r t pouches and in cans have been conducted. Shrimp in retortable pouches were superior in flavour and and  Klose  colour to the canned product (Dymit, 198 3). Lyon  (1981)  studied  the  effect  of  heat  on  sensory  properties of chicken meat processed in retortable pouches cans. They  concluded  that  the  retort  pouch process  and  offered  a  method f o r improving the texture of processed chicken meat from spent hen  by adequately  cooking to tenderize the meat but  overcooking i t to the extent that the meat chunks were to fibrous, shredded beef  processed  in  or  reduced  stringy pieces. Pflug (1964) found  retort  pouches  was  preferred  not  over  that that  processed in cans. Chia et al. (198 3) who  compared the  properties of rainbow  trout, pollock and shrimp  processed at equal l e t h a l i t i e s in cans  and r e t o r t pouches found  that the pouched product had a firmer  texture  than  the canned  pouched products flavour and retort  product. In sensory  evaluations, the  were scored higher in most cases  for colour,  overall acceptability. Adams et al. (1983) used large  pouches  with  a  thickness of  one  inch  to  process  red  snapper, S p a n i s h mackeral, blue crab, shrimp and flaked yellow fin  15  tuna. The product processed in r e t o r t pouches were compared to the  product  processed  processed  in pouches  in 307 were  x  113  cans.  in general  A l l the  judged,  by  panelists, to be as good or superior to the products  product sensory  processed  in much smaller cans. A  change  possibility  in container  geometry  therefore  offers  the  of improving retention of quality attributes.  (iv) Quality of canned f i s h t r e a t e d with s a l t s Salts, constituents functions  through  their  of food  systems,  in fish  interactions have very  processing.  with  some  of the  useful and important  For example,  the texture and  flavour of sea food products have been reported to be improved by  treatments  with various phosphates.  Wekell  and Teeny (1988)  found that dipping or soaking salmon steaks in a solution of 1015% polyphosphate brief  "in and  and 2% salt  out" to  two  f o r periods ranging from a very minutes  produced  a  significant  improvement in the texture and flavour of the salmon. English et al. (1988) found concentrations significantly They f e l t account  that of  improved  dipping mullet in solutions tripolyphosphates, the texture  prior  and reduced  containing low to  canning,  curd formation.  that the ability of the phosphate to bind water could f o r the textural  differences  Other investigators claimed treatment  16  in the canned  product.  of fish with a combination  of  12%  polyphosphate  and  fish  and,  inhibited  flavour and  odour (Anon., 1962). MacCallen et al. (1962) reported of  the  effectively  of  addition  in  salt  development  that  rancidity  4%  tripolyphosphates  significantly improved  the  texture  to and  therefore, improved  dips  for  increased  cod  fillets  tenderness of  the treated f i l l e t s over controls. The seafood for  e f f e c t s of polyphosphates on improving products  improved  some  are, however, disputed  flavour may  be due  (Ellinger, 1972). Claims  to the  dipping effect  of  the  symptons  of  deterioration of  products  and  may  be  an  only  impression  better. Spinelli et al. (1968) detected or  odour  when they  compared  fish  the flavour of  poor  that  masking  quality  the  sea  quality is  no differences in flavour  fillets  or  steaks  dipped  in  polyphosphate solutions with undipped controls. However, Tarr et al.  (1969) reported  that  an  enzyme  nucleotides i s strongly inhibited 5'-nucleotides the  enzyme  explanation  are  good  that for  flavour  would  flavour  by  that  hydrolyzes  pyrophosphates.  intensifiers,  inactivate improvement  them due  the  5-  Since  the  offer  the  1  inhibition  may  to  the  of  some  presence  of  pyrophosphate. Brining may  also improve  the  fish since i t provokes an increase  texture  and  flavour of  the  in water holding capacity of  the muscle. As muscle hydration increases, the amount of liquid released  decreases.  Tarr  (1971) described  17  a  "drip  preventing  function" of  the  salt  in which light brining of the  fish  muscle  (0.5-1%) largely eliminated the free liquid exudate. Bilinski et al. (1977) treated herring for 40 hours in 5 to 100%  saturated  salt  solutions (1.5 g/L-30.3 g/L). After brining, the herring was  gibbed  and  before  water,  NaCl,  was  sealing. They found that brining of  the  four  fold  increase  firming up of the  instead  of  in  e f f e c t was  3%  the  firmness  increased  brine. Studies  added  hours and  cans  herring caused up  of  the  canned  to a  flesh.  further by raising the  The  strength  by Huynh et al. (1989) found that late-run  chum salmon f i l l e t s soaked and washed in an two  to  then desalted for one  8% s a l t solution for  hour in a 1% salt solution  before canning showed a significantly reduced amount of late-run odour  and  firmness.  flavour They  intensity and  recommended  that  a  Development of  the  century  of  when devices  described. instruments properties  Since have of  been  a large  were  maturity.  of  the  food  early  start,  developed v a r i e t y of  extensively reviewed and discussed  18  instrumental  began at  for measuring the  that  changes  in  PROPERTIES  methods for  textural properties  improvement  additional brine  necessary for fish of more advanced  D. MEASUREMENT OF TEXTURAL  significant  to  the  measurement turn  of  the  tenderness of meat were numerous evaluate  foods.  The  methods  and  texture-related subject  has  been  in recent years by Szczesniak  (196 3) and Voisey (1971). Szczesniak categories: tests  (1963)  fundamental,  measure  poorly  indicate puncture, better have  sensory  often  to  be  shear  with  into  imitative.  rheological  defined,  related and  obtained  punch and  to  three  Fundamental  properties  that  textural  extrusion  such  as  tests  practical  quality.  tests  and  measure  experience  These  tend  to  include  correlate  evaluation. For  example, high correlations  in  a  including meats (Segars using the  and  evaluation. Empirical  poorly  sensory  been  methods  e l a s t i c moduli (Szczesniak, 1963). They c o r r e l a t e  with  parameters,  these  empirical  fundamental  v i s c o s i t i e s and very  divided  studies  on  et al., 1981)  and  wide  variety  of  food  fish (Love et al., 1974)  die test. Imitative methods of measurement  imitate the conditions to which the material i s subjected in the mouth  or  on  the  palate  typical example i s the the procedure  t e s t s may  Texture  of compressing  mechanical device from this  (Szczesniak, 1963;  and  Profile  Szczesniak,  Analysis which describes  bite-size pieces  analyzing  the  1975). A  force-time  of food  by some  curve  resulting  simulated mastication (Friedman et al., 1963). Imitative be  performed  using instruments  Universal Testing Machine, the and Alveograph Despite  such as  the  Instron  Brabender Farinograph, Amylograph  (Szczesniak, 1963). the  various  methods  available  for  measuring  texture, the objective study of fish texture is not easy due  19  to  nonuniformity test  of fish  specimen  segments tissue  muscle  s t r u c t u r e and d i f f i c u l t i e s  preparation. Briefly,  called  called  myotomes  by  myocommata.  the body  transverse  The  size  in the  i s divided  sheets  of these  into  of connective  myotomes  varies  along the length of the body. Parallel to the long axis of the body there are muscle cells or fibers. The orientation of these fibers varies throughout the myotome. Their length and diameter differ within individuals according to their location in the body. The  muscle  can be  muscles, whose  divided  into  two  proportion varies  along  types,  dark  the body  and white  length. Dark  muscle, which l i e s along the side of the body under the skin, has more  connective  contains  less  tissue  around  protein and  the muscle  more  lipid  cells  than  and  the white  (Howgate, 1979; Suzuki, 1981).  assess  the texture  muscle '  Dunajski (1979), reviewing to  i t also  the use of instrumental methods  of fish,  commented  that  those  devices  applicable to testing red meat are not suitable f o r cooked fish. He explained connective muscle  that fish  tissue  falls  however,  can  apart  which  Bilinski  blade  disintegrates during  easily.  improve  increase the randomness shearing  muscle has a r e l a t i v e l y  (Bilinski  Thorough  homogeneity  flaking of  the  low content of  heating  and the  of fish  muscles,  test  sample  and  of fiber orientation with respect to the et al., 1977; Borderias  et al., 1983).  et a l . (1977) who broke up the muscle of whole herring  20  (free forks  from bones and skin) into obtained  Measuring  good  System  flakes (about  reproducibility  f o r firmness  using  of canned  3-5mm) using two  the Ottawa  Texture  herring. Borderias et  al. (1983) obtained higher coefficients of variations f o r raw and cooked f i l l e t s  than  f o r the minced fish when different kinds of  cell attachments were used with an Instron tester. He f e l t this occured item  with  myotome  because application of a compression  a  layered  layers  s t r u c t u r e , like  to slide  away  from  fish  This phenomenon makes i t impossible to reproduce an  analysis in a  different  correlations between of  sensory  results  test.  He  method to an  fillets,  the force  of  cause  the  compression.  the r e s u l t s of  did not find  significant  of instrumental analyses  evaluation f o r cooked and raw fish  that  and that  fillets  but did  however find good correlations f o r the fish minces. An  ideal  sensory  test  which  between instrumental and sensory General  Foods  Sensory Profiling  facilitates  a  correlation  evaluation of texture i s the Technique (Brandt  et al., 196 3;  Szczesniak et al., 1963; Civille and Szczesniak, 1973). It i s based on the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of textural c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s into three main types: mechanical relating  properties, geometrical  to f a t and moisture  properties  are those  responses  of food  properties  are those  content  characteristics  material  (Table 1). The  21  force;  those  mechanical  that are related  to applied  characteristics  properties and  to the  the geometrical  that are related  to the  g e o m e t r i c a l arrangement shape and  orientation  t o f a t and m o i s t u r e  of  c o n s t i t u e n t s of f o o d  of p a r t i c l e s ) ; t h e  content are  a s s o c i a t e d with the water e t a l . , 196 3). T h i s  the  and  those  characteristics characteristics  f a t content  texture profile  (e.g. s i z e ,  analysis  of  the  of s t a n d a r d r a t i n g  s c a l e s , and  22  (Brandt  r e q u i r e s a panel  of  system,  proper panel procedures  r e g a r d t o t h e mechanics of t e s t i n g and a l . , 1963).  that are  food  judges w i t h p r i o r knowledge of the t e x t u r e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n use  related  with  sample c o n t r o l (Brandt e t  Table 1: Classification of t e x t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , based on the General Foods Texture Profile Method (Cardello and Mailer, 1987).  A. Mechanical hardness  fracturability  cohesiveness  adhesiveness  viscosity  chewiness  springiness  gumminess  B. Geometrical size and shape powdery, chalky, g r i t t y , beady, grainy, coarse, lumpy orientation flaky, fibrous, pulpy, cellular, aerated, puffy, crystalline. C. M o i s t u r e /  moistness  fat  oiliness greasiness  23  MATERIALS AMD  A. FISH SAMPLE PREPARATION  from  The  chum salmon  used  two  sources: one  METHODS  AND SOURCE in this investigation  sample  was  were obtained  obtained in late  commercial fishing boats; the other was  July  from  obtained in October from  the Chilliwack Hatchery. They were a l l returning salmon and were graded  relative  description only  fish  to  shown  their  in Table  of advanced  degree 2. For  of  the purpose  sexual maturity  used. Approximately two  hours  maturity  (Grades  a f t e r leaving  using  of this 3  and  the  study, 4) were  the hatcheries, a l l  fish were cleaned, dressed, frozen at -30°C, and stored a t that temperature until tested. Prior to testing, a l l frozen f i s h were brought out from the freezer  and  thawed a t room temperature  to bring  them from a  t o t a l l y frozen s t a t e to a temperature of approximately 0°C.  B. PROCESS DETERMINATION  BY HEAT  PENETRATION  Recommended process times have salmon  processed with pure  saturated  afterwards by water (National Canners  been  outlined  steam  and  for canned being  cooled  Association, 1976; Lopez,  1987). However, the rate of heating and cooling of food products in containers i s not only a function of the physical properties of  the  food,  but  also  the  24  geometry  and  heat  transfer  Table  No.  2: M a t u r i t y  1  of chum salmon  Rank  Description  1  Silver-semi bright  S i l v e r y s k i n c o l o u r ; some s l i g h t c o l o u r change ( c o l o u r bars) may be present on the v e r t i c a l and d o r s a l s u r f a c e but very f a i n t . F l e s h c o l o u r ranges from p i n k i s h red to orange r e d .  2  Intermediate  Complete l o s s of uniform s i l v e r b r i g h t appearance. D i s t i n c t c o l o u r change with bars ranging i n c o l o u r from l i g h t red to dark green or black with t r a c e s of p u r p l e . F l e s h i s l i g h t p i n k i s h to orange.  3  Dark  I n t e n s i v e breeding c o l o u r . Many d i s t i n c t c o l o u r f u l bars of dark green or black on the s k i n . Skin i s t h i c k and i s covered by a heavy s l i m e l a y e r . B e l l y f l a p s are t h i n ; f l e s h c o l o u r i s pale with l i t t l e p i n k i s h tone remaining. Some l a t e odour can be noted from the f l e s h .  4  Spawning  River-caught f i s h of spawning c o n d i t i o n . Body c o l o u r i s green or v e r y dark, s k i n i s v e r y t h i c k and has a very heavy s l i m e l a y e r . Very t h i n b e l l y f l a p s ; f l e s h c o l o u r i s g r e y i s h white. A very s t r o n g l a t e odour i s evident from both s k i n and f l e s h .  ^Source: Huynh (1988) with a few  25  modifications.  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the container (Pflug and penetration process  studies  schedules  information  were  for the  available  on  the  canned  salmon  conditions and  then  on  the  lethality  slowest of  necessary  samples  processing  to  using  this l e t h a l i t y  design  times  for  the  salmon in  acceptable  target l e t h a l i t y  traditional approach of basing the  heating  the canned  container  was  used  no  the lethality  commercially as  the  since there was  necessary to determine  process  use  for the pouches. The  pouched heat  pouches. To do this i t was of  therefore  Esselen, 1980). Heat  to  process  estimate  process. Then by means of a  the  computer  program (Smith, 1987), i t was  possible to estimate  the  process  time  similar  the  pouched  required  samples. For  to  achieve  both the  of three process  a  cans and  runs  lethality  pouches, heat  were used  in the  for  penetration data  estimation (Appendix  11  and 111). The heating and cooling curves f o r each t e s t container were simultaneously displayed graphically computer  monitor  for  analysis.  on the  Straight  screen of  lines  were  the  drawn  graphically on the monitor screen through the data points on the linear portion of the curve. Linear regression coefficients were applied  to  Simultaneously,  determine the  the  heating  best and  calculated.  26  fitting cooling  straight  line.  parameters  were  (i) R e t o r t system used A l l processing was c a r r i e d out i n an FMC 500W l a b o r a t o r y r e t o r t (FMC Corporation, Santa Clara, CA) which could be operated with steam or water as the heating medium. Construction d e t a i l s f o r t h i s r e t o r t was reported by Morello (1987). A steam cook was used f o r the can process and a water cook f o r the pouch. For  the water  cook, the r e s e r v i o r  tank  was two-thirds  f i l l e d with water and preheated t o about 10C° above the t a r g e t r e t o r t temperature t o reduce come up time. The r e s e r v o i r tank was then p r e s s u r i z e d t o 206.8 kPa (30 psig) of water  t o aid the t r a n s f e r  t o the r e t o r t . Water was then t r a n s f e r r e d  from the  r e s e r v o i r t o the r e t o r t a t the beginning of the process. A t the end of hot water t r a n s f e r , the r e t o r t vent was closed, the a i r supply was opened and also the steam by-pass r e t o r t mercury  thermometer  reached within  valve. When the  2C° of the t a r g e t  temperature, the steam by pass valve was closed. The r e t o r t was operated a t 248°F and 172.37 kPa (25 psig) a i r pressure. A t the end of the p r o c e s s , the r e s e r v o i r was prepared f o r the cooling cycle by releasing a i r pressure. The main steam valve was closed a t the s t a r t transferred  of cooling and the hot process water back  t o the r e s e r v o i r  tank.  Cooling  was then was  then  achieved by simultaneously adding cold water from the main water supply and draining the equivalent flow from the r e t o r t , while circulating that  p o r t i o n of the t o t a l  27  flow t h a t  was not being  drained.  Air  overpressure  was  maintained  during  the  cooling  cycle. For the steam cook, a l l valves connected  to the  were  then  tank  closed  off. Controlled steam  enter via a manifold at the was  operated  valve was steam  at 15  psig  was  bottom of the  steam  pressure  reservoir allowed  r e t o r t . The  and  past  the  controller  sensing  retort  248°F. Its drain  opened slightly for condensate removal and  flow  to  to provide  bulb. Following  steam  processing, cooling was  achieved by the addition of cold water.  Air  and  flow  was  started  maintained  to  allow  for  pressure  a Taylor Fulscope  Recording  cooling. A l l valves were regulated by Temperature  and  Pressure  Controller  (Taylor Instruments  Ltd.,  Toronto, ON).  (ii) Processing conditions The  processing conditions and  container dimensions  used in  process determination work are outlined in Table 3. The  307  x 115 three piece cans (Wells Can  Company Limited,  Burnaby, B. C.) and  the r e t o r t pouches (Fijitoku Ltd., Japan) with  outside dimensions  of 176  146 mm  were packed with the same amoumt of product  by 240  mm  mm  by 250 mm  (213g plus an extra 10% overweight  and inside dimensions  to similate the worst possible  condition at which the r e t o r t could be operated).  28  of  T a b l e 3: P r o c e s s i n g c o n d i t i o n s f o r cans and r e t o r t pouches used d u r i n g process d e t e r m i n a t i o n work.  Container  Amount of product  Process Temp.  Heating medium  307 x 115 can  234 g  248°F  steam  176 x 250mm pouch  234 g  248°F  water  29  Cans were was based  steam  processed at 248°F  on a known commercial  f o r 65 minutes. This  process f o r 307 x 115 cans.  According to Lopez (1987), 62 minutes a t 245°F or 54 minutes at 250°F  are safe  processed  process  in the same  f o r 307 FMC  x 113  retort  using  cans. a  Pouches  water  were  cook  with  superimposed a i r pressure and r e t o r t temperature similar to the cans. Process time f o r the pouches was determined from the heat penetration  data  to be  34  minutes.  A l l process  times  operator's process times (P ) i.e., the length of heating t  were period  following come up time.  (iii) Heat penetration Thermocouples were inserted a t the centre of six cans and six pouches  in each  run. Four  retort  used in each run. Three replicates both  the cans  r e t o r t in flowing steam a  ASTM  Thermocouples Engineering  runs were  were  type  CT)  in  glass  copper/constantan with  soldered  the r e t o r t  and were  placed  near  wire  (Omega  ends.  Retort  temperature  the containers. Ecklund  needle-type rigid thermocouples with stainless  30  calibrated  thermometer.  thermocouples were used to monitor the environment in  out f o r calibrated  which in turn was  mercury T/C  Inc., Stamford,  were  also  of a small v e r t i c a l conventional  a t 248°F  certified  were  carried  and pouches. A l l thermocouples  against the r e t o r t thermometer  against  thermocouples  s t e e l bodies were  used  to  monitor  temperature  in the  canned  product.  Locking  receptacles and connectors from 0. F. Ecklund (Omega Engineering, Inc., Stamford,  CT) were  used  to hold the thermocouples in the  cans. The thermocouple tips were located a t the center of the cans so as to be positioned in the slowest heating zone. The cans were percent  filled  salt  with the desired weight of chum steaks, one  was  added  and  they  were  then  sealed  with  an  automatic can sealer (Rooney's Machine Co., Bellingham, WA), under vacuum. For the pouches, thermocouples wires were imbedded into a piece of fish cutlet so as to be located a t the centre of each pouch. The wires were sealed into the pouches by inserting them through  Ecklund  packing  glands.  Approximately  60  to  70mm of  thermocouple wire was l e f t inside each pouch. The r e t o r t pouches were then filled with desired weight of steaks, one percent  salt  was added and they were vacuum sealed using a Multivac vacuum sealer (Sepp Haggenmuller KG, Allgau, West Germany). The  filled  containers were held a t 1°C overnight and were  processed the following day. The r e t o r t was loaded as quickly as possible. Pouch  were  oriented  restrained to 0.75 inch (19 mm) retort  in the horizontal direction  thickness by the position of the  shelves. The temperatures  processing  were  recorded  Datataker  (Boronia,  and  at  for a l l thermocouples during  one  Australia).  31  minute  Following  intervals processing,  using  a  retort  pouches were opened and checked to ensure that the end of the thermocouple  or  thermocouple  wire  had  not  shifted  from  the  geometric center of the container.  (iv) P r o c e s s  calculations  Calculations were performed using a computer program (Pro Calc  Associates,  transfer to  Surrey, B.C).  of data from  files  The  program  permitted  direct  containing data-logger type output  the thermal processing f i l e s . Regression analysis was  used to  determine the parameters f n and j e h from the heating curve and f  c  and J w  from the cooling curve f o r each container. In these  determinations, cooling water temperature was of the  the constant reading of r e t o r t cooling  period. The  taken as the mean  thermocouples at the end of  i n i t i a l temperature  of the product  was  taken as the average of a l l the t e s t containers at the s t a r t of the  process  (Bee  and  Park,  197 8).  Commercially,  temperature of the product should not be l e s s up time for the pure steam process was  the  initial  than 35°F. Come  six minutes and for the  water cook seven minutes. Appendices 11, 111 and IV give examples of  the  heating  and  cooling  parameters  obtained  from  the  computer output. Process l e t h a l i t i e s were calculated for each can using the determined heating and cooling parameters. In these calculations, the  j values for the 307  x 115 cans were corrected using the  32  appropriate  factor  presented by  Ecklund (1956) to account for  the metal nut of the packing gland protruding within the can. The l e t h a l i t y of the slowest heating can ( F = 6.50  min) (see Appendix  o  11) was  then used in calculations involving the pouched process. The  final  process times for pouches  phase  deviations  of  the  work  was  (Appendix 111). This  possibility  that  any  the  determined f o r use in the mean  procedure  container  would  plus  three  assumes receive  a  standard  very  less  small  than  the  determine  the  target l e t h a l i t y of 6.50 minutes at the cold spot,  C. PROCESSING Four  FOR INSTRUMENTAL  pilot  experiments  AND SENSORY were  ANALYSIS  conducted  to  e f f e c t of treatments and processing methods on the texture and flavour of the late-run chum. The  first  experiment was  undertaken  to determine  whether  the removal of the skin and bone had any effect  on the flavour  of  obtained  late-run  salmon.  commercial fishing study. The Figure  fish  1). Two  Late-run  chum  boats, in late were  fish  July  of advanced  were chosen  salmon 1988  was  sexual maturity  for this  0  Steaks  and  divided into  from  each  fish  steaks I V 2 were  (Grade  3,  washed with cold  inches (38 mm)  randomly  f o r this  experiment. Following  overnight thawing at about 10 C, each fish was water  used  from  assigned to  in thickness. one  of  two  l o t s ; the skin and bones from one were removed while the other  33  Figure 1: External appearance of Grade 3 l a t e - r u n chum salmon  SMPLE L Tu-v 2JLW*  34  l o t was processed with skin and bones intact (Figure 2). The second pilot experiment was designed to evaluate the effect of  a change in container geometry  flavour of the  on the texture and  Inches in diameter were processed in r e t o r t The  third  steaks l V z  raw material. Late-run chum salmon  pilot  experiment  was  pouches.  undertaken  to evaluate a  precanning treatment with polyphosphate/brine on the texture and flavour of the raw material. Steaks were soaked in a solution of 10% polyphosphate the  and 2% brine f o r two minutes. At the end of  dip time, the samples  were  drained  of excess  liquid  and  packed into cans. Salt was added to the l e v e l of 1% by weight to these cans. The  fourth  experiment  was  undertaken  to  evaluate the  effect of a brining treatment on the texture and flavour of the canned product. Steaks received two washes with 8% s a l t solution for one hour  each time at the ratio of two parts  fish to one  part brine. This was followed by a 1 hour desalting in a 1% salt solution to remove the s a l t y taste. Fish f o r the second, third and fourth study were obtained in  late  October  1988, from  the  chum  spawning  Chilliwack Hatchery. These fish were of advanced (Grade  4, Figure  run at the  sexual maturity  3). Four fish were chosen. They were prepared  by removing  the skin and bones and then dividing each fish into  steaks I V 2  in diameter. The steaks from  35  each  fish  were  then  F i g u r e 2: Flow diagram o f t h e procedure used f o r t h e salmon canning process i n Experiment 1  HAND BUTCHER  I  WASHING  water,blood, head, viscera, t a i l , fins, etc. water  1  SEALED IN POLYETHYLENE PLASTIC BAGS i STORAGE AT -30°C i THAWING I  CUTTING IN STEAKS 38mm RANDOM DIVISION OF STEAKS 2 p a r t s per f i s h  REMOVAL OF SKIN AND BONES  WITH SKIN AND BONES  —  HAND-FILLED—  WEIGH AND PATCH SEAM RETORT i  COOL >0L  I  STORAGE AT ROOM OC TEMPERATURE  I  PRODUCT ANALYSIS  36  Figure 3: External appearance of the Grade 4 l a t e - r u n chum salmon  37  randomly cans  subdivided  (307  served  x  as  115) the  retortable  into  each  was  p a r t s : one  containing  control.  pouches  third quarter  four  213g  Another  (213g  to  p a r t was  and  quarter  1% was  e a c h pouch) and  conditions  were  previously  of  the  batch.  checked f o r l e a k a g e  vacuum  described  inserted in six containers lethality  salt  t r e a t e d with polyphosphate/brine  containers  per  run  and  This into  added; the  s o l u t i o n and  processed  3). Thermocouples  t o measure  the  A f t e r p r o c e s s i n g , the  and  added.  ( F i g u r e 4).  sealed  (Table  into  hand-filled  1%  the f i n a l p a r t r e c e i v e d the brining treatment All  salt  packed  p h y s i c a l damage. The  at were  accomplished  containers  canned and  were  pouched  samples were t h e n s t o r e d a t room t e m p e r a t u r e f o r a t l e a s t month p r i o r  to product  equilibrate  and  the  analysis to  a l l o w time  characteristic  canned  f o r the fish  one  salt  flavour  to to  develop.  D. SAMPLING AND  PRODUCT  ANALYSIS  (i) Sampling p r o c e d u r e  Two  containers  chosen f o r product months the  after  can/pouch  from  treatment  a n a l y s i s . A n a l y s i s was  processing. into  each  a  The  cook-out  graduated  38  for  each  performed  liquid  c y l i n d e r and  was  fish about  drained  measured.  were 2-3 from  Samples  F i g u r e 4: Flow diagram of t h e procedure used f o r t h e salmon canning process i n Experiments 2, 3 and 4.  HAND BUTCHER |  4>  WASHING  water / b l o o d , head, viscera, t a i l , fins, etc. water  SEALED I N POLYETHYLENE P L A S T I C BAGS STORAGE AT -30°C 1  THAWING CUTTING |N STEAKS 38mm RANDOM D I V I S I O N OF STEAKS 4 parts per f i s h  1  SOAKING..10% p h o s p h a t e — U N T R E A T E D 2% s a l t 2 min  POUCH"  DRAIN  fWO WASHES..8% s a l t 1 hr each fish:brine(2:l) DESALTING..1% s a l t 1 hr fish:br ine(1:1)  —HAND-FILLED  1 WEIGH AND PATCH SEAM RETORT i  COOL STORAGE AT ROOM TEMPERATURE PRODUCT ANALYSIS  39  were then removed from t h e i r containers  and placed  on individual  p l a s t i c plates. The samples were broken into flakes (about 3-5 mm), using two forks. Samples from each can were divided into two p a r t s : one f o r Instron measurements and the other  f o r sensory  assessment.  (ii) Sensory A n a l y s i s  (a) Selection,  training  and establishing  rating  scales  after  the General  Texture The  method  Texture P r o f i l e  used  was  modeled  Method (Brandt  196 3) and the Quantitative  e t a l . , 19 6 3; Szczesniak  Descriptive Analysis  Foods et al.,  (Stone e t  al.,  197 4) with a few modifications. These modifications included using only c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s appropriate  t o the f i s h  only f i s h and meat samples of various judges, among  others.  samples and using  tenderness f o r t r a i n i n g  Definitions of the a t t r i b u t e s used a r e  given i n Table 4. Nine  panelists  were  selected  to  train  evaluation  of the chum salmon product. They were  the  of i n t e r e s t , co-operative  basis  availability.  Six of these  panelists  experience i n sensory evaluation  40  for  sensory  selected on  a t t i t u d e , willingness and had  prior  t r a i n i n g and  of f i s h and f i s h products. The  Table 4: D e f i n i t i o n s used i n s e n s o r y p r o f i l i n g  Attributes  of salmon  Definitions  1. F i r m n e s s  The f o r c e r e q u i r e t o c o m p r e s s t h e m a t e r i a l between t h e m o l a r s or between t h e tongue and p a l a t e .  2. D r y n e s s  The amount o f f r e e f l u i d s i n t h e o r a l cavity during mastication.  3. F i b r o u s n e s s  The p e r c e i v e d d e g r e e o f f i b e r s during mastication.  4. C h e w i n e s s  The t o t a l e f f o r t r e q u i r e d t o p r e p a r e t h e samples t o a s t a t e ready f o r s w a l l o w i n g .  5. L a t e - r u n Flavour  The p r e s e n c e o f a t a s t e s e n s a t i o n n o t t y p i c a l of canned salmon which produces an u n d e s i r a b l e b u r n t / s o u r f l a v o u r i n t h e mouth.  6. O v e r a l l Acceptability  O v e r a l l impression of the t e x t u r e f l a v o u r of the sample.  41  evident  and  panelists were informed of the general purpose of the study. The  selected  three sessions wide  range  panelists were  during  then trained  with  of texture  descriptive  series of  which they were given samples covering and  asked  to rate  subsequently used in the experimemt. This line  in a  anchor  points  centre (Stone et al., 1974) (Table  at  them  scale  on  a  a  scale  consisted  of a  the ends  and  at the  5). Each panelist marked his/her  response with a v e r t i c a l line across the horizontal scale at the point All  representing  panelists  his/her  were  judgement  in agreement  of the specific attribute.  with  the scales  chosen for  firmness, dryness and fibrousness. However, there was a semantic problem  with  rubbery. This  the terms was  used  finally  f o r chewiness  changed  -  to: " l i t t l e  too mushy, too  effort  needed to  swallow, much e f f o r t needed to swallow." Preliminary  experiments  performance of the panelists Analysis while  f o r specific  discrimated Training  panelists  a l l the  period  was  were  designed  discriminating  required and  test  differences of  characteristics the  pertinent  the  that among  panelists  consistently. scales  retained for actual testing of experimental products.  42  the  of the scale.  experiments indicated  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , none  halted  to  and the r e l i a b i l i t y  of data from the preliminary  most  samples  were  were  Table 5:  S c a l e s used  i n sensory a n a l y s i s .  FIRMNESS s o f t : low r e s i s t a n c e to breakdown hard: high r e s i s t a n c e to breakdown  soft  DRYNESS wet: presence of f l u i d i n sample mass dry: absence of f l u i d i n sample mass  wet  dry  FIBROUSNESS few: presence of few f i b e r s many: presence of many f i b e r s  few  many  CHEWINESS l i t t l e : l i t t l e e f f o r t needed to swallow much: much e f f o r t needed to swalow  little  much  LATE-RUN FLAVOUR none: absence of l a t e - r u n f l a v o u r s t r o n g : presence of l a t e - r u n f l a v o u r  none  OVERALL ACCEPTABILITY unacceptable acceptable  unacceptable  43  hard  strong  acceptable  Flavour In flavour  order  to  study,  the  examine fish  establish panel  with a  substance  was  factors,  odour,  panelists  used  that  mouth  described  best  -  were  conducted  covering  a  wide range  them  a  scale  on  to  i.e., the  and  felt  of  was  which  of late-run used  and  write  basic  taste  after-effects. table  none  of  and  Most  discussions these  flavour  words of  the  very d i f f i c u l t to agree on a word  flavour  be  the  individually  flavour  word. In round  flavour  during  to  for  impressions recorded when  principal aroma  the  late-run  asked  mouth  panelists  the  described  the  the  one  Since i t was  terminology then  in  were  sensations  a l l the  sample perceived. that  taken  terminology  of late-run  described  more than  followed,  accurately  members  high degree  down words which best the  descriptive  in  the  samples,  a  adopted. Training panelists flavour the  were  and  common sessions  given  asked  to  experiment. Training  completed when most of the panelists gave similar ratings to  fish rate was the  samples.  (b) Sensory The of the room  testing training period helped prepare panelists for this phase  sensory evaluation. which was  It was  conducted in a sensory panel  equipped with individual booths and  lighting. Water, unsalted  soda  and  44  crackers  fluorescent  were available  for  cleansing  the mouth  of  residual  flavour  and  other  particles  a f t e r tasting each sample. Two  different  studies  were  conducted. In the f i r s t  panelists were presented with two coded pilot the  samples from the f i r s t  experiment- one represented the boneless-skinless other  the steaks with skin  study  and bone. These  steaks,  samples  came  from the same fish and were divided into standard-size pieces of flakes about 3-5 mm done  f o r each  fish  thick using two forks. Two replications were and  two  fish  were  used. A  total  of 36  judgements were therefore made for each treatment. In  study  presented  to  2, four each  coded  samples  panelist.  They  from  the same  represented  fish  the  were  treated  samples from experiments 2, 3 and 4 plus the control. Four fish were used with two replications done f o r each fish. Nine judges were present in three sessions and eight in the fourth. A t o t a l of 70 judgements were made f o r each treatment. Panelists  were  asked  to  evaluate the fish  firmness, dryness, fibrousness, chewiness, late-run overall acceptability. The order of the tasting were  randomized  of the samples  the  sequential e f f e c t  on panelist  judgement. A l l the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  were  horizontal line  anchor  on a  points  scale  0.5 in (1.3 cm) from  each  to  flavour and  throughout  rated  study  samples f o r  6  cancel  out  in (15 cm) long  any  with  end (Appendix V). Each  anchor point was labeled with a word or expression. A separate  45  line was  used for each sensory  recorded  his/her  the  asked  to  reference  of  the  the  at  the  samples:  marking a point  of  of  ham  tuna  as  the  canned  next  and  little  effort  needed  to  samples tuna.  first  product  two were  The  flaked  flesh, very few chew  and  ham fibers  swallow.  Such  for a fish  canned tuna, on the other hand, represented a fish  which was  chewing e f f o r t reversed:  to  They  textural characterictics were considered unacceptable product. The  his  anchor point (0.5)  (5.5).  represented a product with a soft, juicy present  reflected  salmon  as the  the  best  across  property. Panelists were  and  flaked ham  v e r t i c a l line  which  that  texture  flaked  the  canned  the  magnitude  compare  required to use and  evaluation by  horizontal line  perception  property evaluated. Each judge  a  firm, dry, fibrous, and  before score  swallowing. of  0.5  For  required considerable  flavour, the  represented  a  scales were  product  with  no  detectable late-run flavour while 5.5 represented a product with very score  strong of  l a t e - r u n flavour. As  5.5  represented an converted  to  represented unacceptable numerical  a  very  to  overall  acceptable  acceptability, product  and  product. Panelists' marks were  scores  from  0  to  distance of the judges' marks from the l e f t units of 1 in (2.5 cm).  46  6  by end  measuring  a 0.5  then the  of the line in  (iii) Instrumental technique All  samples  used  i n the  instrumental  a n a l y s i s were  taken  f r o m the same can/pouch as t h a t u s e d f o r s e n s o r y . A f t e r a b r i e f mixing,  10  g  each  constant  height  pressure  in a  the  zero  a  teflon  to  the  50  This  nylon the  formed  compression  Instron  Universal  Canton,  and  two  samples disks end  a  by  MA).  chart  Testing  speeds  applying  cm  conditions  (Table  6)  after  variables  which  the  from the consuming distances since  texture profile  hardness,  gumminess of  the  graphically  firmness,  samples  could  in  using  Instron such  as  changes i n t h e A  two  typical  peaks  from  chewiness  and  d e t e r m i n e d . Taking  the  data  s t r i p - c h a r t r e c o r d e r p r o v i d e d w i t h the I n s t r o n i s t i m e since and  slopes  it  requires  areas are  with  of  a  measurements  ruler  interest,  a c c u r a t e l y m e a s u r i n g the s l o p e s are  with  cohesiveness, be  cm  preliminary  recorded.  curve  at  attached  1122,  measured  r e c o r d c o n s i s t s of a  2.5  (Model  selected  a  gentle  severed  i n diameter,  e n s u r e t h a t a complete h i s t o r y o f the be  a  Machine  were  to  then c o m p r e s s e d  t r i a l s to  could  packed  c y l i n d e r measuring  p l a t e 5.5  Test  was  of which was  i n h e i g h t . Samples were  coated  crosshead  flaked  c c . syringe  2 cm  Corporation,  the  between  point.  d i a m e t e r by  of  difficult.  microcomputer  As and  a  result, the  the  readings  47  and  planimeter.  determining of s h o r t Instron were  of  linear  the  various  In a d d i t i o n , limits  s e c t i o n s of the was  taken  and curve  i n t e r f a c e d with in millivolts.  a  Since  Table 6: T e s t c o n d i t i o n s a t which t h e i n s t r o n was operated d u r i n g i n s t r u m e n t a l a n a l y s i s of chum salmon.  Analys i s  TPA  Crosshead  speed  lOOmm/min  Chart  speed  lOOmm/min  48  # of c y c l e s of crosshead  2  the basis of data collection and crosshead movement i s time, the computer was  programmed to take readings of the load c e l l signal  every  seconds.  0.02  The  Instron  was  first  calibrated  by  measuring the difference in load c e l l output with no weight  and  with a known weight.  (iv) Data A n a l y s i s All  statistical  calculations  instumental data were performed  involving  sensory  using a program package SYSTAT  (Wilkinson, 1988). The sensory evualuation data was randomized  block  r e s u l t s were for  treated by  significance  (p<0.05),  an  comparison  design  between  hypothesis test  was  with one  judges way  as  to determine  two  based  applied. This  treatments  blocks.  Instrumental  If significance upon  was  test found  Bonferroni multiple  hypothesis  single degree of freedom hypothesis and between any  analyzed as a  analysis of variance to  treatments. test  and  test  permits the  defines  a  comparison  giving an F value which can be  used  the l e v e l of significance, and i s available as part  of the SYSTAT package. Simple linear regression was  used to find  the correlation between instrumental and sensory results.  49  RESULTS AND  A.  PROCESS  DETERMINATION  Figures  5 and  6  show typical heating  obtained for the canned plot  of  DISCUSSION  and  the heating curve  and  pouched process  shows  cooling  curves  respectively.  the logarithmic value  The  of  the  difference (g) between r e t o r t and product centre temperatures  as  a function of heating time on a linear scale starting with steam on,  as  zero  time.  The  plot  shows  the  logarithmic value of the differences between product centre  and  cooling water temperature  of  the  cooling  curve  also as a function of heating time in  minutes. The heating curve was  characterized by an i n i t i a l lag of  the product centre temperature  followed by a linear relationship  between log g and heating time. In Figure 6 (pouch process) there was  very l i t t l e lag at the s t a r t of the heating curve, resulting  in a Jch value of l e s s than one in  the  majority of  points  deviated  centre  temperature  end  of  the  cases  from  (Table 7). Also, in Figure 6, as  for  the  the  linear  approached  heating. This  process, the  relationship  the  was  pouched  retort  because  as  the  temperature  in determining  times the pouches were processed until the temperature  data  product at  the  process remained  almost constant. Table determined  7  gives  for  the  the  mean  cans  heating  and  50  and  pouches  cooling during  parameters  the  process  F i g u r e 5: T y p i c a l h e a t i n g and c o o l i n g curve o b t a i n e d f o r canned salmon processed a t 248°F-  Channel 4 - Run i - sal can 119.0r  -326.2-1  116,8.  110,0-  /  110,0.  /  /  / 41,6  /  1.4"  20,0  20,0T«><  -196L-LJ 0  13,2-  1 20  1  J  L  40  60  I  100  J  120  I  140  Time, min Note: the d i s t a n c e between the arrows r e p r e s e n t s t h e s l o p e of t h e h e a t i n g c u r v e  51  F i g u r e 6: T y p i c a l h e a t i n g and c o o l i n g c u r v e o b t a i n e d f o r the pouched salmon samples-  Channel 2 - Run 6 - salpouch -325.2-1  189,8.  /  48.6  19.8  8/  12.2  J  28  I  J  L  48  1  68  1  L  188  Time, min  52  J  128  1  L  148  Table 7: Heating and c o o l i n g parameters f o r chum salmon obtained d u r i n g process d e t e r m i n a t i o n work.  Process  Mean (standard d e v i a t i o n ) fh mi n r  f  a /  mi n  jaw  j  a  e  cans  31.91(1.6)  36.54(3.6)  2.35(0.47)  1.55(0.7)  pouches  19.12(1.2)  16.40(4.0)  0.52(0.05)  1.37(0.32)  53  determination types  work.  Comparing  the  o f c o n t a i n e r s , i t was o b v i o u s  more r a p i d i n t h e p o u c h e s t h a n smaller profile  heating  and  cooling  and t h e i n c r e a s e d  parameters that heat  t h e cans.  rate  area  t h e two  p e n e t r a t i o n was  T h i s was i n d i c a t e d by  indices  surface  among  (Table  7). The  of the r e t o r t  thin  pouches  a r e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r r e d u c t i o n i n t h e h e a t i n g time. F o r t h e c a n s , t h e mean f= was g r e a t e r t h a n  f n b u t f o r t h e pouches t h e e f f e c t  was r e v e r s e d . Stumbo's method d o e s n o t c o n s i d e r t h e a c t u a l f<= i n the  calculation  was g r e a t e r margin  of  procedure,  than  but instead  assumes  f»» f o r t h e c a n s t h e r e  safety  i n the process  fc==f»». Since  f  e  would be an a d d i t i o n a l  times  used  while  f o r the  pouches t h i s s a f e t y margin w i l l be r e v e r s e d . Table pouches  8 shows  during  processing  delivered lethality product, the  the process  processing  No  f o r t h e c a n s and  analysis  and t h e mean  processes.  Compared  t o t h e canned  pouches  time.  used  f o r product  of these  the r e t o r t  times  allowed  other  for a  reports  47.8 % r e d u c t i o n i n  of processing  time f o r  salmon i n r e t o r t p o u c h e s were f o u n d i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e . r e d u c t i o n o f h e a t i n g time  However,  u s i n g p o u c h e s h a s been r e p o r t e d  by a  number o f w o r k e r s (Tung e t a l . , 1975; R i v z i and A c t i o n , 1982; Chia et  a l . , 1983). R i z v i  required  t o achieve  and A c t i o n equivalent  was o n e - t h i r d t o one h a l f l e s s cans containing  t h e same  (1982) s t a t e d  that process  l e t h a l i t i e s with for retort  processing  pouches compared t o  volume o f p r o d u c t .  54  still  times  Tung  e t a l . , (197 5)  Table 8: Process times used i n the product a n a l y s i s phase of the work and t h e i r c o r r e s p o n d i n g l e t h a l i t i e s c a l c u l a t e d by Stumbo's method.  C o n t a i n e r type  P r o c e s s t i m e , min  Mean F , min* D  cans  65  7.61(0.72)  pouches  34  8.71(0.69)  * Data e x p r e s s e d as mean ( s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n )  55  found  that  cream  style  corn  processed  in cans  and  retort  pouches required 75 and 33 minutes respectively in a 121°C s t i l l r e t o r t to achieve a minimun l e t h a l i t y of Fo = 5 minutes. Chia et al. (1983) using a modified pressure  cooker  rainbow  found  trout,  approximately  pollock  two  and  thirds  shrimp  to process pouched that  they  the processing time.,--of  required  the canned  products which were processed using a laboratory autoclave. For  each  container  type, the mean  calculated  process  l e t h a l i t y was greater than the target l e t h a l i t y of 6.50, ensuring the  safety  pouches  of both  was  processes  greater  than  (Table 8). The mean F« f o r  that  f o r the cans.  This  the  could be  accounted f o r by the higher variation in the heating and cooling parameters  f o r the pouches (Table 7).  B. SENSORY DATA The mean panel ratings the processed 10. Data  f o r the various c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of  late-run chum salmon are shown in Tables 9 and  f o r individual  judgements  were  treated  by  two way  analysis of variance to t e s t f o r significance between judges as blocks and between treatments. The analysis of variance data f o r a l l sensory attributes are given in Tables 11 and 12. There were significant  differences  among judges  f o r almost  tested. Judge differences are not unusual the scale used f o r scoring sensory  56  a l l attributes  since the portion of  attributes may differ among  Table 9: Mean panel r a t i n g s f o r s e n s o r y a t t r i b u t e s o f the b o n e l e s s - s k i n l e s s salmon s t e a k s and the s t e a k s with s k i n and bone processed a t 248°F. 3  Treatments Parameters  Boneless-skinless steaks  With s k i n and bones  Firmness  3.2(0.9)-  2.4(0.9)  Dryness  2.7(0.9)-  2.2(0.9)  Fibrousness  3.5(0.9)-  2.5(0.9)  b  Chewiness  3.6(0.7)-  2.8(0.9)  b  Late-run Flavour  3.1(1.3)-  2.9(1.4)-  Overall Acceptability  3.2(1.4)-  3.5(1.3)-  b  fc>  D a t a expressed as mean (standard d e v i a t i o n ) , n=36. - Means w i t h i n the same row w i t h the same s u p e r s c r i p t are not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (p>0.05), as t e s t e d by the SYSTAT h y p o t h e s i s t e s t . 3  to  57  Table 10: Mean panel r a t i n g s * f o r s e n s o r y a t t r i b u t e s of b r i n e , p o l y p h o s p h a t e / b r i n e , pouch and u n t r e a t e d ( c o n t r o l ) samples o f chum salmon processed a t 248°F.  Parameters  Treatments Brine  Phosphates  Control  Pouch  Firmness  1.9(1.2)*  2.0(1.0)*  2.1(1.0)*  3.5(0.9)'  Dryness  2.1(l.l)  2.1(l.l)  b  2.2(1.0)*  3.9(0.9)  Fibrousness  2.2(1.2)*  2.4(1.0)*  2.5(0.9)*=  3.9(1.0)'  Chewiness  2.0(1.4)*  2.3(1.1)*  2.4(1.0)*  3.8(0.9)'  Late-run Flavour  3.0(1.4)-= 3.5(1.3)*=  3.7(1.4)*  2.6(1.3)'  3.0(1.5)-= 2.5(1.4)*= Overall Acceptability  2.3(1.4)*  3.3(1.5)'  t o  * Data expressed as mean (standard d e v i a t i o n ) , n=70. -*= Means w i t h i n the same row with the same s u p e r s c r i p t are not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (p>0.05), as t e s t e d by the SYSTAT h y p o t h e s i s t e s t .  58  T a b l e 11: A n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e d a t a f o r sensory s t u d i e s of the b o n e l e s s - s k i n l e s s steaks and the s t e a k s with s k i n and bone processed a t 248°F.  Parameters  Source  DF  Mean square  F value  Firmness  Judge Treatment Error  8 1 62  1. 810 12. 251 0. 649  2. 787* 18. 864**  Dryness  Judge Treatment Error  8 1 62  0. 515 5. 780 0. 896  0. 575"6. 451*  Fibrousness  Judge Treatment Error  8 1 62  2. 289 19 .740 0. 652  3. 513** 30. 297**  Chewiness  Judge Treatment Error  8 1 62  1. 623 12. 751 0. 597  2. 720* 21. 368**  Flavour  Judge Treatment Error  8 1 60  6 .003 0. 432 1. 286  4. 667** 0. 336"-  Overall Acceptabi1ity  Judge Treatment Error  8 1 58  4. 526 1. 500 1. 428  3. 168** 1. 050"-  * * s i g n i f i c a n t (p<0.01) • s i g n i f i c a n t (p<0.05) "-not s i g n i f i c a n t  59  Table 12: A n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e d a t a f o r s e n s o r y s t u d i e s o f b r i n e , polyphosphate/brine, pouch and u n t r e a t e d samples o f chum salmon processed a t 248°F.  Test  Source  DF  Mean square  Firmness  judge treatment error  8 3 268  4..165 37..522 0..960  4..338** 39..098**  Dryness  judge treatment error  8 3 268  2..267 59..507 1,.059  2,.141* 56.,203**  Fibrousness  judge treatment error  8 3 268  2..400 42,.533 1..062  2.,260* 40,.042**  Chewiness  judge treatment error  8 3 268  3,.184 47..170 1,.045  3.,048** 45.,153**  Flavour  judge treatment error  8 3 259  8..655 14 .548 , 1..584  5., 464** 9,, 184**  Overall Acceptability  judge treatment error  8 3 240  8,.082 12..493 1.. 874  4 .313** , 6.,666**  • s i g n i f i c a n t (p<0.05) * * s i g n i f i c a n t (p<0.01).  60  F value  individual judges. In experiments 2, 3 and  4, whenever significant  differences were found between treatments a multiple  comparison  hypothesis  treatments  test  was  employed  to  determine  which  differed significantly (Tables 13-18). In  the  first  salmon steaks had  pilot  experiment,  9).  Analysis  of  variance  steaks with skin and  results  significant improvement in flavour two  boneless-skinless  higher overall mean scores for a l l attributes  (except overall acceptability) than the (Table  the  and  however  bone  indicate  no  acceptability between  the  samples (Table 11). Significant differences (p<0.05) were found  between  the  samples  for  firmness,  dryness,  fibrousness  and  chewiness. In  the  second  pilot  experiment,  higher mean scores compared for  all  textural  differences  attributes  (p<0.05)  were  untreated samples (Tables judged  firmer,  to the  tested  found  due  to  the  between  fibrous  shorter  the physical pressing  of  and  of late-run  samples  the  majority  of  control.  panelists  processing  the  Less presence than  (Table  13-18) with the  drier, more  samples  10). the  flavour was  61  and  pouched samples being less  in texture  chewy may  time used as  than  both  well as  to  processing.  offered  samples  the  have been  detected in the  However, comments that  Significant  pouched  pouched samples during  indicated  showed  control (untreated) samples  untreated samples. These differences in part  pouched  pouched by  exhibited  the a  Table 13: M u l t i p l e comparison hypothesis t e s t comparing sensory firmness of the c o n t r o l , b r i n e , p o l y phosphate/brine and pouched salmon processed at 248°F.  Comparison  F  P  Pouch vs B r i n e  95. 005""  0 .000  Pouch vs Phosphate  75. 000*"  0 .000  Pouch vs C o n t r o l  62. 703*"  0 .000  B r i n e vs C o n t r o l  2. 800"-  0 .095  B r i n e vs Phosphate  0. 805"-  0 .370  C o n t r o l vs Phosphate  0. 603"-  0 .438  * * s i g n i f i c a n t (alpha<0.01)) "-not s i g n i f i c a n t Note: For s i g n i f i c a n c e P<=  alpha k  where alpha i s the chosen s i g n i f i c a n c e level, k i s the number of p o s s i b l e comparisons = 6.  62  Table 1 4 : M u l t i p l e comparison h y p o t h e s i s t e s t comparing sensory dryness of the c o n t r o l , b r i n e , p o l y phosphate/brine and pouched salmon processed at  248°F.  F  Compar ison  P  Pouch vs B r i n e  119.155""  0.000  Pouch vs Phosphate  114.362""  0.000  Pouch vs C o n t r o l  102.729""  0.000  Brine vs C o n t r o l  0.609"-  0.436  Brine vs Phosphate  0.049"-  0.825  C o n t r o l vs Phosphate  0.312"-  0.577  * * s i g n i f i c a n t (alpha<0.01)) "-not significant Note: For s i g n i f i c a n c e P<= alpha k where alpha i s the chosen s i g n i f i c a n c e level, k i s the number of comparisons p o s s i b l e = 6.  63  Table 15: M u l t i p l e comparison h y p o t h e s i s t e s t comparing sensory f i b r o u s n e s s of the c o n t r o l , b r i n e , p o l y phosphate/brine and pouched salmon processed at  248°P.  Comparison  P  F  Pouch v s B r i n e  96 .834*-  0. 000  Pouch vs Phosphate  76 .415**  0. 000  Pouch vs C o n t r o l  60 .689--  0. 000  Brine vs C o n t r o l  4 .203"-  0. 041  Brine vs Phosphate  1 .207"-  0. 273  C o n t r o l vs Phosphate  0 .905"-  0. 342  * * s i g n i f i c a n t (alpha<0.01)) "-not s i g n i f i c a n t N o t e : F o r s i g n i f i c a n c e P<=  alpha k  where a l p h a i s t h e c h o s e n s i g n i f i c a n c e level, k i s t h e number o f c o m p a r i s o n s p o s s i b l e = 6.  64  Table 16: M u l t i p l e comparison h y p o t h e s i s t e s t comparing sensory chewiness of the c o n t r o l , b r i n e , p o l y phosphate/brine and pouched salmon processed at  248°F.  F  Compar i s o n  P  113. 076""  0 .000  Pouch v s Phosphate  80. 342""  0 .000  Pouch v s C o n t r o l  68. 7 8 4 * "  0 .000  Brine vs Control  5. 476"-  0 .020  Brine  2. 790"-  0 .096  0. 449"-  0 .504  Pouch vs B r i n e  vs Phosphate  Control  vs Phosphate  * * s i g n i f i c a n t (alpha<0.01) ) "-not s i g n i f i c a n t N o t e : F o r s i g n i f i c a n c e P<=  alpha k  where a l p h a i s t h e c h o s e n s i g n i f i c a n c e level, k i s t h e number o f c o m p a r i s o n s p o s s i b l e = 6.  65  Table 17: M u l t i p l e comparison hypothesis t e s t comparing l a t e - r u n f l a v o u r of the c o n t r o l , b r i n e , p o l y phosphate/brine and pouched salmon processed at 248°F.  Comparison  F  Pouch vs C o n t r o l  21.977-*  0 .000  Pouch vs Phosphate  13.920**  0 .000  B r i n e vs C o n t r o l  10.919**  0 .001  B r i n e vs Phosphate  5.493"-  0 .020  B r i n e vs Pouch  1.949"-  0 .164  C o n t r o l vs Phosphate  0.923"-  0 .338  P  * * s i g n i f i c a n t (alpha<0 .01) ) "-not s i g n i f i c a n t Note: For s i g n i f i c a n c e P<=  alpha k  where alpha i s the chosen s i g n i f i c a n c e level, k i s the number of comparisons = 6.  66  T a b l e 18: M u l t i p l e comparison h y p o t h e s i s t e s t comparing o v e r a l l a c c c e p t a b i l i t y of the c o n t r o l , b r i n e , polyphosphate/brine and pouched salmon processed at 248°F.  Compar ison  F  Pouch vs C o n t r o l  16 .491""  0. 000  B r i n e vs C o n t r o l  9 .359""  0. 002  Pouch vs Phosphate  8 199--  0. 005  Brine vs Phosphate  3 .488"-  0. 063  Control  1 .434"-  0. 232  0 .991"-  0. 320  vs Phosphate  B r i n e vs Pouch  P  * * s i g n i f i c a n t (alpha<0.01)) "-not s i g n i f i c a n t Note: For s i g n i f i c a n c e P<= alpha k where alpha i s the chosen s i g n i f i c a n c e level, k i s the number of comparisons = 6.  67  burnt a f t e r t a s t e which was untreated  samples.  stronger and  Overall the  lingered longer for the  pouched  samples  were  judged  higher in terms of acceptance, although the mean score indicated only moderate acceptability. This seems to have been due  to the  advanced sexual maturity of the fish. In  the  differences untreated fact,  pilot  between samples  the  polyphosphate for firmness The  third  experiment  the  were  polyphospate/brine  for a l l a t t r i b u t e s  treatment  of  the  and  steaks  resulted in slightly lower  run  the  (Tables 13-18). In with scores  l e s s fibrous sample.  flavour data indicated that the samples had of l a t e  significant  samples  tested  a slightly more juicy and  moderate intensity  no  boneless-skinless  prior to canning and  there  flavour with the  a greater  than  samples being  described in the majority of times as being burnt, sour or fishy. Although  the combination  of tripolyphosphate and  sodium chloride  has been demonstrated to improve preference ratings for flavour and  acceptability  Burgin  et  in many  al., 1988),  food the  products late-run  acceptability of  the chum as viewed  improved by this  treatment.  (Schults et flavour  by the  and  al., 1976; overall  panelists were  not  In the fourth pilot study, though the l a t e - r u n flavour of the fish was  significantly  the texture was affected  not  significantly  reduced  improved. The although  the  68  after  two  washes with brine,  textural properties were not brine t r e a t e d samples were  scored lower  than the  with  conducted  studies  untreated samples. This was by  Huynh  (1988) who  firmness and  late-run  flavour  of the  significantly  improved  by  brine  that the for  the  in  found  that  described  differences. samples  samples from  as  Comments  having  a  other treatments  both  late-run chum salmon were treatment. It was  poorer quality fish used in this study was  these  contrast  offered  by  salty/briny were not  possible responsible  most  panelists  flavour, while  similarly criticized. It  is possible that this s a l t y t a s t e might have masked some of attributes panelists  of to  late-run be  left  flavour with the  the  the  present in the  samples, causing  impression  the  that  quality  was  better. The  mean scores  treatments as  for the  judged by  the  textural properties  the  presence  of  late-run  flavour,  the  phosphate > brine > pouch (Figure 11). The most acceptable and  the  four  panelists in decreasing order were  pouch > control > phosphate > brine (Figures to  of  7, 8, 9 and order  was  10). As  control >  pouch samples were the  the control samples the l e a s t (Figure  12)  C. INSTRUMENTAL ANALYSIS  (i) General Observations Bilinski et al. (197 7) noted that reproducibility of texture  measurements  can  be  greatly  69  affected  by  the  objective sampling  F i g u r e 7:  Bar diagram showing mean panel r a t i n g s f o r firmness of b r i n e , polyphosphate/brine, pouch and u n t r e a t e d ( c o n t r o l ) samples of processed chum salmon.  70  F i g u r e 8: Bar diagram showing mean panel r a t i n g s f o r dryness o f b r i n e , polyphosphate/brine, pouch and u n t r e a t e d ( c o n t r o l ) samples of processed chum salmon.  5  CONTROL  POUCH  PHOSPH  TREATMENTS 71  BRINE  F i g u r e 9: Bar diagram showing mean p a n e l r a t i n g s f o r f i b r o u s n e s s of b r i n e , p o l y p h o s p h a t e / b r i n e , pouch and u n t r e a t e d ( c o n t r o l ) samples of processed chum salmon.  5  72  10:  Figure  Bar diagram showing mean panel r a t i n g s f o r chewiness of b r i n e , polyphosphate/brine, pouch and u n t r e a t e d ( c o n t r o l ) samples of processed chum salmon.  5  73  F i g u r e 11: Bar diagram showing mean panel r a t i n g s f o r l a t e run f l a v o u r of b r i n e , polyphosphate/brine, pouch and u n t r e a t e d ( c o n t r o l ) samples o f processed chum salmon.  4  -  2  -  1  "  Lt  o > < D  LL z  D  Lt  I  111 I<  0 CONTROL  POUCH PHOSPH TREATMENTS  74  BRINE  F i g u r e 1 2 : Bar diagram showing mean panel r a t i n g s f o r o v e r a l l a c c e p t a b i l i t y of b r i n e , polyphosphate/ b r i n e , pouch and untreated ( c o n t r o l ) samples of processed chum salmon.  CONTROL  POUCH  PHOSPH  TREATMENTS  75  BRINE  procedure. He advised that pooling flesh from s e v e r a l fish must be  avoided  during  differences identical  could  texture exist  treatments  measurement  between  before  because  individual  canning.  fish  Since  pronounced  subjected to  prolonged  mixing of  flesh before testing i s not desirable, i t i s usually d i f f i c u l t to obtain  a sufficiently  uniform  sample when a pooled  material i s  used. As a r e s u l t , samples compared f o r textural differences in this  study  a l l came  also  mentioned  from  the same fish.  that the presence  Bilinski  in the flesh  et al. (1977) of other  fish  constituents such as bones can introduce serious variations. In this study, the bones and skin of the fish were removed in a l l cases  except  when i t was necessary  to compare  the boneless-  skinless steaks to the steaks with skin and bone. This should be taken  into  consideration in interpreting  results  of  textural  comparisons between the boneless-skinless steaks and the steaks with  skin  and bone. Furthermore,  suggested of  the  mentioned  authors  that incomplete draining of the can content or drying fish  can  cause  firmness. Can contents  variations  were  samples  from  both  in the determination  properly drained and e f f o r t s  made to avoid drying of samples since  the above  were  as much as possible. However,  the instrumental and sensory  came from  the same can, instrumental measurements  were only  possible a f t e r  sensory  of  analysis  analysis  of texture  was completed.  This  slight delay could have resulted in some drying of the fish flesh  76  and may have produced higher standard deviations than expected. This  should  be noted  in intrepreting  measurement. Both  Bilinski  (1983) found  thorough  necessary  that  to improve  the r e s u l t s  of texture  e t al. (1977) and Borderias e t flaking  of the fish  the homogeneity.  samples  Samples were  al. was  therefore  broken up into flakes using two forks as proposed by Bilinski et al. (1977).  (ii) Instrumental measurement of texture Figure 13 shows a typical texture for  the flaked  the  various  cooked  salmon  in this  textural parameters  profile  study. The definitions of  used were based  Szczesniak e t al. (1963), Bourne (1968) and Henry The  force  curve obtained  on those of  and Katz (1969).  at the instant of maximum compression  i s defined as  hardness. In Figure 13 this i s l i s t e d as hardness 1 in contrast to  hardness  the  second  2 which i s the force a t maximum compression during bite. The slopes of the curves obtained during the  f i r s t and second compression cycles were calculated a t intervals of  0.4 seconds  and the maximum value obtained per cycle  were  named maximum slope 1 and 2 respectively. They represented the firmness area  of the samples  under  the curve  during the f i r s t  up to the point  and second bite. The  of maximum  compression  (that i s , to the l e f t of the v e r t i c a l dotted line) represents the work done to compress and crush the food during the f i r s t  77  bite  F i g u r e 13: T y p i c a l F o r c e - t i m e c u r v e s o f t h e processed salmon samples.  flaked  70 Hardness 1 60 50 -j Hardness 2  30  -i  20 -f  104  -10  10  20  30  TIME (SECONDS)  78  AO  and i s designated as area 1. During the second bite the force at the point of maximum compression area under the compression 2  and  represents  during  the  distance  the  second  the  i s defined as  hardness 2.  The  portions of the second bite i s area  work done  compression.  food recovers  on  the  food  Springiness  i t s height  by  the  i s defined  between the  machine as  the  of  the  end  f i r s t rise in force above zero in the second bite and the point of  maximum  compression.  The  the ratio  of area  calculated as gumminess  was  calculated  cohesiveness; and the  product  of  property  as  hardness  x  cohesiveness  2 to area 1. The the  the property  of  product  cohesiveness  property  of  hardness  x  calculated  as  of  of chewiness was x  was  springiness i.e.,  gumminess x springiness. Tables 19 by the  and  20  show the means of the  results  instrumental analysis together with their  standard  deviations  for  the  various  obtained  corrresponding  characteristics  of  the  processed salmon product. The data for instrumental analysis was treated were  by  one  way  differences  Tables  21 and  multiple  analysis of variance to determine i f there  between  treatments.  22. In Tables  comparison  The  23-28 appears  hypothesis  test  used  results the to  appear  results  of  determine  in the  which  treatments differ significantly. For  the  differences  first in  pilot  experiment, there  cohesiveness  and  79  were no  springiness  significant  between  the  Table 19: Means o f r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d by i n s t r u m e n t a l a n a l y s i s and t h e i r c o r r e s p o n d i n g standard d e v i a t i o n s f o r b o n e l e s s - s k i n l e s s salmon s t e a k s and steaks w i t h s k i n and bones processed a t 248°F.  Parameters  Treatments Boneless-skinless Steaks  With s k i n and bone  Hardness 1  70..30(9 . 2 ) -  58,.07(10 . 3 ) *  Hardness 2  50..70(8. D -  38.,79(9. 1 )  b  Cohesiveness  0,. 3 4 ( 0 . 0 5 ) -  0,. 3 3 ( 0 . 0 3 ) -  Springiness  4 .38(0. . 4)-  4.,35(0. 7 ) -  Maximum s l o p e 1  28..03(4. 2 ) -  23.. 4 7 ( 5 . 3 )  b  Maximum s l o p e 2  36.,02(9. 8 ) -  26.,75(6. 8 )  b  Gumminess  24..19(4. 8 ) -  19 . .01(4. D  Chewiness  106. .21(27 • 2 ) -  h  83 . .52(26 • l )  b  Units Hardness 1 and 2 : Newtons (N) S p r i n g i n e s s : m i l l i m e t r e s (mm) Maximum s l o p e 1 and 2 : N/mm Gumminess : Newtons (N) Chewiness : Nmm ""Means w i t h i n the same row with the same s u p e r s c r i p t are not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (p>0.05).  80  Table 20: Means o f r e s u l t s obtained by i n s t r u m e n t a l a n a l y s i s and t h e i r corresponding standard d e v i a t i o n s f o r t h e b r i n e , polyphosphate/brine, pouch and u n t r e a t e d ( c o n t r o l ) samples of chum salmon processed a t 248°F.  Parameters  Treatments Brine  Hardness 1  33 . 8 7 ( 1 3 • 2 )  Hardness 2  22 . 8 3 ( 8 . 8 )  b  b  Phosphates/ brine  Control  Pouch  32 . 0 2 ( 1 0 . 2 ) *  36 . 8 3 ( 1 0 . 8 ) "  48 . 4 1 ( 1 2 . 9 ) -  21 . 4 1 ( 7 . 2 ) *  25 . 4 2 ( 7 .  l)  b  32 . 1 7 ( 8 . 6 ) -  Cohesiveness  0 .36(0. 04)-  0 .36(0. 04)-  0 .38(0. 03)-  0 . 3 5 ( 0 . 07 ) -  Springiness  4.54(0. 8)«  4.42(0. 8)-  4 .62(0. 7)-  4 .55(0. 7)-  Max.slope 1  10 . 8 4 ( 4 . 7 )  b  11 . 3 4 ( 4 .  Max.slope 2  12 . 2 5 ( 5 . 6 )  b  11 . 9 9 ( 4 . 7 )  Gumminess  11 . 9 7 ( 4 . 6 )  b  11 . 4 5 ( 3 .  Chewiness  54 . 7 ( 2 4 . D  b  5)  5)  50. 79(19. 6 )  b  b  b  b  12 . 8 7 ( 5 . 4 )"•= 15 . 8 4 ( 5 . 0 ) - « = 13 . 6 5 ( 5 . D  18 . 0 1 ( 6 . 3 ) -  b  13 . 9 6 ( 4 .  16 . 9 5 ( 5 . 5 ) - =  65. 60(26. 7 ) ° b  77 . 9 3 ( 2 9 . 1 ) - =  Units Hardness 1 and 2 : Newtons (N) S p r i n g i n e s s : m i l l i m e t r e s (mm) Maximum s l o p e 1 and 2 : N/mm Gumminess : Newtons (N) Chewiness : Nmm - Means w i t h i n the same row with the same s u p e r s c r i p t are not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (p>0.05), as t e s t e d by the hypothesis test. toc  81  Table 21: A n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e d a t a d e r i v e d from Texture P r o f i l e A n a l y s i s r e s u l t s o f b o n e l e s s - s k i n l e s s salmon steaks and steaks with s k i n and bones processed a t 248°P.  Test  Source  DF  Mean square  F-values  Hardness 1  Treatment Error  1 30  1196. 227 95. 245  12. 560-"  Hardness 2  Treatment Error  1 30  1136. 553 75. 059  15. 142--  Cohesiveness  Treatment Error  1 30  2670. 627 1357. 885  1. 967"-  Spr i n g i n e s s  Treatment Error  1 30  0.003 0. 358  0.010"-  Maximum s l o p e 1  Treatment Error  1 30  166. 592 22. 767  7. 317"-  Maximum s l o p e 2  Treatment Error  1 30  687. 724 71. 498  9 .619"-  Gumminess  Treatment Error  1 30  214. 689 19 . 799  10. 843*-  Chewiness  Treatment Error  1 30  4117. 772 709 . 654  - - s i g n i f i c a n t (p<0.01) - s i g n i f i c a n t (p<0.05) "-not s i g n i f i c a n t (p>0.05)  82  5. 803"  Table 22: A n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e d a t a f o r Texture P r o f i l e A n a l y s i s of b r i n e , polyphosphate/brine, pouch and u n t r e a t e d ( c o n t r o l ) samples of chum salmon processed a t 248°F.  Test  Source  DF  Mean square  F-value  Hardness 1  Treatment Error  3 124  1732 .317 140 .456  12.333"-  Hardness 2  Treatment Error  3 124  728 .463 63 .127  11.540--  Cohesiveness  Treatment Error  3 124  3633 .883 2348 .172  1.548"-  Springiness  Treatment Error  3 124  0 .220 0 .599  0.367"-  Maximum s l o p e 1  Treatment Error  3 124  162 .023 24 .169  6.704--  Maximum s l o p e 2  Treatment Error  3 124  247 .963 29 .527  8.398--  Gumminess  Treatment Error  3 124  198 .450 20 .520  9.671""  Chewiness  Treatment Error  3 124  4752 .087 632 .493  7.513--  ' - s i g n i f i c a n t (p<0.01) '-not s i g n i f i c a n t (p>0.05)  83  Table 23: M u l t i p l e comparison hypothesis t e s t comparing i n s t r u m e n t a l r e s u l t s of hardness 1 f o r the b r i n e , polyphosphate/brine, pouch and u n t r e a t e d ( c o n t r o l ) samples of the processed chum salmon.  Compar ison  F  P  Pouch vs Phosphate  30.615"-  0.000  Pouch vs B r i n e  24.079""  0.000  Pouch vs C o n t r o l  15.285--  0.000  C o n t r o l vs Phosphate  2.635"-  0.107  Brine vs Phosphate  0.392"-  0.532  B r i n e vs C o n t r o l  0.995"-  0.321  - - s i g n i f i c a n t (p<0.01) "-not s i g n i f i c a n t p>alpha k where alpha i s the chosen s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l = 0.05, k i s the number of comparisons p o s s i b l e = 6.  84  Table 24: M u l t i p l e comparison h y p o t h e s i s t e s t comparing i n s t r u m e n t a l r e s u l t s of hardness 2 f o r the b r i n e , polyphosphate/brine, pouch and untreated ( c o n t r o l ) samples of the processed chum salmon.  Comparison  F  P  Pouch vs Phosphate  29 .320-"  0. 000  Pouch vs B r i n e  22 .098-*  0. 000  Pouch vs C o n t r o l  11 .529-"  0. 001  C o n t r o l v s Phosphate  4 .078"-  0. 046  B r i n e vs Phosphate  0 .510"-  0. 477  B r i n e vs C o n t r o l  1 .704"-  0. 194  ' - s i g n i f i c a n t (p<0.01) '•not s i g n i f i c a n t p> a l p h a k where a l p h a = = k = =  t h e chosen s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l 0.05, t h e number of comparisons p o s s i b l e 6.  85  Table 25: M u l t i p l e comparison h y p o t h e s i s t e s t comparing i n s t r u m e n t a l r e s u l t s of maximum s l o p e 1 f o r the b r i n e , polyphosphate/brine, pouch and u n t r e a t e d ( c o n t r o l ) samples of the processed chum salmon.  Comparison  P  P  Pouch vs B r i n e  16. 536"*  0 .000  Pouch vs Phosphate  13. 409-"  0 .000  Pouch vs C o n t r o l  5. 831"-  0 .017  C o n t r o l vs B r i n e  2. 728"-  0 .101  C o n t r o l vs Phosphate  1. 555"-  0 .215  Brine vs Phosphate  0. 164"-  0 .686  - " s i g n i f i c a n t (p<0.01) "-not s i g n i f i c a n t p>alpha k where alpha = the chosen s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l = 0.05, k = the number of comparisons p o s s i b l e = 6.  86  Table 26: M u l t i p l e comparison hypothesis t e s t comparing i n s t r u m e n t a l r e s u l t s of maximum s l o p e 2 f o r the b r i n e , polyphosphate/brine, pouch and untreated ( c o n t r o l ) samples of the processed chum salmon.  Comparison  F  P  Pouch vs Phosphate  19 . 589**  0 .000  Pouch vs B r i n e  17 .936**  0 .000  Pouch vs C o n t r o l  10 .276*  0 .002  C o n t r o l vs Phosphate  1 .490"-  0 .225  C o n t r o l vs Brine  1 .061"-  0 .305  Brine vs Phosphate  0 .036"-  0 .849  - - s i g n i f i c a n t (p<0.01) - s i g n i f i c a n t (p<0.05) "-not s i g n i f i c a n t p>alpha k where alpha = the chosen s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l = 0.05, k = the number of comparisons p o s s i b l e = 6.  87  Table 27: M u l t i p l e comparison h y p o t h e s i s t e s t comparing i n s t r u m e n t a l r e s u l t s of gumminess f o r the b r i n e , polyphosphate/brine, pouch and u n t r e a t e d ( c o n t r o l ) samples of the processed chum salmon.  Comparison  F  P  Pouch vs Phosphate  23 .582**  0. 000  Pouch vs B r i n e  19 .274"-  0. 000  Pouch vs C o n t r o l  6 .950"-  0. 009  C o n t r o l vs Phosphate  4 .927"-  0. 025  C o n t r o l vs Brine  3 .076"-  0. 082  B r i n e vs Phosphate  0 .217"-  0. 642  - - s i g n i f i c a n t (p<0.01) "-not s i g n i f i c a n t p> alpha k  where alpha = the chosen s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l = 0.05, k = the number of comparisons p o s s i b l e = 6.  88  T a b l e 28: M u l t i p l e comparison h y p o t h e s i s t e s t comparing i n s t r u m e n t a l r e s u l t s of chewiness f o r the b r i n e , polyphosphate/brine, pouch and u n t r e a t e d ( c o n t r o l ) samples of the processed chum salmon.  Compar ison Pouch vs Phosphate  18. 637""  0 .000  Pouch vs B r i n e  13. 652**  0 .000  C o n t r o l vs Phosphate  5. 551"-  0 .020  C o n t r o l vs Pouch  3. 864"-  0 .051  C o n t r o l vs B r i n e  3. 006"-  0 .085  B r i n e vs Phosphate  0. 387"-  0 .535  ' " s i g n i f i c a n t (p<0.01) '-not s i g n i f i c a n t p> alpha k  where alpha = = k = =  the chosen s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l 0.05, the number of comparisons p o s s i b l e 6  89  boneless-skinless Significant  steaks  differences  and the steaks (p<0.05)  were  with  skin  however  and bone.  obtained  for  hardness, maximum slope, gumminess and chewlness. For higher  the second  mean  scores  chewiness than Table  pilot  experiment, the pouched  f o r hardness, maximum  the control (Table  22 indicated that container  slope the  23-28) f o r hardness 2. There was  samples  for  slope, gumminess and  20). Analysis  of variance in  type had a significant  on the textural properties with F values (Tables  samples had  effect  significant a t p < 0.01  1 and 2 and p < 0.05 f o r maximum  no significant cohesiveness,  differences (p>0.05) between springiness,  gumminess  and  chewiness. For  the third and fourth pilot experiments, the objective  textural properties the  were not affected significantly  polyphosphate/brine  and  brine  treatments  (p>0.05) by respectively  (Tables 23-28). These treatments however resulted in lower mean scores  f o r a l l the textural parameters measured when compared  to the control (Table 20). The fish  mean r e s u l t s obtained  in decreasing  order  by instrumental  were  pouch  >  analysis of the  control  >  brine  >  phosphate f o r a l l a t t r i b u t e s except maximum slope 1, springiness and cohesiveness (Figures 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19).  90  F i g u r e 14: Bar diagram showing i n s t r u m e n t a l measurement of hardness f o r b r i n e , polyphosphate/brine, pouch and u n t r e a t e d ( c o n t r o l ) samples of processed chum salmon.  91  F i g u r e 15: Bar diagram showing i n s t r u m e n t a l measurement of maximum s l o p e s f o r b r i n e , polyphosphate/brine, pouch and u n t r e a t e d ( c o n t r o l ) samples of processed chum salmon.  CONTROL  POUCH PHOSPH TREATMENTS 92  BRINE  F i g u r e 16: Bar diagram showing i n s t r u m e n t a l measurement of cohesiveness f o r b r i n e , polyphosphate/brine, pouch and u n t r e a t e d ( c o n t r o l ) samples of processed chum salmon.  1.00 0.90 -  09 UJ z  UJ  >  CO UJ  o o I  0.10 0.00 CONTROL  POUCH PHOSPH TREATMENTS  93  BRINE  F i g u r e 17: Bar diagram showing i n s t r u m e n t a l measurement of s p r i n g i n e s s f o r b r i n e , polyphosphate/brine, pouch and u n t r e a t e d ( c o n t r o l ) samples of processed chum salmon.  6  94  F i g u r e 18: Bar diagram showing i n s t r u m e n t a l measurement of gumminess f o r b r i n e , polyphosphate/brine, pouch and untreated ( c o n t r o l ) samples of processed chum salmon.  2 0  CONTROL  POUCH  PHOSPH  TREATMENTS  95  BRINE  F i g u r e 19: Bar diagram showing i n s t r u m e n t a l measurement of chewiness f o r b r i n e , polyphosphate/brine, pouch and untreated ( c o n t r o l ) samples o f processed chum salmon.  9 0  8 0  CONTROL  POUCH  PHOSPH  TREATMENTS  96  BRINE  D. SUBJECTIVE-INSTRUMENTAL INTERRELATIONS  To determine how well panel r e s u l t s could be predicted by combining instrumental r e s u l t s , simple l i n e a r r e g r e s s i o n were  done  between  the sensory  analyses  a t t r i b u t e s and the physical  parameters of texture measured with the Instron. Since apparent  that  the various  sensory  panel  notes  i t was  were  not  independent of each other the mean of the panel scores f o r each f i s h was taken as the dependent variable and the mean of the corresponding  instrumental  values  as the independent variable.  The c o e f f i c i e n t of determination (R ) obtained f o r the mean panel 2  scores and the mean instrumental scores a r e shown i n Table 29. Based on these  r e s u l t s , none of the sensory  parameters were  well predicted by the instrumental r e s u l t s . The best a s s o c i a t i o n appeared  between  There were firmness  also  sensory  firmness  significant  and instrumental  and instrumental  r e l a t i o n s h i p s between maximum  slope  hardness.  (i) sensory  and chewiness (ii)  sensory fibrousness and instrumental hardness, maximum slope and chewiness maximum  ( i i i ) sensory slope  chewiness  and chewiness.  and instrumental  Sensory  dryness  hardness,  could  not be  c o r r e l a t e d t o any of the instrumental measurements. This lack of c o r r e l a t i o n was probably due t o the f a c t t h a t the instrumental test  measured  the r e s i s t a n c e  mechanical p r o p e r t i e s  of t e x t u r e  97  t o the applied  f o r c e s i.e.,  and not the expressed  fluid.  Table 29: C o e f f i c i e n t of d e t e r m i n a t i o n ( R ) between panel s c o r e s and i n s t r u m e n t a l t e x t u r e s c o r e s . 2  3  Firmness  Panel Scores Dryness Fibrousness  Chewiness  Hardness 1  0.459"-  0.128"-  0.291--  0.371""  Hardness 2  0.441"-  0.104"-  0.281--  0.373""  Cohesiveness  0.002"-  0.000"-  0.000"-  0.000"-  Springiness  0.010"-  0.005"-  0.035"-  0.045"-  Maximum Slope 1  0.361""  0.033"-  0.221-  0.337--  Maximum s l o p e 2  0.340--  0.029"-  0.209*  0.305--  Chewiness  0.321""  0.026"-  0.192-  0.283--  Instrumentation  °n=20. - " s i g n i f i c a n t (p<0.01) - s i g n i f i c a n t (p<0.05) "-not s i g n i f i c a n t (p>0.05)  98  Instrumental cohesiveness  and springiness also did not c o r r e l a t e  well with any of the sensory The  parameters.  mean s c o r e s f o r the t e x t u r a l p r o p e r t i e s of the four  treatments  as judged by the p a n e l i s t s i n decreasing order were  pouch > c o n t r o l > phosphate > brine. For instrumental a n a l y s i s of t e x t u r e , the mean r e s u l t s i n decreasing order f o r a l l t e x t u r a l paremeters except were pouch  maximum slope 1, springiness and cohesiveness  > control  > brine  > phosphate. The pouched and  c o n t r o l samples were t h e r e f o r e ranked i n the same order by both t e s t i n g methods while the order was r e v e r s e d f o r the brine and phosphate samples. However, i t should be noted t h a t there were no  significant  samples  for  d i f f e r e n c e s between any  of  the  instrumentally or by sensory between  the samples  the brine  textural  and  phosphate  parameters  measured  analysis. This lack of d i f f e r e n c e s  can perhaps  account  f o r the r e v e r s e d  ranking order. In general, i t appeared t h a t the Instron TPA data supported  the conclusions of the sensory  scores  f o r texture.  This confirmation can be an important reason f o r using o b j e c t i v e methods together wth sensory methods. Nevertheless, i t i s o f t e n d i f f i c u l t t o r e l a t e the p h y s i c a l measurement obtained by means of an instrument t o any one or more of the f a c t o r s influencing the  general  sensory  p r o p e r t i e s which  impression  of  t e x t u r e , because  other  cannot be evaluated by instruments, such  as  smell and t a s t e , can a f f e c t a person's judgement a t the time of  99  tasting. The sensory method f o r  evaluation was t h e r e f o r e a more s e n s i t i v e  evaluating texture.  E. VOLUME OF COOK-OUT LIQUID  Table following  30 the  shows  the volume  processing  of  of cook-out liquid  the  brine,  obtained  polyphosphate/brine,  pouched and untreated salmon steaks. This liquid was  expressed  from the f i s h during processing. According  (1980), i t  can  result  and  convection.  inside  i n heat  t r a n s f e r being  However, since  the can during  to Wilson  a combination  the f i s h  of  steaks  conduction  did not move  processing, the main mechanism  of heat  t r a n s f e r was by conduction. For the  the brine, polyphosphate/brine  volume  of cook-out liquid  and untreated  did not change  very  samples  much. The  pouch process, however, r e s u l t e d i n a g r e a t e r volume  of drip  l o s s than the others. This d i f f e r e n c e i n volume was not expected and  was  probably  due  to p h y s i c a l pressing  samples during processing. This pouch samples having  of  the pouched  in p a r t could have l e d t o the  a firmer, d r i e r  100  t e x t u r e than  the control.  Table 30: Volume of cook-out l i q u i d obtained f o l l o w i n g p r o c e s s i n g of b r i n e , polyphosphate/brine, pouch and c o n t r o l samples of chum salmon a t 248°F.  Treatment  5  Volume  8  of cook-out mL  Brine  23.25(2.12)  Polyphosphate/brine  23.75(2.55)  Control  26.00(2.93)  Pouch  43.25(3.96)  d a t a expressed as mean(standard d e v i a t i o n ) ,  101  liquid  n=8  CONCLUSIONS  Enhancement processing pouches  of l a t e - r u n chum  of boneless-skinless  as  well  as  by  salmon q u a l i t y  steaks  i n cans  polyphosphate/brine  by the  and r e t o r t  dips  and the  treatment of steaks with an 8% s a l t s o l u t i o n was i n v e s t i g a t e d in this study. The  processed  salmon was shown t o exibit simple  straight  line semi-logarithmic heating and cooling curves during r e t o r t i n g . The process time f o r the pouches was 47.8% the same amount of product processed same temperature. being  judged  fibrous  i n c y l i n d r i c a l cans a t the  This r e s u l t e d i n the pouch processed  by a  and l e s s  s h o r t e r compared t o  sensory  chewy  panel  than  salmon  t o be firmer, d r i e r ,  the canned  product  more  and having  higher mean scores f o r hardness, maximum slopes, gumminess and chewiness  when  measured  instrumentally. The d i f f e r e n c e s i n  t e x t u r e might also have been i n p a r t due t o p h y s i c a l pressing of the  pouched  probably  samples  demonstrated  during  processing.  This  by a g r e a t e r volume  phenomenon was  of cook-out  liquid  being r e l e a s e d i n the pouches. L e s s intense l a t e - r u n f l a v o u r was detected in the pouched samples than the control. However, mean panel  scores  indicated  pouched product.  only  moderate  acceptability  This i s p o s s i b l y due t o the advanced  of the sexual  maturity of the f i s h used. Removal of the skin and bone did not show any significant  102  improvement  i  the  n  late-run  flavour  and  acceptability of  the  acceptability of  the  salmon. The  texture,  late-run  polyphosphate/brine panelists  were  not  flavour  treated  and  samples  improved.  as  perceived  Instrumental  by  the  measurements  also  showed no improvement in the texture of these samples. Washes texture  with  of the  an  8%  brine  solution did  fish. This might have been due  sexual maturity  of the  fish  used. The  fish samples, however, appeared  significantly  flavour  perceived  Results  of  might  have  slope and  and  of  cases,  the  panelists to be  left  instrumental  the instrumental  Instron  TPA  data  the  strong  some  showed  between sensory  chewiness. However, none of  were well predicted by  the  on  the  analysis  and  the  of  linear  chewiness  advanced  flavour of  masked  better.  regression  the  reduced. Based  that the quality was  significant relationships were obtained fibrousness  the  possible that  attributes of the late-run flavour causing with the impression  improve  to  late-run  comments offered by panelists, i t was briny/salty  not  that  firmness,  hardness, maximum sensory  parameters,  results. In the  appeared  to  majority  support  the  conclusions of the sensory scores for texture. In gained  summary, the  from  this  thermal processing  study  most  important  is that  time required  103  there  conclusion was  to achieve  a  that  reduction  can  be  in the  a similar lethality  for  salmon  in r e t o r t  This shortened the  pouches when compared  process  time  texture, flavour and  to canned  produced significant  acceptability  improvement in  of the pouched  over the canned samples. Nevertheless, acceptance fish was only moderate. Future using fish  of l e s s  advanced  obtaining higher consumer  salmon.  product  of the canned  studies should therefore be done sexual maturity  acceptance  with  the hope of  of the product. Changes in  flesh colour i s also a major factor contributing to downgrading the  value  of the  colour measurements  fish. As  a  result,  should be done on  i t i s recommended the pouched  product to  determine i f there i s significant improvement in the colour.  104  that  BIBLIOGRAPHY Abou-Fadel, 0. S. and Miller, L. T. 198 3. Vitamin retention, colour and texture in thermally processed green beans and Royal Ann cherries packed in pouches and cans. J. Food Sci. 4 8: 920. Adams, J. P., Peterson, W. R. and Otwell, W. S. 1983. Processing of seafood in institutional-sized r e t o r t pouches. Food Technol. 6(5): 185 Anon. 1962. Process improves frozen fish. Food Eng. 34(9): 106. Ball, C. 0. 1923. Thermal process time f o r canned food. Bulletin 37. National Research Council, Washington, D.C. Bee, G. R. and Park, D. K. 1978. Heat penetration measurement for thermal process design. Food Technol. 32(6): 56. Berry, R. Jr. 1979. The sterilization of food in pouches- c r i t i c a l parameters f o r s t i l l processing. Proc. of the Conference Using the Retort Pouch World Wide- Focus on the Present with a Look to the Future. Sponsored by the Food Sciences Inst., Purdue Univ., March 14-15, p. 7. Bilinski, E., Lau, Y. C. and Jonas, R. E. E. 1977. Objective measurement and control of the firmness of canned herring. Fisheries and Marine Science Technical Report No. 727. Vancouver, B. C. Bigelow, W. D., Bohart, G. S., Richardson, A. C. and Ball, C. O. 1920. Heat penetration in processing canned foods. NCA Bull. 16-L. Borderias, A. J., Lamua, M. and Tejado, M. 1983. Texture analysis of fish f i l l e t s and minced fish by both sensory and instrumental methods, J. Food Technol. 18: 85. Bourne, M. C. 1968. Texture profile 33: 223-226. Brandt, M., Skinner, E. and method. J. Food Sci. 28:  of ripening pears. J. Food Sci.  Coleman, J. 1963. 404.  105  Texture  profile  Burgin, J. M., Rogers, R. W., and Ammerman, G. R. 198 5. E f f e c t s of s a l t and tripolyphosphate on some quality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of breaded patties made from catfish trimmings. J. Food Sci. 50: 1598. Cardello, A. W. and Mailer, 0. 1987. Sensory texture analysis: an integrated aproach to food engineering. In Food Texture: instrumental and sensory measurement." Moskowitz, H. R. (ed.) Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, New York, p. 177-215. 11  Chen, T. S. and George, W. L. 1981. Ascorbic acid retention in r e t o r t pouch green beans. J. Food Sci. 46: 462. Chia,  S. S., Baker, R. C. and Hotchkiss, J. H. 198 3. Quality comparison of thermoprocessed fishery products in cans and retortable pouches. J. Food Sci. 48: 1521.  Civille, G. V. and Szczesniak, A. S. 1973. Guidelines to training a texture profile panel. J. Texture Studies 4: 204-233. Connell, J. J. and Howgate, P. F. 1971. In " Fish inspection and quality control," Kreuzer, R. (ed.) Fishery News Books Ltd., London. Connell, J. J. 1980. Advances in Fish Science and Technology. Fishery News Books Ltd., Farnham, Surrey, England. Crandall, J. V. 1946. The s t o r y of the pacific salmon. Benford and Mort Publishers, Portland, Oregon, p. 27-29. Davis, J. T. 1981. The retortable pouch - a product in search of a home. A c t i v i t i e s Rep. of R & D Associates f o r Military Food and Packaging systems, Inc. 33(1): 11 Dunajski, E. 1979. Texture of f i s h muscle. J. Text. Stud. 10: 301. Dymit, J. M. 1983. Today's food 56.  service system. Food Pack. 25(2):  Ecklund O. F. 1956. Correction factors f o r heat thermocouples. Food Technol. 10(1): 4 3. Ellinger, R. N. 19 7 2. " Phosphates Press, Cleveland, OH. pl31-14 7.  as Food  penetration  Ingredients." CRC  English, P. M., Gerdes, D. L., Finerty, M. W. and Grodner, R. M. 198 8. E f f e c t s of tripolyphosphates dips on the quality of thermally processed mullets {magil cephalus). J. Food Sci. 53: 1319. 106  Friedman, H. H., Whitney, J. E. and Szczesniak, A. S. 196 3. The texturometer - a new instrument for objective texture measurement. J. Food Sci. 28: 390. Goldblith, S. A. 1971. A condensed history of the science and technology of thermal processing - part 1. Food Technol. 25(12): 44. Goldblith, S. A. 1972. A condensed history of technology of thermal processing - part 26(1): 64.  the science and 2. Food Technol.  Goldfarb, P. L. 1970. Pouch for low acid foods. Part 1. Mod. Pack. 43(12): 70. Hayakawa, K. I. 1978. A c r i t i c a l review of mathematical procedures for determining proper heat sterilization process. Food Technol. 32(3): 59 Heintz, D. A. 1980. Marketing opportunities for the r e t o r t pouch. Food Technol. 34(9): 32. Henry, W. F. and Katz, M. H. 1969. New dimensions relating to the textural quality of semi-solid foods and ingredient systems. Food Technol. 23(6): 822-825. Herndon, D. H., Griffin, R. C, Ball, C. O. 1968. Use of computerderived tables to calculate sterilizing processes for packaged foods. Food Technol. 22(4): 474. Howgate, P. 1977. Aspects of fish texture, in "Sensory properties of food," Birch, G. G., Brennan J. G., Parker, K. J. (eds.), Applied science Publishers Ltd., London, p. 249. Howgate, P. 1979. Fish In "Food Microscopy," Vaughan, J. G. (ed.), Academic press, London, p. 34 3-392. Huynh, M. D. 1988. Study on utilization of late-run chum salmon. Progress Report. Division of Applied Biology, British Columbia Research Corporation, Vancouver, B. C. Huynh, M. D. 1989. Utilization of late-run chum salmon. A potential food resource. Technical Report No. 22. Fisheries and Food Products Program. Applied Biology Division. British Columbia Research Corporation, Vancouver, B. C.  107  Josephson, D. B., Lindsay, R. C. and Stuiber, D. A. 1984. Variations in the occcurences of enzymically-derived volatile aroma compounds in s a l t and freshwater fish. J. Agric. Pood Sci. 32: 1344-1347. Lampi, R. A. 1977. Flexible packaging Adv. Food Res. 23: 305.  f o r thermoprocessed  foods.  Lampi, R. A. 1980. Retort pouch. The development of a basic packaging concept in today's high technology era. J. Food Process Eng. 4: 1. Larmond, E. 1977. "Laboratory methods for sensory evaluation of foods." Publication 1637/E. Food Res. Inst. Canada. Dept. of Agriculture, Ottawa. Lopez, A. 1987. A complete course in canning. 12th ed. The Trade, Baltimore, MD. Love, R, M. 1980. The Press, London.  Canning  chemical biology of fishes, vol. 2. Academic  Love, R. M., Robertson, J., Smith, G. L. and Whiltle, K. J. 1974. texture of cod muscle. J. Text. Stud. 5: 201-212. Lund,  D. B. 1977. Design of thermal process nutrient retention. Food Technol. 31 (2): 71.  for  The  maximizing  Lyon, B. G. and Klose, A. A. 1981. E f f e c t of heat processing in cans and r e t o r t pouches on sensory properties of fowl meat. J. Food Sci. 46: 227. MacCallum, W. A., Chalker, D. A., Lauder, J.T., Odense, P. H., Idler, O. R. 196 4. Polyphosphate treatment of frozen cod. 3. Taste panel evaluation, chemical assessment and thaw drip in once frozen Newfoundland trap-caught cod. J. Fish. Res. Board Can., 21(6): 1397. Mermelstein, N. H. 1978. Retort pouch earns 1978 IFT Food Technology Industrial Achievement Award. Food Technol. 32(6): 22. Morello. G. F. 1987. Temperature and heat transfer studies in a water immersion retort. M. Sc. Thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B. C.  108  National Canners Association. 1976. Processes f o r low-acid canned foods in metal containers. Bulletin 26-L (eleventh edition). National Canners Association, Washington, D. C. Pflug, I. J. 196 4. Evaluation of heating media for producing shelf stable food in flexible packages. Phase 1. Final Report DA 19 - 129 - AMC - 14 5(N). U. S. Army Natick Laboratories, Natick, MA. Pflug, I. J. 1987. Factors important in determining the heat process value, F , for low acid canned foods. J. Food Prot. 50: 528-533. T  Pflug, I. J. and Esselen, W. B. 1980. Heat sterilization of canned food. In " Fundamentals of food canning technology." Jackson, J. M. and Shinr, B. M. (eds.), AVI publishing company Inc., Westport, CT, p. 10-94. Pflug, I. J., Bock, J. H. and Long, F. E. 1963. Sterilization of foods in flexible packages. Food Technol. 7(9): 87. Ramaswamy, H. S. 1983. Heat t r a n s f e r studies of steam/air mixtures f o r processing in r e t o r t pouches. Ph. D. thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B. C. Rasekh, J., Kramer, A., and Finch, R. 1970. Objective evaluation of canned tuna sensory quality. J. Food Sci. 35: 417. Rivzi, S. H. and Action, J. C. 1982. Nutrient enhancement of the thermostabilized food in r e t o r t pouches. Food Technol. 36(4): 105. Schults, G. W., Howker, J. J., and Wierbicki, E. 1976. E f f e c t s of s a l t s and sodium tripolyphosphate on texture, organic volatiles and sensory c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of irradiated and nonirradiated pork. J. Food Sci. 41: 1096. Segars, R. A., Johnson, E. A., Kapsalis, J. G. and Peley, M. 1981. Some tensile c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of raw fish flesh. J. Text. Stud., 12: 375-387. Sikorski, Z. E., Scott, N. E. and Bulsson, D. H. 1984. The role of collagen in the quality and processing of fish. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 20: 301 - 34 3. Smith, T. and Tung, M. A. 198 2. Comparison of formula methods for calculating thermal process lethality. J. Food Sci. 47: 626.  109  Smith, T. 1987. Thermal processing analysis system Program s e r i a l no. 41005, Surrey, B. C.  version 4 lb.  Spinak, S. H. and Wiley, R. C. 1982. Comparision of the General and Ball formula methods f o r r e t o r t pouch process calculations. J. Food Sci. 47: 880. Spinelli, J., Pelroy, G. and Miyauchi, D. 1968. Effects of polyphosphate dips on fish quality. Fish. Ind. Res., 4: 37. Staruszkiewicz, W. F. and Bond, J. F. 1981. Gas chromatographic determination of caderverine, putrescine and histamine in foods. J. A. 0. A. C. 64(3): 584-591. Steffe, J. F., Williams, J. R., Chhinnan, M. S. and Black, J. R. 1980. Energy requirements and c o s t s of r e t o r t pouch vs can packaging systems. Food Technol. 3 4(9): 39. Stone, H., Sidel, J., Oliver, S., Woolsey, A. and Singleton, R. C. 197 4. Sensory evaluation by quantitative descriptive analysis. Food Technol. 28(11): 2 4. Stumbo, C. R. 197 3. "Thermobacteriology ed. Academic Press, New York, NY.  in Food  Processing," 2nd  Stumbo, C. R. and Longley, R. E. 1966. New parameters calculation. Food Technol. 20(3): 343.  f o r process  Suzuki, T. 1981. Fish and k r i l l protein processing Applied Science Publishers Ltd., London.  technology.  Szczesniak, A. S. 1963. Classification of textural characteristics. J. Food Sci. 28: 385. Szczesniak, A. S. 1975. General Foods Texture Profile ten years perspective. J. Text. Stud. 6: 5-17. Tarr, H. L. A., Gardener, L. J., and Ingram, P. 1969. muscle 5'-nucleotidase. J. Food Sci. 34: 637.  revised  -  Pacific cod  Tarr, H. L. A. 1971. E f f e c t s of processing on fish products. In "Nutritional evaluation of food processing." Jarvis, R. S. and Von Coescke, J. (eds.), AVI Publishing co., Westport, Connecticut, p. 28 3-301.  110  Teixeira, A. A., Zinsmeister, G. E. and Zahradnik, J. W. 1975. Computer simulation of variable retort control and container geometry as a possible means of improving thiamine retention in thermally processed foods. J. Food Sci. 40: 656. Tung, M. A., Garland, M. R. and Campbell, W. E. 1975. Quality comparison of cream style corn processed in rigid and flexible containers. J. Inst. Can. Sci. Technol. Aliment. 8: 211. Tung, M. A. and Garland, T. D. 1978. Computer thermal processes. J. Food Sci. 4 3: 36 5. Van  calculation  of  Den Broek, C. J. H. 1965. Fish canning. In "Fish as Food." Vol.IV. Processing: part 2. Borgstom, G. (ed.), Academic Press Ltd., New York, NY, p. 127-205.  Voisey, P. W. 1971. Modernization Text. Stud. 2: 129-195.  of texture instrumentation. J.  Wekell, J. C. and Teeny, M. F. 1988. Canned salmon curd reduced polyphosphate. J. Food Sci. 53: 1009. Wesson, , J. B., Lindsay, R. C. and Stuiber, Discrimination of fish and seafood quality population. J. Food Sci. 4 4: 878. Wilkinson, L. 1988. SYSTAT: the IL: SYSTAT, Inc.  by  D. by  A. 1979. consumer  system f o r s t a t i s t i c s .  Evanston,  Williams, J. R., Steffe, J. K. and Black, J. R. 1982. Economic comparison of canning and r e t o r t pouch systems. J. Food Sci. 47: 284. Williams, J. R., Steffe, J. F. and Black, J. R. 1983. Sensitivity of selected f a c t o r s on costs of r e t o r t pouch packaging systems. Food Technol. 37(4): 92. Wilson, D. C. 1980. Theoretical problems in pouch processing. Paper presented at 1980 Winter Meeting Amer. Soc. Agri. Eng., Chicago, IL, Dec. 2-5.  Ill  APPENDICES  APPENDIX 1: Definitions of terms and symbols. f n - Heating rate index. The number of minutes required for the straight line portion of the heating curve plotted on semi-logarithmic paper to pass through one log cycle. It i s the negative reciprocal slope of the heating curve. f«=  - Cooling r a t e index. The number of minutes required for the straight line portion of the semi-logarithmic cooling curve to tranverse one log cycle. It i s the negative reciprocal slope of the cooling curve.  j  - A number representing the curved section before the semi-logarithmic heating or cooling curve assumes straight line c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .  JOK - Heating lag factor. The j of the semi-logarithmic heating curve. jea  - Cooling lag factor. The j of the semi-logarithmic cooling curve.  Fo  - Process lethality. The equivalent, in terms of minutes at 121.1°C (250°F), of a l l l e t h a l heat received by the cold spot in a container.  z  - The number of degrees f o r the thermal destruction curve to tranverse one log cycle.  More information on the derivation and use of these terms can be found in and Stumbo (197 3) and Lopez (1987).  112  APPENDIX IL Example: Estimated Process L e t h a l i t y Calculations for cans Fo determined f o r 307 x 115 cans containing chum salmon processsed a t 248°F during process determination work.  CALCULATION OF PROCESS M u l t i p l y f h by : M u l t i p l y j c h by : 2 : R e t o r t Temperature : I n i t i a l P r o d u c t Temperature P r o c e s s Time : t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28  LETHALITIES  1.00 1.50 18.00 248.00 : 50.00 65.00  F F F min  Identl  fh  Jch (corr)  Rl-Cl salcan R1-C2 s a l c a n R1-C3 s a l c a n R1-C4 s a l c a n R1-C5 s a l c a n R1-C6 s a l c a n R1-C7 s a l c a n R1-C8 s a l c a n R1-C9 s a l c a n R2-C1 s a l c a n R2-C2 s a l c a n R2-C3 s a l c a n R2-C4 s a l c a n R2-C5 s a l c a n R2-C6 s a l c a n R2-C7 s a l c a n R2-C8 s a l c a n R2-C9 s a l c a n R2-C10 s a l c a n R3-C1 s a l c a n R3-C2 s a l c a n R3-C3 s a l c a n R3-C4 s a l c a n R3-C5 s a l c a n R3-C6 s a l c a n R3-C7 s a l c a n R3-C8 s a l c a n R3-C9 s a l c a n MINIMUM MAXIMUM MEAN STAND. DEV.  29.02 30.94  2.913 2.605  34. 64 33. 38  1 .792 1 .747  7. 58 6.66  8.90 7.90  31.97 30.90 30.74 29.84  2.659 2.950 3.246 3.163  34. 47 36. 67 37. 93 37. 83  1 .613 1 .762 1 .788 1 .675  5. 72 5. 90 5. 43 6. 33  6.63 7.05 6.58 7.36  28.93 30.67 30.85  2.784 2.175 2.262  29. 68 32. 05 31. 70  1 .360 1 .298 1 .367  7. 96 8. 11 7. 69  8.46 8.51 8.23  32.72 33.20 32.92 33.33  2.299 1.894 1.945 2.001  36. 59 33. 86 43. 95 36. 33  1 .308 1 .718 1 .292 1 .527  6.11 7. 08 7. 10 6.61  6.50 8.32 7.45 7.41  32.65 33.40  2.016 1.779  36. 90 40. 17  1 .553 1 .513  7. 05 7. 37  7.95 8.22  32.53 34.15 33.23 34.37  2.188 1.918 1.962 1.917  37. 26 41. 78 38. 08 41. 01  1 .612 1 . 560 1 .485 1 .432  6. 59 6 .30 6. 82 6. 16  7.55 7.18 7.55 6.80  28.93 34.37 31.91 1.65  1.779 3.246 2.352 0.472  29. 68 43. 95 36. 54 3. 64  1 .292 1 .792 1 .547 0 . 171  5. 43 8. 11 6. 77 0. 76  6.50 8.90 7.61 0.72  113  fc  jcc  Ball's  Stumbo's  APPENDIX  111. Example:  Estimated Process for Pouches.  Time  Calculations  Process times required to achieve F =6.50 min f o r pouches containing chum salmon processed a t 2 4 8°F during process determination work. o  CALCULATION  OF PROCESS  M u l t i p l y fh by : M u l t i p l y j c h by : Z : R e t o r t Temperature : I n i t i a l Product Temperature Target L e t h a l i t y :  » 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  Identl  salpouch salpouch salpouch salpouch salpouch salpouch salpouch salpouch salpouch salpouch salpouch salpouch salpouch salpouch salpouch salpouch salpouch salpouch salpouch salpouch salpouch salpouch salpouch salpouch MINIMUM MAXIMUM MEAN STAND. D E V . MEAN t 3STDEV  R4-C1 R4-C2 R4-C3 R4-C4 R4-C5 R4-C6 R4-C7 R4-C8 R4-C9 R5-C1 R5-C2 R5-C3 R5-C4 R5-C5 R5-C6 R5-C7 R5-C8 R6-C1 R6-C2 R6-C3 R6-C4 R6-C5 R6-C6 R6-C7  TIMES  1.00 1.00 18.00 248.00 : 50.00 6.50  fh  F F F min  jch  fc  jcc  Ball's  Stumb<  56 78 07 86 59  0 .449 0 .580 0 .406 0 .535 0 .555  9. 15. 14. 14 . 14 .  68 50 45 10 39  1 .346 1 . 102 0 .910 1 .195 1 .233  30. 29. 30. 32. 32.  48 57 10 28 31  29 . 8 5 29 .51 30 .68 32 . 0 5 31 .97  18. 48 20. 26 20. 32  0 .565 0 .486 0 .497  1 5 . 91 2 4 . 02 1 8 . 93  1 .103 1 .133 1 .501  3 1 . 26 3 1 . 86 32. 11  31 . 2 5 31 . 8 0 31 .07  19. 26 17. 81  0 .480 0 .583  1 5 . 54 1 7 . 03  1 .172 1 .186  30. 74 30. 77  30 .57 30 . 5 3  18. 17. 21. 17. 19.  65 74 02 67 76  0 .542 0 .559 0 .494 0 .538 0 .560  1 3 . 91 1 6 . 79 17 . 56 2 5 . 20 1 3 . 03  1 .637 1 .834 1 .897 1 .348 1 .919  31. 30. 32. 30. 32.  29 28 30 29 30  16. 21. 19. 1.  78 02 12 21  0 .406 0 . 583 0 .522 0 .051  9 . 68 2 5 . 20 16 . 40 3 . 98  0 .910 1 .919 1 .368 0 .318  29. 57 32 . 76 31. 22 1. 03 34. 32  19. 16. 20. 19. 19.  114  11 37 76 00 57  .79 .66 .73 . 36 .57  28 .66 32 . 0 5 30 .56 0 .99 33 .54  APPENDIX IV. Example: Estimated Process f o r Pouches  Lethality  Calculations  Predicted Fo values obtained i f the recommended process was used f o r pouches containing chum salmon processed a t 248°F.  CALCULATION OF PROCESS LETHALITIES M u l t i p l y f h by : 1.00 M u l t i p l y j c h by : 1.00 Z : 18.00 R e t o r t Temperature : 248.00 I n i t i a l Product Temperature : 50.00 Process Time : 34.00 * 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  Identl R4 - C l R4 -C2 R4 -C3 R4 -C4 R4 -C5 R4 -C6 R4 -C7 R4 -C8 R4 -C9 R5 - C l R5 -C2 R5 -C3 R5 -C4 R5 -C5 R5 -C6 R5 -C7 R5 -C8 R6 - C l R6 -C2 R6 -C3 R6 -C4 R6 -C5 R6 -C6 R6--C7  salpouch salpouch salpouch salpouch salpouch salpouch salpouch salpouch salpouch salpouch salpouch salpouch salpouch salpouch salpouch salpouch salpouch salpouch salpouch salpouch salpouch salpouch salpouch salpouch MINIMUM MAXIMUM MEAN STAND. DEV.  F F F min  fh  jch  19. 56 16. 78 20. 07 19. 86 19. 59  0. 449 0. 580 0. 406 0. 535 0. 555  9 .68 15 .50 14 .45 14 .10 14 .39  1 .346 1 .102 0 .910 1 .195 1 .233  8.64 9.38 8.86 7.51 7.50  9 .15 9 .49 8 .54 7 .72 7 .77  18. 48 20. 26 20. 32  0. 565 0. 486 0. 497  15 .91 24 .02 18 .93  1 .103 1 .133 1 .501  8.18 7.76 7.60  8 .25 7 .86 8.33  19. 26 17. 81  0. 480 0. 583  15 .54 17 .03  1 .172 1 .186  8.48 8.53  8 .67 8 .75  18. 65 17. 74 21. 02 17. 67 19. 76  0. 542 0. 559 0. 494 0. 538 0. 560  13 .91 16 .79 17 .56 25 .20 13 .03  1 .637 1 .834 1 .897 1 . 348 1 .919  8.27 8.79 7.20 9.05 7. 34  9 .24 10 .08 8 .56 9 .57 8 .69  16. 78 21. 02 19. 12 1. 21  0. 406 0. 583 0. 522 0. 051  9 .68 25 .20 16 .40 3 .98  0 .910 1 .919 1 .368 0 . 318  7.20 9.38 8.20 0.68  7 .72 10 .08 8 .71 0 .69  115  fc  jcc  Ball's  Stumbo's  APPENDIX V. Example. Questionnaire f o r Sensory Analysis EVALUATION OF TEXTURE ATTRIBUTES  Date:  Name:  Please evaluate the firmness, dryness, chewiness and f i b r o u s n e s s of these samples by marking a v e r t i c a l l i n e on the h o r i z o n t a l line f o r each sample t o indicate your r a t i n g s . Label each v e r t i c a l line with the code number of the sample i t r e p r e s e n t s : FIRMNESS  soft  hard  DRYNESS  wet  dry  FIBROUSNESS  few  many  CHEWINESS  little  much e f f o r t  effort  COMMENTS:  116  FLAVOUR-COMBINED ODOUR TASTE IMPRESSION  Please evaluate the samples given f o r the presence of l a t e - r u n f l a v o u r by placing a s l a s h on the h o r i z o n t a l line t o indicate your ratings. Comment on the c h a r a c t e r of the f l a v o u r perceived i.e., b i t t e r , burnt, sour, f i s h y , etc.  LATE-RUN FLAVOUR  none  moderate  e x t r a strong  OVERALL ACCEPTABILITY  unacceptable  acceptable  COMMENTS:  117  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0098099/manifest

Comment

Related Items