Reprinted

from J. Food Sci.

48(4): 1048-1052
@1983 Institute of Food Technologists

Effect of Soy Flour, Soy Protein Concentrate and

Sodium Alginate on the Textural Attributes
of Minced Fish Patties
R. K. ROCKOWER,

J. C. DENG, W. S. OTWELL, and J. A. CORNELL

ABSTRACT
design was used to investigate the
A mixture response statistical
with
textural attributes
of minced fish patties. Patties formulated
firmer than those made from turbot and
pollock were signifcantly
values and fil'mpollock blends or from turbot alone. Breakpoint
ness scores were negatively correlated with flavor and acceptability
scores indicating that as patty firmness increased general acceptabilfor softer patties formulated with
ity declined. Highez acceptability
to the higher fat content. Increasing
more turbot were attributable
increased
alginate content
the soy protein levels and decreasing
The patty formularegardless of fish composition.
patty flmness
predicted acceptability
tion with maximum
was 78% turbot, 11%
11%
protein
flour,
and
concentrate.
soy
soy

INTRODUCTION
for the
FISH FLESH offers great opportunity
preparation of new fishery products tailored to the requ'ements of a wide range of consumer interests. Initial attempts
resulted
in poor textural attrito develop these products
with
associated
commonly
minced fish
which
butes
are
products. Blending the flesh of minced fish with various
types of binders has often been used as a method of improving minced fish texture. Hing et al. (1972) combined
marlin
Makaira audaxj
flesh of striped
the comminuted
with fat, starch,
pelamisj
and skipjack tuna Katsuwonus
curing
agents.
King and Flick ( 1973)
seasoning and/or
fish with
flesh of minced
combined the blood-colored
patties.
produce
Martin
beef
( 1976)
ground
to
suggested that the textural quality of minced fish could
be improved by adding sugar and salt at 1% levels along
with 30% hydrated textural vegetable proteinr Chao (1979)
and flavor preference
reported that texture preference
sodium
level of 0.4% in
alginate
at
higher
a
were
scores
minced
flesh of croaker,
patties
made
from
fish
the
minced
sheepshead and znullet. Preference scores foz mineed croakcontaining
0.42% sodium algier were highest in mixtures
and 0.34% sodium tripolynate, 0.67% sodium chloride
1980). Rockower
phosphate (Deng and Tomaszewski,
(1982) reported
that a minced fish patty could be made
whiting
of minced
turbot, pollock,
from equal portions
and sole fortified with a 1 : 1 blend of soy flour and soy
added in amounts
equal to 30% of the
protein concentrate
approach
of the formulation
The complexity
fish protein.
minced
fish
conference
summarized
in
further
been
has
proceedings prepared by National Fisheries lnstitute ( 1980).
this work
In an attempt
to offer further improvements,
dnd
focused on developing a fish patty mdde from fish bits
pollock
of
blocks
remaining
after
cutting
frozen
pieces
and Greenland
turbot Rel'nhardtius
pollachius virensj
hippoglossuidesj. These two fish species, a lean and fatty
species respectively,
were blended in varying formulations
protein
cpncentrate,
soy flour and sodium algiwith soy
and proxicharacteristics,
nate. Objective and subjective
MINCED

tbeefish''

Deng and Otwell are affiliated with the Dept.

Authors Rockower
and Author Cornell is affiliof Food Science & Human Nutrition
ated with the Dept. of Statistics. Univ. of Florida. Gainesville. FL
326 / 1.

1048-JOURNAL

OF FOOD SCIENCE-

Volume 48

(1983)

mate composition were studied as a fuzction of ingredient

levels. The primary purpose of this work was to assess texobservations
with complimentary
on flavor
tural attributes
and acceptance.
METHODS & MATERIALS
Reinhardtius
pollachius
virensj and Gzeenland turbot
POLLOCK
hippoglossuidesj
in frozen fillet blocks fom the
were yurchased
Information
Rich Sea Pack Corporatlon.
on original harvest of these
fish was not available but the frozen blocks (12-17 lb blocks)
filform prepared by automated
represent
a common commercial
leting and plate freezing. The blocks had been in frozen storage
2 months. The frozen blocks were cut with a band
approximately
saw and further minced with manual hand chopping to exemplify
commonly
resulting from fish stick cutting
fish bits and piecprotein fiber (SPF-20O), soy flour (Bontrae
operations.
Structured
dehydrated
onions, dehydrated
2101), sodium alginate (Keltone),
celery, sodium chloride and light density sodium tripolyphosphate
the Central Soya
were supplied by the Ralston Purina Company,
Company,
the Kolco Company,
Company,
the Foremost-Gentry
Salt
Crystal
vegetables
Concentrates,
California
the Diamond
Host Favorite
respectively.
and the FMC Corporation,
Company
battez and breading products of the North American Food Service
and peanut oil were obtained from a local distributor
Corporation,
located in Gainesville, FL.
Experimental

design

and
Combinations
of fish, soy flour, soy protein concentrate
sodium alginate were formulated
once with turbot as the fish component, again using pollock and finally with a 1 :1 ratio of turbot
and pollock. The levels of fish were chosen at 100, 85, and 7O% of
Realizing federal rqgulations
ingredients.
the total proteinaceous
ratio of 30 parts soy
limit additions of soy proteihs to a maxnum
to 70 parts fish (Federal Registez, 1973), the respective levels of
varied at 0, 15 , and 30%
soy flour and soy protein concentrate
jngredients.
Thus, the percent composiof the total proteinaceous
:15,
tions of soy flour to soy protein concentrate
were 0: 15, 15
0:30, 15 :O, or 30:0. A11 fish and soy protein combinations
were
replicated at three sodium alginate levels (0.2, 0.3, and 0.4%) for a
1982)
(Rockowers
experiments
Preliminary
total of 54 treatments.
sodium alginate levels below 0.4% caused the most
had indieated
noticeable difference in texture, yet provided the necessary surface
2% caused excesapproaching
gelatination.
Alginate concentrations
These ingredient levels
sive guminess and poor sensory acceptance.
mixture design (Cornell, 1981).
were chosen to fit a simplex-lattice
Mathematical
models Were fitted to data collected on each treatvalue,
Breakpoint
ment to pzedict values for four responses (Yi
Score).
Firmness
Score, Flavor Score, and Overall Aceptability
model included 31 model terms;
The. experimental
Yi ;IT + z? + p3B + ;4S + psA + J3IZTP + J?j:TTB +
=

+ j4ssA

j123TPB

p34 s BSA

:1234 TPBS

+ JIZ34STPBSA
+ l2345PBSA
turbot (range 0-100%),
variables, T
where for the ingred-lnt
pollock (range 0-100%), B soy flour Bontrae (range 0-30%),
P
and A = algiSPF-200 (range 0-30%),
S
soy protein concentrate
nate (range 0.2-0.4%) (Cochran and Cox, 1957). The p's are coefficient values which when estimated indicate the effects of various
ingredient combinations
on the response. When using this model to
variables T, P, B
predict the response, the sum of the independent
and S must equal 100%. The first portion of the model containing
the linear blending
the p tezm with single subscripts
represents
Model terms containing the p
effects of the mixture components.
blending
subscripts
zepresent
the nonlinear
term with double
=

effects of component
pairs. The portion of the equation containing
the j terms with tziple subscripts represents the nonlinear blending
Similat explanations
effects caused by blending three components.
j's with four and five subpertain to the model terms containing
scripts.
A1l 31 model coefficients
(p's) were not required to adequately
variables op the four redescribe the effect of the five ingredient
sponses in each of the four models generated to predict thek respective responses. Two statistical methods were used to determine the
inclusion 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
( coefficient value and its standard error. The second test was perif there were ari immodels to determine
'ormed on comoetitive
coefficient
in the model's adjusted multiple correlation
provement
(RA2)
as a result of the inclusion of the modei term (Cochyan and
Coxs 1957). The closer a model's RA2 value is to 1, the better the
model fits the observed zesponses. Model RA2 values shouid not be
coefficients
confused with the values of the simple correlation
(r)
that were calculated to compare the relation between responses.
Patty preparation
The minced fish patties were prepared by placing the desired
for a particular tratof fish and soy protdns requ'ed
combination
Hobart bowl. The soy flour (50% protein
ment into an aluminum
at 1 part flour to 1.6 parts
on a moisture free basis), was hydrated
water. Frozen soy protein concentrate
(93% protein on a moisture
free basis hydrated
to 65% moisture) was thawed at 2OC before
onions and celery, sodium tripolyphosphate
mixing. Rehydrated
and sodjum chloride weze then added as fixed level ingzedients along
variable,
The dzy
sodium alginate.
with the final experimental
(2O
in cold
C), water for
onions and celezy pieces were rehydrated
5 min. The ingredients
at Hobart (model C10O)
were blended
speed No. 2 for 10 min in a 2OC refrigerated zoom.
Eighty-five
grams of the mixture were weighed into one petri
with soybean oil. Nine plates were packed per
plate, precoated
experimental
treatment. The circular shaped patties were then
removed from the petri plates and placed in a 7% solution of calof sodim
alginate with calcium chioride for 30 sec. Interaction
cium caused a thin gelatinous film to form on the patty surface in
described by Morris (1973). The patties were subsea mechanism
quently battered, bzeaded, and deep fat fried in peanut oil at 190OC
for 45 sec, Fried patties were allowed to cool befoze wrapping in
foil to protect them from freezer burn
wax paper and aluminum
during frozen storage (-34OC).
Response

measurements

firmness
of patty
Breakpoint
measurements
were obtained
Universal Testing Machine. The lnstron was
by using an lnstron
force
equipped with a large CCTM load cell to measure deformation
resulting when a 1.9 cm diameter probe was pushed into the patty
surface at 2 cm/min. crosshead speed. Standard patty thickness was
deformation
2 crn Standard
distance
the
was 1.8 cm beyond
at 5 cm/
surface. The resulting deformation
pattern was recorded
min. chazt speed. Fzozen patties were pzepared foz the Instzon by
baking at 2040C for 30 min and then allowing the
immediately
patties to cool at room temperature for at least 1 hr before testing.
Three patties per treatment were tested for breakpoint
response and
four firmness readings were recorded per patty for a total of 12
Increasing bzeakpoint values (g/cm2)
response values per treatment.
denoted increased patty firmness.
To form the sensory panel, eight judges were selected from
twenty volunteers, based on their ability to distingujsh patty texture
studied. A sequential analylevels within the range of the treatments
sis procedure
judges (Amerine
was used to sczeen the prospective
et a1., 1965). Each of the eight selected panelists evaluated the 54
described earlier on a scale from 1 to 9 for firmness (1
treatments
extremdy
softer than the reference to 9 extremely fizmer than the
reference). A similar scale was used to rate flavor and overall acceptability as a combination
of flavor and texture. Flavor and acceptability were zated cm a 9 point scale (1 extremely pooTer
than the
A11 54 treatreference to 9 = extremeiy better than the reference).
ments were evaluated three times by each panelist for each of the
scored per treatment. Four, one-quarter
three sensory attributes
patties were presented
slices from different
treatment
to each
patty
panelist per sitting along with one slice from a reference
equal to the grand average
value agproximately
having a breakpoint
values. An attempt was made tp balof a11 54 treatment breakpolnt
.

ance the texture ievel of the four treatment

sitting based on prior breakpoint
response.

presented

patties

per

Composition
analysis of turbot and pollock as
Table 1 lists the proximate
methods
(AOAC, 1980). Six replicate
determined
by standard
samples were tested from each component
per fish species. ComThe
of othez ingredients
position
was provided by manufacturer.
P rotein and fat content for each raw jatty per treatment was estiof the varlous ingredients
used in the
mated from the amount
Batter, breading, and frying contribuspecific raw patty formulas.
and was not i11tions were assumed constant
over a.ll treatments
cluded in the proximate analysis.

RESULTS & DISCUSSION

VALUE for each of the four dependent
for a11 54 treatments are listed in Table
responses
coefficients
(r's) between each of the
2. Simple
specified responses are listed in Table 3. Breakpoint values
and sensory panel firmness scores were highly correlated
that the objective measurement
(a < 0.0 1) suggesting
of the submight be used with confidence as a predictor
panel
The use of a screened
may have
jective response.
Deng and Tomascontributed to such a high correlation.
force meazewski ( 1 980) found that an objective braking
firmness
sensory
surement was a useful tool in predicting
patties.
croaker
with
minced
experiment
in
thei.r
scores
evaluasimilar
conclusions
982)
made
in
Rockower
the
(1
tion of minced fish patties made from four fish species.
values and firmness scores were negatively
Breakpoint
correlated with flavor scores indicating that as the patties bewhen
came firmer, flavor scores in general declined Thus,
selecting patty formulations
to control firmness, the flavor
of the patty could be adversely affected. Patties formulated
with pollock were firmer but had lower flavor scores than
rated for turbot patties. Alginate reductions and increased
also increased
firmness, but did not adversely
soy protein
THE AVERAGE

measured
correlation

influence flavor.
Flavor

and

accegtability

overall

scores

were

highly

cor-

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

correlated
(p > 0.05). This
scores were not significantly
of acceptflavor
that
serves
as
indicates
a better predictor
ability than does fizmness; however, this does not preclude
texture from being a major factor in product acceptability.
Since our objective texture response
was not correlated
values
cannot
be used to
breakpoint
with acceptability
cannot
be
Thus, a sensory panel
predict acceptabillty.
Flavor
development.
eliminated in the process of product
positively
acceptability
and overall
correscores were
lated with percent fat and negativdy correlated with perand fat
for protein
Since the main reason
cent protein.
variation
patties
component
fish
in
the
the
the
content
was
with
increased flavor and acceptturbot was associated
ability.
and alginate
of soy protein
Table 4 shows that regardless
are significantly
(p <
levels, patties made frgm pollock
:pollock
( 1 : 1)
0.05) firmer than those made from a turbot
made
Patties
from
alone.
turbot
from
turbot
blend or
yielded significantly higher flavor scores than those made
blend and these in turn drew
from the turbot:pollock
significantly higher flavor and overall acceptability
scores
than patties made from pozock alone. Patties prepared with

Table l-petnent
and pollock
Fish

proximate
Moisture

of the

analysis

turbot

two fish species,

Ash

Fa1

Prolein

.0)

Turbo't
Pollock

72.3 (0.3)a
83.1 (0.7)

2 Val ues in parenthesis

14.7 (0.7)
16.2 (0.6)
are standard

Volume 48 (1983)-JOURNAL

12.8
(1
0.03 (0.1 )

.1

1
1

.2

(0.0)
(0.0)

deviatlon.

OF FOOD SCIENCE-

1049

QUALITY OF MINCED FISH PA TTIES

pollock had significantly (p < 0.05) higher protein contents

with the
than those formulated
and lower fat contents
blend and these in turn were characterized
turbot :pollock
by significantly
(p < 0.05) lower fat and higher protein
percentages than patties made with turbot (Tables 2 and 4).
with inThe general
trends show increased acceptability
creasing amounts of fat and these trends are associated
results
ratio.
Thes
with an increased turbot to pollock
of a stable fat to the formula
suggest that the addition
might
dominated
by pollock
be a means of
of patties
composed
of the
of patties
increasing the acceptability
leaner fish.

for the alginate

constant
except
Holding a11 variables
levels, there was linear decrease in patty firmness as the algi(Tables 2 and 4).
nate level increased from 0.2-0.4%
The use of alginate
was justified for two reasons. Prelimidemonstrated
was rethat sodium alginate
nary studies
and also was
quired to impart cohernce
to the patties,
film on the patty su/faces
needed to form a thin gelatinous
with CaC1. The gelqtinous
film would pre;
by ipteraction
belts or other survent patties from sticking to conveyor
faces during processing.
Table 5 lists the model terms, standard errors associated
coefficients
with each term, and the adjusted correlation

composition
for treatment
Table 2-A verage response values and proximate
turbot; Pzwollock; and T..P r plus P in equal amounts). sov tlour. sov protein
=

Protein
Alginate
Fish

Sov
flour

100
85
85
70
70
70
100
85
85
70
70
70
100
85
86
70
70
70

0
15
0
30
0
15
0
15
0
30
0
15
0
15
0
30
0
15

100
85
85
70
70
70
100
85
85
70
70
70
100
86
85
70
70
70
100
85
85
70
70
70
100
85
85
70
70
70
100
85
85
70
70
70

and Sodium
Content (%)
SPC
0
0
14
0
30
15
O
0
15
0
30
15
0
0
15
0
30
15

Breakpoint

(g/cm2)
670
1034
101 7
1455
1591
1755
431
538
533
867
958
941
286
4 16
579
701
1034
879

0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
O.4
0.4
0.4

IOSO-JOURNAL

Firmness

Flavor

score

score

Acceptability

5.9
5.4
5.2
4.6
5.2
5.5
5.6
5.8
5.7
5.0
5.1
5.2
5.4
5.8
5.7
4.5
5.2
5.4

5.1
5.2
5.1
4.4
4.8
5.3
5.0
5.1
6.2
4.9
5.1
5.1
4.4
5.0
5.1
4.2
5.2
5.3

3.1
4.5
5.7
5.6
7.2
6.4
2.3
2.9
3.0
4.0
5.3
4.9
1
2.8
2.9
3.2
5.6
4.7
.8

923
1710
1466
1791
1643
1696
461
899
1170
1672
1323
2128
507
626
826
1131
1170
1220
0
0
15
0
30
15
0
0
15
0
30
16
0
0
15
0
30
15

623
91 7
1 161
1456
1320
141 1
442
679
777
1 11 1
1306
1461
378
626
B73
990
958
855

0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4

OF FOOD SCIENCE-

Volume 48

(1983)

Protein

.4

.4

5.8
5.3
5.6
4.5
4.8
5.1
6.4
5.4
5.4
4.6
4.9
5.0
5.5
5.4
6.4
4.6
5.2
5.3

5.4
5.2
5.4
4.3
4.6
4.7
4.8
5.0
5.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.4
5.1
5.1
4.4
4.8
5.2

Fat

(%)

(%)

14.0
14.4
16.6
14.8
19.2
1 7.0
14.0
i 4.0
16.6
14.8
19.2
17.0
14.0
14.4
16.6
14.7
19.1
16.9

12.30
10.45
10.46
8.61
8.62
8.62
12.28
10.44
10.46
8.60
8
8.61
1 2.27
10
10.44
8.59
8.61
8.60

15.5
15.7
17
15.8
20.2
18.0
15.5
15.7
17.9
15.8
20.2
18.0
1B.5
15.6
17.8
15.8
20.2
18.0

0.03
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.03
0
0.04
0.03

14.8
15.0
17.2
16.3
19.7
17.5
14.8
15.0
17.2
15.3
19.7
17
14.8
15.0
17.2
15.3
19.6
17.5

6.16
5.24
5.25
4.31
4.33
4.32
6
5.23
5.24
4.31
4.33
4.32
6.1 5
5.23
5.24
4.30
4.32
4.31

.9

3.3
4.4
6.8
6.3
6.4
6.8
2.9
4.0
5.0
4.7
6.7
6
2.6
3.4
4.4
4.0
6
5.0

/r=

of f/

Composition

Responses
Sodium
alginate (%)

T:P

formulated
with the specified combinations
(SPC) and sodium alginate
concentrate

patties

.5

.62

.43

.02

.16

value of 1 59 1 g/cm2
soy protein mixture to th maximum
and
protein
concentrate
30%
70%
for the
soy
turbot
comincrease to a maxiscores
bination. Overall acceptability
mum as the turbot level decreases from 100 to 781, soy
increases from 0 to 1 1% and soy protein
flour component
of
from 30 to 1 1%. A comparison
decreases
concentrate
showed
plots
that acceptthe firmness and acceptability
with
increasing patty
ability scores reached a maximum
that the increase in patty
firmness subject to the condition
firmness came from an increase in the level of a nearly 1 : 1
ratio of soy flour to soy protein concentrate.
prices to illusA third plot was prepared
using current
trate the cost per pound for the various patty formulawas taken
tions (Fig. l ). Cost of each patty formulation
Price was based
sum of each ingredient.
as the weighed
23.33% levl of batter and breading, 75%
on a constant
factor from batter and 25% from breading.
of this constant
plots indicated
Comparing
that
the cost and acceptability
both the least expensive combination
(70% turbot and 30%
soy flour) at $0.3 1/1b and the most expensive combination
at $0.42/1b
(70% turbot and 30% soy protein concentrate)
The most acceptable
comwere among the least acceptable.
bination (78% turbot, 1 1% soy flour and 1 1% soy protein
in cost (ca. $0.36/lb). The
concentrate) was intermediate
product
Thus,
most expensive
was not the most acceptable.
data from this study can be used in reference for product
and costs.
formulations with variable textures, acceptance,

(RA2)

from the data in

for the four modeled
responses
for
Table 2. These models can be used to predict responses
studied.
within the range of ingredients
chosen
mixture
any
described has
Although the general model forna previously
coefficients
indicated
statistical
many coeffi(j),
tests
31
describe the effects
cients were not needed to adequately
variables
A model
or ingredients.
of the five independent
recould not be developed for the overall acceptability
RA2 greater
than 0.6 14. This reflects the
sponse with an
evaluations
level. The
at the consumer
need for market
RA2
for a1l other models were greater than 0.8.
Fig. 1 illustrates the use of the predictive models to genplots.
These plots
surface contour
response
erate mixture
values
and
for breakpoint
responses
reflect the predicted
of turbot, soy flour,
for combinations
overall acceptability
containing 0.2% alginate level.
and soy protein concentrate
models used to generate
these plots are
The mathematical
as follows :
's

Breakpoint

(g/cmz )

value

670-1-

14558

5.1251 + 4.3758
Overall acceptability
score
+ 1.833-1-8 + 0.583-1-5 + 2.7585
=

159 IS

+
+

4.8335

tssoy

Flour (Bontrael/
where T (%-furbot - 70)/30, B
and for a11 com30, and S %soy Protein Concentrate/3o
RA2
value
for the breakpoint
binations, T + B + S 1 The
RA2
for the acceptability
model was greater than 0.85. An
because al1 degrees of freemodel could not be calculated
dom were used in fitting the model and none were left to
RA2
along the
combinations
A11 ingredient
compute an
contour
lines are slanted toward the S vertex indicatsame
had a greater firming
ing that the soy protein concentrate
effect than the soy flour. Breakpoints increase from the
minimum value of 680 g/cmz for the 100% turbot and 0%
=

t'

coefficients
(;), their standard errors and adjusted
Table s-Model
/5n27 for models predicting the
coefficients
correlation
multlle
prepared
from various
specified experimental
responses of patties
and
mixtures of turbot pollock
soy flour soy protein concentrate
alginate

Coefficient

(r) between
Table 3-correlations
responses determined
from varitreatments prepared
for the set of 54 minced fish pattv
flour.
turbot.
pollock.
Ievels
of
and
combinations
soy prosoy
ous
and sodium alginate
tein concentrate

value estimates

(and 'their

errors)

standard

the specific

0.939**

Breakpoint value
Firmness score
Flavor score

-0.728*

-0.602

-0.824**

-0.683

0.951

Icant at p < 0.05.

''signlf
A'signlf
Ccant at p < 0.01,
*

(0.003)

Ja

109.48
(6.96)

0.1 27
(0.006)

-0.085
(0.025)

-0.098
(0.035)

44

1 13 1
(6 .96 )

O.1 73
(0.006)

-0.042
(0.026)

-0.087
(0.034)

-7778.14
(887.41 )

-6.921
(0.816)

0.613
(0.320

;z2
J1a
Jz4

lngredient

pojlock
Turbot:
Pollock
(1 : 1 )
Alginate
Linear
Trend

Aeceptability

Fat

Firmness
score

8712

4.21 a

5.350

4.985

16.982

9.83*

1242b

s.88b

4.87a

4.54a

17.17c

c,aoa

4.93a

5.1917

(g/cm2)

9462

score

4.87:

(%)

16.s7b

'

j 15

(%)

4.9ab

42a
J24

;2s
ja4

N .S.

N ,S.

N .S.

J3s

letter
by the same
are
co1 umn Tol lowed
values i n the same
M u ItI pIe
different
n
ned by the Dunca
signif icantly
as determi
Ievel
Range
test at the
() < 0.05at p < 0.05of signiflcance.
level ; N .S.
not
signif icant.
* Li near trend siqn if Icant
's

0.050

0.06

(0.001)

(0.003)
0.049

(0.001 )

0.002
(0.0004)

0.002
(0.0005)

0.001
(0.0004)

0.002
(0.0005)

0.002
(0.004)

0.002
(0.0005)

0.001
(0.004)

0.002
(0.005)

0.002
(0.0004)

0.001
(0.0005)

-0.022
(0.0094)

0.077

(o.oa27)

a'b.cMean-

not

(0.001)

Composition
Protein

0.055

44.77
(3 24)

.2

Flavor
score

$2
**

Responses

score
0.055

0.041

Acceptability
score

(0.003)

Flavor

Firmness
score

7
(3 24)

Js

Turbot

value
.1

and alginate
Ievel on the averTable n-Effects
o f fish combination
for the set of 54
composition
a#e specified responses and proximate
from various combinations
prepared
minced fish pattv treatments
and
pollock stpy flou sov protein
concentrate
and Ievels of turbot
sodl-um alginate

Break
point

Breakpoint

31

score

Score

SCOFOS

Responses

cient

Acceptabili'ty

Flavor

Firmness

Coeff i-

Ju5

R12

0.816

0.903

0.801

0.614

Volume 48 (1983)-JOURNAL

OF FOOD SCIENCE- 1051

;'

QUALITY OF MINCED FISH PA TTIES

Key

'r

10O % Turbnt

70 @
Jo Tu r bot :
3o % sy Flxr

882
S

<

105:

V
jr

:5

70 % Tu rboi 8
30 oA

i!

scp protejn
Concentrcte

$254

/N

I4 11

i
!

'r
.-

587
S

(A )

.n

ro

(,1

bf

z
b

(B)

,tc
.>:

p
;
:
i

%'

F/#. l-Mlxture
response surface contour plots showing (a)
the breakpoint
response (g/cm2) and (b) sensorv panel overa// acceptabilitv
made from
scores for minced fish patties
mixtures of turbot pieces. yoB flour and :oB proteln
vanous
concentrate
at the 0.2% alginate Ievel. and estimated
cost
per pound
(c) o respective formuutions calculated in additive fashion.

.w!

#)

.o7

r
i

!
i
.1

'

(C)

REFERENCES

Federal

Amezine,
M.A..
Pangborn,
R.M.. and Roessler.
E.B. 19 65. Sequenof Sensory
Evaluation
of Foodq''
In sprinciples
p.
tial analysis.
445. Academic <TofficialPress, New York.
1980.
Methods
of Analysisq''
13th ed. Association
AOAC.
Chemists.
Washington.
DC.
of Official Analytical
patties
of extruded
seafood
from unChao.
Development
L. 1979.
fish species.
M.S. thesis, Univ. of Florida.
Gainesville.
derutilized
ftExperimentl
2nd
Design.''
W.G. and Cox, G.M. 1957.
cochran.
ed. John Wiley and Sons. New York.
with
1981.
Mixtures:
Models,
<Experiments
Designs.
Cornell. J.A.
of Mixture
Data.''
John
Wiley and
Sons.
and the Analysis
mc..
New York.
of
The use
J.C. and
Tomaszewski.
F.B. 1980.
response
Deng,
surof salt. tripolyphosthe effects
face methodology
to determine
prepared
alginate
quality
patties
of
fish
and
sodium
the
phate
on
and
Techfish croaker.
in Fish Science
In SfAdvances
from minced
Surrey,
Engnologyq'' p. 218. Fishing News Book Ltd.. Franham,
land.

i
i
i
i
I
i

197:.

l
I
I

'

I
I
!
I

1052-JOURNAL

OF FOOD SCIENCE-

Volume 48

(1983)
'

Dept.

of

Agriculture.

proposed

zules.

Hing,
N.Y.A.,
and Cavaletto,
C.G. 1972.
Stability
of
at lpw tempemtme
stotage.
fish sausaze
J. Food
Sci. 37(2):
191.
patties.
King,
F.J. and
Flick,
G.J. 1973.
Beefish
Fisheries
Marine
Rev. 35(7):
31.
Martin.
R.E. 1976.
Mechanically
deboned
fish t'lesh. Food Technol.
30(9):
64.
confirmation
1973.
Monis.
E.R.
Polysaccharide
as a basis of food
structure.
In efMolecula.r
Structure
and Function
of Food
Carbohydrate.
Science
'' p. 125 (Ed.) G.E. Birch & L.F. Green. Applied
Publishers
Ltd.. New York.
National
Fisheries
1980.
Institute.
Third National
Technical
Semiof
Mechanical
and
Recoverv
Utilization
Fish Flesh,
na:r
on
p.
581. Raleigh.
NC.
Evaluation
Rockower,
R.K.
1982.
of the textmal
attributes
of
minced
of Food
fish patties.
MS thesis. Dept.
Science
& Human
Nutrition.
Univ. of Florida.
Gainsville.
FL.
lrevised
accepted
11/3/82:
Ms received
3/13/83;
3/30/83.
suppod
by the
acknowledge
financial
and advice provided
Authors
DC.
Nationai
Fishexies
Inst.. Wmshington.

Register.
9284.
F.S.,
Tang.

s8(7o):

Ii
I