+1 Recommend
1 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Adding value to under-utilised Irish fish roe: a physico-chemical and sensory comparison of cured Irish pollock ( Pollachius pollachius) roe with commercial mullet ( Mugil cephalus) and cod ( Gadus morhua) products

      1 , 1 , , 1

      Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research


      Drying, mullet, pollock, roe, sensory

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.


          Irish marine fish roe is generally discarded at sea or processed as low value-added fishmeal and not utilised as nutritious seafood ingredients. Locally sourced pollock roes were salted, air-dried (Mediterranean-style) and compared to similar commercial mullet and cod products for: weight; moisture content; pH; instrumental texture and colour; and sensory attributes. Raw pollock roes averaged 105 g (n = 25). Roes lost on average 3.1% moisture (w/w) after a 2-h salting period and 48.8% weight reduction was observed after an average 105 h air-drying time. The moisture content of pollock was not significantly different to commercial products. Average pH for pollock, mullet and cod products was 5.9, 5.4 and 5.7, respectively (P < 0.05). Pollock and mullet had similar hardness, but cod was significantly harder than both, when measured instrumentally. Total colour difference (∆E*) between the surface of pollock and cod, and that of pollock and mullet was 7.5 and 3.0, respectively. Sensory assessment of sliced and powdered products, using 9-point hedonic and 5-point just-about-right (JAR) scales, was conducted with 38 consumers. Pollock received the highest scores for overall liking and intention to purchase compared to commercial mullet and cod products, averaging 5.6, 5.6 and 4.9, respectively, for sliced roe products, and 6.3, 5.3 and 6.1 for powdered products. Penalty analysis of JAR showed “overall liking” was impacted by the flavour being “too fishy”. In conclusion, pollock had similar characteristics and acceptable sensory attributes compared to commercial products presenting opportunities to expand the range of value-added roe products (e.g., trout, salmon) available, while also contributing to waste reduction.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 37

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Study of pulsed electric field treated citrus juices

            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Compositional and organoleptic quality of farmed and wild gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata) and sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) and factors affecting it: A review

              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Invited review: Sensory analysis of dairy foods.

               John M. Drake (2007)
              Sensory quality is the ultimate measure of product quality and success. Sensory analysis comprises a variety of powerful and sensitive tools to measure human responses to foods and other products. Selection of the appropriate test, test conditions, and data analysis result in reproducible, powerful, and relevant results. Appropriate application of these tests enables specific product and consumer insights and interpretation of volatile compound analyses to flavor perception. Trained-panel results differ from dairy judging and grading and one objective of this review is to clearly address and demonstrate the differences. Information on available sensory tests, when and how to use them, and the powerful results that can be obtained is presented.

                Author and article information

                Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research
                Compuscript (Ireland )
                30 November 2020
                1Galway Mayo Institute of Technology, Galway, H91 T8NW, Ireland
                Author notes
                †Corresponding author: F. Noci, E-mail: Francesco.noci@
                Copyright © 2020 Furey, Hoeche, and Noci

                This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs license CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 IE.

                Page count
                Figures: 5, Tables: 7, References: 37, Pages: 10
                Original Study


                Comment on this article