EVALUATION OF THE TEXTURAL ATTRIBUTES OFMINCED FISH PATTIES MADE FROM PISH

(TURBOT AND POLLOCKI,S0Y FLOUR,SOY PROTEIN CONCENTRATE AND

SODIUM ALGINATE

1R.K. Rockower,Department

1 11' d J A cornellzJ.C. Deng, W.S. Otwe , an . .

d Human Nutrition'of Food Science an2and Departiment of Statistics

University of FloridaGainesville , Florida 32611

INTRODUCTION

Recent emphasis on qxpandlng use of domestic seafood resources hasfocused attention on utilization of nontraditfonal fish speciesy and totdl

recovery and utilization of fish flesh (Bel1o and Pigotts 1980). Theseafood industry faces the challenge of prodcing wolesome, ttractivefishery products from the flesh of notraditional fish, and from thetrimmings of fish used for common fillet production. Many approacheshave been taken to meet this challenge, in particular, to solve thetextural problems associated with fishery products formulated klth mincedfish. The textural attributes of minced fish flesh are poor in cdm/arisonto intact flesh becauke of the difference in their jhysical and chemicalnature. Shenouda (1980) reviews these differences and their consequenceon texturey and Rizvi (1981) describes the adverse effects that the micihg

process has ou fish flesh.

Many researchers have attempted to solve the problem of oblectio-able minced fish texture through product formulation. Carver and King (1971)developed fish cakes eomposed of tecovered whiting flesh, potatoes, onionsand seasonings. King ahd Flick (1973) blended minced fish flesh with

a jy yy u,agroun beef to produce a product they label beefish patties s a metto solve color and texture problems. Bello and Pigott (1979) blended mincedfish flesh with structured protefn fiber, modified tapfoca starch andsodium chloride in an attept to produce a satisfactory fish cake. Dengand Tomaszewski (1980) monitored consumer acceptance fot fish patties madefrom croaker, sodium chloridey sodium trypolyphosphate and sodium alginate.Rockower et a1. (1982) studied the textural attributes of minced fishpatties made with 4 species of fish blended with and without goy protein.The diversity in researched formulations reflectg the complexity of thetextural problem.

0ur work has focused on developing a fish patty made from fish bitsand pieces remaining after cutting frozen blocks of pollock (Pollahiusvirens) and Greenland turbot (Reinhardtius hlppoglpssuides). These twofish species, a lean and fatty species tespectively, were blended in vatyfhgformulations with soy protein concentrate, soy flour and sodlum algfnate.Oblective and sublective characteristics, compositioh, and cost parameters

were studied as a function of ingredient levels. The purpose of this workwas to develop a marketable product based on sensory, economic and cmpo-sitional characteristics. This study varies from previous work becuse

36

of the two speciflc fish speciespotato, wheat or rlce flour, andingredients studiedt

used, selection of soy flour rather thanthe specific lvels and combinatons of

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Pollock (Pollachius virdns) and Greenland turbot (Reinhardtiqehippoglossuides) were purchased in the frozen fillet blocks from the RichSea Pack Corporation. The frozen blocks were cut :nd minced to exemplifyfish bits and pieces. Structured protein ffber (SPF-200)y soy flour(Bontrae 2101), sodum alginate (Keltone), dehydrated onionsy dehydratedcelery, sodium chloride and light density sodium tripolypbosphate weresupplied by the Ralston Purina Company, the Central Soya Company, thKelco Company, the Foremost-Gentry Company, California Vegetables Concen-trates, the Diamond Crystal Salt Company and the FMC Corporation, respec-tively. Host Favorite batter and breading products of the North AmericanFood Servlce Corporation, and peanut oi1 were obtained from the Hi NeighborWholesale Company, a local distributor located in Gainesville: Florida.

PATTY PREPARATION

The minced fish patties were prepared by placing the combination offish and soy proteins required for a particular treatment fnto an aluminumhobart bowl. Rehydrated onions and celery, sodium trlpolyphosphate andsodium chloride were then added as fixed level ingredfents along with thefinal experimental variable, sodium alginate. The sodium alginate was

sed at 0.2, 0.3 and 0.4Z levels based on the total ingredients weightf lation. Pollock and turbot blocks were reduced to piecesper patty ormu

f imately t cubic inch diwensions prior to the mixing process.o approxBefore the soy flou: (50Z protein on a moisture free basis) was added tothe wix, it was hydrated at 1 part soy flour to l.6 parts water. Frozen

in concentrate (93Z protein on a moisture free basis hydrated tosoy prote0 f ixing. The dry onions and65Z moisture) was thawed at 35 F be ore m

0 distilled water for 5 minutes.celery pieces were rehydrated ip cold (35 F),The ingredients were blended at hobart speed No. 2 for 10 minutes in a

C d to revent heating the mixture.35 F refrigerate room p

Efghtfive grams of the mixture was weighed into one petri plateyprecoated with soybean oil. Nine plates were packed per experimentaltreatment. The circular shaped patties were then removed from the petriplates and placed in a 7: solution of calcium chloride for 30 seconds.Interaction of sodium alginate with calcium caused a thin gelatinous filmto form on the patty surface in a mechanism described by Morris (1973).The pattfes were subsequently battered, breaed and deep fat fryed in

0 f 45 seconds. After frying the patties were immedi-peanut oi1 at 375 F orately wrapped in wax paper and aluminum foil to protect them from freezerburn during frozen storage (-300F). A11 processing steps except cooking

0 d to revent advetse protein-proteinwere executed at 35 F. This was one pinteractions from contributing to textural deterioration.

37

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Six combintions of fish, soy flour, soy protei concentkate andsodium alginate were formulated once with tutbot as the fish compohehtiagain using pollock and finally with a 1t1 ratio of turbot and pollok.

These 18 cmbinations were replicated at 3 sodium alginate levels 0,2,0.3 nd 0.4Z for a total of 54 treatments. The level: of fish were choenat 100, 85, and 70V of the total proteinaceous ihgredients. Likewis,levels of soy flour and soy protein concentrate varied at l0, 15 and 30of the total proteinaceous ingtedients. These levels were chosen to fita simplex-lattice mixture design (Cornell, 1981).

Mathematical models were fitted to data collected on each tretmetto predict values for eight responses (Yi = Brekpoint value, FirmnssScorey Flavor Scorey Overall Acceptability bcote, Cost Using Piece: dos:Using Filletsy Protein and Fat Content). Expetimehtal model;

Ys = $1T + $2P + ;aB + 04S + $5A + SIZTP + SjjTB + s..

+ $ SA + $ TPB + ... + $a45BSA + jIZg4T/BS + ... +45 123

$ P B S A +2345 2 3 4 5 $ T P B s A12345 1 2 3 4 5

where f or the ingredient variables y T = turbot (tange 0 to 100Z) ,

P = pollock (range 0 to 1001) y B = the soy f lour Bnttae (range 0 tci 30Z) ,

S = the soy protein concentrate SPF-200 (range 0 to 30Z) and A = algin'ate(range 0

.2

to 0 .4Z) (Cochran and Cox , 1957) . The (!'s are coef f icient

values which when esiimated indicate the ef fects of various ingredienvtcombfnations of the responye . When using this model to predict the reohse,the sum of the lndependent variables T , P, B and S must equal 100Z . Thef irst portion of the model containing f3's with single subscripts representthe linear blendfng ef f ects of the mixture componentts . Model terls cohtain-ing 6 s with double subscripts represent the nonlinear blending ef f efs ofcomponent pairs. The portion of the equation containing the $ termswith triple subscripts represqnts the nonlinea'r blerding ef fects casedby blending three components . Similar explanafions pertain to the modlterms containing $1s with f our and f ive subscripts .

Not a11 31 model terms (f3' s) were teqttired to adequately describthe ef fect of the f ive ingredient variables on the eight responses iheach of the eight models generated to predict their respectife responses .

Two statistical methods were used to detertnine the inclusiol of a speiiterm in the model. A t-test was perf otrmed on the individual terms in themodel using. the ratio of the estimated (! coef f iciellt value ahd its

tandard error, and a test was perf ornted' on competitive models to deteriiswhether or npt there wa an improvement in the model: adlusted multi/lecorrelation coef f icient (RA2) as a result of the incluslon of the modl'

, 2 1 is to 1 tjltem (Cochran and Cox y 1957) . The closer a model s R va ue ,A 2 jbetter the modl f its the observed responses . tdel RA values sltoul notbe confused with the vales of the simple orrelition coef f icient (r).that were

calculatedE

to compate the telation between respohes .

RESPONSE IVASUREMENTS

Breakpoint measurements of patty firmness were obtained by using

an Instron Universal Testlng Machine. The lnstron was equipped with alarge CCTM load cell to measure deformatlon force resulting when a 1.9cm dameter probe was pushed into the patty surface at 2 cm/min crossheadspeed. Patty thickness encountered by the plunger was 2 cm with astandard deformation distance of 1.8 cm beyond the surface. The resultingd f tion pattern was recorded at 5 cm/min chart speed. Frozen pattiese orma

OF for 30 min.were prepared for the Instron by immediately baking at 400and then allowing the patties to cool at room temperature for at least1 hour before testing. Three patties per treatment were tested for break-point response and 4 firmness readfngs were recorded per patty for a totalof 12 response values per treatment. Increasing breakpoint values in

/ 2 denoted increased patty firmness.g cm

To form the sensory panel, eight judges were selected froa twentyvolunteers based on their ability to distinguish pqtty texture levelswithin the range of the treatments studied. A sequential analysis proce-dure was used to screen the prospective Judges (Amerine et a1., 1965).Each of the eight selected panelists were to evaluate the 54treatments descrlbed earlier on a scale from 1 to 9 for firmness (1extremely softer than the reference to 9 = extremely firmer than thereference). A similar scale was used to rate flavor and overall accept-ability as a combnation of flavor and texture. Flavor and acceptability

were rated on a 9 point scale (1 extremely poorer than the referenceto 9 = extremely better than the reference). A11 54 treatments wereevaluated 3 times by each panelist for each of the 3 sensory ttributesscored per treatment. Foury one-quarter treatment patty slices were

d h elist per sitting along with one-quarter slice ofpresente to eac pana reference patty having a breakpoint value approximately equal to thegrand average of al1 54 treatment breakpoint values. An attempt was madeto evenly balance the texture level of the 4 treatment patties presented

per sitting based on prior breakpoint rqsponse.

COST

The cost of each of the patty treatments was taken as the weighted

sun of each ingredient. Table 1 lists the prlces of each ingredientfigured into the cost. Prfce was based on a constant 23.33: level ofbatter and breadingy 75Z of this constant factor from batter and 25Z frombreading. The costs of dehydrated celery and onions were adjusted based

on 188 and 120Z rehydration, respectively, as determined through hydra-tion studies.

COMPOSITION

Table 2 lists the proximate analysls of turbot and pollock as determined

by standard methods (AOAC, 1980). Six replicate samples were tested fromeach component per fish species. Composition of other ingredients wasprovided by the manufacturer. Tbe protein and fat content for each patty

per treatment was based on the amount of tbe various ingredients found in

39

Table 1: Summary of theof a11 the minced fish

ihgredient unit prices used to calculate the costpatty treatment formulas.

ProteinaceousIngredipt:

aTurbotapollock

SPCbSF

($/ lb )

$1.54

t .05

.6132 '

*

AdditionalIngredients

S. AlginateCeleryOnionsNaC1NaTPPBatterBreading

($/1b)

$5.521.35

.75

.04

.38

.42

.41

a The price of f illeting 1ef tovers f or both f ish species was calculated at$ 30 / lb '@ *

bll dratng soy f lour at the level of 1 part soy f lour to 1.65

parts wateryreduces this ingredients ' cost to $ . 12/1b .

Table 2: Proximate analysis of th two fish species, turbot and pollock.

Fish

Turbot

Moisture

72 . 3'(

0 . 3) *

83. 1 (o . 7 j

Protein

14 . 7 (0 . 7)

16 p 2 (0.5)

-h

1.1 (0.0)

1.2 (0.0)

12 . 8 ( 1 . 0)

0.03

(0 . 1)Pollock

a h' R'Mean values in each columh designated by the same letter were not signi-

f icantly dif f erent s determined by the Duncan s Multiple Range test atthe =0 .01

level of signif icance .

Avalues in parenthesis are standatd deviation.

4 0

the specific raw patty formulas.tlons were assumed constant over

Battery breading anda11 tratments.

frying contribu-

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The simple correlation coefficients (r's) between each of the specifiedresponses are listed in Table 3. Breakpoint values and sensory panelfirmness scores were highly correlated (p<0.01) suggesting that the oblectivemeasurement might be used with onfldnce as a predictor of the sublectiveresponse. The use of a screened panel may have contributed to such a highcorrelation. Denj and Tomaszewski (1980) found that an oblective breakingforce measurement was a useful tool in predicting sensory firmness scoresin their experiment with minced croaker patties. Rockower et al. (1982)made similar conclusions in the evaluation of minced fish patties madefrom four fish species. Breakpoint values and firmness scores were nega-tively correlated with flavor scores indfcating that as the patties becaweflrmery flavor scores in general declined. Thus, when slectlng pattyformulatlons to control firmness, the flavor of the patky could be adverselyaffected. Flavor and overall acceptability scores were highly correlated(p<0.1), while texture and overall acceptability measurements were notsignificantly correlated (p<0.05). This indicates that flavor serves asa better predictor of acceptability than does texture, however, this doesnot preclude texture from being a malor factor n product acceptability.Since our oblective texture 'response

was not correlated wiih acceptability;breakpoint values cannot be used to predict acceptability. Thus, a sensorypanel cannot be elimnated in the process of product development. Flavorand overall acceptability scores were positively correlated xith percentfat and negatively correlated with percent protein. Since thp mainreason for protein and fat content variation fn the patties was the fishcomponent the fatty turbot was associated with increased fl/vor andacceptabiltty.

Table 4 shows that regardless of soy protein and alginate levels,pakties made from pollock are significahtty firte'r lln thge Made ftota turbot:pollock (1:1) blend or from turbot alone. Patties made fromturbot yielded significantly higher flavor scores han those made fromthe turbot:pollock blend and these in turn drew significantly higherflavor and overall acceptability scores than patties made from pollockalone. Tere was no difference in the price of patties made from piecesof turbot and pollock; howeve if fish fillets are used as th initialraw materfal source, the cost of the patties increases as Ehe ratio ofturbot to pollock increases because tubot fillets are more expensive thanpollock fillets. Patties prepared with pollock had sfgnificantly higherprotein contents and lower fat contents than those formulated with theturbot:pollock blend and these in turn were characterized by significantlylower fat und higher protein percentages than patties made with turbot.The general trends show increased acceptablity with increasing amountsof fat and these trends are assocfated with an increased turbot to pollockratio. Thse results suggest that the addition of a stable fat to theformula o patties dominated by pollock might be a means of increasingthe acceptability of patties corposed of pollock. The amount of fat addedshould increase with increasing amounts of pollock in the blend.

41

Table 3--correlations between thethe set of 54 minced fish pattyand levels of turbot, pollock, soyalginatq.

specific response variables determined fortreatments prepared from various combinations

flour, soy protein concentrate and sodium

Reyppnses

BreakpointValue

FirmnessScore

FlavorScore

AcceptabilityScore

FirmnessScore

FlavorScqre

Accept-ability

ScorePercentPrtein

PercentFat

0 .939**

-0.728* -0.602 0.553 -0.S30

-0.824** -0.683* 0.754* -0.756*

0 . 951* * -0.958** 0.931WW

-0.887** 0.886**

Asignificant at a = 0.05. eWsignificant at a = 0.01.

Table 4--The effects of fish combination and alginate level on the average specified responses for theset of 54 minced fish patty treatments prepared from various combinations and levels of turbot, pollock,soy flour, soy protein concentrate and sodiun alginate.

Ingredient

Turbot

Break-point

/cm2)(g871a

FirmnessScore..<

4.21a

FlavorScore

5.35C

Accept-abilityScore

4 98b*

CostUsingPieces($/1b)0.562

CostUsingFillets

($/1b)1.09C

Protein(p)

15.98a

Fat(l)

9.85C

Pollock

Turbot:Pollock

(1:1)

1242b s 88b* 4.872 4.54a 0.36a 0.80a 17.17C 0.50a>

946a a4.93 b5.19 4.87b 0 56a*

b b16 57 b4.95

MginateLinearTrend

W * N.S . N.S k R * N.S.

abcMean values in the smeermined by the Duncan's

column followed by the same letter are not significantly different as det-Nltiple Range test at the a = 0.05 level of significpne.

* Linear trend significant at a = 0.05 level; N.S. - not significant.

Holding a11 variables constant except for the alginate level, there

was a linear decrease in patty firmness as the alginate level increasedfrom 0.2 to 0.4 percent (Table 4). Althqugh patty cost increases andprotein content decreases as the the lginate level increases from 0.2

to 0.4 percent, these changes are mall and of no essential consequence.The use of plginate despit its expense was Justified for two reasons,First, preliminary itudies dewonstrated that sodium alginate was requiredin the mixture to iwpart cohernce to the patties. Second, alginate isneeded to form a thin gelatinous film on the patty yurfaces, via lnter-action with CaC1 after extrusion. The gelatinous flm would preventpatties from sticking to conveyor belts or other surfaces durfng processing.

theMathematical models were deVeloped from the data tp predictmagnitude of each response within the range of the ingredient levels studied.These models were used to evaluate the potential of a particular combinationof pollock, turbot: soy floury soy protein concentrate and sodium alginateb d the sensory, economic and compositional responses studied. Flgurease on

was provided as an example to illustrate the rationale behind choosing

a potential formula. This figure contains mixtre response surface contourplots predicted with the models to reflect breakpoint values, overallacceptability and cost responses. In these examples ingredient variability

was limited to combinations of turbot, soy flour and soy protein concen-trate at the 0.2 percent alginate level. Other variables were not includedin Figure 1 in order to limit the complexity of the llustration. Themathematical models used to generate these plots are as f ollows :

Breakpoint value (g)

Overall accept. score = 5.125T + 4.1758 + 4.8335 + 1.833T8

1716.9T + 4333.38 + 46005

+ 0.583T5 + 2.7585

Cost ($/1b) = 0.3491 + 0.31B + 0.4175

where T = (ZTurbot-70)/30,

B = Zsoy Flour (Bontrae) /30 and S = ZsoyProtein concentrate/3o and for a11 combinations, T + B + S = 1. The

2,RA s for the breakpoint value and cost models were both greater than0-85. An RA2 for the acceptability model could not be calculated becausea11 degrees of freedom were used in fltting the wodel and none wereleft to compute an RA2. A11 ingredient combinations along the same contourlines are slanted toward the S vertex, tle soy protein concentrate tends

to have a greater f iming ef f ect than the soy f lour . Breakpoints increasefrom the minimum value of 606 g/cm2 f or the 100Z turbot and 0Z soy protein

ixture to the maximum value of 1622 g/cm2 f or the 70Z turbot and 30Z soymprotein concentrate combination. Overall acceptability scores increase

to a maximum as the turbot level decreases from 100 to 79Z, soy flour

component increases from 0 to 13Z and soy protein concentrate decreasesfrom 30 to 17Z. The combinatlon of ingredients that yielded the maxlmumoverall acceptabllity score contained 80Z turbot, 1lZ soy flour and l0Zsoy protein concentrate. A comparison of the frmness and acceptabilityPlots showed that acceptability scores were maximized with increasfng

patty firmness subjet to the condition that the increase in patty firmness

came from an increase fn the level of a nearly 1:l ratio of soy flour tosoy protein concentrate.

44

>

T MK y TT = 100% Turbo#

*J Turbot & VB x 70 o882 30 % s:y Flour sa

S x 70 % Terbo# &1:58 s:y pratein

Concentrole1234

1411 cT s g Pwl=1.

1587 %*'

b

B (A) s a (a) s

< k

4 <

7

B (C) SFig. l--Mixture response surface contour plots showing the (A) breakpoint response (g/cm2), (B)panel overall acceptability scores and (C) cost ($./1b) of minced fish patties made from varioustures of turbot pieces, soy flour and so# protein concentrate at the 0.2Z alginate level.

sensorymfx-

The cost plot indicated that the prices of the patties increased asthe level of soy protein concentrate increased from 0 to 30Z for pattiesmade from turbot pieces. Turbot level did not affect cost. When ourcost and acceptability plots were compared we found that both the leastexpensive combination (70Z turbot and 30Z soy flour) as $.31/1b and themost expensive combination (70Z turbot and 30Z soy protein concentrate)at $.42/1b were among the least acceptable. The most acceptable combina-tion (70Z trbot, 13Z soy flour and 17Z soy protein concentrate) wasintermediate in cost (ca. $.36/1b). This example demonstrated that themost expensive product is not always the most acceptable. Discoveriessuch as this Justify the expense and time expended to do product develop-

h imilar to this study.ment researc s

NOTE

This preliminary paper will be presented in complete form, to includethe specific model pyrameters, at the Annual Institute of Food Technologistmeeting in Las Vegas, Nevada, June 1982, and subsequently should bepublished in the Journal df Food Science. This work was supported withfunds from the National Fisheries Instititute, Washingtony D.C., and theUniversity of Florida's Instftute of Food and Agricultural Sciences.

46