Advertisement

Aquaculture International

, Volume 21, Issue 5, pp 1091–1108 | Cite as

Salt replacement and injection salting in smoked salmon evaluated from descriptive and hedonic sensory perspectives

  • Valérie Lengard Almli
  • Margrethe Hersleth
Article

Abstract

Health concerns related to sodium intake have instigated work towards using salt replacers in salted foods such as smoked salmon. However, innovations in food may influence sensory perception and consumer acceptance for a product. This study investigates salt replacement and brine injection salting in smoked salmon from descriptive and hedonic sensory perspectives. Smoked salmon samples were produced by combining traditional or novel salting techniques (dry salting or brine injection) with traditional or novel salt types (NaCl or NaCl + KCl in a 2:1 ratio). The samples were evaluated with regard to their appearance, odour, taste, flavour and texture by a trained panel in a quantitative descriptive analysis. They were also evaluated by 102 Norwegian consumers in blind (taste only), expectations (product information only) and full information (taste and information combined) conditions. In addition to hedonic liking, the participants evaluated their willingness to pay for the products in a non-hypothetical, incentive-compatible procedure. Descriptive results show that brine injection samples differed in appearance, taste and texture from dry-salting samples, while NaCl + KCl samples obtained the same sensory profile as NaCl samples. Consumers prefer dry-salting samples, but do not discriminate between salt types, neither in liking nor in willingness to pay. Consumers most attracted by the fully traditional treatment are characterised by a frequent consumption of smoked salmon and a focus on nutrition and healthiness in food. Consumers most attracted by the fully innovative treatment tend to be convenience oriented and price conscious. The results indicate a market potential for partially salt-replaced smoked salmon.

Keywords

Smoked salmon KCl salt replacer Dry salting Injection salting Sensory profile Consumer acceptance Experimental auction (BDM) Willingness to pay 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to colleagues from the Raw Materials and Process Optimisation department at Nofima, Ås, Norway for the preparation of the smoked salmon samples and to Anne Segtnan and Britt Signe Granli for conducting the experimental auctions. This study was supported by TRUEFOOD (Traditional United Europe Food), an Integrated Project financed by the European Commission under the Sixth Framework Programme (Contract nº FOOD-CT-2006-016264) and ‘Quality labelling and consumer responses in the Norwegian food sector’ (Research Council of Norway, Contract nr. 178200/110). The information in this document reflects only the authors’ views and the Community is not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.

References

  1. Akvafakta (2011) Eksport fordelt på produkt, visited in March 2012. http://akvafakta.fhl.no/article.php?articleID=30&categoryID=19
  2. Albarracín W, Sánchez IC, Grau R et al (2011) Salt in food processing; usage and reduction: a review. Int J Food Sci Technol 46(7):1329–1336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Altintzoglou T, Vanhonacker F, Verbeke W et al (2011) Association of health involvement and attitudes towards eating fish on farmed and wild fish consumption in Belgium, Norway and Spain. Aquac Int 19(3):475–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Becker G, DeGroot MH, Marschak J (1964) Measuring utility by a single-response sequential methid. Behav Sci 9(1):226–232PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bolhuis DP, Temme EHM, Koeman FT et al (2011) A salt reduction of 50% in bread does not decrease bread consumption or increase sodium intake by the choice of sandwich fillings. J Nutr 141(12):2249–2255PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boziaris IS, Skandamis PN, Anastasiadi M et al (2007) Effect of NaCl and KCl on fate and growth/no growth interfaces of Listeria monocytogenes Scott A at different pH and nisin concentrations. J Appl Microbiol 102(3):796–805PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cardinal M, Gunnlaugsdottir H, Bjoernevik M et al (2004) Sensory characteristics of cold-smoked Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) from European market and relationships with chemical, physical and microbiological measurements. Food Res Int 37(2):181–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chiralt A, Fito P, Barat JM et al (2001) Use of vacuum impregnation in food salting process. J Food Eng 49(2–3):141–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Combris P, Bazoche P, Giraud-Heraud E et al (2009) Food choices: what do we learn from combining sensory and economic experiments? Food Qual Prefer 20(8):550–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. de Barcellos MD, Kugler JO, Grunert KG et al (2010) European consumers’ acceptance of beef processing technologies: a focus group study. Innov Food Sci Emerg Technol 11(4):721–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Deliza R, MacFie HJH (1996) The generation of sensory expectation by external cues and its effect on sensory perception and hedonic ratings: a review. J Sens Stud 11:103–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Desmond E (2006) Reducing salt: a challenge for the meat industry. Meat Sci 74(1):188–196PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Floury J, Camier B, Rousseau F et al (2009) Reducing salt level in food: Part 1. Factors affecting the manufacture of model cheese systems and their structure-texture relationships. Lwt-Food. Sci Technol 42(10):1611–1620Google Scholar
  14. Gallart-Jornet L, Barat JM, Rustad T et al (2007) Influence of brine concentration on Atlantic salmon fillet salting. J Food Eng 80(1):267–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ginon E, Chabanet C, Combris P et al (2011) Are decisions in a real choice experiment consistent with reservation prices elicited with BDM ‘auction’? The case of French baguettes. Food Qual Prefer. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.08.007 Google Scholar
  16. Guardia MD, Guerrero L, Gelabert J et al (2008) Sensory characterisation and consumer acceptability of small calibre fermented sausages with 50% substitution of NaCl by mixtures of KCl and potassium lactate. Meat Sci 80(4):1225–1230PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Guerrero L, Guardia MD, Xicola J et al (2009) Consumer-driven definition of traditional food products and innovation in traditional foods. A qualitative cross-cultural study. Appetite 52(2):345–354PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hayes JE, Sullivan BS, Duffy VB (2010) Explaining variability in sodium intake through oral sensory phenotype, salt sensation and liking. Physiol Behav 100(4):369–380PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Heinzerling CI, Stieger M, Bult JHF et al (2011) Individually modified Saliva delivery changes the perceived intensity of saltiness and sourness. Chemosens Percept 4(4):145–153PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Høy M (2009) Report on the effect of NaCl substitution and reduced NaCl level, TRUEFOOD deliverable D4.2.4-2Google Scholar
  21. Josefsen KD (2011) Salt versus salterstattere—et valg mellom pest og kolera? http://www.nofima.no/filearchive/josefsen-innlegg.pdf
  22. Laksefakta (2011) Norge—Verdensledende på laks, visited in March 2012. http://laksefakta.no/nokkelinfo.html
  23. Lange C, Rousseau F, Issanchou S (1999) Expectation, liking and purchase behaviour under economical constraint. Food Qual Prefer 10(1):31–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lange C, Martin C, Chabanet C et al (2002) Impact of the information provided to consumers on their willingness to pay for Champagne: comparison with hedonic scores. Food Qual Prefer 13(7–8):597–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lawless HT, Heymann H (1998) Sensory evaluation of food. Principles and practices. Kluwer Academic Publishers, New-YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Legowski B, Legetic B (2011) How three countries in the Americas are fortifying dietary salt reduction: a north and south perspective. Health Policy 102(1):26–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Martens H, Martens M (2001) Multivariate analysis of quality. An introduction. Wiley, Chichester. ISBN 0-491-97428-5Google Scholar
  28. Martens H, Anderssen E, Flatberg A et al (2005) Regression of a data matrix on descriptors of both its rows and of its columns via latent variables: L-PLSR. Comput Stat Data Anal 48(1):103–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mitchell M, Brunton NP, Wilkinson MG (2011) Current salt reduction strategies and their effect on sensory acceptability: a study with reduced salt ready-meals. Eur Food Res Technol 232(3):529–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mueller S, Szolnoki G (2010) The relative influence of packaging, labelling, branding and sensory attributes on liking and purchase intent: consumers differ in their responsiveness. Food Qual Prefer 21(7):774–783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Muller L, Ruffieux B (2011) Do price-tags influence consumers’ willingness to pay? On the external validity of using auctions for measuring value. Exp Econ 14(2):181–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Norwegian Directorate of Health (2011) Strategi for reduksjon av saltinntaket i befolkningen. http://helsedirektoratet.no/folkehelse/ernering/strategier-og-satsninger/Documents/saltstrategi.pdf
  33. Padan E, Krulwich TA (2000) Sodium stress. In: Storz G, Hengge-Aronis R (eds) Bacterial stress responses. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC, pp 117–130Google Scholar
  34. Pietinen P, Valsta LM, Hirvonen T et al (2008) Labelling the salt content in foods: a useful tool in reducing sodium intake in Finland. Public Health Nutr 11(4):335–340PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pliner P, Hobden K (1992) Development of a scale to measure the trait of food neophobia in humans. Appetite 19(2):105–120PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sanceda N, Suzuki E, Kurata T (2003) Quality and sensory acceptance of fish sauce partially substituting sodium chloride or natural salt with potassium chloride during the fermentation process. Int J Food Sci Technol 38(4):435–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Satterthwaite FE (1946) An approximate distribution of estimates of variance components. Biom Bull 2:110–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Segtnan VH, Høy M, Sorheim O et al (2009) Noncontact salt and fat distributional analysis in salted and smoked salmon fillets using X-ray computed tomography and NIR interactance imaging. J Agric Food Chem 57(5):1705–1710PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Semenou M, Courcoux P, Cardinal M et al (2007) Preference study using a latent class approach. Analysis of European preferences for smoked salmon. Food Qual Prefer 18(5):720–728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sigurgisladottir S, Sigurdardottir MS, Torrissen O et al (2000) Effects of different salting and smoking processes on the microstructure, the texture and yield of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) fillets. Food Res Int 33(10):847–855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sofos JN (1984) Antimicrobial effects of sodium and other ions in foods—a review. J Food Saf 6:45–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Steptoe A, Pollard TM, Wardle J (1995) Development of a measure of the motives underlying the selection of food: the Food Choice Questionnaire. Appetite 25(3):267–284PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Van Trijp H, Steenkamp J (1992) Consumers’ variety seeking tendency with respect to foods: measurement and managerial implications. Eur Rev Agric Econ 19:185–195Google Scholar
  44. Vanhonacker F, Verbeke W, Guerrero L et al (2010) How European consumers define the concept of traditional food: evidence from a survey in six countries. Agribusiness 26(4):453–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vickrey W (1961) Counterspeculation, auctions, and competitive sealed tenders. J Financ 16(1):8–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wise PM, Hansen JL, Reed DR et al (2007) Twin study of the heritability of recognition thresholds for sour and salty taste. Chem Senses 32(8):749–754PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Woods AT, Poliakoff E, Lloyd DM et al (2011) Effect of background noise on food perception. Food Qual Prefer 22(1):42–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wyness LA, Butriss JL, Stanner SA (2012) Reducing the population’s sodium intake: the UK Food Standards Agency’s salt reduction programme. Public Health Nutr 15(2):254–261PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nofima-Norwegian Institute of Food, Fisheries and Aquaculture ResearchÅsNorway
  2. 2.Department of Chemistry, Biotechnology and Food ScienceThe Norwegian University of Life SciencesÅsNorway

Personalised recommendations