12 COMME RCIAL FISHERIES REVIEW Vol. 20, o. 9

ob servations wer mad e of th color , textu r , d g r moistu r e .

of h 0 n yom bin g, and

Immediately aft r th meat of t h tuna was steamed under vacuum and th n p r oc ss d a t 250 trolled with a Taylor Instrument syst m SP -1. sure at 17 psi. and th n remov d to storage at room temp rature .

one of the cans was stor >d less than 1 month befor bing opened, at which time the vacuum was 13 inches of mercury. Th lightnessordarkn ssof th can­ned meat (Munsell value at 555 millimicrons) was evaluated ac­cording to the propos d tuna stand­ards (Federal Register, August 28, 1956)byoneoftheauthors at h laboratories of the Food and Drug Administration in \Vas hington , D. Three cans (solid pack) pack d from each fish were op ned in the prescribed manner, and th meat was compared with neu ral reflectance standards (l\luns 11 value scale) under an optical comparator. One can packed from

9

6

l ac ·d i n th ans , the cans were I· . fo r 55 m inu ' s In a retor con-

T h p 001 d under pres-

• • • • • • • •• .~ \ . .. .:-. , .. .. .... • • •

each fish (solid pack) was exam in d '--______ --'-'=.:.;,.:...:::.-=--..:;.;.:;=...:...=::.:...:...:...:..:= =-____ --J

organoleptically at ColI g Park by three persons. The organol pti tes sampl of one can a~ ad q ate as the _0, ­

s of 0 0 100 v. r gIven fo r appear ­anc , flavor and x ure A max­

id pack cans were uniform when pack d.

Mal.,s; 2-10AA 2-10DA 2-5 1-3C 2-UBB 1-7 1-8 l-3A 1-5 l-lOBB 1-3B

.,maIn Z-IlD l-UDB 2-3"" l-Ue l-UDA 1-3DA 2-7 2-10DB 2-" l-lODB 2-UAB l-lOAA l-UB 2-10BB l-lOCB l-lOBA l-llA l-llA 2-3D 1-4

83 85 95

100 120 120 120 120 128 135 155

"2 "8 "9 50 55 55 88 76 77 85 87 94

100 100 105 105 110 110 115 118

..

~~~~:=!~ft .

-+ ---- I

+ + -+ ---+ + -+ + + + + -+

90 97 83 90 80 77 80 73 50 90 47

83 100

93 85 80 93 93 80 80 87 87 70 80 66 80 8 3 80 73 87 83

.

87 93 70 90 80 83 63 63 27 87 63

87 83 97 85 93 80

100 90 90 83 67 77 77 53 77 73 53 57 80 83

87 93 71 93 77 77 70 77 37 90 50

90 97 90 90 87 90 87 90 85 80 77 57 80 57 83 80 70 70 87 80

I

637 6 57 6 1 63 6 13 5 97 :; 63 5 47 5.5 62 5.87_

6 43 6 75 6 57

6 " 6 3 6.73 6 ... 6 . 37 6 3 6.17 6.1 5.9 6.27 6.07 8. 03 5. 87 5 . 8 3 5. 8 5. 8 3 8 . 3

I I

RE

of 100 a s assigned . c Llence.

10.

II TGE OTED "\ ITH I RE 1. G \\ Elc:TIf'f.-

w igh of fish was app~rently mos Impor an fac tor in de ­

t rmWIng h lightness or dark' ness and th flavor of he cCtIlned produc. Th data in tabl e ~ 1 and 2 indicat hat he m eat in all of th cans xamin"d would grade "light mea" according 0 the proposed stand a rds ; that is, he 1 luns 11 value s d etermined on the op ned can s all were a?o\'e 5.3 at 555 millimicrons. 'i.et the data als o indic ate that some of the fi s h were of much lower quality th an were others .

T h e data in figure 2 indicate an invers e correlation of Mun­s e ll valu e at 555 millimicrons

ls t()l

September 1958 COMMERCIAL FISHERIES REVIEW 13

with weight of fish (~= -O.6~7). The data in figure 3 indicate an inverse correlation be­tween flavor and weIght of flsh (r = 0.558). Both correlations are highly significant.

These relationships were found even considering the variations in handling aboard the ca tch boa t, which variations are known to oc­cur in commercial catching prac­tice. These variations included delays in putting the fish to freeze, the use of the brine or air well in freezing, and the stunning of hard­to-handle fish. " a:

100

90

eo

8 70 Vl

a: o > < ~ 60

50

40

o

o 00 0 o o o

o

o

o 00 0

o o o

o 0 o o 00 o o 0

00 0

o 0

o

o

o

Examination after precook and examination of the resulting pack indicated that the color of the meat from the larger fish tended towards a dark tan color and the meat from the smaller fish tended towards light pink. Changes in texture also were found to b e associated with in­creased weight. More moisture was retained in the larger fish aft­er being precooked, and the larger

60 80 100 120 140 160 fish were often slippery or spongy WEIGHT OF WHOLE FISH IN POUNDS to the touch. Muscle fibers were

Fig. 3 _ Flavor score of canned meat as related to weight of whole frozen longer and tougher as the fish be-fish. The flavor of excellent cannedyellowfinwas assigned a score of came l arger; thus itbecame in-100. creasingly difficult to rub the meat ~hrougha wire mesh screen preparatory to determination of the Munsell value. The tex­ture score assigned refers to the eating quality and reflects the sum of subtexture factors of moisture, firmness, and toughness. As such, the texture score is not especially indicative of the textural changes associated with increasing weight of fish. With increasing weight of fish, the flavor of the pack changed from a pleasant, mild, tangy fish flavor to som e ­thing quite flat and not char­acteristic of the best canned fish. It is interesting to note that the Munsell values and quality scores of the fish pack­ed immediately after receipt are only slightly higher on the average than are those obtain­ed for the fish canned 8 months after receipt.

ITable 2 - Canned .t'roauct EvalUahon Data on 8 Gulf 01 Mexico YeLlowlln nina Caught in August 1957

Code Weight ot Evaluatioll of Canned Products

Number Whole Honey- Texture I Appearance Flavor Munsell Frozen Fish combingl / Score2 / Score 2 / Score 2 / Value

Pounds + or --- --~ 93 - 83 93 93 6.43

2 93.5 - 73 97 93 6.37 3 102 - 93 70 90 6.23 4 115 - 70 77 77 Ii 33

~: 5 86 - 83 93 83 6.53 6 87 - 97 93 97 6.5 7 99 - 63 43 67 5.93 8 114 - 80 83 83 6.3 __

hV, + indicates hOlleycombllig. y 100 indicates a perfect score.

----' ANOMALOUS FISH­GREENING: The two females l-lO.AA and 2-l0BB, which yielded canned meat of marked low flavor, ,:"ere of l~w qUallty after being precooked. Notes taken at the time described the lOl~S as bemg ho?eycombed and dark tan with greening. The loins of 2 -1 OBB were mOIst and sllppery, Whereas those of l-lOAA had a heavy custard-like curd between segments of mUScle. Since no unusual conditions of handling were noted, the greening, in at least this case, was an unusual condition not related to the method of handling. No other fish had marked greening after being precooked. The lowest flavor score. and one of the very low Munsell-value scores were found in meat packed from fISh t -~. Fish 1-5, after being precooked, had loins uniformly dark and wi.th much ge-atlnOUs material between the segments of muscle. Fish l-lOBB receIved almost ~he same treatment, yet the canned meat scored unusually high both in flavor and In Munsell value.

14 COMMERC IAL FISHERIES REVIEW Vol. 20, No.9

HONEYCOMBING: None of the honeycombing ~marked + in tables 1 and 2) was of an extensive nature. Most often, the honeycombmg appeared as afew small (less than S -inch diameter) voids between the large lateral muscles and the smaller lat­eral "eyes" at the extreme dorsal and ventral positions. The next most frequent location was in the region of the nape. None of the fish packed immediately after receipt had any evident honeycombing.

YIELD: Dark meat accounted for a constant 5.5 percent of the weight of the whol e uncooked fish. The total light-meat scrap and dark meat was fairly constant at 11 percent of the weight of fish. The percentage of canned meat yield increased from 30 percent from a 60-pound fish to 38 percent from a 120-pound fish.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

All of the Gulf of Mexico yellowfin tuna canned in this experiment could be graded as "light meat" according to the proposed tuna standards . The quality of the pack, based mainly on flavor and color, decreased from optimum with packs made from small fish towards less desirable flavor and color with packs made from the larger fish. This progressive decrease of flavor and color of canned meat with weight of fish overshadowed the effect, if any, of the variations in handling these yeUowfin aboard the M/V Oregon.

TAGGED SAILFISH RECAPTURED TWICE

Sailfish evidently do not learn from experience, if they are to be judged by an authentic ated story emanating from Palm Beach. The story relates that the same sailfish was caught by two different anglers fishing from two different boats on the same d ay, and there is no doubt that it was the same sailfish.

The sailfish, measuring 7 ft. 2 in. in length, was first caught by a woman fishin g from t he charter cruiser Bacardi in the morning of January 26, 1956. The fish was tagged- with a Mar in e Laboratory, University of Miami, dart-type tag and released .

Just about noon of the same day, a sailfish, bearing a tag, was hooked, fought, and boated by another fisherman. Incredible as it may seem, the tag (Numb.er 10180) was the one affixed to the sailfish 1t hours earlier. The tag, along wIth an explanatory letter from the fishing editor of the Palm Beach Post-Times, was received at The Marine Laboratory by the research instructor on the Laboratory staff who i s in c harge of the sailfish tagging program.

To da t e, seven sailfish bearing Marine Laboratory tags have been re-caught and reported. So far, the sailfish tagging program at the Laboratory has been going on for 10 years, with about 2,550 sailfish tagged. Three types of tags have been us ed: (1) a monel-metal cattle ear tag that is attached to the pectoral fm o~ the fish pr.io~ to the release, (2) a neoprene ring tag that is slipped o~erthe bill of the sailfIsh, and (3) a dart tag that is imbedded in the fish alongsIde the forward end of the dorsal fin. F 0 u r of the seven sailfish so far tagged and re­caught. h~ve b 0 r n e the cattle ear tag, indicating that this is the best type of tag for saIlfIsh. (The Marine Laboratory, University of Miami, Miami, Fla.) -