Dear all,
Sorry, I have not finished with the previous one ..... I want to
incorporate this:
".... and I think we should take preventive measure regarding the
possibility of the finding of a new (histamine-producing) bacteria or the
strain which may not be effectively killed by the existing process
available. The existing thermal process may not be enough".
Note: please see the complete message below.
-- Kindly regards,Ko, Iwan Setiyono (Ko, I.S.) MSc Candidate - International Fisheries Management Norwegian College of Fishery Science (NFH) University of Tromsų - Breivika N-9037 Tromsų NORWAY Mobile: +47 4500 4097 E-mail: isk025@student.uit.no
THE MESSAGE IN COMPLETE BECOMES:
Dear all,
Thank you for all the information, response and discussion.
'Basically', I believe (try to believe) that retorting the sealed tuna can is the final stage of killing all the bacteria and de-activate all enzymatic processes. We have heat penetration (HP) and temperature distribution (TD) tools to verify the adequacy of the retort process, usually recommended by a lab or consultant which is recognized by US FDA.
Provided that all other things (raw material histamine level is acceptable, water chlorination is satisfactorily, seamer is perfect, no recontamination, etc.)
and we concentrate on the retorting process, Sometimes buyers have their own specifications which may include raw material histamine content, raw material sampling size, can size, medium including additional ingredient like VB, flesh cut/style, flesh layering, flesh size and weight (for loin and chunk), retort time duration and temperature.
I think the flesh cut/style/composition/layering/VB/ etc. will likely to affect the retorting process adequacy/integrity. Any comment?
Sometimes it's dilemmatic since each processor has its own processing tools which are adapted exactly to the HP and TD tests performed at the establishment. One potential buyer claimed that our process condition is probably not suitable at least from sensory analysis "I think this product is scorched ....". And I guess it is quite costly to call a consultant/laborant with their equipments every time new buyer or existing buyer request a new product spec., with all economic aspect incorporated.
There are three options left then:
1. Deal without any process modification since the buyer finally 'be convinced' that the process is safe and ensures acceptable quality
2. Deal with several compromies between processor and buyer which may include some minor adjustments and/or adjustable process parameter (to processor's perspective)
3. No contract.
I think in the real world there are many cases of points 1 and 2 took place.
Now the questions related to point are: "Is the process now safe?" "Is the retort process adequate to destroy all the bacteria (and stop all enzymatic activities)?"
and I think we should take preventive measure regarding the possibility of the finding of a (histamine-producing) bacteria or the strain which may not be effectively killed by the existing process available.
-- Kindly regards,
Ko, Iwan Setiyono (Ko, I.S.) MSc Candidate - International Fisheries Management Norwegian College of Fishery Science (NFH) University of Tromsų - Breivika N-9037 Tromsų NORWAY Mobile: +47 4500 4097 E-mail: isk025@student.uit.no
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 30 2005 - 16:45:29 PDT