Fish roe products are extremely valuable and currently enjoy expanding international and domestic markets. Caviars represent the best-known form of fish roe products; however, several other product forms are also consumed, including whole skeins and formulations with oils and cheese bases. Caviars are made from fish roe after the eggs have been graded, sorted, singled-out, salted or brined, and cured. Most caviar is marketed as a refrigerated or frozen food. Several types of caviar from different fish species are marketed as shelf-stable products. Market preferences for lower salt content have raised food safety concerns. Descriptions of and processing technologies for many delightful fish roe and caviar food products are presented here.

Salt and moisture content of cured salmon roe (ikura) was determined using short-wavelength-near-infrared (SW-NIR) reflectance spectroscopy (600-1100 nm). SW-NIR can be used to measure chloride species. Calibrations for salt in bulk samples of high-quality roe (R(2) = 0.904, SEP = 0.421%, RPD = 3.21) and average-quality roe (R(2) = 0.711, SEP = 1.13%, RPD = 1.81), crushed eggs (R(2) = 0.857, SEP = 0.509%, RPD = 2.62), and individual eggs (R(2) = 0.731, SEP = 0.698%, RPD = 1.98) were developed using partial least squares (PLS) regression models. The heterogeneous distribution of lipid and moisture in the individual eggs limit the sensitivity of this method; however, this method provides a rapid nondestructive method for high-value food products where destructive testing is expensive or impractical and for process control applications.

Salt and moisture contents in cold-smoked salmon were determined using short-wavelength nearinfrared (SW-NIR) reflectance spectroscopy (600 to 1100 nm). Partial least square (PLS) regression models yielded the best results among 3 linear regression methods tested. Back-propagation neural networks (BPNN) exhibited a somewhat better capability to model salt and moisture concentrations (Salt: R 2 = 0.824, RMS = 0.55; Moisture: R 2 = 0.946, RMS = 2.44) than PLS (Salt: R 2 = 0.775, RMS = 0.63; Moisture: R 2 = 0.936, RMS = 2.65). Selection of samples from different axial locations on a fish did not affect the prediction error for salt or WPS but affected the prediction error for moisture.

No abstract