Evaluation of texture, sensory, and fillet color traits in channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), blue catfish (Ictalurus furcatus), and the hybrid catfish (channel catfish ♀ × blue catfish ♂)

Abstract

Despite catfish being the dominant freshwater aquaculture product in the United States, catfish texture and sensory evaluation are understudied compared with other aquaculture species, and very few studies have been conducted to evaluate these traits in catfish. Texture, sensory, carcass yield, flavor, visceral fat deposition, gonadal development, and fillet color analyses were conducted on four size classes, small (<0.68 kg), medium (0.68–0.92 kg), large (0.93–1.75 kg), and extra‐large (>1.75 kg), for channel catfish (n = 456) (Ictalurus punctatus), blue catfish (n = 78) (I. furcatus), and hybrid catfish (n = 195) (channel catfish ♀ × blue catfish ♂). Within genetic type comparisons indicated that the texture traits, hardness, and chewiness and the sensory trait toughness increased with increasing size in hybrid catfish and channel catfish but were the most pronounced in channel catfish. Overall, channel catfish had the firmest fillets based on several attributes. Blue catfish were found to have differences among texture traits between the extra‐large size class and the three remaining size classes, but overall size had less of an effect compared with the channel catfish and hybrid catfish. A trend of paternal predominance was observed as the hybrid catfish was more similar to the blue catfish than the channel catfish. Hybrid catfish had the highest fillet percentage. This study is the first large‐scale analysis of texture and sensory traits within two catfish species and their interspecific hybrid at different sizes and highlights the differences in commercially important texture and sensory traits.

Full text

ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Evaluation of texture, sensory, and fillet color
traits in channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), blue
catfish (Ictalurus furcatus), and the hybrid catfish
(channel catfish ♀blue catfish ♂)
Andrew Johnson
1
| Amit Morey
2
| Baofeng Su
1
|
Michael Coogan
1
| Darshika Hettiarachchi
1
| Veronica Alston
1
|
De Xing
1
| Jinhai Wang
1
| Shangjia Li
1
| Tasnuba Hasin
3
|
Cuiyu Lu
1
| Wenwen Wang
1
| Mei Shang
1
| Logan Bern
1
|
Rex Dunham
1
1
School of Fisheries, Aquaculture and Aquatic Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, USA
2
Department of Poultry Science, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, USA
3
School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Correspondence
Andrew Johnson, Division of Forestry and
Natural Resources, West Virginia University,
Morgantown, WV 26506, USA.
Email: ajohnson1771@gmail.com
Present addresses
Andrew Johnson, Division of Forestry and
Natural Resources, West Virginia University,
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA; and
Shangjia Li, Department of Biomedical
Informatics College of Medicine, The Ohio
State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Funding information
Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station
Abstract
Despite catfish being the dominant freshwater aquaculture
product in the United States, catfish texture and sensory
evaluation are understudied compared with other aquacul-
ture species, and very few studies have been conducted to
evaluate these traits in catfish. Texture, sensory, carcass
yield, flavor, visceral fat deposition, gonadal development,
and fillet color analyses were conducted on four size classes,
small (<0.68 kg), medium (0.68–0.92 kg), large (0.93–
1.75 kg), and extra-large (>1.75 kg), for channel catfish
(n=456) (Ictalurus punctatus), blue catfish (n=78) (I. fur-
catus), and hybrid catfish (n=195) (channel catfish ♀blue
catfish ♂). Within genetic type comparisons indicated that
the texture traits, hardness, and chewiness and the sensory
Received: 13 February 2024 Revised: 27 September 2024 Accepted: 30 September 2024
DOI: 10.1111/jwas.13113
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which
permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no
modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2024 The Author(s). Journal of the World Aquaculture Society published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of World Aquaculture
Society.
J World Aquac Soc. 2025;56:e13113. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jwas 1of23
https://doi.org/10.1111/jwas.13113

trait toughness increased with increasing size in hybrid cat-
fish and channel catfish but were the most pronounced in
channel catfish. Overall, channel catfish had the firmest fil-
lets based on several attributes. Blue catfish were found to
have differences among texture traits between the extra-
large size class and the three remaining size classes, but
overall size had less of an effect compared with the channel
catfish and hybrid catfish. A trend of paternal predominance
was observed as the hybrid catfish was more similar to the
blue catfish than the channel catfish. Hybrid catfish had the
highest fillet percentage. This study is the first large-scale
analysis of texture and sensory traits within two catfish spe-
cies and their interspecific hybrid at different sizes and high-
lights the differences in commercially important texture and
sensory traits.
KEYWORDS
Catfish, genetics, texture
1|INTRODUCTION
Catfish is the leading aquaculture product in the United States and accounted for $335 million dollars of pond bank
sales in 2018 (Hanson, 2018), as well as 75% of finfish and 50% of the total sales of United States food fish aquacul-
ture in 2018 (USDA, 2019). Catfish aquaculture is of great importance in the southern United States especially in
rural regions with poverty, unemployment, and food shortages (Kaliba & Engle, 2006). United States catfish produc-
tion was on an almost constant rise from 1975 to 2003 (Hanson, 2018) but experienced a sharp decline from 2003
to 2013 because of many factors including increased input costs, a recession in the United States economy, and a
large influx of low-priced imported catfish from overseas, primarily from China and Vietnam (Engle & Stone, 2013;
Engle et al., 2018;). Catfish farmers are at risk and potentially susceptible to loss of profit and production again if the
economy has a downturn in the future, or if there is a large increase in production costs (Dunham & Elaswad, 2017).
Arguably the most beneficial addition to catfish production is the introduction of the interspecific hybrid catfish
(channel catfish, Ictalurus punctatus,♀blue catfish, Ictalurus furcatus ♂) which now accounts for 70% of
United States catfish production (N. Chatakondi, US Department of Agriculture, personal communication). Hybrid
catfish exhibit faster growth, lower feed conversion ratio, improved disease resistance, improved fillet yield and dress
out percentage, improved tolerance to low dissolved oxygen, faster growth compared with channel catfish, and
increased seinability (Arias et al., 2012; Bosworth et al., 2004; Creel et al., 2021; Dunham et al., 1983; Dunham
et al., 1987; Dunham et al., 2014; Dunham & Argue, 1998; Dunham & Masser, 2012; Yant et al., 1976). Research into
improvement of hybrid catfish typically focuses on production, and comparatively few articles have investigated the
resulting fillet quality and texture comparisons between channel catfish and hybrid catfish (Bosworth et al., 2004;Li
et al., 2020;).
Blue catfish aquaculture is rare in the United States compared with channel catfish and hybrid catfish produc-
tion, largely in part to the longer time to reach maturation, poor feed conversion ratios, low levels of captive
spawning success, and slower growth to harvest size compared with channel catfish (Graham, 1999). Although blue
2of23 JOHNSON ET AL.

catfish is not the primary farmed product, they are beneficial to farmers for producing channel catfish ♀blue cat-
fish ♂hybrids, as well as their higher tolerance to channel catfish virus disease and enteric septicemia of catfish and
good carcass traits (Griffin et al., 2010; Silverstein et al., 2008; Wolters et al., 1996). Elucidating texture phenotype
and genetics in blue catfish would facilitate genetic strategy planning to alter texture in the hybrid catfish.
Texture of fish and meat products is of great importance to consumers and is one of the factors that drives the
marketability of the product, which in turn drives the consumer demand and acceptance of the product (Coppes
et al., 2002). The texture of the fish fillet, along with the flavor, contributes to the sensory factors of the fillet that
the consumer will digest (Sawyer et al., 1984,1988). Texture drives the consumer demand for a fish product and has
shown to be one of the most important quality factors that drive demand (Koteng, 1992). Texture has been evalu-
ated in various commonly farmed species such as Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) (Kiessling et al., 2004), Crisp grass
carp (Ctenopharyngodon idellus C.et V) and grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idellus) (Lin et al., 2012), blackspot seabream
(Pagellus bogaraveo) (Rincón et al., 2016), and farmed Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus) (Hagen et al., 2007).
With texture being such an important characteristic in consumer acceptance and demand for different meat and sea-
food products, it is important to thoroughly evaluate texture and sensory characteristics of channel catfish, blue cat-
fish, and hybrid catfish to determine differences among the channel catfish, blue catfish, and hybrid catfish fillets for
the best overall consumer product.
Texture analyses has been evaluated before for channel catfish (Bechtel et al., 2018; Bland et al., 2018; Hallier
et al., 2008; Li et al., 2020) as well as various studies on sensory evaluation (Bosworth et al., 2004; Johnsen &
Kelly, 1990; Lovell et al., 1986; Silva & Ammerman, 1993). Bland et al. (2022) found texture differences between the
hybrid catfish and channel catfish in all but one observed texture traits; however, blue catfish texture was not ana-
lyzed, nor compared with channel catfish or hybrid catfish leaving a knowledge gap in texture analysis that needs to
be filled. In addition to mechanical texture evaluation using texture profile analyses (TPAs) and sensory analyses
using a semi-trained panel, a correlation between the two would be highly beneficial for correlating consumer evalu-
ation of catfish fillets and TPA results for further insights of catfish fillet properties. Previous studies for correlation
between TPA and sensory analyses have been evaluated for cooked sweet potatoes (Truong et al., 2002) as well as
correlations between mechanical textures and sensory of frozen fish (Barroso et al., 1998).
With up to 70% of catfish aquaculture in the United States being based around the production of hybrid catfish
(N. Chatakondi, US Department of Agriculture, personal communication), it is necessary to evaluate the texture and
sensory attributes of hybrid and channel catfish. If blue catfish show superior carcass traits, it might justify increased
use of this species in catfish aquaculture. Evaluation of blue catfish texture, sensory, and fillet color traits would help
elucidate genetics of the texture traits and understanding blue catfish phenotype and genetics would be useful in
backcrossing programs as well as improving carcass traits of the hybrid catfish.
The objectives of this study were to determine differences within and among channel catfish, blue catfish, and
hybrid catfish fillets regarding TPAs and sensory evaluation for four size classes: small (<0.68 kg), medium (0.68–
0.92 kg), large (0.93–1.75 kg), and extra-large (>1.75 kg). This is to our knowledge is the first study to compare tex-
ture and sensory traits of different size classes of channel, blue, and hybrid catfish and evaluate key sensory and
texture differences among channel catfish, blue catfish, and hybrid catfish. The results should provide guidance
toward the direction of genetic enhancement programs as well as determining the effect of harvest size on flesh
quality.
2|MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1 |Experimental fish rearing
All experimental procedures used in this study were performed in accordance with guidelines of the Auburn Univer-
sity Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee for use and care of animals. Fish were reared and fed ad libitum in
JOHNSON ET AL.3of23

60-L aquaria (150 individuals/aquarium) in a recirculating system at the EW Shell Fisheries Center at Auburn Univer-
sity in Auburn, AL. Upon reaching a mean of 30 g, the experimental fish were stocked into 17 different 0.04 h
earthen ponds at a rate of 14,000 fish/h to mitigate effects of genotype environment interactions. Channel catfish
and the interspecific hybrid (channel catfish ♀blue catfish ♂) were stocked communally into 12 earthen ponds,
and blue catfish separately into five earthen ponds. Fish in all ponds were fed ad libitum with 32% protein pelleted
catfish feed 7 days a week until they reached a mean weight of 1 kg. Fish were then harvested, individually weighed,
sexed, and species/genetic type determined prior to filleting. Harvesting of experimental fish occurred across a
6-month time period to allow time for sorting, filleting, and grading of each pond without holding the fish and caus-
ing deterioration of body condition. The sorted fish were then divided by genetic type and assigned to a size class:
small (<0.68 kg), medium (0.68–0.92 kg), large (0.93–1.75 kg), and extra-large (>1.75 kg). Following sorting, the final
number of samples used in the present study for catfish genetic type and size class are as follows: channel catfish—
small (261), medium (106), large (60), extra-large (29); blue catfish—small (28), medium (14), large (28), and extra-large
(8) and hybrid catfish—small (51), medium (64), large (70), extra-large (10).
2.2 |Filleting of experimental fish
Individual fish were weighed live and then sacrificed following IACUC guidelines. After being sacrificed, individual
fish were dissected to determine the genetic type of the fish by evaluation of the swim bladder. Channel catfish
swim bladders have a one-chambered swim bladder, blue catfish have a double chambered swim bladder, and hybrid
catfish have a one chamber swim bladder with a nipple like protrusion on the end (Dunham et al., 1982). Gonadal
development and visceral body fat quantity were graded by hand on a scale of 0.5–5 with 0.5 being least developed
and 5 being the most developed. Fish were filleted in a uniform manner by making an incision on the head where the
head meets the body of the fish and following the spine of the fish with a fillet knife. Flesh was cut away from
the ribs resulting in a boneless shank fillet. After filleting, each fillet was skinned, individually weighed to determine
shank fillet yield, and rinsed in a freshwater solution to remove blood and other particles. Filleting of fish was carried
out by hand on site by three graduate students, reflecting reduced yield compared with industry standards expected
when processed at a catfish processing plant. Fillets from each individual fish were vacuum sealed in a
15.24 30.48 cm Clarity 4-Mil vacuum pouch (Bunzl Processor; Koch Supplies, Riverside, Missouri) and placed in a
10C freezer. All fillets were subjected to uniform freezing by being placed in the same freezer, at the same tem-
perature, with no fresh or individually quick-frozen fillets being used for evaluation in the present study. This uniform
process of freezing and thawing for fillet evaluation across all fillets used in the present study mitigates effects of
freezing and thawing on the fillet quality and texture traits by subjecting all fillets to the standard process.
2.3 |Fillet processing for sensory evaluation and TPAs
Prior to evaluation, fillets were placed in a 2 ± 2C refrigerator overnight for thawing. Once thawed, raw fillets were
evaluated for color using a CR 300 Minolta Chromameter (Osaka, Japan) to evaluate lightness, redness, and yellow-
ness of fillets. Fillet color traits were evaluated on a CIELAB color space (Connolly & Fleiss, 1997), a three-
dimensional diagram to quantitatively evaluate color. Lightness, redness, and yellowness in our analysis correlates to
L*, a*, and b*, respectively. L* is indicative of lightness and ranges from 0 (black) to 100 (white), while a* and b* are
chromaticity coordinates. A negative a* indicates a more green hue while a more positive a* indicates a more red
hue, and a negative b* value indicates a more blue coloration and a higher positive b* describes yellow coloration (Ly
et al., 2020). Individual fillets were wrapped in aluminum foil, weighed prior to cooking, and baked in a preheated
oven at 350 F (177C) until reaching an internal temperature of 165 F (74C) based on thermocouple monitoring.
The fillets were then weighed again to ascertain cook loss for each sample. One fillet from each fish was served to a
4of23 JOHNSON ET AL.

semi-trained sensory panel, with the paired fillet from each fish being stored in a 2 ± 2C refrigerator overnight and
raised to a temperature of 72 F (22C) before being used for mechanical evaluation of TPAs.
2.4 |Sensory evaluation of catfish fillets using a semi-trained panel
Following American Meat Science Association (AMSA) Research Guidelines for Cookery, Sensory Evaluation, and
Instrumental Tenderness Measurements of Meat (2nd ed.) (AMSA, 2015) guidelines, sensory panelists were trained
to evaluate five different key attributes in catfish fillets; toughness, flakiness, mushiness, fibrousness, and flavor
(Bland et al., 2018; Li et al., 2022). The semi-trained sensory panel consisted of 12 individuals, 6 males and 6 females
aged 21–65 years. Each fillet sample was graded on a scale of 1–4, with 1 being the lowest and 4 being the highest
score of each attribute, and each corresponding value was correlated with a food item to calibrate the panel to the
attributes of the fillet (Table 1). Investigations of sensory analysis of fish muscle utilize similar approaches (Bland
et al., 2018; Li et al., 2022). Flakiness was graded on a scale of 1–3, and flavor was graded on a scale of 1–10, with
1 noting severe off flavor, a flavor of 5 had distinct off flavor, 7 mild to little off flavor, and 10 corresponding with no
off flavor. Panelists were trained on five different occasions before the sensory evaluation of catfish fillets, with cali-
bration sessions occurring each week of sensory evaluation. Panelists were served equal portions of a fillet
(1.27 1.27 cm) in plastic 2 oz. serving cups with a lid. Each fillet used for sensory analysis was cut into four equal
TABLE 1 Corresponding food items correlated with their score for each sensory attribute, this scale was used to
calibrate the semi-trained panel in their evaluation of catfish fillet sensory attributes.
Attribute 1 2 3 4
Toughness Canned Dole™
Pineapple Chunk
Heritage
Farm™
Chicken
Hotdogs
Hebrew
National™Beef Hotdog
Starkist™Solid
White Albacore
Canned Tuna in
water
Force required to bite through
a fillet sample
10cube 2-cm
diameter
piece
2-cm diameter piece 2-cm diameter
serving
Mushiness Hebrew
National™Beef
Hotdog
Raw White
Mushroom
Bumblebee™Canned
Lump Crab Meat
Simple Truth™
Organic Extra Firm
Tofu
How much a fillet sample
dissipated after initial bite
2-cm diameter
piece
Whole 2-cm diameter serving 10cube
Flakiness Cooked Wild
Caught Pan
Seared Sea
Scallops
Canned
Dole™
Pineapple
Chunk
Chicken of the Sea™
Canned Traditional
Style Pink Salmon
N/A
Ease of which fillet samples
were broken into individual
muscle components
¼ scallop 10cube 2-cm diameter serving
Fibrousness Bumblebee™
Canned Lump
Crab Meat
Canned
Dole™
Pineapple
Chunk
Raw Asparagus stem Raw Asparagus base
Perception of amount of
muscle tissue strands or
filaments were left after
chewing
2-cm diameter
serving
10cube
JOHNSON ET AL.5of23

servings to serve to one group of four panelists to ensure sensory score replications, with the average of the group
of four panelists scores being used as the sensory score for that fillet. All groups were given roughly equal amounts
of each genotype and size class to test. The 12 panelists were given blind samples with random numbers during each
sensory session to reduce bias. To further reduce panelist bias and group bias, each group and panelist were served
roughly equal proportions of each grouping of fish, both by genetic type and by size class. Panelists scored their five
attributes using a blind survey using Google Forms (Google, Mountain View, California, USA) to prevent bias by
observing other panelists scores. In between each sample, panelists drank a sip of room temperature water, took a
bite of a saltine cracker, and then drank another sip of water to cleanse the palate.
2.5 |Texture profile analyses of catfish fillets
Each fillet was sampled using a TA-XT2i Texture Analyzer shear machine (Texture Technologies Corp., Scarsdale,
NY) loaded with a 5-kg load cell with a “½”diameter ball probe attachment (TA-18) (Bland et al., 2018). Six attributes
for mechanical texture evaluation were measured for each fillet: chewiness, springiness, hardness, cohesiveness,
resilience, and adhesiveness (Table 2). Each fillet was sampled in triplicate, with the mean of each trait being used for
statistical analyses. Figure 1(Bland et al., 2022) depicts a catfish fillet similar to that used in the current study, with
measurements for TPA being taken at positions 1, 3, and 6.
2.6 |Statistical analyses
All data were analyzed using SAS statistical analysis software (v.9.4; SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). One-way
analysis of variance (ANOVA) using the proc. mixed function was used to calculate differences in continuous texture
attributes within and among blue catfish, channel catfish, and hybrid catfish at four different size or body weight
groupings: small (<0.68 kg), medium (0.68–0.92 kg), large (0.93–1.75 kg), and extra-large (>1.75 kg). One-way ANO-
VAs were used to first compare the impact of size on texture traits within each catfish genetic type and then subse-
quently run across genetic types at each of the four size classes to elucidate differences of texture traits across
catfish genetic type within each size class. Tukey's post hoc test was conducted to evaluate differences among
groups. Data were tested for normality using a Shapiro–Wilk test (Shapiro & Wilk, 1965) and was considered non-
normally distributed at an alpha =0.05. A nonparametric one-way ANOVA using a Kruskal–Wallis test was used to
evaluate differences in ordinal dependent categories (gonad development, visceral fat, toughness, mushiness,
TABLE 2 Texture profile attributes analyzed using a Texture Profile Analyzer, formula used to evaluate and
determine each output, and the definition of each attribute analyzed.
Attribute Formula Description
Hardness Force at anchor 1 Maximum force applied during the first compression
Chewiness Hardness Cohesiveness Springiness Energy needed to chew a solid food until ready to swallow
Springiness Distance2/Distance 1 Rate at which a sample returns to its original size and
shape
Adhesiveness Area 3 Work required to overcome stickiness between the probe
and the sample
Resilience Area 2/ Area 1 How well a product returns to its original shape and size
during the first probe
Cohesiveness Area 4/ Area 1 How well a product returns to its original shape and size in
the second probe relative to the first probe
6of23 JOHNSON ET AL.

fibrousness, flakiness, and flavor) and non-normally distributed data. Differences were assumed to be significantly
different at an alpha =0.05. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated in Microsoft Excel (Microsoft, Red-
mond, WA, USA) between the sensory traits toughness, mushiness, flakiness, and fibrousness and the mechanical
texture traits chewiness, springiness, hardness, cohesiveness, resilience, and adhesiveness for all fish pooled to deter-
mine correlations between the sensory and mechanical evaluation of texture (Garcia Loredo & Guerrero, 2011;Li
et al., 2022; Paula & Conti-Silva, 2014). pvalues for each correlated relationship were tested, with an alpha =0.05
being considered significant.
3|RESULTS
3.1 |Texture, sensory, and carcass traits of four channel catfish size classes
Means, standard deviations, and coefficient of variation of fillet %, cook loss, fillet color, texture attributes, sensory
traits, visceral fat deposition, and gonadal development, among the four size classes of channel catfish are found in
Table 3. Hardness and chewiness of analyzed channel catfish fillets were significantly different among size classes.
As the fish increased in size, the fillet became harder and chewier. Yellowness of the fillet generally decreased with
increasing size with the small catfish size group having the most yellow fillets and the extra-large size class the least
yellow. Fillet % was highest in the small size class and the lowest in the extra-large size class. Cook loss % was lower
in the small size class than the large size class. Lightness (L) of the fillet was lower in the large size class than for small
and medium channel catfish and redness (R) was significantly higher in the large size class than the medium and
small size classes. Resilience was highest in the extra-large size class then all other size classes. Cohesion and springi-
ness had higher means in the small and extra-large size classes than the medium size classes. Adhesiveness was not
found to be significantly different among the four size classes of channel catfish.
Gonadal development increased with increasing size of fish. Extra-large channel catfish had higher visceral fat
deposition than small and medium channel catfish, and the large size class had more visceral fat deposition than the
small size class. Small channel catfish had the mushiest and least flakey flesh among all size classes. Large and extra-
large channel catfish had a tougher and more fibrous flesh then the small and medium size classes. Medium-sized
channel catfish had less off flavor than the larger size classes.
FIGURE 1 A depiction of an Ictalurid catfish fillet outline (Bland et al., 2022) that was evaluated using texture
profile analysis. Positions 1, 3, and 6 depict areas of the fillet that were measured during mechanical texture
evaluation for each sample, with the average of the three scores used to determine texture traits hardness,
cohesiveness, springiness, chewiness, resilience, and adhesiveness for each individual.
JOHNSON ET AL.7of23

TABLE 3 Mean values for fillet % (fillet total weight divided by live weight), cook loss % (cooked fillet weight divided by raw fillet weight), lightness, redness, and
yellowness of the raw fillet, hardness, adhesiveness, resilience, cohesion, springiness, chewiness, gonadal development (gonad), visceral fat deposition (fat), toughness,
mushiness, flakiness, fibrousness, and flavor ± standard deviation (SD) and coefficient of variation (CV) of four body weight size classes; small (<0.68 kg), medium (0.68–
0.92 kg), large (0.93–1.75 kg), and extra-large (>1.75 kg) channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus). Values with different superscript letters denote significant differences (p< 0.05).
Size class
Small Medium Large Extra large
pValue
X± SD (CV) X± SD (CV) X± SD (CV) X± SD (CV)
Trait n=261 n=106 n=60 n=29
Fillet %* 25.99 ± 3.26 (12.55)
a
25.30 ± 2.74 (10.83)
ab
23.61 ± 6.28 (26.60)
b
19.83 ± 5.72 (28.86)
c
<0.0001
Cook loss%* 23.22 ± 4.96 (21.34)
a
23.94 ± 6.00 (25.05)
ab
25.63 ± 6.38 (24.87)
b
25.70 ± 5.97 (23.21)
ab
0.01
Lightness* 56.17 ± 4.65 (11.09)
a
56.34 ± 5.64 (13.15)
a
53.08 ± 9.63 (18.14)
b
53.95 ± 5.20 (9.64)
ab
0.003
Redness* 2.34 ± 2.22 (95.15)
b
1.98 ± 1.70 (86.51)
b
3.67 ± 3.11 (84.59)
a
3.17 ± 2.32 (73.26)
ab
<0.0001
Yellowness* 9.02 ± 3.26 (36.11)
a
7.25 ± 3.01 (42.11)
b
6.62 ± 4.29 (64.85)
bc
5.26 ± 4.52 (85.91)
c
<0.0001
Hardness* 594.63 ± 192.43 (32.36)
a
736.46 ± 224.04 (30.42)
b
904.03 ± 271.35 (30.01)
c
1221.61 ± 410.87 (33.63)
d
<0.0001
Adhesiveness* 2.93 ± 1.91 (65.26) 2.94 ± 1.65 (55.95) 3.00 ± 2.44 (0.81.25) 3.19 ± 5.09 (1.60) N/S
Resilience* 23.79 ± 3.69 (15.51)
b
22.66 ± 3.54 (15.63)
b
23.19 ± 5.21 (22.47)
b
26.05 ± 4.70 (18.05)
a
0.0004
Cohesion* 0.56 ± 0.05 (8.78)
a
0.55 ± 0.05 (8.97)
b
0.55 ± 0.07 (13.26)
b
0.58 ± 0.07 (11.23)
a
0.006
Springiness* 74.39 ± 5.68 (7.63)
a
72.07 ± 5.62 (7.80)
b
73.03 ± 7.23 (9.91)
ab
75.47 ± 4.59 (6.08)
a
0.003
Chewiness* 251.33 ± 98.26 (39.09)
a
295.28 ± 113.31 (38.37)
b
372.41 ± 150.66 (40.46)
c
552.17 ± 248.25 (44.96)
d
0.0001
Gonad^1.22 ± 0.66 (54.19)
a
1.92 ± 0.85 (44.34)
b
2.99 ± 1.32 (45.69)
c
4.14 ± 0.96 (23.26)
d
<0.0001
Fat^0.82 ± 0.41 (50.02)
c
0.88 ± 0.58 (66.18)
bc
1.02 ± 0.55 (53.62)
ab
1.03 ± 0.58 (56.20)
a
0.02
Toughness^2.20 ± 0.49 (22.19)
a
2.33 ± 0.56 (23.40)
b
2.53 ± 0.58 (23.08)
c
2.60 ± 0.60 (22.99)
c
<0.0001
Mushiness^2.06 ± 0.51 (24.89)
a
1.88 ± 0.62 (32.94)
b
1.69 ± 0.54 (31.74)
b
1.68 ± 0.56 (33.27)
b
<0.0001
Flakiness^2.24 ± 0.30 (13.30)
b
2.37 ± 0.39 (16.37)
a
2.36 ± 0.34 (14.32)
a
2.39 ± 0.42 (17.72)
a
0.003
Fibrousness^1.75 ± 0.37 (21.37)
b
1.84 ± 0.36 (19.79)
b
2.02 ± 0.36 (17.94)
a
2.07 ± 0.41 (19.61)
a
<0.0001
Flavor^7.34 ± 0.68 (9.28)
ab
7.47 ± 0.63 (8.43)
a
7.19 ± 0.76 (10.50)
b
7.14 ± 0.80 (11.27)
b
0.007
Note: Significant pvalues are listed in the final column and considered significant at an alpha <0.05. Traits denoted with an asterisk were evaluated for statistical differences using Tukey's
post hoc test while traits denoted with a ^were evaluated with a Kruskal–Wallis test.
8of23 JOHNSON ET AL.

3.2 |Texture, sensory, and carcass traits of four blue catfish size classes
Means, standard deviations, and coefficient of variation of evaluated texture, fillet color, cook loss %, fillet yield%,
sensory traits, visceral fat deposition, and gonadal development among four size classes of blue catfish are presented
in Table 4. Extra-large sized class blue catfish had the hardest and chewiest flesh among all size classes. Extra-large
and small blue catfish had a more resilient and cohesive flesh then large blue catfish and small blue catfish had a
springier flesh then large blue catfish. Fillet % was higher in small blue catfish then the extra-large sized class. Large
blue catfish had a redder fillet then extra-large blue catfish but no other color differences in flesh were observed. No
differences were observed for cook loss % and adhesiveness.
Extra-large blue catfish had the highest gonadal development among all four size classes. Large blue catfish had a
more flakey and fibrous flesh then small blue catfish, but neither were significantly different from medium and extra-
large blue catfish. Large catfish also had more visceral fat deposition then small and medium blue catfish. No significant
differences were observed for cook loss %, adhesiveness toughness, mushiness, and off flavor among size classes.
3.3 |Texture, sensory, and carcass traits of four hybrid catfish size classes
Means, standard deviations, and coefficient of variation of texture traits, fillet color, sensory attributes, visceral fat depo-
sition, and gonadal development among four size classes of hybrid catfish are reported in Table 5. Extra-large hybrid cat-
fish had the most yellow, red, adhesive, resilient, cohesive, fillet among all size classes and the lowest fillet %. Large
hybrid catfish had a redder fillet than small hybrid catfish. Large hybrid catfish had a harder and chewier fillet than
medium and small hybrid catfish. Small size class hybrid catfish had the mushiest and least fibrous and flakey among all
size classes. Extra-large hybrid catfish had the least amount of off flavor among all size classes and the most visceral fat
deposition. Small and medium size hybrid catfish had a less tough fillet compared with the larger size classes. Springi-
ness, lightness of the fillet, and cook loss % were not different among size classes of hybrid catfish.
3.4 |Differences in texture, carcass, sensory, and fillet color attributes among three
catfish genetic types at a small size class
Means, standard deviations, and coefficient of variation for carcass, texture, and fillet color traits among three genetic
types of catfish at the small size class are reported in Table 6. Cohesion differed among all three genetic types. Channel
catfish had the most cohesive fillet, hybrid catfish had the least cohesive, and blue catfish cohesiveness was the interme-
diate of the genetic types. Blue catfish had higher cook loss and red-colored fillets than the other two genetic types. Blue
catfish had the least yellow fillets compared with the other two genetic types of catfish. Channel catfish had harder
chewier, and more resilient fillets among the three catfish genetic types. Hybrid catfish had the least springy fillets
among the three genetic types. Visceral fat deposition was significantly different between all three genetic types with
hybrid catfish having the highest fat deposition, channel catfish the least, and blue catfish having the intermediate
amount of visceral fat deposition and channel catfish the least. Channel catfish were more tough and fibrous than the
other two genetic types of catfish and was also significantly less mushy. Fillet %, lightness of the fillet, adhesiveness,
gonadal development, flakiness, and flavor did not differ among catfish genetic types in the small size class.
3.5 |Differences in texture, carcass, sensory, and fillet color attributes between three
catfish genetic types in a medium size class
Means, standard deviations, and coefficient of variation for carcass, texture, and fillet color traits among three
genetic types of catfish at medium size class (0.68–0.92 kg) are listed in Table 7. Hardness was significantly different
JOHNSON ET AL.9of23

TABLE 4 Mean values for fillet % (fillet total weight divided by live weight), cook loss % (cooked fillet weight divided by raw fillet weight), lightness, redness, and
yellowness of the raw fillet, hardness, adhesiveness, resilience, cohesion, springiness, chewiness, gonadal development (gonad), visceral fat deposition (fat), toughness,
mushiness, flakiness, fibrousness, and flavor ± standard deviation (SD) and coefficient of variation (CV) of four body weight size classes; small (<0.68 kg), medium (0.68–
0.92 kg), large (0.93–1.75 kg), and extra-large (>1.75 kg) blue catfish (Ictalurus furcatus). Values with different superscript letters denote significant differences ( p< 0.05).
Size class
Small Medium Large Extra-large
pvalue
X± SD (CV) X± SD (CV) X± SD (CV) X± SD (CV)
Trait n=28 n=14 n=28 n=8
Fillet %* 26.06 ± 2.71 (10.42)
a
24.46 ± 3.20 (13.08)
ab
23.96 ± 6.16 (25.71)
ab
20.16 ± 5.98 (29.66)
b
0.02
Cook loss%* 27.96 ± 5.30 (18.95) 24.49 ± 10.50 (42.85) 26.66 ± 8.56 (32.12) 23.56 ± 4.46 (18.91) N/S
Lightness* 57.06 ± 3.80 (6.66) 55.83 ± 3.85 (6.89) 56.31 ± 5.10 (9.05) 54.84 ± 4.60 (8.39) N/S
Redness* 3.95 ± 2.05 (51.74) 4.22 ± 2.81 (66.68) 6.26 ± 4.38 (69.88) 5.30 ± 3.25 (61.28) N/S
Yellowness* 7.44 ± 1.66 (22.34)
ab
8.08 ± 3.28 (40.65)
ab
8.93 ± 5.92 (66.25)
a
4.17 ± 5.50 (131.87)
b
0.04
Hardness* 412.75 ± 135.76 (32.89)
c
447.25 ± 125.78 (28.12)
bc
573.11 ± 191.41 (33.40)
b
962.13 ± 252.14 (26.20)
a
<0.0001
Adhesiveness* 3.16 ± 2.20 (69.51) 3.55 ± 1.74 (49.02) 6.44 ± 7.55 (117.21) 3.50 ± 2.86 (81.81) N/S
Resilience* 21.91 ± 3.58 (16.36)
a
20.14 ± 3.94 (19.56)
ab
17.91 ± 3.34 (18.63)
b
22.29 ± 4.29 (19.25)
a
0.0006
Cohesion* 0.53 ± 0.05 (8.74)
a
0.51 ± 0.06 (11.46)
ab
0.48 ± 0.06 (11.81)
b
0.54 ± 0.06 (11.97)
a
0.002
Springiness* 76.11 ± 4.92 (6.46)
a
74.13 ± 6.63 (8.94)
ab
69.91 ± 6.12 (8.76)
b
73.00 ± 4.00 (5.49)
ab
0.0006
Chewiness* 168.53 ± 63.35 (37.59)
b
172.34 ± 61.73 (35.81)
b
192.58 ± 76.70 (39.83)
b
388.13 ± 142.75 (36.78)
a
<0.0001
Gonad^1.08 ± 0.68 (62.53)
b
1.17 ± 0.89 (75.53)
b
1.30 ± 0.99 (76.24)
b
3.00 ± 1.71 (57.04)
a
0.004
Fat^1.43 ± 1.00 (69.81)
c
1.71 ± 0.96 (55.71)
bc
2.39 ± 0.80 (33.33)
a
2.50 ± 1.04 (41.40)
ab
0.0004
Toughness^1.90 ± 0.43 (22.66) 1.96 ± 0.54 (27.66) 2.15 ± 0.63 (29.50) 1.98 ± 0.50 (25.26) N/S
Mushiness^2.38 ± 0.53 (22.21) 2.29 ± 0.64 (27.79) 2.09 ± 0.65 (31.28) 2.21 ± 0.57 (25.92) N/S
Flakiness^2.34 ± 0.34 (14.70)
b
2.38 ± 0.46 (19.29)
ab
2.51 ± 0.27 (10.88)
a
2.40 ± 0.16 (6.49)
ab
0.04
Fibrousness^1.54 ± 0.26 (17.07)
b
1.63 ± 0.42 (25.71)
ab
1.89 ± 0.48 (25.19)
a
1.72 ± 0.49 (28.54)
ab
0.003
Flavor^7.36 ± 0.66 (8.95) 7.33 ± 0.97 (13.20) 7.50 ± 0.88 (11.71) 7.06 ± 1.07 (15.10) N/S
Note: Significant pvalues are listed in the final column and considered significant at an alpha <0.05. Traits denoted with an asterisk were evaluated for statistical differences using Tukey's
post hoc test while traits denoted with a ^were evaluated with a Kruskal–Wallis test.
10 of 23 JOHNSON ET AL.

TABLE 5 Mean values for fillet % (fillet total weight divided by live weight), cook loss % (cooked fillet weight divided by raw fillet weight), lightness, redness, and
yellowness of the raw fillet, hardness, adhesiveness, resilience, cohesion, springiness, chewiness, gonadal development (gonad), visceral fat deposition (fat), toughness,
mushiness, flakiness, fibrousness, and flavor ± standard deviation (SD) and coefficient of variation (CV) of four body weight size classes; small (<0.68 kg), medium (0.68–
0.92 kg), large (0.93–1.75 kg), and extra-large (>1.75 ) of hybrid catfish (Channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus)♀Blue catfish (Ictalurus furcatus)♂). Values with different
superscript letters denote significant differences (p< 0.05).
Size class
Small Medium Large Extra-large
pvalue
X± SD (CV) X± SD (CV) X± SD (CV) X± SD (CV)
Trait n=51 n=64 n=70 n=10
Fillet %* 26.61 ± 5.02 (18.87)
a
27.04 ± 3.19 (11.72)
a
25.81 ± 3.35 (12.97)
a
21.42 ± 4.42 (20.64)
b
0.0002
Cook loss%* 23.74 ± 3.99 (16.83) 23.71 ± 5.28 (22.25) 23.31 ± 4.54 (19.48) 24.90 ± 5.57 (22.35) N/S
Lightness* 55.79 ± 3.92 (7.03) 54.70 ± 3.25 (5.94) 54.33 ± 4.04 (7.45) 52.95 ± 3.05 (5.76) N/S
Redness* 1.98 ± 1.69 (85.67)
c
3.05 ± 2.37 (77.72)
bc
3.50 ± 3.42 (97.95)
b
9.04 ± 4.78 (52.85)
a
<0.0001
Yellowness* 8.88 ± 3.94 (44.33)
b
7.55 ± 3.71 (49.16)
b
7.46 ± 4.51 (60.51)
b
12.82 ± 4.98 (38.80)
a
0.001
Hardness* 484.36 ± 138.54 (28.60)
c
596.11 ± 137.10 (22.99)
b
692.40 ± 187.42 (27.06)
a
700.70 ± 209.15 (29.84)
ab
<0.0001
Adhesiveness* 5.18 ± 3.96 (76.39)
b
5.48 ± 4.34 (103.43)
b
5.86 ± 5.23 (89.33)
b
12.80 ± 7.15 (55.82)
a
0.0008
Resilience* 19.67 ± 4.68 (23.80)
b
19.22 ± 4.28 (22.29)
b
19.70 ± 3.85 (19.54)
b
14.68 ± 3.60 (24.53)
a
0.003
Cohesion* 0.50 ± 0.06 (12.12)
b
0.49 ± 0.06 (12.97)
b
0.50 ± 0.06 (10.99)
b
0.43 ± 0.06 (13.85)
a
0.002
Springiness* 71.27 ± 6.86 (9.63) 69.74 ± 5.51 (7.90) 71.19 ± 5.09 (7.15) 66.57 ± 4.68 (7.03) N/S
Chewiness* 174.12 ± 58.83 (33.78)
b
206.44 ± 61.75 (29.65)
b
250.80 ± 85.44 (34.06)
a
202.45 ± 73.12 (36.11)
ab
0.0007
Gonad^1.21 ± 0.86 (70.40)
b
1.45 ± 0.83 (57.09)
a
1.24 ± 0.68 (54.99)
ab
0.9 ± 0.39 (43.82)
b
0.03
Fat^1.81 ± 0.61 (33.51)
b
1.96 ± 0.72 (36.71)
b
2.37 ± 0.89 (37.59)
a
3.10 ± 0.88 (28.25)
c
0.0002
Toughness^1.83 ± 0.48 (25.99)
c
2.05 ± 0.41 (20.44)
b
2.13 ± 0.50 (23.30)
ab
2.44 ± 0.55 (22.60)
a
0.001
Mushiness^2.43 ± 0.57 (23.46)
a
2.09 ± 0.58 (27.77)
b
2.00 ± 0.62 (31.09)
b
1.67 ± 0.59 (35.30)
b
0.0001
Flakiness^2.31 ± 0.29 (12.21)
b
2.46 ± 0.36 (14.48)
a
2.53 ± 0.36 (14.07)
a
2.64 ± 0.27 (10.22)
a
0.0009
Fibrousness^1.58 ± 0.34 (21.36)
b
1.59 ± 0.26 (16.93)
b
1.74 ± 0.35 (20.25)
a
1.98 ± 0.33 (16.65)
a
0.0008
Flavor^7.42 ± 0.79 (10.63)
b
7.41 ± 0.96 (12.89)
b
7.36 ± 0.86 (11.61)
b
7.99 ± 0.56 (7.00)
a
0.02
Note: Significant pvalues are listed in the final column and considered significant at an alpha <0.05. Traits denoted with an asterisk were evaluated for statistical differences using Tukey's
post hoc test while traits denoted with a ^were evaluated with a Kruskal–Wallis test.
JOHNSON ET AL.11 of 23

among all catfish genetic types, with channel catfish being the hardest fillet, hybrid catfish displaying intermediate
hardness, and blue catfish having the least hard fillet. Fillet % was the highest for hybrid catfish compared with the
other two genetic types. Fillet redness was lower in channel catfish than the hybrid catfish and blue catfish. Adhe-
siveness, resilience, and cohesion were found to be significantly different between channel and hybrid catfish with
channel catfish having the higher mean, but neither genetic type was significantly different to blue catfish. Hybrid
catfish were less springy than the other two genetic types, and channel catfish were chewier than the other two cat-
fish genetic types. Channel catfish had higher gonadal development and a more tough fillet than the blue catfish and
hybrid catfish and also contained the least visceral fat content and had the least mushy fillet. Fibrousness was found
to be higher for channel catfish than hybrid catfish but was not different in blue catfish. No significant differences
were observed for cook loss %, lightness and yellowness of the fillets, flakiness, and flavor among the catfish genetic
types in a medium size class.
TABLE 6 Mean values for fillet % (fillet total weight divided by live weight), cook loss % (cooked fillet weight
divided by raw fillet weight), lightness, redness, and yellowness of the raw fillet, hardness, adhesiveness, resilience,
cohesion, springiness, chewiness, gonadal development (gonad), visceral fat deposition (fat), toughness, mushiness,
flakiness, fibrousness, and flavor ± standard deviation (SD) and coefficient of variation (CV) of three genetic types of
catfish: Channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), blue catfish (Ictalurus furcatus) and the hybrid catfish (Channel catfish
♀Blue catfish ♂) at small size (<0.68 kg). Values with different superscript letters denote significant differences
(p< 0.05).
Genetic type
Channel catfish Blue catfish Hybrid catfish
pvalue
X± SD (CV) X± SD (CV) X± SD (CV)
Trait n=261 n=28 n=51
Fillet %* 25.99 ± 3.26 (12.55)
a
26.06 ± 2.71 (10.42)
a
26.61 ± 5.02 (18.87)
a
N/S
Cook loss%* 23.22 ± 4.96 (21.34)
b
27.96 ± 5.30 (18.95)
a
23.74 ± 3.99 (16.83)
b
0.0009
Lightness* 56.17 ± 4.65 (11.09) 57.06 ± 3.80 (6.66) 55.79 ± 3.92 (7.03) N/S
Redness* 2.34 ± 2.22 (95.15)
b
3.95 ± 2.05 (51.74)
a
1.98 ± 1.69 (85.67)
a
0.0005
Yellowness* 9.02 ± 3.26 (36.11)
a
7.44 ± 1.66 (22.34)
b
8.88 ± 3.94 (44.33)
ab
0.02
Hardness* 594.63 ± 192.43 (32.36)
a
412.75 ± 135.76 (32.89)
b
484.36 ± 138.54 (28.60)
b
0.0002
Adhesiveness* 2.93 ± 1.91 (65.26) 3.16 ± 2.20 (69.51) 5.18 ± 3.96 (76.39) N/S
Resilience* 23.79 ± 3.69 (15.51)
a
21.91 ± 3.58 (16.36)
b
19.67 ± 4.68 (23.80)
b
0.04
Cohesion* 0.56 ± 0.05 (8.78)
a
0.53 ± 0.05 (8.74)
a
0.50 ± 0.06 (12.12)
b
0.04
Springiness* 74.39 ± 5.68 (7.63)
a
76.11 ± 4.92 (6.46)
a
71.27 ± 6.86 (9.63)
b
0.002
Chewiness* 251.33 ± 98.26 (39.09)
a
168.53 ± 63.35 (37.59)
b
174.12 ± 58.83 (33.78)
b
0.0007
Gonad^1.22 ± 0.66 (54.19) 1.08 ± 0.68 (62.53) 1.21 ± 0.86 (70.40) N/S
Fat^0.82 ± 0.41 (50.02)
c
1.43 ± 1.00 (69.81)
b
1.81 ± 0.61 (33.51)
a
0.004
Toughness^2.20 ± 0.49 (22.19)
a
1.90 ± 0.43 (22.66)
b
1.83 ± 0.48 (25.99)
b
0.004
Mushiness^2.06 ± 0.51 (24.89)
b
2.38 ± 0.53 (22.21)
a
2.43 ± 0.57 (23.46)
a
0.004
Flakiness^2.24 ± 0.30 (13.30) 2.34 ± 0.34 (14.70) 2.31 ± 0.29 (12.21) N/S
Fibrousness^1.75 ± 0.37 (21.37)
a
1.54 ± 0.26 (17.07)
b
1.58 ± 0.34 (21.36)
b
0.003
Flavor^7.34 ± 0.68 (9.28) 7.36 ± 0.66 (8.95) 7.42 ± 0.79 (10.63) N/S
Note: Significant pvalues are listed in the final column and considered significant at an alpha <0.05. Traits denoted with an
asterisk were evaluated for statistical differences using Tukey's post hoc test while traits denoted with a ^were evaluated
with a Kruskal–Wallis test.
12 of 23 JOHNSON ET AL.

3.6 |Differences in texture, carcass, sensory, and fillet color attributes between three
catfish genetic types at a large size class
Means, standard deviations, and coefficient of variation for carcass, texture, and fillet color traits among three
genetic types of catfish at a large size class (0.92–1.75 kg) are calculated in Table 8. Hardness differed among all
genetic types with channel catfish having the hardest fillet and blue catfish the least hard. Blue catfish had a redder
fillet then channel catfish and hybrid catfish, but lightness and yellowness of the fillet were not different among
genetic types. Hybrid catfish had a higher fillet % than channel catfish and had a lower cook loss % than blue catfish.
Channel catfish had a less adhesive, more resilient, more cohesive, and chewier fillet than hybrid catfish and blue cat-
fish. Channel catfish had higher gonadal development, less visceral fat deposition, and a more tough and less mushy
fillet compared with blue catfish and hybrid catfish. Channel catfish also had a more fibrous and less flakey fillet than
hybrid catfish, but neither were significantly different to blue catfish. No differences among genetic types were
observed for flavor, springiness, lightness, and yellowness of the fillet in a large size class.
TABLE 7 Mean values ± standard deviation (SD) and coefficient of variation (CV) for fillet % (fillet total weight
divided by live weight), cook loss % (cooked fillet weight divided by raw fillet weight), lightness, redness, and
yellowness of the raw fillet, hardness, adhesiveness, resilience, cohesion, springiness, chewiness, gonadal
development (gonad), visceral fat deposition (fat), toughness, mushiness, flakiness, fibrousness, and flavor of three
genetic types of catfish: Channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), Blue catfish (Ictalurus furcatus) and the hybrid catfish
(Channel catfish ♀Blue catfish ♂) at a medium size (0.68–0.92 kg). Values with different superscript letters denote
significant differences (p< 0.05).
Genetic type
Channel catfish Blue catfish Hybrid catfish
pvalue
X± SD (CV) X± SD (CV) X± SD (CV)
Trait n=106 n=14 n=64
Fillet %* 25.30 ± 2.74 (10.83)
b
24.46 ± 3.20 (13.08)
b
27.04 ± 3.19 (11.72)
a
0.01
Cook loss%* 23.94 ± 6.00 (25.05) 24.49 ± 10.50 (42.85) 23.71 ± 5.28 (22.25) N/S
Lightness* 56.34 ± 5.64 (13.15) 55.83 ± 3.85 (6.89) 54.70 ± 3.25 (5.94) N/S
Redness* 1.98 ± 1.70 (86.51)
b
4.22 ± 2.81 (66.68)
a
3.05 ± 2.37 (77.72)
a
0.003
Yellowness* 7.25 ± 3.01 (42.11) 8.08 ± 3.28 (40.65) 7.55 ± 3.71 (49.16) N/S
Hardness* 736.46 ± 224.04 (30.42)
a
447.25 ± 125.78 (28.12)
c
596.11 ± 137.10 (22.99)
b
0.02
Adhesiveness* 2.94 ± 1.65 (55.95)
b
3.55 ± 1.74 (49.02)
ab
5.48 ± 4.34 (103.43)
a
0.002
Resilience* 22.66 ± 3.54 (15.63)
a
20.14 ± 3.94 (19.56)
ab
19.22 ± 4.28 (22.29)
b
<0.0001
Cohesion* 0.55 ± 0.05 (8.97)
a
0.51 ± 0.06 (11.46)
ab
0.49 ± 0.06 (12.97)
b
<0.0001
Springiness* 72.07 ± 5.62 (7.80)
a
74.13 ± 6.63 (8.94)
a
69.74 ± 5.51 (7.90)
b
0.03
Chewiness* 295.28 ± 113.31 (38.37)
a
172.34 ± 61.73 (35.81)
b
206.44 ± 61.75 (29.65)
b
<0.0001
Gonad^1.92 ± 0.85 (44.34)
a
1.17 ± 0.89 (75.53)
b
1.45 ± 0.83 (57.09)
b
0.002
Fat^0.88 ± 0.58 (66.18)
b
1.71 ± 0.96 (55.71)
a
1.96 ± 0.72 (36.71)
a
0.0002
Toughness^2.33 ± 0.56 (23.40)
a
1.96 ± 0.54 (27.66)
b
2.05 ± 0.41 (20.44)
b
0.02
Mushiness^1.88 ± 0.62 (32.94)
b
2.29 ± 0.64 (27.79)
a
2.09 ± 0.58 (27.77)
a
0.04
Flakiness^2.37 ± 0.39 (16.37) 2.38 ± 0.46 (19.29) 2.46 ± 0.36 (14.48) N/S
Fibrousness^1.84 ± 0.36 (19.79)
a
1.63 ± 0.42 (25.71)
ab
1.59 ± 0.26 (16.93)
b
0.003
Flavor^7.47 ± 0.63 (8.43) 7.33 ± 0.97 (13.20) 7.41 ± 0.96 (12.89) N/S
Note: Significant pvalues are listed in the final column and considered significant at an alpha <0.05. Traits denoted with an
asterisk were evaluated for statistical differences using Tukey's post hoc test while traits denoted with a ^were evaluated
with a Kruskal–Wallis test.
JOHNSON ET AL.13 of 23

3.7 |Differences in texture, carcass, sensory, and fillet color attributes between three
catfish genetic types at an extra-large size class
Means, standard deviations, and coefficient of variation for carcass, texture, and fillet color traits among three
genetic types of catfish at an extra-large size class (>1.75 kg) are calculated in Table 9. Hybrid catfish had a redder fil-
let than channel catfish and had a more yellow fillet then both channel catfish and blue catfish. Channel catfish had a
harder and chewier fillet than hybrid catfish and blue catfish. Hybrid catfish had a less-resilient, cohesive, adhesive,
and springy fillet than the channel catfish and blue catfish. Channel catfish had a tougher, mushier, and more fibrous
fillet than blue catfish, but none of these attributes were different to the extra-large hybrid catfish. Channel catfish
had the highest gonadal development among all three genetic types and hybrid catfish had the lowest gonadal devel-
opment and the lowest amount of visceral fat deposition. Hybrid catfish had the highest flavor rating among all three
genetic types at the extra-large size class. No differences were observed among genetic types for fillet %, cook loss
%, flakiness, and lightness of the fillet at the extra-large size class.
TABLE 8 Mean values ± standard deviation (SD) and coefficient of variation (CV) for fillet % (fillet total weight
divided by live weight), cook loss % (cooked fillet weight divided by raw fillet weight), lightness, redness, and
yellowness of the raw fillet, hardness, adhesiveness, resilience, cohesion, springiness, chewiness, gonadal
development (gonad), visceral fat deposition (fat), toughness, mushiness, flakiness, fibrousness, and flavor of three
genetic types of catfish: Channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), Blue catfish (Ictalurus furcatus), and the hybrid catfish
(Channel catfish ♀Blue catfish ♂) at a large size (0.92–1.75 kg). Values with different superscript letters denote
significant differences (p< 0.05).
Genetic type
Channel catfish Blue catfish Hybrid catfish
pvalue
X± SD (CV) X± SD (CV) X± SD (CV)
Trait n=60 n=28 n=70
Fillet %* 23.61 ± 6.28 (26.60)
b
23.96 ± 6.16 (25.71)
ab
25.81 ± 3.35 (12.97)
a
0.04
Cook loss%* 25.63 ± 6.38 (24.87)
ab
26.66 ± 8.56 (32.12)
a
23.31 ± 4.54 (19.48)
b
0.04
Lightness* 53.08 ± 9.63 (18.14)
b
56.31 ± 5.10 (9.05) 54.33 ± 4.04 (7.45) N/S
Redness* 3.67 ± 3.11 (84.59)
b
6.26 ± 4.38 (69.88)
a
3.50 ± 3.42 (97.95)
b
0.001
Yellowness* 6.62 ± 4.29 (64.85) 8.93 ± 5.92 (66.25) 7.46 ± 4.51 (60.51) N/S
Hardness* 904.03 ± 271.35 (30.01)
a
573.11 ± 191.41 (33.40)
c
692.40 ± 187.42 (27.06)
b
<0.0001
Adhesiveness* 3.00 ± 2.44 (0.81.25)
b
6.44 ± 7.55 (117.21)
a
5.86 ± 5.23 (89.33)
b
0.007
Resilience* 23.19 ± 5.21 (22.47)
a
17.91 ± 3.34 (18.63)
b
19.70 ± 3.85 (19.54)
b
<0.0001
Cohesion* 0.55 ± 0.07 (13.26)
a
0.48 ± 0.06 (11.81)
b
0.50 ± 0.06 (10.99)
b
<0.0001
Springiness* 73.03 ± 7.23 (9.91) 69.91 ± 6.12 (8.76) 71.19 ± 5.09 (7.15) N/S
Chewiness* 372.41 ± 150.66 (40.46)
a
192.58 ± 76.70 (39.83)
b
250.80 ± 85.44 (34.06)
b
<0.0001
Gonad^2.99 ± 1.32 (45.69)
a
1.30 ± 0.99 (76.24)
b
1.24 ± 0.68 (54.99)
b
<0.0001
Fat^1.02 ± 0.55 (53.62)
b
2.39 ± 0.80 (33.33)
a
2.37 ± 0.89 (37.59)
a
<0.0001
Toughness^2.53 ± 0.58 (23.08)
a
2.15 ± 0.63 (29.50)
b
2.13 ± 0.50 (23.30)
b
<0.0001
Mushiness^1.69 ± 0.54 (31.74)
b
2.09 ± 0.65 (31.28)
a
2.00 ± 0.62 (31.09)
a
0.003
Flakiness^2.36 ± 0.34 (14.32)
b
2.51 ± 0.27 (10.88)
ab
2.53 ± 0.36 (14.07)
a
0.02
Fibrousness^2.02 ± 0.36 (17.94)
a
1.89 ± 0.48 (25.19)
ab
1.74 ± 0.35 (20.25)
b
<0.0001
Flavor^7.19 ± 0.76 (10.50) 7.50 ± 0.88 (11.71) 7.36 ± 0.86 (11.61) N/S
Note: Significant pvalues are listed in the final column and considered significant at an alpha <0.05. Traits denoted with an
asterisk were evaluated for statistical differences using Tukey's post hoc test while traits denoted with a ^were evaluated
with a Kruskal–Wallis test.
14 of 23 JOHNSON ET AL.

3.8 |Correlation coefficients between sensory and mechanical texture traits
Pearson correlation coefficients between sensory and mechanical texture traits are presented in Table 10. Toughness
and mushiness significantly correlated with every mechanical texture trait except for springiness, with the strongest
correlation for toughness being hardness and chewiness (0.40) while mushiness was more strongly correlated with
hardness than chewiness (0.37 and 0.35, respectively). Flakiness was significantly correlated with every mechani-
cal texture trait except for chewiness, with the highest correlations for flakiness being cohesiveness and resilience of
the fillet (0.21). Fibrousness of the fillet was not significantly correlated with any mechanical texture trait.
4|DISCUSSION
In general, as the size of the fish increases, particularly in channel catfish, traits associated with hardness including
mechanically measured fillet hardness and chewiness, as well as toughness and fibrousness assessed through sensory
TABLE 9 Mean values ± standard deviation (SD) and coefficient of variation (CV) for fillet % (fillet total weight
divided by live weight), cook loss % (cooked fillet weight divided by raw fillet weight), lightness, redness, and
yellowness of the raw fillet, hardness, adhesiveness, resilience, cohesion, springiness, chewiness, gonadal
development (gonad), visceral fat deposition (fat), toughness, mushiness, flakiness, fibrousness, and flavor of three
genetic types of catfish: Channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), Blue catfish (Ictalurus furcatus) and the hybrid catfish
(Channel catfish ♀Blue catfish ♂) at an extra-large size class (>1.75 kg). An alpha =0.05 is considered significant
following Tukey's post hoc test. Values with different superscript letters denote significant differences ( p< 0.05).
Genetic type
Channel catfish Blue catfish Hybrid catfish
pvalue
X± SD (CV) X± SD (CV) X± SD (CV)
Trait n=29 n=8n=10
Fillet %* 19.83 ± 5.72 (28.86) 20.16 ± 5.98 (29.66) 21.42 ± 4.42 (20.64) N/S
Cook loss%* 25.70 ± 5.97 (23.21) 23.56 ± 4.46 (18.91) 24.90 ± 5.57 (22.35) N/S
Lightness* 53.95 ± 5.20 (9.64) 54.84 ± 4.60 (8.39) 52.95 ± 3.05 (5.76) N/S
Redness* 3.17 ± 2.32 (73.26)
b
5.30 ± 3.25 (61.28)
ab
9.04 ± 4.78 (52.85)
a
0.0002
Yellowness* 5.26 ± 4.52 (85.91)
b
4.17 ± 5.50 (131.87)
b
12.82 ± 4.98 (38.80)
a
0.001
Hardness* 1221.61 ± 410.87 (33.63)
a
962.13 ± 252.14 (26.20)
b
700.70 ± 209.15 (29.84)
b
<0.0001
Adhesiveness* 3.19 ± 5.09 (1.60)
b
3.50 ± 2.86 (81.81)
b
12.80 ± 7.15 (55.82)
a
<0.0001
Resilience* 26.05 ± 4.70 (18.05)
a
22.29 ± 4.29 (19.25)
a
14.68 ± 3.60 (24.53)
b
<0.0001
Cohesion* 0.58 ± 0.07 (11.23)
a
0.54 ± 0.06 (11.97)
a
0.43 ± 0.06 (13.85)
b
<0.0001
Springiness* 75.47 ± 4.59 (6.08)
a
73.00 ± 4.00 (5.49)
a
66.57 ± 4.68 (7.03)
b
0.0001
Chewiness* 552.17 ± 248.25 (44.96)
a
388.13 ± 142.75 (36.78)
b
202.45 ± 73.12 (36.11)
b
<0.0001
Gonad^4.14 ± 0.96 (23.26)
a
3.00 ± 1.71 (57.04)
b
0.90 ± 0.39 (43.82)
c
<0.0001
Fat^1.03 ± 0.58 (56.20)
b
2.50 ± 1.04 (41.40)
a
3.10 ± 0.88 (28.25)
a
<0.0001
Toughness^2.60 ± 0.60 (22.99)
a
1.98 ± 0.50 (25.26)
b
2.44 ± 0.55 (22.60)
ab
0.005
Mushiness^1.68 ± 0.56 (33.27)
b
2.21 ± 0.57 (25.92)
a
1.67 ± 0.59 (35.30)
ab
0.003
Flakiness^2.39 ± 0.42 (17.72) 2.40 ± 0.16 (6.49) 2.64 ± 0.27 (10.22) N/S
Fibrousness^2.07 ± 0.41 (19.61)
a
1.72 ± 0.49 (28.54)
b
1.98 ± 0.33 (16.65)
ab
0.02
Flavor^7.14 ± 0.80 (11.27)
b
7.06 ± 1.07 (15.10)
b
7.99 ± 0.56 (7.00)
a
0.01
Note: Significant pvalues are listed in the final column and considered significant at an alpha <0.05. Traits denoted with an
asterisk were evaluated for statistical differences using Tukey's post hoc test while traits denoted with a ^were evaluated
with a Kruskal–Wallis test.
JOHNSON ET AL.15 of 23

evaluation, tend to rise. Comparing correlation coefficients for mechanical texture and sensory texture traits revealed
that toughness and mushiness were the most strongly associated with chewiness and hardness of the fillet. Tough-
ness and mushiness were inversely related to these two traits, an expected result given the opposite qualities these
two sensory traits display and demonstrate the capability of the sensory panel to quantify these two traits.
Hardness, resilience, cohesiveness, chewiness, toughness, and fibrousness were higher in channel catfish than
blue catfish and hybrid catfish. A potential explanation for the nongenetic component is that muscle fiber size
increases with increasing fish size, which has a direct influence on hardness, and could also potentially explain the
increased toughness and fibrousness observed in larger channel catfish compared with the smaller size classes
(Hyldig & Nielsen, 2001; Listrat et al., 2016). This same explanation might apply for similar differences among size
classes of blue catfish (Hyldig & Nielsen, 2001; Li et al., 2017; Listrat et al., 2016). Muscle fiber size and quantity is
key in affecting texture attributes (Fauconneau, 1993), with the quantity and size of muscle fiber varying among
strains and species within salmonids (Weatherley et al., 1979). Muscle fiber size and quantity measurement in future
texture studies of catfish could lead to a better understanding of the genetic and environmental influences on catfish
fillet texture. Chewiness as a texture attributes is calculated using hardness in their equation which would also influ-
ence the variance across all size classes. Additionally, increases in chewiness and firmness, as sensory attributes, cor-
relate with elevated muscle fiber density in Atlantic salmon fillets, when assessed by a sensory panel (Johnston
et al., 2000). This evidence supports the conclusion that variations in muscle fiber structure contribute to our
observed increase in toughness, as measured by both texture and sensory evaluations.
The only sensory attribute significantly different between the four size classes of blue catfish was the degree of
fibrousness and flakiness, with notable differences between the large and small size classes. Flakiness increased with
body weight in channel catfish, blue catfish, and hybrid catfish. Genetics had little effect on flakiness as the only sig-
nificant difference among genetic types was channel catfish having the least flakiness within the large size category.
In regard to the hardness, toughness, and fibrousness related traits, we observed that channel catfish had the
highest values compared with blue catfish and hybrid catfish across size groups. This same trend of channel catfish
comprising a more firm, chewy, and tough fillet was also observed in recent literature when compared with hybrid
catfish (Bland et al., 2022). This finding supports our evaluation and highlights the true firmness and toughness dif-
ferences among the catfish genetic types. Our study appears to reveal a greater number of genetic differences com-
pared with Bland et al. (2022). This observed trend of genetic type differences in texture related traits may be
because of varying muscle fiber number, density, size, and thickness, among catfish genetic types that may be leading
to these observed differences (Fauconneau, 1993; Listrat et al., 2016; Hyldig & Nielsen, 2001).
TABLE 10 Pearson correlation coefficients between sensory evaluated texture traits toughness, mushiness,
fibrousness, and flakiness and mechanically evaluated texture traits hardness, adhesiveness, resilience, cohesiveness,
springiness, and chewiness are presented. All sampled Channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), Blue catfish (Ictalurus
furcatus) and hybrid catfish (Channel catfish ♀Blue catfish ♂)(N=729) were pooled to generate the correlation
coefficients. pvalue for significance of the correlation is presented in the parentheses, with an alpha =0.05
considered significant. Significant relationships are denoted with an *.
Trait Hardness Adhesiveness Resilience Cohesiveness Springiness Chewiness
Toughness 0.40* 0.09* 0.18* 0.16* 0.06 0.40*
(<0.00001) (0.014) (<0.00001) (0.000015) (0.090) (<0.00001)
Mushiness 0.37* 0.08* 0.11* 0.10* 0.04 0.35*
(<0.00001) (0.033) (0.003) (0.012) (0.345) (<0.00001)
Flakiness 0.08* 0.11* 0.21* 0.21* 0.14* 0.005
(0.026) (0.004) (<0.00001) (<0.00001) (0.00026) (0.892)
Fibrousness 0.01 0.02 0.071 0.06 0.068 0.03
(0.77) (0.66) (0.053) (0.093) (0.066) (0.429)
16 of 23 JOHNSON ET AL.

These differences in texture attributes could potentially be explained by variations in fillet thickness across each
size class, which has been shown to influence texture analyses in catfish and other fish species (Li et al., 2017;
Veland & Torrissen, 1999). Although variation in fillet thickness would lead to these variations, this is an unlikely
explanation as the fillets in the present study were cut to a uniform size following AMSA guidelines (American Meat
Science Association, 2015).
Mushiness, as a sensory attribute, generally exhibits a negative correlation with toughness, as their characteris-
tics are almost opposite. Channel catfish was the least mushy genotype among the catfish genetic types investigated.
However, we observed an increase in toughness as size class increased across genetic types, but the inverse relation-
ship of decreased mushiness with an increase in size class was not observed. Mushiness was found to be significantly
higher in the small channel catfish size class but did not differ among the increasing size classes. Mushiness is a key
attribute that at least one catfish processor has concern with when comparing the “mushy”hybrid catfish fillets to
the imported pangasius fillets (Pangasianodon hypopthalmus). This concern warrants further study to evaluate the
extent of these differences on consumer preference and to determine if a consumer preference exists.
Springiness increased with body weight in channel catfish but decreased with body weight for blue catfish while
hybrid catfish had the least springiness among genetic types. Thus, relationships between individual texture traits
varies among genetic types. Flakiness increased with body weight in all genetic types. Flakiness was similar among all
genetic types at all size classes except in the large size class where channel catfish fillets were the least flaky. The
pronounced “flaking”sensation observed in fish during sensory evaluation may be attributed to the unique anatomy
of fish muscles, which differs significantly from that of terrestrial farmed species (Chambers & Robel, 1993). This
flakiness observed as muscle fibers separate during oral chewing, although not as extensively studied as other sen-
sory attributes, is likely linked to muscle structure and fiber density and cohesion. Flakiness of the fillet was the most
correlated with mechanical texture traits resilience and cohesiveness, but neither of these correlations were found
to be of high value.
Adhesiveness is a measure of stickiness, and few differences were seen for this trait. Adhesiveness was found to
vary by cold storage type in channel catfish and hybrid catfish based on the type of cold storage treatment (Bland
et al., 2022), reinforcing our findings that a similar adhesiveness among all catfish genetic types could be observed
because of the same treatment among all fillets in the current protocol. The current investigation found that medium
size hybrid catfish, and large blue catfish and hybrid catfish had the greatest adhesiveness among genetic types.
Genetics and size both influenced cook loss, but the difference observed in cook loss was small. Cook loss
increased with size in channel catfish, and in general blue catfish had the highest cook loss. Blue catfish had the
highest loss in the small size class, and hybrid catfish had the least cook loss in the large size class.
While commercial catfish production prioritizes white/light catfish fillets, it was found in our analysis of fillet
color attributes including whiteness, yellowness, and redness of the fillet, that lightness of the fillet decreases in
channel catfish with size but was not different among size classes in hybrid catfish and blue catfish, with no differ-
ences among the genetic types being observed. Yellowness showed minimal variability among groups, except for
higher levels in smaller channel catfish than blue catfish and notable high levels in extra-large hybrid catfish, poten-
tially because of carotenoid accumulation, However, channel catfish and blue catfish fillets decrease in yellowness as
size increases.
Yellow discoloration is unfavorable to the commercial market and is typically found on the dorsal area of the fil-
let (Lovell, 1984). As consumers have not been taught otherwise, some interpret the yellow as fattiness, but caroten-
oid deposition is the cause. Carotenoids have a direct influence on yellowness of catfish fillets (Li et al., 2007), and
because animals cannot produce carotenoids, they must be taken in from their feed (Shahidi & Brown, 1998). It has
been shown that three major carotenoids (lutein, zeaxanthin, and alloxanthin) have a strong relationship with yellow-
ness of fillets and should be examined in future studies to reduce yellowness of market channel catfish (Li
et al., 2013). However, these carotenoids make the fillet more nutritious, and a potential strategy to decrease market
losses would be to promote and market a “superior golden fillet.”
JOHNSON ET AL.17 of 23

Redness of the fillet was found to increase with increasing body weight in channel catfish and hybrid catfish.
Generally, blue catfish fillets had the most redness with small and large size classes having the highest means. Con-
sistent with the observation, medium-sized channel catfish had the lowest redness in that size class. Redness in
channel catfish fillets resulted in significant financial losses, estimated at $443,000 for farmers and $683,000 for pro-
cessors (Allred et al., 2019). Allred et al. (2019) also found a high prevalence of Aeromonas sobria in rejected red fillets
(68%), suggesting a possible link to the observed redness in our analyses. Several factors that can contribute to fillet
redness include exposure to high temperatures, internal hemorrhaging causing blotchy red spots, injuries from other
catfish because of spining, and stress from the environmental conditions, harvesting, and transportation, all of which
can reduce fillet quality and increase redness (Allred et al., 2019; Ciaramella et al., 2016; Desai et al., 2014; Refaey
et al., 2017). Carotenoid contents within fillets that were not measured in the present study have been shown to
influence fillet color attributes (Shahidi & Brown, 1998) and is an alternative explanation for the greater redness in
the blue catfish flesh. Moisture content can also affect redness in fillets (Hernández et al., 2009).
Fillet % decreased with body weight for all three genetic types, channel catfish, hybrid catfish, and the blue cat-
fish. Fillet % decreasing in larger channel catfish has been explained previously by the impact of the relatively larger
head size compared with body size, resulting in a decreased fillet % (Geng et al., 2016; Rutten et al., 2005). Relative
head size was likely increasing for all genetic types, resulting in this observed trend of decreased fillet % in larger fish.
Fillet % of hybrid catfish at all sizes was better than blue and channel catfish, likely because of their smaller head size
as similar results were found in various studies (Argue et al., 2003; Bosworth, 2012; Dunham & Masser, 2012). Head
size does not totally explain the differences in relative fillet % among genetic types of catfish as blue catfish have the
smallest head size of genetic types (Dunham et al., 1984); thus, other body shape traits also must have importance in
determining fillet yield. These results are logical because of the relationship between fillet yield and body morphol-
ogy. At the smallest size class, the fish have not reached sexual maturity, and their heads are relatively larger com-
pared with the body of larger sized fish resulting in a decrease fillet yield (Dunham et al., 1984; Hutson et al., 2014;
Rutten et al., 2005). A study conducted in evaluating fillet yield in four genetic types of catfish showed that hybrid
catfish (0.83 kg) had a higher fillet yield than channel catfish (0.56 kg) and blue catfish (0.36 kg) (Argue et al., 2003).
An interacting factor we must consider related to carcass yield and fillet % is visceral fat percentage. Visceral fat
% increases with the increase in body weight for all three genetic types partially counteracting the benefit of rela-
tively smaller heads as the catfish grew. Hybrid catfish had higher visceral fat deposition than channel catfish at
every size class evaluated and higher visceral fat deposition than blue catfish in the small size class. Channel catfish
had the smallest visceral fat deposits. Higher visceral fat deposition in hybrid catfish compared with channel
catfish was observed in earlier studies (Bosworth et al., 2004; Yant et al., 1976). Blue catfish had higher visceral fat
deposition than channel catfish at every size class in our study; thus, the high visceral fat deposition in hybrid catfish
may be because of inheritance from the blue sire.
An additional interacting factor to consider with the results is gonadal development, as channel catfish have ear-
lier sexual maturity than blue catfish (Graham, 1999), and gonadal development appears to be the inverse of fat
deposition across various genetic scenarios. Thus, more energy was likely allocated to fat deposition in blue catfish.
Hybrid catfish showed a different trend, and genetics of sexual maturation and relation to size could potentially be
different in hybrid catfish and sexual maturation may have slowed growth of the hybrid catfish. Hybrid catfish
showed a different trend, and genetics governing sexual maturation and relationship to size may vary in hybrid cat-
fish compared with the two parent species. This variation in sexual maturation could have slowed growth in smaller
hybrid catfish, thereby contributing to phenotypic variability within this group. Hybrid catfish in this study seemed to
have retarded sexual development at the extra-large size, as they had the smallest relative gonad size. Gonadal
development among genetic types of catfish was greatest in extra-large channel catfish and increased with body
weight in blue catfish and channel catfish. Visceral fat may have had other interactions and consequences as visceral
fat in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) was shown to have a negative correlation with Kramer shear force texture
analyses, which could potentially influence hybrid texture hardness, and in turn sensory evaluation
(Aussanasuwannakul et al., 2011).
18 of 23 JOHNSON ET AL.

Bosworth et al. (2004) also found that fillet yield in hybrid catfish was higher than channel catfish showing simi-
lar results to our study. The study also found that Kramer shear force in texture analyses was higher in one channel
catfish strain than a second channel catfish strain and the hybrid catfish. Thus, strain is also a factor when trying to
reach conclusions regarding carcass differences among species and interspecific hybrids. The sensory evaluation in
their study found no difference between channel catfish and hybrid catfish for “firmness”,“flakiness”,or“flavor”,
presenting a slight discrepancy with our results, where our sensory panel observed greater “toughness”in channel
catfish than hybrid catfish. Our sensory panel found higher toughness and various firmness-like traits in channel cat-
fish compared with hybrid catfish. Flakiness and flavor results in the current study were essentially the same as
Bosworth et al. (2004); however, we found one genetic difference for each attribute across various size classes, in
contrast to Bosworth et al. (2004), who found no differences. A more recent study (Bosworth, 2012) showed similar
results with hybrid catfish having a higher shank fillet yield than channel and blue catfish, and hybrid catfish and blue
catfish having higher fat content than channel catfish.
The catfish industry has a problem with oversize catfish (>1.75 kg), both channel catfish and hybrid catfish
(Creel et al., 2021). Processors pay a low price for these fish or refuse to pay for them at all. Although a problem for
both genetic types related to harvest efficiency, this phenomenon can be exaggerated in hybrid catfish because of
their rapid growth. Compared with the parent species, the genetics and physiology of the hybrid carcass traits shifted
when going from the large size to extra-large size. At this juncture, the hybrid catfish flesh became much more red
and yellow, adhesion dropped, resilience increased, and the fillets became less mushy. At this extra-large size, the
only difference in flavor was observed with hybrids having the highest score.
Overall, channel catfish had the most distinctive flesh and pattern of texture attributes and the most tough and
fibrous flesh among genetic types. Blue catfish and hybrid catfish had a more variable pattern compared with channel
catfish and were more similar to each other than to channel catfish. This could be an example of paternal predomi-
nance in hybrid catfish (Dunham et al., 1982). Distinct differences among genetic types for texture were observed in
the current experiment, which is contrast to an earlier study that found no different in texture of cooked channel
catfish and hybrid catfish fillets (Huang et al., 1994) and substantiates recent findings in texture differences between
channel catfish and hybrid catfish (Bland et al., 2022).
5|CONCLUSION
The results of this study show distinctive channel catfish texture and sensory traits at all size classes. Blue catfish
and hybrid catfish are more similar to each other than to channel catfish, and because of the production benefits the
hybrid catfish provides, blue catfish aquaculture for enhanced texture or sensory would not be beneficial. A key find-
ing in this study is the higher toughness of channel catfish fillets and the mushier flesh of the hybrid catfish. We have
found differences between the two genetic types in this study; however, the lack of conducted consumer preference
surveys on ictalurid catfish fillet properties precludes us from offering definitive guidance and recommendations to
the catfish industry. The scores assigned to the individual fillets by our panel were relatively consistent. However,
the individual panels preferences for various textures and what was a good or bad score was quite variable (data not
provided). The sensory and mechanical scores were often correlated but only lowly to moderately, indicating that, in
general, the panelists were giving the same result as the TPAs, but mechanical evaluation can elucidate differences
not detected by human panelists. Further studies are needed that evaluate muscle fiber density, size, and muscle
composition to correlate these traits with potentially explain differences in texture between size classes in hybrid
and channel catfish as well as consumer preferences determined.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was supported by the Alabama Agriculture Experiment Station.
JOHNSON ET AL.19 of 23

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Data available on request from the authors.
ORCID
Andrew Johnson https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0603-758X
REFERENCES
Allred, S., Shao, W., Schilling, M. W., Petrie-Hanson, L., & Allen, P. J. (2019). An assessment of red fillet prevalence in the cat-
fish industry. Aquaculture,507, 203–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2019.04.020
American Meat Science Association. (2015). Sensory evaluation methods and instrumental measures of tenderness and tex-
tural properties Research Guidelines for Cookery, Sensory Evaluation, and Instrumental Tenderness Measurements of
Fresh Meat. 2nd edition, American Meat Science Association, Chicago, IL. 29–80. https://meatscience.org/docs/
default-source/publications-resources/amsa-sensory-and-tenderness-evaluation-guidelines/research-guide/2015-amsa-
sensory-guidelines-1-0.pdf?sfvrsn=6
Argue, B. J., Liu, Z., & Dunham, R. A. (2003). Dress-out and fillet yields of channel catfish, Ictalurus punctatus, blue catfish,
Ictalurus furcatus, and their F1, F2 and backcross hybrids. Aquaculture,228(1–4), 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0044-8486(03)00245-X
Arias, C. R., Cai, W., Peatman, E., & Bullard, S. A. (2012). Catfish hybrid Ictalurus punctatusI. Furcatus exhibits higher resis-
tance to columnaris disease than the parental species. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms,100(1), 77–81. https://doi.org/10.
3354/dao02492
Aussanasuwannakul, A., Kenney, P. B., Weber, G. M., Yao, J., Slider, S. D., Manor, M. L., & Salem, M. (2011). Effect of sexual
maturation on growth, fillet composition, and texture of female rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) on a high nutri-
tional plane. Aquaculture,317(1–4), 79–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2011.04.015
Barroso, M., Careche, M., & Borderıas, A. J. (1998). Quality control of frozen fish using rheological techniques. Trends in Food
Science & Technology,9(6), 223–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-2244(98)00047-8
Bechtel, P. J., Bland, J. M., Woods, K., Lea, J. M., Brashear, S. S., Boue, S. M., Daigle, K. W., & Bett-Garber, K. L. (2018). Effect
of par frying on composition and texture of breaded and battered catfish. Food,7(4), 46. https://doi.org/10.3390/
foods7040046
Bland, J. M., Ardoin, R., Li, C. H., & Bechtel, P. J. (2022). Instrumental texture differentiation of channel (Ictalurus punctatus)
and hybrid (channelblue, Ictalurus furcatus) catfish fillets. Food,11(13), 1875. https://doi.org/10.3390/
foods11131875
Bland, J. M., Bett-Garber, K. L., Li, C. H., Brashear, S. S., Lea, J. M., & Bechtel, P. J. (2018). Comparison of sensory and instru-
mental methods for the analysis of texture of cooked individually quick frozen and fresh-frozen catfish fillets. Food Sci-
ence & Nutrition,6(6), 1692–1705. https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.737
Bosworth, B. G. (2012). Effects of winter feeding on growth, body composition, and processing traits of co-cultured blue
catfish, channel catfish, and channel catfish blue catfish hybrids. North American Journal of Aquaculture,74(4), 553–
559. https://doi.org/10.1080/15222055.2012.686958
Bosworth, B. G., Wolters, W. R., Silva, J. L., Chamul, R. S., & Park, S. (2004). Comparison of production, meat yield, and meat
quality traits of NWAC103 line channel catfish, Norris line channel catfish, and female channel catfishmale blue cat-
fish F1 hybrids. North American Journal of Aquaculture,66(3), 177–183. https://doi.org/10.1577/A03-032.1
Chambers, E., & Robel, A. (1993). Sensory characteristics of selected species of freshwater fish in retail distribution. Journal
of Food Science,58(3), 508–512. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1993.tb04312.x
Ciaramella, M. A., Nair, M. N., Suman, S. P., Allen, P. J., & Schilling, M. W. (2016). Differential abundance of muscle proteome
in cultured channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) subjected to ante-mortem stressors and its impact on fillet quality. Com-
parative Biochemistry and Physiology Part D: Genomics and Proteomics,20,10–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbd.2016.
06.011
Connolly, C., & Fleiss, T. (1997). A study of efficiency and accuracy in the transformation from RGB to CIELAB color space.
IEEE Transactions on Image Processing,6(7), 1046–1048.
Coppes, Z., Pavlisko, A., & Vecchi, S. D. (2002). Texture measurements in fish and fish products. Journal of Aquatic Food Prod-
uct Technology,11(1), 89–105. https://doi.org/10.1300/J030v11n01_08
Creel, J. D., Hanson, T. R., Roy, L. A., & Sammons, S. (2021). Age determination of hybrid catfish Ictalurus punctatus ♀
Ictalurus furcatus ♂and channel catfish Ictlurus punctatus from commercial catfish farms. North American Journal of Aqua-
culture,83(4), 283–289. https://doi.org/10.1002/naaq.10193
20 of 23 JOHNSON ET AL.

Desai, M. A., Joseph, P., Suman, S. P., Silva, J. L., Kim, T., & Schilling, M. W. (2014). Proteome basis of red color defect in
channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) fillets. LWT-Food Science and Technology,57(1), 141–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
lwt.2014.01.001
Dunham, R. A., & Argue, B. J. (1998). Seinability of channel catfish, blue catfish, and their F1, F2, F3, and backcross hybrids
in earthen ponds. The Progressive Fish-Culturist,60(3), 214–220. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8640(1998)060%
3C0214:SOCCBC%3E2.0.CO;2
Dunham, R. A., Benchakan, M., Smitherman, R. O., & Chappell, J. A. (1984). Correlations among morphometric traits of
11-month-old blue, channel, white, and hybrid catfishes and the relationship to dressing percentage at 18-months
of age. Journal of the World Mariculture Society,14, 668–675.
Dunham, R. A., & Elaswad, A. (2017). Catfish biology and farming. Annual Review of Animal Biosciences,6(1), 305–325.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-animal-030117-014646
Dunham, R. A., & Masser, M. P. (2012). Production of hybrid catfish (Vol. 436) Publication 190. Southern Regional Aquaculture
Center.
Dunham, R. A., Ramboux, A. C., & Perera, D. A. (2014). Effect of strain on tolerance of low dissolved oxygen of channel 
blue catfish hybrids. Aquaculture,420, S25–S28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2013.09.039
Dunham, R. A., Smitherman, R. O., Brooks, M. J., Benchakan, M., & Chappell, J. A. (1982). Paternal predominance in recipro-
cal channel-blue hybrid catfish. Aquaculture,29(3–4), 389–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/0044-8486(82)90152-1
Dunham, R. A., Smitherman, R. O., & Goodman, R. K. (1987). Comparison of mass selection, crossbreeding, and hybridization
for improving growth of channel catfish. The Progressive Fish-Culturist,49(4), 293–296. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-
8640(1987)49%3C293:COMSCA%3E2.0.CO;2
Dunham, R. A., Smitherman, R. O., & Webber, C. (1983). Relative tolerance of channel blue hybrid and channel catfish to
low oxygen concentrations. The Progressive Fish- Culturist,45(1), 55–57. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8659(1983)45
[55:RTOCXB]2.0.CO;2
Engle, C. R., Hanson, T. R., & Kumar, G. (2018). Economic history of an American success story. U.S. farm-raised catfish. Pro-
ceedings of the 2018 Catfish Research Symposium, Annual Catfish Farmers of America Meeting, Memphis TN, January
15, 2018. Indianola, Mississippi.
Engle, C. R., & Stone, N. M. (2013). Competitiveness of US aquaculture within the current US regulatory framework. Aqua-
culture Economics & Management,17(3), 251–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/13657305.2013.812158
Fauconneau, B. (1993). Characteristics of rainbow trout flesh: I. Chemical composition and cellularity of muscle and adipose
tissues. Sciences Des Aliments,13, 173–187.
Garcia Loredo, A. B., & Guerrero, S. N. (2011). Correlation between instrumental and sensory ratings by evaluation of some
texture reference scales. International Journal of Food Science & Technology,46(9), 1977–1985. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1365-2621.2011.02709.x
Geng, X., Liu, S., Yao, J., Bao, L., Zhang, J., Li, C., Wang, R., Sha, J., Zeng, P., Zhi, D., & Liu, Z. (2016). A genome-wide associa-
tion study identifies multiple regions associated with head size in catfish. G3: Genes, genomes, Genetics,6(10), 3389–
3398. https://doi.org/10.1534/g3.116.032201
Graham, K. (1999). A review of the biology and management of blue catfish. In Catfish 2000: Proceedings of the Interna-
tional Ictalurid Symposium. American Fisheries Society, Symposium, vol. 24, 37–49. Bethesda, Maryland.
Griffin, M. J., Camus, A. C., Wise, D. J., Greenway, T. E., Mauel, M. J., & Pote, L. M. (2010). Variation in susceptibility to
Henneguya ictaluri infection by two species of catfish and their hybrid cross. Journal of Aquatic Animal Health,22(1), 21–
35. https://doi.org/10.1577/H09-030.1
Hagen, Ø., Solberg, C., Sirnes, E., & Johnston, I. A. (2007). Biochemical and structural factors contributing to seasonal varia-
tion in the texture of farmed Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus L.) flesh. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemis-
try,55(14), 5803–5808. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf063614h
Hallier, A., Chevallier, S., Serot, T., & Prost, C. (2008). Freezing-thawing effects on the colour and texture of European catfish
flesh. International Journal of Food Science & Technology,43(7), 1253–1262. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2007.
01601.x
Hanson, T. R. (2018). Catfish processing and feed deliveries, various months. Catfish Institute.
Hernández, M. D., López, M. B., ´
Alvarez, A., Ferrandini, E., García, B. G., & Garrido, M. D. (2009). Sensory, physical, chemical
and microbiological changes in aquacultured meagre (Argyrosomus regius) fillets during ice storage. Food Chemistry,
114(1), 237–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2008.09.045
Huang, Y. W., Lovell, R. T., & Dunham, R. A. (1994). Carcass characteristics of channel and hybrid catfish, and quality
changes during refrigerated storage. Journal of Food Science,59(1), 64–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1994.
tb06898.x
Hutson, A. M., Liu, Z., Kucuktas, H., Umali-Maceina, G., Su, B., & Dunham, R. A. (2014). QTL map for growth and morpho-
metric traits using a channel catfish blue catfish interspecific hybrid system. Journal of Animal Science,92,1–16.
https://doi.org/10.2527/jas2013-7191
JOHNSON ET AL.21 of 23

Hyldig, G., & Nielsen, D. (2001). A review of sensory and instrumental methods used to evaluate the texture of fish muscle.
Journal of Texture Studies,32(3), 219–242. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-4603.2001.tb01045.x
Johnsen, P. B., & Kelly, C. A. (1990). A technique for the quantitative sensory evaluation of farm- raised catfish. Journal of
Sensory Studies,4(3), 189–199. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.1990.tb00469.x
Johnston, I. A., Alderson, R., Sandham, C., Dingwall, A., Mitchell, D., Selkirk, C., Nickell, D., Baker, R., Robertson, B.,
Whyte, D., & Springate, J. (2000). Muscle fibre density in relation to the colour and texture of smoked Atlantic salmon
(Salmo salar L.). Aquaculture,189(3–4), 335–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(00)00373-2
Kaliba, A. R., & Engle, C. R. (2006). Productive efficiency of catfish farms in Chicot County. Arkansas. Aquaculture Economics &
Management,10(3), 223–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/13657300600985413
Kiessling, A., Espe, M., Ruohonen, K., & Mørkøre, T. (2004). Texture, gaping and colour of fresh and frozen Atlantic salmon
flesh as affected by pre-slaughter iso-eugenol or CO2 anaesthesia. Aquaculture,236(1–4), 645–657. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.aquaculture.2004.02.030
Koteng, D. F. (1992). Markedsundersøkelse norsk laks (p. 165). Fiskerinaeringens Landsforening FHL.
Li, C. H., Bland, J. M., & Bechtel, P. J. (2017). Effect of precooking and polyphosphate treatment on the quality of catfish fil-
lets cooked in pouch in boiling water. International Journal of Food Science & Technology,52(8), 1844–1851. https://doi.
org/10.1111/ijfs.13459
Li, M., Huang, J., Chen, Y., Zu, X., Xiong, G., & Li, H. (2022). Correlations between texture profile analysis and sensory evalua-
tion of cured largemouth bass meat (Micropterus salmoides). Journal of Food Quality,2022(1), 1319744. https://doi.org/
10.1155/2022/1319744
Li, M. H., Robinson, E. H., Oberle, D. F., & Zimba, P. V. (2007). Effects of various dietary carotenoid pigments on fillet appear-
ance and pigment absorption in channel catfish, Ictalurus punctatus.Journal of the World Aquaculture Society,38(4), 557–
563. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-7345.2007.00130.x
Li, M. H., Wise, D. J., Kumar, G., Bosworth, B. G., Mischke, C. C., Aarattuthodiyil, S., Rutland, W., & Lucas, P. M. (2020).
Effects of long-term restricted feeding followed by full feeding on growth, processing yield, fillet proximate composition,
and economics of market-size hybrid catfish, ♀Ictalurus punctatus♂Ictalurus furcatus.Journal of the World Aquaculture
Society,51(4), 931–943. https://doi.org/10.1111/jwas.12727
Li, Y., Bell, L. N., Liu, S., & Wang, Y. (2013). Color and carotenoid content changes of yellow discolored channel catfish,
Ictalurus punctatus, fillets during refrigerated storage. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society,44(1), 148–153.
Lin, W. L., Zeng, Q. X., Zhu, Z. W., & Song, G. S. (2012). Relation between protein characteristics and TPA texture character-
istics of crisp grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idellus C. Et V) and grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idellus). Journal of Texture
Studies,43(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-4603.2011.00311.x
Listrat, A., Lebret, B., Louveau, I., Astruc, T., Bonnet, M., Lefaucheur, L., Picard, B., & Bugeon, J. (2016). How muscle structure
and composition influence meat and flesh quality. The Scientific World Journal,2016,1–14. https://doi.org/10.1155/
2016/3182746
Lovell, R. T., Lelana, I. Y., Boyd, C. E., & Armstrong, M. S. (1986). Geosmin and musty-muddy flavors in pond-raised channel
catfish. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society,115(3), 485–489. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8659(1986)
115%3c485:GAMFIB%3E2.0.CO;2
Lovell, T. (1984). The yellow fat problem in fish flesh. Aquaculture Magazine.
Ly, B. C. K., Dyer, E. B., Feig, J. L., Chien, A. L., & Del Bino, S. (2020). Research techniques made simple: Cutaneous colorime-
try: A reliable technique for objective skin color measurement. Journal of Investigative Dermatology,140(1), 3–12.
Paula, A. M., & Conti-Silva, A. C. (2014). Texture profile and correlation between sensory and instrumental analyses on
extruded snacks. Journal of Food Engineering,121,9–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2013.08.007
Refaey, M. M., Tian, X., Tang, R., & Li, D. (2017). Changes in physiological responses, muscular composition and flesh quality
of channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus suffering from transport stress. Aquaculture,478,9–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
aquaculture.2017.01.026
Rincón, L., Castro, P. L., ´
Alvarez, B., Hernández, M. D., ´
Alvarez, A., Claret, A., Guerrero, L., & Ginés, R. (2016). Differences in
proximal and fatty acid profiles, sensory characteristics, texture, colour and muscle cellularity between wild and farmed
blackspot seabream (Pagellus bogaraveo). Aquaculture,451, 195–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2015.
09.016
Rutten, M. J., Bovenhuis, H., & Komen, H. (2005). Genetic parameters for fillet traits and body measurements in Nile tilapia
(Oreochromis niloticus L.). Aquaculture,246(1–4), 125–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2005.01.006
Sawyer, F. M., Cardello, A. V., & Prell, P. A. (1988). Consumer evaluation of the sensory properties of fish. Journal of Food Sci-
ence,53(1), 12–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1988.tb10166.x
Sawyer, F. M., Cardello, A. V., Prell, P. A., Johnson, E. A., Segars, R. A., Maller, O., & Kapsalis, J. (1984). Sensory and instru-
mental evaluation of snapper and rockfish species. Journal of Food Science,49(3), 727–733. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1365-2621.1984.tb13196.x
Shahidi, F., & Brown, J. A. (1998). Carotenoid pigments in seafoods and aquaculture. Critical Reviews in Food Science,38(1),
1–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408699891274165
22 of 23 JOHNSON ET AL.

Shapiro, S. S., & Wilk, M. B. (1965). An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika,52(3/4), 591–
611. https://doi.org/10.2307/2333709
Silva, J. L., & Ammerman, G. R. (1993). Composition, lipid changes, and sensory evaluation of two sizes of channel catfish
during frozen storage. Journal of Applied Aquaculture,2(2), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1300/J028v02n02_04
Silverstein, P. S., Bosworth, B. G., & Gaunt, P. S. (2008). Differential susceptibility of blue catfish, Ictalurus furcatus
(Valenciennes), channel catfish, I. punctatus (Rafinesque), and bluechannel catfish hybrids to channel catfish virus.
Journal of Fish Diseases,31(1), 77–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2761.2007.00870.x
Truong, V. D., Daubert, C. R., Drake, M. A., & Baxter, S. R. (2002). Vane rheometry for textural characterization of Cheddar
cheeses: Correlation with other instrumental and sensory measurements. LWT-Food Science and Technology,35(4), 305–
314. https://doi.org/10.1006/fstl.2001.0872
United States Department of Agriculture. (2019). 2018 census of aquaculture (Vol. 3). Special studies, Part 2. Publication
AC-17-SS-2. Washington, DC. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/Online_Resources/Aquacul
ture/Aqua.pdf
Veland, J. O., & Torrissen, O. J. (1999). The texture of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) muscle as measured instrumentally using
TPA and Warner–Brazler shear test. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture,79(12), 1737–1746. https://doi.org/
10.1002/(SICI)1097-0010(199909)79:12%3C1737::AID-JSFA432%3E3.0.CO;2-Y
Weatherley, A. H., Gill, H. S., & Rogers, S. C. (1979). Growth dynamics of muscle fibres, dry weight, and condition in relation
to somatic growth rate in yearling rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri). Canadian Journal of Zoology,57(12), 2385–2392.
https://doi.org/10.1139/z79-310
Wolters, W. R., Wise, D. J., & Klesius, P. H. (1996). Survival and antibody response of channel catfish, blue catfish, and chan-
nel catfish femaleblue catfish male hybrids after exposure to Edwardsiella ictaluri.Journal of Aquatic Animal Health,
8(3), 249–254. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8667(1996)008%3C0249:SAAROC%3E2.3.CO;2
Yant, D. R., Smitherman, O. R., & Green, O. L. (1976). Production of hybrid (blue channel) catfish and channel catfish in
ponds. Proceedings of the annual conference. Southeastern Association of Game and Fish Commissioners, 29, 82–86.
How to cite this article: Johnson, A., Morey, A., Su, B., Coogan, M., Hettiarachchi, D., Alston, V., Xing, D.,
Wang, J., Li, S., Hasin, T., Lu, C., Wang, W., Shang, M., Bern, L., & Dunham, R. (2025). Evaluation of texture,
sensory, and fillet color traits in channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), blue catfish (Ictalurus furcatus), and the
hybrid catfish (channel catfish ♀blue catfish ♂). Journal of the World Aquaculture Society,56(1), e13113.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jwas.13113
JOHNSON ET AL.23 of 23