Provided by the author(s) and University College Dublin Library in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite the published version when available. Title A Note on Consumer Preference of Smoked Salmon Colour Author(s) Gormley, T. R. (Thomas Ronan) Publication date 1992 Publication information Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research, 31 : 199-202 Publisher Teagasc Item record/more information http://hdl.handle.net/10197/6969 Downloaded 2018-02-13T04:39:58Z The UCD community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters! (@ucd_oa) Some rights reserved. For more information, please see the item record link above.
Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 31: 199-202, 1992 A Note on Consumer Preference of Smoked Salmon Colour T. R. Gormley Thagasc, The National Food Centre, Castleknock, Dublin 15 '\,' Abstract A visual panel of 386 consumers held in the. departure lounge of Dublin airport indicated a preference for smoked salmon which had a light pink colour. The effect was independent of the nationality and sex of the panellists but frequent purchasers of smoked salmon preferred a more orange product. Keywords: Consumer preference; consumer surveys; smoked salmon Introduction Colour is a particularly important component of food sensory quality and this applies especially to smoked salmon where a wide range in colour is found. Colour can vary from light to deep pink and/or from light to deep orange in both wild and farmed salmon and a number of autho.rs have used objective tests for assessing fish colour (Young and Whittle, of the wild fish (Sinnott, 1988); astaxanthin also 'survives' freezing more effectively. The present study was carried out to assess consumer preference of smoked salmon colour; the colour of the fish was also assessed objectively and by comparison with a Roche colour card. Experimental 1985; Skrede and Storebakken, 1986; The test was carried out (in Northern day Skrede et al., 1990; Gormley, 1991). light) in the departure lounge of Dublin The food industry uses a wide range of airport and 386 consumers were intercolours to make food more attractive to viewed as to their colour preference for the the consumer and considerable attention sides of smoked salmon presented. The is being focused on ensuring that colour- consumers were selected at random as they.. ants are safe (Counsell, 1989; Daly and proceeded to departure gates and eight Lyons, 1989), and on increasing the use of commercial sides of vacuum-packed natural or nature-identical colourants smoked Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) rather than synthetic ones. Despite this, were presented for evaluation. In reality the pigments used in farmed salmon have there were only four samples as each was received a bad press which relates more to duplicated (i.e. mirror image sides from canthaxanthin than to astaxanthin (Blake,. the same fish). Each consumer was asked 1989). The former gives a rich orange to choose the sample that he/she would colour in the flesh while the latter gives a buy (based on colour) and details of pinker colour which is closer to the colour nationality, frequency of. purchase of 199... ~
200 IRISH JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD RESEARCH, VOL. 31, No. 2, 1992 smoked salmon, sex and age (in 10-year spans) were recorded. The colour of the samples was measured prior to the panel test on a D25A Hunter colour meter (5 cm specimen port) [data computed as Lia and hue angle (9)] as outlined by Gormley (1991). Fish colour was also matched with a Roche colour card; a description of the colour of each side was obtained from each of 10 evaluators at The National Food Centre and a consensus colour description of the sides was composed. darkness/strong orange-red when high and lightness/weak orange-red when low (Table 1 ); however, the cards are designed for fresh salmonids and colour matching with smoked sides is difficult. Having said this, Side 3 had the 'weakest' <:olour based on the colour card readin$s. Consumer preference of smoked salmon colour There was a preference for Side 3 with 43"7o of panellists choosing this side on the basis of colour (Table 2). The other three samples were preferred relatively equally. The preference for Side 3 was surprising in view of its lightness and pale colour but Results and Discussion Smoked salmon colour many of the panellists thought it looked The four sides of smoked salmon had natural with no added colour whereas the distinctive colours and the 10-member converse was said about the other sides, laboratory panel had no difficulty in i.e. a number of consumers felt that the reaching a consensus on.a colour descrip- deep orange colour was synonymous with tion for each (Thble 1). added colour. Usually a deep red/orange Skrede and Storebakken (1986) cite a* colour is desirable in most markets where and L* (both for Minolta and Hunter Lab salmon is sold (Moe, 1990; Blokhus, instruments) as useful objective indices of 1986). On this basis it could have been smoked salmon colour while Gormley expected that Side 2 would have per (1991) has suggested that Hunter Lia formed well as it had the blend of values < 1.90 and hue angles < 40 are orange/pink normally associated with desirable in smoked salmon. On this basis high-quality wild smoked salmon. The fat Side 3 (Table I) is "border-line" as it is contents of the sides were not measured. very light in colour. However, to an extent However, it should be stressed that fat ( this is counterbalanced by a low hue angle deposits in droplet form could affect light indicating a good level of pinkness. Sides angles and dispersions and otherwise 1, 2 and 4 (Table 1) lack pinkness based on dilute pigment perception. hue angle values and were visually orange The colour preference for Side 3, was to dark orange. This applied especially to consistent across 'nationalities' and was Side 4. The Roche card values indicate particularly strong for the USA and the TABLE 1: Visual colour perception and colour values for smoked salmon sides used in the test Side Visual colour' Hunter (Lia) Hue angle (0) 1 Deep orange 1.64 40 2 Orange pink 1.85 39 3 Pink, not orange, Iightish 1.90 35 4 Dark, kipper-like 1.69 39 1 Consensus visual colour perception from I()..member panel at The Naticinal Food Centre. Roche card 15.5 16.0 14.5 17.5
GORMLEY: SMOKED SALMON COLOUR 201 TABLE 2: Percentage of panellists choosing smoked salmon samples Deep orange 2 Orange pink Overall 21 15 By <country' IRL 23 17 UK 20 13 USA 9 12 Scandinavia 31 3 Other 12 18 By frequency of purchase Once/week 38 17 Once/month 23 II Once/quarter 12 21 Occasionally 21 14 Never 19 16 By age (years) <20 20 10 20-29 30 18 30-39 20 16 40-49 18 14 50-59 17 13 >59 18 9 By sex Male 17 13 Female 26 18 Side 3 4 Pink, not orange; Kipper- No. of!ightish like "Pl;lnellists 43 21 386 35 24 221 49 17 69 62 18.34 45 21 29 64 6 33 33 13 24 36 30 73 42 24 66 ' 47 18 191 50 16 32 40 30 10 28 24 97 44 20 80 49 19 96 SI 19 59 50 23 44 46 24 206 39 17 180 'other' consumer categories (Table 2). The effect was independent of the sex of the consumers and also of their age except for the 20-29 age group who preferred the colour of Side I. Side l colour was also preferred by those purchasing smoked salmon at least once per week (Table 2). There was an increasing consumer preference for the colour of Side 3 as frequency of purchase of smoked salmon decreased. These data suggest that frequent purchasers of smoked salmon like an orange colour whereas occasional buyers prefer pink. This may be a familiarity/education effect and it warrants further investigation. Only 6% of the consumers interviewed were frequent (once/week) purchasers of smoked salmon; 49% purchased occasionally and 8% never (Table 2). Acknowledgements I thank Mr. K. McK.enna and Ms. Mary Nee of Carrolls Aquaculture for their help with these tests. References Blake, J. S. 1989~ Salmon feed and salmon quality - which comes first? Paul/Vincent and Fulmar Seminar, Longford, Ireland, 2 pages. Blokhus, H. 1986. Aspects related to the quality of farmed Norwegian salmon (Salmo salar). In: "Seafood Quality Determination" (ed. D. E. Kramer and J. Liston), Elsevier Science Publishers B:V. Amsterdam, pages 615"'628. Counsell, J. N. 1989. Food colours - an overview. British Nutrition Foundation, Nutrition Bulletin No. 14, pages 191-198. Daly, L. and Lyons, H. 1989. Colours in focus. Food Processing, August, pages 23-26. Gormley, T. R. 1991. Objective and subjective testing procedures for the quality evaluation. of fresh and processed fin fish. Aquaculture and the Environment, European Aquaculture Society Special Publication No. 14 (Compiiers N. De Paux and J. Joyce), pages 126-127.
202 IRISH JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD RESEARCH, VOL. 31, No. 2, 1992 Moe, N. _H. 1990. Key factors in marketing farmed salmon. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society of New Zealand 15: 16-22. Sinnott, R. J. H. 1988. Fish pigmentation. Paper presented at the Fish Farming Conference, Sparsholt College. Hampshire, UK, 12 pages. Skrede, G., Risvik, E.,_Huber, M., Eversen, G. and Bliimen, L. 1990. Developing a colour card for raw flesh of astaxanthin-fed salmon. Journal of Food Science 55: 361-363. Skrede, G. and Storebakken, T. 1986. Instrumental colour analysis of farmed and wild Atlantic salmon when raw, baked and smoked. Aquaculture 53: 279-386. Young, K. W. and Whittle, K. J. 1985. Colour measurement of fish minces using Hunter L, a, b values. Journal of the "Sqence of Food and Agriculture 36: 383-392. Received 21 July 1992 ' (... \ )