# Canned Tuna...



## Otter (Apr 20, 2005)

A couple of questions - I have developed definite opinions, but want to know objectively what others think. 1). Is pouch better than canned?. 2). Which is better - Chicken of the Sea or Starkist (those are the only two choices where I live)?


----------



## kitchenelf (Apr 20, 2005)

Sorry otter, wish I could help.  Someone will come along with a difinitive answer.


----------



## GB (Apr 20, 2005)

I am curious to hear what people think about this too. I have not tried the tuna from the pouch yet as I hardly ever eat cooked tuna, but my wife eats it all the time. She always gets the cans. I bought a pouch for her once and she seemed a bit squeamish to try it for some reason. I am not sure if she ever did eat it.


----------



## SizzlininIN (Apr 20, 2005)

Hmmmm I don't know.  I always buy canned in water.....either of those brands (depends on cost).  I used to eat it in oil with mom when I was a kid on crackers.  I don't do that anymore.....don't eat some of the things I did back then.  Anyway as far as the canned I can't tell the difference in either of those brands but then again I don't eat canned tuna but about once every 2 months and I've never compared them side to side.  Thats something you may consider is having your own taste test and let us know what you think.


----------



## middie (Apr 20, 2005)

i prefer starkist canned


----------



## htc (Apr 20, 2005)

I don't have a preference. The only reason I would shy away from the pouch is cost. At my local grocery stores, the pouch tends to be a lot more expensive (per ounce) than the traditional can.

No brand preference, just whatever is cheap. If I do splurge, it's to get the albacore canned tuna. Though that's not very often, that stuff is REALLY expensive.


----------



## norgeskog (Apr 20, 2005)

I  tried the pouch tuna and feel it is terribly overpriced and does not taste any different.  I buy a local Oregon one but used to buy Starkist solid white in water and loved it.  I now understand we should be eating chunk light in water because it has less Mercury than the solid white, but I do not know that for certain.


----------



## Michael in FtW (Apr 20, 2005)

I find little difference in the "brand" on the can. The only difference might be where it was caught, and then in processing and perhaps the water/oil used in packing. I've never found any evidence that a tuna would taste any different because of who the fishermen sold it to.  

I tried the pouch tuna, once, and was not impressed. By the time I add mayo, eggs, apples, pecans, onion, lettuce ... etc. for a salad/sandwich, or use it in a casserole with pasta - it all taste the same to me.

I do prefer tuna in oil rather than packed in water. 

There is a difference between light and white tuna ... not because it's chunk or solid - chunk is just solid that broke up into chunks during processing. 

The Mercury problem is with Albacore tuna - which is the "white" tuna. Personally, since it's twice the price at regular prices, and I can often get "regular" tuna at 2-3 cans/$1 ... I never eat the stuff.


----------



## pdswife (Apr 20, 2005)

We always buy the canned tuna packed in water.. NEVER the oil. 
The brand doesn't seem to matter as both are pretty much the same. 
I just get which ever one is on sale.


----------



## choclatechef (Apr 20, 2005)

I tried the bag tuna once, and to me, it was a little dry.  

I generally buy my tuna in water -- Starkist, Chicken of the Sea -- whatever is cheaper.


----------



## thumpershere2 (Apr 21, 2005)

Years ago the canned tuna was pretty good but now it seems less tuna more water. and it is like mush and not chunk. I do like the oil better but I guess the water packed is better for you. Haven't tried the pouch yet and it's pretty spendy but might be worth it .Canned tuna is junk now.


----------



## Otter (Apr 21, 2005)

Hmmmm, doesn't seem like anyone is in the same boat as me. I definitely prefer Chicken of the Sea over Starkist. Also, I like the pouches much better than the cans, both in terms of texture and taste, and I don't think they cost much more after you squeeze the water out of the canned stuff.


----------



## marmalady (Apr 21, 2005)

The 'oh so knowledgeable' owners of the new place I kitchen managed had ordered a ton of the pouch tuna - and it was BLICH - had some weird aftertaste, and the customers didn't like it. I even tried experimenting with adding a little oil with the mayo to give it some 'body', but nothing we did had that 'old-time' tuna taste. They finally ended up taking the rest of the case home with them, and let me do the ordering, lol!


----------



## Chief Longwind Of The North (Apr 21, 2005)

I like the canned better, especially the chunk in srping water.  I used to eat it in oil and like the flavor of that as well, but not the extra calories.  As far as brand goes, both Chicken of the Sea, and Starkist are comparable.  As mercury is stored mainly in the fat, and most of the fat and fatty flesh is cut from the tuna during processing, I don't think there's a huge problem with methyl mercury poisoning from canned tuna.  Fresh tuna is another story.  It's up to you to remove the fatty and oil rich parts of the fish.  Ironically, it's that same fat and fish oil that contains the heart-healthy, brain freindly omega-3 fatty acids that are so valuable.  It's so sad that we've messed up our own planet so much that the very food we consume is dangerous to us.  And even more sad, we don't seem to be willing to change our ways.

Seeeeeya; Goodweed of the North


----------



## Heat (Apr 21, 2005)

*Hey Otter*

I've tried the pouch. I find it to be dry also, and not as much flavor. I used to buy Chichen of the Sea in water, canned. But, im a Bumble Bee fan now in water, canned. I know you cant get that where you live. Maybe look around. Do you have a Walmart close? They sell it. 2/1.00. But i also like the Bumble Bee Albacore. When i feel like spending more. So to your question if i had your choice, Chichen of the Sea in water, CANNED!


----------



## Run_Out (Apr 21, 2005)

I guess I am little different. I like the pouch Tuna in water it just seems eaiser and the Tuna seems better to me. I like to take the pouch to work for lunch and it is eaiser to open and the taste is great with a little La Hot Sauce.


----------



## Otter (Apr 21, 2005)

To me, canned tuna always had a "tinny" taste, which is why I prefer the pouch, I agree that it is dryer, but I like it that way. Well, I guess this is why the marketers have opted to give us a variety of choices!


----------



## norgeskog (Apr 21, 2005)

When I feel like splurging a little, I buy tuna in a jar that I get from a vendor at Saturday Market.  This couple also does olives, pickles (including pickled habanaro peppers).  They line catch the tuna and process themselves and this makes the canned stuff, including Bumble Bee, taste like cardboard.  The jar is 7 oz and is $5.00 so on the expensive side but once in a while it is sooooooooooooooooooo good.  It comes in its own juices, oil, and an herb mixture of their own.  I try to buy 1 or so a year.


----------



## luvs (Apr 21, 2005)

the best tuna i get is from save-a-lot! to those not in the know, it's a bargain store.


----------



## lyndalou (Apr 22, 2005)

I absolutely love the Genova brand tuna packed in olive oil. I frequently just toss some spring mix lettuces with onions and tuna, use the olive oil to dress it, salt and pepper and a little lemon juice. Makes a great lunch.


----------



## Rob Babcock (Apr 22, 2005)

Hmmm...I find the pouch tuna is _vastly_ better than any canned!  It's really no more expensive, either.  Look at the drained weight- at least where I shop, a pouch of tuna is roughly twice the price of a can, but the drained weight is twice as much, too.  The canned crap is mostly water, I've found.  The pouch stuff tastes much more like real tuna, IMOHO.  The canned stuff is more like, well, cat food!

I usually buy _Chicken of the Sea_, as it's a tiny bit cheaper, but the _Starkist_ stuff is good, too.  I've got a couple pouches in my cupboard right now!


----------



## Andy M. (Apr 22, 2005)

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Bumble Bee Brand tuna.  I grew up on the stuff and still find it to be a better quality than the others.

http://bumblebee.com/


----------



## middie (Apr 22, 2005)

heat did andy lol.


----------



## norgeskog (Apr 22, 2005)

Andy M. said:
			
		

> I'm surprised no one has mentioned Bumble Bee Brand tuna. I grew up on the stuff and still find it to be a better quality than the others.
> 
> http://bumblebee.com/


 
Andy M, I did mention it above, maybe you just skipped over it.  I like BB brand but the only place I can find it is Saveway or Albertsons and I never shop at either one.  I occasionally get it tuna from Trader Joe's, their brand.


----------



## Michael in FtW (Apr 22, 2005)

Another place that carries Bumble Bee tuna is Walgreens! Yep, the "drugstore". Well, at least here in the DFW area where I live. The 6-oz chunk in water cans are on sale this week for 2/$1 (limit 4). Tom Thumb grocery store has their brand tuna on sale (without a limit) 2/$1 also. Humm ... I'll have to check on Save-A-Lot and see which brand(s) they carry and what they are selling it for.

Now, just to keep it apples-to-apples for comparison ... the Starkist tuna pouches are 3-oz ($0.50/oz) or 7-oz ($0.28/oz), and the 6-oz can is about $0.22/oz (Albertson's prices as of today). 

Now the idea that, "... It's really no more expensive, either. Look at the drained weight- at least where I shop, a pouch of tuna is roughly twice the price of a can, but the drained weight is twice as much, too. The canned crap is mostly water, I've found. ...", seems to be a bit flawed. Here's why:

If the pouch is about twice the price of a can ... it's probably a 3-oz pouch. For the drained weight of a 3-oz pouch to be twice the drained weight of a 6-oz can ... the can would have to be 4.5-oz (75%) water or oil, leaving only 1.5-oz (25%) tuna. If that were true ... the ingredients on the can would have to list the water or oil first ... and the tuna second - by law. I've never drained, pressed and strained a can of tuna and wound up with only a 1/4 can of tuna - or equal to about 3 Tablespoons. 

For an added giggle ... 6-oz cans of tuna at 2/$1 = $0.08/oz. 

Preference for the taste and texture might be more of a valid argument in favor of the pouch ... but then taste is subjective.


----------



## Andy M. (Apr 22, 2005)

Sorry I missed the other Bumble Bee posts.

Michael:

We can count on you to lay out the facts in an easy-to-understand fashion.

To pick up on your price comparison, a 6-ounce can of tuna contains "about" two and a half 2-ounce servings.  That's "about" 5 ounces of tuna in a can plus one ounce of liquid to make the 6 ounces.  Thus, at $0.50 a can that works out to "about" $0.10 an ounce.


----------



## Michael in FtW (Apr 24, 2005)

*McGee isn't the only Curious Cook ...*

Reading the idea that a drained "pouch" of tuna would weigh twice as much as a "can" of drained tuna set some bells off in the back of my feeble old brain - especially based on the idea that a pouch cost twice as much as a can .. that could only mean one thing ... a 3-oz pouch vs a 6-oz can at regular premium prices. Time to head to the store, and the kitchen to check this out - and seperate fact from myth. (Yes, I've been watching *way* too much Alton Brown.)

The first problem was to seperate the "extranious" (added) liquid. Obviously my first choice to seperate liquid and solid matter would have been a centrifuge ... I don't own one .. and it would have also been overkill - it would have extracted more than just the added liquid. Second choice ... a salad spinned ... don't have one of those, either. So - it's up to mother nature and gravity.

For this experiment I went with tuna packed in water since the water would drain better than oil since it is less viscous - and I was going to have to work with gravity only to seperate the excess moisture from the solids. 

EQUIPMENT: a Soehnle analog (spring) scale, a 100ml Pyrex (ASTM Standard) graduated cylinder ... 3 Gladware bowls and 3 medium-mesh strainers ... and some Saran Wrap. 

PROCEDURE: 

(1) I weighed 3 cans each of Bumble Bee, Alberton's brand, and Starkist tuna were weighed. In all cases, 3 cans of any given brand weighed 21-oz (7-oz each).

(2) A strainer was placed in bowl and a can of each brand of tuna was opened, dumped into the strainer, spread out a bit with a fork, and the can was inverted over the top of the tuna to allow any residule moisture to drain out. This was covered with Saran Wrap (to cut down on my 'fridge smelling like tune and to reduce evaporation) and placed in the refridgerator for 24 hours.

(3) At the end of 24-hours ... the cans, tuna, and drained liquid we weighed .. the liquid was also measured in the graduated cylinder.

RESULTS:

(1) An unopened 6-oz can of tuna weighs 7-oz. The cans weigh 1-oz.

(2) Among the 3 brands I tested ... Bumble Bee had the most water (45ml - 3 Tablespoons). Albertson's brand had slightly over 2-T (38ml), and Starkist was right at 2-Tablespoons (32ml).

SUMMARY:

(1) The idea that a 3-oz pouch of tuna, when drained, contains twice the amount of a 6-oz drained can of tuna .. well, it doesn't hold water. A 6-oz can of tuna will yield about 4.5-5 -oz tuna (depending on brand). 

(2) I didn't test "pouch" tuna ... I'm sure that they would contain "some" excess water .. but didn't want to pay the $1.39-$1.79 per pouch to find out the exact amounts.

CONCLUSION:

A 6-oz can of tuna that cost about 50-cents and yields about 4.5 oz tuna is probably a better buy than a 3-oz pouch that costs about $1.39!

CONCESSIONS:

There is a difference between taste and economy .. and utility. If you like the flavor of the pouch better .. than by all means, buy what you prefer. To me, the way I use tuna most often (mixed with mayo, hard boiled eggs, onions, garlic, apple, lettuce, chopped pecans for a sandwich -or- mixed with pasta, cheese and peas for a casserole) , it would be wasted money to buy the pouch because I probably wouldn't taste the difference. 

Anyway ... that's the observations from this "curious cook's" kitchen on this subject.

And - I still prefer tuna in oil over water


----------



## Heat (Apr 25, 2005)

*Great Job Michael !!*

Are you a Food Scientist by trade? If not your very knowledgeable about food. And, it sounds like you love finding out the scientic backgrounds of food. I bet you watch Alton Brown, and like his show? Hahaha. I find your postings very interesting to read and i learn so much from them. Thanks Michael. I know a Food Scientist, and hes very good too. Very interesting. 
Luv, i like Save-a-Lots Tuna also, but Bumble Bee is still my favorite. In water only! Dont need the extra calories!


----------



## jennyema (Apr 25, 2005)

Michael 



I have tried both the pouch and the can and by far I like Bumble Bee canned. For tuna salad or to add to salad, that is. Now, the only time I buy the pouch is to eat at work when I bring a salad for lunch. I think the texture of the pouch tuna is mealy.

BUT there is absolutley NO COMPARISON with that stuff and Italian oil-packed tuna (usually in jars but also in cans). That stuff will knock your sox off and should not be adulterated by mayo and pickles, etc.

RE: mercury.  There is a lot of info out there that caned tuna can be high in mercury.  But, to me, that means eat it in moderation.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=mercury+canned+tuna


----------



## Rob Babcock (Apr 25, 2005)

I give you high marks for thoroughness, Micheal!  But I don't have those products here.  At any rate, the weight of the can isn't included on the label, and the brands I buy all list the drained weight.  Again, where I shop the prices are pretty much identical per drained once.

Canned tuna tastes like the can it came in, IMO.  There's virtually nothing I can think of that I like from a can if there's another other option.  But that's just me.


----------



## norgeskog (Apr 25, 2005)

Thanks for your analysis Michael, job well done   .
We have all forgotten that that same size can used to hold 8 oz, now the label reads 6 oz, a well placed dimple in the sides and a raised bottom to make us all think it is the same. I feel cheated. If I put onions, celery, mayo, and sometimes hard boiled egg I would get two or maybe three sandwiches out of it, and only one lunch if I do as I usually prefer, drain liquid, sprinkle tuna (still in can) with fresh ground pepper, lemon zest and lemon juice and eat directly from the can.  In addition, I have been going through some old recipes from newspapers and in my older cookbooks and the tuna recipes call for 1 8oz or 1 7oz can.


----------



## amber (Apr 25, 2005)

I like canned tuna, white, in spring water, but prefer it in oil which I cannot seem to find at my grocery store anymore.  I usually buy starkist or chicken of the sea.


----------



## licia (Apr 25, 2005)

We use Bumble Bee white albacore tuna - I think it tastes the best, but that may be just my opinion. I make my tuna salad with diced onion, apple, celery and mayo. and always water packed, only.


----------



## Michael in FtW (Apr 26, 2005)

HEAT said:
			
		

> Are you a Food Scientist by trade? ...


 
No, I've just got a background in science and research (biochemistry, physiology, nutrition), and a bad habit of asking "why" *way* too many time. If I don't know the answer to a question - I know how to go find the answer, if there is one.



			
				Rob Babcock said:
			
		

> ... At any rate, the weight of the can isn't included on the label, and the brands I buy all list the drained weight.


 
True Rob, the weight of the can is not included on the label. The weight on the label only refelects the weight of the contents within the can. The reason I weighed the unopened can was to give me a reference point to make sure there was no evaporation ... if the empty can plus it's contents after draining didn't equal the unopened can .. I would need to try to figure out what happened with the experiment since can+tuna+water should equal the weight of the unopened can. 

I don't know where you live in the USA - but if it's sold in the USA the weight on the can is the weight of the total contents in the can - not the dry/drained weight. A 6-oz can of tuna in water contains 6-oz of tuna + water. There *IS* however a clue as to the drained weight by looking at the nutritional information - at least for tuna. The serving size and servings per can gives a basic clue. For all three brands of canned tuna - the serving size is 2-oz. For the number of servings per can: Bumble Bee tuna was "variable", Albertson's was "about 2.5", and StarKist claimed 2.5. This would fit with the results of the experiment.

Rob, I hope you understand that I'm not picking on you ... just the idea that a 3-oz "pouch" of tuna contained twice as much tuna as a 6-oz "can".



			
				norgeskog said:
			
		

> We have all forgotten that that same size can used to hold 8 oz.


 
Actually, the old 8-oz tuna cans *were* a "little" bigger - about 1/2-inch in diameter and 1/4-1/2 inch in height. This observation has nothing to do with food history or science ... it has to do with amateur radio. I got the plans to build a low power 2-tube radio transmitter that was based on a tuna can chasis (from back in the late 1950's) and it wouldn't fit on a modern tuna can. I saw one at a ham convention a couple of years ago ... beside a "modern one" that was transistorized (using a 1995 tuna can) - there was a difference in the can sizes.

As prices went up - we got screwed around. Instead of increasing the prices, the producers (knowning we would scream about that) just reduced the amount we were getting - thinking we wouldn't notice. An 8-oz can of tuna became 6-oz .... and a 1-lb can of coffee shrank to 13-oz .. and it's getting smaller to about 11.5 oz.

CAN vs POUCH

This was only an experiment to see if a 3-oz pouch of tuna had twich as much tuna as a 6-oz can when drained. That is all! That question could be resolved by very simple scientific means.

Flavor and texture are another matter, as is the difference between Yellow Fin, Blue Fin and Albacore - dark, light and white meat -  flake, chunk, or solid. These are subjective personal preferences - matters of personal taste and preference that can't be analyzed in a simple scientific experiment.


----------



## Rob Babcock (Apr 27, 2005)

Michael in FtW said:
			
		

> Rob, I hope you understand that I'm not picking on you ... just the idea that a 3-oz "pouch" of tuna contained twice as much tuna as a 6-oz "can".



I'm baffled by this statement- I *never* said _that_! What I was trying to get across is that a 7 oz pouch is fairly close to two 6 oz cans.  My comments compared one pouch to two cans of supposedly equal weights, not a 3 oz vs two 6 oz! The pouch stuff is packed in much less liquid vs the cans I've seen. At any rate, the drained weight of the canned stuff _is_ printed on the label.  But for that, you have to _read_ it. 

I agree that flavor is a subjective thing. But I theorize that most people 1) are very used to the taste of canned tuna and 2) have not eaten _fresh_ tuna.  I find the pouch kind to taste a lot more like tuna and less like cat food!  Maybe the pouch isn't what people are used to, but to my palette it tastes more like the "real thing."  YMMV, of course.

Not trying to bust your chops- just adding my 2 cents worth to "The Great Tuna Controversy"!


----------



## mannix (Apr 27, 2005)

*pouch fan here*

I'm a convert. as canned tuna is so dreadful in the US (we get v.affordable Italian brands back in Australia, and even our local stuff is okay), I'm all for the ease of the pouch; less draining.

but, for anyone interested, I just found this tiny 'gourmet' brand. some guys in Portland who can the tuna in chardonnay or smoke it in the can...all sorts of flavours. v. delicious

mannix


----------



## Michael in FtW (Apr 27, 2005)

Yeah Rob - I'm in no way trying to bust any chops, either.



			
				Rob Babcock said:
			
		

> I'm baffled by this statement- I *never* said _that_! What I was trying to get across is that a 7 oz pouch is fairly close to two 6 oz cans. My comments compared one pouch to two cans of supposedly equal weights, not a 3 oz vs two 6 oz! The pouch stuff is packed in much less liquid vs the cans I've seen.


 
Sorry for not understanding what you ment when you said ... "Look at the drained weight- at least where I shop, a pouch of tuna is roughly twice the price of a can, but the drained weight is twice as much, too." 

Again, what caught my eye was the claim that pouch tuna yielded twice a much as caned. From the experiment, it turns out that canned tuna can have 20%-25% added water, depending on brand. So, assuming that pouch tuna contains no added water (but it's probably around 5%) and canned tuna contains 20%:

a 3-oz can of tuna would yield about 2.4 oz drained.
a 7-oz can of tuna would yield about 5.6 oz drained.

In neither case does a pouch of tuna compared to an equal pre-drained weight of canned tuna yield twice as much drained tuna.

I agree - canned tuna has more added water/oil than the pouch per total package weigh oz. 



			
				Rob Babcock said:
			
		

> At any rate, the drained weight of the canned stuff _is_ printed on the label. But for that, you have to _read_ it.


 
I don't know where you live in the USA, or what brand your looking at, but the 3 brands I have do not tell me the drained weight of the can contents, per se. What they do tell me is that the nutritional information is based on a 2-oz serving of drained tuna, and that the can contains *about* 2.5 servings. While the nutritional information is based on an absolute of 2-oz drained tuna .... the servings per can is variable ... which makes the drained weight of the can also variable based on those two factors. Bumble Bee had the lowest drained yield of about 2.25 servings per can (4.5 oz) ... Starkist was closest to 2.5 (just a couple of grams shy of 5 oz). 

Yes, I have eaten very fresh tuna ... no, I never tried tasting cat food.


----------



## Bangbang (Apr 27, 2005)

The cheapest canned tuna I can find. I get it in water only


----------

