Brand Group, Inc. Planning Development Marketing 410 North Michigan Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60611 312/222-1330 A MODEL RETAIL IDENTIFICATION PLAN FOR SEAFOOD SPECIES A DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AND RECOMMENDED PRINCIPLES OF IDENTIFICATION PREPARED FOR THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE INSPECTION AND SAFETY DIVISION PREPARED BY THE BRAND GROUP, INC. CHICAGO, ILLINOIS WILLARD HARRISON DOYLE, PRESIDENT MARCH 197 8 TABLE OF CONTENTS a^ 3 % o Q. * PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 THE PROJECT RECAPITULATION OF PROJECT METHODOLOGY 8 STEP I DEVELOPMENT OF A DATA BANK OF 11 EDIBILITY PROFILES STEP II ANALYSIS OF SIMILARITIES AMONG 25 SPECIES STEP III DEVELOPMENT OF A MODEL IDENTI- 29 FICATION PLAN STEP IV REVIEW OF THE MODEL IDENTIFI- 36 CATION PLAN THE MODEL IDENTIFICATION PLAN DESCRIPTION OF THE MODEL IDENTIFICATION 41 PLAN AN ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR SEAFOOD 44 SPECIES IDENTIFICATION A SYSTEM OF NAMES FOR SEAFOOD SPECIES 62 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 76 Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2012 with funding from LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation http://www.archive.org/details/modelretailidentOObran TABLE OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure A Figure B Figure C Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 DATA BANK RESEARCH PLAN GROUPS FORMED BY UNWEIGHTED VS WEIGHTED FACTORS COMPREHENSIVE SEAFOOD PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION PLAN SEAFOOD SPECIES IDENTIFICATION FRAMEWORK ZOOLOGICAL ORGANIZATION FOR SHELLFISH EDIBILITY PROFILE FOR FINFISH ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR FINFISH "MAGNIFICATION" - EXPANSION OF SIMILARITIES FRAMEWORK SEAFOOD SPECIES NAMING STRATEGY SHELLFISH MARKET NAMES FACTOR RATINGS FINFISH MARKET NAMES INDICES INDEX A - FINFISH LISTED BY EDIBILITY CHARACTERISTICS INDEX B - FINFISH LISTED BY RATING FOR EACH FACTOR INDEX C " FINFISH LISTED ALPHABETICALLY BY COMMON NAME INDEX D - FINFISH LISTED BY ZOOLOGICAL CATEGORY AND SCIENTIFIC NAME INDEX E " SHELLFISH LISTED BY ZOOLOGICAL CATEGORY AND COMMON NAME EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Facts The number of seafood products that are currently marketed at retail in the United States is enormous. The total count of individual products is probably well in excess of 100,000. These are derived from hundreds of different species of commercially available finfish and shellfish. There is considerable inconsistency in the nomenclature that appears on seafood product labels, especially nomenclature which is intended to enable shoppers to identify and distinguish products. When a processor attempts to find standards for identifying seafood products or species, he finds in most cases that standards do not exist, and that there are no effective criteria to facilitate efficient, effective decision making. Based on improved processing techniques and increased access to resources, there is significant potential for expanding seafood industry markets and per capita seafood consumption in the United States. The Problems 1. Americans know relatively little about pur- chasing, preparing, serving and about the edibility characteristics of various seafood species and products. Consumers are confused about seafood and hold many negative misconcep- tions. Due to the lack of knowledge and of an effective identification program, consumers find it difficult to shop intelligently for seafood. As a result, they confine purchases to a few familiar items. The seafood industry's ability to market unfamiliar seafood products and species is seriously impaired by the consumer's lack of knowledge. As a result, the great potential for effective use of seafood resources has never been realized in the United States. Regulatory agencies and seafood processors often find it difficult to agree on names that are attractive to the consumer and fulfill labeling requirements. Regulatory decisions often take considerable time and are restrictive to the seafood industry. 4. The primary problem is to determine how we can do a better job of identifying seafood species and products in a way that is convenient and informative to consumers. Purpose The overall purpose of this project was to pro- duce a "model retail identification plan" for seafood species that will result in an effective labeling program. Specific objectives were to: 1. Develop a representative selection of aquatic species for use in the model. 2. Identify and prioritize a set of factors to be used in comparing and organizing the species. 3. Develop a tentative system for rating each of the factors. Develop a factor profile for each of the species based on ratings for each of the factors. 4. Develop a model based on key factors to demonstrate how effective species identification can be accomplished. 5. Review and evaluate the model. Methods 1. A program of industry and consumer research was conducted to acquire sufficient quali- tative data to develop the factor profiles for use in the model. 2. Computer techniques were used to analyze the data. The contractor's staff developed the identification concepts and models. 3. A focus group discussion was conducted with an ad hoc review board to evaluate the model . The Model Plan The identification plan consists of two major components : A. An organizational framework that encompasses all aquatic species B. A nomenclature svstem that provides a name for each species and kind of product needing identification The framework segment of the model is based on three major categories of seafood products: * Products made from individual species of finfish or shellfish * Products made from a mix of species with similar edible characteristics * Products made from a mix of species that have different edible charac- teristics Finfish and shellfish have been classed separately. Zoological groups of shellfish have been used in this model while new groups of finfish have been formed on the basis of comparing the characteristics of the edible portion (the meat) of the fish. Twenty-five groups of "similar" finfish have been established. A strategy for a nomenclature system has been designed that uses three different kinds of names to distinguish each of the three product categories. The nomenclature plan makes use of the exist- ing common names for identifying shellfish (i.e., Clams, Lobsters, Oysters, etc.) but provides for a new set of names for finfish. The strategy for finfish names involves creating a "Base Name" to identify each of the 25 groups of finfish and an extension of the Base Name to identify species within each group. Recommendations were also prepared for using the edibility profiles for resolving naming problems on an interim basis until a com- prehensive identification can be developed. Review and Evaluation The plan was reviewed by a panel of specialists representing the seafood industry, consumers, regulatory agencies, and other concerned view- points. The discussion primarily involved how specific details would be worked out. In general, responses agreed with the directions and concepts proposed in this model and that a comprehensive labeling program is necessary for both of the following reasons: 1. the education and interests of con- sumers relative to the purchase and use of seafood products; 2. the ability of the seafood industry to market its products more effectively. Recommendations The principal recommendation is that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) act now to establish, on a permanent basis, a programmatic effort to develop a comprehen- sive identification system based on the guide- lines developed in this report and in U.S. Government Contract #4-367 30 (Retail Identifi- cation Plan for Fishery Products-March, 1975) . Three programmatic areas for immediate develop- ment are: 1. Develop a comprehensive, consistent data bank related to edible characteristics for all commercial aquatic species. 2. Delineate and implement a plan for making interim decisions on nomen- clature issues in cooperation with regulatory agencies and consumer representatives . 3. Conduct a program to educate members of the seafood industry to concepts outlined in this report and encourage cooperative industry marketing efforts (especially for underused species) that emphasizes these concepts. RECAPITULATION OF PROJECT METHODOLOGY Background and Perspective The seafood industry offers a more bewildering array of species and products than any other food industry in the world, and new species and products are finding their way into the marketplace at an ever increasing rate. The absence of a comprehensive program for identifying this vast, array of products permits inconsistencies to arise in the use of nomen- clature. This contributes to confusion at the consumer level. It also creates an environment where it is often difficult for a processor to develop product identification that satisfies consumers, regulatory agencies, and the rest cf the seafood industry. Potential markets exist for every product the seafood industry can produce. While individual processors can probably continue tc develop markets for species and products on a one-at-a- time basis, the future growth of the industry will be hampered by the lack of a national system cf seafood identification. In July, 1974, Brand Group, Inc. (BGI) was given an assignment (U.S. Government Contract #4-36730) by the National Marine Fisheries Service to review a variety of problems re- lated to labeling and naming seafood products and to develop recommendations for a retail identification plan that would encompass all seafood marketed in the U.S. The final project report, submitted in April 1975, described a workable approach to developing an effective product identification (labeling) system. The ultimate goals remain to develop a compre- hensive product identification system and to implement the system on a nationwide basis. During the initial project, BGI outlined an identification system that would enable clear product identification and would be easy to use and informative as well. In July 1976, BGI was given this assignment by NMFS to pursue development of one special component of the plan. The product identification plan includes three nomenclature components: FISH, FORMS and MODIFIERS. This current project (U.S. Government Contract #6-35338) deals with the key element of the plan; identifying the kind of FISH in the product. This report demonstrates how, with a well conceived identification system, consis- tent species identification can be made and consumers can be provided with useful infor- mation to help them shop more easily and intelligently. The plan is based on determining which species of finfish and shellfish are most alike in terms of their edible characteristics. The model : s a simple nomenclature framework that will reflect these similarities. 10 The plan provides for latitude in the types of new seafood products that can be developed. In BGI's opinion , current interpretation of labeling laws limits new product development. Since the plan establishes clear distinctions among products and objective guidelines for naming, it will reduce the need for restrictive labeling regulations while enabling FDA and consumers to monitor identification more effectively. The project included the following four steps, leading to the development of this report and recommendations : Step I Develop a data bank related to the edible characteristics of seafood species. Step II Analyze the data bank to determine species that have similar charac - teristics . Step III Develop a model identification plan that is based on describing eaiole characteristics . Step IV Review the model plan with an in- dependent panel of experts to identify ways to implement the plan most effectively. The following four sections describe each of these steps in greater detail. 11 STEP I DEVELOPMENT OF A DATA BANK OF EDIBILITY PROFILES The first step in this project was to develop a data bank to provide a basis for comparing the edible characteristics of aquatic species. The following three components were involved in compiling the data bank: A. Selecting a representative cross section of edible aquatic species (fmfish and shellfish) B. Identifying a list of factors (characteristics) for comparing the species C. Consistently rating each of the species for each of the factors 12 As little of the information necessary to compile the data bank was readily available, a research program was conducted to acquire qualitative data. Methods of Collecting Data The research program is illustrated in Figure A. To collect technical data on a cost-efficient basis, two mail surveys were sent to special- ists involved in the seafood industry. For the most part, these were individuals who have spent a minimum of 15 years in close contact with seafood species and products. The first industry mail survey was conducted to develop the sample of finfish and shell- fish species and to identify and prioritize factors. DATA BANK RESEARCH PLAN Figure A FIRST INDUSTRY MAIL SURVEY CONSUMER FOCUS GROUPS SECOND INDUSTRY MAIL SURVEY REVIEW BY SEAFOOD EXPERTS • • • 13 To collect consumer data, two focus group dis- cussions were held with housewives who use sea- food products frequently. Results were used to verify the industry factor list by comparing the consumer viewpoint. The second industry mail survey was conducted to rate each factor for each of the species in the sample. Following tabulation of the survey, the ratings were reviewed and validated by a panel of seafood experts. A. Selecting a Representative Cross Section of Edible Aquatic Species (Finfish and Shellfish) As it would have been impractical to include all commercially marketed aquatic species, a representative sample was compiled for use in developing this model. The sample was tar- geted to include between 100 and 200 species, representing a wide spectrum of edible charac- teristics including the extremes for each of the edibility factors. A tentative list of finfish and shellfish was assembled from a variety of references including : * Bailey, Reeve M. (Chairman) . American Fisher ies Society Special Publication No . 6 : A List of Common a nd Scientific Names of Fishes from the United States and Canada , third edition. Washington D.C.' t American Fisheries Society, 1970 14 * U.S. Department of Commerce. Fishery Statistics of the United States 1970 . Washington, D.C.; U.S. Government Printing Office. * National Marine Fisheries Service. Food Fish Facts. Washington, D.C.; U.S. Government Printing Office. * Jordan, David S. and Everman, Barton W. American Food and Game Fishes . New York Dover Publications, 1969 . * Tory Research Station. Fish Names in The Common Market . Great Britain. BGI selections from these and other sources resulted in a list of 187 species (160 finfish and 27 shellfish) to be used in the first industry survey. Tentative lists of species and factors were incorporated into a questionnaire for the purpose of eliciting the following informa- tion from industry respondents: a. The finfish and shellfish species that respondents felt should be included in a representative cross section. b. Those species that respondents were familiar enough with to rate on the subsequent (second) mail survey. 15 Potential respondents for this survey were selected from lists provided by NMFS and by officers of many of the major trade associa- tions in the seafood industry. To qualify, respondents had to possess substantial knowledge and experience with seafood species and products. The questionnaire was mailed to 760 individuals and 159 of them replied. A result of this survey was the addition of 80 finfish and 45 shellfish to the list. The criteria used to determine whether a species should be kept in the sample for the second survey was: a) a minimum of 10% of the respond- ents stating that the species should be included, and b) a minimum of five respondents stating that they could rate the species for edible characteristics. Further recommendations by experts in the seafood industry on species that shouid be included to "fill gaps" rounded out the list. The second mail survey included 250 species (191 finfish and 59 shellfish) . Two hundred seven species (164 finfish and 43 shellfish) were finally rated, and sufficient ratings for inclusion in the similarity studies were obtained for 158 species (123 finfish and 35 shellfish) . 16 B, Identifying a List of Factors (Characteristics) for Comparing the Species A large number of factors affect seafood species and products. Some are natural charac- teristics of the species such as the effects imposed by seasonal variations, migratory habits, breeding and eating habits, and so on. Other factors, such as environmental factors, are not natural to the species but can have a significant effect nonetheless. Finally, how the species is treated during and after it is caught has a great deal to do with the characteristics of the end product. How care- fully a fish has been handled, how fresh it is, and how it has been processed and packaged all have an effect on the quality of the re- tail product. With hundreds of factors to consider, the primary objective of both the first industry mail survey and the consumer focus group studies was to identify and rank the most important factors to be considered in comparing edible aquatic species. Forty individual factors were presented to industry respondents in the first mail survey for consideration and for ranking and rating. The factors were distributed among the following five categories: 1. External Characteristics of the Species Pertaining to the outward physical appearance of the species (color and markings, body shape, etc.) 17 2. Internal Characteristics of the Species Pertaining to the organoleptic proper- ties of the meat and to the kind and number of bones in finfish 3. Environmental and Other Factors that Affect the Edibility of the Species 4 . Factors Related to Processing the Species Pertaining to what the industry does to the species 5 . Factors Related to Preparing and Serving the Species Pertaining primarily to what the con- sumer does to the species Industry respondents were asked to review the lists, to indicate their opinion as to the relative importance of each of the factors and to write in additional factors which they thought were important enough to include. General results were as follows: Factor Category External characteristics of the species Internal characteristics of the species Environmental factors that affect edible characteristics Processing factors - conditions imposed by industry processing Preparation factors - related to consumer purchase, prepara- tion and serving TOTAL - Originally on Questionnaire and Added by Respondents 93 64 45 50 27 279 Totals include factors that are specific to finfish and shellfish and factors that are common to both. Comparison of Industry and Consumer Viewpoints Consumer focus group discussions were held to determine the general awareness and knowledge of seafood products that seafood consumers have, and to determine what factors consumers feel are important in shopping for, preparing, storing, and serving them. As in the industry surveys, the objective was to identify, rank, and rate a list of pertinent factors. The results of consumer focus groups enabled us to compare consumers' needs and desires for information with industry's perspective of what information would be most useful to consumers . 19 Two focus groups were conducted with 10 women in each group. The qualifications were 1) have prepared and served fish or shellfish at least three times per month, 2) when they buy fish they generally reflect on the kind of fish they will buy (i.e., Trout or Halibut), 3) have lived at least one year in a coastal area. The focus group participants ranked and rated a series of factors that had been identified in earlier research using a combined shopping- preparing-consuming frame of reference. They also discussed the factors, suggesting additional factors and indicating those which they felt to be unimportant. In an attempt to provide a better perspective from which to discuss the factors, respondents were asked to relate factors to specific fish. Finally, the idea of organizing fish accord- ing to edibility factors was introduced and discussed. By comparing the results of the industry mail survey and the consumer focus groups, it appeared clear that industry and consumers are very much in agreement as to which factors are most important. Both gave the highest ratings to factors having to do with the organoleptic properties of the edible portion of the species: taste, texture, color, odor, moisture, and fat content of the meat. This confirmed similar observations made during consumer focus groups and industry interviews in the previous project (Contract #4-36730). 20 The result was a clear, albeit qualitative, indication that consumers' first priority is to have information related to the edible characteristics of seafood meat and that these characteristics should become the basis for organizing and for identifying seafood species and products. More than 270 separate factors were identified for consideration during this research. The following criteria were used to reduce the number to 55, a more manageable number for the second mail survey: * Include factors that are representative of natural characteristics of the species. (Factors imposed by "unnatural" influences such as pollution, mishandling or lack of freshness were excluded.) Include factors that have a relation- ship to the edible portion of the fish. (Factors were excluded if they did not relate directly to the meat of the fish.) * Include factors that relate to all aquatic species. (Factors were ex- cluded if they were only character- istic of an individual species or a limited group of species.) 21 The selected factors were reviewed by a panel of seafood industry experts. They clarified the significance of various factors and made an overall review of the data to be used in the similarities studies. As a result, the number of factors were reduced from 55 in the second industry mail survey to 8 that were considered to represent the most perceptible differences and to offer the most fundamental infor- mation to the consumer. These factors are: * FLAVOR intensity * FAT content * ODOR * COLOR * FLAKINESS * FIRMNESS * COARSENESS * MOISTURE content All the species included in the similarity studies were rated on these 8 factors. 22 C. Consistently Rating Each of the Species for Each of the Factors The final step in the research was to determine a rating for each of the species in the sample on the basis of each of the selected factors. The second industry mail survey was sent to 159 individuals who indicated on the previous survey their willingness and ability to provide ratings for particular species. To broaden the base of the survey, additional sources were suggested by National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) , National Fisheries Institute (NFI) and others. In total, 870 questionnaires covering 297 species were completed by 245 respondents. Fifty-five factors were included in the second mail survey. Ratings given for most of the questions were based on a 5-point scale with 1 and 5 representing the extreme ranges among all species for a given factor. In compiling ratings, respondents were given the following conditions: * Judgment was to be used in providing the ratings. Respondents were self- qualified by indicating that they had sufficient experience and familiarity with the species to rate it. Ratings were requested within the framework of the whole spectrum of edible aquatic species. For example, respondents were asked to determine the fat content of a species relative to all other species including those with the highest and the lowest fat content. Ratings were to be determined within prescribed conditions of freshness. For example, ratings were to be made on the basis that fish were no more than 48 hours old and had been well iced to perserve fresh qualities. 23 When a rating was taken after the species had been cooked, for example — "flakiness of the meat after cooking," the conditions of cooking were described as: properly cooked (not over cooked or under cooked) , and cooked in a manner that least affects the natural characteristics of the meat. Factors had to be defined with suffi- cient clarity that individual respond- ents could agree on the definition and how the factors should be rated. At least three responses were obtained for each of the species included in the similarity studies. Tabulations from the second industry mail survey provided a mean rating for each of the 55 factors for the 158 species (123 finfish and 35 shellfish) From these mean ratings, a profile of edibility characteristics was developed on a consistent 5-point scale for each of the species in the sample. Verification of the Edibility Profiles A panel of seafood experts reviewed all the edibility profiles in order to verify the ratings. Adjustments were made by this panel where necessary for consistency. The panel also made decisions on ratings for particular factors where there was ambiguity or lack of agreement in the responses. 24 Conclusions The results of this research effort were intended to provide empirical data for use in demonstrating the workings of a model identification program. The data bank developed in this project is not intended to be taken as statistically accurate. But, it shows how important and useful the data bank is. Following is a compilation of the data bank of edibility profiles developed and used in this project. Edibility Profiles P-l Striped BASS (Rockfish) Morone saxatilis 1 2 3 4 5 FLAVOR intensity MILD • • • STRC:-' FAT content LOW • • • HIGH ODOR, raw- fresh MILD • • • STRGN COLOR after cooking WHITE • • • DARK FLAKINESS FLAKY • • • NOT FLAKY FIRMNESS FIRM • • e NOT FIRM COARSENESS SMOOTH • • • • COARS MOISTURE content DRY • • • • WET after cooking « BLUEFISH Pomatomus saltatrix FLAVOR intensity FAT content ODOR, raw-fresh COLOR after cooking FLAKINESS FIRMNESS COARSENESS MOISTURE content after cooking 1 2 3 4 5 MILD • • • STRONG LOW • • • HIGH MILD • i • • STRONG WHITE • • > • DARK FLAKY • • • NOT FLAKEY FIRM • • • NOT FIRM SMOOTH • • • • COARSE DRY • • • ^N • WET • BLUEGILL Lepomis macrochirus FLAVOR intensity FAT content ODOR, raw-fresh COLOR after ccokinc FLAKINESS FIRMNESS COARSENESS MOISTURE contanr after cooking 1 2 3 4 5 MILD • • • « • STRONG LOW ^^ • • « • HIGH MILD • ^ I • « ► O STRONG WHITE • 1 • « • DARK FLAKY • ^^ 9 4 ) o NOT FLAKY FIRM • " ,00^ • NOT FIRM SMOOTH 9 • i • COARSE DRY • S ^«^^^Si ) WET P-2 Atlantic BONITO (Common Bonito) Sarda sarda 1 2 3 4 5 FLAVOR intensity MILD • • • • STRONG FAT content LOW • • • • HIGH ODOR, raw-fresh MILD • • • • STRONG COLOR after cookinq WHITE • • • • DARX FLAKINESS FLAKY • • • • NOT FLAKY FIRMNESS FIRM ^^^ • • • NOT FIRM COARSENESS SMOOTH • • • COARSE MOISTURE content DRY • w ^m • • WET after cooking • Pacific BONITO (California Bonito) Sarda chiliensis FLAVOR intensity FAT content ODOR, raw- fresh COLOR after cookinq FLAKINESS FIRMNESS COARSENESS MOISTURE content after cooking • STRONG • HIGH • STRONG • DARK • NOT FLAKY • NOT FIRM • COARSE • WET • Bigmouth BUFFALO Ictiobus cyprinellus 1 2 3 4 5 FLAVOR intensity MILD • • 4 • STRONG FAT content LOW • • ^ • HIGH ODOR, raw-fresh MILD (P • 9 « > • STRONG COLOR after cookinq WHITE • • « • DARX FLAKINESS FLAKY { • • « • NOT FLAKY FIRMNESS FIRM 1^^ ^» • i • NOT FIRM COARSENESS SMOOTH • • • COARSE MOISTURE content DRY • O • e WET arter ccoKing P-3 Smallmouth BUFFALO Ictiobus bubalus FLAVOR intensity FAT content ODOR, raw-fresh COLOR after cooking FLAKINESS FIRMNESS COARSENESS MOISTURE content after cooking Brown BULLHEAD Ictalurus nebulosus L 2 3 4 5 FLAVOR intensity MILD • ) • STRONG FAT content LOW • • HIGH ODOR, raw- fresh MILD • • STRONG COLOR after cooking WHITE • • DARK FLAKXNESS FLAKY • • NOT flak:: FIRMNESS FIRM • • NOT FIRM COARSENESS SMOOTH • • • COARSE MOISTURE content DRY • • • « WET after cooking • BURBOT Lota lota FLAVOR intensity FAT content ODOR, raw-fresh COLOR after cockinc FLAZINESS FIRMNESS COARSENESS MOISTURE content after cooking 1 2 MILD • • LOW © MILD • WHITE • FL'.KY • • FIRM • • SMOOTH • DRY • • 3 4 • • STRONG • • HIGH • • STRONG • • DARK • • NOT FLAKY • • NOT FIRM • • COARSE • • WET p-il • BUTTERFISH Poronotus triacanthus FLAVOR intensity FAT content ODOR, raw-fresh COLOR after cooking FLAKINZSS FIRMNESS COARSENESS MOISTURE content after cooking • STRONG • HIGH • STRONG • DARK • NOT FLAm • NOT FIRM • COARSE • WET CABEZON Scorpaenichthys marmoratus FLAVOR intensity FAT content ODOR, raw-fresh COLOR after cooking FLAKINESS FIRMNESS COARSENESS MOISTURE content after cooking 1 2 3 4 5 MILE • « ^0 • STRONG LOW • • HIGH MILD • • STRONG WHITE • • DARK FIAKY • • NOT FLAKY FIRM • • NOT FIRM SMOOTH • i l % • COARSE DRY • 4 • • WET • Spotted CABRILLA Epinephelus analogus FLAVOR intensity FAT content ODOR, raw-fresh COLOR after cooking FLAKINESS FIRMNESS COARSENESS MOISTURE content after cooking 1 2 2 4 3 MILD ^^ • • i • STROKG LOW • > ; ; • HIGH MILD ^^ • STR0K3 WHITE 1 • • • • DARK FLAKY 1 • • • • NOT FLAKY FIRM ^^ ^*^J • NOT FIRM SMOOTH • ^1 • • COARSE DRY • • 1 • WET P-5 • CARP Cyprinus carpio FLAVOR intensity FAT content ODOR, raw-fresh COLOR after cookinq FLAKINESS FIRMNESS COARSENESS MOISTURE content after cooking 9 STRONG • HIGH © STRONG • DARK • NOT FLAKY • NOT FIRM • COARSE • WET Blue CATFISH Ictalurus furcatus FLAVOR intensity FAT content ODOR, raw- fresh COLOR after cookinq FLAKINESS FIRMNESS COARSENESS MOISTURE content after cooking 1 2 2 4 5 MILD 9 9 • • STRONG LOW 9 9 9 9 HIGH MILD 9 9 9 9 STRONG WHITE 9 9 9 9 DARK FLAKY 9 9 9 9 NOT FLAKY FIRM 9 9 9 9 NOT FIRM SMOOTH 9 9^L 9 9 COARSE DRY 9 9 9 '" ■■> : ' r WET Channel CATFISH Ictalurus punctatus FLAVOR intensity FAT content ODOR, raw- fresh COLOR after cookinq FLAKINESS FIRMNESS COARSENESS MOISTURE content after ccokina 1 2 2 4 5 MILD • 9 • • STRONG LOW • • • HIGH MILD © • • STRONG WHITE • • 9 DARK FLAKY • • 9 NOT FLAKY FIRM • 9 9 NOT FIRM SMOOTH • • 9 COARSZ DRY • • © 9 WET P-6 • Sea CATFISH Galeichthys felis FLAVOR intensity FAT content ODOR, raw-fresh COLOR after cooking FLAKTNESS FIRMNESS COARSENESS MOISTURE content after cooking 1 2 3 \ 5 MILD • • STROliG LOW • • HIGH MILD • • strg2;g WHITE • • DARK FLAKY • A • NOT FLAKY FIRM 4^L% • • • NOT FIRM SMOOTH • # ^^^^^fc* • COARSE DRY • « • « WET Lake CHUB Hybopsis plumbeua FLAVOR intensity FAT content ODOR, raw- fresh COLOR after cooking FLAKINESS FIRMNESS COARSENESS MOISTURE content after cooking • STRONG • HIGH • STRONG • DARK • NOT FLAKY • NOT FIRM • COARSE • WET • COBIA (Crabeater) Rachycentron canadum 1 2 3 4 5 FLAVOR intensity MILD • • • STRONG FAT content LOW • • HIGH ODOR, raw- fresh MILD • • STRONG COLOR aftsr cooking WHITE • • DARK FLAKINESS FLAKY • • NOT FLAKY FIRMNESS FIRM ^« • NOT FIRM COARSENESS SMOOTH • • • COARSE MOISTURE content DRY • • • WET after cooking P-7 Atlantic COD Gadus morhua FLAVOR intensity MILD FAT content LOW ODOR, raw- fresh MILD COLOR after cooking WHITE FLAKINESS FLAKY FIRMNESS FIRM COARSENESS SMOOTH MOISTURE coi itent DRY • STRONG • HIGH • STRONG • DARK • NOT FLAKY • NOT FIRM • COARSE • WET after cooking • White CRAPPIE Pomoxis annularis FLAVOR intensity FAT content ODOR, raw-fresh COLOR after cooking FLAKINESS FIRMNESS COARSENESS MOISTURE content after cooking 3 4 5 • « • STRONG • * • HIGH • • • STRONG • * • DARK • • • NOT FLAKi • NOT FIRM • • • COARSE 4)^^^ • WET o Atlantic CROAKER Micropogon undulatus FLAVOR intensity FAT content ODOR, raw-fresh COLOR after cooking FLAKINESS FIRMNESS COARSENESS MOISTURE content after cooking 1 2 3 4 5 MILD • f *W * | # STRONG LOW © • ^^ i 1 • HIGH MILD • • _^£ * t • STRONG WHITE • ^ • 4 ► • DARK FLkKY • • 4 I • NOT FLAKY FIRM # • 4 > • NOT FIRM SMOOTH • ^ • 4 ► • COARSE DRY • • ^© ► • WET P-8 • CUSK Brosme brosme FLAVOR intensity MILD t "W * * • • STSOb'3 FAT content LOW • ^ • • • HIGH ODOR, raw- fresh MILD ^ • • • • strong COLOR after cooking WHITE • • • • DARX FLAKINESS FLAXY • • • • NOT FLAXY FIRMNESS FIRM w • • • • NOT FIRM COARSENESS SMOOTH 4 ^^^^^0 • • COARSE MOISTURE content DRY 1 • «^* ^■«> WET after cooking Black DOGFISH Centroscyllium f abricii 1 FLAVOR intensity MILD • FAT content LOW • ODOR, raw- fresh MILD • COLOR after cooking WHITE • FLAKINESS FUUvY • FIRMNESS FIRM COARSENESS SMOOTH • MOISTURE content DRY • 3 4 5 • « • STRONG • € • HIGH • STRCKG • • • DARK • • • NOT FLAKY • • • NOT FIRM • • • COARSE • WET after cooking Spiny DOGFISH Squalus acanthias 1 2 3 5 FLAVOR intensity MILD • • • • STRONG FAT content LOW • • • • HIGE ODOR, raw- fresh MILD • • • • STRCSG COLOR after ccokinc WHITE • «> • • DARX FLAKINESS FIARY • • • • ^ NOT FLAKY FIRMNESS FIRM • m ^ • • NOT FIRM COARSENESS SMOOTH .. • • • • COARSE MOISTURE content after cooking DRY • • ^ • • WET 9 Common DOLPHIN (Dorado) Coryphaena hippurus FLAVOR intensity FAT content ODOR, raw- fresh COLOR after cookinq FLAR"INESS FIRMNESS COARSENESS MOISTURE content after cooking p • • STRONG • • • HIGH • • • STRONG • • • DARK • • • NOT riAKY • • • NOT FIRM • • • COARSE % • • WET • Black DRUM Pogonias cromis FLAVOR intensity FAT content ODOR, raw- fresh COLOR after cookinq FLAKINESS FIRMNESS COARSENESS MOISTURE content after ccoking 1 2 3 4 5 MILD • • | « • STRONG LOW • -• ^J * • HIGH MILT • • STRONG WHITE • • DARK FLAKY • • « • NOT FLAKY FIRM .^ • • • HOT FIRM SMOOTH • ^^^^^ • COARSE DRY • • • • WET • American EEL (Silver Eel) Anguilla rostrata 1 2 3 4 5 FLAVOR intensity MILD • • • • STRONG FAT content LOW • • • HIGH ODOR, raw-fresh MILE • • • STR0N3 COLOR after cookinq WHITE • • • DARK FLAKINESS FLAKY • • • NOT FLAKY FIRMNESS FIRM e • • NOT FIRM COARSENESS SMOOTH • • • COARSE MOISTURE content DRY • • • WET after ccoking P-10 • Arrowtooth FLOUNDER Atheresthes stomias 1 2 3 4 5 FLAVOR intensity MILD • • « • STRONG FAT content LOW • • 4 • HIGH ODOR, raw-fresh MILD • • 4 • STRONG COLOR after cooking WHITE • • • • DARK FLAKINESS FLAKY • • • NOT FLAKY FIRMNESS FIRM • • • NOT FIRM COARSENESS SMOOTH • ^# 4 • COARSZ MOISTURE content DRY • • •^^N • WET after cooking Southern FLOUNDER Paralichthys letho stigma FLAVOR intensity FAT content ODOR, raw- fresh COLOR after cooking FLAKINESS FIRMNESS COARSENESS MOISTURE content after cooking T_ 2 3 4 s MILD • • 4 • STRONG LOW • • 4 • HIGH MILD • • 4 • STRONG WHITE • • 4 • DARK FLAKY • • 4 • NOT FLAXY FIRM • • ^ • NOT FIRM SMOOTH ^4> • 4 • COARSZ DRY • • ^V^^^i • WET • Summer FLOUNDER (Fluke) Paralichthys dentatus 1 2 3 4 5 FLAVOR intensity MILD | • • < 1 • STRONG FAT content LOW • 4 i > • HIGH ODOR, raw-fresh MILD • • i » • STRONG COLOR after cooking WHITE ^-« • 1 • DARK FLAKINESS FLAKY • • > • NOT FLAKY FIRMNESS FIRM • ^^r • 4 ► 4 NOT FIRM COARSENESS SMOOTH i^^^4^ • i ► • COARSE MOISTURE content DRY 4 • ^4^^^ ► • WET after cooking p-11 GAG Mycteroperca microlepis FLAVOR intensity FAT content ODOR, raw-fresh COLOR after cooking FLAKINESS FIRMNESS COARSENESS MOISTURE content after cooking MILD • f> • 1 I • STRONG LOW • ^go • < f) • HIGH MILD ► • STRONG WHITE > • DARK FLAKY | # NOT FLAKY FIRM \f « NOT FIRM SMOOTH • #^^^^^^ i I • COARSE DRY • • • ^ I • WET Black GROUPER Mycteroperca bonaci FLAVOR intensity FAT content ODOR, raw-fresh COLOR after cooking FLAKINESS FIRMNESS COARSENESS MOISTURE content after cooking 1 2 2 4 5 MILD • • STRONG LOW • • HIGH MILD • • STRONG WHITE • • DARK FLAKY • • NOT FLAKY FIRM • • NOT FIRM SMOOTH • • • • COARSE DRY • • • • WET Nassau GROUPER Epinephelus striatus i 2 3 - 5 FLAVOR intensity MILD • • • STRONG FAT content LOW • • • HIGH ODOR, raw-fresh MILD O • • STRONG COLOR after cooking WHITE 6 • • DARK FLAKINESS FLAKY • • • NOT FLAKY FIRMNESS FIRM ^» • • NOT FIRM COARSENESS SMOOTH • • ^ • • COARSE MOISTURE content DRY • • • • WET after cooking P-12 HADDOCK Melanogrammus aeglefinus flavor intensity FAT content ODOR, raw-fresh COLOR after cooking FLAKINESS FIRMNESS COARSENESS MOISTURE content after cooking MILD ^^ • LOW ^^ MILD Y^ • WHITE 1 • FLAKY 1 • FIBM ^. • SMOOTH • ^^ DRY • • • STRONG • HIGH • STRONG • DARK • NOT FLAKY • NOT FIRM • COARSE • WET Pacific HAKE Merluccius productus 1 2 3 4 5 FLAVOR intensity MILD • • « • STRONG FAT content LOW • • • • HIGH ODOR, raw-fresh MILD • ^ • 1 • STRONG COLOR after cooking WHITE • • « • DARK FLAKINESS FLAKY • • ^^^^^^^^ 4 • NOT FLAKY FIRMNESS FIRM • • • i NOT FIRM COARSENESS SMOOTH • ^T • • COARSE MOISTURE content DRY • • • i WET after cooking Red HAKE Urophycis chuss 1 2 3 .1 n 5 FLAVOR intensity MILD • • • • STRON FAT content LOW • e • • HIGH ODOR, raw-fresh MILD • • • • STRON COLOR after cooking WHITE • • • • DARK FLAKINESS FLAKY • • ^Ciffa-. • • NOT FLAKY FIRMNESS FIRM • • • NOT FIRM COARSENESS SMOOTH • • • coars: MOISTURE content DRY • • ^^^ • WET arter coox-r.g P-13 • Silver HAKE Merluccius bilinearis FLAVOR intensity FAT content ODOR, raw- fresh COLOR after cooJcinq FLAXINESS FIRMNESS COARSENESS MOISTURE content after cooking T_ 2 3 4 5 MILD • • • • STRONG LOW • • « • HIGH MILD • ^ • « • STRONG WHITE ^^^L • • • • DARK FLAKY • • • NOT FLAKY FIRM e % • NOT FIRM SMOOTH • £1 • • • COARSE DRY • • • ^^^1 • WET • White HAKE Urophycis tenuis FLAVOR intensity MILD FAT content LOW • ODOR, raw- fresh MILD • COLOR after cookinq WHITE FLAKINESS FLAKY • FIRMNESS FIRM • COARSENESS SMOOTH • MOISTURE content DRY • after cooking • Atlantic HALIBUT Hippoglossus hippoglossus FLAVOR intensity MILD * • • STRONG FAT content LOW • • • EIGH ODOR, raw- fresh MILD VL^ • • • STRONG COLOR after ccokinc WHITE • O • DARK FLAKINESS FLAKY • • • NOT FLAKY FIRMNESS FIRM • 9 • NOT FIRM COARSENESS SMOOTH • * • • COARSE MOISTURE content DRY • • • • WET P-14 Greenland TURBOT (Greenland Halibut) Reinhardtius hippoglossoides FLAVOR intensity FAT content ODOR, raw- fresh COLOR after cooking FLAKINESS FIRMNESS COARSENESS MOISTURE content after cooking 1 MILD • LOW • MILD • WHITE • FLAKY • FIRM • SMOOTH • DRY • 3 • strcn • HIGH • STRor; • DARK « NOT FIRM Pacific HALIBUT Hippoglossus stenolepis 1 2 FLAVOR intensity MILD «^^ • FAT content LOW • ^^ ODOR, raw- fresh MILD • COLOR after cooking WHITE J FLAKINESS FLAKY { • FIRMNESS FIRM ^^ • COARSENESS SMOOTH • ^^ MOISTURE content DRY • • • NOT FIRM after cooking Atlantic HERRING Clupea harengus harengus FLAVOR intensity FAT content ODOP., raw- fresh COLOR after cookino FLAKINESS FIRMNESS COARSENESS MOISTURE content after ccokinc MILD • • LOW • • MILD • • WHITE • • FLAKY • • FIRM • 9 SMOOTH DRY • • 4 3 • • STRONG • ^ HIGH • • STRONG • • DARK • NOT FLAKY • NOT FIRM P-15 Lake HERRING (Cisco) Coregonus artedii 1 2 3 4 5 FLAVOR intensity MILD • *^ • • • STRONG FAT content LOW • 2^> • • HIGH ODOR, raw- fresh MILD • • • STRONG COLOR after cooking WHITE • • • DARK FLAXINESS FLAKY • • • NOT FLAKY FIRMNESS FIRM • * BUI • HOT FIRM COARSENESS SMOOTH • • COARSE MOISTURE content DRY • • ^^^ • WET after cooking Pacific HERRING Clupea harengus pallasi FLAVOR intensity mild • FAT content low • ODOR, raw- fresh mild • COLOR after cooking white • FLAXINESS FLAKY • FIRMNESS FIRM « COARSENESS SMOOTH * MOISTURE content DRY # after cooking Crevalle JACK (Common Jack) Caranx hippos 1 2 3 4 5 FLAVOR intensity MILD • • • STRONG FAT content LOW • • • HIGH ODOR, raw-fresh MILD • • • STRONG COLOR after cooking WHITE • • • DARK FLAXINESS FLAKY • • • NOT FLAKY FIRMNESS FIRM • • • SOT FIRM COARSENESS SMOOTH • • • • CCARSI MOISTURE ccr.tsnt DRY • • • • WET after cocking P-16 • JEWFISH (Spotted Grouper) Epinephelus itaj-ra FLAVOR intensity FAT content ODOR, raw-fresh COLOR after cooking FLAKINESS FIRMNESS COARSENESS MOISTURE content after cooking 1 2 2 4 5 MILD • • STRONG LOW • • HIGH MILD • • • STRONG WHITE • • DARK FLAKY • • • NOT FLAKY FIRM • NOT FIRM SMOOTH • • • COARSE DRY • • • • WET • LINGCOD Ophidon elongatus FLAVOR intensity FAT content ODOR, raw- fresh COLOR after cooking FLAKINESS FIRMNESS COARSENESS MOISTURE content after cooking MILD • • • STRONG LOW • • • HIGH MILD • • • • STRONG WHITE • • • • DARK FLAKY O • • NOT FLAKY FIRM • • • • NOT FIRM SMOOTH • • • COARSZ DRY • • • ^^r • WET • Atlantic MACKEREL Scomber scombrus FLAVOR intensity FAT content ODOR, raw- fresh COLOR after cookina FLAKINESS FIRMNESS COARSENESS MOISTURE content after cooking 1 MILD • LOW • MILD * WHITE * FLAKY • FIRM • SMOOTH • DRY • • strok; • HIGH • STRON • DARK • NOT FLAKY • NOT FIRM • coars: • WET P-17 Jack MACKEREL Trachurus symmetricus 1 2 3 4 5 FLAVOR intensity MILD • • • | • STRONG FAT content LOW • • * rtl ,r^ • HIGH ODOR, raw-fresh MILD • 1^^T^ • • • STRONG COLOR after cooking WHITE • • ^ | • • DARK FLAKINESS FLAKY • • • • NOT FLAKY FIRMNESS FIRM • • • • NOT FIRM COARSENESS SMOOTH • • ^^« • COARSE MOISTURE content after cooking DRY • • t «^^Ni WET King MACKEREL (Kingf ish) Scomberomorus cavalla 1 FLAVOR intensity MILD • FAT content LOW • ODOR, raw-fresh MILD • COLOR after cooking WHITE • FLAKINESS FLAKY • FIRMNESS FIRM • COARSENESS SMOOTH • MOISTURE content DRY • STRONG • HIGH • STRONG • DARK • NOT FLAKT • NOT FIRM • COARSE • WET after cooking Spanish MACKEREL (Spotted Mackerel) Scomberomorus maculatus 1 2 3 FLAVOR intensity MILD • • • FAT content LOW • • • ODOR, raw-fresh MILD • • • COLOR after cooking WHITE • • FLAKINESS FLAKY • • • FIRMNESS FIRM • • COARSENESS SMOOTH • ^^ MOISTURE content DRY • • • • MOT FLAKY • NOT FIRM • COARSX WET arter cccjcing p-1 • Atlantic MENHADEN Brevoortia tyrannus 1 2 3 4 FLAVOR intensity MILD • • FAT content LOW • • ODOR, raw-fresh MILD • • COLOR after cookinq WHITE • FLAKINESS FLAKY • • FIRMNESS FIRM • COARSENESS SMOOTH • MOISTURE content DRY • • • NOT FLAKY WET after cooking • MONKFISH Lophius americanus FLAVOR intensity mild • FAT content low • ODOR, raw- fresh mild • COLOR after cookinq white • FLAKINESS FLAKY • FIRMNESS FIRM • COARSENESS SMOOTH • MOISTURE content DRY • after cooking • Redeye MULLET (Silver Mullet) Mugil gaimardiana L 2 3 4 5 FLAVOR intensity MILD • • • • STRONG FAT content LOW • • • • HIGH ODOR, raw-fresh MILD • • • STRONG COLOR after cookinq WHITE • • • DARK FLAKINESS FLAKY • • • NOT FLAKY FIRMNESS FIRM • • • NOT FIRM COARSENESS SMOOTH • • • COARSE MOISTURE content DRY • © • WET :er ccc.<^ng P-19 • Striped MULLET Mugil cephalus • White MULLET Mugil cerema 1 2 3 FLAVOR intensity MILD • ^^^« FAT content LOW • • ± ODOR, raw-fresh MILD » • COLOR after cooking WHITE • ^ FLAKINESS FLAKY • FIRMNESS FIRM • ^ COARSENESS SMOOTH MOISTURE content DRY • • • after cooking 1 2 FLAVOR intensity MILD • • FAT content LOW • • ODOR, raw- fresh MILD • • COLOR after cooking WHITE • FLAKINESS FLAKY • • FIRMNESS FIRM • • COARSENESS SMOOTH • MOISTURE content DRY • • • STROt; • HIGH • STRONG • DARK • NOT FLAKY • NOT FIRM • COARSZ • WET 4 5 • • STRONG • HIGH • • STRONG • • DARK • NOT FLAKY • • NOT FIRM • • COARSZ • WET after cooking • Atlantic Ocean PERCH (Rosefish or Redfish) Sabastes marinus 1 FLAVOR intensity MILD • FAT content LOW • ODOR, raw-fresh MILD • COLOR after cookina WHITE • FLAKINESS FLAKY • FIRMNESS FIRM * COARSENESS SMOOTH • MOISTURE content DRY • • stron:- • HIGH • stron:- • DARK • NOT FLAKY • NOT FIRM • COARSZ • WET arter coojcmc P-20 • Pacific Ocean PERCH Sebastodes alutus FLAVOR intensity FAT content ODOR, raw- fresh COLOR after cookinq FLAKINESS FIRMNESS COARSENESS MOISTURE content after cooking • STRKiG • HIGH • strc:;; • DARK • NOT FLAKY • NOT FIRM • C0ARS2 • WET White PERCH Morone (Roccus) americana FLAVOR intensity FAT content ODOR, raw- fresh COLOR after cookinq FLAKINESS FIRMNESS COARSENESS MOISTURE content after cooking • STROVG • HIGH • STRONG • DARK • NOT FLAKY • NOT FIRM • COARSE • WET • Yellow PERCH Perca flavascens FLAVOR intensity FAT content ODOR, raw- fresh COLOR after cookino FLAXINSSS FIRMNESS COARSENESS MOISTURE content after cooking • STRONG • HIGH • STRONG • DARK • NOT FLAKY • NOT FIRM • COARSE • WET P-21 PIGFISH Orthopristis chrysopters FLAVOR intensity FAT content ODOR, raw- fresh COLOR after cooking FLAKINESS FIRMNESS COARSENESS MOISTURE content after cooking 3 4 5 • i • STRONG • HIGH • « • STRONG • • • DARK • NOT FLAKY • C • NOT FIRM • COARSE • ^S • WET • Northern PIKE Esox lucius L 2 FLAVOR intensity MILD • • FAT content LOW • ODOR, raw-fresh MILD • • COLOR after cooking WHITE • FLAKINESS FLAKY • • FIRMNESS FIRM • • COARSENESS SMOOTH • • MOISTURE content DRY • • • • STRONG • • HIGH • • STRONG • • DARK • • NOT FLAKY • • NOT FIRM • • COARSI • • WET after cooking American PLAICE Hippoglossoides platessoides 1 2 3 A 5 FLAVOR intensity MILD • 1 * 1 • STRONG FAT content LOW • • » • HIGH ODOR, raw-fresh MILD • ^ 1 • < > • STRONG COLCR after cookino WHITE • • < » • DARK FLAKINESS FLAKY • ^ ^, • > • NOT FLAKY FIRMNESS FIRM • • ^& » • NOT FIRM COARSENESS SMOOTH • ^1 • > • COARSI MOISTURE ccntent DRY • • «^*^ 1 • WET after cooking P-22 Alaska POLLOCK (Walleye Pollack) Theragra chalcogramma 1 2 3 4 5 FLAVOR intensity MILD • • • STRONG FAT content LOW • • • HIGH ODOR, raw-fresh MILD • • • STRONG COLOR after cooking WHITE • • • DARK FLAKINESS FLAK.rY • • • NOT FLAKY FIRMNESS FIRM • • • NOT FIRM COARSENESS SMOOTH • • • COARSE MOISTURE content DRY • • • WET after cooking • Pacific POLLOCK Pollachius virens FLAVOR intensity FAT content ODOR, raw- fresh COLOR after cooking FLAKINESS FIRMNESS COARSENESS MOISTURE content after ccokinc 1 2 3 4 5 MILD • | • i • STRONG LOW • • « • HIGH MILD • • 1 • STRONG WHITE • L • « • DARK FLAKY • ^1 • NOT FLAKY FIRM • • ^3 % • NOT FIRM SMOOTH • ^^_« % • COARSE DRY • • «^^ • HET • Florida POMPANO Trachinotus carolinus 1 2 3 4 5 ■ FLAVOR intensity MILD • fc>. • STRONG FAT content LOW • • > ; • HIGH ODOR, raw- fresh MILD • r • STRONG COLOR after cooking WHITE • i • DARK FLAKINESS FLAKY ' • KOT FLAKY FIRMNESS FIRM *> 1 • NOT FIRM COARSENESS SMOOTH ^^^< » • COARSE MOISTURE content DRY • > «*» • WET after cocking P-23 Ocean POUT Macrozoarces americanus FLAVOR intensity FAT content ODOR, raw- fresh COLOR after cooking FLAKINESS FIRMNESS COARSENESS MOISTURE content after cooking 3 4 5 • 1 • STRONG • « • HIGH • « • STRONG • * • DARK • NOT FLAKY • a • NOT FIRM • « • COARSE • ^^^ • WET • ROCKFISH Sebastodes species 1 FLAVOR intensity MILD • FAT content LOW • ODOR, raw- fresh MILD • COLOR after cooking WHITE • FLAKINESS FLAKY FIRMNESS FIRM * COARSENESS SMOOTH • MOISTURE content DRY • • STRONG • HIGH • STRONG • DARK • NOT FLAKY • NOT FIRM • COARSE • WET after cooking Blue RUNNER Caranx crysos l FLAVOR intensity mild • FAT content low • ODOR, raw-fresh mild • COLOR after ccokinc white • FLAKINESS ?2>-SY « FIRMNESS FIRM • COARSENESS SMOOTH • MOISTURE content DRY • after cooking • STRONG • HIGH • STRONG • DARK • NOT FLAKY • NOT FIRM • COARSE • WET P-24 SABLEFISH Anoplopoma fimbria FLAVOR intensity FAT content ODOR, raw- fresh COLOR after cooking FLAKINESS FIRMNESS COARSENESS MOISTURE content after cooking • Atlantic SALMON Salmo salar FLAVOR intensity FAT content ODOR, raw-fresh COLOR after cooking FLAKINESS FIRMNESS COARSENESS MOISTURE content after cooking 1 2 3 4 5 MILD • • « • STRONG LOW • • • HIGH MILD • • « • STRONG WHITE • • • DARK FLAXY • • « • NOT FLAKY FIRM • • a • NOT FIRM SMOOTH • • « • COARSE DRY • • • WET Chinook SALMON Oncorhynchus tshawytscha FLAVOR intensity FAT content ODOR, raw- fresh COLOR after cooking FLAKINESS FIRMNESS COARSENESS MOISTURE content after cooking 1 2 3 A 5 MILD • • 1 ^^« • STRONG LOW • • • j£?3 HIGH MILD • ^ijfcj 1 • • STROKE WHITE • © « • DARK FLAXY • s | • • NOT FLAKi' FIRM • I • • NOT FIRM SMOOTH • • • COARSi DRY • • • • WET P-25 • Chum SALMON Oncorhynchus keta 1 2 3 4 5 FLAVOR intensity MILD • ^ * f • STRONG FAT content LOW • • • HIGH ODOR, raw-fresh MILD • ^ • « • STRONG COLOR after cooking WHITE • • i • DARK FLAKINESS FLAXY • • « • NOT FLAX-- FIRMNESS FIRM • W • • • NOT FIRM COARSENESS SMOOTH t • • COARSE MOISTURE content DRY • • • WET • Coho SALMON Oncorhynchus kisutch V FLAVOR intensity MILD • FAT content LOW • ODOR, raw- fresh MILD • COLOR after cooking WHITE • FLAKINESS FLAKY • FIRMNESS FIRM • COARSENESS SMOOTH • MOISTURE content DRY • 4 5 • • STRONG • HIGH • STRONG • DARK • NOT FLAK'.' • NOT FIRM • COARSE • WET after cooking • Pink SALMON Oncorhynchus gorbuscha 1 2 3 ■» 5 FLAVOR intensity MILD • • • • STRONG FAT contenr LOW • • • • HIGH ODOR, raw-fresh MILD • • • • STRONG COLOR after cooking WHITE • • • • DARK FLAKINESS FLAKY • • • • NOT FLAKY FIRMNESS FIRM o • • • NOT FIRM COARSENESS SMOOTH • • • • COARSE MOISTURE content DRY • • • • WET P-26 • Sockeye SALMON Oncorhynchus nerka 1 2 3 4 5 FLAVOR intensity MILD % • <| ^ • • STRO:."G FAT content LOW • • • • HIGE ODOR, raw- fresh MILD • • • strc:;: COLOR after cooking WHITE • • • • DARK FLAKINESS fiasy "*% • • • NOT FLAXY FIRMNESS FIRM • • • NOT FIRM COARSENESS SMOOTH • • • COARSE MOISTURE content DRY • • ^H • • WET • Pacific SANDDAB Citharichthys sordious FLAVOR intensity MILD ^^ • FAT content LOW • ^% ODOR, raw- fresh MILD • J> COLOR after cooking WHITE FLAKINESS F1AK.Y • • FIRMNESS FIRM • • COARSENESS SMOOTH MOISTURE content DRY • • • STROUG • HIGH • STROKG • DARK • NOT FLAKY • NOT FIRM • COARSE • WET after cooking SAUGER Stizostedion canadense FLAVOR intensity MILD i ' 1 • ' * STRONG FAT content LOW « \S • • • HIGH ODOR, raw- fresh MILD r m . . . STRONG COLOR after cooking WHITE • • • • DARK FLAXINESS FLA5Y • • • • NOT FLAKY FIRMNESS FIRM • • • • NOT FIRM COARSENESS SMOOTH ^^^_ • • • COARSE MOISTURE ccntent DRY < • ^^^^* • WET aiter ccoxing P-27 SCAMP Mycteroperca phenax SCUP Stenotomus chrysops FLAVOR intensity MILD FAT content LOW ODOR, raw- fresh MILD COLOR after cooking WHITE FLAKINESS FLAKY FIRMNESS FIRM COARSENESS SMOOTH MOISTURE content DRY • * • STROKE » » HIGH • > • stro:;3 • » • DARK • » • NOT FLAKY » • NOT FIRM • > • COARS2 • • i WET after cooking 1 2 3 4 5 FLAVOR intensity MILD • • | • • STROKE FAT content LOW • * 0^ • • HIGH ODOR, raw- fresh MILD • • • • STROK3 COLOR after cooking WHITE • ^ | • • • DARK FLAKINESS FIA3Y • • • • NOT FIAKi FIRMNESS FIRM • • • O NOT FIRM COARSENESS SMOOTH • [^^^0 • • COARSZ MOISTURE content DRY • • ^#^^^1 WET after cooking Black SEA BASS Centropristas striatus FLAVOR intensity MILD • FAT content LOW • ODOR, raw-fresh MILD • COLOR after cooking WHITE • A FLAKINESS FLAXY ^c 9 FIRMNESS FIRM • ^^ COARSENESS SMOOTH • • MOISTURE content DRY • • • STROK « HIGH • STRON • DARK • NOT FLAK'-' • NOT FIRM • coars: • WET after cooking P-2! Giant SEA BASS Stereolepis gigas • White SEABASS Cynoscion nobilis FLAVOR intensity MILD FAT content LOW • ODOR, raw-fresh MILD • COLOR after coolcinq WHITE • FLAKINESS FLAXY FIRMNESS FIRM • COARSENESS SMOOTH • MOISTURE content DRY • • i ► • STRONG ► • HIGH • 4 > • STRONG • 4 > • DARK • 4 1 • NOT FLAKY • 4 t • NOT FIRM » • COARSZ • ^\ » • WET after cooking FLAVOR intensity MILD | • • • • STROICG FAT content LOW s • • • • HIGH ODOR, raw- fresh MILD ^ • • • STROKE COLOR after cookinq WHITE • 1 • • • DARK FLAKINESS FLAKY • 1 • • • NOT FLAK? FIRMNESS FIRM • ^ • 41 NOT FIRM COARSENESS SMOOTH • • 1 • • COARSZ MOISTURE content DRY • • 1 • WET after cooking • Spotted SEATROUT (Speckle Trout) Cynoscion nebulosus FLAVOR intensity FAT content ODOR, raw-fresh COLOR after ccokino FLAKINESS FIRMNESS COARSENESS MOISTURE content after cooking 1 2 3 4 5 MILD • ft • « • STROKS LOW • • 41 • HIGH MILD • ^ 1 • « • STRONG WHITE • • 41 • DARK FLAKY • i^ 1 ^. — • NOT FLAKY FIRM • • NOT FIRM SMOOTH I • 41 • COARSZ DRY • • WET P-29 White SEATROUT (Sand Seatrout) Cynoscion arenarius FLAVOR intensity FAT content ODOR, raw- fresh COLOR after cooking FLAKINESS FIRMNESS COARSENESS MO I STORE content after cooking 1 2 3 4 5 MILD • • jft • • STRONG LOW • • • HIGH MILD 9 • • • STRONG WHITE fc • • • • DARK FLAXY • • * • NOT FLAK/ FIRM • • « • NOT FIRM SMOOTH • • COARSS DRY • • • WET Sand SHARK (Ground Shark) Odontaspis (Carcharias) taurus FLAVOR intensity FAT content ODOR, raw- fresh COLOR after cooking FLAKINESS FIRMNESS COARSENESS MOISTURE content after cooking MILD • LOW • MILD • WHITE • 7LASY • FIRM SMOOTH DRY • STRONG • HIGH • STRONG • DARK • NOT FLAKY • NOT FIRM • COARSI • WET SHEEPSHEAD Archosargus probatocephalus FLAVOR intensity FAT content ODOR, raw-fresh COLOR after ccokina FLAKINESS FIRMNESS COARSENESS MOISTURE content after cocking MILD • • < » • STRONG LOW • • ^ % 9 HIGH MILD m 9 4 » • STRONG WHITE • • 4 • DARK FLAKY ^^ 9 • < 1 • NOT FLAKY FIRM • 9 t » • NOT FIRM SMOOTH • 9 » • COARSI DRY • • 1 • WET P-30 • SIERRA Scomberomorus sierra l FLAVOR intensity MILD • FAT content low • ODOR, raw- fresh mild • COLOR after cooking white • FLAKINESS FLAKY • FIRMNESS FIRM • COARSENESS SMOOTH • MOISTURE content DRY • after cooking 3 4 5 • i • STRCI.G • HIGH • • • STRC:.'^ • dart. • « • NOT FLAKY • NOT FIRM • 1 • COARSE • ^^N • WET • Rainbow SMELT Osmerus mordax FLAVOR intensity FAT content ODOR, raw-fresh COLOR after cooking FLAKINESS FIRMNESS COARSENESS MOISTURE content after cooking 1 2 3 4 5 MILD • • • • STRONG LOW • • 4 • HIGH MILD • • « • STRONG WHITE • • « • DARK FLAKY • • • NOT FLAKY FIRM • • ^ • NOT FIRM SMOOTH ^J» • « • COARSE DRY • m <^^^ • WET • Surf SMELT Hypomesus pretiosus 1 2 •5 t 5 FLAVOR intensity MILD • • • STRONG FAT content LOW • • • HIGZ ODOR, raw- fresh MILD • • • STP.CNG COLOR after ccokina WHITE ♦ ^^ • • DARF. FLAKINESS FL=_vY • o ^^kw • NOT FLAKY FIRMNESS FIRM • • • NOT FIRM COARSENESS SMOOTH • • • • COARSE MOISTURE content DRY • • • • WET siter cccci-ig P-31 Red SNAPPER Lutjanus campechanus (blackfordi) FLAVOR intensity FAT content ODOR, raw-fresh COLOR after cookinq FLAKINESS FIRMNESS COARSENESS MOISTURE content after cooking 1 2 2 4 3 MILD • • 4 • • STRONG LOW • Jb < > • • HIGH MILD ' r « i » • • STRONG WHITE • » • • DARK FLAXY O < » • • NOT FLAKY FIRM W. • < ft C • NOT FIRM SMOOTH • ^S^^^J » • • COARSE DRY • • < • WET Vermillion SNAPPER Rhomb o p 1 i te s aurorubens FLAVOR intensity FAT content ODOR, raw-fresh COLOR after cookinq FLAKINESS FIRMNESS COARSENESS MOISTURE content after cooking MILD • • • STRONG LOW 9f • • • • HIGH MILD ^^ • • • • STRONG WHITE • • • DARK FLAKY f • • • • NOT FLAKY FIRM ^^ • • • • NOT FIRM SMOOTH • • • coarsz; DRY • • • ^^ • WET • Yellowtail SNAPPER Ocyurus chrysurus FLAVOR intensity FAT content ODOR, raw-fresh COLOR after ccokinq FLAKINESS FIRMNESS COARSENESS MOISTURE content after cocking 1 2 3 i 5 MILD • • « > • STRONG LOW • © i » • HIGH MILD 9 • « 1 • STRONG WHITE • • 4 > • DARK FLAKY i • • * 1 • NOT FLAKY FIRM ^ • • < 1 • NOT FIRM SMOOTH < ► ^^^^* * 1 • COAR5I DRY < 9 9^^ 1 • WET P-32 SNOOK Centropomus undecimalis flavor intensity FAT content ODCR, raw- fresh COLOR after cooking FLAKINESS FIRMNESS COARSENESS MOISTURE content after cooking 1 2 3 4 5 MILD • ^+ • • • STRONC LOW • HIGH MILD • STRONC WHITE • DARK FLAKY • NOT FLAKY FIRM • NOT FIRM SMOOTH • ^^^^^* ' • COARS1 DRY • • • ^^^ • WET Dover SOLE Microstomus pacificus FLAVOR intensity FAT content ODOR, raw- fresh COLOR after cooking FLAKINESS FIRMNESS COARSENESS MOISTURE content after ccoking • STRONG • HIGH • STRONG • DARK • NOT FLAKY • NOT FIRM • COARSE • WET English SOLE Parophrys vetulus 1 2 FLAVOR intensity MILD • • FAT content LOW • ODOR, raw- fresh MILD • • COLOR after cooking WHITE • FLAKINESS FLAKY • FIRMNESS FIRM • • COARSENESS SMOOTH e MOISTURE content DRY • • 3 4 • STRONG • HIGH • STRONG • DARK • NOT FLAKY • NOT FIRM • COARSE • WET P-33 • Petrale SOLE (Brill) Eopsetta jordani FLAVOR intensity FAT content ODOR, raw-fresh COLOR after cooking FLAKINESS FIRMNESS COARSENESS MOISTURE content after cooking • STRONG • HIGH • STRONG • DARK • NOT FLAKY • NOT FIRM • COARSE • WET Rex SOLE Glyptocephalus zachirus FLAVOR intensity MILD FAT content LOW ODOR, raw- fresh MILD COLOR after cooking WHITE ' FLAKINESS FLAK* • FIRMNESS FIRM • COARSENESS SMOOTH • MOISTURE content DRY • • STRONG • HIGH • STRONG • DARK • NOT FLAKY • NOT FIRM • COARSE • WET after cooking • SPOT Leiostomus xanthurus FLAVOR intensity MILD • FAT content LOW • CDOR, raw-fresh MILD • COLOR after cooking WHITE • FLAXINESS I- i • STRONG FAT content LOW • • » • HIGH ODOR, raw-fresh MILD • • i » • STRONG COLOR after cookina WHITE • • 4 ► • DARK FLAKINESS JLAKX • • i > • NOT FLAKY FIRMNESS FIRM • • 4 > • NOT FIRM COARSENESS SMOOTH • • ^ ► • COARSE MOISTURE content DRY • • « • WET after cooking P-35 • TAUTOG (Blackfish) Tautoga onitis FLAVOR intensity FAT content ODOR, raw-fresh COLOR after cooking FLAXINESS FIRMNESS COARSENESS MOISTURE content after cooking • STRONG • HIGH • STRONG • DARK • NOT FLAKY • NOT FIRM • COARSE • WET • Gray TRIGGERFISH Balistes capriscus FLAVOR intensity MILD • FAT content LOW • ODOR, raw- fresh MILD • COLOR after cooking WHITE • FLAXINESS FLAKY • FIRMNESS FIRM • COARSENESS SMOOTH • • MOISTURE content DRY • • • STRONG • HIGH • STRONG • DARK • NOT FLAKiT • NOT FIRM • COARSE • WET after cooking • Brook TROUT Salvelinus fontinalis 1 2 3 4 5 FLAVOR intensity MILD ^<^ # « • STRONG FAT content LOW o • • HIGH ODOR, raw-fresh MILD <1 % • • STRONG COLOR after cookino WHITE • ^ • DARK FLAXINESS FLAKX • • NOT FLAK? FIRMNESS FIRM • • NOT FIRM COARSENESS SMOOTH • • COARSE MOISTURE content DRY • 4 • ^^Nl • WET P-36 • Lake TROUT Salvelinus nainaycush FLAVOR intensity FAT content ODOR, raw- fresh COLOR after cookino FLAKINESS FIRMNESS COARSENESS MOISTURE content after cooking i : 3 4 5 MILD • • • STRONG LOW • • • HIGH MILD ^J*' • • STRONG WHITE • ^ • DARK FLAKY • • NOT FLAKY FIRM • ^ • NOT FIRM SMOOTH ^ m • COARSE DRY • • WET • Rainbow TROUT Salmo gairdneri 1 2 3 4 5 FLAVOR intensity MILD #^^^^ • • f • STRONG FAT content LOW • i • HIGH ODOR, raw-fresh MILD f^^^ 1 • • STRONG COLOR after cooking WHITF • ^ • DARK FLAKINESS FI-AFJY • • NOT FLAKY FIRMNESS FIRM • ^ • NOT FIRM COARSENESS SMOOTH ^^^* • COARSE MOISTURE content DRY • • • WET after cooking • Albacore TUNA Thunnus alalunga FLAVOR intensity FAT content ODOR, raw-fresh COLOR after cookina FLAKINESS FIRMNESS COARSENESS MOISTURE content after ccoki.ig 1 2 3 4 5 MILD • • • • STRONG LOW • • • ^ • HIGH MILD • • • STROKG WHITE • • • DARK FLAKY • • • NOT FLAKY FIRM • • • NOT FIRM SMOOTH • • • COARSE DRY • • • WET P-37 Blackfin TUNA Thunnus atlanticus FLAVOR intensity FAT content ODOR, raw- fresh COLOR after cookinq FLAKINESS FIRMNESS COARSENESS MOISTURE content after cooking 1 2 3 4 5 MILD • • ► • STRONG LOW • • 4 » • HIGH MILD • • » • STRONG WHITE • • > • DARK FLA.CY • • 4 > • NOT FLAKY FIRM • • 4 i • NOT PIRM SMOOTH • • 4 > • COARSE DRY • • 4 > • WET Bluefin TUNA (Horse Mackerel) Thunnus thynnus 1 2 3 4 5 FLAVOR intensity MILD • • i • STRONG FAT content LOW • • • HIGH ODOR, raw- fresh MILD • • 41 • STRONG COLOR after cookinq WHITE • • • « DARK FLAKINESS FIAXnt " • • 41 • NOT FLAKY FIRMNESS FIRM • • 41 • NOT FIRM COARSENESS SMOOTH • • • COARSE MOISTURE content DRY • • € • WET after ccokinc Skipjack TUNA (Oceanic Skipjack) Euthynnus (Katsuwonus) pelamis 1 2 3 1 5 FLAVOR intensity MILD • • • • STRONG FAT content LOW • • • 41 HIGH ODOR, raw-fresh MILD • • • • STRONG COLOR after ccokina WHITE • • • • DARK FLAKINESS FLAKY • • • • NOT FLAKY FIRMNESS FIRM • • • • NOT FIRM COARSENESS SMOOTH • • • ♦ COARSE MOISTURE content DRY • • • • WET P-38 Yellowfin TUNA Thunnus albacares FLAVOR intensity FAT content ODOR, raw-fresh COLOR after cooking FLAKINESS FIRMNESS COARSENESS MOISTURE content after cooking • STRONG • HIGH • STRONG • DARK • NOT FLAKY • KOT FIRM • COARSE • WET Little TUNNY (False Albacore) Euthynnus alletteratus 1 2 FLAVOR intensity MILD • • FAT content LOW • ODOR, raw- fresh MILD COLOR after cooking WHITE • FLAKINESS TU-.KY FIRMNESS FIRM COARSENESS SMOOTH • MOISTURE content DRV • 4 5 • • STRONG • • HIGH • • STRONG • DARK • • NOT FLAKY • • NOT FIRM • • COARSE • • WET after cooking TURBOT Psetta (Sophthalmus) maxima Greenland TURBOT (see Greenland Halibut) 1 2 3 4 5 FLAVOR intensity MILD • • • STRONG FAT content LOW • • • HIGH ODOR, raw- fresh MILD • • • STRONG COLOR after cooking WHITE • • • DARK FLAKINESS ?l;ky • • • NOT FLAKY FIRMNESS FIRM • • • NOT FIRM COARSENESS SMOOTH z: • • • COARSE MOISTURE con-cant DRY • • • w:t after cooking P-39 WALLEYE Stizostedion vitreum vitreum 1 2 3 4 5 FLAVOR intensity MILD • • 1 • STRONG FAT content LOW • • 4 • HIGH ODOR, raw-fresh MILD • • « • STRONG COLOR after cooking WHITE • • * • DARK FLAKINESS FLAKY • • 4 • NOT FLAXY FIRMNESS FIRM • • ^ • NOT FIRM COARSENESS SMOOTH 4 • 4 • COARSE MOISTURE content DRY • • • WET after cooking • Lake WHITEFISH (Common Whitefish) Coregonus clupeaformis FLAVOR intensity FAT content ODOR, raw-fresh COLOR after cooking FLAKINESS FIRMNESS COARSENESS MOISTURE content after cooking T_ 2 3 4 s MILD 4^ • • 4 » © STRONG LOW 9 • • HIGH MILD ^^ • • 4 • STRONG WHITE 4^ • • 4 • DARK FLAKY « • 4 • NOT FLAKY FIRM 4 • NOT FIRM SMOOTH 44*£ ^4 • 4 • COARSE DRY • • ^4^^^i • WET a Ocean WHITEFISH Caulolatilus princeps FLAVOR intensity FAT content ODOR, raw-fresh COLOR after cooking FLAKINESS FIRMNESS COARSENESS MOISTURE con-rent after ccokir.c MILD 4 LOW 4 MILD 4 WHITE 4 FLAKY l 4 FIRM ( • SMOOTH • DRY 4 4 • STRONG 4 HIGH • STRONG • DARK 4 NOT FLAKY 4 NOT FIRM • COARSE • WET P-40 WHITING (Northern Kingfish) Menticirrhus saxatilis FLAVOR intensity FAT content ODOR, raw- fresh COLOR after cooking FLAKINESS FIRMNESS COARSENESS MOISTURE content after cookinc 1 MILD • LOW • MILD • WHITE • FLAKY • FIRM • SMOOTH • DRY • 2 3 •> • • • STRONO • HIGH • STRONG • DARK • NOT FLAKY • NOT FIRM • COARSZ • WET • Atlantic WOLFFISH Anarhichas lupus 1 2 FLAVOR intensity MILD • FAT content LOW • ODOR, raw- fresh MILD • COLOR after cooking WHITE • FLAKINESS FLAXY • FIRMNESS FIRM • COARSENESS SMOOTH • • MOISTURE content DRY • • after cooking • STRONG • HIGH • STRONG • DARK • NOT FLAKY • NOT FIRM • COARSZ • WET 25 STEP II ANALYSIS OF SIMILARITIES AMONG SPECIES This second major step in the project in- volved comparison of the edibility profiles for the sample of finfish to determine which species have similar patterns of edible characteristics. The main purpose of these studies was to determine an objective method of organizing species of finfish into distinct groups on the basis of edibility characteris- tics. Due to the large volume of data, computer techniques were used in comparisons and analysis. Seven studies, using computer analysis, were conducted in this project. Each study was a separate exploration to determine which species would be "grouped" together under different sets of conditions. 26 Edibility characteristics for shellfish were included in some of the early studies. This helped to confirm that although shellfish and finfish can be compared on some factors, each represents a different kind of eating experi- ence and should be classified separately. Later studies were confined to finfish. In early studies, various combinations of up to 40 factors were tried. In later studies, edibility profiles based on 8 factors and a 5-point rating scale were determined to be a more convenient, effective basis of compari- son for the 123 species of finfish used in the model. Different factor weighting strategies were explored in the analysis. In one set of studies, all factors were weighted equally. In others, various priorities of factors were tried. Based on these studies, the following observa- tions were made: 1. Changes in weighting strategies affected the clarity of groupings without producing serious changes in the placement of species in groups. 2. Changes in the number of species used affected where fish were placed as relationships became available or were removed. 3. Excluding anatomical features (i.e., bones, body shape, etc.) from the early studies caused almost all correlation with zoological groupings to disappear. 4. Reduction of the number of factors from 40 to 8 produced greater clarity without radically affecting the general groupings produced by the factors . 27 5. A wide variety of edible profile patterns exist among species when they are compared on the basis of multiple (8) equally weighted factors This results in a great number of small groups being formed, each of which has a different profile for the 8 factors. 6. Strong weighting of certain factors resulted in fish being sorted into groups that were similar to groups formed on the basis of equally weighted factors, but which were easier to adapt to a simple organ- izational framework. In the final studies, these 8 factors were given a geometric progression of weights in the following order: FLAVOR 8 FLAKINESS 8 FAT 4 FIRMNESS 4 ODOR 2 MOISTNESS 2 COLOR 1 COARSENESS 1 In final studies, with the assigned geometric progression of weights, sets were divided along lines established by the first two (highest weighted) factors: FLAVOR and FLAKINESS. Sub- groups were determined by each subsequent pair of factors, according to the weighting assigned For comparison, Figure B shows a portion of the groups formed by each of the following approaches: a) equally weighted factors - "composite similarities graph" and b) priority weighted factors - "factor sorting graph". Figure B GROUPS FORMED BY UNWEIGHTED VS WEIGHTED FACTORS COMPOSITE SIMILARITIES GRAPH On the basis of 8 equally weighted factors level 3 sets level 2 sets level 1 sets Arrovtooth Arrow-tooth Pacific Kake Arrowtooth Flounder Flounder Pacific Pollock Flounder Ocean Pout Greenland Butterf ieh Tut Sot Red Hike Spot Greenland Ocean Pout Silver Hake Tursot Whit* Parch Pacific Pollock Spotted Seat-rout Silver Hake Yellow Parch Silver Hake Spot Spot FACTOR SORTING GRAPH On the basis of 4 sets of prioritized factors First pair of factors First pair of factors plus 1 2,3,1 I 1 I 2,3 2,3,2 2,3,3 I I 1 First two pairs of factors 2,3,1,1 2,3,1,2 2,3,1,3 2,3,2,3 2,3,2,5 2,3,3,2 2,3,3,3 2,3,3,4 Ocean Pout Arrowtooth Flounder White Perch Yellow Perch Pacific Hake Red Hake Greenland Tursot Pacific Pollock Silver Hake Spotted Seatrout Spot Sutterfiah 28 These studies showed that establishing factor priorities is a necessity. The factor sorting approach produced results that are far easier to communicate to consumers. In addition, by using this approach, species can be classified without the need for computer processes. A factor sorting framework that encompasses all seafood species was developed for this model. Eight factors (4 pairs) were used, all were rated on a consistent 5-point scale. This means that nearly 400,000 (5°) combinations of edibility profiles are available. This is obviously more than will ever be needed. At a more functional level, the first pair of factors will provide 25 groups (5^) into which finfish can be sorted. Weighting factors in this way provided a practical approach to organizing edibility data for use in an identification plan. A more com- plete description is included later in this report in the section titled An Organizational Framework for Seafood Species. 29 STEP III DEVELOPMENT OF A MODEL IDENTIFICATION PLAN The third major step in the project was to structure several alternative retail identi- fication plans, and to evaluate them compara- tively in terms of convenience and usefulness to consumers, industry and regulatory agencies. What Is An Identification System? A product identification system is a distinc- tive kind of labeling program with a unique and important function to serve. It is essen- tially an organized set of names by which people can identify individual products and distinguish them from others. 30 An identification system is based on sorting different species such as Codfish and Flounders into several groups by using chosen base criteria (characteristics) . It is a different kind of program with different objectives than other sorting/labeling programs such as food grading . A grading program is more concerned with quality than with characteristics and is based on sort- ing varieties rather than species, (i.e., varieties of Codfish) . Product identification is the most basic labeling function. Other labeling programs provide supplementary infor- mation. Design of the identification system is made difficult by the need to confine nomenclature on the label to the minimum necessary to do an effective job. So much information already appears on food product labels that adding more contributes to labeling "overload." A Basic Plan Has Been Outlined The recommendations in the previous project report (Contract #4-36730) proposed that three categories of information are necessary for a comprehensive seafood identification program. * The FISH component of the product * The retail product FORM * Key product MODIFIERS, such as how it has been preserved and what other foods have been added 31 Figure C illustrates these three primary categories and seven subcategories of nomen- clature that need to be developed and stan- dardized as a prerequisite for identifying seafood products. As proposed, appropriate nomenclature from each of these three primary categories, presented on the product label, will provide the consumer with adequate infor- mation for effective product identification. This current project is concerned with develop- ing an identification strategy for the FISH component of the overall system. The FISH com- ponent of the system identifies the aquatic species that are in the retail product. This component has been subcategorized on three levels to include products made from multiple species as well as from a single species. Alternatives in Designing the Species Identification System The primary alternatives in developing identifi- cation plans involve the selection of factors, rating scales, kinds of organizational framework, and nomenclature that are most appropriate. To keep nomenclature to a minimum, only the most important factors can be used in the identifica- tion plan. The following is a recap of how these alterna- tives were explored and the model identification plan was developed. ! Figure C COMPREHENSIVE SEAFOOD PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION PLAN PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION FORMAT PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION COMPONENTS | MIXED GROUP FISH FISH SIMILAR GROUP 1 FORM MODIFIER I - L ONE FISH r | NATURAL FORM RECONSTRUCTED ~1 " PRESERVATION MODIFIER ADDITIONAL INGREDIENTS 32 1. The possibility of including nutritional as well as other kinds of information (i.e., anatomical, environmental, etc.) was reviewed. Edibility factors were selected on the basis of receiving the highest priority in our research. Addition- ally, edible characteristics vary widely from fin- fish species to species. They are more like the differences that exist among apples, oranges, bananas, etc. than among varieties of apples. Overall, nutritional characteristics are relatively similar for the various aquatic species which have been tested, according to the National Fisheries Institute. One diffi- culty in using nutritional information is that the concept of nutrition is hard to define on a product-by-product basis. The reasons are best expressed in this excerpt from " Perspectives on Federal Retail Food Grading ," produced by The Office of Technology Assessment of the Congress of the United States in June, 1977: "Current food grades are based on criteria reflecting sensory characteristics such as flavor, texture, color, or other palatability or cosmetics factors. A major issue in food grading is whether to change this basis to reflect sensory and nutritional factors simultaneously. The issue is complex. One general problem associated with making nutritional content a basis for grades is that nutrition deals with diet. As one food grading workshop participant states: 'We can conceive of a nutritious diet, but the concept of a nutritious food product has never been developed. There are many components of a nutritious diet, and the concept of getting them all in a product is very repulsive to nutritionists and, I think, the populous in general. So there is a very great difficulty in nutrition labeling. Any product is a component of a diet, and it may be a 33 useful component although it is very lopsided in its individual characteristics. What makes a nutritious product is what- ever product it is combined with in a day or in a period of several days. We have a conception of nutritional diets; we do not have a conception of nutritional products. * " An evaluation was made of the edible character- istics of both finfish and shellfish within existing zoological groups (which are based on comparison of anatomical rather than edible factors) . This was done to determine if any direct correlation exists between anatomical and edible characteristics. We determined that a new organization was necessary for finfish but not for shellfish for the following reasons: A. The edible characteristics among species within zoological groups of shellfish may differ, but, the differences are not as pronounced as they are within many zoological groups of finfish. B. Anatomical differences among zoological groups of shellfish are greater and more significant to consumers than among zoological groups of finfish. For instance, the differences between lobsters and squid in terms of preparing, serving and eating are greater than differences among most finfish. C. Many more finfish are in the marketplace. Differences among shellfish are more manageable to consumers because there are relatively fewer species available. There are so many finfish that differences are far less obvious. 34 3. Next, each of the edibility factors was system- atically evaluated individually and in combina- tion with other factors, using computer techniques, to determine what groups of finfish would be formed. Following that, the same systematic techniques were used to evaluate various rating scales to determine the optimum number of points of discrimination. The selection factors and rating scales determine, to a large degree, how the identification system will operate and what information it will com- municate. These selections have to be made before the identification plan can be developed. 4. The next step was to evaluate alternative methods for organizing groups of finfish. The organiza- tion is influenced by the number of factors and rating points to be established. The organiza- tional framework selected for this model is based on a pair (2) of factors and a 5-point rating scale which is used consistently for all factors. It is derived from the factor sorting process described in the previous section, Analysis of Similarities. 5. The final step in compiling the model was evaluating alternative strategies for naming. The following alternatives were explored: a) Using existing nomenclature (common names) b) Modifying and reapplying existing nomenclature to make it more consistent and effective c) Creating an entirely new nomenclature system. 35 The nomenclature system is always developed last and is designed to fit the identification frame- work. This is the only way to make names work effectively and is vastly preferable to attempt- ing to force existing nomenclature into a system for which it was not intended. After exploring various approaches to nomencla- ture, a new strategy and a comprehensive new set of names was developed for this model. Certain components of existing nomenclature, particularly the common names of familiar species of finfish and shellfish, have wide use and acceptability in the United States. This was taken into consideration in compiling recommendations on how to develop and use the model identification system. At the conclusion of these steps, a description of the model identification plan was compiled into a report. The plan and recommendations was then discussed with an ad hoc review board. The following section summarizes the responses of the review board. 36 STEP IV REVIEW OF THE MODEL IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM When the model plan had been developed, an ad hoc review board was convened to review and to discuss it. This panel consisted of individuals qualified to represent federal regulatory agencies, the seafood industry in both the private and government sectors, con- sumers, key segments of the food industry, and other concerned or interested viewpoints. The primary objective in conducting the review board was to scrutinize the plan from each of these pertinent perspectives and to stimulate response or reactions. The following individuals participated in the review board discussion: 37 Ellen Broadman James Brooker Willard Doyle Meredith Fernstrom Ken Johnson Roy Martin John Nichols, Ph.D Robert Nordstrom Neil Rabin John Schnably Richard Spears, Ph.D Don Whitaker Consumers Union of the U.S. , Inc. National Marine Fisheries Service Brand Group, Inc. Department of Consumer Affairs Division U.S. Department of Commerce National Livestock and Meat Board National Fisheries Institute, Inc. Texas A & M University - Depart- ment of Agricultural Economics National Marine Fisheries Service Office 6f Consumer Affairs Department of Health, Education and Welfare Office of Compliance, Food and Drug Administration Department of Linguistics Northwestern University Economist National Marine Fisheries Service 38 All participants were given copies of the model identification plan prior to the meeting to allow them time to review the plan and become familiar with its purposes and ramifications. The meeting was structured as a moderated focus group discussion. It was designed to provide an informal but in-depth contribution by each participant, relative to a variety of recommendations including: * There should be a nationwide identifi- cation program to include all seafood species and products * A new organization of finfish should be developed on the basis of "compara- tive edibility" * Major categories of seafood products should be distinguished on the basis of containing: single, similar, or mixed species * A special interpretation of federal labeling laws should be made to account for the unique complexity of the sea- food product mix * A new, comprehensive naming system should be developed for seafood species and products, linking names to edibility characteristics The meeting was conducted during February 1978 in Washington, D.C. In the discussions, the following values and concerns were identified by members of the review board: 1. A systematic identification program organizing seafood species into con- sistent groupings based on edibility was regarded as valuable in informing consumers . 39 This may also make it possible to aid in gaining acceptance for currently underused/unfamiliar species. Various categories of "labeling" such as product identification, nutritional, ingredients, etc. are important because they help educate consumers about the product as long as an information "overload" on the package is avoided. Too much or unnecessary information on the label can create confusion and ambiguity. And, mislabeling can result in legal actions. Use of the plan may affect the pricing and marketing of various species. There was a concern that in the group- ing of species, inferior species might be sold at the same price or under the same name as better quality species in the same group. In response, it was pointed out that while pricing of certain species may be affected somewhat, the edibility profiles and the nomencla- ture plan could be applied in a way that would specifically prevent inferior species from being substituted for superior species. The cost of developing and managing the program should be weighed against the savings generated by increased supplies and more effective marketing. In response, it was pointed out that the retail meat identification program which has been put into use by the meat industry, incurred initial costs but resulted in lower operating costs overall for the industry and no increase in product costs. 40 5. Agreement should be made on a system of nomenclature that satisfies consumer needs and accurately reflects the products. These names should be descriptive. In general, the reaction of the review board to the plan was positive. Participants felt that an effective identification program is essential. There was interest in the concepts. Discussion involved concern that certain de- tails might be worked out in a way that did not best serve the interests of consumers. The review board recommended proceeding to further develop and evaluate the program. All individuals expressed interest in remaining involved personally or in having their respec- tive organizations take a role in development or in monitoring development of the identifi- cation program. 41 DESCRIPTION OF THE MODEL IDENTIFICATION PLAN Background and Need Currently within the United States there are more than 500 edible species of finfish and shellfish marketed. Worldwide there are more than 1,000 edible species. Hundreds more are accessible and could be brought into the commercial market. The number of retail products derived from these species is enormous. It is extremely difficult for a consumer to compare them intelligently without the assistance of an effective identi- fication plan. 42 In terms of annual sales, the seafood industry is only a fraction of the size of the meat industry in the United States. In terms of number and variety of products, however, the seafood industry is second to none in the world. It is the oldest of American industries but is still characterized by a large number of relatively small, independent producers (fishermen), processors, wholesalers and a variety of associations and organizations at local and regional levels. To a large extent, species are also regional. In recent years, the seafood industry has been faced with diminishing stocks of traditionally popular species such as Haddock and Cod. The industry has attempted to expand markets for less familiar species, but has found it difficult since American consumers tend to be reluctant to try unfamiliar species of fish and shellfish. Efforts to develop markets for unfamiliar species have met with only limited success in individual cases. These efforts can be tremendously costly in terms of dollars re- quired to educate the American consumer about each new species individually. Lacking the resources for effective national marketing programs, most processors look for other ways to gain acceptance for unfamiliar, underused species. 43 Many objectives can be achieved by simply clarifying for consumers the range and scope of seafood products that are available, and by making it easier to shop for them intelligently. An effective identification system can contribute substantially to accomplishing this. The seafood industry needs an effective retail identification system; one that will help consumers learn about and understand seafood species and products. A model of such a system has been compiled during this project. The follow- ing two sections describe the fundamental com- ponents of the model. Components of the Model Identification System This model is to demonstrate how a well con- ceived identification system can make in- telligent shopping easier for consumers by providing useful information in a simple, easy to understand format. It is comprised of two primary components: 1. An organizational framework — a system for categorizing seafood species and products. 2. A nomenclature system — a compre- hensive set of names that are used to identify each of the species and products. The following two sections describe the model identification system developed in this pro- ject in terms of these components. 44 AN ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR SEAFOOD SPECIES IDENTIFICATION The Need to Simplify For the most part, consumers are not aware of the tremendous variety of seafood species and products in the marketplace. Without a con- sistent product identification system, the sea- food product mix will continue to defy compre- hension and will make intelligent shopping for seafood products extremely difficult. To clarify the picture for consumers, it is necessary to develop a comprehensive product identification system based on a totally new organization of seafood species and products, one that can be more easily understood. A totally new organization is necessary to reduce the number of things the shopper has to deal with to a more manageable level, and to clar- ify what can be found in the marketplace. General requirements for the organizational framework are that it: 45 Encompass all species and products of the seafood industry including fresh water and salt water species and pro- ducts made from finfish and shellfish Satisfy the needs and desires of consumers and the seafood industry for useful in- formation Be simple to understand and use in order to ease the tasks of labeling and shopping Be objective and impervious to manipula- tion by any special interests so that it serves the public and the industry as a whole Seafood Product Identification Framework If a complete inventory of seafood products were made, it would reveal hundreds of thou- sands of different products. The purpose of an identification system is to enable consumers to shop among these products and to distinguish an individual product from all others. To do this, three kinds of information are necessary: * The kind of FISH (finfish or shellfish) in the product * The FORM of the product (e.g., steaks, fillets, chunks, etc.) * Significant product MODIFIERS; especially, how it is preserved and additional food ingredients 46 Finfish and shellfish are the main ingredients of seafood products. This model is based on the characteristic similarities and differences among various species of finfish and shellfish. A broad analysis of the species, processing and products of the seafood industry indicates that three major categories of products exist: INDIVIDUAL SPECIES PRODUCTS (ISP) — these are products which are derived from one distinct species of finfish or shellfish. SIMILAR SPECIES PRODUCTS (SSP) — these are products made from several species, all of which are essentially similar in terms of their edible characteristics. MIXED SPECIES PRODUCTS (MSP) — these are products which are made from a combina- tion of finfish and/or shellfish that are dissimilar in character. INDIVIDUAL SPECIES PRODUCTS — these products are more familiar to consumers. They are based on a single species of finfish or shell- fish. The characteristics of one species in comparison with another are important. Rela- tively few new species enter the marketplace each year compared to the number of products that are added. But, with 500 to 1,000 species already available, the possibility of exposure to new species is substantial, especially for American consumers who are typically familiar with only a few species. SIMILAR SPECIES PRODUCTS — many products are made from "interchangeable" species, that is, from species whose edible characteristics (such as flavor, fat content and texture) are similar. Characteristics of the species re- main stable even though several different species may be in the product. For these products, knowing which kind of fish is in the product is more important than knowing the identity of the individual finfish or shellfish. There is a substantial potential for growth in this product category for the same reasons as for mixed species products. 47 MIXED SPECIES PRODUCTS — the characteristics of these products depends on the mix of species, not on the character of any single species or kind of species. At present, the number of products in this category is not large re- lative to the total number of seafood products The potential for future growth, based on the infinite number of ways species can be com- bined to create new products, is enormous. In addition, mixing species can offer economic advantages which can be passed along to the consumer. Figure 1 illustrates an organizational frame- work that encompasses all three product categories. This is the basic framework developed for this product identification model. Three product categories have been established because they represent major distinctions in terms of edibility and econo- mics. Edible differences among species tend to aver- age out and become less important when going from the ISP to the MSP level. Differences among individual species are most important at the ISP level, and relatively unimportant at the MSP level. Mixing species of different market values will tend to average out their economic differences as well. Three separate species may command low, moderate and high market price, respectively, at the ISP level. They would typically produce a moderately priced combination at the MSP level. Based on this framework, shoppers will be able to determine the appropriate category for any seafood product. This is the first piece of vital information that will be provided on the product label. Figure 1 SEAFOOD SPECIES IDENTIFICATION FRAMEWORK MSP Mixed Species Products SSP Similar" Species Products GROUP A GROUP B GROUP C GROUP A GROUP B SPECIES 1 SPECIES 1 SPECIES 1 SPECIES 1 SPECIES 1 ISP Individual Species Products SPECIES 2 SPECIES 3 SPECIES 4 SPECIES 5 SPECIES 2 SPECIES 3 SPECIES 4 SPECIES 5 SPECIES 6 SPECIES 2 SPECIES 3 SPECIES 4 SPECIES 5 SPECIES 2 SPECIES 3 SPECIES 4 SPECIES 5 SPECIES 2 SPECIES 3 SPECIES 4 SPECIES 5 SPECIES 6 48 Identification Framework for Similar Species Products The key to the entire framework is at the SSP level where individual species are organized into groups of "similar species." The purpose of this level is to make it easier for con- sumers to relate to the 500 to 1,000 currently marketed commercial species (and those which may become commercially important in the future) . This is done by sorting all species into a manageable number of groups of similar species so that shoppers can deal with a few categories of finfish and shellfish rather than with each individual species one at a time. The factors on which "similarities" are established are of utmost importance. , There are diffences between the organizations that will work effectively fcr finfish and shellfish. Zoological Organization for Shellfish Scientists use a method called Systematic Zoologyfor organizing animal life forms. It is based largely on comparing anatomical structures. These zoological classifications can be useful for identifying shellfish products as long as certain conventions are established for product labeling. Figure 2 illustrates a simplified zoological organization for common species of shellfish. Anatomical characteristics in shellfish re- late directly to methods of preparation and to edible characteristics of the various species. As a result, a simplified version of Figure 2 ZOOLOGICAL ORGANIZATION FOR SHELLFISH ARTHROPODA MOLLUSCA CRUSTACEA GASTROPODA PELECYPODA CEPHALOPODA CRABS CRAWFISH LOBSTERS SHRIMPS ABALONES CONCH PENSHEL.LS PERIWINKLES WHET.KS CLAMS MUSSELS OYSTERS SCALLOPS OCTOPUS SODLDS PHYLUM CLASS COMMON NAMES 49 the zoological framework is useful for product identification. The relatively small number of shellfish species that are marketed are already classified into a convenient number of groups. At the SSP level, shellfish product identifica- tion can be effectively related to these zoo- logical groups. Species within zoological groups of shellfish are relatively similar in terms of the kind of meat they provide, and are relatively different from species in other zoological groups. In addition, the number of shellfish in the marketplace is not beyond com- prehension. This is not so, however, for fin- fish. There are at least ten times as many finfish in the marketplace as shellfish. This mini- mizes the value of comparing anatomical features. More importantly, zoological cate- gories of finfish frequently include species of finfish that have widely differing edible characteristics. As far as the shopper is concerned, all the species of finfish from a zoological group are not similar. For this model, the question of choosing a basis for determining which finfish are similar was resolved by seafood consumer and industry research. Finfish Identification Based on Edibility Factors Our research indicates that of all the charac- teristics of finfish that might be considered, the characteristics of the edible portion (e.g., the meat) are the most important. Seafood consumers and the seafood industry appear to be in complete agreement on this point. Con- sumers are sensitive in perceiving differences in the edible characteristics of the meat but individually are familiar with only a few of the many species that are available. 50 Organizing groups of finfish on the basis of their edible characteristics will enable con- sumers to become familiar with a great many more species. "Comparative Anatomy" is the primary basis used by scientists to establish zoologically similar groups. The term "Comparative Edibility" was coined to describe this consumer- oriented basis for establishing groups of similar finfish. Edibility Factors Experts may use more than 40 different factors in describing the organoleptic properties of wine. In the same way, a large number of factors can be used to describe the discernable differences in edibility among finfish. In both cases, fewer factors are actually necessary for effective identification. Re- search among seafood specialists and consumers indicates that the following are among the most important: * Intensity of the FLAVOR * FLAKINESS of the meat (after cooking) * FAT content * FIRMNESS of the meat (after cooking) 51 * Natural ODOR of the meat (when raw and fresh) * COARSENESS of the meat * COLOR of the meat (after cooking) * MOISTURE of the meat (after cooking) FLAVOR — -Some fish are very mild tasting. Others are, by nature, more robust. It is a matter of individual taste whether strong or mild flavor is preferred. It is wrong to assume that strong flavor in fish means poor quality. FLAKINESS — It is a characteristic of certain species that the meat flakes readily when cooked, and of other species that the meat shows little or no flaki- ness. Stringiness and other textural characteristics may occur but flakiness appears to be the most important con- sideration. Flakiness, like flavor, is a matter of preference, not quality. FAT — All fish have some fat content. Fish are often recommended for people on low-fat diets since the fat is lower in cholesterol than the fat of land animals. Fish that are high in fat are usually prepared differently fron fish that have a low-fat content. In certain species, the 52 kind of fat is important. Usually, the relative amount of fat is of most im- portance. Once again, fat content is a matter of preference. FIRMNESS — When cooked the same way, the meat from various species of fish can range from very firm, almost resilient, to very soft or mushy. QDOR- -Fresh fish has a mild, sweet odor like fresh meat. A strong odor means that the fish, is not fresh. The tendency of a fish to give off a characteristic odor is closely related to the kind and amount of fat present in the meat. In a few species, the fat oxidizes so rapidly once the fish is removed from water, that the fish is almost never en- countered without a noticeable odor. COARSENESS — Certain species have a noticeable granular character in the meat, while others are smooth, almost creamy. COLOR — The color of the fish is an aesthetic consideration. The American taste seems to prefer delicately flavored, light or white-fleshed fish. But, there are excellent species of fish that have very dark meat. MOISTURE — Certain fish are characterized by flesh that remains moderately moist when it is properly cooked. Some fish tend to dry out more rapidly while others tend to remain more moist when cooked. 53 Method of Rating Edibility Factors Shoppers are concerned with "discernable differences" — those that can be readily- noticed. For this model, we developed a 5-point rating scale for use with each of the edible factors. Five points were chosen as a reasonable range of perception, for the same reason most people order their steaks either RARE, MEDIUM RARE, MEDIUM, MEDIUM WELL, or WELL DONE. Another example is Cheddar cheese which is labeled MILD, MEDIUM, MEDIUM SHARP, SHARP and EXTRA SHARP. For the majority of consumers, 5 points of distinction seems about right. Further analysis beyond this program may reveal that fewer or more points of distinction are appropriate for certain factors. Each end of the rating scale (1 or 5) repre- sents the extreme measure found for that characteristic. For example, in measuring intensity of the FLAVOR, a fish with the rating of 1 is the mildest, and a fish with the rating of 5 has the strongest flavor. For this model program, we used a sample of 123 species of finfish. These were intended to represent a cross section of edible char- acteristics, and to include the extreme ratings for each of the 8 factors. Research among seafood industry specialists provided empirical data on the edible characteristics of the sample of species. Each fish was given a rating for each of 8 factors of edibility. With this data, an edibility profile was compiled for each of the species. Figure 3 illustrates how the edibility profile can be represented graphically. For greater clarity, the 8 factors were organized into two sets of 4 closely related factors: FLAVOR, FAT, ODOR, and COLOR are closely linked to one another; and FLAKINESS, FIRMNESS, COARSENESS, and MOISTURE all describe the textural properties of the meat. Figure 3 EDIBILITY PROFILE FOR FINFISH ATLANTIC HALIBUT Hippoglossus hippoglossus FLAVOR intensity MILD FAT content LOW ODOR, raw-fresh MILD COLOR after cooking WHITE FLAKINESS FLAKY FIRMNESS FIRM COARSENESS SMOOTH MOISTURE content DRY after cooking • • • STRONG • • • HIGH • • • STRONG • • • DARK • • • NOT FLAKY • • • NOT FIRM # • • COARSE fc • • WET 54 Edibility profiles provide a consistent basis for comparing the edible characteristics of the sample species. In addition, they pro- vide a great deal of useful information to consumers. Knowing the edible profile for a fish can reduce the fear of trying new, un- familiar seafood species and products. This is information that is not currently avail- able to the shopper for such a broad selection of edible species. An objective of further development efforts beyond this project will be to compile edibility profiles for all commercially available species of finfish. Identification Framework for Finfish Edibility factors are used for sorting finfish into groups of similar species. The number of factors and the number of rating points determine how expansive an organizational framework will be. To develop an identifi- cation system that includes all 8 factors and 5 point rating scale, would require an array of almost 400,000 separate groups (58). A more practical approach is to select a pair of key factors as the primary basis for determining groups of similar species. Two factors are useful for the following reasons : 55 * For market identification, between 20 and 30 groups can be accommodated with relative ease. A pair of factors based on 5 rating points for each will provide a framework with 25 groups (5 2 ) . * Two factors are adequate at the SSP level for product identification. Many labeling programs are based on only a single factor, for example: red meat grading standards were, until recently, primarily based on compari- son of marbling ; grading standards for olives are based primarily on distinc- tions of size ; the retail identifica- tion program for red meat is based on location of the cut of the meat in the carcass of the animal, and so on. * Two factors can be easily represented simple, visual diagrams. This is extremely important in communicating with consumers through pamphlets, handbooks, and posters which will help explain the product identification system. The actual selection of the pair of factors is important, and will be discussed shortly. Development of an organizational framework for the SSP level can be accomplished independently of factor selection. Figure 4 describes the organizational framework developed for similar groups of finfish at the SSP level. It is based on "Comparative Edibility," Each block represents a category of finfish that are similar for two key factors. The numbers in each block represent the respective ratings for the pair of factors. Figure 4 ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR FINFISH MILD MODERATELY AVERAGE MODERATELY STRONG FLAVOR MILD FLAVOR FLAVOR STRONG FLAVOR FLAVOR FACTOR A FLAKY MODERATELY FLAKY AVERAGE FLAKINESS SLIGHTLY FLAKY NOT FLAKY FACTOR B 56 All finfish species that have identical ratings for the pair of factors will be located in the same block. One block is provided for each combination, whether or not there are any commercially marketed fish that have that combination of characteristics. Thus, a place is maintained for the future classification of any species which is not now marketed. Using this framework, all fish species can be classified into the 25 primary groups by the following method: 1. Two edibility factors are chosen as the basis for comparison. 2. For each fish, a standard rating is determined on a scale from 1 to 5 for each of the two factors. 3. On the basis of these ratings, the fish is assigned to the appropriate grouD . Expansion of the Similarities Framework While the edibility framework can encompass all species of fish, they will not be equally dis- tributed in each of the groups. If a large number of fish are present in a single group, it may be necessary to subcategorize them. Each of the 25 primary groups can be "magni- fied" independently to include an additional pair of edibility factors. Figure 5 illus- trates how, by the same process used to sort the primary groups, each species within a group may be sorted again for an additional pair of factors. This adds more information to what is already provided. As shown in Figure 5, all the fish in the 3/1 group share and retain their rating for the first two factors (average flavor/very flaky), while two more factors are added. Up to 2 5 additional subgroups can be established in which each fish is identified on the basis of 4 factors instead of just 2. Figure 5 "MAGNIFICATION" - EXPANSION OF SIMILARITIES FRAMEWORK FIRM MODERATELY FIRM AVERAGE FLAVOR AVERAGE FLAVOR AVERAGE FLAVOR AVERAGE FLAVOR AVERAGE FLAVOR 1 1 1 1 1 FLAKY FACTOR B FLAKY FLAKY FLAKY FLAKY 1 2 3 4 5 HIGH FAT FACTOR C LOW FAT MODERATELY LOW FAT AVERAGE FAT MODERATELY HIGH FAT 1 2 3 4 5 FACTOR D AVERAGE FIRMNESS SLIGHTLY FIRM SOFT 57 Factor Selection Eight factors have been used to generate the edibility profiles. Two factors are used as the basis for identifying similar groups of finfish. As in all organizations of this type, some priorities must be established and a determination made as to which pair of factors will have primary ranking. Selection of the two factors is pivotal since it dictates the character of the differences among the 25 groups. Selecting a different pair of factors will result in fish being sorted into different groups. Factor selection is determined by how the pro- ducts are shopped. That is, by determining which information is most important for the shopper to look for first. In our research, more than 270 factors were considered. Con- sumers and industry were surveyed to determine which factors were felt to be most important. The results of the surveys, and industry recommendations provided the guidelines for the following factor priorities which we used in this model: FIRST PRIORITY FACTORS FLAVOR FLAKINESS SECOND PRIORITY FACTORS FAT FIRMNESS THIRD PRIORITY FACTORS ODOR COARSENESS FOURTH PRIORITY FACTORS COLOR MOISTURE 58 Both the factors and the ratings are subject to further review and verification. Based on this data, several observations have been made that are considered significant and should be investigated further: * The species rated in this study ex- hibit a wide diversity of edibility profiles. Only a small percentage have profiles identical to another species. No large patterns of simi- larity emerged from the comparison of the edibility profiles. * Edibility characteristics have little or no direct correlation with zoolo- gical categories (comparative edibility does not equal comparative anatomy) . In experimenting with combinations of factors, we found that by including factors such as body SHAPE, and types of BONES (essentially, anatomical characteristics) , groups v/ere formed that are much more similar to zoological groups. When edible characteristics are considered exclusively, the relationship with zoological classifications becomes insignificant. * Each of the edibility factors (as qualitatively rated) , appears to be relatively independent of the others; for example, variations in the FAT content of the species do not appear to relate directly to other factors. * The majority of species in our sample tend to cluster around the left side of the edibility framework. Most have relatively mild and flaky meat. Only a few are near the extremes of strong tasting and non-flaky meat. This identification framev/ork provides a simple way for shoppers to have useful infor- mation about seafood species and products. 59 Looking to the future, when a comprehensive identification program has been developed, a compatible program for showing consumers how to use it will be developed as well. One key documument of this program will be a "Seafood Product Shopping Guide" which will give a com- plete description of the program. Indices A through E in this report are typical of the kinds of information that can be provided in the shopping guide. The indices are cross-referenced listings of common names, scientific names and edibility information. They illustrate how the edibil- ity characteristics are necessary to give meaning to the names . They show how the SSP framework and the edibility profiles provide useful information that can ease the task of shopping intelligently for seafood products. They provide consumers with several different ways to go about shopping for seafood products, as follows: 60 Index A — This is an organization of all edible finfish in the sample by groups at the SSP level. This is the most important index since it enables con- sumers to shop by edibility character- istics rather than by species. A con- sumer may prefer a mild tasting fish with very flaky meat. All the species that share those characteristics are listed under the appropriate group. Index 3 — This index is organized first by factor and second by rating. It en- ables shoppers to look for any character- istic such as, high FAT content, and find all the fish which share that characteristic . Index C — This is an alphabetical listing by common name. Between the common name and the scientific name, the numerical ratings are given for each of the edibility factors. This can help a shopper find the edibility charac- teristics of an unfamiliar fish. Index D — This is a listing of species by zoological category and scientific name. This can enable a shopper to evaluate a group such as flatfish, and determine the range of edibility properties that can be found within the group. It can also enable a shopper to determine the edible characteristics of a product wnich is identified only by the scientific name of a species. Index E — This is a common name listing of shellfish species, in which the names are organized by major zoological groups. This shows how shoppers can use zoological groupings of shellfish to find relatively similar species of shellfish. 61 The organizational framework, described in this section, requires a compatible nomen- clature system to communicate its message. The following section describes a model of this nomenclature system, identifies major aspects necessary for effective product identification and offers recommended principles which will make seafood product identification more effective. 62 A SYSTEM CF NAMES FOR SEAFOOD SPECIES Definition and General Criteria Nomenclature is defined in "Webster's Third International Dictionary" as: "A system or a set of names or designa- tions used in a particular science, discipline or art and formally adopted or sanctioned by the usage of its practitioners . " This definition includes three important principles: 1) the need for an organized, comprehensive system of names, 2) the nomen- clature system should be developed for the convenience of its users, and 3) the system should be formally adopted. The seafood in- dustry and seafood consumers constitute a body of practitioners who need their own nomenclature system. Since an effective system of names for seafood products does not currently exist, one must be constructed. 63 Webster's defines a name as: "A word or words by which an entity is identified and distinguished from others." This nomenclature model is a system of names organized to enable shoppers to identify sea- food products and distinguish them from one another and from non-seafood products. To do this effectively, a system of "market names "-- names approved for marketing --must be established, and several conditions must exist: Each item (species and product) to be named must be given an approved market name. Only one market name should be assigned for each item. More than one name will create confusion. Each market name must be unique. No two market names should be identical, although they may be similar if the items are similar. Each name must be defined in terms of what it identifies and how it is used. Names and the use of names must be consistent (standardized) throughout the area of use. The seafood product mix is so extensive and complex that it requires a sophisticated nam- ing system in order to reduce the confusion and to help clarify, for shoppers, what is there. One of the functions of names is to separate things that should be distinguished. Another equally important function is to establish relationships among similar things. Two kinds of relationships have to be established in the product identification framework, verti- cal and horizontal: 64 1. Vertical distinctions among the three product categories are made by using a different kind of name on each level. 2. Horizontal distinctions are made by using a different variation of a par- ticular kind of name within each category. The nomenclature strategy proposes development of a strong relationship between the ISP and the SSP levels. A single-word, BASE name is as- signed to each group at the SSP level. This BASE name is carried vertically down to the ISP level, and with the addition of a modify- ing term, is used to establish the market name for each species. A less direct relationship is maintained with the MSP level. Names on the MSP level are distinguished by being gener- ally descriptive rather than specific. Figure 6 illustrates the naming strategy developed for this model. With very little education, using different names to distinguish the three product cate- gories will help consumers tell at a glance whether the product is made from an indi- vidual species, a similar group of species or a mixture of species with different edible characteristics. Using variations of a particular kind of name helps in identifying specific products within a category. The naming system is based directly on the edibility framework described in the previous section. In essence, the framework is con- structed first and then names applied to it; just as the streets of a city are first laid out and then named. The names developed for this framework ulti- mately reach the consumer as part of the in- formation on a package label. The functions of identification and labeling require that such information be brief, quickly recognizable, informative and accurate in representing the product within the package. Figure 6 SEAFOOD SPECIES NAMING STRATEGY * MSP Mixed Species Products r <--> L BASE B CADFISH <~» H BASE C CIDFISH 3 C SSP Similar Species Products J MODIFIERS BASE A MODIFIERS BASE B MODIFIERS BASE C ATLANTIC COD PACIFIC COD WINTER COD SILVER COD SPECKLED COD NORTHERN CAD REX CAD LITTLE CAD RAINBOW CAD ISP Individual Species Products FLORIDA CID GULF CID SPOTTED CID BROOK CID OCEAN CID Base Naine refers to that part of the name ts as a noun, and Modi f ier refers to that the name that acts as a descriptive adjective, s COD or CODFISH are considered Base N'ares . Narp.es CADFISH and CIDFISH have been invented for illustration in this model. Terms such as Atlantic, Pacific, Little, Spotted, etc. are considered Modifiers . Many similar fish will share a Base Name., however, only a single species will be assigned a particular Med if -ier Base combination. * The term which ac part of The name The Base 65 Other elements also appear on package labels, such as company names, brand names and pro- motional copy, which serve the requirements of marketing. Ingredient lists, nutritional tables, price and portion markings, and other information are addressed to the needs of con- sumers. The special function of the product identification element in a multipurpose label is to provide a word or words that en- able a person to identify an item and dis- tinguish it from others. It is this parti- cular component of labeling which the nomen- clature system provides. The following des- cribes the nomenclature system for finfish and shellfish in each of the three product categories . Finfish and Shellfish Market Names — Mixed Species Products (MSP Level) MSP Level — All products are identified by a generally descriptive BASE name. Base names may be modified by appropriate terms. A variety of BASE names can be used for MSP products. BASE names on the MSP level will not describe edible relationships, but several other opportunities are available : * Generic Terms — such as, FINFISH, SHELL- FISH or just FISH. These will be used with other product descriptions as necessary to create product identifi- 66 cation. These names indicate that the product is made from a mix of aquatic species with different edible properties . * Vernacular Names — such as, TUNA, SNAPPER, MACKEREL, FLATFISH, ROCKFISH, SCROD, etc. Scores of base names such as these are in use, although they are frequently not defined clearly. By clarifying the de- finition, these names could be used for products at the MSP level since they do not describe edible characteristics. * Fanciful Names — such as, REEF BURGERS, SEAFARING STICKS, TIDALWAVE TIDBITS, etc. For certain products at the MSP level, it is only necessary to indicate that the product is based on seafood species rather than land animals or vegetables. Many names of this type may actually be proprietary brand names, owned by an individual processor. If consistent guidelines for using them are established, they can provide effective product identification. BASE terms may be used with other product descriptions to create product identification. For example: FISH CAKES, SHELLFISH GUMBO, ROCKFISH STICKS, FROZEN FILLETS of FLATFISH, etc. In addition, BASE names can be modified in a variety of ways to help characterize the product even further, for instance: NORTH ATLANTIC SHELLFISH STICKS, FRESH WATER FISH PATTIES, etc. 67 Many products in the MSP level that will be in the market five years from now do not exist today. Developing detailed guidelines for naming products in this category will require a comprehensive audit of current products and a projective analysis of the types of products yet to be developed. Even with that, naming guidelines must be kept flexible. The primary objective will remain: to provide effective and informative product identification while not limiting the potential for new product development. The product identification framework has been designed to enable a shopper to shop for everything from mixed species products at the MSP level to individual fish at the ISP level. If all seafood species were identical or very similar, the MSP level would be enough. The SSP and the IS? levels are necessary to enable the identification of products in a way that adequately expresses important similarities and differences . The SSP and the ISP levels are closely related by virtue of the edibility characteristics of the species. The MSP level enables the identification of a diverse array cf products. Products in this category include a mixture of species with different edible characteristics, even a mixture of finfish and shellfish. Identifying a particular species at this level is relatively uninformative. The following describes two separate naming systems at the SSP and ISP levels. The first is to identify shellfish products. It is based on the existing zoological framework and vernacular names. The second is to identify finfish products. It is based on the edibility framework described in the previous section and on a new naming system which has been designed to meet the needs of seafood consumers and the seafood industry. 68 Shellfish Market Names — Similar Species Products (SSP Level) Zoological categories for shellfish offer a reasonable basis for identifying shellfish products at the SSP level. Figure 7 indicates BASE names that are currently widely used and recognized by consumers for shellfish across the United States. For the most part, there is a direct relationship that is clearly recog- nized between these BASE names and the appro- priate zoological group. BASE names for one category are seldom misused for another cate- gory (i.e., shrimp are rarely mistaken for oysters) . To assure effective product identi- fication, a few logical conventions for using existing names will be necessary. The follow- ing format is recommended for a model: * The names CLAM, LOBSTER, OYSTER, CRAB, SQUID, OCTOPUS, etc. constitute a a series of viable BASE names for identifying similar species of shell- fish. These BASE names are to be used to identify products which include species from a single group. Examples of possible product names include: LOBSTER Bisque Breaded SHRIMP Sticks CLAM Gumbo Raw OYSTERS Packed in Brine * When species from different shellfish groups are combined in a product (MSP level) , either a general name such as SHELLFISH can be used or alternatively, an appropriate combination of group names will be presented on the pro- duct label, for example: A) SHELLFISH Chunks in Tomato Sauce B) Chunks of CLAM, OYSTER and SQUID in Tomato Sauce Figure 7 SHELLFISH MARKET NAMES MSP SHELLFISH CRABS CBAHFISE LOBSTERS SHRIMPS L Mixed Species Products ABALONES CONCH PENSHTT.T.S PERIWINKLES WHELKS 3 C CLAMS MUSSELS OYSTERS SCALLOPS 3 C n OCTOPOS SQUIDS SSP^ Similar" Species Products King CRAB Blue CRAB Tanner CRAB ISP Individual Species Products Red CRAWFISH Maine LOBSTER African LOBSTER Gulf SHRIMP Pink SHRIMP 69 Shellfish Market Names — Individual Species Products (ISP Level) For identifying products made from individual species of shellfish, a MODIFIER is added to the BASE name to provide a market name for the individual species. This is. consistent with the typical structure of most vernacular names for finfish and shellfish which are currently in use, for example: KING + CRAB MAINE + LOBSTER CHESAPEAKE BAY + OYSTERS A product made from a single species of shell- fish is given a name that is comprised of a MODIFIER preceding a BASE name to identify the species, along with other information necessary to distinguish the product, such as: KING CRAB Legs Chunks of TANNER CRAB CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTERS In Brine An effective identification system for shell- fish appears to be fairly easy to develop. For the most part, traditional vernacular names and the framework of zoological classi- fications will provide an effective basis. Special cases are relatively rare and can be handled individually. Further analysis may indicate the need for developing subgroups of shellfish species. At that time, more appro- priate market names may be developed for the subgroups . 70 Finfish Market Names — Similar Species Products CSSP Level) Due to the uniquely complex nature of finfish species and products, existing vernacular names do not provide an effective naming system. Spe- cific reasons will be outlined in the recommenda- tions at the end of this report. This section describes the model naming system that has been designed to provide more effective identification, Two kinds of identification are available at the SSP level: a) Edibility Description and b) BASE names. Edibility Descriptions — Clear, direct descrip- tions of the primary edible characteristics (intensity of FLAVOR and FLAKINESS) , can be provided directly on the label. Figure 8 illustrates an index of "standardized" des- criptions. Products made of species from the same edibility group can be identified by using the appropriate combination as follows: Fish Sticks — MILD and FLAKY Fish Sticks — EXTRA MILD MODERATELY FLAKY If a group encompasses so many species that it becomes necessary to "magnify" the group into a series of subgroups, an additional pair of factors will be used to discriminate among the subgroups. Each species can then be identified by a set of four edibility factors, for example. Fish Sticks — EXTRA MILD MODERATELY FLAKY AVERAGE FAT MODERATELY FIRM Figure 8 Factor Ratings FLAVOR - FLAKINESS 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 EDIBILITY DESCRIPTIONS MILD AND FLAKY MILD AND MODERATELY FLAKY MILD AND AVERAGE FLAKINESS MILD AND SLIGHTLY FLAKY MILD AND NOT FLAKY 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 2-5 MODERATELY MILD AND FLAKY MODERATELY MILD AND MODERATELY FLAKY MODERATELY MILD AND AVERAGE FLAKINESS MODERATELY MILD AND SLIGHTLY FLAKY MODERATELY MILD AND NOT FLAKY 3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 3-5 AVERAGE FLAVOR AND FLAKY AVERAGE FLAVOR AND MODERATELY FLAKY AVERAGE FLAVOR AND AVERAGE FLAKINESS AVERAGE FLAVOR AND SLIGHTLY FLAKY AVERAGE FLAVOR AND NOT FLAKY 4-1 4-2 4-3 4-4 4-5 MODERATELY STRONG AND- FLAKY MODERATELY STRONG AND MODERATELY FLAKY MODERATELY STRONG AND AVERAGE FLAKINESS MODERATELY STRONG AND SLIGHTLY FLAKY MODERATELY STRONG AND NOT FLAKY 5-1 5-2 5-3 5-4 5-5 STRONG AND FLAKY STRONG AND MODERATELY FLAKY STRONG AND AVERAGE FLAKINESS STRONG AND SLIGHTLY FLAKY STRONG AND NOT FLAKY 71 Edibility descriptions can be used alone or in combination with other names to describe the characteristics of any level of product. B. BASE names — For greater convenience, a BASF name has been developed for each of the edibility groups and subgroups in the edibility framework. Products on the SSP level can be identified with these BASE names since BASE names are equivalent to the Edibility Descrip- tions. Guidelines for using BASE names are as follows : SSP Level — These products are assigned an appropriate and unique BASE name. These BASE names will be a single, one- word name. Each edibility group will have a separate BASE name. The number of BASE names will be determined by the number of groups and subgroups identi- fied in the edibility framework. The BASE name can be used with, or as a replacement for edibility descriptions. For vertical consistency, to distinguish products on the SSP level from products on the MSP or the ISP level, BASE names are all single-word names „ For horizontal consis- tency, all BASE names in this model have the same structure.. It consists of the suffix -FISH, preceded by a three-letter, phonetic prefix which has no particular meaning. The BASE names developed for this model are illustrated in figure 9. Figure 9 FINFISH MARKET NAMES MSP FINFISH Mixed Species Products SSP Similar Species Products ISP RED KAMTAIL BIGMOUTH KAMTAIL SOUTHERN KAMTAIL SPOTTED KAMTAIL SPECKLED KAMFIN GULF KAMFIN CARRIBEAN KAMFIN ALASKA KAMFIN PERUVIAN KAMFIN GREEN KAMFIN ATLANTIC YELLOW SILVER STRIPPED NORTHERN RIVER KAMLING KAMLING KAMLING KAMLING KAMLING KAMLING Individual Species Products 72 Groups which have been "magnified" by including a second pair of factors are also identified by a single-word BASE name. BASE names for these subgroups have been derived from the phonetic prefix used to identify the group. A modified prefix is used to make a BASE name for the subgroup. This structural convention assures that a strong, obvious relationship will be maintained between the subgroups and the primary groups. This horizontal consistency assures that it will be immediately clear to consumers that products are based on related groups of species. Products on the SSP level can be identified by the edibility description, by the BASE name of the group or subgroup, or by a combination of both. In special cases, where it may be necessary to include supple- mentary identification of species, a number of options are available; for example, the vernacular or scientific name cf the species may be included in the ingredients listing on /<= _ • Finfish Market Names — Individual Species Products (ISP Level) ISP Level--Products based on a single species of finfish are labeled with a two-word Market Name consisting of a BASE name from the appropriate edibil- ity group, preceded by an appropriare MODIFIER. 73 At the ISP level, consistent "horizontal" identification is maintained by using the same structure for all species names. Strong vertical relationships are maintained with the appropriate group by using the group BASE name as the root for the species name. Any number of individual species names can be assigned, depending on how many species require identi- fication in the marketplace. More names can be added as more commercial species are developed. Control and Regulation For the identification system to be effective, it must be used consistently on a national basis . The identification system provides a unique Market Name for each species, product and category of products requiring identification. The edibility framework provides the organiza- tion that makes the names meaningful. It also provides clear-cut boundaries by which accurate labeling can be easily established and regu- lated, and mislabeling avoided. 74 Standards of identification will not allow the interchanging of names horizontally. For example, a product made from species exclusive- ly derived from one edibility group could not be labeled with a name or edibility description from another edibility group. Vertically, a product could be labeled with a more general term but not with a more specific term. For example, a fish stick made from three species from group A could be named Surf Sticks (MSP) but could not be named with only one of the species names (ISP) . A product based on an individual species (ISP) can be identified with a name from the SSP or the ISP level. A pro- duct based on similar species (SSP) can be named with a MSP name but not with an ISP name. MSP products can only be identified with MSP names. In practice, some variations would occur in these general principles, for instance: a product based on several species from one group (SSP) can not be identified with the name of one species since more than one species are actually present. If only two or three species are included, the label may identify each of them by name. At the MSP level, an appropriate combination of group names or species names can be used. Ease of Use The edibility framework and the nomenclature system make it easy for shoppers to identify and distinguish among the entire selection of seafood products. 75 It is only necessary to learn a few basic principles in order to make intelligent shopping decisions. Instructions will be provided by a consumer education program which will be conducted in conjunction with the introduction of the identification system. Even consumers who know little or nothing about seafood species and products will find the identification system informative and easy to use . Further Development of the Identification System Development and implementation of the identification system requires further commit- ment on the part of the seafood industry, regulatory agencies and consumers. Edibility characteristics, ratings and priorities must be carefully reevaluated. The organizational framework, based on edibility characteristics, must be carefully evaluated on the basis of a more comprehensive audit of seafood products. Finally, a detailed naming system must be developed, approved, and put into use. 76 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusions The initial project was actually begun in 1974 with U.S. Government Contract #4-36730. The assignment was to see if acceptable and work- able resolutions to a wide variety of nomen- clature problems could be found. The problems were evaluated by BGI and set in a broader perspective that would include all seafood products and species. From this was derived the basic format for a comprehensive program of organization and identification that en- compasses seafood species, seafood products and nomenclature. 77 This project, U.S. Government Contract #6-35338, addressed the most complex component of the overall program, i.e., the identification of seafood species. The work performed by BGI clearly establishes the validity and methodology of a seafood identification program. It is our conclusion that implementation of the following recommendations will provide con- sumers and the seafood industry with a system that will significantly increase the utiliza- tion of aquatic species as a primary source of food. Primary Recommendations The overall recommendation of BGI is that NMFS immediately establish a programmatic thrust on a permanent basis to actively develop, imple- ment, and evaluate the directions that have been substantiated by these projects. In this current project, a model of the most basic aspect of the product identification plan has been developed for identifying and or- ganizing various edible aquatic species. Now it is time to establish a more permanent vehicle to undertake the development of the total identi- fication program. Budgeting for past projects has largely been provided by NMFS on allocations from limited reserves of discretionary funds. It is essential tc secure an ongoing commitment for such important programs and to capitalize on and protect the investment already made. 78 Reaction to this opportunity must be rapid. Many individuals nationally and internationally have expressed sincere, immediate interest, and the momentum should not be lost. If no further effort is made soon, it will be doubly difficult to regenerate interest. NMFS should spearhead these efforts. No other agency is in a position to bring together the expertise, cooperation, and support necessary to develop the programs effectively. It is now time for NMFS to incorporate a programmatic thrust. It may be within the current Standard- ization Program or within the Product Quality, Safety and Identification Program related to Standardization. A naming authority should be established within NMKS as a chartered activity. This will establish a standard setting function and will enable NMFS to act as a clearing house on matters pertaining to seafood product identification and nomenclature. Other Recommendations In conjunction with establishing a permanent program for development of an identification system, BGI recommends immediate and concurrent initiation of three specific program components: 1. Develop a comprehensive and consistent data bank of edibility profiles and related information for all commer- cial aquatic species. 79 2. Develop guidelines and procedures for making interim decisions on seafood product labeling and nomenclature. 3. Develop an interim program for marketing seafood products on the basis of communicating edibility information. The following sections will provide a more complete analysis and justification of re- commendations 1 , 2 and 3 . 80 SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATION #1 Develop A Comprehensive Data Bank of Edibility Profiles In this report the term edibility profile has been used in reference to a set of factors and ratings that provide a composite general picture of the characteristics of the meat of various seafood species. Based on empirical data, a tentative set of ediblity profiles have been developed for this model, to illus- trate how data derived from them may be used in developing an identification system. Edibility profiles and the identification plan are independent concepts. An identification system can be based on many other kinds of factors (i.e., anatomical, environmental, etc.) but it would not be as informative and useful to consumers. The key program that should be started first is the structuring and loading of a compre- hensive data bank of edibility profiles for all commercial species. The assembly of a complete set of edibility profiles on a consistent and objective basis for all commercial species is potentially so important to the seafood industry and con- sumers that it should begin immediately. This data bank will be useful not only in providing a basis for an identification plan but in helping to resolve current naming and marketing problems related to seafood products, in providing an effective basis for educating consumers about seafood products, and in many other ways as well. Before data can be collected, however, edibility factors must be more clearly defined and ob- jective, consistent rating procedures must be found or developed. This program should begin with the determination of the optimum set of factors to provide a composite, general picture (profile) of the edible characteristics of the entire spectrum of commercial finfish. Ultimately, it may be worthwhile to include shellfish in this effort as well. The factors selected must be capable of being clearly defined and must be subject to objective measurement techniques that will produce con- sistent results. In most cases, both objective and subjective techniques are available for measuring edi- bility factors. It must be possible for any- one following the proper procedure to arrive consistently at the same rating for each factor for each species. The ratings established by dependable laboratory techniques, should be validated through tests by consumer panels. 82 SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATION #2 Develop Guidelines and Procedures for Interim Changes in Existing Nomenclature In the absence of a consistent identification program, problems frequently arise concerning the development of effective names that are also legally acceptable. It sometimes takes years before a decision is finally reached. Too often, viable products and species are withheld from the marketplace in the meantime. An immediate effort should be undertaken to develop a working procedure for making interim naming decisions on a cooperative basis by involving the seafood industry, NMFS , FDA and consumers . 83 Background and Problems Vernacular or common names are the traditional means for identifying individual species of fin- fish and shellfish. Only a relatively small per- centage of the many names in use are widely known or accepted throughout the United States, others provide little useful information for shoppers and are frequently confusing and misleading. Each species has at least one common name, most have more than one, a few have dozens or more. Even if each species had only one name, there would still be too many for consumers to learn and remember. There are several problems with existing common names that make them largely ineffective for re- tail identification. Most of the problems fall into the following categaories: Too Many Names — Many edible species have more than one common name in current use, usually in different parts of the country. For accurate identification in the market- place, only a single name should be in use for an individual species. Same Names and Similar Names — Numerous instances exist where several species share identical names. The name Butter- fish, for example, is used for at least five different species, all from differ- ent zoological families. In addition, many species have names which are similar or which suggest relationships that may not exist, or may be too obscure to be useful to shoppers; for instance, Perch and Bass are used for a large number of unrelated species . Unattractive and Unfamiliar Names — A moder- ate number of edible species have unmarket- able names, such as Gag, Ratfish, Dogfish, Cancer Crab, Rattail, and others. There is little question that attempts to market the species under these names would be impos- sible, inspite of desirable edible char- acteristics they have. 84 Consumers are reluctant to try unfamiliar species of fish, and even frequent users of seafood products in the United States limit their choices to a relatively few "dependable" species. Most simply are not aware that a great many similar species may be available. Labeling regulations Current Federal labeling regulations under the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act, administered by the Food and Drug Administration, are intended to insure that food product labels provide the customer with sufficient information to provide accurate product identification and enable intelligent, comparative shopping. The Act provides that a food product must be labeled by its "common or usual name,'* if one exists. This is intended to prevent commonly known products such as flour, from being marketed under confusing or misleading names such as "wonder dust . " Until an effective identification system can be implemented, edibility profiles can provide the basis for developing an actionable program for resolving naming problems on an interim basis. The guidelines for making interim changes in common names should place emphasis on salient 85 edible characteristics, in keeping with the long-range objectives of the identification system. This will immediately reduce the current total dependence on the common name as the primary means of seafood product identification and information. Referring to edibility characteristics consistently will tend to increase understanding in the area of seafood product names. These recommendations do not imply that in- dividual changes in common names can provide adequate market identification. The names alone are of little use since there are so many. Within a framework such as Comparative Edibility, names take on real meaning for shoppers. Edibility profiles give shoppers important new information about species and provide many new options for making satis- fying purchases. With this in mind, several principles can be proposed: Flexible Decisions — Naming decisions made prior to the development and implementation of an identification system should be considered as temporary, subject to change at a later date. Joint Decisions — The National Marine Fisheries Service should work with interested industry groups to develop precise recommendations for review with regulatory and consumer repre- sentatives . Edibility Framework—Decisions on naming should reinforce edibility relationships, unless doing so would create undue confusion. 86 SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATION #3 Develop Interim Marketing Directions The seafood industry has traditionally been thought of as small and relatively "insigni- ficant" compared to other food industries (i.e., "Fish is not important as meat in the American diet.") Compared on the basis of annual sales, the seafood industry is fractionally the size of the meat industry. Potentially, the seafood industry can become a much more significant factor, even a dominant factor compared to other food categories. Several conditions now exist that contribute to this potential: 87 The enormous variety of seafood species and products that are available far out- reaches the variety offered by other food industries The recent initiation of the American 200 mile fishing limits gives U.S. fishermen control of one of the world's greatest seafood resources. *" The American consumer could and would eat more fish if they were marketed more effectively On an interim basis, the seafood industry should begin identifying and promoting seafood species and products by means of comparing edible characteristics. Several benefits will be accomplished by starting now to implement these directions within the industry: * During the time an identification system is being developed, the industry can educate consumers to think in terms of edibility infor- mation. * Recognizing the potential benefits of marketing seafood products on the basis of edibility information will encourage the development of a more sophisticated and useful data bank of edibility profiles. * This will also provide the long missing common ground on which sea- food products can be marketed more effectively relative to other food products . Index A FINFISH LISTED BY EDIBILITY CHARACTERISTICS A-l COMMON NAME w W in in in in u 10 UWZW a Z W U Z o « M 2 W H > « o « § & in < k <; M ►4 M O O intnou u. tn o 2 SCIENTIFIC NAME 1-1 MILD AND FLAKY Yellowtail Snapper 1111 1124 Ocyurus chrysurus Black Grouper Atlantic Cod Cusk Haddock Spotted Cabrilla Pacific Halibut Ocean Whitefish Scamp Giant Sea Bass 1122 1234 Mycteroperca bonaci 1211 1124 Gadus morhua 1211 1124 Erosme brosir.e 1211 1124 M.ela.-iogrammus aeglefinus 1211 1133 Epir.ephelus analogus 1222 1123 Hippoglossus stenolepis 1211 1224 Caulolatilus princeps 1211 1235 Mycteroperca phenax 1322 1234 Stereolepis gigas 1-2 MILD AND MODERATELY FLAKY White Seabass Witch Flounder White Crappie Bluegill Channel Catfish Alaska Pollock 1122 2233 1111 2314 1112 2324 1122 2 314 1211 2124 1212 2124 Pacific Ocean Perch 1212 2233 Southern Flounder Walleye Rainbow Trout Brook Trout Lake Whitefish or Common Whitefisn 12 11 2 3 14 1212 2313 1312 2213 1312 2224 1311 2314 Cynoscion nobilis Glyptocephalus cynoglossus Pomoxis annularis Lepomis macrochirus Ictalurus punctatus Theragra chalcogramma Sebastodes alutus Paralichthys lethostigma Stizostedion vitreum vitreun Salmo gairdneri Salvelmus fontinalis Coregonus clupeaformis A-2 1-3 MILD AND AVERAGE FLAKINESS Yellowtail Flounder 1121 3114 1111 3214 Petrale Sole or Brill Rex Sole Summer Flounder or 1111 Fluke 1111 3214 3 2 14 Dover Sole Rainbow Smelt Pacific Sanddab Pigf ish 1111 3 3 14 12 12 3 3 14 1221 3414 Limanda ferruginea Eopsetta jordani Glyptocephalus zachirus Paralichthys dentatus Microstomus pacificus Osnerus mordax Citharichthys sordious 1312 3234 Orthopristis chrysopters 1-4 MILD AND SLIGHTLY FLAKY White Hake 1321 4524 Urophycis tenuis 1-5 MILD AND NOT FLAKY 2-1 MODERATELY MILD AND FLAKY Snook 2 111 Vermillion Snapper 2 112 Sauger 2 2 11 Red Snapper 2 2 11 Atlantic Halibut 2 2 12 Gag 2 2 11 Nassau Grouper 2 2 12 Jewfish or 2 2 12 Spotted Grouper Blackfin Tuna 2 2 2 3 Yellowfin Tuna 2 2 14 Black Sea Bass 2 2 2 2 Bigmouth Buffalo 2 3 12 Smallmouth Buffalo 2 3 12 Atlantic Salmon 2 3 2 3 112 4 112 4 1114 112 4 112 3 Centropomus undecimalis Rhombcplites aurorubens Stizostedion canadense Lutjanus campechanus (Black fordi) Hippoglossus hippoglossus 113 4 Mycteroperca rr.icrolepis 113 5 Epinephelus striatus 115 5 Epinephelus itajara 112 2 Thunnus atlanticus 12 3 2 Thunnus albacares 12 3 4 Centrcpristas striatus 112 5 Ictiobus cyprinellus 113 5 Ictiobus bubalus 112 3 Salmo salar A-3 Bluefin Tuna or Horse Mackerel Sheepshead Albacore Tuna 2325 1132 Thunnus thynnus 2312 1233 Archosargus probatocephalus 2413 1122 Thunnus alalunga 2-2 Tautog or Blackfish MODERATELY MILD 2 2 3 2 11 Winter Flounder or 2 12 Blackback Flounder 2 3 Lingcod 2 2 1 1 2 1 Blue Catfish 2 2 1 1 2 1 Sand Shark or Ground Shark 2 2 2 2 2 1 Sea Catfish 2 2 2 2 2 1 Black Dogfish 2 2 3 2 2 1 Striped Bass or Rockf ish 2 2 1 2 2 2 Atlantic Wolffish 2 2 2 1 2 2 Gray Triggerfish 2 2 2 1 2 2 Brown Bullhead 2 2 2 1 2 2 American Plaice 2 2 2 1 2 3 Turbot 2 2 1 2 2 4 Florida Pompano 2 3 2 2 2 2 Chum Salmon 2 3 2 2 2 2 Whiting or Northern Kingfish 2 3 2 2 2 2 Atlantic Croaker 2 3 2 2 2 2 Sierra 2 3 2 3 2 3 Pink Salmon 2 3 4 3 2 3 Lake Herring or Cisco 2 3 2 2 2 4 Striped Mullet 2 4 1 2 2 2 Lake Trout 2 4 1 2 2 2 AND MODERATELY FLAKY 1 3 Tautog onitis 1 4 Pseudopieuror.ectes americar.us 2 4 Ophidon eiongatus 2 5 Ictalurus furcatus 3 3 Odontaspis (carcharias) taurus 3 5 Galeichthys felis 2 3 Centroscyllium fabricii 3 4 Mcrone saxatilis 3 4 Anarhichas lupus 3 4 Balistes capriscus 3 5 Ictalurus nebulosus 2 4 Hippoglossoides platessoides 1 4 Psetta (scophthalmus) maxima 1 3 Trachinotus carolinus 3 3 Oncorhynchus keta 3 4 Menticirrhus saxatilis 2 3 Micropogon undulatus 2 4 Scomberomorus sierra 2 3 Oncorhynchus gorbuscha 1 4 Coregonus artedii 1 4 Mugil cephalus 1 5 Salvelinus namaycush A- 4 2-3 MODERATELY MILD AND AVERAGE FLAKINESS Ocean Pout White Perch Yellow Perch 2 12 2 11 2 11 Arrowtooth Flounder 2 12 Spotted Seatrout or 2 2 2 Speckle Trout Silver Hake 2 2 2 Pacific Pollock 2 2 2 Red Hake 2 2 1 Pacific Hake 2 2 2 Spot 2 3 2 Greenland Turbot 2 3 2 2 3 12 4 Macrozoarces americanus 2 3 2 2 3 Morone (roccus) americar.a 2 3 2 2 3 Perca flavascens 1 3 3 2 4 Atheresthes stomias 1 3 3 14 Cynoscion r.ebulosus 1 3 3 2 4 Merluccius bilinearis 2 3 3 2 4 Pollachius virens 1 3 5 14 urophycis chuss 1 3 5 2 5 Merluccius productus 2 3 2 2 4 Leiostomus xanthurus 2 3 3 2 4 Reinhardtius hippoglossoides 2-4 MODERATELY MILD AND SLIGHTLY FLAKY Butterf ish 2 3 2 1 3 4 14 Poronotus triacanthus 2-5 MODERATELY MILD AND NOT FLAKY Spiny Dogfish 2342 5313 Squalus acanthias 3-1 AVERAGE FLAVOR AND FLAKY Atlantic Pollock Little Tunny or False Albacore Rockfish Swordf ish Carp Black Drum 3222 1124 Pollachius pollachius 3214 1132 Euthynnus alletteratus 3222 1233 Sebastodes species 3322 1132 Xiphias gladius 3322 1134 Cyprinus carpio 3322 1144 Pogonias cromis Atlantic Bonito or 3324 1142 Sarda sarda Ccmmon Bonito Sockeye Salmon 3424 1223 Oncorhynchus nerka Sablefish 3522 1325 Anoplopcma fimbria A-5 3-2 AVERAGE FLAVOR AND MODERATELY FLAKY English Sole 3131 2324 Cobia or 32212133 Brabeater Common Dolphin or 3221 2223 Dorado Ocean Perch 3222 2234 (Atlantic) or Kosefish or Redfish Cabezon 3222 2242 Lake Sturgeon 3343 2143 Shovelnose Sturgeon 3343 2143 Scup or Porgy 3312 2225 Lake Chub 3422 2314 Coho Salmon 3423 2324 Chinook Salmon 3524 2224 Parophrys vetulus Rachycentron canadum Coryphaena hippurus Sebastes marinus Scorpaenichthys marmoratus Acipenser fulvescens Scaphirhynchus platorynchus Stenotomus chrysops Hybopsis plumbeua Oncorhynchus kisutch Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 3-3 AVERAGE FLAVOR AND AVERAGE FLAKINESS Burbot 3212 3323 Lota lota Northern Pike 3232 3333 Esox lucius Pacific Herring 3543 3424 Clupea harengus pallasi 3-4 AVERAGE FLAVOR AND SLIGHTLY FLAKY White Seatrout or 3211 4415 Cynoscion arenarius Sand Seatrout Surf Smelt American Eel or Silver Eel White Mullet Crevalle Jack or Common Jack Atlantic Herring 3313 4324 Hypomesus pretiosus 3422 4214 Anguilla rostrata 3432 4324 Mugil cerema 3443 4324 Caranx hippos 3533 4314 Clupea harengus harengus 3-5 AVERAGE FLAVOR AND NOT FLAKY Monk fish 3222 5234 Lophius -mericanus A-6 4-1 MODERATELY STRONG AND FLAKY Skipjack Tuna or 4324 1132 Euthyr.nus !katsuwonusi pelamis Oceanic Skipjack Pacific Bonito or 4334 1142 Sarda chiliensis California Bonito 4-2 MODERATELY STRONG AND MODERATELY FLAKY King Mackerel or 4342 2224 Scomberomorus cavalla Kingf ish Atlantic Mackerel 4443 2424 Scomber scombrus 4-3 MODERATELY STRONG AND AVERAGE FLAKINESS Blue Runner 4343 3334 Caranx crysos Jack Mackerel 4423 3335 Trachurus symmetricus 4-4 MODERATELY STRONG AND SLIGHTLY FLAKY Spanish Mackerel or 4442 4325 Scomberomorus maculatus Spotted Mackerel 4-5 MODERATELY STRONG AND NOT FLAKY 5-1 STRONG AND FLAKY 5-2 STRONG AND MODERATELY FLAKY Redeye Mullet or 5433 2335 Mugil gaiir.ardiana Silver Mullet 5-3 STRONG AND AVERAGE FLAKINESS Bluefish 5444 3324 Pomatcmus saltatrix 5-4 STRONG AND SLIGHTLY FLAKY 5-5 STRONG AND NOT FLAKY Atlantic Menhaden 5554 5515 Brevoortia tyrannua B-: Index B FINFISH LISTED BY RATING FOR EACH FACTOR FLAVOR intensity 1 Mild Alaska Pollocx Atlantic Cod Black Grouper Bluegill Brook Trout Channel Catfish Cusk Dover Sole Giant Sea Bass Haddock Lake Whitefish Ocean Whitefish Pacific Halibut Pacific Ocean Perch Pacific Sanddab Petraie Sole Pigf ish Rainbow Smelt Rainbow Trout Rex Sole Scamp Southern Flounder Spotted Cabrilla Summer Flounder Walleye White Craopie White HaJce White Seabass Witch Flounder Yeilowtail Flounder Yellowtail Snapper 2 Moderately Mild Albacore Tuna American Plaice Arrowtooth Flounder Atlantic Croaker Atlantic Halibut Atlantic Salmon Atlantic Wolffish 3lcmouth Buffalo 31ack Dogfish 31ack Sea Bass Blackfin Tuna Blue Catfish Bluefin Tuna Brown Bullhead Butterf ish Chum Salmon LaJce Herring Florida Pompano Gag Gray Triggerfish Greenland Turbot Jewf ish Lake Trout Lingcod Nassau Grouper Whiting Ccean Pout Pacific Hake Pacific Pollock Pink Salmon Red Hake Red Snapper Sand Shark Sauger Sea Catfish Sheepshead Sierra Silver Hake Smallmouth Buffalo Snook Spiny Dogfish Spot Spotted Seatrout StriDed Bass Striped Mullet Tautog Turbot Vermillion Snapper White Perch Winter Flounder Yellow Perch Yellowfin Tuna Atlantic Herring Atlantic Pollock Black Drum Burbot Cabezon Carp Chinook Salmon Cobia Coho Salmon Common Dolphin Crevalle Jack English Sole Lake Chub Lake Sturgeon Little Tunny Monkf ish Northern Pike Ocean Perch (Atlantic) Pacific Herring Rockfish Sablefish Scup Shovelnose Sturgeon Sockeye Salmon Surf Smelt Swordf ish White Mullet white Seatrout 4 Moderately Strong Atlantic Mackerel 31ue Runner Jack Mackerel King Mackerel Pacific Bonito Skipjack Tuna Spanish Mackerel 5 Strong 3 Average Atlantic Menhaden 51uef ish Redeye Mullet .American Eel Atlantic Bonito FAT content B-2 1 Low Arrowtoo Black Gr Bluegill Dover So English Ocean Po Petrale Rex Sole Snook Summer F Tautog Vermill i White Cr White Pe White Se Winter F Witch Fl Yellow P Yellowta Yellowta th Flounder ouper le Sole ut Sole lounder on Snapper appie rch abass lounder o under erch ll Flounder ll Snapper 2 Moderately Low Alaska Pollock American Plaice Atlantic Cod Atlantic Halibut Atlantic Pollock Atlantic Wolffish Black Dogfish Black Sea Bass Blackfin Tuna Blue Catfish Brown Bullhead Burbot Cabezon Channel Catfish Cobia Common Dolphin Cusk Gag Gray Triggerfish Haddock Jewf ish Lingcod Little Tunny Monkf ish Nassau Grouper Northern Pike Ccean Perch (Atlantic) Ocean Whitefish Pacific Hake Pacific Halibut Pacific Ocean Perch Pacific Pollock Pacific Sanddab Rainbow Smelt Red Hake Red Snapper Rockf ish Sand Shark Sauger Scamp Sea Catfish Silver Hake Southern Flounder Spotted Cabrilia Spotted Seatrout Striped Bass Turbot Walleye White Seatrout Yellowfin Tuna 3 Average Atlantic Bonitc Atlantic Croaker Atlantic Salmon Bigmouth Buffalo Black Drum Blue Runner Bluefin Tuna Brook Trout Butterf ish Carp Chum Salmon Lake Herring Florida Porapano Giant Sea Bass Greenland Turbot King Mackerel Lake Sturgeon Lake Whitefish Whiting Pacific Bonito Pigf ish Pink Salmon Rainbow Trout Scup Sheepshead Shovelnose Sturgeon Sierra Skipjack Tuna Smallmouth Buffalo Spiny Dogfish Spot Surf Smelt Swordf ish White Hake 4 Moderately High Albacore Tuna American Eel Atlantic Mackerel Bluef ish Coho Salmon Crevalle Jack Jack Mackerel Lake Chub Lake Trout Redeye Mullet Sockeye Salmon Spanish Mackerel Striped Mullet White Mullet High Atlantic Herring Atlantic Menhaden Chinook Salmon Pacific Herring Sablef ish ODOR, raw- fresh B-3 1 Mild Alaska Pollock Albacore Tuna Atlantic Cod Atlantic Halibut Bigmouth Buffalo Blue Catfish Brook Trout Burbot Channel Catfish Cusk Dover Sole Gag Haddock Jewf ish Lake Trout Lake Whitefish Lingcod Little Tunny Nassau Grouper Ocean Whitefish Pacific Ocean Perch Petrale Sole Pigf ish Rainbow Smelt Rainbow Trout Red Hake Red Snapper Rex Sole Sauger Scamp Scup Sheepshead Smallmouth Buffalo Snook Southern Flounder Spotted Cabrilla Striped Bass Striped Mullet Summer Flounder- Surf Smelt Tautog Turbot Vermillion Snapper Walleye White Crappie White Seatrout White Perch Witch Flounder Yellow Perch Yellowfin Tuna Yellowtail Snapper 2 Moderately Mild American Eel American Plaice Arrowtooth Flounder Atlantic Bonito Atlantic Pollock Atlantic Salmon Atlantic Wolffish Black Drum Black Grouper Black Sea Bass Blackfin Tuna Bluefin Tuna Bluegill Brown Bullhead Butterf ish Cabezon Carp Chinook Salmon Chum Salmon Lake Herring Cobia Coho Salmon Common Dolphin Florida Pompano Giant Sea Bass Gray Triggerfish Greenland Turbot Jack Mackerel Lake Chub Monkf ish Whiting Oceal Perch Ocean Pout Pacific Hake Pacific Halibut Pacific Pollock Pacific Sanddab Rockf ish Sablefish Sand Shark Sea Catfish Sierra Silver Hake Skipjack Tuna Sockeye Salmon Spot Spotted Seatrout Swordf ish White Hake White Seabass Winter Flounder Yellowtail Flounder 3 Average Atlantic Croaker Atlantic Herring Black Dogfish English Sole Northern Pike Pacific Bonito Redeye Mullet White Mullet 4 Moderately Strong Atlantic Mackerel Blue Runner Bluef ish Crevalle Jack King Mackerel Lake Sturgeon Pacific Herring Pink Salmon Shovelnose Sturgeon Spanish Mackerel Spiny Dogfish (Atlantic) 5 Strong Atlantic Menhaden COLOR after cooking B-4 1 White American Plaice Arrowtooth Flounder Atlantic Cod Atlantic Wolffish Blue Catfish Brown Bullhead Butterf ish Channel Catfish Cobia Common Dolphin Cusk Dover Sole English Sole Gag Gray Triggerfish Haddock Lake Whitefish Lingcod Ocean Whitefish Pacific Hake Pacific Sanddab Petrale Sole Red Hake Red Snapper Rex Sole Sauger Scamp Silver Hake Snook Southern Flounder Spotted Cabrilla Spotted Seatrout Summer Flounder White Hake White Seatrout Winter Flounder Witch Flounder Yellowtail Flounder Yellowtail Snapper 2 Light Alaska Pollock American Eel Atlantic Croaker Atlantic Halibut Atlantic Pollock Bigmouth Buffalo Black Dogfish Black Drum Black Grouper Black Sea Bass Bluegill Brook Trout Burbot Cabezon Carp Chum Salmon Lake Herring Florida Pompano Giant Sea Bass Greenland Turbot Jewf ish King Mackerel Lake Chub Lake Trout Monkf ish Nassau Grouper Whiting Northern Pike Ocean Perch (Atlantic) Ocean Pout Pacific Halibut Pacific Ocean Perch Pacific Pollock Pigf ish Rainbow Smelt Rainbow Trout Rockf ish Sablef ish Sand Shark Scup Sea Catfish Sheepshead Smallmouth Buffalo Spanish Mackerel Spiny Dogfish Spot Striped Bass Striped Mullet Swordf ish Tautog Turbot Vermillion Snapper Walleye White Crappie White Mullet White Perch White Seabass Yellow Perch 3 Average Albacore Tuna Atlantic Herring Atlantic Mackerel Atlantic Salmon Blackfin Tuna Blue Runner Coho Salmon Crevalle Jack Jack Mackerel Lake Sturgeon Pacific Herring Pink Salmon Redeye Mullet Shovelnose Sturgeon Sierra Surf Smelt 4 Moderately Dark Atlantic Bonito Atlantic Menhaden Bluefish Chinook Salmon Little Tunny Pacific Bonito Skipjack Tuna Sockeye Salmon Yellowfin- Tuna 5 Dark Bluefin Tuna FLAK I NESS E-5 1 Flaky AlLacore Tuna Atlantic Bonito Atlantic Cod Atlantic Halibut Atlantic Pollock Atlantic Salmon Bigmouth Buffalo Black Drum Black Grouper Black Sea Bass Blackfin Tuna Bluefin Tuna Carp Cusk Gag Giant Sea Bass Haddock Jewf ish Little Tunny Nassau Grouper Ocean Whitefish Pacific Bonito Pacific Halibut Red Snapper Rockf ish Sablef ish Sauger Scamp Sheepshead Skipjack Tuna Smallmouth Buffalo Snook Sockeye Salmon Spotted Cabrilla Swordf ish Vermillion Snapper Yellowfin Tuna Yellowtail Snapper 2 Moderately Flaky Alaska Pollock American Plaice Atlantic Croaker Atlantic Mackerel Atlantic Wolffish Black Dogfish Blue Catfish Bluegill Brook Trout Brown Bullhead Cabezon Channel Catfish Chinook Salmon Chum Salmon Lake Herring Cobia Coho Salmon Common Dolphin English Sole Florida Pompano Gray Triggerfish King Mackerel Lake Chub Lake Sturgeon Lake Sturgeon Lake Trout Lake Whitefish Lmgcod Whiting Ocean Perch (Atlantic) Pacific Ocean Perch Pink Salmon Rainbow Trout Redeye Mullet Sand Shark Scup Sea Catfish Shovelnose Sturgeon Sierra Southern Flounder Striped Bass Striped Mullet Tautog Turbot Walleye White Crappie White Seabass Winter Flounder Witch Floundc 3 Average Flakiness Axrowtooth Flounder Blue Runner Bluef ish Burbot Butterf ish Dover Sole Greenland Turbot Jack Mackerel Northern Pike Ocean Pout Pacific Hake Pacific Herring Pacific Pollock Pacific Sanddab Petrale Sole Pigf ish Rainbow Smelt Red Hake Rex Sole Silver Hake Spot Spotted Seatrout Summer Flounder White Perch Yellow Perch Yellowtail Flounder 4 Slightly Flaky American Eel Atlantic Herring Crevalle Jack Spanish Mackerel Surf Smelt White Hake White Mullet White Seatrout 5 Not Flaky Altantic Menhaden Monkf ish Spiny Dogfish FIRMNESS B-6 1 Firm Alaska Pollock. Albacore Tuna Atlantic Bonito Atlantic Cod Atlantic Halibut Atlantic Pollock Atlantic Salmon Bigmouth Buffalo Black Dogfish Black Drum Blackfm Tuna Blue Catfish Bluefin Tuna Carp Cusk Gag Haddock Jewf ish Lake Sturgeon Lingcod Little Tunny Nassau Grouper Ocean Pout Pacific Bonito Pacific Halibut Red Snapper Sand Shark Sauger Sea Catfish Shovelnose Sturgeon Skipjack Tuna Fmallmouth Buffalo Snook Spotted Cabrilla Swordf ish Vermillion Snapper Yellowtail Snapper 2 Moderately Firm American Eel Atlantic Croaker Atlantic Wolffish Black GrouDer Black Sea Bass Brook Trout Brown Bullhead Cabezon Chinook Salmon Chum Salmon Common Dolphin Florida Pompano Giant Sea Bass Gray Triggerfish King Mackerel Lake Trout Monkf ish Whiting Ocean Perch (Atlantic) Ocean Whitefisn Pacific Ocean Perch Petrale Sole Pigfish Rainbow Trout Rex Sole Rockf ish Scamp Scup Sheepshead Sockeye Salmon Soot Striped Bass Striped Mullet Summer Flounder white Perch White Seabass Yellow Perch Yellowfin Tuna 3 Average Firmness American Plaice Arrcwtooth Flounder Atlantic Herring Blue Runner Bluef ish Bluegill Burbot Coho Salmon Crevalle Jack Dover Sole English Sole Greenland Turbot Jack Mackerel Lack Chub Lake Whitefish Northern Pike Pacific Pollock Pink Salmon Rainbow Smelt Redeye Mullet Sablef ish Sierra Silver Hake Southern Flounder Spanish Flounder Spiny Dogfisn Spotted Seatrout Surf Smelt Tautog Walleye White Crappie White Mullet Winter Flounder Witch Flounder Yellowtail Flounder 4 Slightly Firm Atlantic Mackerel Butterf ish Lake Herring Pacific Herring Pacific Sanddab Turbot White Seatrout Not Firm Atlantic Menhaden Pacific Hake Red Hake White Hake COARSENESS B-7 1 Smooth American Eel Atlantic Herring Atlantic Menhaden Bluegill Butterf ish Lake Herring Dover Sole Florida Pompano Lake Chub Lake Trout Lake Whitefish Pacific Sanddab Petrale Sole Rainbow Smelt Rainbow Trout Red Hake Rex Sole Sauger Southern Flounder Spiny Dogfish Spotted Seatrout Striped Mullet Summer Flounder Tautog Turbot Walleye White Seatrout Winter Flounder Witch Flounder Yellowtail Flounder 2 Slightly Coarse Alaska Pollock Albacore Tuna Ameican Plaice Arrowtooth Flounder Atlantic Cod Atlantic Croaker Atlantic Halibut Atlantic Mackerel Atlantic Pollock Atlantic Salmon Black Dogfish Blackfin Tuna Blue Catfish Bluef ish Brook Trout Burbot Channel Catfish Chinook Salmon Coho Salmon Common Dolphin Crevalle Jack Cusk English Sole Greenland Turbot Haddock King Mackerel Lingcod Ocean Pout Ocean Whitefish Pacific Hake Pacific Halibut Pacific Herring Pacific PoIIock Pink Salmon Red Snapper Sablef ish Scup Sierra Silver Hake Snook Sockeye Salmon Spanich Mackerel Spot Surf Smelt Vermillion Snapper White Crappie Whitehake White Mullet White Perch Yellow Perch Yellowtail Snapper Black Sea Bass Blue Runner Bluefin Tuna Brown Bullhead Carp Chum Salmon Cobia Gag Giant Sea Bass Gray Triggerfish Jack Mackerel Little Tunny Monkf ish Nassau Grouper Whiting Northern Pike Ocean Perch (Atlantic) Pacific Ocean Perch Pigf ish Redeye Mullet Rockf ish Sand Shark Scamp Sea Catfish Sheepshead Skipjack Tuna Smallmouth Buffalo Spotted Cabnlla Striped Eass Swordf ish White Seabass Yellowfin Tuna 4 Moderately Coarse Atlantic Bonito Black Drum Cabezon Lake Sturgeon Pacific Bonito Shovelnose Sturaeon 3 Avg. Coarseness 5 Coarse Atlantic Wolffish Bigmouth Buffalo Black Grouper Jewf ish MOISTURE content after cooking B-8 1 Dry 2 Moderately Dry Albacore Tuna Atlantic Bonito Blackfin Tuna Bluefin Tuna Cabezon Little Tunny Pacific Bonito Skipjack Tuna Sword f ish Yellowfin Tuna 3 Average Atlantic Croaker Atlantic Halibut Atlantic Salmon Black Dogfish Burbot Chum Salmon Cobis Common Dolphin Florida Pompano Lake Sturgeon Northern Pike Pacific Halibut Pacific Ocean Perch Pink '"almon Rainbow Trout Rockf ish Sand Shark Sheepshead Shovelnose Sturgeon Sockeye Salmon Spiny Dogfish Spotted Cabrilla Tautog Walleye White Perch White Seabass Yellow Perch 4 Moderately Wet Alaska Pollock American Eel American Plaice Arrowtooth Flounder Atlantic Cod Atlantic Herring Atlantic Mackerel Atlantic Pollock Atlantic Wolffish Black Drum Black Grouper Black Sea Bass Blue Runner Bluef ish Bluegill Brook Trout Butterfish Carp Channel Catfish Chinook Salmon Lake Herring Coho Salmon Crevalle Jack Cusk Dover Sole English Sole Gag Giant Sea Bass Gray Triggerfish Greenland Halibut Haddock King Mackerel Lake Chub Lake Whitefish Lingcod Monk fish Whiting Ocean Perch (Atlantic) Ocean Pout ' Ocean Whitefish Pacific Herring Pacific Pollock Pacific Sanddab Petrale Sole Piofish Rainbow Smelt Red Hake Red Snapper Rex Sole Sauger Sierra Silver Hake Snook Southern Flounder Spot Spotted Seatrout Striped Bass Striped Mullet Summer Flounder Surf Smelt Turbot Vermillion Snapper White Crappie White Hake White Mullet Winter Flourlder Witch Flounder Yellowtail Flounder Yellowf^il Snapper Wet Atlantic Menhaden Bigmouth Buffalo Blue Catfish Brown Bullnead JacK Mackerel Jewf ish Lake Trout Nassau Grouper Pacific Hake Redeye Mullet Sablef ish Scamp Scup Sea Catfish Smallmouth Buffalo Spanish Mackerel White Seatrout Index C FINFISH LISTED ALPHABETICALLY BY COMMON NAME C-l COMMON NAME o > « o ►J < a o W w w w w w u w w w z w z w w z H Z W £h « S « w < 2 3 H 3hoo fc.u.us: SCIENTIFIC NAME Striped BASS (Rockf ish) BLUEFISH BLUEGILL Atlantic (Common Pacific (California Bigmouth Smallmouth Brown BON I TO Bonito) BONITO Bonito) BUFFALO BUFFALO BULLHEAD BURBOT BUTTE RFISH 2212 2234 5444 3324 1122 2314 3324 1142 4334 1142 2312 1135 2312 1135 2221 2235 3212 3323 2321 3414 Morone saxatilis Pomatomus saltatrix Lepomis nlacrochirus Sarda sarda Sarda chiliensis Ictiobus cyprinellus Ictiobus bubalus Ictalurus nebulosus Lota lota Poronotus triacanthus CABE20N Spotted CABRILLA CARP Blue CATFISH Channel CATFISH Sea CATFISH Lake CHUB COBIA (Crabeater) Atlantic COD White CRAPPIE Atlantic CROAKER CUSK 3222 2242 1211 1133 3322 1134 2211 2125 1211 2124 2222 2135 3422 2314 3 2 2 1 2 13 3 1211 1124 1112 2324 2332 2223 1211 1124 Scorpaenichthys marmoratus Epinephelus analogus Cyprinus carpio- Ictalurus furcatus Ictalurus punctatus Galeichthys felis Hybopsis plumbeua Rachycentron canadum Gadus morhua Pomoxis annularis Micropogon undulatus Brosme brosme C-2 K O > 3^ OS §3 < Q O W to WW in in w in UW2U Z U W 2 M Z W H < 2 *«; h 3 m o o ImImOU fc, [h U S Black DOGFISH Spiny DOGFISH Common DOLPHIN (Dorado) Black DRUM 2232 2123 2342 5313 3221 2223 3322 1144 Centroscylliuin fabricii Squalus acanthias Coryphaena hippurus Pogonias cromis American EEL (Silver Eel) 3422 4212 Anguilla rostrata Arrowtooth FLOUNDER Southern FLOUNDER Summer FLOUNDER (Fluke) Witch FLOUNDER Winter FLOUNDER (Blackback Flounder) Yellowtail FLOUNDER 2121 3324 1211 2314 1111 3214 1111 2314 2121 2314 1121 3314 Athsrestftes stomias Paralichthys lethostigma Paralichthys dentatus Glyptocephalus cynoglossus Pseudopleuronectes americanus Limanda ferruginea GAG Black GROUPER Nassau GROUPER 2211 1134 1122 1234 2212 1135 Mycteroperca microlepis Mycteroperca bonaci Epinephelus striatus Pacific HAKE Red HAKE Silver HAKE White HAKE Atlantic HALIBUT Pacific HALIBUT Atlantic HERRING Lake HERRING (Cisco) Pacific HERRING 1211 1124 2221 3525 2211 3514 2221 3324 1321 4524 2212 1123 1222 1123 3533 4314 2322 2414 3 5 4 3 3 4 2 4 Melanogrammus aeglefinus Merluccius productus Urophycis chuss Merluccius bilinearis Urophycis tenuis Hippoglossus hippoglossus Hippoglossus stenolepis Clupea harengus harengus Coregonus artedii Clupea harengus pallasi C-3 PS o in to in to UllAUUl w w z w 2 W W is H2Wh US 2 OS W 2 2 2 < h o .-> J<00 JtHOO fcu, U, O U (u U. U £ Crevalle JACK (Common Jack) JEWFISH (Spotted Grouper) 3443 4324 Caranx hippos 2 2 12 1155 Epinephelus itajara LINGCOD 2211 2124 Ophidon elongatus Atlantic MACKEREL Jack MACKEREL King MACKEREL (Kingfish) Spanish MACKEREL (Spotted Mackerel) Atlantic MENHADEN MONKFISH Redeye MULLET (Silver Mullet) Striped MULLET White MULLET 4443 2424 4423 3335 4342 2224 4 4 4 4 3 2 5 5554 5515 3222 5234 5433 2335 2412 2214 3432 4324 Scomber scombrus Trachurus syrametricus Scomberomorus cava 11a Scoraberomorus maculatus Brevoortia tyrannus Lophius americanus Mugil gaimardiana Mugil cephalus Mugil cerema Atlantic Ocean PERCH (Rosefish) (Redfish) Pacific Ocean PERCH White PERCH Yellow PERCH PIGFISH Northern PIKE American PLAICE Alaska POLLOCK (Walleye Pollock) Pacific POLLOCK Florida POMPANO Ocean POUT 3222 2234 1212 2233 2112 3223 2112 3223 1312 3234 3232 3333 2221 2324 1212 2124 2222 3324 2322 2213 2122 3124 Sebastes marinus Sebastodes alutus Morone- (Roccus) americana Perca flavascens Orthopristis chrysopters Esox lucius Hippoglossoides platessoides Theragra chalcograiWRa Pollachius Virens Trachinotus carolinus Macrozoarces americanus C-4 in W WW (AIAMU) uuzu KUHSS M 2 W H 2«3h ►4 M O O U. U< O U ki tn U £ o > « o < H O ^ 3 < o ~ ROCKFISH Blue RUNNER 3222 1233 4343 3334 Sebastodes species Caranx crysos SABLEFISH Atlantic SALMON Chinook SALMON Chum SALMON Coho SALMON Pink SALMON Sockeye SALMON Pacific SANDDAL SAUGER SCAMP SCUP Black SEA BASS Giant SEA BASS White SEABASS Spotted (Speckle SEATROUT Trout) White (Sand SEATROUT Seatrout) Sand (Ground SHARK SHARK) SHEEPSHEAD SIERRA Rainbow SMELT Surf SMELT Red SNAPPER 3 5 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 5 2 4 2 3 2 2 3 4 2 3 2 3 4 3 3 4 2 4 12 2 1 2 2 11 12 11 3 3 12 2 2 2 2 13 2 2 112 2 2 2 2 1 3 2 11 2 2 2 2 13 2 5 112 3 2 2 2 4 2 2 3 3 2 3 2 4 2 3 2 3 12 2 3 3 4 14 1114 12 3 5 2 2 2 5 12 3 4 12 3 4 2 2 3 3 3 3 14 4 4 15 2 13 3 Vermillion SNAPPER Yellowtail SNAPPER SNOOK 2312 1233 2323 2324 1212 3314 3313 4324 2211 1124 2112 1124 1111 1124 2111 1124 Anoplopoma fimbria Salmo salar Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Oncorhynchus keta Oncorhynchus kisutch Oncorhynchus gorbuscha Oncorhynchus nerka Citharichthys sordious Stizostedion canadense Myceteroperca phenax Stenotomus chrysops Centropristas striatus Stereolepis gigas Cynoscion nobilis Cynoscion nebulosus Cynoscion arenarius Odontaspis (Carcharias) taurus Archosargus probatocephalus Scomberomorus sierra Osmerus mordax Hypomesus pretiosus Lutjanus campechanus (blackfordi)' Rhomboplites aurorubens Ocyurus chrysurus Centropomus undecimalis C-5 IX o > J « o us 2 os to rf H O J a < Q O J m O O Cm fc, O U tu, u, u z COMMON NAME CARTILAGINOUS FISHES Odontaspis (carcharias) taurus 2222 2133 Sand Tiger (Sand Shark) ori«ri sqaKLzrosnzs rmiyi soojaisAi Centroscyllium fabricii Saualus acanthias 2232 2123 2342 5313 Black Dogfish Spiny Dogfish BONY FISHES Ordari ACIPENSORXTOfMES r«uyi *cgaisotia*i Acipenser fulvescens Scaphirhynchus platorynchus 3 3 4 3 2 14 3 3343 2143 Lake Sturgeon Shovelnose Sturgeon Ordar: AHGUHI.iroFMM rmllyi AJWOHilDAZ Anguilla rostrata 3 4 2 2 4 2 14 American Eel (Silver Eel) Ord«r: CJJPIITOHfttS ruuyt cjartiDAz Erevoortia tyrannus Clupea harengus harengus Clupea harengus pallasi 5554 5515 3533 4314 3 5 4 3 3 4 2 4 Atlantic Menhaden Atlantic Herring Pacific Herring Ord«r: C5?S13»ITO!WZS fiailv: CATCSTCMIDAe Ictiobus bubalus Ictiobus cyprinellus ?«aily: C7PRI?»IDAE Cyprinus carpio Hybopsis olumfceua 2312 1135 2312 1135 3 3 2 2 113 4 3422 2314 Smallmouth Buffalo Bigroouth Buffalo Carp Lake Chub D-2 IX o > rt o 3 < Q o fcM lu O U w 10 WW W UJ U W U W Z W 2 W U Z HZI/lh 22Sh J M O O Ordw: GAOI708HES Ftaiiy: SA0ISA2 Brosme brosme Gadus morhua Lota lota Melanogrammus aeglefinus Merluccius bilmearis Merluccius productus Pollachius pollachius Pollachius virens Theragra chalcogramma Urophycis tennuis Urophycis chuss 1211 1124 1211 1124 3212 3323 1211 1124 2221 3324 2221 3525 3222 1124 2222 3324 1212 2124 1321 4524 2211 3514 Cusk Atlantic Cod Burbot (Ling) Haddock Silver Hake Pacific Hake Atlantic Pollock Pacific Pollock Walleye Pollock (Alaska Pollock) White Hake Red Hake Faaliyi ZOARCIDAE Macrozoarces americanus 2 12 2 3 12 4 Ocean Pout Ort«r: LOPH^OBHES rmliy: LOPHIXDAg Lophius americanus 3 2 2 2 5 2 3 4 Monkf ish Or en w W 01 w w u w z w « 2 W U J5 o « M 2 W H > ps q i3 < Q o 3 « < H 3hoo (m(kOO u u. u z 2112 3223 2212 2234 1322 1234 White Perch Striped Bass (Rockfish) Giant Sea Bass Family- PEHCXDAZ Perca flavascens Stizostedion canadense Stizostedion vitreum vitreum 2112 3223 2211 1114 1212 2313 Yellow Perch Sauger Walleye Family: POMXOASYIOA£ Orthopristis chrysopters 1312 3234 Pigfish Family: pohatqnioax Ponatomus saltatrix 5444 3324 Bluef ish Family: RACHYCESTRI3AS Rachycentron canadum 3221 2133 Cobia (Crabeater) Family: SCIAPUBJU Cynoscion arenarius Cynoscion nebulosus Cynoscion nobilis Leiostomus xanthurus Menticirrhus saxatilis Micropogon undulatus Poaonias cromis 3211 4415 2221 3314 1122 2233 2322 3224 2322 2234 2332 2223 3322 1144 White Seatrout (Sand Seatrout) Spotted Seatrout (Speckled Trout) White Seabass Spot Northern Kingfish (Whiting) Atlantic Croaker Black Drum Family: SCOISRHAX Euthyr.nus alletteratus 3214 1132 tuthynnus (katsuwonus) pelacis 4324 1132 Little Tunny (False Albacore) Skipjack Tuna (Oceanic Skipjack) D-5 p\ TMally- SCOMSAZOXE (Cent.) Sarda sarda Sarda chiliensis Scomber scombrus Scomberomorus cavalla S comber omorous maculatus Scomberomorous sierra Thunnus alalunga Thunnus albacares Thunnus atlanticus Thunnus thynnu3 w w in to w Wl u w U 2 U B5 2 W W 2 o « HZWH > « q *J < Q O « £ b; w «rf « 3 H J M O O 3324 1142 4 3 3 4 114 2 4443 2424 4342 2224 4442 4325 2323 2324 2413 1122 2214 1232 2223 1122 2325 1132 Atlantic Bonito (Common Bonito) Pacific Bonito (California Bonito) Atlantic Mackerel Kinq Mackerel (Kingf ish) Spanish Mackerel (Spotted Mackerei; Sierra Albacore Tuna (Longfin Tuna) Yellowfin Tuna Blackfin Tuna Bluefin Tuna (Horse Mackerel) FMLUy: SCORPXENIDAE Sebastes marinus Sebastodes alutus Sebastodes species 3222 2234 12 12 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 12 3 3 Ocean Perch (Rosef ish Redfish) Pacific Ocean Perch Rockf ishes family: SERRANriAI Centropristas striatus Epinephelus analogus Epinephelus itajara Epinephelus striatus Mycteroperca bonaci Mycteroperce microlepis Mycteroperca phenax 2222 1234 12 11 113 3 2212 1155 2212 1135 1122 1234 2 2 11 113 4 12 11 12 3 5 Black Sea Bass Spotted Cabrilla Jewf ish (Spotted Grouper) Nassau Grouper Black Grouper Gag Scamp D-6 Family: SFAKIOAf Archosargus probatocephalus Stenotomus chrysops O OS > K O < t-> O J •-3 < a o U, U, O Ui to w 10 w 0) 01 u w w w z w Z W U Z M ZW H < K < M JhOO IxluUS 2312 1233 3312 2225 Sheepshead Scup (Porgy) raaily: STRCMATTIDAE Poronotus triacanthus 2321 3414 Butterfish ramily: XIPHIIDAE Xiphias gladius 3 3 2 2 113 2 Swordfish Order: PLTURONKTITORMES Family: 30THI3AE Citharichthys sordious Paralichthys dentatus Paralichthys lethostigma 1221 3414 1111 3214 1211 2314 Pacific Sanddab Summer Flounder (Fluke) Southern Flounder family: Pl»uron«cUjia« Atheresthes stomias 2121 3324 Eopsetta jordani 1111 3214 Glyptocephalus cynoglossus 1111 2314 Glyptocephalus zachirus 1111 32-14 Hippoglossus stenolepis 1222 1123 Hippoglassoides platessoides 2221 2324 Hippoglossus hippoglossus 2212 1123 Limanda ferruginea 1121 3314 Microstomus pacificus 1111 3314 Parophrys vetulus 3131 2324 Psetta (scophthalmus) maxima 2212 2414 Pseudopleuronectes americanus 2121 2314 Reinhardtius hippoglossoides 2322 3324 Arrowtooth Flounder Petrale Sole (Brill) Witch Flounder Rex Sole Pacific Halibut American Plaice Atlantic Halibut Yellowtail Flounder Dover Sole English Sole Turbot Winter Flounder (Blackback Flcunder! Greenland Turcot (Greenland Halibut) D-7 Ordar: salmon itormzs family: ESOCX3AE Esox lucius 10 in in in CAIflUUl UW2U 2 U U 2 H Z W H u; £ a w rf 2 3 h J M o o hbOU In U O Z o > OS « O < H O ^ 4 «*: q o 3232 3333 Northern Pike family: OSMXAIDAZ Hypomesus pretiosus Csmerus mordax 3 3 13 4 3 2 4 1212 3314 Surf Smelt Rainbow Smelt Family: SALMON IDA£ Coregonus artedii Coregonus clupeaformis Oncorhynchus gorbuscha Oncorhynchus keta Oncorhynchus kisutch Oncorhynchus nerka Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Salmo gairdneri Salmo salar Salvelinus fontinalis Salvelinus namaycush 2322 2414 13 11 2 3 14 2 3 4 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 2 3 2 3 2 4 3424 1223 3524 2224 1312 2213 2 3 2 3 112 3 1312 2224 2412 2215 Cisco (Lake Herring) Lake Whitefisn (Common Whitefish) Pink Salmon Chum Salmon Coho Salmon Sockeye Salmon Chinook Salmon Rainbow Trout Atlantic Salmon Brook Trout Lake Trout Ordax: s n.raxroRtts Family: AiUIOAE Galeichthys felis Anus felis 2 2 2 2 2 13 5 Sea Catfish Family: ICTALCRIDAE Ictalurus furcatus Ictalurus nebulosus Ictalurus Qunctatus 2211 2125 2221 2235 1211 2124 Blue Catfish 3rown Bullhead Channel Catfish Order: TSTRACCONTtPOiWES Family: 3ALIS7I3A£ Jalistes caoriscus 2 2 2 1 3 4 Gray Trirgerfish E-l Index E SHELLFISH LISTED BY ZOOLOGICAL CATEGORY AND COMMON NAME COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME CRUSTACEANS (Class: CRUSTACEA) Blue CRAB Dugeness CRAB (Edible Crab) Jonah CRAB King CRAB Rock CRAB Snow CRAB (Tanner Crab) Stone CRAB Callinectes sapidus Cancer magister Cancer borealis Paralithodes camtschatica Cancer irroratus Chionoectes species Menippe mercenaria Red Swamp CRAYFISH (Louisiana Crayfish) Procambarus (Cambarus) clarki California Spiny LOBSTER (Northern Lobster) Florida Spiny LOBSTER (Northern Lobster) Maine LOBSTER (American Lobster) Panulirus interruptus Panulirus argos Hcmarus americanus Common SHRIMP Freshwater SHRIMP Northern SHRIMP Pacific SHRIMP Waite, SHRIMP (White Shrimp) Leaner serratus Macrobrachium rosenbercii Pandalus borealis Pandalus jordani Panaeus setiferus E-2 BIVALVES (Class: Alaskan Gaper CLAM (Morse Clan) Atlantic Jacknife CLAM (Eastern Razor Clam) Atlantic Surf CLAM Butter CLAM (Smooth Washington Clam) Calico CLAM Hardshell CLAM (Cherrystone Clam) (Littleneck Clam) (Northern Quahog) Japanese Littleneck CLAM (Manila Littleneck Clam) Pacific Geoduck CLAM Pacific Littleneck CLAM Pacific Razor CLAM Pismo CLAM Softshell CLAM (Steamer Clam) Nuttal's COCKLE (Basket Cockle) Ocean QUAHOG Common RANGIA Common California VENUS Smooth Pacific VENUS PELECYPODA) Tresus capax Ensis directus Spisula solidissima Saxidomus giganteus Macrocallista maculata Mercenaria mercenaria Tapes phillippinarum Panopea generosa Prototothaca staminea Siliqua patula Tivela stultorum Mya arenaria Cardium corbis Arctica islandica Rangia Cuneata Chione califoriensis Chione fluctifraga California MUSSEL (Sea Mussel) Common Blue MUSSEL Mytilus californianus Mytilus edulis E-3 Eastern OYSTER Giant Pacific OYSTER (Japanese Oyster) Olympia OYSTER (Native Pacific OyBter) Crassostrea virginica Crassostrea gigas Ostrea lurida Atlantic Bay SCALLOP Giant Pacific SCALLOP Atlantic Deep Sea SCALLOP Hinds SCALLOP (Northern Scallop) Aequipecten irradians Pecten caurinus Placopecten magellanicus Chlamys rubida UNIVALVES (Class: GASTROPODA) Haliotis fulgens Haliotis rufescens Busycon carica eliceans Strotnbus gigas Atrina serrata Atrina rigida Littorina littorea Busycon canaliculatum Busycon carica Buccinum undatuin Pink. AB ALONE (Green Abalone) Red AB ALONE Atlantic CONCH Pink CONCH Saw Toothed PENSKELL Stiff PENSHELL (Prickly Penshell) Common European PERIWINKLE (Snail) Channelled WHELK Knobbed WHELK Waved WHELK (Common Northern Buccinum) CEPHALOPODS (Class: CEPHALOPODA) E-4 Common Atlantic OCTOPUS Two Spotted OCTOPUS Atlantic Long Finned SQUID Atlantic Oval SQUID Brief Thumstall SQUID Common Pacific SQUID Common Short-Finned SQUID Octopus vulgaris Octopus bimaculatus Loligo pealei Sepioteuthis sepioidea Liliguncula brevis Loligo opalescens Illex illecebrossus PENN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES ADooo7o^mma