effect of soy flour, soy protein concentrate and sodium alginate on the textural attributes of...

8/16/2019 Effect of Soy Flour, Soy Protein Concentrate and Sodium Alginate on the Textural Attributes of Minced Fish Patties

1/5

Reprinted from J. Food Sci.48(4): 1048-1052

@1983 Institute of Food Technologists

Effect of Soy Flour, Soy Protein Concentrate andSodium Alginate on the Textural Attributes

of Minced Fish Patties

R. K. ROCKOWER, J. C. DENG, W. S. OTWELL, and J. A. CORNELL

ABSTRACT

A mixture response statistical design was used to investigate thetextural attributes of minced fish patties. Patties formulated withpollock were signifcantly firmer than those made from turbot andpollock blends or from turbot alone. Breakpoint values and fil'm-

ness scores were negatively correlated wi th flavor and acceptability

scores indicating that as patty firmness increased general acceptabil-ity declined. Highez acceptabi lity for softer patties formulated with

more turbot were attributable to the higher fat content. Increasingthe soy protein levels and decreasing alginate content increased

patty flmness regardless of fish composition. The patty formula-tion with maximum predicted acceptability was 78% turbot, 11%

soy flour, and 11% soy protein concentrate.

INTRODUCTION

MINCED FISH FLESH offers great opportunity for thepreparation of new fishery products tailored to the requ'e-ments of a wide range of consumer interests. Initial attemptsto develop these products resulted in poor textural attri-butes which are commonly associated with minced fishproducts. Blending the flesh of minced fish with various

types of binders has often been used as a method of im-proving minced fish texture. Hing et al. (1972) combinedthe comminuted flesh of striped marlin Makaira audaxj

and skipjack tuna Katsuwonus pelamisj with fat, starch,seasoning and/or curing agents. King and Flick (1973)

combined theblood-colored flesh of minced fish with

ground beef to producetbeefish' patties. Martin ( 1976)

suggested that the textural quality of minced fish couldbe improved by adding sugar and salt at 1% levels alongwith 30% hydrated textural vegetable proteinr Chao (1979)reported that texture preference and flavor preference

scores were higher at a sodium alginate level of 0.4% inminced fish patties made from the minced flesh of croaker,sheepshead and znullet. Preference scores foz mineed croak-

er were highest in mixtures containing 0.42% sodium algi-

nate, 0.67% sodium chloride and 0.34% sodium tripoly-phosphate (Deng and Tomaszewski, 1980). Rockower(1982) reported that a minced fish patty could be madefrom equal portions of minced turbot, pollock, whitingand sole fortified with a 1 : 1 blend of soy flour and soyprotein concentrate added in amounts equal to 30% of thefish protein. The complexity of the formulation approachhas been further summarized in minced fish conferenceproceedings prepared by National Fisheries lnstitute (1980).

In an attempt to offer further improvements, this workfocused on developing a fish patty mdde from fish bits

dnd

pieces remaining after cutting frozen blocks of pollockpollachius virensj and Greenland turbot Rel'nhardtius

hippoglossuidesj. These two fish species, a lean and fattyspecies respectively, were blended in varying formulationswith soy protein cpncentrate, soy flour and sodium algi-

nate. Objective and subject ive characterist ics, and proxi-

AuthorsRockower Deng and Otwel l

areaffiliated with the Dept.

of Food Science & Human Nutri tion and Author Cornell is affili-

ated with the Dept. of Statistics. Univ. of Florida. Gainesville. FL326 / 1.

1048-JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE- Volume 48 (1983)

mate composition were studied as a fuzction of ingredientlevels. The primary purpose of this work was to assess tex-tural attributes with complimentary observations on flavorand acceptance.

METHODS & MATERIALSPOLLOCK pollachius virensj and Gzeenland turbot Reinhardtiushippoglossuidesj were yurchasedn frozen fillet blocks fom theRich Sea Pack Corporatlon. Information on original harvest of thesefish was not available but the frozen blocks (12-17 lb blocks)represent a common commercial form prepared by automated fil-leting and plate freezing. The blocks had been in frozen storageapproximately 2 months. The frozen blocks were cut with a band

saw and further minced with manual hand chopping to exemplifyfish bits and piec- commonly resulting from fish stick cuttingoperations. Structured protein fiber (SPF-20O), soy flour (Bontrae2101), sodium alginate (Keltone), dehydrated onions, dehydratedcelery, sodium chloride and light density sodium tripolyphosphate

were supplied by the Ralston Purina Company, the Central SoyaCompany, the Kolco Company, the Foremost-Gentry Company,California vegetables Concentrates, the Diamond Crystal SaltCompany and the FMC Corporation, respectively. Host Favoritebattez and breading products of the North American Food ServiceCorporation, and peanut oil were obtained from a local distributorlocated in Gainesville, FL.

Experimental design

Combinations of fish, soy flour, soy protein concentrate and

sodium alginate were formulated once with turbot as the fish com-ponent, again using pollock and finally with a 1 :1 ratio of turbotand pollock. The levels of fish were chosen at 100, 85, and 7O% ofthe total proteinaceous ingredients. Realizing federal rqgulationslimit additions of soy proteihs to a maxnum ratio of 30 parts soyto 70 parts fish (Federal Registez, 1973), the respective levels of

soy flour and soy protein concentrate varied at 0, 15 , and 30%of the total proteinaceous jngredients. Thus, the percent composi-tions of soy flour to soy protein concentrate were 0: 15, 15

:15,

0:30, 15 :O, or 30:0. A11 fish and soy protein combinations werereplicated at three sodium alginate levels (0.2, 0.3, and 0.4%) for atotal of 54 treatments. Preliminary experiments (Rockowers 1982)had indieated sodium alginate levels below 0.4% caused the mostnoticeable difference in texture, yet provided the necessary surfacegelatination. Alginate concentrations approaching 2% caused exces-sive guminess and poor sensory acceptance. These ingredient levels

were chosen to fit a simplex-lattice mixture design (Cornell, 1981).Mathematical models Were fitted to data collected on each treat-ment to pzedict values for four responses (Yi

= Breakpoint value,Fi rmness Score, Flavor Score, and Overall Aceptability Score).The. experimental model included 31 model terms;Yi = ;IT + z? + p3B + ;4S + psA + J3IZTP + J?j:TTB + . . .

+ j4ssA + j123TPB + . . . + p34 s BSA+ :1234 TPBS + .

. .

+ l2345PBSA + JIZ34STPBSAwhere for the ingred-lnt variables, T = turbot (range 0-100%),P = pollock (range 0-100%), B

=

soy flour Bontrae (range 0-30%),S = soy protein concentrate SPF-200 (range 0-30%), and A = algi-nate (range 0.2-0.4%) (Cochran and Cox, 1957). The p's are coeffi-cient values which when estimated indicate the effects of variousingredient combinations on the response. When using this model topredict the response, the sum of the independent variables T, P, B

and S must equal 100%. The first portion of themodel containing

the p tezm with single subscripts represents the linear blendingeffects of the mixture components. Model terms containing the pterm with double subscripts zepresent the nonlinear blending


2/5

effects of component pairs. The portion of the equation containingthe j terms with tziple subscr ipts represents the nonlinear blendingeffects caused by blending three components. Similat explanationspertain to the model terms containing j's with four and five sub-scripts.

A1l 31 model coeff icients (p's) were not required to adequatelydescribe the effect of the five ingredient variables op the four re-sponses in each of the four models generated to predict thek respec-tive responses. Two statistical methods were used to determine theinclusion of a specific term in the model. A t-test was performed on

the individual terms in the model using the ratio of the estimated( coeff icient value and its standard error. The second test was per-'ormed on comoetitive models to determine if there were ari im-

provement in the model's adjusted multiple correlation coefficient(RA2)

as a result of the inclusion of the modei term (Cochyan andCoxs 1957). The closer a model's

RA2 value is to 1, the better themodel fits the observed zesponses. Model RA2 values shouid not beconfused with the values of the simple correlation coefficients (r)that were calculated to compare the relation between responses.

Patty preparation

The minced fish patties were prepared by placing the desiredcombination of fish and soy protdns requ'ed for a particular trat-ment into an aluminum Hobart bowl. The soy flour (50% proteinon a moisture free basis), was hydrated at 1 part flour to 1.6 partswater. Frozen soy protein concentrate (93% protein on a moisture

free basishydrated

to65% moisture)

was thawedat 2OC before

mixing. Rehydrated onions and celery, sodium tripolyphosphateand sodjum chloride weze then added as fixed level ingzedients alongwith the final experimental variable, sodium alginate . The dzyonions and celezy pieces were rehydrated in cold

(2O

C), water for5 min. The ingredients were blended at Hobart (model C10O)speed No. 2 for 10 min in a 2OC refrigerated zoom.

Eighty-five grams of the mixture were weighed into one petriplate, precoated with soybean oil. Nine plates were packed perexperimental treatment. The circular shaped patties were thenremoved from the petri plates and placed in a 7% solution of cal-cium chioride for 30 sec. Interaction of sodim alginate with cal-cium caused a thin gelatinous film to form on the patty surface ina mechanism described by Morris (1973). The pat ties were subse-quently battered, bzeaded, and deep fat fried in peanut oil at 190OC

for 45 sec, Fried patties were allowed to cool befoze wrapping inwax paper and aluminum foil to protect them from freezer burn

during frozen storage (-34OC).

Response measurements

Breakpoint measurements of patty firmness were obtainedby using an lnstron Universal Testing Machine. The lnstron wasequipped with a large CCTM load cell to measure deformation forceresulting when a 1.9 cm diameter probe was pushed into the pattysurface at 2 cm/min. crosshead speed. Standard patty thickness was2 crn . Standard deformation distance was 1.8 cm beyond thesurface. The resulting deformation pattern was recorded at 5 cm/min. chazt speed. Fzozen patties were pzepared foz the Instzon byimmediately baking at 2040C for 30 min and then allowing thepatties to cool at room temperature for at least 1 hr before testing.Three patties per treatment were tested for breakpoint response andfour firmness readings were recorded per patty for a total of 12response values per treatment. Increasing bzeakpoint values (g/cm2)denoted increased patty firmness.

To form the sensory panel, eight judges were selected fromtwenty volunteers, based on their ability to distingujsh patty texturelevels within the range of the treatments studied. A sequential analy-sis procedure was used to sczeen the prospective judges (Amerineet a1., 1965). Each of the eight selected panelists evaluated the 54treatments described earlier on a scale from 1 to 9 for firmness (1

=

extremdy softer than the reference to 9= extremely fizmer than the

reference). A similar scale was used to rate flavor and overall accept-ability as a combination of flavor and texture. Flavor and accept-ability were zated cm a 9 point scale (1 = extremely pooTer than thereference to 9 = extremeiy bet ter than the reference). A11 54 treat-ments were evaluated three times by each panelist for each of thethree sensory attributes scored per treatment. Four, one-quarterslices from different treatment patties were presented to eachpanelist per sitting along with one slice from a reference pattyhaving a breakpoint value agproximately equal to the grand averageof a11 54 treatment breakpolnt values. An attempt was made tp bal-

ance the texture ievel of the four treatment patties presented persitting based on prior breakpoint response.

Composition

Table 1 lists the proximate analysis of turbot and pollock asdetermined by standard methods (AOAC, 1980). Six replicatesamples were tested from each component per fish species. Com-position of othez ingredients was provided by manufacturer. The

rotein and fat content for each raw jatty per treatment was esti-Pmated from the amount of the varlous ingredients used in the

specific raw patty formulas . Bat ter, breading, and frying contribu-tions were assumed constant over a.ll treatments and was not i11-cluded in the proximate analysis.

RESULTS & DISCUSSION

THE AVERAGE VALUE for each of the four dependent

responses measured for a11 54 treatments are listed in Table2. Simple correlation coeffic ients (r's) between each of thespecified responses are listed in Table 3. Breakpoint valuesand sensory panel firmness scores were highly correlated(a < 0.0 1) suggesting that the objective measurementmight be used with confidence as a predictor of the sub-jective response. The use of a screened panel may havecontributed to such a high correlation. Deng and Tomas-zewski

(1980) found that an objective braking force mea-

surement was a useful tool in predicting sensory firmnessscores in thei.r experiment with minced croaker patties.Rockower (1 982) made similar conclusions in the evalua-tion of minced fish patties made from four fish species.Breakpoint values and firmness scores were negatively cor-related with flavor scores indicating that as the patties be-

came firmer, flavor scores in general declined . Thus, whenselecting patty formulations to control firmness, the flavorof the patty could be adversely affected. Patties formulatedwith pollock were firmer but had lower flavor scores thanrated for turbot patties. Alginate reductions and increasedsoy protein also increased firmness, but did not adverselyinfluence flavor.

Flavor and overall accegtability scores were highly cor-related

(p< 0.0 1), while flrmness and overall acceptability

scores were not significantly correlated (p > 0.05). Thisindicates that flavor serves as a better predictor of accept-ability than does fizmness; however, this does not precludetexture from being a major factor in product acceptability.Since our objective texture response was not correlatedwith acceptability breakpoint values cannot be used topredict acceptabillty. Thus, a sensory panel cannot beeliminated in the process of product development. Flavorand overall acceptability scores were positively corre-lated with percent fat and negativdy correlated with per-cent protein. Since the main reason for protein and fatcontent variation in the patties was the fish component theturbot was associated with increased flavor and accept-ability.

Table 4 showsthat

regardless ofsoy

protein and alginate

levels, patties made frgm pollock are significantly (p <0.05) firmer than those made from a turbot :pollock ( 1 : 1)blend or from turbot alone. Patties made from turbotyielded significantly higher flavor scores than those made

from the turbot:pollock blend and these in turn drewsignificantly higher flavor and overall acceptability scoresthan patties made from pozock alone. Patties prepared with

Table l-petnent proximate analysis of the two fish species, turbot

and pollock

Fish Moisture Prolein Fa1 Ash

Turbo't 72.3 (0.3)a 14.7 (0.7) 12.8 (1.0)

1.1

(0.0)Pollock 83.1 (0.7) 16.2 (0.6) 0.03 (0.1 ) 1

.2

(0.0)

2 Val ues in parenthesis are standard deviatlon.

Volume 48 (1983)-JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE- 1049


3/5

QUALITY OF MINCED FISH PA TTIES .

pollock had significantly (p < 0.05) higher protein contentsand lower fat contents than those formulated with theturbot :pollock blend and these in turn were characterizedby significantly (p < 0.05) lower fat and higher proteinpercentages than patties made with turbot (Tables 2 and 4).The general trends show increased acceptability with in-creasing amounts of fat and these trends are associatedwith an increased turbot to pollock ratio. Thes resultssuggest that the addition of a stable fat to the formula

of patties dominated by pollock might be a means ofincreasing the acceptability of patties composed of theleaner fish.

Table 2-A verage response values and proximate composition for treatment patties formulated with the specified combinations of f/ /r=turbot; Pzwollock; and T..P = r plus P in equal amounts). sov tlour. sov protein concentrate (SPC) and sodium alginate

Protein and SodiumAlginate Content (%) Responses Composition

Sov Sodium Breakpoint Firmness Flavor Accept- Protein Fat

Fish flour SPC alginate (%) (g/cm2) score score ability (%) (%)

100 0 0 0.2 670 3.1 5.9 5.1 14.0 12.30

85 15 0 0.2 1034 4.5 5.4 5.2 14.4 10.45

85 0 14 0.2 101 7 5.7 5.2 5.1 16.6 10.46

70 30 0 0.2 1455 5.6 4.6 4.4 14.8 8.61

70 0 30 0.2 1591 7.2 5.2 4.8 19.2 8.6270 15 15 0.2 1755 6.4 5.5 5.3 1 7.0 8.62

100 0 O 0.3 431 2.3 5.6 5.0 14.0 12.28

85 r 1 5 0 0.3 538 2.9 5.8 5.1 i 4.0 10.4485 0 15 0.3 533 3.0 5.7 6.2 16.6 10.46

70 30 0 0.3 867 4.0 5.0 4.9 14.8 8.60

70 0 30 0.3 958 5.3 5.1 5.1 19.2 8.2

70 15 15 0.3 941 4.9 5.2 5.1 17.0 8.61

100 0 0 0.4 286 1.8

5.4 4.4 14.0 12.27

85 15 0 0.4 4 16 2.8 5.8 5.0 14.4 10.3

86 0 15 0.4 579 2.9 5.7 5.1 16.6 10.44

70 30 0 O.4 701 3.2 4.5 4.2 14.7 8.59

70 0 30 0.4 1034 5.6 5.2 5.2 19.1 8.61

70 15 15 0.4 879 4.7 5.4 5.3 16.9 8.60

Holding a11 variables constant except for the alginatelevels, there was linear decrease in patty firmness as the algi-nate level increased from 0.2-0.4% (Tables 2 and 4).The use of alginate was justified for two reasons. Prelimi-nary studies demonstrated that sodium alginate was re-quired to impart cohernce to the patties, and also wasneeded to form a thin gelatinous film on the patty su/facesby ipteraction with CaC1. The gelqt inous film would pre;vent patties from sticking to conveyor belts or other sur-

faces during processing.Table 5 lists the model terms, standard errors associated

with each term, and the adjusted correlation coefficients

100

8585707070

1008585 P707070

10086857070

70

100 0 0.2 623 3.3 5.8 5.4 14.8 6.16

85 0 0.2 91 7 4.4 5.3 5.2 15.0 5.24

85 15 0.2 1 161 6.8 5.6 5.4 17.2 5.25

70 0 0.2 1456 6.3 4.5 4.3 16.3 4.31

70 30 0.2 1320 6.4 4.8 4.6 19.7 4.33

70 15 0.2 141 1 6.8 5.1 4.7 17.5 4.32

100 0 0.3 442 2.9 6.4 4.8 1 4.8 6.16

85 0 0.3 679 4.0 5.4 5.0 15.0 5.23

85 T:P 15 0.3 777 5.0 5.4 5.4 1 7.2 5.24

70 0 0.3 1 1 1 1 4.7 4.6 4.5 15.3 4.31

70 30 0.3 1306 6.7 4.9 4.6 19.7 4.33

70 16 0.3 1461 6.4

5.0 4.7 17.5

4.32

100 0 0.4 378 2.6 5.5 4.4 14.8 6.1 5

85 0 0.4 626 3.4 5.4 5.1 15.0 5.23

85 15 0.4B73 4.4 6.4 5.1 17.2 5.24

70 0 0.4 990 4.0 4.6 4.4 15.3 4.30

70 30 0.4 958 6.4

5.2 4.8 19.6 4.32

70 15 0.4 855 5.0 5.3 5.2 17.5 4.31

0.03

0.030.030.020.040.030.030.030.030.020.040.030.030.020.030

.02

0.04

0.03

923

17101466179116431696

461899

1170167213232128

507626826

11311170

1220

15.5

15.717.9

15.820.218.015.515.717.915.820.218.01B.515.61 7.81 5.820.2

18.0

IOSO-JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE- Volume 48 (1983)


4/5

(RA2) for the four modeled responses from the data inTable 2. These models can be used to predict responses for

any chosen mixture within the range of ingredients studied.Although the general model forna previously described has31 coefficients (j), statistical tests indicated many coeffi-cients were not needed to adequately describe the effectsof the five independent variables or ingredients. A modelcould not be developed for the overall acceptability re-sponse with an RA2 greater than 0.6 14. This reflects theneed for market evaluations at the consumer level. TheRA2 's for a1l other models were greater than 0.8.

Fig. 1 illustrates the use of the predictive models to gen-erate mixture response surface contour plots. These plotsreflect the predicted responses for breakpoint values andoverall acceptability for combinations of turbot, soy flour,and soy protein concent rate containing 0.2% alginate level.The mathematical models used to generate these plots are

as follows :

Breakpoint value (g/cmz ) = 670-1- + 14558 + 159 ISOverall acceptability score = 5.1251 + 4.3758 + 4.8335

+ 1.833-1-8 + 0.583-1-5 + 2.7585

where T = (%-furbot - 70)/30, B= tssoy Flour (Bontrael/

30, and S = %soy Protein Concentrate/3o and for a11 com-

binations,T + B + S = 1 . The RA2 for

thebreakpoint value

model was greater than 0.85. An RA2 for the acceptabilitymodel could not be calculated because al1 degrees of free-dom were used in fitting the model and none were left tocompute an RA2 . A11 ingredient combinations along thesame contour lines are slanted toward the S vertex indicat-ing that the soy protein concentrate had a greater firmingeffect than the soy flour. Breakpoints increase from theminimum value of 680 g/cmz for the 100% turbot and 0%

soy protein mixture to th maximum value of 159 1g/cm2

for the 70% turbot and 30% soy protein concentrate com-bination. Overall acceptability scores increase to a maxi-

mum as the turbot level decreases from 100 to 781, soyflour component increases from 0 to 1 1% and soy proteinconcentrate decreases from 30 to 1 1%. A comparison ofthe firmness and acceptability plots showed that accept-ability scores reached a maximum with increasing pattyfirmness subject to the condition that the increase in pattyfirmness came from an increase in the level of a nearly 1 : 1ratio of soy flour to soy protein concentrate.

A third plot was prepared using current prices to illus-trate the cost per pound for the various patty formula-tions (Fig. l ). Cost of each patty formulation was takenas the weighed sum of each ingredient. Price was basedon a constant 23.33% levl of batter and breading, 75%of this constant factor from batter and 25% from breading.Comparing the cost and acceptability plots indicated thatboth the least expensive combination (70% turbot and 30%soy flour) at $0.3 1/1b and the most expensive combination(70% turbot and 30% soy protein concentrate) at $0.42/1bwere among the least acceptable. The most acceptable com-bination (78% turbot, 1 1% soy flour and 1 1% soy proteinconcentrate) was intermediate in cost (ca. $0.36/lb). Themost expensive product was not the most acceptable. Thus,

data from this study can be used in reference for productformulations with variable textures, acceptance, and costs.

Table 3-correlations (r) between the specific responses determinedfor the set of 54 minced fish pattv treatments prepared from vari-

ous combinations and Ievels of turbot . pollock. soy flour. soy pro-tein concentrate and sodium alginate

Firmness Flavor Acceptabili'ty

Responses SCOFOS Score score

Breakpoint value 0.939** -0.728* -0.602

Firmness score -0.824** -0.683

Flavor score 0.951**

''signlf Icant at p < 0.05.* Asignlf Ccant at p < 0.01, .

Table s-Model coefficients (;), their standard errors and adjustedmultlle correlation coefficients /5n27 for models predicting thespecified experimental responses of patties prepared from various

mixtures of turbot pollock soy flour soy protein concentrate andalginate

Coefficient value estimates (and 'their standard errors)

Accept-Coeff i- Breakpoint Firmness Flavor ability

cient value score score .score

t'

31.1

70.041 0.055 0.055

1 (3 24) (0.003) (0.001 ) (0.003)

44.77 0.06 0.050 0.049$2 (3 24) (0.003) (0.001 ) (0.001 )

Ja

44

Js

;z2

J1a

Jz4

' j 15

42a

J24

;2s

ja4

Table n-Effects o f fish combination and al gi nat e Ievel on the aver-

a e specified responses and proximate composition for the set of 54minced fish pattv treatments prepared from various combinations

and Ievels of turbot pollock stpy flou sov protein concentrate andsodl-um alginate

ResponsesComposition

Break Aecept-point Firmness Flavor ability Protein Fat

lngredient (g/cm2) score score score (%) (%)

Turbot 8712 4.21 a 5.350 4.985 16.982 9.83*

pojlock 1242b s.88b 4.87a 4.54a 17.17c c,aoaTurbot:Pollock

(1 : 1 )

AlginateLinear N.S. N,S.

* N .S.

Trenda'b.cMean-

values i n the same co1 umn Tollowed by

the sameletter are

not signif icantly different as determi ned by the Dunca n's

M u ItI pIeRange test at the () < 0.05 Ievel of signiflcance.

* Li near trend siqn if Icant at p < 0.05 level ; N .S.= not signif icant.

9462

109.48(6.96)

1 13.2

1(6 .96 )

-7778.14(887.41 )

0

0

0.1 27(0.006)

O.1 73(0.006)

-6.921(0.816)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

-0.085(0.025)

-0.042(0.026)

0.613(0.320

-0.098(0.035)

-0.087(0.034)

0.002(0.0004)

0.001(0.0004)

0

0

0.002(0.0005)

0.002(0.0005)

-0.022(0.0094)

0.002(0.0005)

0.002(0.005)

0

0 0.002(0.004)

0.001(0.004)

0

0.002(0.0004)

0

0

0

0

0

4.93a 5.1917 4.87: 16.s7b 4.9ab

0

O

0 0.001(0.0005)

0.077J3s (o.oa27)

Ju5 0 0 0 0R12 0.816 0.903 0.801 0.614

Volume 48 (1983)-JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE- 1051


5/5

.

QUALITY OF MINCED FISH PA TTIES . . .

Key 'TT r 10O% Turbnt

@ T bot : Vr 70 Jo u r882 3o % sy Flxr jr :5

S < 70 % Tu rboi 8105: o sc protejn0 A p

Concentrcte$254

/N

.4 11 o'.-

m.

zo bf (,1 ro587 * b

(A) S B ( B ) s .

.,tc

.>:

.

%' F/ . l -Mlxture response surface contour plots showing (a)W the breakpoint response (g/cm2) and (b) sensorv panel over-

) a// acceptabilitv scores for minced fish patties made from.w. .

.o7 vanous mixtures of turbot pieces. yoB flour and :oB protelnF concentrate at the 0.2% alginate Ievel. and estimated cost

aper pound (c) o respective formuutions calculated in addi-

( C ) S tive fashion.

REFERENCES Federal Register. 197:. Dept. of Agriculture. proposed zules.s8(7o): 9284.

Amezine, M.A.. Pangborn, R.M.. and Roessler. E.B. 19 65. Sequen- Hing, F.S., Tang. N.Y.A., and Cavaletto, C.G. 1972. Stability oftial analysis. In sprinciples of Sensory Evaluation of Foodq'' p. fish sausaze at lpw tempemtme stotage. J. Food Sci. 37(2): 191.445. Academic Press, New York. King, F.J. and Flick, G.J. 1973. Beefish patties. Marine Fisheries

AOAC. 1980.

effect of soy flour, soy protein concentrate and sodium alginate on the textural attributes of...

Documents