%

OF THE TEXTURAL
ATTRIBUTES
OF MINCED FISH PATTIES

EVALUATION

BY
ROBERT

KEITH ROCKOWER

PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL

OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF FLORIDA IN
OF THE REQUIREMENTS
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE

A THESIS

UNIVERSITY

OF FLORIDA

1982

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The
to

a1l

people

the

technical

and

and

to

insure

that

to

completion,

standards

as

provided

and

that

a scientific

voluminous

amount

of

iments

performed.

His

interest

patience

were

of

the

special

A very

and

technicians

1ab
in

a large

the

the

his

Jones

Universal

for

his

advice

those

are

on

the
Dr.

Testing

Texture

how to

IX

Cornell
analysis

by

the

and

experunlimited

members,

faculty

who participated

evaluation

sensory

to

J.A.

adequate

study.

the

that

met

work

the

students

people

through

form

generated

go to

hard

statistical

in

graduate

appreciation

Instron

Dr.

the

data

to

thanks

laborious
Other

research.

express

his

and

long

asset

labored

thesis

in

graduate

in

properly

document.

assistance

critical

procedures

Otwell,

final

advice

supervisory

progressed
the

Deng's

J.C.

author's

of

University

stay

W. Steven

research

appreciation

experimental

The

the

the

at

author's

the

Dr.

sincere

Dr.

indispensable.
chairman,

committee

work

his

concerning

throughout

were

his

express

enloyable.

matters

guidance

school

to

who made

possible

Florida

on

wishes

author

handle

author
Ahmed

wishes

to

the

use

for

Mach4ine,

some

of

portion

of

and
the

of

Walter

graphics

appearing

the

in

photographic

work

of

Pages

the

The

the

the

Florida

out

for

and
the

deserve

is

Sea

research

Family

for

he himself

so

the

and

artistic

caringly

grateful

very
of

Department

Institute

and

added

to

the

thesis.

author

Florida,

thesis,

Grant

Food

in

the

who provided
stay

and

financial

challenge

author's

Science

Program

providing

friends

to

at

the

11I

University

and

Human

the

of

product

support

and

area

of

of

Nutrition,

National

assistance

University

acknowledgment.

the

Fisheries
along

with

development.
caring
Florida

throughalso

E'

'

'

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

LIST

OF FIGURES

ABSTRACT

xi

.....................................

xviii

............................................

INTRODUCTION
LITERATURE

ii

.....................................

........................................

REVIEW

...................................

MATERTALS

METHODS

Fish

of Minced
Considerations
Formulations

Recovery
Storage
Product
S11= ztl:)r

Zaterials
Preliminary

7
11
17
31

........................

.........................

Preparations

and
.

..........

33

...............,................

33
35

......................................

Experiments

........................

36

Preparation
Patty
Effect
Fish
Species
Effect
Soy Protein
Effect
of Sodium Alginate
...........................

38

.........................

'

40

..........................

Bndng

Zatrx

and

.................*.........

Effect
Chloride
Effect
Variables
Conclusions
Preliminary
Section
erimental
De s Ign
Exp ertmental
Effect
of soy protein
and alginate
on
of fzsh
quallty
the textural
pattzes
of fish
Effect
species
textural
on the
f
f
i
1
h
i
1
ty o
s
pat t es
qu a
Effect
of 30% soy protein
on the
of
fish
patties
quality
textural
of
Patties
P reP aration
Obleective
Measurement
Measurement
Subl'ective
cost Analysis Fat
Analysis
and
Protein
Content

Sodium

45
46
48
51
51

......................

Processing

.................

.....................

,,.,.---

...........................

.......

.......

...............

.......................

'

'
.

......................

........................

............

IV

52

...

55
57
58
59
62
65
66

l
I
I
l
I
I

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

and Alginate
on the
Quality of Fish Patties
Correlations
and Response
Trends
Species
Fish
on the Textural
Patties
of
Fish
Qualfty
Correlations
Response
of 30I Soy Protefn
Effect
on the Textural
Patties
of
Fish
Quality
Correlations
Response
Study
for Further
Recommendations
Conclusions

of
Effect
Textural
General
of
Effect

Soy Protein

67
97

..........

1O5
126

..

....

..

.................

......

........

......

.........

...

...

..

..

130
149
152
153

APPENDIX

158

REFERENCES

189

BIOGRAPHICAL

l96

SKETCH

I
I
I

I
I
I
I
I

67

LIST

OF TABLES

Table
1

Page
coefficients
Regression
for the experimental
specified
for patties
containing
responses
0.2% sodium
alginate
from various
prepared
and soy protein
turbot,
soy flour
concentrate
combinations
......

Regression

flour
..

................

Regression

.....a.......................

coefficients

Combinations

83

for the experimental

for patties
containing
prepared
from various
and soy protein
concentrate
84

........................

Regression

coefficients
for the experimental
containing
specified
for patties
responses
0.4% sodium
from various
alginate
prepared
pollock,
and soy protein
soy flour
concentrate
Combinations

80

......

Regression
coefficients
for the experimental
containing
for
specified
patties
responses
0.2% sodium
various
alginate
from
prepared
and
pollock,
flour
soy protein
soy
concentrate

specified
responses
0.3% sodium
alginate
pollock,
soy flour
6

79

......

coefficients
for the experimental
for
specified
patties
containing
responses
0.41
alginate
sodium
from various
prepared
turbot,
and soy protein
concentrate
soy flour

Combinations

alginate

for the experimental

for patties
containing
from various
prepared
and soy protein
concent/ate

Regression

Combinations

4.

78

coefficients
specified

response.
0.3% sodium
turbot,
soy
combinations
3

...

85

..............................

coefficients
for the experimental
specified
for patties
containing
responses
0.2% sodium
alginate
from various
prepared
turbot:pollock
and soy
(1:1), soy flour
Protein
combtnations
concentrate
Regression

.........

vi

87

Table

Page
Regression
coefficients
for the experimental
specified
for patties
containing
responses
sodium
0.31
alginate
from various
prepared
turbot:pollock
and soy
(1:1), soy flour
Protein
combnations
concentrate

88

Regression
coefficients
for the experimental
specified
for patties
containing
responses
alginate
0.4% sodium
from various
prepared
and soy
turbot:pollock
(1:1), soy flour
combznations
protein
concentrate

89

........

........

10

The effects
of fish
combination
and alginate
level
for the
on the specified
responses
fish
set of 54 minced
patty
treatments
and
from various
combinations
prepared
levels
of turbot,
pollock,
flour,
soy
soy
protein
and sodium
alginate
concentrate

98

........

11

12

13

14

15

between
Correlations
the specified
variables
determined
for the
response
fish
set of 54 minced
patty
treatments
prepared
from various
combinations
and
of turbot,
levels
pollock,
flour,
soy
soy
alginate
protein
and sodium
concentrate

..

1O2

coefficients
specified
responses
from various
turbot,
without
combinations

for the experimental

for patties
prepared
and whiting
pollock
soy protein

coefficients
specified
responses
from various
turbot,
without
combinations

for the experimental

for patties
prepared
pollock
and sole
soy protein

l16

for the experimental

patties
prepared
whiting
and sole
soy protein

117

Regression

Regression

coefficients
Regression
specified
responses
from various
turbot,
combinations
without
Regression
coefficients
specified
responses
from various
pollock,
combinations
without

......

115

for

...............

for

for the
patties

whiting

soy

vii

protein

experimental
prepared
and sole
...............

119

Page

Tab le

16

the specified
Correlations
between
variable
determined
for the
response
of
fish
minced
15
treatments
patty
set
of
combtnations
from various
prepared
sole
and
pollock,
whiting
turbot,
without
formulated
soy protein

127

......

17

coefficients
for the
Regression
for
specified
experimental
responses
turbot,
various
from
prepared
patties
with
combinations
and whiting
pollock
30I soy protein
.

18

14l

for the
coefficients
for
specified
experimental
responses
turbot,
from various
prepared
patties
30%
with
combinations
whiting
and sole
SOy
Protein

1i2

f,or the
coeff icients
Regression
specif
ied f or
experimental
responses
pollock
from various
prepared
patties
J
with
30:
combinations
and sole
whiting
Protein
SOy

1i3

the specified
between
Correlations
for the
determined
variables
response
fish
minced
treatments
of
15
patty
set
of
combinations
from various
prepared
formulated
and sole
whiting
pollock,
turbot,
With
SOy
Protein

150

.........

Rqgression

.....p........

.......

20

10

.......

coefficients
for the
Regression
for
specified
experimental
responses
turbot,
from various
prepared
patties
30%
with
combinations
pollock
and sole
soy protein
.

19

......

.........................

21

...............................

A- 1

A-2

of
Slm=ary
fish
patty

used in the minced

and
suppliers

ingredients
experiments,

158
analysis

of the proximate
species,
fish
four
the
sole
and
whiting
Results

turbot,

of
pollock,
161

...............................

A-3

indicating
Range
Multiple
Duncan's
tests
break0.01)
the
in
differences
(a
for minced
values
point
(grams force),
combivarious
the
from
made
patties
fish
specified
species
fish
four
the
of
nations
=

*'

VI1

162

P>:e

Tab le

A- 4

varieties
A summary of the ingredient
the set of 54
comprising
and levels
the
destgned
to study
treatments
pollock,
turbot,
effects
of various
concentrate
soy protein
soy flour,
combinations
alyinate
and sodium
on
attrtbutes
of formulated
textural
Patties

A-5

A-6

.......

.......

model,
of the regression
A summary
and the
equations
coding
ingredient
measured
a11
for
treatments
responses
designed
for the experiment
to study
combinations
of various
the effects
pollock,
of turbot,
soy
soy flour,
alginate
and sodium
protein
concentrate

@.

171

172

......

model,
A summary of the regression
coding
and responses
equations
ingredient
for the
a11
measured
for
treatments
the effects
study
designed
experiments
to
turbot,
of
combinations
of various
with
formulated
whiting
and sole
pollock,
without
protein
soy
and
.................

A-7

Minced
fish
sequential

patty
analysis

panelists

A-8

Compositions
references
specified
Combinations

A-9

A-10

used
formulas
for screening

......

fish
the minced
for evaluating
of ingredient

of
used

group

......

176

patty
the
177

......................

......

174

the

in

......

......

prices
unit
Summary of the ingredient
of a11 the
the cost
used
to calculate
formulas
minced
fish
treatment
patty
values
for treatment
Average
response
with
the specified
formulated
patties
(T
turbot;
of fish
combinations
P in
pollock;
and T:P
T plus
P
amounts),
equal
soy flour,
soy protein
and sodium
alginate
concentrate

.....

178

A-11

values
for treatment
Average
response
from the specified
patties
prepared
formuthat
combinations
of fish
were
without
30% soy protein
lated
.....

ix

179

......

......

185

Table
A-l2

Page
Average
response
patties
combinatlons
of
with
formulated

values
for treatment
from the specified
fish
that
were
30I soy protein

vrepared

..............

187

LIST

OF FIGURES

Figure
1

Page
Typical
force/deformation
curve
produced
by the Instron
Universal
Machine
Testing
showing
how the breakobtained
point
fok the
were
responses
particular
ingredient
combination
in
the minced
fish
patty

62

Mixture
surface
contour
response
plots
showing
the breakpoint
response
(grams
force)
for minced
fish
patties
made from various
turbot,
soy flour
and soy protein
combinations
concentrate
(A)
(B) 0.3%
0.2%,
alglnate
levels
at
and (C) 0.4%

68

.......

......

Mixture
surface
response
showing
the breakpoint
force)
for minced
fish
from various
pollock,
concentrate
soy protein
(A)
levels
at alginate

contour

plots

(grams
response
made
patties
and
soy flour
combinations
(B) 0.31
0.21,
69

surface
Mixture
plots
contour
response
breakpoint
showing
the
(grams
response
made
force)
for minced
fish
patties
various
from
turbot:pollock
(1:1), soy
flour
and soy protein
concentrate
(A) 0.21,
combinations
levels
at alginate
(B) 0.3% and (C) 0.4%
.........................

Mixture

response

surface

contour

70

plots

panel
overall
showing the sensory
for minced
fish
acceptability
scores
made
from various
turbot,
patties
and soy protein
concentrate
soy flour
(A) 0.2%,
levels
at alginate
combinations
(B)

0.31

and

(C)

0.4%

xi

.........................

71

Figure

P>ge
Mixture
surface
contour
response
plots
showing
the sensory
panel
overall
acceptability
for
scores
minced
fish
patties
made from various
pollock,
and soy protein
soy flour
copbinations
concentrate
at alginate
(A) 0.2=1, (B) 0.3% and (C) 0.4%
levels

72

Mixture
surface
contour
response
plots
showing
the sensory
panel
overall
acceptability
for
scores
minced
fish
patties
made from various
turbot:pollock
and
(1:1), soy flour
protein
combinations
concentrate
soy
(A) 0.2%,
levels
(B) 0.3%
at alginate

73
8

Mixture

surface
contour
response
plots
showing
the effects
of various
turbot,
flour
and
protein
soy
soy
combinations
concentrate
on the
(A)
panel
firmness
and
sensory
(B) flavor
of
fish
minced
scores
made with
patties
0.2% sodium

74
9

10

surface
Mixture
response
contour
plots
showing
the effects
of various
turbot,
flour
and
soy
soy protein
combinations
concentrate
on the
of
made
minced
fish
patties
cost
(A) pieces
from
and (B) whole
fillets
of turbot
and 0.21
alginate
sodium

surface
Mixture
contour
response
showing
the
effects
plots
of various
turbot,
and soy protein
soy flour
combinations
concentrate
on the
(A)
(B) fat
and
percentages
protein
of mznced
fish
patties
0.2%
made with
alginate
sodium
......

11

75

......

76

Mixture

surface
contour
response
plots
showing
the effects
of various
combinations
of (A) turbot,
pollock
and
(B) turbot,
and sole;
whiting;
pollock
whiting
and (C) turbot,
and sole
on the
values
of patties
breakpoint
(gracs force)
made from 100% minced
fish
protein

XLI

106

Page

Figure
12

surface
contour
Mixture
response
of various
the effects
showing
plots
combinations
and sole
whiting
pollock,
values
(grams force)
on the breakpoint
made from 1001 fish
of patties
(A) 0% and (B) 5O%
containing
protein
turbot

13

14

.......................

surface
Mixture
contour
response
of various
the effects
showing
model
and sole
pollock,
whiting
turbot,
combinations
on the breakpoint
of patties
made
values
(grams force)
The level
protein.
from 100% fish
from 0% at
increases
of turbot
ABC
DEF to 5O% at triangle
triangle

l08

surface
contour
Mixture
response
of various
showing
the effects
plots
pollock
of (A) turbot,
combinations
and
(B) turbot,
pollock
and whiting;
and
whiting
and (C) turbot,
sole;
panel
acceptsole
on the sensory
made
from
of
patties
ability
scores
protein
fish
100% minced

109

...............

15

107

surface
contour
Mixture
response
of various
effects
the
showing
plots
combinations
whiting
and sole
pollock,
acceptability
panel
on the sensory
made from 100% fish
of patties
scores
(A) 0% and (B)
containing
protein

110
16

17

surface
contour
response
of various
showing
the effects
model
whiting
sole
and
pollock,
turbot,
the
combinations
sensory
on
panel
made
of pattzes
acceptability
scores
The
level
100%
fish
protefn.
from
from 0% at
increases
of turbot
ABC
50%
DEF to
triangle
at triangle

Mixture

...........

surface
contour
Mixture
response
of various
the effects
showing
plots
whiting
combinations
pollock
and
turbot,
and
firmness
panel
(A) sensory
on the
from
patties
made
of
(B) flavor
scores
fish
protein
100% minced
......................

Xkl

111

112

Figure
18

19

Page
Mixture
showing
pollock
the cost
1001 fish
fillets

surface
plot
contour
response
of various
the effects
turbot,
and whiting
combinations
on
of producing
with
patties
protein
from the whole
of these
fish
three
species

Mixture
showing
pollock
(A)
the
of patties

surface
plots
contour
response
the effects
of various
turbot,
and whiting
combinations
on
(B) fat
and
protein
content
made
from 1001 minced
fish

...

113

114
20

Mixture
surface
plots
response
contour
showing
the effects
combinaof various
tions
of (A) turbot,
pollock
and
whiting;
(B) turbot,
pollock
and sole;
whiting
and sole
and (C) turbot,
on
valuej
the breakpoint
force)
of
(grams
made
patties
fyom 70=:
fish
and 30*: soy protein
protein

131

surface
Mixture
plots
response
contour
of various
showing
the effects
pollock,
combinations
whiting
and sole
on the
of
breakpoint
values
force)
(grams
containing
(A) 0% and (B) 50I
patties
and
of the fish
component
as turbot:
made
minced
7O%
that
from
fzsh
are
protein
and 30% soy protein

132

'mznced

21

..............

22

23

surface
model
contour
response
showing
the effects
of various
turbot,
whiting
and sole
pollock,
combinations
values
the
breakpoint
(yrams force)
on
made
of pattiep
from 70% mznced
fish
and 30% soy protein.
The
protein
level
of turbot
from 0% at
inyreases
DEF to 35*: at triangle
triangle
ABC

Mixture

surface
plots
contour
response
showing
the effects
of various
combinaof
(A) turbot,
tions
pollock
and whiting;
(B) turbot,
pollock
and sole;
and
and sole
(C) turbot,
whiting
on the
panel
overall
acceptability
sensory
made from 70% minced
of patties
scores
30%
fish
and
protezn
soy protein

.........

133

Mixture

xiv

..

l34

Figure
24

25

age
Mixture
showing
whiting
sensory
scores
(B) 50I
and that
protein

surface
plots
contour
response
the effects
of various
pollock,
and sole
combinations
on the
panel
overall
acceptability
of patties
(A) 0% and
containing
of the fish
component
as turbot,
fish
are made from 70I minced
and 30I soy protein
.

135

......

Mixture
surface
mdel
contour
response
showing
the effects
of various
turbpt,
whiting
combinations
pollock,
and sole
panel
overall
accepton the sensory
of patties
ability
made from
scores
fish
70I minced
protein
and 3OI soy
protein.
The level
of turbot
increases
from 0% at triangle
DEF to 35I at
triangle
ABC

l36

.............................

26

Mixture
surface
plots
contour
response
showing
the effects
of various
turbot,
pollock
and whiting
combinations
on
(A) sensory
the
panel
firmness
and
(B) flavor
made
of patties
from
scores
70% minced
fish
protein
and 30% soy

137
27

surface
Mixture
plot
contour
response
showing
the effects
of various
turbot,
pollock
and whiting
combinations
pn the
of
patties
with
cost
7Q=L
producing
minced
fzsh
protein
and 30% soy protein
from the whole
fillets
of these
three
fish
species
......

28

......

138

Mixture

surface
plots
response
contour
showing
the effects
of various
turbot,
pollock
and whiting
combinations
on the
(B) fat
and
(A) protein
made
of patties
from 70I minced
fish
30%
protein
and
SOy
Protein
..

A-1

......

.......

......

139

Effect

of the ratio
of soy flour
to
concentrate
on the breakpoint
soy protein
Total
of minced
value
fish
patties.
soy
The
protein
in the patties
was 16%.
vertical
lines
l standard
represent
above
deviation
and below
the mean values

XV

163

Figure
A- 2

A-3

Page
of the ratio
Effect
of soy protein
to
(R) on the breakpoint
(BP)
fish
values
of minced
fish
The vertical
patties.
lines
standard
deviation
l
represent
the mean values
above
and below
Effect
of matrix
level
on the breakpoint
of minced
and
fish
with
values
patties
xanthan
0.21
included
in
without
gum
lines
the formula.
The vertical
+1
above
deviation
standard
represent
the mean values
and below
......

A- 4

164

......

165

......

Effect
of sodium
alginate
on the breakpoint
of minced
fish
patties.
The vertical
values
above
1
standard
deviation
lines
represent
the mean values
and below

166

.....................

A-5

A-6

Effect

matrix
and sodium
comparative
levels
alginate
on the breakpoint
The
of minced
fish
patties.
values
+1
standard
lines
vertical
represent
and below
the mean values
above
deviation

of

of

Effect

sdium

alginat
mined

on the

167

.....

break-

of
fish
patties
point values
chloride
0.5*1 sodium
with
formulated
TPP.
The vertical
and/or 0.3% sodium
:1
standard
deviation
lines represent
above and below the mean values
........

A-7

A- 8

bf
on the
patties.

time
fish
represent
and
A-9

169

........................................

Effect

below

168

chloride
sodium
on the
of minced
fish
patties.
values
1 standard
lines
represent
above
the mean
and below

of
Effect
breakpoint
The vertical
deviation
Values

frying
and baking
deep fat
of minced
values
breakpoint
lines
The vertical
+1
standard
above
deviation
the mean values
......

......

17O

experimental
showing
region
Mixture
and
of fish,
for levels
limits
soy flour
the
in
protein
treatments
concentrate
soy
of various
the effects
chosen
to study
of turbot,
pollock,
combinations
soy
and sodium
flour,
concentrate
soy protein
YYZYWYYC

UX

@@@***@@**@**@@********@*@**@*@**@**@*

xvi

Pyge

Figure
A- 10

experimental
mixture
Four component
where
the design
points
design
of turbot,
the combinations
indicate
in the
whiting
and sole
pollock,
15 treatments
.................................

175

Presented
of Thesis
Council
Abstract
to the Graduate
of
Fulfillment
of Florida
in Partial
the University
for the Degree
of Master
of Science
Requirements

of
the

EVALUATION OF THE TEXTURAL ATTRIBUTES

OF MINCED FISH PATTIES

By
Keith

Robert

Rockower

May 1982
Otwell
Chairman:
Dr. W. Steven
Deng
Cochairman:
Dr. J.C.
Department:
Food Science
Major
A mixture

made

from

protein

soy

fish

tive

measure

total

of

firmness,

Response

surface

to

product

depicted
costs

for

by

XVIII

sole.

flour

and

evaluated

for

their

effects

fat

to

overall

on

an

and

a sensory

show

the

varying

the

effects
were

responses

formulations
regression

oblec-

provide

acceptance.

that

plots

production

and

content

used

and

with

patties

and/or

soy

combinations
in

assist

representations
production

contour

patties

alginate,

was

flavor

ingredfent

various

whiting

to
fish

minced

characteristics,

textural

used

was

of

protein,

Instron

scored

prepared

were

Universal

The

design

pollock,

sodium

concentrate

cost.

P anel

turbot,

plus

firmness,

on patty

of

of

Nutrition

Human

attributes

textural

pieces
of

Mixtures

surface

response
the

investigate

and

surface

These
models

indicate

degrees

of

firmness,

acceptability.

comparison

of

various

increasing

the

level

a mixture

of

combinations
show,
and

in

fish
of

fish

textural

attributes.
and

protein
raw

of

patty

accetance

contour

of

effects

are

important

composition

with

fish

the

flour,

at

plots

of

a11

in

the
the

has

batter

as

minimum

basis

selection

total

patty

added

This

is

by

the

provide

z?

p
v:

response

z/
.'

xix

an

example

one

potential.

the

to

should

a matrix

marketability

of

acceptable

alginate

indicated

ingredients

85% turbot
of

cost.

various

The models

containing

sodium

with

containing

effects

that

0.2%

ingredients

patties

of

the

on

that

responses.

A product

15% soy

a mixture

surface

that

in

the

on sensory

patty

content,

minced

optimum

fish

mask

content.

indicated

protein

soy
to

interactions

a minced

pieces

of

fat

and
plots

contour

tends

general,

their

protein

,''i1kk(!!jf.

'

zz,x

.pd(L

<

.v.

..

.
,

INTRODUCTION

emphasis

Recent

h>s

resources
ditional
of

fish

species,

flesh

(Be1lo
fish

on

landings

could

the

comprise
meal

of

catch

raw

minced

fish
same

by means

for

from

fish

of
used

of

of

25% of

industry

converted

pet

food.
that

and

fish
production

used

fillets
convenient

possible

form

the

to
from

of

1971).
recover
trimmsngs

o%artin,1976).
production

fishery

species,

Food

addi-

(FAO,

weight

quality

is

in

flesh

to

an annual

separators,

be

of

trimmings

The

fish

could

is

form

be

available

for

the

valued

can

new products

the

the

and

flesh

processed

fillet

in

underutilized

be made

utilization

tails

estimated

nontraditional
for

for

mechanical

attractive

50% of

food

that

nontra-

Typically,

heads.

equipment

facing

wholesome,

for

material

a variety

presently

of

used
bones,

could

20 to

challenge

flesh

of

separation

ne

the

tons

material

species

30 to

Organization

an additional
of

only

portions
raw

40 million

tional

This

Skin,

become

or

that

and,

be

remaining

1980).

seafood
of

and

recovery

Pigott,

species,

actually

Agriculture

and

and

domestic

utilization

total

and

of

use

attention

steaks.

or

fish

focused

fish

depending

fillets

on expanding

products
and

(Blackwood.

triw=sgs
1973).

from

and,

has

minced fish

in

are

poor

the

difference

When fish

and

and

fillets,

fish

whole

than

and

fish

flesh

fish

intimate

into

physical

These

with

products
that

softer

is

and

discoloration

cause

can

progres-

Mincing

mquthfeel

appealing

less

usually

unique,

disrupted,

are

enzymes

minced

yield

changes

chemical

nature.
is

substrates.

respective

their

with

contact

of

transverse

1981).

lipolytic

and

proteolytic

brings

in

occurs

(Rizvi,

directions

longitudinal
also

cutting

and

separated,

sively

flesh

because

filaments

and

of

use

fish

membrane

sarcolemma

myofibrils

fibers,

fishery

and cHemical

physical
the

minced,

of

flesh

fish

intact

to

their

in

is
of

bundles

comparison

the

minced

of

attributes

textural

The

products.

that

qualities

textural

the

on

challenge

this

meet

to

problem

the

to solve

particular,

in

taken

been

have

approaches

Many

off-flavors.
approaches

Popular

minced

objectionable
lation.

Carver

composed

of

and

et
fish

(1972)

a1.

seasonings

and/or

minced

the
of

curing

fish

minced

the

approached
consisting

sausage

combined

of

and

salt

onions,

flesh

to

pepper

by

comminuted

agents.

King

with

ground

cake

Hing

formulating

fish,
and
beef,

the

improve

flesh.

whiting

problem

formu-

49% potatoes,

flesh,

whiting

5O% recovered

atttibutes

a fish

(1971) produced

the

product

emphasize

texture,

King

and

1% dehydrated

textural

fish

of

problem

the

solving

to

fat,
Flick

a
starch,

(1973a)

resulting

in

salt

and

mized

of

of a mixture

composed

sorbate

(1980)

reported

that

sodium

alginat

levels

scores

a minced

chloride,
The

fish
sodium

diversity

complexity

peaked

of

patty

scores
than

less

at

product

0.671

made

researched

the

textural

formulations
problem.

and/or

and

Tomaszewski

were

maximized

at

0.415%,

and

to

sodium

from

and

cod,

vegetable

equal

or

tripolyphosphate

in

pacific

chloride,

and 0.55%

tripolyphosphate,

0.34% sodium
in

Deng

preference

patties

formulated

sodium

antioxidants.

and

sodium

acceptability

starch,

tapioca

modified

protein,

fish

sheepshead

structured

with

herring

pacific

and

lingcod

maxi-

were

rockfish,

coaminuted

that

reported

croaker,

of

(1980)

Pigott

and

Bello

mullet.

flesh

minced

the

from

made

pattfes

(1979)

sodium

minced

in

5% structured

scores

0.4%

of

using

0.5%

preference

an

Pigott

of

(1979)

Chao

level

alginate

a sodium

at

that

and

starch,

fish.

textured

produced

be

consisting

tapioca

flavor

and

preference

texture

found

Bello

product

minced

89.5%

and

chlorfde

by adding

could

ratios.

5% modified

ffber,

protein

fish

(1978)

sausage

a satisfactory

developed

and

mullet

(1976)

30I hydrated

to

up

a1.

et

fish:soy:Tpp:water

of

range

Daley

minced

acceptable

and

1% levels

at

to

Martin

minced

of

quality

a method

as

problems.

texture

protein.

vegetable

patty

textural

the

improved
Sugar

and

color

the

solve

''beefish''

call

they

a product

chloride,

sodium

alginate

croaker,

sodium

sodium

alginate.

reflects

the

studied

researchers

Other

variables

the

on

Ravichander

mechanical

mixing

the

and

of

fat

containing

solubilized

processing

temperatures

to

cooking.

found

Chao

that

patties

the

fish

a minced

heating
of

ature

850C

compared

to

and
and

Cheng

attributes.

extural

those

al.

et

below

(1976)

10OC prior

(1981)

Deng
minced

the

fish

influence

an

their

internal

temper-

springy

more

that

reported

(1979a)
to

slowly

heated

minced

when

and

a1.

et

fish

occurred

baked

a firmer,

produced

of

systems

times

rapidly

ge1

charac-

in

Cornell

and

fryed

textural

maintained

were

fat

that

beng

proteins

meat

fish

reported

binding

water

processing

minced

type

chloride.

and

(1979)

the

on

on the

temperatures

deep

are

affect

an

sodium

optimum

of

(1976)

Keay

depending

presence
that

found

has

fish

of

teristics

and

of

affects

attributes

textural

products.

the

texture

a 7OQC internal

to

temperature.

Likewise
of

attributes

phospholipase

and

lipase

the

in

enzymes

prior

fish

minced

A are
of

production

to

fatty

active
acids

-12

stored
acids

at

to

with

protein

holding
and

capacity

Foegeding,

deteriorative

-l40C,

and

of

1981)
changes

the

of

interactions

adversely
minced

affect
fish

texture
(Shenouda,
have

Many researchers
occurring

in

the

textural

Lysosomal

processing.

significantly
free

the

influence

could

activity

enzymic

quality

in

fish
fatty

the

free

and

water
19809

Allen

reported
and

texture

of

frozen

by

trimethylapine

et

(Babbitt

and

binds

Gill

the

to

fish

is

phenomenon

In

hake,

frozen

fish

textural

attributes

pollock

(Pollachius

Greenland
sole

(Bontrae

from

previous

fish

species

flour

in

These

four

fish

with

soy

protein

work
studied,

combination

the

specific

levels

soy

protein

concentrate

with
and

as

remaining

after

concern

of

Flesh

used

of
the

soy

flour

rather

protein

combinations

of

sodium

initial

raw
varying

in

alginate.

soy

study

varies

collection

of

than

potato
and

concentrate,
fish,

grey

(sPF-2OO),
This

soy

and

as

particular

the

bilinearis)

blended

were

from

and

alginate.

the

was

(Merluccius

concentrate

sodium

because
use

pieces

were

species

(i.e.,

developed

hippoglossides)

cynoglossus)

and

was

whit, ing

This

family

formulations.

varying

(Reinhardtius

2102)

1980).

whiting).

patty
and

Bremner

texture

fish

Our primary

virens)

(Glyptocephalus

formulations

bits

blocks.
of

turbot

materials.

flour

fish

flesh

gadiod
ahd

a fish

from

made

in

pollock

cusk,

experiments,

our

by-product
cutting

noted

1973;

covalently

(Shenouda,

sponge-like

primarily

haddock,

cod,

and

19789

Bremner.

the

trimethyla-

Noguchi,

and

Formaldehyde

rendering

protein

tough

unacceptably

1979).

produced
by

Okada

19769

Martin,
a1.,

et

facilitated

1972;

a1.,

et

formaldehyde

from

breakdown

19759

Hines,

19789

a1.,

resulting

oxide

mine oxidase
Dingle

fish

stored

soy

flour,

LITERATURE REVIEW

flesh

Hinced

of

preparation

(Blackwood,

consumers

main

the

as

ents

called

are

fish

of

products,

cereal
and

1973).

product

with
fish

is

fish

minced
ingredi-

minor

be

may

fish

of

combination

spices,

minced

to

of

range

An example

potato,

added

of

other

that

one

fishery

a wide

products.

dehydrated

powder

egg

of

Combinations

ingredient,

the

quality

high

requirements

composite

composite

powder

the

to

for

opportunity

great

imaginative,

new,

tailored

products

flesh,

offers

skim

milk

so

that

flesh

,product

the

final

weight

based

on comminuted

fish

size,
of

other

in

and

concerned
need

of

to

resulting

from

(Blackwood,

1973)

these
emphasis

the
the

on

and

can
the

be

flavor

by

of

development

odor

have

of

identity

several

fish

insured
new

the

addition

the

1973).

of

or
in

and

products

Amano,

better

shape

except

standard

ad

combination

Ishii

products

as

caused

fish,

there

fish

fish

problems

labeling

composite

that

is

species

the

Composite

60% by

these

maintaining

such

1973).

of

flesh,

restrict

to

ingredients

more

over

characteristics

Amanp,

marketing

placing

or

adverse

confusion
species

be

to

disadvantages
of

equals

the

An advantage

specific

(Ishii

in

1973).

no need

cases

fish

(Blackwood,

products,
is

of

content

Success

by
products

than

rather

the

imitation

of

ones

(Blackwood,

species

landed

existing

1973).

of

Recovery

1O% of

Only
United
and

States

meal

and

fish

species

that

approximately

et

a1.,

commercial
that

and

flavor,

more

profitable

fish

flesh.

structure

use
ne

estimate

of

high

processing

of

as

texture
the

only

the

This

sources

of

potential

not

(Moledina

discussion

volume

species

for

and

tons
the

protein

a1.,

appearance,

species.

of

material

wasted

for

intact

1977a).

machine

better

recovery

the

requiring

of

from

waste

traditional

possible

et

35I of

processing

million

fish

quality
foods

of

an answer

make

fish

fish

in

several

(Spinelli

30 to

1979).

because

offer

yield

6% skin

butchering

separators
of

for

to

difficulties

after

separators

production

further

or

remaining

flesh

a food

as

to

average

operations--nontraditional

texture,

trimmings

a1.,

et

two malor

are

accepted

not

Fish

and

there

amount

consumed,

traditional

the

the

traditional

an

and

from

fillets

(Sipo's

seafood

are

size,

for

portion
that

implies

yields

Edible

processed

21I bone

in

converted

The

1O% have

this

comprise

fish

ks

catch
1977).

a1.,

et

of

majority

finfish

73% flesh,

1977).

the flesh

the

total

(Spinelli

oi1

of

species

for

the

fish

commercial

account

50% of

over

a11

Fish

Minced

fish

An

separated

flesh

in

alone

New England

(King

and

sole

and

pelagic
mechanical

other

fish

among

those

fish

are

a1.,

19729

basically

two

1974).

deboner

type
plastic

the

are

(Seligsohn,

and

different

drum

off

the

separation

from

of

in

thus

creating

the

is

readily

size

into

the

from

3 to

7 mm diameter,

size

for

drum.

any

between

1 to

3 mm openings

occasional
The

size

with

the

of
final

the
of

bone

fragment

extrusion

the

outside

cast

iron

in

in

of

sfze

(Martin,
is

the
flesh.

depends
flesh

the

while

meat,

recovered

the

uniform

a11
in

deboner
the

the

uniform

o pastes

occurrence
opening

scraped

perforation

coarse

tear

while

are

shreds

drum.
at

are

Perforations

in

of

which

chute

perforations

belt-drum
bones

or

bone

a waste

drum.

fine

rubber

but

perforations

but

belt-drum

stresses

and

may vary

10 mm result

occurrence

frequency
of

Drums

create

A problem

1976).

through

particular

5 and

drum

into

the

direction,

Skin

drum

forced

endless

or

separav

auger-type

by

shear

Bailey,

flesh

the

and

same

skin.

ahd

fish

steel

the

for

1975).

against

stainless

flesh

in

an

tightly

very

bone

outside

by

move

speeds,

flesh

Meat/bone

perforated

belt

the

type,

driven

a rotating,

of

belt-drum

and

19799

a1.,

year

pollock,

suggested

et

types

per

demersal

Dagblartsson,

accomplished

is

belt,

(Young

separation

et

these

The

are

lb

alaska

whiting,

Blue
of

Crawford

tors;

million

56.9

variety

flesh

There

to

enormous

fin

19769

1970).

Carver,
an

amounts

on

encounters

the

(Patashnik

the

determine

to

a1.,

et

bone

(Yamamoto

flesh

and

(Patashnik

when

that

cylinder

(Seligsohn,

squeezes

the

the

leave

in

minced

skin

moves

19 72

fed

brands

of

Baader

(Seligsohn,
The

mechanical
depending

leaves
the

fingers

flesh

into

auger
while

through

the

holes,

(Seligsohn,

bone

particle

1974).

content

(Patashnick

levels

removed

with

a perforated

the

opening

from

the

and

bone

the

deboner

may

(King

and

Carver,

19709

the

auger

type

the

strainer

form

by

against

of

pieces
Bibun,

include

deboner,

be
Crawford

an

auger

stationary

1 mm diameter

with

or

bone

and

perforations

skin.

Various

commercial

Beehive,

Paoli

and

be

obtained

with

197).

deboning
the

that

perforations

pass

acceptable

to

bones

of

yield

to

reduce

to

cylinder

deboners

on

used

As with

small

one

from

drum

separate

minced

metal

197).

against

Pressure

a strainer

material

remove

Edible

using

perforated
to

be

a coarsely

''finished''

a1.,

meat

material

large

too

flesh

1974).

et

between

separates

through

through

fish

in

a1.

flesh

can

axially

pressed

incoming

skin,

unit

as

fish

minced

Patashnik
defined

1974).

fish

process

et al.,

et

pushes

and

bones

is

deboner

auger-type

an auger

in

developed

1974).

a1.,

et

The

This

bone

been

have

content

19749

Wong,

indentation

a clean

Methods

fragment

harmful

A potentially

the

1974).

fish

flesh

equipment
species

and

that
will
the

can

range
original

from

37 to

product

90Z

form.

10

from

Yields

fish
from

can range

fish

not

Steinberg,

fish

flesh.

flake

fed

edges

fillets,

can

fish

(1976)
be

can

compared
flesh

research

particles.
the

on

bowl

decanting

meat

from

based

on

continuous

made

centrifuge

the
their

shell

and

differences

centrifugation

flesh

fish

products

from

the

Learson

recovery

of

fish

whole

a1.

shellfish

that

in

comminuted
with

(1972)

by

specific

technique

end
fish

from

flesh

by

using

in
gravity.

flake
texture

minced

conducted

separating

provides

skins.

superior
shaped

material

cartilage

fish

and

meat

works

sliced

minced

spherically

et

the

come

operations,

and

into

can

of

without

thinly
in

comitrol

filleting

that

reformed

thpse

to

the

by

a ring

also

are

flesh
propels

flakes

cut

undetectable

for

deboner

fish

across

cleanly

con-

processing

impeller

speed

cartilage

and

of

comminute

comitrol

virtually

reported

cutting
ways

high

apd

from

flake

to

thin,

material

a mechanical

cutting

used

Miyauchi

1971).

King,

alternative

is

from

range

19739

Rekhina,

by

an Urschel

bone

trimmings

Newman

flesh
are

become

Raw

fillets,

and

Carver

producing

to

product.

19729

a1.,

et

into

Skin,

flaked

fish

for

An efficient,

crushing.

from

processed

of

cutting.

cutting

or

nontraditional

A comitrol

flesh

fish

whole

centrifugation

tinuous

1977b;

al.,

et

from

19709

Comminution

operations

yields

(Crawford

9OI

37 to

filleting

65% (Moledina

to

The

species,

and

43

1976).

Martin,

after

remaining

a solid
shellfish

15% brine
This
an answer

to

11

laguing

recovered

trifugation

cakes

fish

into

(Learson

cen-

processing

1972).

a1.,

et

1972)

continuous

further

for

acceptable

a1.

et

with

experiments

in

yields

poor

(Learson

industry

highly

was

and

labor

hand

f ish

shell

the

flesh

Fish

of

supply

dwindling

the

St o ra g e Considerations

fish

the

recovered

the

most

common

and

convenient

frozen

tunately,

Practices

quality.

that

have

helped

development

humidity,
and

moisture
pretreatments

lipid

especially

exchange

before

freezing
Yet,

oxidation.
in

textural

quality,

frozen

that

which

at

during

frozen
rapid

sea,

temperature

storage

control

that

methods

and

storage,

inactivate

problems

cause

textural

preserve

catch
in

in

oxygen

to

packaging

of

Unfor-

and

color

the

of

fluctuations

controlling

freezing,

prevent

flavor,

freezing

include

quality

and

of

is

storage.

conditions

promote

can

deterioration

irreversible

fish

storage

of

form

and

Freezing

flesh.

fish

and

parts,

on

fish

whole

initial

the

depends

products

fish

both

for

conditions

storage

comminuted

of

quality

The

or

enzymes

still

exist,
frozen

long-term

storage.

rancidity,

Off-flavors,
fishy
to

be

taste
caused

indicate
by

flavor

low-molecular

bitterness
deterioration.
weight

or

oblectionable
These

compounds

appear

from

lipfd

12
oxidation

protein

or

oxidation,

causing

minced

fish

mincing
with

tissue

that

shortened

shrimp
rated

minced

were

attributed

black

exhibited

antioxidant

opaity

burn,

the

reported

that

catalyzed

shelf

storage

et
life

less

with

with

than

a binder

life

a1.
of

noted

blocks

A months

at

of

washing
minced

in
in

minced

the
rockfish

metals

ethanol

flesh

that

shrimp.
muscle
thus
Furia

(1972)

may

be

the

fish

in
such

as

compounds.

changes

minced

malonaldehyde

flesh

compounds

limited

black

Mixing

results

storage,

containing

-18oC.

sepa-

the

fish

of minced

machine

fish.

of

color

a fish

and

minced

organic

phenolic

frozen

or

in

various

(1975)

of

frozen

frozen

is

in

favorable

formation

concqntration

and

of

The

prolonged
of

blocks

discoloration

changes

high

sulfhydryl

Miyauchi

to

the

combination

amines,

life

color

by

loss,

reported

shrimp

life

found

contact

off-flavors.

extractable

during

shelf

of

flesh.

the

aCCeSS

rockfish

shelf

properties

in

(1975)

minced

decreased

drip

result

can

limiting

in

the

rapidly

intimate

a1.

development

substancets)

by

Freezer

black

the

Lipid

OKygen

minced

rockfish

to

peroxides

facilitates

increase

to

1980).

becavse

into

incorporated

(1976)

portion

proteins

et

th

more

fillets

or

Miyauchi
of

of

a1.

et

fish

and

life

because

occurs

heme

1976).

storage

Babbitt

whole

brings

Keay,

the

and

in

structures

and

(Shenouda,

off-flavors,

than

process

(Co1e

degradation

the

muscle
blocks

the

rockfish

flesh

minced

muscle

improves

the

to

8 to

12

13

months
and

based

the

on

evaluation

discoloration.

frozen
those

of

Nakayama

deboned

raw

cooking

deboned

the

lightest

and

Yamamoto,

most

effective

in

and

containing

frozen

0.5%

ascorbic

0.2Fo Kenatcalgon)

addition

of

0.2%

and
Aside

during
color

frozen

fish

the

along
flesh

lft

and

Flick,

the

white

muscle

The

blood

pigments

they

become

acid,

on

1973a).
in

oxidized,

will

time

fish

of

fish

or

of

dip

a PH 4.5

the

of

fish

solution
0.21

acid,

Na

a postdeboning
acid,

0.270

1977b).
the

in

some

filleting

(King,

minced

flesh

Many

of

blood

of

the

(King

through

pass

fish

additional

presents

darkens

after

grey.

the

fish

concentration

separator

that

unattractive
changes

flesh

bone

was

(Nakayama

occuring

will

the

flesh

reported

a1.,

tissues

color

after

turbot

citric

et

that

brown

storage

0.3Fo citric

column

a meat

became

by

the

These

species

in

from

frames

pollock

changes

color

spinal

revealed

a l-min

followed

priginating

dogfish

the

0.5%

minced

storage,

problems

tissues

acid,

adverse

from

and

group

EDTA (Moledina

Naz

while

examined

deboning,

0.3Fo ascorbic

darker,

species

was

to

became

organoleptic

storage

prior

reported

minimize

to

development

(1977)

cooked

One research

EDTA and

Kena

a11

undesirable

racks,

or

while

treatment

during

Yamamoto

The

flesh,
of

flavor

turbot

extended

color

rancid

pollock

with

1977).

discoloration

frames

of

tendency.

darker

the

and

thornyhead,

yellowing

progressively

flesh

flesh

shortspine

a gradual

of

with
1973a).

red

consumers

or,

if

14
consfder

colors

Careful

removal

blood

but

of

minimize

can
fish

minced

other

the

problem

(Blackwood,

alterations
during

proteins,

cause

detectable

that
frozen

turation

stringiness,

succulence,

loss

of

moisture

phase

produce

textural

vary

per

A number

damage during
fish
and

pork

freezing

fat
in

ice

crystals,

damage

from

an

increased

methods

frozen

ground

flesh

degree

been

have

of

together
layers
form

has

used

Placing

storage.

between
block

storage,
and

attributed
damage
salt

concenalteration

textural

species.

fish
of

the

protein-water

of

The

Bremner,

frozen

is

of
of

loss

in

changes

damage

This

1980).

(Shenouda,

tration

by

accretion

and

dehydration,

from

will

and

formation

the

19729

adverse

to

interactions.

protein-protein
to

due

damage

a1.,

during

or

lack

texture,
and

et

are
springiness,

toughness,

caused

freezing

during

which

properties

Babbitt

19809

denaturation

Protein

1978).

holding

water

dena-

myofibrillar

the

rubbery

dryness,

(Shenouda,

juiciness

and

minced

of

Protein

changes

firmness

1973a).

storage

texture.

texture

appearance,

(King,

especfally

storage,

undesirable

sponginess,

in

occur

increased

as

frozen

The

its

problem

during

excess

1973).

improve

to

texture

consideration

A malor
is

strained

in

results

straining

ffsh

air

be

and

bladder

kidney,

sticks.

fish

in

the

also

can

a defect

white

than

with

salt,

of

skinless

been

shown

to

a mixture
chemical
fillets
to

textural

prevent

enhance

of

minced

seasonings
before
the

15

attributes

textural
pollack

(Teragra

Adding

sodium

minced

fish

flesh

and

packing

flesh

reduces

straining
the

a1.,

et

to

textural
Species

cusk,

pollock

rapid

textural

by

the

1975).
separated

and

freezing

eliminate

contain

relatively

trimethylamine
formaldehyde
product
quent

responsible
textural

temperatures

(Gi11

et

to

the
but

degrade

haddock,

of

to

accompanied

the

breakdown

Formaldehyde

1979).

can

occur

of

(DMA) and

denaturation
that

trimeth-

enzyme

dimethylamine
1978)

the

Gadoid

the

catalyzes

to
of

storage

sponginess,

amounts

hake,

susceptable

extractability.

protein

a1.,

strained

or

pigments,

cod,

frozen

and

that

deterioration

to

Washing

blood

especially

protein

(Bremner,
for

1967).

(i.e.,

durinj

(TMA0)

(Fr0H)

added

continues

family

high

oxide

19729

1973b).

are

(TMAoase)

oxidase

ylamine

minced

may be washed

particles

toughness
in

minced

Miyauchi,

by removing

deterioration

loss

1973).
to

may be

(Sorenson,

gadoid

by

Noguchi,

coarse

and

flesh

bone

Alaska

a cohesive

of

(Teeny

whiting)

and

of

particles

(King,

the

and

Polyphosphates

the

of

from

tripolyphosphate

preparation

discoloration

a noticeable

fish

sodium

the

quality

flesh

(Okada

texture

characterized

kid

minced

and

improving

blocks

before

chloride

by binding

and

Miyauchi

the

chalcoqraaa)

permits

block

muscle

the

of

is

and
at

the

freezing

the
subse-

16

of

effect

The

varies

storage
states

according

the

increasing

proteins

from

(Shenouda,

to

fish

frozen

in

fish

lipid

and

a lipid-protein

lipoprotein

complex

extractability

accumulation
tissue.

of

Lysosomal

significantly

A are

effect,

of

protein

dependent

oxi-

denaturation

a insoluble

Decreased

and

to

caused

in

Lipid

proteins

fish

has

lipids.

the

a protective

the

time

phospholipase

have

incubation

same

frozen

hydrolyzed,

or

however,

the

(FFA)

acids

seem

duripg

of

state

storage;

1980).

with

lates

intact

of

resulting

interaction

as

resistance

frozen

on protein
the

to

lipids

Intact

during

lipids

categorized

are

dized.

fish

correfree

fatty

lipase

active

enzymes

stored

at

and

in

the

-12

production

of

(Shenouda,

19809

of

FFA induce

high

(A11en

Oxidized

of

fish

plexes.
affects
lipids

and

cause
in

the

Shenouda

(1980)

texture

of

adhere

changes

actomyosin

to

protein

cause
and

texture

both

water-holding

nutritional

and

of

products

more
gives

frozen

problems

rancidity

lipid

oxidation

insoluble

a detailed

review

and

fish

intact

flesh.

and

functional

elastic,

oxidase,

trimethylamine

while

1981).

The

proteins.
harder,

the

These

levels

Low

proteins,

that

affect

proteins

of

on

micelles

Foegeding,

changes

properties

extracted

1980).

lipids

undesirable

of

-140C

to

1981).

Foegedipg,

adversely

and

denaturation
capacity

and

FFA form

(Shenouda,

filaments

make

Allen

species

aggregation
of

levels

fish

FFA in

and

comon

the

oxidized

17

problems

color,

with

combined

(1973b)

kinds

several

beef

of

evaluation

ffsh

combinations

beefish

patties
50%,

seasoning,

gested

that

and

and
made
flesh

blood-colored

fish.

research

their
while

sun

dryed

the

main

fish

patties

salted
(DelVa11e
advantages

in

attempted

meat

to

form

of

favor

produce

cakes

of

pieces
and
that

that

mixing

dry,

texture

One research

salt,

improved

and

beef,

to

by grinding

sug-

may be

acceptable

have

adding

simultaneously

algo

ground

attributes.

acceptability

dry

hamburger

that

patties

(Anon.,

patties

of

definitely

protein

plant

researchers

have

groups

fish

all-beef

traditional

the

with

between

portion

The

value

are

overall

ground

1973a)

of

that

YI hydrolyzed

as

panel

taste

texture

flesh

fish

the

ground

indicated

fish

and

1 to

nutritive

the

minced

the

in

considerations

Many
salted

beef

with

and

red

from

flesh

from

flavor

acceptable

as

fish

by mixing

odor,

of

and Flick,

King

beef

combined

containing

were

19739

economic

were

ranging
and

ground

species

appearance,

Flick

with

Minced

Results

prevent

and

color.

patties.

various

25 and

flesh

to

King

flesh

''beefish''

make

to

texture.

blood-colored

fish

of

adlusted

been

and

taste

the
the

masking

meat,

have

formulations

Product

Preparations

and

Formulations

Product

fish
pressing

then

were

group

subsequently

et

a1.,

1973).

The

study

cites

to

this

process

are

rapid

and

that
uniform

18
of

preservation
of

mixing
that

rockfish,

lingcod,

rehydration

properties

and

patties

for

content

of

water

10 hours
the

tapioca
fish.

patties

was

Sodfum

alginate

a dough

enhanced

and

the

fish-soy

were
headed

the

where
starch

(Moledina

and

when
gutted

(30% of

the

et

mechanically
fish

meat

binding

of

frames
weight),

starch

flesh,

fish

the

to

research

group
salted

a dehydrated,
1977a).

deboned

and

flesh,

the

suggested

Another

was

minced

tapioca

researchers

a1.,

51 modified

A combination

shape.

producing

for

of
89.51

modified

flesh.

a method

A satisfac-

and

attached

fiber

the

bound

product

obtained

The

soy

and

and

quality.

developed

also

fiber

protein

product

mechanism

handle

to

easy

the

submersion

of

a combination

improved

the

moisture

the

product.

chloride,

sodium

and

Drying

reduced

the

soy

binding

20 minutes

and

with

obtained
0.5%

structured

82*6

and

including

product.

rehydrated

starch,

producing

5I,

to

sufficiently

product

tory

71 to

at

from

(Bello

attributes,

the

results

The best
flounder

thoroughly
soy

be

to

flesh

the

enhance

sensory
of

product

texturized

starch,

to

characteristics,

textural

salt

required

Another

cod

pacific

tapioca

were

salt

and

fiber

of

Modified

fish
mixed,

the

and

product

refrigeration.
dried

using

herring,

1979).

Pigott,

in

developed

intimate

a resulting

and

without

refrigeration

without

by

accomplished

salt,

stable

reearchers

of

kept

and

meat

indefinitely

group

ground

fleh

fish

the

bean

mixed
curd

meat

from

with

(20% of

19

the meat

weight)

pressure

of

Ca

kes

of

rated

the

the

Generally,
result

market.

American
their

Potential

of

of

periods
vation

of

focused

Carver

the

and

50Tominced
onions,

work

orld

may find

patties

seem

the

fish

products

patties

appear

they

The main
stable

remain

can

on

the

to

have

protein

combat

to

to

acceptability

and

countries.

refrigeration

advantage
for

long

for

preser-

a solution
a greater

and

water

3% sodium
holding

prepare
a fish

49Z potatoes,

pepper.
of

to

King

et

chloride
effect

a1.

the

with

has
minced

products.

the

composed

cake

of

1% dehydrated

and

discovered

(1974)
and

the

improving

products

fish

combined

developed

flesh,

of

purpose

minced

breaded

used

(1971)

whiting

salt,

the

ingredients

processes

King

for

done
of

specific

on
and

fish,

the

attributes

textural

had

of

researchers

the

poor,

purposes.
Much

that

Americans

fishery

requiring

without

time

of

panel

a means

as

that

is

patties

these

product

texture

these

developing

in

malnutrition

the

minced

other

However,

greatest

from

as

tough

with

compete

to

Poor

salt

parts

salted

dry,

an objectionably

in

3 changes

in

patties
some

cohesive

form

acceptable.

product

tough

dry,

in

a boil

a taste

the

people

that

the

Although
of

and

to

to

cake

removed

acceptance

subjected

was

Juices

remove

fish-soy

the

effectively

speculated

too

to

consumption.

before

mixture

the

75 psi.

Bringing

water,

the

and

0.5%

on cooked

sodium

meats

than

TPP

20
solutions

containing

chloride-sodium
retained

TPP solubilized

its

adhesiveness

packaging,

vacuum

fishcakes
haddock

and

made

a11

from

Martin

minced

fish

A sausage
an

attempt

of

mullet

sausages

protein,

water,

varying
and

shear

force,

ity.

Water

level

tender

as

to

greater

were

amounts

that

conclude
possible,

produced

using

ratios.

Hing

and

an

a wide
a1.

be

to
product
of

in

acceptable
range

(1972)

and

general

of

mullet

combined

at

in

group

utiligation
taken

was

mullet,
for

cooking

factor

increasingly
sodium

TPP were
the

of

researchers
ingredients
could

be

protein:Tpp:water

the

comminuted

to

soy

acceptabil-

sensory

sausage

fish:soy

salt

protein.

one

them

1ed

combinations

optimum

and

primary

became

patties

of

of

and

the

tests

quality

approach

analyze

water

taste

favor-

and

water

results
many

et

and

cod

least

by

proportion

TPP

found
The

Experimental

added.

the

in

whiting,

vegetable

developed

The

that

sugar

textured

expressible

texture.

textural

acceptability

sodium

was

rated

by adding

1978).

reported

however,

were
the

was

the
a1.,

et

loss,

influencing

several

Laboratories;

increase

(Daley

prepare

in

product

type

to

scores

30I hydrated

to

(1975)

high

improved

be

up

radiosterilization

blue

whiting

of

treatments

of

suggested

(1976)

and

1% levels

further

flesh

blue

sodium

binder

minced

Fisheries

could

the

cryogenic

received

minced

the

able.

the

The

protein

Dagblartsson

from

Icelandic

the

at

after

storage.

made

chloride.
fish

freezing,

subsequent

and

sodium

less

flesh

21

pelamis)

(Katsvvonus

curing

agents

present

the

croaker,

designed

to

croaker,

sand

trout,

mullet

capacity

and

soluble

protein

related

ge1

the

to

minced

tissues

less

and

firm

than

tissue

sarcoplasmic

during

springier

capacity

holding
The
were

and

frozen

attributes

textural

studied

sensory

analysis

croaker

with

by measuring
on patties
sodium

chloride,

as

ge1

textur.

from
both

well

as

soluble

from

sodium

sand

better

the
TPP,

patties

performing

minced

and

had

studies.
fish

minced
and

trout
water

species

force

croaker

proteins

from

cooked

to
Higher

gels.

Gels

other

raw

tended

tissue

and

breaking
made

of

extracted

the

of

panel

sensory

myofibrillar

soluble

of

highly

were

periods

long

holding

Water

with

was

Atlantic

solubilfties

storage.

those

than

by

species,

texture

of

gels

were

other
and

proteins

decreased
a firmer

from

those

study

cooked

fresher

proteins

This

fish.

for

than

springy

myofibrillar

soluble

stored

tissues

firmess
than

ribbon

correlated

poorly

panel

gumminess

fish.

protein

to

form.

springiness,

deterined

while

an attempt

attributes

of

and/or

a trained

for

ribbon

and

tuna

acceptable

for

textural

textures

were

from

made

Gels

and

the

instrumentation,

and

be

mullet

in

that

scores

ack

seasonipg

an

higher

Atlantic

evaluate

in

lower

skipj

sausage

reported

trout

and

cohesiveness,

and

flesh

(l979b)
sand

and

starch,

a fish

fish

a1.

from

gels

fat,

develop

to

et

dax)

with

minced

Cheng

rated

(Makaira

marlin

of striped

flesh
sodium

of

22

alginate
0.1

levels
1.0%,

to

alginate

encing

the

patty

a11

texture

responses

the

breaking

force

0.05).

probably

was

fish

(a

sodium

chloride

A final

analysis

of

indicated

that

alginate

levels

acceptability
sodium

has

the
to

trend

in

toward

seafood

can

Although

the

technology

Soy
protein

(Sipos
flour
isolates

of

terms
et

and
are

vegetable
be

of

a1.,
grits,

three

textured

to

soy

other

of
is

for
muscle

protein

considered

products

this

Patty

formulations

especially

Compared

and

in

of

extenders,

limited,

realized

economics

seafood

for

and

0.34%

product

use

is

opportunities
be

increased

protein

0.415%,
chloride,

fish

products.

soy

sodium

at

alginate.

meats,

textured

significant.

maximized

to

red

infancy.

force

formulations

patty

sodium

minced

use

fivmness

texture

TPP was

were

0.67%

at

as

on breaking

equal

influ-

TPP affected

effect

fish

1980).

ipfluenced

for

sodium

or

sodium

off-white

like

with

than

0.551

products
or

foods

its

the

progressed

pink

in

less

sttongly

scores

scores

and

factor

Sodium

minced

preference

TPP and

protein

and

the

peaked

Thus,

panel

0.5,

Tomaszewski,

primary

and

interaction

between

and

0.05).

0 to

1.0,

the

texture

and

The

0 to

(Deng

respectively

Sodium

(a

from

ranging

products
be

to
extending

lust

developipg,

technology

have

and

nutrition,

functionality

in
seafood

continue
and

1979).
soy

protein

basic

soy

concentrates
protein

products

and

soy

23

derived

from

protein

forms

soybeans.
is

from

result
soy flour

have

may not

in

moisture.

have

and

hold

about

2.5

1.5

times

their

1 to

textured
with
1979).

Soy protein

patties

or

prodcts

other

seafood

cohesion,

viscosity

tion

and

retention

properties.

lipophilic,
enable

of

the

soy

impart

textural

to

Generally

The

the

ground

or

is

then

mix

passed
depending
involved

with

and
or

a chemical
the

matrix

improving

et

fish

cakes,

a1.,

their

adhe-

and

water

absorpto

the

are

positively
many

soy

charged

different

molded

composition.
textural

various

into
to

is

protein
forming

a matrix

solution

the

(Sipos

character.

hydrated

flesh

extruded

through
on

textured,

minced

with

mixed

of

that

and

associate

to

to

products

charged

proteins

when

attached

Groups
protein

soy

hydrated

texture
because

absorb
and

water

fish

generation,

negatively

polar,

ingredients

with

the

in

as

protein

and

hydrate

such

products

and

chains

further

4 times

textured

Partially

impart

sion

polymer

weight

a11

1 to

solubility

oil.

ingredients

moisture

a7d

their
in

products

protein

soy

higher

weight

of

absorb

to

protein

3 times

to

may or

property

ability

of

while

but

Concentrates

a 1ow degree

products

isolates

extraction,

A similar
their

their
and

oligosaccharides

defatted.
is

in

concentrates

oligosaccharide

contain

products

weight

their

and

grits

difference

protein

soy

fat

been

protein

soy

that

both
and

The basic

''set''

the

mixed

material.
shapes

and

product,

Many researchers
attributes

of

minced

24

fish

products

copolymer,

as

P roducts

alginate,

the

matrix

to

fishery

''set''

when

alginate
tive

sodium

When the

minced

use

exposed

main

of

sticking

to

these

this

the

calcium

fat

fried

for

maximum

The

rules

table
the

seafood

protein
basis

flour

and

minimums

of

when

exceed

per

70 parts

weight.

50% and

isolate
protein

textured

moisture

60 to

65% moisture

when

flour

to

parts

water

free

rehydrated

by weight).

1973).

The

patties

from
of
''set''

and

in

breaded,

protein
provide

soy

deep

products
guidelines

protein

the

products.

proportion

hydrated

or

vegetable

protein

concentrate

must

vegetable

(1:1.3
Textured

fish

range

to

1:1.6,

isolates

on

or
have

protein

can

dry

vege-

free

on a moisture

basis)

of

textured

poultry,

meat,

or

the

at

1979).

with

raw

(50% protein

molded

program

30 parts

flour

is

coopera-

production

battered,

hydrated?

A hydrated

respectively.

the

vegetable

A textured

90I

in

al.,

et

Lunch

not

a textured
of

is

extension

that

state
shall

product

textured

the

is

Sodium

ge1

crisp

prevent

used

matrix

salt.

Morris,

the

to

through

ions
firm,

to

it

School

National

product

the

(Sipos

for

Regulations
the

is

solution,

frozen

and

calcium

19729

belt

After
salt

for

film

conveyor

products.

the

(Rees,

product
of

purpose

of

a thin,

texture

alginate,

sodium

calcium

their

to

iwart

to

the

the

forming

the

texture

a solution

with

association

surface

is

to

interacts

impart
used

matrix

products

a mannuronate/guluronate

basis,
or
from
parts
or

soy

25

protein

from

range

can
1:2.0,

parts

weight)
In

65

to

to

and

chopping

protein

salt

soluble

proteins

of

connective

(Brown

of

consequence
of

and

biophysical

properties

the

molecule

protein
the

formulating,

could

affect
.

comminuted

form
to

fat

This

could
meats

comminution.

or

muscle

Since

of

association,

changes

in

the

1ow temperatures

chopping
(Deng

binding
some

of

the

homogenates

protein-protein
aggregation

secondary

and

of

a1.,

tertiary

involved

1976

and

of

properties
during

in

formulations

meat
et

and

changes

formulation

interactions
and

strengths

Subtle

or

as

a complex

1981).

mixing

explain

present

structural

at

the

The

represents

occur

water

by

fats.

fluid,

that

and

reduction,

particles,

action,

(Rizvi,

This

1975).

and Toedo,

varying

trans-

emulsification

sarcoplasmic

with

aggregates

in

1981).
size

subcellular

chopping

the

filaments

occurs

simultaneous
and

the
meabrane

and

(Rizvi,

exttaction

tissues

sapcolec=a

cutting

and

in

and

processing

myofibrils

directions

cellular

to

by

water

During

the

fibers,

results

soluble

basis)

(1:1.7

formulations,

chopper,

separated,

salt

parts

considerations.

of

longitudinal

rehydrated

to

product

the

bundles

action

matrix

final

in

free

1973).

special

progressively

mixture

concentrate

addition

operation

verse

or

when

Register,

is disrupted,

1981)

70% moisture

(Federal

require

mincing

in

on a moisture

protein

soy

techniques

are

(90% protein

concentrates

polymerization
structure

the

in
lead
of

the

26

molecule,

protein

binding

water
that

by

the

proteins
the

to

finished

total

their

salt

soluble

binding
dependent

surface

proteins

on

15 and

220C

theory

(Brown

appeared

finish

the
in

batters

temperature

and

matrix

of

protein,

for

the

stability

was

suggested

as

the

reason

meat

batters.

Batters

lost

their

fat;

however,

of
the

time

both

control.

batter

during
at

15 to

a stable

unchopped

of

loss

temperatur

occurred

for

than

meat.

batter

and

The

temperature

chopping,

where

22OC,

this

was

but

produced

is

only

from

and

of

range

binding
was

this

fat

binding

water

between

the

of

entrapment

prolonged

fat

strongly

true

water

comminuted

capacity

binding

the

water

explore

stable

in

chopping

Mechanical

in

resulted

in

to

for

and

be very

1975).

particles

earlier

fat

small

so

large

Toledo,

fat

water

separat

to

designed

experiment

an

of

1981).

and

becomes

too

Optimum

cover.

and

characteristics

size

becomes

the

ability

the

emusions

meat

extent

water

1976

a1.,

and

affect

could

and

particle

area
to

chopped

in

fat

and

textural

et

that

when

rate

stabilizing

desired

speculates

unstable

in

(Deng

product

One theory

that

the

fat

occur

formulations,

impart

affect

The

proteins

flesh
to

become

molecules.

muscle

cominuted

in

could

interactions

of

fat

or

these

protein-protein

performance

changes

these

for

chopping
regardless
attained
maximum,

the

original

first

by

27

Deng
actions

a1.

et

in

(1976)

beef

and

mackerel

light

scattering

absorbance

that

interactions

between

solutions

occurred

increased

with

results

at

in

maintaining
the
would

(Deng

systems

Webb et
products

fish

separated

scores

and

products

made

from

made

from

that

the

hand

out

other

in

texture

comminuted

beef,

pork

for

optimum

fat

solubilized

meat

such

as

and

binding

water

The

pH.

pH values

the

to
adding
in

have

fish

as

and

tissue

these

The
fat

two

for

those

research

the

suggested
of

hand
and

results,

for

the

in

Although

correlations

muscle

values
product

the

large

treatments.

stability

chicken

for

nitrogen

significant
cook

panel

measurements

myofibrillar

the

machine

sensory

content
to

cooked

with

than

explanation

between

and

force

contributed

an

flesh
higher

lower

of

of

texture

flesh.
and

reported

capacity

and

reduced

prior

separated

level

tissue

10C,

10oC

shear

separated

researchers

emulsifying

hand

higher

the

and

reported

increased

may

separated

difference

They

moisture

higher
flesh

separated
ruled

machine

actomyosin

that

separated

hand

flesh.

texture

1ow as

below

compared

(1976)

from

reported

1976).

a1.,

a1.

fat

study

as

containing

higher

maximize

et

made

of

using

the

suggest

temperature

use

solutions

in

temperature

systems

proteins,

phosphates

temperatures

in

inter-

This

proteins

study

binding

and

method.

this

and water

protein-protein
actomyosin

increasing

shown

cooking

studied

between
and

final

texture

28

ratings,

these

methods
be

of

of

no

ability

in

value

capacity

measuring

products

and

Lee

time,

mechanical

made

content

presence

of

on

functional

and

cook

measured

the

textural

such

order

of

mechanical

strength

additives,

followed

chloride,
sodium

muscle

then

and
chloride

fish

0.3%

holding

increased

and

capacity

increased

the

water

binding.

Another

study

reported

fish

studied

more

profound

change

in

fish

(Ravichander
influence

and
on the

of

made

no

2%
and

salt

force.

puncture
strength
Adding

mechanical

texture

with

both

and
shear

Keay,

cooked

Adding

solubility

minces

ne

2% sodium

decreased.

that

the

samples

strength

force

improved

a textural

brought

containing

decreased,

compressive

polyphosphates

changes

polyphosphates.
shear

cooked

moisture

containing

muscle

of

type

in

of

from

samples

increased

As water

and

by

and

polyphosphates

progressed

by

and

chopping.

as

commi-

polyphosphates,

of

adverse

to

treatments

fish

and

higher

by mechanical

comminuted

of

characteristics

about

increasing

effects

cooking

Formulations

forming

tissue.

the

of

to

texture

chloride

temperature

property

stability

muscle

fish

susceptable

more

the

potential

sodium

muscle.

fish
were

from

(1976)

medium

comminuted

the

Toledo

deboning,

heating

found

emulsifying

of

nution

scientists

from

1976).
of

muscle

protein

mixing
a11

species

Mixing

lean

produced

fish.

had

of
a

29

Fatty

fish

of

sodium

salt

to

like

mackerel

chloride
lean

in

fish

softened

were

the

minces

mince,

by

while

toughened

the

inclusion

mixing

the

and

final

adding

product

texture.

A textural
that

panel

fotce

the
of

to values
the

cooked

(Cheng
gels

panel

increased

myosin

related

to

and

inversely

was

holding

the

1ow in

water

holding

panel

from

firmness

and

meat

obtaining
best

and

soluble
of

extraction
of

springiness
recommended
should

a maximum
finished

thermal

from

fish

that
make

quality.

cocninuted

manufacturers
practice

of myofibrillar

force
water

concentramuscle

during

highest

a common

shear

scores,

myosin

degradation

'I'he

closely

maximum

protein

finished

Gels

processing

was

gumminess

cooked

weak,

ratings

gels

the

the

capacity.

ge1

extractability

product

became

and

produced
in

gels

cooked

myosin

gels,

products

cooked

panel

to

of

protein

of

texture

scores

related

fish

researchers

the

related

protein

during

springiness

control

of

processing

soluble

springiness
of

content

Maximum

results

for

7 mg/g,

and

maximum

centrifugation

6 to

capacity

tion.

after

degadation

and

soluble

beyond

the

reported

inversely

were

gumminess,
loss

gels

firmness

If

f irmness

percent

and

1979).

tropomyosin

h a d lower

for

fish

minced

device

weight

gummy and

showing

nuted

shear

score

and

a1.,

et

cooked

springiness

Kramer

gels

inelastic,

The

for

scores

with

of

study

that
thermal

ratings

for

products.
of

coc=iof
proteins

30

Another
thermal

on the
rapid

to

heated

a1.,

in

texture

properties.

fraction

caused

Optimal

conditions

of

temperature
optimal

the

and

Deng

temperatures

patties

that

mullet,

sheepshead

fat

were

studied

but

softer

and

and
for

sarcoplasmic

during

heating.

8.5,

were
and

a 1 *4

proteolytic

EDTA and

3750F
at

for

activity

EGTA inhibited

for

0O0F

for

25 or

effects

mullet.

croaker

reduced

patty

ditions.

Pure

mullet

The

and

firmness
patties

either
O sec.

fish

species--

were

baked

the
equal

sheepshead

to

at

of
3750F

and

variables

firmness
as

regardless

0 min,

These

were

cooked

of
fish

25 or

mullet

croaker

Adding

three

patties

on patty

rated

influence

on minced

the

croaker.

panel

the

time

4250F

sheepshead

than

cooking

or

their

A sensory

studied

by blending

and

fried

and

(1981)

made

were

at

deep

the

activity

8.0

ge1

to

activity.

cooking

in an oven

myosin

related

proteolytic

chelators

(Cheng

and

in

with

temperature

proteins

concentration

that

states

compared

factors

muscle

group

produced

gels

highly

were

pH between

The metal

Cornell

species,

this

ion

proteolytic

ability.

for
6OoC,

calcium

activation.

in

gels

tropomyosin

Proteolytic
changes

fish

fish

of

gels

research

internal

Degradations
fish

same

temperature

in

a 70oC

to

cooked

the

internal

texture

slowly

1979b).

observed

by

of minced

851C

an

springy

more

those

performed

processing

heating

firmer,

et

study

and

accept-

firmest
in
mullet
process
were

firmness
or
conmore

31

acceptable
from

than

croaker

those

showed

mullet-sheepshead
patties

those

ture

and

longer

pure

sheepshead

time

softened

critical

apd
shear,
and

TPP

products

Sodium

appears

to

protein

products

texture

of

can

product

have

great

fishery
soy

to

make

minced

and

textural

fishery

through

flavor

accep-

below

0.5Fo,

attributes.

potential

1973).

0.3%

fishery

levels

at

mixing

of

use

quality

a matrix,

their

70 parts

Many

Soy

improving

in
but

per

textural

minced

retention

protein

Register,

The

in

products,

in

mechanical

textural

acceptable

considered

ingredients,
the

chloride

as

frying

acceptable

methods.

water

30 parts

(Federal

used

the

alginate

minced

exceed

be

sodium

of

numerous

be

must

consider

0.5%

provide

that

must

cooking

fat

indicates

temperatures,

binding,

tance.

work

with

and

maximizes

pH elevation,

flesh

storqge

tempera-

firmness

deep

product

The proces

and

sodium

previous

fish

cooking

the

patties.

variables

a minced

processing

not

of

Higher

Lengthening

made

acceptable

more

increased

sheepshead

processing

attributes.

times

patties.

a review

producing

time

baking

patties
Baking

produced

3750F.

at

while

relationship.

4250F

at

baked

the

4250F,

at

opposite

an
blend

than

Thus

cooked

species

products

the

level

must

minced

fish

of
with

fish
acceptable

32

textural

attributes,

of

the

using

unique
ated

flesh

of

composition
textural

be near

-20oC

Products

to

dehydration
frozen

raw
or

minced
cessing,

fish

materials

be

not

burn

flesh

of

protein-protein

detrimental

to

textural

and

baking

times

insure

consistent

be

and

minimize

textural
to

If

10oC.

quality.

can

should

as

prevent

or

during
ingrediprocessing
of

temperattre
time

any

Deep

quality.

the
shear

the

associ-

oxidation

formulation,
excessive

their

quality.

packaged

interactions

temperatures
product

should

cautious

should
such

enzymes

reduce

10oC at

exceeds

of

temperatures

that

to

be

TMAO, DMA) and

of

product

exposed

excess

because

Storage

TMAoase

During

in

temperatures

species

activities

freezer

storage.
should

gadoid

limit

should

processor

(formaldehyde,

A and
and

the

alterations.

phospholipase

ents

but

fat

during
result
frying

be made

the

prothat

are

and

standard

to

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Materials

A number
various

of

fish

minced

Greenland

Rich

Sea

were

purchased

Pack

in

Structured

(Bontrae

2102),

onions,

dehydrated

density

sodium

the

Corporation,
matrix,

ingredient
were

preliminary
Industries.

the

Crystal

Salt
Xanthan

experiments.
Host

North

additional

Food

were

batter
Service

33

light

by

the

the

Kelco

and

Concen-

the

FMC

gum

(Keltrol)

flour

and

sodium

used

only

obtained
breading

Corporation,

Ralston
Company,

Vegetables

and

fish

flour

soy

and

ingredients
They

Favorite

American

of

the

dehydrated

Company,

Company

consisting

two

fillet

supplied

California

respectively.
an

alginate,

Soya

Company,

Diamond

whqle

chloride,
were

Central

The

grey

from

1981.

(SPF-2O0),

sodium

and

(Keltone),

alginate

tripolyphosphate

Foremost-Gentry
the

pre-frozen

fiber

celery,

Company,

trates,

of

pr6tein
sodium

bilihearis

purchased
27,

on January
form

the

(Merluccius

were

the

experiments.

our

hippoglossides)

cynoglossus)

Corporation

blocks.

Purina

whiting

formulate

to
in

treatments

(Reinhardtius

(Glyptocephalus

used

were

Virens),

turbot

sole

of

patty

(Pollachius

Pollock

th

ingredients

and

from

in

the

Singleton

products
and

34

oi1

peanut
Company,

a local

Florida.

in

the

Experiments''

mined

for

replicated
determined

dishes

oven for

16 hr

protein
Crude

fat

was

dryed

the

hr
used

Ten

to

placed
ash
over

in

determined

in

of
by

for

a thimble.

the

the

ether

samples
a muffle
The

a period
from

of

of

furnace

furnace
2 hr

from

splattering.

species

slm=arized

flesh

flesh.

to

(roto-vap

were
determine
increased
the

prevent

analysis
A-2

to

slowly

to

The proximate
Table

crucibles

5500C

shows

flask.

extraction

was
550/C

that
for

used

was

in

at

temperature

in

percent

samples

16 hr

l00

the

fish

flesh

an

105oC.

Soxhlet

fish
for

in

and

fish

the

was

in

intermittent

from

ground

fish

quantify

to

evaporator

the

evaporate

species
Moisture

100

ether

to

standard

evaporation

to

Petroleum
a flash

by

ground

ground

2g dryed

and

content.

fish

used

extractions,

12g

samples
four

2g samples

sole

analysis.

3g of

deter-

were

4 fish

between

was

''Preliminary

sections.

the

them

are

storing

the

content

of

type
2 to

method

procedure

were

each

temperatures

at

in

and

of

costs

forming,

ash

Each

subjecting

and

1 to

extraction

was

1980).

Kjeldahl
in

and
whiting,

by weighing

aluminum

The macro

fat,

for

for

design''

pollock,

6 times

Gainesville,

explained

are

Wholesale

shipment

Methods

protein.

(A.O.A.C.,

methods

was

A-1.

in

and

''Experimental

turbot,

Hi Neighbor

located

patties

and

Moisture,

the

suppliers

Table

preparing

from

distributor

Ingredient

summarized
and

obtained

were

of
that

wet

the
the

35

main

difference

higher

fat

between

fish

the

lean

fish

is

121,

exceeding

content,

than

content

the

that

turbot

and

species

lower

has

a much

moisture

pollock,

whiting

and

sole.

Preliminary
An extensive
conducted
components

well

as

work

was

for

range

that

might

results.

The

oblective

method

various

measurements
each

of

values

were

the

procedures

in the
responses

value,
the

patty
for

recokding

Experimental
for

resistance

the

patty

per

minced

force

the

the

patty

from

primary
of

four

the

breakpoint
within

treatment

breakpoint

the

the

greater

required

to
Standard

responses

Differences

the

obtained

force.

this

breakpoint

fish

processing
with

Higher

because

to

Section.

control

Typically,

patties
greater

specific

attributes

experiments.

the

more

was

textural

on one

firmer

indicated

Machine,

on th

patties.

response,

treatments.

preliminary

breakpoint
overcome

the

made

to

various

fish

interfered

breakpoint
Testing

preliminary

the

and

of

were

components

minced

otherwise

have

evaluate

to

the

determine

to

Universal

used

of

formulations

product

Instron

levels

formulated

necessary

experiments

influence

general

the

of

variables

the

of preliminary
the

as

attributes

textural
This

series

determine

to

Elperiments

are
in

treatments

outlined
breakpoint

the
in

each

36

preliminary

experiment

determined

were

analysis

by

of

variance.
These
specific

prelipinary

affecting

the

sodium

alginate

of

ingredients

a11

patty

bake

and

specified

breading

of

the

weight

of

fat

The
protein,
Percentages

minced

the

frying.
fat

deep

to

heat

patties,

soy

of

deep

used

times

were
fish

and

attributes.

chloride.

each

on the

variables

fish,

sodium

study

to

processing

were

for

based

were

minced

influence

matrix

designed

textural

patty

and

studied

the

or

studied

battering,

variables

ingredients

ingredients

treatments

before

were

fish

minced

of

categories

fish

patties
Processing

fry

penetration

and
and

rate.

position.

oven

Prepapation

Tatty

type

The minced

fish

and

of

particular
other

amount

(TPP),

levels

fish
in
used

ingredients

sodium

in

al1

experiments.
a particular
l part

of

the

If

soy flour
it

flour

to

l.6

was
parts

and

included

at

2102)

water

in

matrix

the

comprising

first

any
the

tripolyphosphate

were

(Bontrae

with

studied

alginate,

celery

treatments

treatment,
soy

and

bowl

mixipg

the

for

required

sodium

as

sodium

onions

by placing

formulations

the

such

chloride,

protein

soy

aluminium

an
in

prepared

were

and

experiments

Rehydraed

gum.

patties

treatment

preliminary

of

of

categories

experiments

was

hydrated
and

xanthan
fixed

preliminary
required

in

the

level

with

at
mixed

37

until

spoon

a11

throughout
the

the

other

200)

the

on

thus

:8

hours

ingredients,

and

651

(Federal

with

a band

room

for
addition

fish

type
the

with
before

the

drated

celery

8.7%

the

to

band

of

distilled
hydrated

with

the

to

other

in

the

free
93%

not

more

ingredients

mix

-30oF

at

cubes

requiring

1/4

preparation

the

specific

bloeks

that

came

minimize

rust

and

blocks

were

sliced

onions

absorbed

dehydrated

weights

of
saw,

thqwed
and

water.
form.

the
to

fish

for

rehydrated
These

The

vegetables
fish

was

other

into

was
into

contaminants,
Dehy-

187.87

25.1

in

respectively,

5 min
were

minced

added
and

and

to

119.63

(35oF)

cold

in

triq=ed
contact

cubes.

water

cut

(35oF)

in

margin

to

were

a refrigerated

1 in.2

into

A 1/2

stored

inch

10 replicates,

over

hydrated

treatment.

50 and

were

350

to

treatment

amount.

their

with

moisture

were

blocks

sliced

and

surfaces

the

fillet

tempered

saw,

and

mixing

in

1973).
fish

48 hr

for

off

before

whole

the

concentrate

both

350F

to

particular

the

65%
was

combined

Regulations,

and

Register,

The

ingredient

tempered

by

(SPF-

contain

to

as

being

required

protein

moisture

so

be

to

with

concentrate

This

before

Federal

soy

protein

weight.

evenly

combined

was

Purina

had

respectively,

protein,

than

if
with

flour

SOy

in

and

for

compliance

of

it

soy

Ralston

basis

-300F

at

refrigerator

In

before
The

by

distributed

was

flour,

soy

hydrated

moisture

othr

moisture

ingredients.

was

stored

the

the

intimately

mixes

38
blended

in

mixing

the

required

for

kneading

process.

resulting

batter

with

the

maximum.

The

batter

with

patties

375*F

at

sec

film

a thin

interaction

formulated

DAtrix

were

those

that

were

wrapped

to

in

into

wax

Paper

a -30oF

of

surfaces

petri
coated

fried

the

solution

causes
from

a result

calcium

alginate

tons.
that

containing

solutton

as well

The

fried

foil,

aluminum
for

for

patties

experiments

freezer

blast

a 355F

their

as

with

matrix.

then

entire

at

fat

deep

71 CaC1a

with

this

71 CaC12

the

and

solution,

Exposure

sodium

the

prepared

in

finally

WaS

shaping

from

preliminary

the

to

removed

alginate

the

hand

temperature

patty

sodium

exposed

quick

as

patties
and

placed

freezing.

g MC C y C S yggaay
Fifteen

combinations

pollock,

whiting

and

on patty

texture

as

fifteen

the

without

were

directly
jj

alginate

of

were

oil.

included

Treatments

gy

peanut

pre-coated

The batter

a 7% CaC1z

in

on

plates

throughout

and

form

to

the

taken

breading,

sodium

containing

ingredients

using

in

ingredients
hand

shape

then

30 sec

other

by a lo-min

petri

processing

were

for

and

was

the

the

sticking.

patty

Care

soaked

plates,

the

round

maintain

to

of

the
into

prevent

plates.

process

:5

the

to

mixing

weighed

was

a11

treatment

After

oi1

into

petri

with

a particular

soybean

molded

bowl

combinations

of

sole)

were

determined
consisted

the

four
studied

fish
for

by breakpoint
of

the

species
their

(turbot,
effects

values.

4 individual

The
fish

39
species

by

the

species

two

themselves,

ages

(1:1),

the

each

specie

is

(1:1:1),

is

known

1981)
The

Al1

levels

of

concentrate

xanthan

gum and

nate)

the

8.16

at

values

pollock,

sole

and

significantly

combinations

of

or

the

in

combination

effect

softening
were

as

found

on

species
of

one

the

with

between

the

patties.
the

of

fish
other

0.2

how

firmness
fish,

whitipg,

with

turbot
made

were

from

from

binary

firmer

by

components.

Using

fish

had

species

values

differ-

No significant

breakpoint

and

break-

of
was

made

algi-

patty

patties

were

celery,

showing

prepared

Patties

fish

the

than

and

1.03,

order

made

soy

sodium

and

values,

softer

and

reslts

In

Patties

sole.

fish.

combinations

breakpoint

0.01)

72.45%

affect

A-3.

single

turbot.

pollock

providing
turbot

(a
pollock

whiting,

from

lowest

to

Table

(Cornell,

and

the

combinations

in

prepared

highest

of

design

onions

2.04

other

4 fish

al1

2102)

flour

8.16,

and

species

appears

patties

of

the

combinations

of

set

rehydrated

blend

where

of

(Bontrae

A summary

fish

various

from

ences

(a

respectively.

point
for

matrix

fixed

were

7.96%,

(SPF-200),

percent-

as

contained

flour

soy

where

equal

centroid

combinations

hydrated

protein

This
simplex

species

in

consisting

proportions.

species

percentage

same

blend

the

-component

as

the

fish

combinations

specie

in

present

of

present

are

4 triplicate

equal

in

pair

finally,

and

species

the

in

6 pairs

the

of

minced

40

fish

patties

made

combinations.
patty

and

tended

sole

ftom

multiple

made

from

breakpoint

the

minced

fish

values

were

to

protein

In

for

patties.

A 50:50

ratio

of

provided

the

soy

1.02
shows

SOy

and
the

made

those

2.04,
effect

7.96,
of

the

to

95:5,

and

100:0.

on the

experiments,
matrix

and

and

0.2%,

the

ratio

these

the
xanthan

SOy

weight.

obtained
ratios

and
five

of

pollock

treatments.

concentrate
ranged

amount
levels

of
of

gum were

respectively.
of

and

were

Turbot

that

component

50:50

patty

protein

protein

soy

flour

comprised

final

soy

of

component
to

75:25,

values

fish

soy

Turbot

breakpoint

depending

onions,

100:0,

formulations.

flour

breakpoint

products

of

of

having

of

examine

to

attributes

treatments

having

protein

In both
and

experiment,

one

36.22%

flesh

protein

treatment.

In

protein

soy

patty

90:10,
fish

soy

textural

ratios

experiment,

the

celery

two

treatments

provided

than

performed

were

four

contributed

80:20,

26.631

for

final

second

five

turbot
Patties

softer

were

on the

concentrate

the

each

70:30,

protein

soy

These

of

the

adding

firmness.

experiments

obtained

25:75.

pollock

while

patty

to

seems

combinations.

preliminary
of

16.33%

pollock

values,

fish

four-fish

or

Eff ect

effect

and

and

combinations

single

the

soy

three-fish

decrease

to
fish

So y Protein

the
whiting

Adding

increase

Two

from

flour

from
fish

per

rehydrated
fixed
Figure

to

0 to

soy

at
A-1

protein

41

on the

concentrate
patties.

The

values

between

patties

made

to
the

largest

latter.

ratio,
protein

duced

realistic

more

fiberous

to

because

for

reason

at

tuting
greater
shows
amounts

more

between
to
lack

of

of

SOy

the

former

soy

flour

protein

soy

in

minced

overall

protein

flour

and

fish

protein

unfried
the

for
the

patty

patties
replaced

protein

ratio

not

affect

the
This

in

patties

made

protein

16.3%

of

texture.

concentrate,
entire
Substi1ed

have

to

Figure

A-2

as

greater

firmer
flesh

from

because

is

the

might

the

ratios.

weight.

patty

the

of

variatton

soy

fish

of

the

influence

become

pro-

patties.

the

fish

the

patties,

concentrate

protein

than

because

did

flour

soy

of

the

fish

between

firmer

soy

varying

of

of

being

patties

minced

breakpoint
was

ratios

in

soy

and

mean

to

fish

minced

amounts

appear

contributed

only

soy

75:25

each

soy
of

diffrences
that

and

little

was

unbreaded

unbattered,

the

the

treatments

concentrate

of

this

ratio,

four

appealing

protein

soy

combination
each

the

Generally,

flour

soy

to

or

values

four

in

increased

fiber

there

breakpoint

the

the

causing

attributes

textural

the

25:75

appearance.

flour

of

the

concentrate,

structured

was

of

Decreasing

concentrate

soy

the

with

values

difference
two

any

protein

soy

breakpoint

in

the

patties.

42

Ef f ect

of

Sodium

Three
the

preliminary
of

effects

alginate
A standard

8.16%

2.04%

rehydrated

without
shows

did

not

that

fish
the

xanthan

four

the

little

these

made

with

8% sodium

made

with

2 and 41 sodiu

sodium

alginate

the

because
felt
glm=y,

like
dry,

oblectionable

at

batters

had

Patties
a very

mouthfeel.

in

does

Even

hard

the

the

be

not

Four
0.21

break-

the
that

patties
those

than

seem

these

8%

gum.

A-%).

to

green
at

of

firmer

not

from

unappealing

Figure

and

except

8%

0 and

alginate

(Figure

made

2 to

0.21.

than

much

were

and

gum could

treatments

levels

8% matrix

xanthan

less

alginate

these

resulting
plaster.

without

were

binding

between

differences

alginate

adjusted

values

8% sodium

four

celery,

compared.

level

concentrations

gum indicated

concen-

containing

xanthan

of

influence

of

0 to

or

protein

of

breakpoint

with

patties.

gum was

gum were

the

2 to

values

xanthan

matrix

containing

fish

sodium

rehydrated

treatments

xanthan

made

formula

at

treatments

point

patties

1.021

containing

0.2%

minced

combinations

influence

textural

detected

and

and

soy

study

to

matrix

8.16%

0.2%

treatment

varying

greatly

minced
Thus

the

fish,

and

treatments
gum,

of

flour,

soy

varying

xanthan

A-3

72.4%

performed

agents,

attributes

onions

Five

agents.

matrix

of

Mtrix

were

binding

textural

hydrated

the

Bindinq

and

experiments
two

mixture

trate,

0.2%

the

the

on

to suit

Alginate

Use

advisable

mold

and

batters

color

21 sodium

of

also
were

and
alginate

43

level,
the

as

these

poor

level

of

sodium

smoothness

and

and

alginate

of

sodium
both

Other

these

levels

manner

to

alginate
of

became
the

appeared

binders

increased

work

below

patties

2% lacked
made

for

both

matrix

as

in

respective

their

that

sodium

the

patties

percentages
mixes.

made

cohesiveness

with

The

increase

shown

had

increased

greater.

mixes

to

and

present

were

viscosity

preliminary

matrix

O 2

attributes

in

alginate

from

a similar

levels

below

=/

1.

The

third
with

pollock

whiting

preliminary

The

4.0% sodium

with

patties

may be

graphs

ip

1.O

8.0%

to

of

a result

matrix

Fig.

ments

on the

the

values

A-5

0 to

breakpoint

imparted
pollock
breakpoint

more

than

sodium

used

to

used
are

to

the

make

plotted

are
patties
the
in

This

alginate.

1.O

This
make

plotted
than

treatments
Fig.

firmer

to

8.0%

corresponding

the

mixture,

to

much

Treatment

on the

A-3.

values

con-

patties

matrix.

the

Fig.

firmness

values

a11

summarized

average

mixture

were

8% matrix,

pollock:whiting

whose

in

firmer

were

that

4.0:$

to

treatments

compared.

were

show

A-5

the

treatments

seven

matrix

flour

Five

alginate

Fig.

O.1

containing

breakpoint

patty

the

through

in

as

described.
and

utilizd

agents

turbot

with

far

8% matrix

O.1

formulated

than

so

binding

the

1 through

comparative

than

rather

experiments

containing
taining

with

experiment

A-3.

treat-

was

the

because

treatments
in

the

Fig.

A-5,

turbot:

whose

average

Figure

A-5

58

pollock,
first

the

protein

soy

second

with

soy

protein

The

data

(Barr

et

(beta

values)

Prepration

for

described

the

in

similar

three

sole

up

formulated

Statistical

analysis
of

of

the

calculated

Analysis
variance

model

method

the

coefficients
of
by

least
a specific

1970)

and

Rose,

changes,

the

Experimental

The

in

the

in

a hobart

to

three

ingredients

experimental
bowl

rather

preliminary

the

volume

of

mental

gTOUPS

bater

ingredients

of
at

ments,

the

in

hobart

was

required

to
of

the

treatment

Instead

protein

and

maintained

at

in

preliminary

treatments
hand

kneading

in

patties
blended

process

a much

greater

the

experi-

in

a11

preliminary

vegetables
350F

the
were

of mixing
the

prepared

were

formulate

because

per

done

the

in

experiments

as was

soy
bowl

by

treatments.

once

fish,

groups

treatments

section

studied
used

than

of

groups
Design

those

formulations

patty

experimental

manner

experiments.

the

a few

the

comprising

in

the

for

were

(Gilman

making

combinations

by

contours

protein

and

f Patties

Except

used

whiting

using

calculated

program

pollock,

comprising

group.

Estimates

were

levels

soy

third

package

1979)

alginate

15 fish

analyzed

Surface

computer

the

the

program

a1.,

Squares.

in
were

(SAS)

System

without

and

group,

sodium

15 turbot,

formulated

the

in

the

group,

combinations

and

were

the
experi-

blended

a refrigerated

59

for

room
sodium

1 min
TPP,

After

these

blending
mixer
of

and

sodium

three

the

2.

for
This

mincing

operation.

batters

were

stored

350F

at

battering,

Caclz

patties

solution,

mental

breading,

evaluation

while

evaluation.

objectively

evaluated

evaluated.

This

any

biasing

the

responses.

ObJ ectiVe

these
the

Thus
and

that

fat

of

patty

I I
#

per

three
the

to
in

was

the
marked

for
for

treatment

were

sublectively

hopefully

frying

experi-

separated

6 were

procedure

deep

trty.ng

SC

into

2 were

remaining

randomization

effects

3 patties

3 patties

usually

freezing.

frying

other

the

$f

before

sublected

and

fish
patty

were

separated

were

the

as

they

and

were

group

One of

subjective

may have

reduced

had

on

Mqurepent

An objective
by performing
Testing

per

batter,

treatments.

objective

treatment

per

hobart

treatment

36 hr

frying

the

association

served

plates,

than
fat

deep

patties
Three

grOuPS.

petri

mix.

mix,
the

at

experimentql

longer

no

breading,

Nine

the

in

for

the

and

the

to the

intimate

another

one

chloride,

into

9 min

allowed

After

molded

added

additional

process

sodium

poured

were

were

an

with

components

preweighed

alginate

ingredients

continued
speed

1 while

speed

at

measure

breakpoint

Machine.

Patties

by removing

them

baking

in

them

tests

from

an oven

were
a

-30oF

at

400oF

firmness

using

for

obtained

Instron

Universal

for

the

Instron

freezer

and

immediately

30 min,

and

then

an

prepared
blast

was

60

allowing

the

least

1 hr.

baking
and

patties
Preliminary

process

heat

was

the

sufficient

patties

to

215oF.

Treatment

6 for

Instron

preparation,

from

a single

point
each

The

Instron

fitting

calibrating

13 plunger

the

and

The
at

chart

patty

values

were

located

between

as

breakon

of

A and

increase

descent
within

of
and

B marks
caused

in

the

the
by

bar,

and

the

load

2 mm of
by

the

Figure

obtained

shows

how the

shows
in

a
our

breakpoint
The

curves.

product's

resistant

was

those

the

the

plunger

curve

force/deformation

the

a number

toward

5 cm/min.

typical

a CCTM load

crosshead

force/deformation

experiments,
on

breakpoint

encountered

speed

Deformation,
a great

to

a distance

to

curve

fish

without

bar

resulting

minced

elasticity.

so

made

were

attaching

the

to

thickness

force/deformation

distance

patty

on the

with

2 kg weight,

crosshead

Patty

was l cm.
recorded

of

batch

same

making

instrument

cm diameter)

2 cm/min

cell.

at

batches

one

effect

batch

for

the

with

(1.9

adJ usting
load

patties
of

measurements

prepared

was

by

measurements

at

the

in

this

tested.

patty

cell

baking

the

in

than

more

no

breakpoint

Four

baked

at

that

temperature

baked

was

thaw

to

were

and

unknown

any

response.

celt,

patties

shown

have

internal

for

temperature

room

enough

an

treatment

randomize

at

experiments

least

to

cool

to

range

descending
forces

of
piston,
holding

61
D

C
B

Breakpoint

Resistance
Deformation

to

FORCE

A
- Product

Contact
>

DEFORMATION
Fig.
l--Typical
force/deformation
produced
by
curve
the Instron
Universal
Testing
Machine
showing
how the
breakpoint
for the particular
responses
were obtained
ingredient
combination
fish
in the minced
patty.

62

the

patty

together,

(Sorenson,

1967).

of

the

shaped

piston
indicating

the

curve

D,

2 mm above

the

by

to

ceases

structure

exerted

At point

stroke,

B and

tertiary

force

force.

its

volunteers

for

differences
et

be

the

linear,
plunger

the

load

cell.

of

Food

Science

firmness

with

presented
identify

the
of

than

two

preformulated

A11

them.
odd

sample

between

2 and

sittings

per

prospective

panelists

progress

of

analysis

profile

correct

decisions

Only

two

were

made

batch

had

each

for

4 plates
day

panelist

a 30:70

patty
entire
ratio

was

indicated

the

number

the

of

formulations
test.
of

soy

The

slice
to
the

no more
The

apart.

with

recorded

patty

at

and

4 hr

least

presented

were

vs.

the

at

degree

firmness

sitting

per

diagonal

same

asked

were
of

method

two

quarter

20 panelists
basis

textural

the

have

another

on the

that

different

to

were

analysis

contained

plate

than

Florida

patty

sequential

Each

different

of

distinguish

a triangular

slices
but

Department

University
to

1975).

a1.,

patty

rate

ability

their

the

the

at

using

(Amerine

quarter

from

Nutrition,

Human

screened

of

of

the

the

the

between

range

Measurement

Twenty

and

and

breaking

end

Sublective

by

plunger

the

point,

disrupted

the

reaches

this

At

is

patty

in

occurs

20
The

21 plates.

on a sequential
number

of

cumulative

cumulative

trials.

patties

protein:fish

firmness

in

varying
in

and

the

firmer

yielded

63

average

an

patties

in

breakpoint

value

of

the

batch

had

protein:fish

resulting

2442g

of

(Table

significant

breakpoints

mined

for

the

the

wide

be

BaPS.

Judge

was

7OI (pc
During

cally
such

->

that

of

that

judge

an unacceptable
nine

be

of

tests,

if

a judge

the

there

(a

panelists
evaluations

Sensory

combinations

ingredient
groups

described

c'hosen

sensory

acceptability.

earlier.

0.05)

($

This

only

was

judge

acceptable

study.

test

0.05).

This

the

the

study.

45I or less
was

automati-

was

designed

of

rejecting

of

fish

in
an

selecting
screened

evaluated
flavor

were

patty
for

separately

The panelists

attributes

in

20 volunteers.

attributes--firmness,
These

least

at

technique

84 minced

done

were

a prospective

Judge

a 5% chance

of

tcxture

chose

and

the

may

differences

a 51 chance

from

batches,

these
patties

accepted

the

correct,

because

identify

to

plates

of

correctly

to

deter-

but

choosing

plates

from

rejected

acceptable

the

those

narrower

the

sequence

0.45)

a way

of

with

breakpoints.

distinguish

for

judtge had

of

levels

batches

criterion

test

batch

the

paEties,

to

SOy

value

experimental

enough

patty

the

0.70)

the

of

indicated

range

texture

judge

acute

The

the

the

to

in

the

the

breakpoint

treatment

between

experimental

level

-<

experimental

ratio

t-test

0.01)

within

were

texturally

a 15:85

A Student's
=

while

grams,

an average

(a

selected

between

(p1

A-7).

gap

panelists
not

in

difference

These

of

softer

:362

evaluated

and

the

three
three

overall
by panelists

64
three

times

from

to

than

better

of

to
used

for

ingredient

composition

each

that

group

value

closest

values

within

that

Treatment
tion

Each

and
plate

any

and

an

softer

or

were
attempt
than

four

plate.

evaluated

in
group

identified

reference

for

zo-day

required

in

6 days

the

in

the

into

evaluation.
sliced

two

refer-

duplicated

on

Experimental

oven.

numbers,

3-digit

portions

treatment

2 firmer

than

the

reference

first

group

15 treatments

in

in

of

knife

for

appropriate

random

the

baked

quarter

not

were

and

period,

evalua-

panel

sensory

of

A11 54 treatments
a

breakpoint

for

sharp

place

to

within

breakpoint

a very

with

made

same

treatment

storage,

treatments

baked

the

frozen

patties

batch

the

treatment

presented

slice

quarter

poorer

A-8).

a plate

on

was
the

on each

second

one

plate

treatments
and

placed

with

Treatment

patty.
one

-30F

from

reference).
had

a1l

of

(Table

be

than

have

to

as

extremely

particular

mean

to

contained

portions
ence

patties

AOOOF, sliced

at

quarters

grand

group

removed

were

30 min

the

to

the

extremely

evaluation

determined

was

(1
better

sensory
as

flavor

acceptability

texture

extremely

than

reference),
to

overall

and

softer

than

reference

and

on a scale

extremely

firmer

than

flavor

reference

8% treatments

extremely

poorer

reference

the

(1

reference)

combination
than

of

firmness

extremely

The

each

9 for

to

reference
(1

for

sensory

the

testing,

Were

the

and

the

65

evaluation

of

completed

within

evaluate

the

the

6 days.

any

three

evaluations

one

panelist

effects

the

set

of

(different

typical

day

in

and

morning

Seven

12 plate

evaluations

23.331

of

cost

constant

provided
both

Since

al1

the

patty

level

of

batter

evaluated
batches,

sets)

panelists

attended

period,

1 panelist

and

and

on a
65
evalu-

panelist

a 6-day

partici-

period.

by batter
the

celery

added

to

and
and

25% from

breading

onions

was

adlusted

to

allow

for

for

1201

water

absorption

were

for

calculated

pollock,

soy
group.
fillet

Corporation.

each

protein

These

1881

purchased
prices

the

cost

the

A-9).

alginate

studied

from

on the
the

$1.54

and

and
Two

Sea

the
costs

turbot,
in
of

price
Rich

A-9).

celery

absorption

of

based

were

of

this

before

formulation

sodium

was

(Table

rehydrated

water

on a

75% of

are

(Table

patty

and

One cost
blocks

formulas,

the

based

was

breading,

were

onions

formulas
and

they

fish

keep

to

group

afternoon

in

a11

two afternoon

in

period

only

Analysis
The

first

one

morning

two

a 32-day

a 26-day

in

but

to

completed

any

treatments

in

used

were

groups

foT

Were

group

A11 8 panelists

testing.

53 plates

Cost

was

of

third

8 panelists

treatment

of

set

sessions

in

three

same

4 treatments

batches

pated

the

consistent.

similar

ated

The

Per

another

evaluation

in

group.

the

in

A11 9 panelists

treatments

8 for

same

15 treatments

the

the

whole

Pack

$1.05/1b

for

66

turbot

and

pollock,

was

based

left

after

only

variables

in

fish

based

this

cost

was

of

The

only

these

cost

the
were

fillets

the

cost
source,

so

computed

for

treatment

two

of whole

use

fish

material

raw

pieces

groups

combinations

in

the

Since

treatment

leftover

on

fillets.

latter

combinations
based

and

of

a11

$.30/1b

cost

leftovers

blocks

calculated.

not

other

The

filleting

two

filleting

on

those

the

species,

ingredient

were

of

frozen

cutting

same

the

value

the

on

four

the

respectively.

as

groups
the

raw

material.
and

Proin
The

these

since

patties

in

constant

was

a11

other

fat

and

weighted
formula.

formulas.

information

according

unbreaded,

and

from

and

to

the

protein

in

by

the

1980)

ingredient
ingredient's

in

of

the

of

fat

unfried
to

be
fish

each
and

analysis,

provided

each

assumed

were

(A.O.A.C.,

ingredients
protein

amount

factors
Fat

a11

the

on

by proximate

determined

specification
a11

unbattered,
three

for

values

based

were

in

found

fat

and

protein

combinations'

protein

species

Analysis

Content

percent

ingredfent
and

Fat

from

manufacturer

for

contributions

of

any
level

formula
in

that

was

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The

development

of

than

one

ingredient,

like

some

form

mixture

forces
other

of the
The

within

the

the

of
and

for

the

experiments,

food

scientist

to

of
Textura

through
Table

mixture
10 were

A-1O.

combinations

This

of

equal

for
in

the

ingredient

Deng,

1981).

Protein

response
based
table
turbot,

on

used

product

(Hare,

A1 ihate
Patttes
F1s

surface

the

experimental

provides

a list

pollock,

soy

67

of
flour,

but

are

the

exper-

included
guide

in
the

1974)

the

oh

contour

in

factors

predictions

not

hopefully

of

empirical

the

experiment

can

one

the

enabling

By

ingre-

1974).

of

levels

In

proportions

permits

and

Ity

one

(Hare,

one

actual

designs

Qua

the

combinations

an optimum

So

of

requires

least

at

combinations

the

these

sum

more

1974).
of

of

analysis

ingredient

Ef f ect

The

the

surface

patties,

(Hare,

proportion

response

range

fish

involving

proportion

always

included

responses

the

the

must

(Cornell

iment

in

in

response
of

product

minced

because

ingredients

necessarily

not

the

changes

ingredients

mixture

food

new

experimentation

changes

prediction

of

mixture

designs,

dient
the

of

any

plots

in

data

listed

the
soy

Figs.

various
protein

2
in

Key
X
2 500

xn0

l
=

x3

100% Turbot
7O% Turbot
and
Soy Flour

1 58 o

30I
=

7o: Turbot
and
30% Soy Protein
Concentrate

:1500

4000

o
qoq

18 :n

zfltjfl

1
''

2 0 f)

2500

/.500

(A)

'

(B)
A5 og

o
oo
%%
:

(C)
Ffg.

z--Mixture
response
minced
fisb
combinations

for
force)
concentrate

surface
plots
showing
contour
patties
made from varlous
tubot,
at alginate
levels
(A) 0.2%,

tbe

breakpoint
soy flour
(B) 0.3% and

and
(C)

response
(grams
soy protein
0.41.

x,

Key
tO

oo

Xz

100:

X2

70Z Pollock
30:

ZQ

Pollock
Soy

2Q

and

Flour
gCGQ

4000

Xa

70: Pollock
and
30: Soy Protein
Concentrate

asx
4000

11
4500

45c:

1 5Q0

5()p()

BQQ

5$00

50oo
rz

(A)

z2

2000

(B)

Q0

2500

2:00
3000
3200
I

Fig.

3--Mixture
response
minced
fish
combinations

force) for
concentrate

(C)

x3

surface
plots
showing
the breakpoint
contour
patties
made from various
pollock,
soy flour
levels
(A) 0.2:,
(B) 0.35 and
at alginate

(grams
response
and soy protein
(C) 0.4:.

Ix

Key
2000

2500

Xl

Xz

100:

7I

aog
Xa

70:

30:
3000

Turbot:pollock

A5cc

Turbot:pollock
soy Flour

zcgo

Turbot:pollock
Soy Protein

and

concentrate

:5::
#

11
'

3500

()(1c

1200

If

39*0

1
*

xc

z3

3580
I

(A)

(B)

xJ

1800

2000

2700

2509
:2

(C)

A--Mixture
surface
Fig.
plots
showing
the breakpoint
contour
response
force)
for mipced
fish
made from various
patties
tu/bot:pollock
(1:1),
combinations
protein
levels
(A) 0.2Z,
(B) 0.3:
concentrate
at alginate

(grams
response
and soy
soy flour
and (C) 0.41.

&

X)

Key

!'J

x1

Xz

>* o

10070 Turbot

5 3
.

7070 Turbot
and
Soy Flour

30G/o

Xg

.%

7 0/o Turbot
and
30% Soy Protein
Concentrate

q*

X1

.e'

u'
',o

J.

J.
w
.z
x

o
Jx

kn

<

'jj

'. 8

kn

,?.

%:

cp

5. o
x

(A)

Tt:p

'm

m
'(

x2

5 1

(B)

'

5. 2
5 J3
.

5 4
.

GN

<

-r

,7

v,

<'

-'*

x.p

X:

(C)

Fig.

s--Mixture

surface
response
for minced
combinations

acceptabtlity
scores
concentrate
protein

plots
shpwing
contour
the sensory
panel
overall
fish
patties
made from variyus
turbot,
apd
soy flour
(A) 0.2:,
(B) O.3 e: and (C) 0.41.
levels
at alginate

soy

Key

V
5

1: %

X1

100% Pollock

X2

7O% Pollock
and
30I Soy Flour

x3

7o:

so

3OI

4 9
.

b' c!

Pollock
and
Soy Protein

Concentrate
l
X

& k
.

%*

k '
k .Q
u*

4 5

k*

(A)

4.0

%
k.

Ia

(B)

T
ho
Ne

'.b

'.

tth
> ?? v

5.0z

t
p'
k

'

M%

(o

(C)
Fig.
6--Mixture
plots
showing
surface
response
contour
acceptability
for minced fish
patties
made from
scores
concentrate
soy protein
levels
combinations
at alginate

.3

the sepsory
panel
overall
various
and
pollock.
s?y flour
(A) 0.2*1,
(B) 0.3% and (C) 0.4%.

x:

Key

.t:

s.4

1001

X2

Xa

Turbot:pollock
J

70% Turbot :pollock

and 30I Soy Flour

-! e

Concentrate
,

>.a

5. 2

5.c

5. o
5

%
q.

70I Turbot :pollock

and 30I Soy Protein

t,

x,k

z1

4. 8
4 8

4 8

4. 8
Ia

xa

(A)

x:
5.o

zy

(B)

5.1

5. 2
5 3
.

5
5

*J
*
I

5
o

.3

5 3

5.

a
.

5.2
X,

(C)
Fig.
7--Mixture
acceptability
f lour
and soy
(C) O Q.
.

surf ace contour

the sensory
panel
overall
response
plots showing
:pollock
f
minced
ish
f
made
f
ies
various
turbot
patt
scores
or
rom
(1: 1) J sov
protein
combinations
alginate
levels
(A)
(B)
O
concentrate
0 3L an
at
2I,
.

-d

<

'1

x
Key

k.

100% Turbot

xz

7oz

xa

F
%

%
5*

X:

3oz

Turbot
and
Flour
soy

c
%

5.6

7oz

Turbot
and
30% Soy Protein
''.r

concentrate

p'
N

5
5

%
i)

<rx

(7 5
.

q
x

(A)

Fig.

8--Mixture

and
soy flour
(B)
flavor
and

response
soy protein
of
scores

*v

o
5 5
.

ax

5 5
5. 5

'a

(B)

surface
plots
showing
contour
the effects
of various
combinations
concentrate
panel
(A)
on the sensory
minced
fish
patties
made with
0.2% sodium
alginate.

turbot.
firmness

N1

x1

Key
X1

X2

X3

1001

Turbot
$:

and
70I Turbot
30% Soy Flour
70% Turbot
and
30I Soy Protein
Concentrate

.o

$.16

$ *2;

<

*;

$:

%
<

lp

<

$?
$.96

Fig.
g--Mixture
and
soy flour
made from (A)

response
soy protein
pieces
and

o4

.0o

.R

(A)

o8

47

'2

z2

Xa

(B)

surface
plots
showing
contour
of various
the effects
combinations
concentrate
of minced
fish
on the cojt
(B) whole
fillets
of turbot
and 0.2*: sodium
alginate.

turbot,
patties

X1

xl

>

Key
X:

100% Turbot

Xz

70I

Turbot

30I

Soy

Xa

and
Flour

70% Turbot
and
30% Soy Protein
Concentrate

t3

11.5

11.0

10.s

10

t'

9 5
.

>
&
9.0

:A
Q>

N.

z3

x2

(A)

Fig.
lo--Mixture
response
and soy protein
soy flour
of minced
fish
percentages

(B)

surface
plots
showing
the effects
contour
combinations
(A) protein
the
concentrate
on
0.2% sodium
made with
patties
alginate.

of

various
and (B)

turbot,

fat

N1

77
and

concentrate
values

of

prepared

the

shown

in

lated

with

and

3 list
and

cients

variables

and

the

estimates

the

adjusted

models
the

on

patties

0.3

how well

variation

for

allow
mixtur:
to

produce

these

was

or

used

for

lO.

This

available

in

response

values

a11

others

so

as

caused
second

the

of

to

first

at

to

describe

by

the

models

so because

to

calculate

plots
only

these

were

adjusted

from

of
an R2
A
of

surface
.

the

variation

Qua-

highest

featured

in
of

and

The

0 85.

variables.
the

the

chosen

were

least

of
to

:o,

term,

response

models,

account

coef f icient

more

fish

This

mixture

6 degrees

these

determsnation

complexity

were

for

of

equations

85% or

alginate,

of

experimental

group's

is

sodium

1,

coeffi-

minced

constant

adequate

yield

degree

the

other

Tables

effect

the

follow

to
of

a11

and

designed

response

dratic

regression

formu-

patties

determination

the

0.4%

the

concen-

model

coefficient

Models

plots

model

adjusted

fish

of

of

ne

protein

soy

regression

and

patties

various

alginate.

describe

0.3

fish

of

minced

values

elimination

models.

contour

in

and
the

the

to

0.2,

(R2 ) indicates
A

determination

sodium

breakpoint

The

the

0.4%

minced

effects

coefficients

respectively.

f or

of

observed

combinations.

and

values

of

used

containing

the

the

flour

the

as

ingredient

soy

breakpoint

3 linear

the

turbot,

0.2,

for

2 demonstrate

Fig

of

the

on

various

well

as

measured

these

combinations
trate

alginate

responses

from

plots

sodium

models

order
Figs.

freedom
a quadratic

2 through
were
model

86

the

increase

fish

patties

of

sodium

made

alginate

from

soy

flour,

soy

alginate

are

firmer

than

combination

same
for

soy

Minced

combination

fish

sodium
from

made

patties

ingredients

of

and

concentrate

minced

these

The

Fig.

plots

of

fish

(divided

flour

values
.

protein

0.3%.

to

substituting

the

turbot

pollock.

tions

of

0.2

particular

any

pollock,

from

and

of

cient

values

of

0.4%

sodium

alginate

have

an

sodium
soy

results

values.

equal

protein

level.

An increase
and

to 0.3%,
effect
otherwise

on

the

the

from

coeffi-

3 linear

in
O.3

in

fish

and

breakpoint

soy

values
composition.

of

9.
the

concentrate

flour
the

to

0.41

the

level,
firming

sodium
level

have

Holding

0.21

alginate

in

minced

higer

the

at

alginate

seemed

8 and

protein

soy

sodium

and

0.3

with

exceeds

at

to

patties

sodium

0.41

0.2,

decreasing

0.3%

on

occurs

to

on the

7,

the

the

used

Tables
and

and

models

containing

patties

reverse

breakpoint

similar

the

the

At

concentrate

while

9 list

protein

effect

level.

effect,

8 and

to

flour

Soy

firming

alginate

0.3

minced

in

breakpoint
0.2,

patties

soy

pollock),

with

respective
of

combina-

and

the

on

3 variables

these

fish

level

level

breakpoint

of

various

formulated

the

minced

the

turbot

R2 ' s f or
A

alginate

Increasing

between

7,

effects

the

of

Tables

and

effects

concentrate

patties

alginate

the

equally

fish

estimates

describe

the

protein

soy

minced

l.byo sodillm

show

an

fish
the

alginate

from

0.2

equal
patties
levels

of

Table

7--Reression

containing
and soy

0.21
protein

coefficients
alginate
sodium
concentrate

for tbe
prepared

experimental

from

responses
turbot:pollock

combinations

Estimated
Ceffi-

cient

various

Coefficient

Overall
Accegt-

Break-

Cost

specified

(1:1),

for

patties
soy flour

Values
Cost
Pslng

point

Flrmness

Flavr

Value

Score

Score

Score

Uslng
Pieces

1817.1

3.458

5.750

5.375

0.349

s2

3990.3

6.258

4.542

4.333

3957.1

6.908

0.750

4.625

12

0.750

1.250

13

1.333

1.667

1.750

0.750

: 23

RA2

0 871
.

0 844
.

--

ablllty

--

Percent
Protein

Percent
Fat

1.079

14.782

6.163

0.310

0.821

15.298

4.314

0.417

0.928

19.690

4.331

1.0

Fillets

1.0

1.0

1.0

N1

Table
coefficients
8--Regression
for the
sodium
0.31
containing
alginate
grepared
and soy protein
comblnations
concentrate

experimental

from

Estimated
Cpeffi-

cient

Breakpoint

Ovrall
Accegt-

Value

irmness
Score

Flavor
Score

abillty

various

Coefficient
Cost
sing

specified
for patties
responses
turbot:pollock
(1:1), soy flour

Vplues
Cost

Scote

Pieces

Using
Fillets

Percent
Protein

Percent
Fat

1018.7

2.908

5.417

4.833

0.353

1:082

14.770

6.157

3300.3

4.958

4.625

4.542

0.314

0.825

15.290

4.310

3854.6

6.925

4.875

4.625

0.421

0.932

19.670

4.327

12

1.583

1.083

13

1.250

2.750

23

1.167

0.333

=123

0.865

0.943

--

--

1.0

1.0

l.0

1.0

Table

g--Regression

containing
and soy

0.41
protein

coefficients
for tbe
alginat
sodium
prepared
combinations
concentrate

experimental
from various

Estimated
Coefficient

12

13

23

turbot:pollock

Coefficient

(1:1),

for

patties
soy flour

Values

Overall
Break-

AccektFirmness
Score

Flavor

billty

Cost
Using

Score

Scofe

Pieces

2.608

5.542

4.458

0.357

2684.6

4.025

4.625

4.417

2551.3

6.325

5.250

4.750

point
Value
61

specified

responses

974.5

Cost
Psing

Percent
Protin

Percent
Fat

1.086

14.750

6.150

0.318

0.828

15.270

4.305

0.425

0.935

19.650

4.322

Fillets

1.500

2.750

0.083

2.083

1.417

2.333

0.922

0.991

--

--

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

'

90

a11

other

are

softer

and

these

ingredients
than
in

pqllock.

to

those

turn

the

imbalance

the

fish

also

dictate

from

O.2

0.3%

alginate

effect

on

produces

firmness

Generally,

the

by replacing
soy

sodium

alginate

levels

of

probably

sodium

the

minced

croaker

effect

of

patties

has

Other

protein

alginate

on

Tomaszewskij

(1980)
primary

reported

alginate
defined.

in

on

the

This

research

flour

soy

decreasing
have
in
of

texture

the
reported

these

minced

1979).

Chao,

1ow
fish
Den:

alginate

sodium

firmness

increased

the

changes

work.

their

is

researchers

influencing

in

level.

and

that

their

similar

patties

19809

factor

patties

been

the

to

as

increasing

and

the

from

alginate
fish

soy

increase

patties

level,

soy

and

sodium

of

concentrate

of

Tomaszewski

sodium

SOy

interactions

sqme

0.4%

fish

pollock,

content.

(Deng

patties

with

protein

effect

same

the

to

any

and

of

results

0.3

used

of

alginate

sodium

minced

firmness

turbot

and/or

of

for

except

interaction

different
from

patty

flour

SOy

These

the

not

increase

the

composition

or

with

direction

or

between

on the

blend,

combination

fish

alginate.

sodium

whether

sodium

effect

higher

in

presence

depends

and

to

the

turbot

formulated

result

the

with

turbot:pollock

patties

of

firmress

concentrate

protein,

than

regardless
but

made

the

of

increases

patties.
in

protein

and

softer

are

values

make

the

composed

Soy protein

breakpoint

patties

constant,

the

texture

No mechanism

of

minced

suggests

was
of

for

the
the

fish
that

the

91

answer

lies

in

minced

fish

patty

dispersed
and

the

decrease

in
alginate

viscous,

as

does

have

not

In

the

scores

of

0.4Fo

sodilr

describe
panel

the

effects

overall

corresponding
increased

the 0.2%

decreased
should

the

three

7.5%

and

from

30 to

be

7.5% soy

flour

7.5%

of

sodium

to

from

soy

a patty
soy

flour

highest
prepared

protein

0.2,

0.3

the

coeffi-

used

to

the

Sensory

fish

and

patties

Sensory

concentrate
the

protein

respectively,

level

85%,

7.5%

minced

This

3.

that

on

alginate,

protein
so

and

models

alginate

soy

3 list

variables

2 and

1,

100

they

obtained

0.4%

soy

with

quadratic

sodium

from

and

of

acceptability

2 and

scores

and

Tables

decreased
O to

of

0.3
to

at

content

three

acceptability
0.2,

containing

the

alginate.

effects

flour

but

firmness

patty

the

overall

1,

the

more

sodium

formulated

Tables

for

estimates

cient

panel

patties

alginate.

show
soy

in

batter

the
of

levels

turbot,

sharp

experiments,

on

plots

sensory
fish

minced

lower

of

the

on

effect

contour

the

preliminary

an

the

causing

as

increases

make

to

the

critical

combinations

concentrate

turbot,

in

in

5,

Further

proteins

increase

to

0.4%

O to

continue

discovered

Fig.

various

from

becomes
fih

seems

the

in

alginate

myofibrillar

values.

level

occurring

sodium

viscosity

increases

changes

as

the

scattered

Batter

as

changes
as

breakpoint

sodium

levels

the

protein.

soy

alginate

score

batters

through

sodium

from

rheological

as

response
the

level

turbot
increased

component
acceptability
with
concentrate.

85%

92

0.3Fo sodium

the

At

alginate

scores

became

greater

70 to

85Fo, soy

flour

protein

concentrate

formula

predicted

85I

eontained
concentrate.

0.41

at the
decreased

100

increased

particularly

of

protein
total

the

Fig.

In

combinations

patties
Tables
where
models

the

on

contents.

6 the

contour

plots

overall

formulated
*,

5 and

applicable,
used

pollock,

to

show

and

acceptability
with

6 list
for
describe

0.2,
the
the

and

linear

as

of

two
the

percentages

of

various

concen-

minced

fish

alginate.
and

estimates
and

flour

soy

protein

0.4To sodium

coefficient

effects

protein,

soy

of

the

reduced

effects

soy

scores
0.3

one

the

the

in

acceptby

given

are

flour

soy

19%

sodium

A11 fish,

levels

protein

of

of

of

concentrate.

0 to

11% soy

overall

the

turbot

result

characterized

patty

of

30 to

level

amounts

concentrate

maximized

from

should

0.4%,

increasing

protein

soy

soy

trate

and

protein

7OI turbot,

As the

was

Patty
score

amount

from

concentrate

trend

soy

the

were

increased

with

to

from

acceptability

the

as

prepared

0.2

l5% so

15% soy

decreased

from

turbot

0% and

flour

sores.

maximization

30 to

and

level

protein

soy

increased

scores

70Fo, soy

to

a patty

alginate

and

alginate

level

maximum

acceptability

acceptability

0 to

flour

concentrate

l9%

of

the

Overall

acceptability

levels

yield
0% soy

highest

ability

from

turbot,

that

and

from

increased

protein

indicating
flour

decreased

sodium

overall

turbot

the

as

to

from

an d soy

level,

RA2's,

quadratic

three

variables

11%

93

on the

sensory

minced

fish

panel
patties

respectively,

Overall

acceptability

pollock,

on 100,
level;

0 and
92,

alginate

Fig.

In
various

on the

overall

formulated
7,

and

alginate

8 and

9 list

plots
fish

quadratic

models

variables

on

of minced

fish

alginate,

respectively,

and

O.3

patties

minced

0.41

panel

the

fish

respectively,
6.5
level.

and

at

8.5%,

the

sodium
0.3%

respectively.

to

maximized

alginate

at

the

the

three

of

the

three

0.4%

Tables

7,

sodium

8 and
levels

soy

flour

and

O and

8.51,

respec-

level;

0.4%

and

scores

the

blend,

alginate

sodium

Tables

alginate.

0.3

on 91.5,

converage

patties

acceptability

corresponding

minced

of

fish

effects

0.2,

containing

turbot:pollock

0.2%

at

concentrate

for

overall

the

the

sodium

estimates

are

at

sodium

between

of

scores

tively,

equally

scores

acceptability

concentrate

alginate

effects

the

protein

describe

to

sensory

protein

levels

respectively,

soy

Overall
of

6.

converge

0.3%

and

coefficient

used

the

the

sodium

th

show

(divided

flour

soy

the

5 and

level.

of

0.2,

4,

as

0.21

the

11.51,

and

sodium

concentrate

at

acceptability

with

Tables

maximized

at

contour

pollock),

0.4%

and

protein

soy

18.5

70,

combinations
and

0.3

8Fo, respectively,

7 the

turbot

and

of

scores

to

are

respectively,

0 and

0.4Fo sodium

the

scores

OI,

level;

0.2,

corresponding

flour

soy

acceptability

containing

alginate

of

overall

as

86,
level;
sodil=

soy

0 and

14:,

and

85,

alginate

9.

94

Trends
a function

in
of

levels.

the

Increasing

off-set

sodium

increasing
these

firmness

may

scores.

This

be

level

of

lost

higher

by

acceptability

for

similar

combinations.
effect
patties
turbot
resulting

in

and

made

fish,

patties.
with

these

the

same
alginate

sodium

scores.

the

alginate

of

level

levels

than

this
the

increasing
appealing

higher

overall

same
flavor

resulting

received
made

turn

received

and

and

the

acceptability

higher
from

produces
mouthfeel

of

the

lean

the

pollock

alginate

sodium

trend

higher

from

made

patties

amounts
than

turbot

patties
in

protein

soy

may be more
in

patty

acceptability

of

than

scores

Although
the

composed
scores

blend,

acceptability

of

scores.

patties

overall

for

restores

sodium

by

acceptability

the

reduced

protein

soy

increasing

fish

turbot:pollock

a11

in

of

level

decreased
as

required

conclusion

higher

protein

soy

acceptability

Minced

overall

and

level

initiate

protein

caused

A logical
a specific

firmness

resulting

the

firmness

that

to

of

fish

increases,

Increasing

in

required

level

combination

is

also

values

protein

increases,

soy

are

be

to

soy

level

higher

at

levels.

observations

and

alginate

breakpoint

in

alginate

fish

levels

protein

soy
reduction

the

sodium

maximized

are

appeared

scores
between

the

as

scores

levels.

from

acceptability

interactions

Generally,

acceptability

to

overall

fatty
firm
scores.

softening

of

the
fish

fish

pollock

95
Mixture
for

drawn

cost
are

the

affected

by

from

the

the

cost

of

producing

and

whole

fish

and

fat

Fig.

of

the

flavor

minced

fom

turbot,

plots

can

for

the

9 that
for

for
in

Fig.

8,

leftovers

9,

and

the

protein

displayed

in

Table

effects

of

and

be

level

plots

patties

models

flour

SOy

shown

Fig.

the

soy

fish,

filleting

fish

they

as

alginate

scores

in

scoyes,

1 through

contour

from

specific

are

combinations

and

present

produced

plots

contour

component

patties

the

contour
Tables

and

of

of

be

can

contents,

in

example,

fillets

contents

10 were

These

fish

the

fat

also
flavor

combinations

given

firmness

and

and

various

As an

panel

sensory

protein

models

for

response.

firmness

alginate.

the

specific

each

the

sodium

and

produced

are

and

plots

contour

panel

sensory

responses

protein

surface

response

These
various

protein

soy

in

concentrate

at 0.2%

sodium

The

alginate

variation

the

variation

and

the

explains

flavor

scores

in

(r2

determined

using

treatments

specific
Since

correlated,
contour

plots

the

panel

firmness

of

nine
specific

panel

of

two
of

groups
the
to

of

mixture

fish

nine
and

were

groups

of

sodium

alginate

responses

are

response

component

0.939),

panel

sensory

correlations

component

of

acceptability
in

the

93.9%

(r2

scores

overall

These

averages

fish

explains

variation

the

0.951).

to

these
al1

values

sensory

95.11

reSPOnSeS.

breakpoint

sensory

variation

scores

level.

in

in

the

on

and

six

so highly

surface
sodium

alginate

96

level

for

fivmness

breakpoint

values.

should

and

discussion

also

overall

apply

(B)

in

of

producing

pieces

and

whole

Increasing

the
of

cost

leftover

after
more

This

trend

is

the

SOy

tein
the

1.6

to

A-9).
concentrate
of

f i l 1et s

minced

the

pieces

5(A)

Fig.

(A)

flavor

and

in

and

soy

cost

fillets

the

the

affect

replacing
patties

made

than

with

turbot.

at

from

at

soy

1 part

$.l2/1b

to

SOy

flour

whole

$.6l/1b,
the

and

soy

soy

concentrate

cost

turbot

turbot

and

cut,

ingredient

of

them

of

Although

its

9.

minimizes

ingredients

reduces
amounts

Fig.

protein

soy

turbot

pieces

are

$.30/1b.
this

water

flour

from

made

three

hydrating

fish

in

plotted

minimizing

of

and

trends

2(A),

Fig.

are

turbot

because

Reducing

in

from

patties
of

parts

trends

the

reason,

patties

turbot

a cost

$.32/1b,

flour

cost

fish.

expected

fillet

costs

(Table

of

expensive

most

turbot

flour

of

this

fish

fillets

blocks

has

the

minced

levels

fish

8.

turbot

minced

flour

is

Fig.

for

firmness

corresponding

plots

overall

For

score

for

contour

specific

value

those

to

score

level.

breakpoint

their

similar

respective

plots

alginate

plots

Costs

nine

acceptability

to

score

the

the

be

flavor

contour

sodium

of

the

their

to
score

component

and

Likewise,

correspond

acceptability

should

scores

PrO-

minimizes

turbot

97

Mixture
trends,

as

overall

acceptability

plots

in

Fig.

production

that

turbot,

15% soy

flour
patty

level,

acceptability
Similarly,
basic

hydrated

and

the

in

protein

protein

maximizes
levels

of

expense

of

the

soy

protein

the

turbot.

General

and
in

fish

of

so

that

at

the

ingredients

can

the
blends

85I

of

the

on

0.2To sodium

with

maximum

used

to

be

patties.

nearly

equal

The

protein

exceeds

both

the
of

expense

soy

protein

the

patty

and

10).

concentrate
contents

much

turbot
contents

level

turbot

fat

reflect

ingredients

(Fig.

content

contain

Response

patties

the

at

increasing

and

minimizes

and

accept-

concentrate

the

protein

flour

10 shows

turbot:pollock
minced

soy

turbot

Trends
Table

plots

hpve

patty

for

cost.

concentrate

concentrate

flour
the

flour

ingredients

consisting

a formulation

contour

protein,

percent

content,

composition

soy

soy

protein

minimum

the

chemical

and

OFosoy protein

contour

between

a patty

and

represents

and

of

cost

respective

surface

combination

example,

depicting
their

to

a compromise

For

cost.

total

alginate

compared
response

represents

and

of

be

can

a particular

ability

basis

9,

plots

contour

mixture

locate

to

surface

response

less

fat

of

soy

soy
Increasing
at

the

because
than

Correlations

general
when

formulated

effects
used

as

with

of

turbot,

the

fish

soy

flour,

pollock
components
soy

10--The
effects
Table
and alginate
of fisb
combination
minced
for
the
of
54
fish
set
patty
responses
treatments
and levels
of turbot,
pollock,
flour,
com binations
soy
alginate
and sodium

Break-

TnBredient

point
vaTue
(g)

level
on tbe specified
from various
prepared
concentrate
soy protein

Piec-es

Score

Flavor
Score

Overall
Acceptabil lty
Score

Frmness

cost
sina

cost
usina
Fille-ts

($)

Protein

($)

Fpt

(%)

(;)

Tur bot

24698

4.218

5.350

4.98b

0.368

l.09C

15.988

9.83C

Pollock

3522b

5.88b

4.878

4.548

0.368

0.808

17.170

0.308

26838

4.938

5.19b

4.87b

0.368

0.95b

16.57b

4.93b

WW*

* * *

* * *

Turbot:
Pollock

(1:1)
Alginate
Ljj n e a r
Trend
abcMean

* * *

values

as
different
significance.
Srfr*significant

in tbe same
determined
at

0.05

51
u#

column

followjd

by

Duncan

tbe

level.

N
M

by

N
G

tbe

s Multiple

same

letter
test

Range

are
at

not

tbe

* * *

significantly
level
0.05
a
=

N
.f

K
u

of

99
protein

concentrate,

A trend

analysis

or
and

0.4Fo in

trend

for

Breakpoint

these

trends

values

and

sensory

significantly
pollock
or

(a
than

turbot

those

by

and

(a

than
these

patties

0.05)

Sensory
(a

those

panel
0.05)

did

not

two

8 panelists.
their

textural

for

flavor

near

the

experiment.
experiment

because

represent

an

Although

a11

perception,
and

Also,
Fas

the

the

the

chosen

a11

from

reference

and

turbot
from

acceptability
ingredient

patty

24 replicates

for

used

from
for

criteria
averaged

scores
patty

these

selected

were

a different

texture

the

pollock.

of

patty
a

pollock.
significantly

are

used

had

blend

higher

scores

reference

as

(1:1)

made

Panelists

the

mor

from

panelists

each

for

made

overall

average

acceptability.

ranking

5.O

patties

those

between

blend

(1:1)
are

from

and

with

scores

made

made

are

made

scores

flavor

10.

scores

significantly

than

greatly

Table

A-10

flavor

patties

patties

studied,

responses

than

blend

in

turbot:pollock

yield

panel

vary

combinations

for

the

Table

turbot:pollock

acceptability

(1:1)

in

patties

panel

from

turn

for

sensory

the

0.2

a linear

data

firmnss

for

0.05)

scores

higher

Generally,
scores

made

overall

turbot:pollock

from

(a

in

flavor

panel

Sensory

higher

in

summarized

greater

made

itself.

significantly
turbot

0.05)

The

whether

between

results

responses.

responses.

determine

alginate

patties

for

these

on

to

sodium

fish

specified

the

analyzed

was

of

minced

alginate

performed

level

the
the

sodium

also

was

varying

not

and

used

for

reference

in

each

each
rather

1OO

a flavor

than

acceptability

or

reference

patties

panelists

comments

ability
of

the

to

the

turbot

the

and

leftover

pollock

made

from

these

in

whole

pollock

fillets

is

(Table

A-9).

the

higher

the

and

flavor

the

and

accept-

of

judgement

turn,
in

turbot,

breakpoint

significantly

fat

than

are

more

of

a11

made

patties

due
0.2

to

and

(a

firmness

tillets

and

protein

turbot

fillets

from

pllock

are

protein

fat

and

lower

in

(1:1)

and

these,

higher

in

protein

and

turbot.

0.05)

as well

and

from

protein

from

scores,

those

higher

increasing
0.4%

than

made

pollock

0.05)

from

of whole

turbot:pollock

of

made

and

in

pieces

(1:1)

patties

whole

fat

(a

and

expensive

price

made

the

bits

pollock

turbot:pollock

the

higher

patties

turbot,

Patties

than

lower

of
raw

the

of

a significant

panel
whole

cost.

that

from

are

between

or

in

0.05)

values

sensory

equal

patties

made

is

because

for

cost

pieces

because

has

production

expensive

than

pollock

patties

P ieces

the

(1:1)

fillets
more

(a

There

the

in

in

turbot

fillets,

significantly

patties

of

are

than

content

lower

in

filleting

are

whole

turn

Since

in

difference

no

fillets

whole

than

equal

patties

turbot:pollock

the

the

attributes

sensory

nearly

were

reference

was

from

and

poor

of'

None

panelists.
There

made

had

reference.

linear

the
as
cost

trend

alginate

in

level

a a linear

trend

using

bits

content

fish
of

the

patties

the
in
in
and
,

1Ol

but

not

fat

or

score

the

on

levels

sensory

any

other

in

protein

soy

ingredients

salt

and

values

regardless
is

the
the

and

0.4%

100:1)

slight

displaces

between

(the

causing

(Table
0.2

nonprotein

sodium

TPP.

A-9).
0.4%

and

displaces

like

fish

containing
The

a significantly

sum

small

ingredients

the

of

most

ingredients

equal

proteinaceous

contained

objective

sensory

evaluation

textural

attributes
from

Soo and

with

objective

Universal
computed

methods

of

(a

been

to

for

the

groups

have

been

resulting

patty

0.05)

and

predict

studied

1981).

lower

in

Lee

recorded

between
our

study

to

flesh

the

Similarly,

purpose

sublective

and

and

the
products

Toledo,

The basic

correlate

parameters

Machine.
same

1967;

Rizvi,

and

used

fish

(Sorenson,

textural

Testing

methods

comminuted

1977)

Sanders,

has

instrumental

flesh

this

used

treatment

0.2

increase

well,as

breakpoint

content.
Many

made

the

as

like

compositions
protein

of

alginate

formulations,

cheaper

level

Increasing

alginate

between

price

acceptability

decrease

to

patty

the

overall

patty

sodium

always

alginate

or

scores

the

must

the

and

causes

of

each

linear

amount

0.4%

alginate

of

significant

a small

patties.

in

ingredients

Increasing

the

Since

sodium

amount

flavor

firmness

ingredient

a small

but

and

variables.

increase

a11

O.2

panel

expensive

panel
of

content

between

and

of

sensory

approach

sensory
with

response
the

correlations
responses

experiments.

1976)

Instron
were

for
Table

the
11 lists

Table

ll--correlations
of 54 minced
fish
turbot,
pollock,

patty
soy

between
variables
the specified
determined
response
prepared
from various
combinations
treatments
and
flour,
and sodium
alginate
soy protein
concentrate

Responses

Firmness
Score

Breakpoint

Value

0.939

i *

Firmness
Score

,,

824

Cost
Using

Score

Cost
Using

Pieces

Percent
Protein

Fillets

Percent
Fat

')k

-0.728

-0.602

-0.783

-0.549
-0.530

0.553
't
-0

683

-0

-0

0.951

Acceptability
Score

6 14

752

Af Af

0.230

0.937

0.024

0.887

vk

0 7j4

vt'

-0

: k ,.c

-0.938

%kSr

-0.887

vvw

736 w

0.931

#r Sr

&k >k

0.886

Using

Pieces

-0.029

-0.001

0.024

Cost Using
Fillets

-1.000

Percent
Protein

**

Acceptability

Flavor
Score

-0

F 1 a vo r
Score

tbe set
of

Overall

Responses

Cost

for
levels

**

1.000

-1.000

Significant

at

Significant

at

0.05.

**

**

c
o

0.01.

1O3

lists

the

correlations
from

variables
to

study

pollock,

the

effects

soy

flour,

The
values

the

groupings

nine

fish

and

between

firmness

of

attributes
correlation
firmness

in
These

permits

the

as

a tool

previously

in

Table

sodium

alginate

fish

of

scores

sensory

panel

the

textural

found

a significant

panel

evaluations

also

of

Tomaszewski,

suggested

that

this

correlation

high

breaking

force

response

to

correlation

indicates

firmness.

between

that

the

scores

would

the

breakpoint

for

measurement
As

breakpoint

mixture

be

surface

similar

the

to

values

in

this

treatments.
and

flavor

that
and

when

firmness

scores
flavor

panel

sensory

meaning

Thus,

highly

and

plots

values

with

correlation

(Deng

firmness

contour

same

patties

scores

the

in

the

was

the

and

average

have
The

studying

sensory

the

that

values

force

sodium

contained

level.

objective
the

A-10

turbot,

the

treatments

patties

croakgr

the

between

breakpoint

and

breaking

for

ability

decreased.

listed

firmness

group

made

researchers

of

Breakpoint

correlated

for

predict

corresponding
particular

and

researchers

plots

contour

concentrate

discussed,
and

values

protein

minced

use

to

soy

score

minced

1980).

of

were

designed

were

combinations

six

between

that

treatments

the

Other

significant.

respons

various

taken

component

the

of

correlations

response

of

each

of

groups

the

alginate.

between

as

overall

selecting

patty

negatively

are
and

firmness

overall
increased,

acceptability
patty

accept-

formulations

scores

to

the

104

firmness,

control
altered.

Flavor

positively
flavor
surface

The
fillets

flavor

and

pollock

with

and

the

the

flavor

and

overall

of

correlatioqs

compromise
and

leftovers

turbot

and

of

and

these

and

overall

correlated

with

protein

0.01)

correlated

with

fat

of

lean

pollock.

more

flavor

acceptability

for

the
scores

and

accept-

from

filleting

maximized

a 1ow

at

difference

if
a

between

scores

between

scored

and
This

content

Thus

the

patty

fat

negatively

positively
because

occurs
are

higher

patties.
as

were

content

1ow fat

turbot

improved

that
fillets,

made

content.

Panelists

fatty

increased.

processor

made

been

acceptability

protein

decreased

pieces.

0.01)

high

replacing

pollock

were

a price

with

been

have
of

the

and

patties

absence
bits

patties

and

have

could

the

pollock

turbot

to

negatively

scores

to

and

with

firmness

acceptability

had

If

when

On

turbot

0.01)

and

increased,

whole

acceptability

Flavor

(a

have

cost.

because

cost

from

would

ability

(a

made

were

influence

(a

Thus,

indicate

mixture

using

scores,

for

scores.

similar

correlated

cost

were

corresponding

production

patty

fircness.

patty

turbot,

set

patties

for

have

adversely

plots

contour

acceptability

acceptability

with

the

overall

be

scores

the

so

to

directly

overall

correlated

0.01)

would

cost

could

patty

acceptability

for

was

the

similar

alteration

acceptance.

pollock

be

plots

contour

of

overall

(a

would

flavor

This

and

correlated
scores

Thus,

flavor

the

composed

acceptability
flavor
content

and

l05

increased,

that

so

ingredient,

when

patty

firmness

and

Effect

of

are

mixture

response

19 were

based

This

in

surface
on

lists

and

S ecies
of Fish

sole

Figs.

expriments

fish

species

plots

experimental

the

15 combinations
in

of

this

19.

in

data

which

without

11 through

the

'L

on the

four

contour

studied

while

Patties

group

the

of

fish

increased,

content

second

illustrated

table

whiting

the

dominant

decreased.

Fish

combinations

protein

fat

Qualit#

from

the

was

content

Texturq

examined

and

cost

protein

Results

turbot

The

Figs.

11 through

listed
of

soy

Table

in

turbot,

A-11.

pollock,

experimental

of

group

..

as well

treatments
measured

for

patties.
for
in

the

nonsoy

Contour

plots

patties
Fig.

made

coef f icient
cubic

pollock

and

whiting;

pollock

and

sole;

tively,

on

The

special

for

a11

illustrating

used
and
and

remaining
the

model
mixture

second

fish

the

species
the

where

applicable

the

linear

models

for

and

sole,

whiting

the

illustrated

the

highest

effect

of

of

the

turbot,

turbot,
respec-

minced

fish

order

model

response

surface

contour

third

treatment

groups

and

model

regression

the

was

response

are

describe

of

fish

minced

to

values

reSPOnSeS

breakpoint

14 list

R2 ' s
A

turbot,

breakpoint

cubic

the

13 and
and

of

containing

four

12,

model

the

protein

the

estimates

special

values

depicting

with

Tables

11.

observed

the

as

patties.
fitted
plots
because

X
1

Key
Xz

120

s%o

= Turbot

Xz = Pollock

qko

>

%
O

Xs = Whiting

Xq =

qbo

so le

*
r'

.->

J 30 ()

&

x%o

%
o

1 40 0

n.go

ots
s%

1 500

%
1.%

1 600
'

z3

'

x%o

(A)

x4

(B)

kp
o
N

%
9,

ho
t5
neb h

ll--Mixture
surface
Fig.
response
of (A) turbot,
tions
pollock
and
whiting
and sole
on the breakpoint
fish
protein.

(C)
contour
whiting;
values

showing

plots
(B)

the effects
pollock
and
force)
of patties

turbot,

(grams

of

sole;
made

combinavarious
and (C) turbot,
from 100% minced

&

X2

Key

Pollock

X2

Xa

Whiting

X:

Sole
.

C(?n

S'6%
c

.Fb

-,

<

<

<'

cb

.<

c
fk
c

3
p
f

co
co

Ck

Ch

0%

lao

Qb
5

rp

c)
vj

.T

Ck

o
b

hh

.-

Ne

(A)

lz--Mixture
Fig.
surface
response
whiting
and sole
combinations
on
from 1001 fish
containing
protein

co

s2

rk
x

co

.3

(B)

plots
showing
the effects
contour
bryakpoint
valpes
the
(grams force)
(A) OZ and (B) 50*: turbot.

of various
of patties

pollock,
made
c

A
B
C
D

50% Pollock
and 50% Turbot
5O% Sole and 5O% Turbot
5O% Whiting
and 50*: Turbot
100% Whiting
100% Pollock
100% Sole

l3--Mixture
Fig.
surface
contour
response
model
showing
the effects
of various
turbot,
whiting
pollock,
and sole
combinations
on
values
the breakpoint
of
(grams force)
made
patties
from 100% fish
protin.
The
level
of turbot
increases
from 0c: at triangle
DEF to 5OI at triangle
ABC.

X1

Key
X

'h
u*

k.

ke

i7

*)

4 8

X
4. 9

Turbot

Pollock

2
=

3
=

4
<'

Whiting

sole

xq

d-a

%
h*

I
)

%
v.

G
.

fo

c.

x. 5
*

u.

4.
t. 5
4.6

(A)

v:

t. 6
4.7

g.?

(B)

4.65

4.65

-%

./0

j
I

>

s:

x.

k.'1

4
<

65

1. 65
.

4 6

t 6

(C)

Fig.
lA--Mixture
surface
plots
showing
the effects
of various
contour
response
combinaof (A) turbot,
tions
pollock
(B) turbot,
and whiting;
pollock
and sole;
and (C) turbot,
whiting
and sole
panel
acceptability
of patties
on the sensory
made from 100%
scores
fish
minced
protein.

&
kD

2
X

Key
o.m

w*

-s

q)

x2

X3

X%

pollock
C

Whiting
t-

Sole

.p

cx

'

9:

r'

lv 3 5

>

<

1.
.

.:x

v-J

'

8
G

1. rl

s.

4 ?
.

vt

t-

k q

1. 6

.6
X

(A)

ls--Mixture
surface
Fig.
response
whiting
and sole
combinations
on
from 100% ftsh
protein
containing

1. x 3

x4

(B)

plots
showing
the effects
of
contour
panel
gcores
ycceptability
sensory
(A) 0% and (B) 50% turbot.

the

various
pollock,
of patties
made
c

l1l

A
B
C

E
F

5O% Pollok
and 50% Turbot
5O% Sole
and 50% Turbot
5O% Whiting
and 5O% Turbot
100% Whiting
100% Pollock
100% Sole

Fig.
l6--Mixture
surface
model
contour
response
showing
the effects
of various
pollock,
turbot,
whiting
and sole
combinations
on the sensory
panel
acceptability
made
of
from
patties
scores
1001 fish
protein.
The level
of turbot
increases
from 0% at triangle
DEF to 5OI at triangle
ABC.

x1
Key

e.a

x1

Turbot

Xz

Pollock

Xa

Whiting

.-*

3.o
3.e

CN

&

4
3

kn

. 4

3. 6.

%
c5
vg

tb
w*

4.

4. o

n*

.8
cx

d.J

(x

>

x2

(A)

Fig.
l7--Mixture
surface
plots
showing
contour
response
the effects
pollock
and whiting
combinations
the
(A)
panel
firmness
on
sensory
of
patties
made
from
100%
minced
fish
protein.
scores

(B)

of
and

various
turbot,
(B) flavor
M

l13

X1

Key

$1.18
$1.14
$1.10

X:

Xz

Xa

Turbot
Pollock
Whiting

$1.06
$1.02
.98

$
.9%

$
.90

$
X2

Fig.
l8--Mixture
surface
plot
showing
contour
response
the effects
of various
turbot,
pollock
and whiting
combinations
with
of producing
patties
on the cost
100% fish
protein
from the whole
fillets
of these
three
fish
species.

X3

X1

7z** x-b

11

Key

V*4.,

Xl

Turbot

Xz

Pollock

Xa

Whiting

9.o

7.o

Z#

. 6..
5 0
.

<'

;<' (9,g
.

3 0
.

0.

* 2.r

.) 5
.

(A)

lg--Mixture
Fig.
surface
showing
response
contour plots
pollock
and whiting
combinations
(A)
protein
and
on the
made from 1001 minced
fish
protein.

(B)

the
(B)

of various
turbot,
effects
of
patties
fat content
>

Table

prepared

lz--Regression

from

Coefficient

various

coefficlents
turbot,

for
pollock

tbe
and

exgerimental
responses
wblting
combinations

specified
witbout
soy

for patties
protein

Estimated

Coefficient
Overall
Accegtabillty
Score

Cost
Using
Fillets

Percent
Protein

Percent

Break-

point

Firmness

Flavor

Value

Score

Score

Values

Fat

$,

1037.3

2.450

5.167

4.125

1.264

14.037

12.296

02

1825.0

4.500

4.750

4.792

0.904

15.529

0.301

Sa

1654.3

3.800

4.792

4.542

0.861

14.829

0.337

$ 12

440.7

1716.7

0.414

0
0

-0.834

13

-0.666

1.334

0.916

1.000

3.372

7.731

-158.7

$ 23
-11437.98

$ 123
Rk

0.968

--

--

l.0

l.0

1.0

Table

prepared

Colfficlent

;
j

'

l3--Regression

from

various

coefficients
turbot,

for
pollock

the
and

Estimated

Coefficient
Overall
Acceptabillty
Score

Break-

point
Value

Firmness

Flavor

Score

Score

1031.1

2.527

5.169

1797.9

4.593

2543.4

'

3.826

for
protein

patties

Values
Cost
Using

Fillets

Percent

Percent

Protein

Fat

4.125

1.264

14.040

12.296

4.752

4.792

0.904

15.528

0.030

5.127

4.542

1.117

12.960

0.302

1.498

0.500

1.0

1.0

r.

-0.872

12

specified
experimental
responses
combinations
sole
witbout
soy

-0.666

-0.622

1:

2:

0.380
-5.868

iyzq

RA

0.934

0.959

0.983

1.0

Table

prepared

Corfficlent

lA--Regression

from

various

coefficients
turbot,

for

tbe
and

whiting

experimental
specified
for
responses
witbout
sole
combinations
soy protein

Estimated

Coefficient

Flavor
Score

Overall
Accegtabillty
Score

Cost
Using
Fillets

Percent
Protein

Percent
Fat

4.130

1.259

14.039

12.296

Break-

point
Value

Firmness

1025.6

2.488

Score

patties

5.164

Values

..

1624.3

3.771

4.789

4.547

0.863

14.827

0.337

2524.5

3.705

5.122

4.547

1.119

12.959

0.302

:Ia

0.471

1.240

1:

1.404

3:

0.070

13%

1.0

l.0

-0.527

0.723
0

RA

0.875

0.862

0.935

0.926

1.0

1l8

degrees

seven
models.

of

freedom

When a special

quately

describe

of

the

various

on

the

responses,

a coefficient

nation

not

be

calculated

because

freedom
of

exhausted

were

determination

by

however,

were,

models,

unlike

the

previous

through

10 for

the

first

patties

became

firmer

sole

increased

greatest
The

the

at

firming

effect

contour

plots
of

contour

plots
component

three

fish

species,

from

a fourth

fish

combinations

could

be

linear

model

response
the

three

response
Both

fish

examples,

in

the

contour
species
minced
with

and

the

to

produce

plot

that

shows

turbot,

examples

of

the

content
from
in

other

this

thesis.

15 lists

the
the

made

the

on

deriving

results

fish

without

sole

fish

on the

and

of

amounts

combinations

fish

whiting.

patties

Table

R2 used
A

the

effects

illstrate

manner.

had

These

total
The

patties

Figs.

pollock

and

varying

turbot.

similar

quadratic

and

the

for

trends

of

coefficients

in

patties.

to

degrees

Sole

whiting

of

numerous

and

terms

half
as

too

surface

of

and

determi-

of whiting,

12 show

from

of
the

by pollock

show

species

Minced

turbot.

fish

minced

species,

plotted

of

pollock,

of mixture

of

fish

levels

Fig.

in

values

total

treatments.

followed

breakpoint

their

of

exPense

combinations

various

described

the

fish

for

models

ade-

to

Adjusted

available

group
as

a11

model.

the

these

required

was

combinations
could

clculate

to

model

cubic
effects

the

available

were

the

mixture
effects

of

breakpoint

without

show

that

turbot.
as

the

Table

ls--Regression

prepared

from

various

coefficients
pollock,

for
whiting

the experimental
specified
responses
and sole
combinations
witbout
soy

Estimated

Colfficlent

Break-

point
Value

Firmness
Score

gz

1757.8

4.604

4.625

:a

1589.6

3.821

2544.8

3.771

Flavor

Coefficient

Values

Overall
Accegt-

Cost

abillty

for
protein

patties

ysing

Percent
Protein

Percent
Fat

4.793

0.899

15.529

0.030

3.875

4.543

0.863

14.829

0.337

3.750

4.543

1.119

12.957

0.302

Score

Score

Flllets

-0.668

;
:

23

2%

0.082

0.975

0.475

0.139

-0.250

3%

;23

1.

4.767

RA

0.880

0.913

0.991

1.0

1.0

1.0

ko

12O

level

of

sole

whiting,

has

Replacing
the

change

trend,

combinations

made

from

fish

but

reduces

of

the

whiting.

does

patties

sole.

made

for

Patties
were

from

the

in

not

values

combinations

observed

as

turbot

and

fish

12).
than

breakpoint

whiting

than

species

effect

with

multiple

softer

fish

protein

and

(Fig.

firming

pollock,

flesh

the

single

the

pollock

increase

greater

of

unexpectedly

not
of

of

of

expense

values

a slightly

half

the

at

breakpoint

patty

Pollock

a11

increases

flesh

the

preliminary

experiments.
Figure

surface

response
various
point

13 is

of
in

component
top

surface

half

from

the

pollock

and

the

right

three
were
verted
Fig.

comprise
side

component

described
to
13.

blends

sole

special
This

11 and

cubic

models

gives

of

an

to

various

other

left

side

turbot,

of

turbot,

pollock

represented

ACDE).

The

accurately
of

by

separate

contour

A11 surfaces

overview

fish

the

the

the

by

surface
l2.

the

combinations.

formulations

response

Fig.

model

patty

of

and

sole

combinations

(trapezoid

mixture

in

made

and

surface

and

break-

the

by

turbot

represented
are

the

Half

from

of

on

represented

whiting

ABFE)

species

patties.

comes

combinations

(trapezoid

whiting

ABC)

pollock,

surface

and

fish

mixture
effects

the

fish

formulations

(triangle
various

showing

four

minced

patty

ingredient

Patty

of, the

the

a 3-dimensional

model

contour

combinations
values

of

an example

Plots
were

produce
how breakpoint

con-

l2l

values
and

tend
sole

increase

to

increases

The

beyond
plots

contour

various

scores

protein.

Tables

coef f icient
special

cubic

the

effects

of

and sole;
overall

increased.

over

be higher

for

presence

mixtures

achieve

maximum

provide

more

discussion
first
excessive
Too

while
and

of

the

too

turbot
much

unappealing

for

overall

or
seemed

pollock,
patties.

the

in

of

and

less

however

produce

the

the

to

describe
pollock

reduces

from

tended

component

turbot.

The

in

to

order

mentioned

finding

in
for

resulted

the
the

that

acceptability

sole

to

observations

unacceptably
and

mixtures

response
the

tended

fish

their

These

the

a primary

important

suggestion

softness

of

on

scores

more

regarding

whiting

used

have

to

acceptability

to

scores

fish

scores.

treatments

firmness

much

was

acceptability

evidence

of

group

turbot

sole,

model

sole,respectively,

seemed

overall
SOy

turbot,

Acceptability

and

the

applicable
model

of

deriving

of

on

Acceptability

diversity

others.

effects

whiting;

and

pollock.

regression

quadratic
and

reduced

without

the

where

fishuspecies

the

some

'

112 s
A

whiting

whiting

of

14 list

is

and

formulated

and

the

as

pollock,

species

scores.

No one

advantage

from

turbot,

maximized

fish

whiting

four

pollock

acceptability

be

the

13 and

turbot,

and

14 show

patties

models

turbot

Fig.

of

and

of

of

the

estimates

level

that

of

12,

two

to

in

combinations

acceptability

the

as

scores.
soft

patties,
in

firm

l22

example

0ne

a combination
fish

species

show

the

pollock,

to

of

whether

or

came

from

16 is

sensory

panel

formulations
from

tions

and

of

plot

repre-

contour

the

as

levels

of
0%

to

the

in

the

turbot.

decreased

sole

15 lists

without

species

patties

a 3-dimensional
showing

four

fish

the
by

and

sole
by

various
of

and

the

the

other

combinations.

left

the

turbot,

turbot,

fish

acceptability

Half

turbot

of

the

represented

represented
from

of

overall

patties.

whiting

turbot.

model,

component

model

contour

combinations

comes

fish

without

or

quadratic
ace

and

combi-

Table

maximized

the

various

with

fish

example

an

surface

various

fish

three

plots

turbot.

Figure

response

surf

increased

5Q% of

not

the

were

whiting

the

These

for

fourth

the

protein.

soy

for

the

scores

and

contain

not

15.

sole

and

produce

mixtures

pollock

Fig.

for

scores

without

or

scores

estimates

Acceptability

with
in

whiting

did

used

senting

species

acceptability

coefficient

acceptability

illustrated

mixtures

R2 value

overall

three

is

of

These

the

of

overall

nations

the

of

pollock

pollock

formulations

represented

zoid ACDE).

The

individual

top

surface

half

from

and
by

surface
and

sole

three

right

the

on

of

the

in

the

minced
patty

(triangle
various

fish

ABC)

pollock,

combinations

ABFE)

(trapezoid

whiting

the

species

component

of

effects

scores

Patty

side

the

mixture

came

blends,

and

combina-

comprise

the

patty

side

component

surface
mixture

(traperesponse

123

surface
This

shows

model
the

as

plots

contour

levels

Mixture
drawn

for

patty

cost,
by

whiting

and

plots
for

turbot,

turbot,
of

the

various

and

producing
Fig.

18,

fish

patties

and

patties
the

protein

pollock

SCOreS.

collected

0.555)

of

This

for

in
These

whole

fish

breakpoint

the

variation

correlation
of

soy

mixtures

formulations

17

the
panel

of

cost

appearing

of

the

produced

in

minced

from

surface

various

the

the
contour

combinations

of

responses

the

protein.
values

in
was

these

19 were

on

1A for

sensory

contents

of

whiting

12

13 for

fillets

effects

and

in

Fig

response

the

Table

in

for

mixture

for

without

both

in

Fig.

contour

15 for

plots

fat

surface

As an example,

shown

and

are

pollock,

Table

sole.

they

turbot,

Table

Table

and

scores,
as

given

blends;

contour

from

12.

Variations

models

and

scores

formulated

sole;

whiing

specific

turbot,

the

combinations;

surface

Table

are

(r2

and

displayed

in

patties

sole

flavor

the

response

and whiting

pollock.

fircness

plots

from

flavor

of

be

also

can

contents,

combinations

produced

and

and

fat

and

The mixture

response

models

protein

whiting

containing

of

the

equal.

plots

firmness

15.

maximized

were

became

contour

panel

pollock

turbot,

species

14 and

Figs.

scores

fish

surface

and

pollock

mixture

four

sensory

be

can

the

sole.

in

acceptability

response
the

affected

that

of

described

were

sensory

obtained

reSPOnSeS

explained

55.570

panel
using

listed

firmness
a11

the

in

Table

data
A-11

124
and

was

and

firmness

significant

surface

scores

should

of

be

discussion

of
apply

should

17(A)

Fig.

the

for

in

scores

exp 1a ins

sensory

panel

a11

data

surface

combinations
overall
trends

of

featured
turbot,

1OO to

flavor

increases

predicts,

0Fo pollock
SCOre.

whiting

therefore,
and

In

The

in

l1(A)

Fig.

plot

score

in

the

are

0 to

used

the

effects

a patty

26I whiting

should
corresponding

sole

on

predict
plot

various

on flavor
as

scores

the

level

decreases

0 to

composed
yield

various

to

of

pollock

from

the

contour

maximized

74%,

increases

the

be

Sensory

Correiated,

and

combinations

scores

two

of

example,

shows

these
nOt

whiting

in

correlating

effects

cannot

variation

by

are

the

whiting

the

for

reS#OnSeS

For

from

of

determined

that

contrast,

values

acceptability

0 042)

pollock,

17 that

that

0% and

trends

showing

scores.

and

turbot

3-way

scores.

overall

scores

pollock

indicated

a11

on breakpoint

collected

two

turbot,

Fig.

of

firmness

as

A-11

these

flavor
in

(r2

scores

acceptability
in

response

firmness

panel

4.2%

plots

contour

4 mixture

value

sensory

Table

Since

the

reason.

flavor

reSPOnSeS.

for

corresponding

only

in

values

species

breakpoint

this

breakpoint

effects

the

fish

those

its

to

Variation

the

four
to

Since

correlated,
showing

the

similar

0.05.

are

plots

contour

combinations

of

at

the

2612
of

This

74I

highest

acceptability

from
model

turbot,
flavor
score

l25

plot

in

1% predicts

Fig.

approximately

at
The

trends

in

because
overall

plots

the

showing
pollock

pollock,
for
The

various

of

level
of

of

of

and

in

locate
tion
cost.

has

This

A11

treatment

trend

fillets

is
is

eontour

be

cn

shows

sole;

and

15 of

and

plots

these

their

the
cost

of

compromise

treatment

$.35/1b

are

costly
Mixture

trends,

contour

ingredients

bits

cost

whole

A-9).

cost

between

when

than

more

(Table

effect
the

respective

patties

expense

minimizing
because

surface

the

the

($1.54/1b)

the

on

as

at

of

fillets

minimized

depicting
to

whiting
whole

cost

($1.00/lb)

response

is

greater

combination

represents

from

effects

the

and

predictable

compared

mixture

group

plot

a greater

fillets

a particular

that

of

conflicting

increased

are

($l.05/lb),

acceptability

show

Cost

whiting

whiting

18,

score

and

also

patties

species.
whiting

surface

Fig.

flavor

pollock

fish

and

fillets

response

turbot,

minced

turbot

whole

than

contour

of

fish

pollock.

pollock

and

whiting

should

18 surface

pollock

whole

not

combinations

turbot,

sole

correlated.

are

various

obviously

are

reason.

three

turbot,

than

and

producing

these

of

maximized

50% whiting.

and

plots

responses

sole;

combinations
of

cost

40I pollock

acceptability

and

this
Fig.

two

is

response

corresponding

effects

whiting

trends

the

the

Corresponding

turbot,

this

10% turbot,
shown

different

that

aS

overall
plots
for

to
produc-

acceptability
in
and

this
pieces

and

second
of

the

l26
four

fish
59 to

is

species

are

72% less

than

from

patties

the

in

fish

pollock

patties

has

the

by whiting
the

of

amounts

maximizes

Table

A-2

protein

pollock
whiting

minimizes

greater

fat

so

for

treatments

sole

contents

included

minimizing

values

(a
the

the

content,

than

followed

of

expense
has

turbot

a greater

(Table

A-2).

highest

fat

con-

lastly

by

(0.351)
the

effect

in

between
varying

the

minced

The

0.05)
trends

the

turbot,

in

in

and

levels

of

and

pollock

pollock

and

has

whiting.

fish

sensory

listed

of

contour

and

Soy protein

was

patty

treatments

panel
so

whiting

16.

in

there

made

Table

between

be
for

reSPOnSeS

Breakpoint

scores

should

not

comprising

A-11.

firmness

plots

variables

response

pollock,

were

correlated
surface

the

Table

correlations

15 treatments
and

of

each

listed

are

group.
the

fat

patty

Correlations

of

by whiting
increasing

Since

increasing

pollock

has

contents

19.

the

whiting

turbot

fat

and

Correlations

Response

this

that

followed

(0.031F0,

and

same

(16.23%),

at

cost

species.

(l.67Fo),

whiting

than

these

Fig.

in

content,

This

fish

protein

turbot

effect

shows

(12.85Fo),

tent

and

four

content

lastly

pollock

also

the

the

protein

and

maximization

of

of

patties.

producing

illustrated

highest

patty

protein

fillets

are

(15.57o)

the

of

cost

plots

contour

make

to

the

whole

the

Surface

used

are

some
the

positively

agreement

firmness

in
scores

Table

set of
pollock,

l6--correlations
15 minced

fisb

wbiting

and

variables
between
tbe specified
response
prepared
from various
patty
treatments
witbout
sole
formulated
soy protein

Responses

Firmness
Score

Responses
Breakpoint

Flavor

Score

Overall
Acceptability
Score

Cost
Using
Fillets

determined
combinations

for tbe
of turbot,

Percent
Protein

Percent

-0.402

-0.707

Fat

Value

0.555

>T

-0.010

-0.207

* *

0.218

'

Firmness
-0.498

Score

0.523

Yr

>Q>k

-0.776

Flavor

0 O42

ik

-0.876

0 448

Acceptability
Score

:k

0 264

-0.607

Cost Psing
Fillets

#r

>k

%%
#<

0.806
-0.195

Significant

at

Significant

at

0.05.

0.01.

>k

-0.599

0.315

-0.680

Percent
Protein

* *

gq

-0.601*

S Core

>k

-0.776

#<

l28
and

breakpoint

ne

malor

and

firmness

factor

values

discrepency

in

Objectively,

values

species,

but

the

second

the

sole

the

highest

or

panelists

bit

them

could

flavor

scores

(a

thus,
be

not
as

feature

and

overall

surface
applied

previously
influencing

acceptability
0.01

correlation

0.05,

force

than

the
encoun-

patties

between

scores

and

the

score.

acceptability

ability

overall

by

increases
flavor

had

probably

resistance

term

0.05)

they

patties

of

them

width

so when

species,

indicated

panel

dominant

sole

patties

sole

range

acceptability

correlated;

not

three

sole

peak

from

made

fish

giving

shortest

the

four

Although

range

overall

and

sensory

other

the

ranked

a longer

over

sole.

highest

patties.

Patties

a 1ow firmness
=

the

elastic

had

with

frpm

turbot

longest

short

(a

have

made

to

they

the

into

A positive

firmness

the

the

little

very
gave

next

comparative

made

subjectively

extended

from

made

scores

panelists

the

is

sole

values

influential

most

patties

patties

elasticity.

that

patties

a11

had

the

from

made

softest

of

of

treatm/nts.

breakpoint

correlation,

breakpoint,

breakpoint

and

the

between

firmness

of

patties

modulus

tered

the

previous

probably

their

patties

breakpoint

as

and

reducing
of

in

existing

scores,

positioning

noted

as

scores
respectively)

firmness

that
improved.

acceptability

describe

the

accept-

trends
was

in
not

the

and

significantly

increased
as

were

Firmness

acceptance.
both

for

Flavor

discussed.

ne
scores

plots

contour
to

patty

as

cost

of

the

patties

l29

made

from

whole

decreased.

This

acceptability
this

turbot,

and

Firmness

in

rather

than

correlate

is

flavor

whole

fish

patty

protein

this

case

fillets

a11

values,

of

and

patties

decreased

These

reSPOnSeS

and

because

breakpoint

and

mixtures

lower

turbot.

in

the

firmer

made

fat

from
patty

related

were
of

the

the

as

amounts

in

increased

fish
values

the

content

patties
than

could

were

also
cheaper,

mixtures

and

cost

and

overall

and

fillets

the

signifi-

decreased.

because

species

occurred

contents.

content

such

the

have

significantly

fat

from

made

a greater

fish

not

Firm-

as

firmness

whole

as

did

patties

protein

panel

scores

values

the

having
lower

turbot.

score.

This

sensory

made

the

of

over

and

increased

fish

for

species

firmness

acceptability
cost

had

a11

scores
the

of
also

scores

acceptability

the

sole

to

significantly

mixtures.

fish

Breakpoint

decreased.

content

firmer

or

and

scores,

Breakpoint

cantly

flavor

and

advantage

regard

values.

cost,

firmer

species

with

was

fillets

explanation

cceptability
fish

sole

minimization

cost

cheaper,

an

expensive

flavor

cost

had

breakpoint

ness,

higher

for

and

A possible

the

more

to

because

favorable

that

whiting

softer,

the

is

whiting

considerations.

phenomena

pollock

pollock,

increasing

pollock,

whiting,

correlated,
more
including

sole
acceptable

more

l30

Effect

3OZ So

of

Results
examined
of

the

1:1

o
from

the

fish

component
of

illustrated

in

on the

experimental

lists

the

sole

studied

well

as

particular

yielded

the

fish

to

The

format

of

treatments

to

listed

for

plot
19 and

generate

of

per

the

a11

other

exactly

to

plot

with

same

the
contour

model

plots

of

coefficient
and

R2 ' s
A

first

total

SOy

PrO-

concentrate.
this

in

for

19.

where

group
the

28 correTable

estimates
,

and

chosen

the

20 through

11 through

for

parameters

described

as

as

fish,

was

plots

Figures
Figs.

for

in

protein

the

and

This

protein

ratios

contour

whiting

measured

protein

scores

the

table

patties.

soy

soy

This

treatments

concentrate

these

treatments.

20 list

soy

based

A-12.

of

fish

protein

flour

generating

of

of

response

28 were

responses

minced

level

SOy

was

group

the

a
are

pollock,
group

accepta bility

out
and

turbot,

by

mixture

Table

in

of

soy

The

30:t

with

species

20 through

of

to

highest

fish

28.

Figs.

because

group

tein

18,

concentrate

containing

flour

SOy

treatment

spond

protein

values

experimentation

second

soy

substitution
of

for

replaced

four

experimental

observed

protein

soy

mixture

15 combinations

the

which

each

in

this

experiments

in

data

in

of

group
the

to

plots

ualit

Textural

Fis

20 through

Figs.

contour

on the

of

flour

soy

surface

ratio

third

combinations

ratio

the

Protein
Patties

Fis

17,
used

applicable

X1

z1

Key
Xl
.
% %
%

X2

Turbot

E?cp

oo o.kQ'

Pollock

,
'

&
W

&
g'

a
'%

Whiting

Sole

x1
G

o
%%
k)
n%:
h
x

r1

g
% T.

'

u'jh

%%
x!b

QQ(h

'Q

+
0006

6 c:c

o
%9%

(A)

%%

(B)

't7.

x4

01 ?

t?yS
u

@ Q

&

4700

'G

''5

d3
qp

'

5coc
o

55oo

600a

zJ

zo--Mixture
Fig.
surface
response
tions
of (A) turbot,
pollock
and
whiting
and sole
breakpoint
the
on
fish
protein
and 30I soy protein.

(C)
contour
whiting;

values

z4

showing
the effects
turbot,
pollock
and
of patties
(grams force)

plots
(B)

of various
combinasole;
and (C) turbot,
made from 70I minced

LJ

x2

Key
=

Pollock

x3

Whiting

Sb le

X
oqq
o

qt z9

7loo

6soo
6000

ob
c?

0%

t?o

&
+%

x3

J'

J.

tg

oo

Bo

=
pt?n

Otv

oo

$ 500

oo

tr

a
o

6e

Oo

580c

au
o0

tp

(A)

ooo

?
4

x3

Fis.
zl--Mixture
showing
surface
plots
contour
response
the
whiting
and sole
combinations
breakpoint
values
on
(A) 0% and (B) 5OI pf the
containing
fish
component
as
and 30=: SOy Protein.
70I minced fish protein

o
(

(B)
effects
of various
pollock,
force)
of
patties
(grams
turbot,
and that
a<e made from
the

x4

133

35I Whiting

and

35I

Pollock

and

E
F

35%
70%
70%
70%

Sol
and
Sole
Whiting

A
B

Fig.

35I Turbot

35I Turbot
35% Turbot

Pollock

zz--Mixture
surface
model
contour
response
showing
effects
of
various
turbot,
pollock,
the
whiting
and sole
combinations
on the breakpoint
values
force)
of patties
made from 7OI
(grams
and 3O% soy protein.
minced
fish
protein
The
level
of turbot
from 0=; at triangle
increases
DEF to 35% at triangle
ABC.

x1

Key
*
>

Turbot
<s

(p

Pollock

X3

Whiting

Sole

>
co

*u

.-r

kp
*

c:

qb

F
v

Xl

te

.y

*
*o

V.D

5. 0
;

w*

t'kz
.

x2

1.
.

5. o
4 9

x3

(A)

4. 8

(x,

tv

c'

.!

x2

(B)

4
No

cs

xg
b

.;

o.

V*

v;

..:

-Q

k.
k*

Fig.

K4

(C)

z3--Mixture
surface
plots
showing
the effects
contour
response
tions
of (A) turbot,
pollock
(B) turbot,
and whiting;
pollock
and
and sole
whiting
panel
overall
acceptability
on the sensory
scores
and 30*: soy protein.
70I minced fish protein

of various
combinasole;
and (C) turbot,
of patties
made from

tr
>

Key
Xz

Pollock

X3

Whiting

X.

&.

,.
IL

k)
.

>

'C

Sole

d-

o.

'w.

.s

(o

4. p

q)

-&

>

k:

v.

l 9
.

<

:p

v'.9

4y

s.

<

4 .8
I

x4

9
(A)

Fig.
z4--Mixture
whiting
and sole
patties
containing
from 70I minced

.e

>. o

x .3

x4

(B)

sur/ace
plots
showing
contour
response
of
the effects
combinations
the
panel
overall
acceptability
on
sensory
(A) 0% and (B) 50% of the fish
component
as turbot,
fish
protein
and 30I soy protein.

various
pollock.
of
scores
and that
are made

l36

A
B

E
F

35%
35%
35%
7O%

Pollock
and 35I Turbot
Sole and 35I Turbot
and 35% Turbot
Whitihg
Whiting
70I Pollock
7O% Sole

zs--Mixture
Fig.
model
surface
contour
response
showing
the effects
of various
turbot,
pollock,
whiting
and sole
combinations
on the sensory
panel
overall
acceptability
of patties
scores
made from 7O% minced
fish
and 30% soy
protein
of tprbot
The level
protein.
from
increases
0% at triangle
DEF to 35=: at triangle
ABC.

z1

Key
5.4

#.6

X1

Turbot

Pollock

X3

&.

Whiting

.&
. 8

Jx

<'

%
*

&

t.

.R

6.o
5 :3
.

)*

6 2
.

'T
*

6. 4
I

i-

z2

(A)

Fig.
z6--Mixture
surface
response
pollock
and whiting
combinations
made
of patties
from 70% minced

.0

x3

(B)

plots
showing
the effects
contour
panel
oh the (A) sensory
firmness
fish
and 30I soy protein.
protein

of
and

various
turbot,
(B) flavor
scores

138

Xl

$.96
Key

$.92

$.88

Turbot

X2

Pollock

Whiting

$.8%

$.80

$.76

X2

Fig.

xs
z7--Mixture

the effects
combinations
minced
fish
fillets
of

showing
surface
plot
contour
response
whiting
of various
turbot,
pollock
and
with
of producing
patties
70I
on the cost
and 30% soy yrotein from the whole
protein
fish
these
three
specles.

x1
Key

zp Z
*
?> x*

zy*3.,

Xl

Turbot

xz

Pollock

X3

1* 0$

6 0$
.

Whiting
5

zp
. 4r

o$
0

J3 0 $
.

7p

7y
*9.,

7z
.

7z
* 7.,

7z
. 6.t

-s

(j $

..4

1 () $

--*

12

I2

(A)

Fig.
z8--Mixture
surface
plots
showing
response
contour
pollock
and whiting
combinations
(A)
and
protein
on the
fish
protein
and 30% soy protein.
70I minced

(B)

the
(B)

effects
fat
of

of various
turbot,
made from
patties

Table

l7--Regression

prepared

from

Coyfficlent

various

12

13

tbe
and

exgerimental
responses
whlting
combinations

Coefficient

Score

Flavor
Score

Overall
Accegtabillty
Score

5225.0

5.214

5.125

6947.3

6.565

7786.0

6.148

Break-

for
pollock

Estimated

point
Value
:

coefficients
turbot,

Firmness

Values
Cost
Using
Fillets

Percent
Protein

Percent

4.875

1.001

16.968

8.616

5.166

4.916

0.749

18.016

0.030

5.041

4.666

0.723

17.528

0.245

-0.582

6388.7

specified
for patties
witb
30I soy protein

Fat

-0.918

-1555.3
-1.332

-1.250

0
-1166.7
-1.250

-1.500

$ 23
-26708.01

l2

2
RA

0 88l
.

16.629

18.132

1 0
.'

l 0
.

1 0

AN

Table

l8--Regression

prepared

from

Coefficient

various

coefficients
turbot,

for
pollock

the
and

Estimated

Coefficient

Values

Overall
Accegtabillty
Score

Cost
Using

Break-

point
Value

Firmness

Flavor

Score

Score

5247.6

5.208

5.125

4.875

6970.0

6.625

5.166

5872.6

5.375

5.083

5935.8

0.498

-0.582

12

lN

2:

experimental
responses
combinations
sole
with

for patties
spycified
30f soy protein

Percent
Protein

Percent
Fat

1.001

16.968

8.616

4.916

0.749

18.020

0.030

4.916

0.903

16.212

0.220

Fillets

-0.914

-1.166

597.2
-2380.8

0.748
-0.500

-1.830

-1.500

-6.258

z2

z
RA

,1

0
0 900
.

0.918

-6.375

19.623

1 0
.

1 0
.

1 0
.

Table

prepared

lg--Regression
from various

coefficients
turbot,

for
whiting

the
and

experimental
responses
witb
combinations
sole

Estimated
Coefficient

Coefficient
Overall
Accegt-

Breakpoint
Value

Firmness
Score

Flavor
Score

specified
soy

30I

for
protein

patties

Values

Score

Cost
Using
Fillets

Percent
Protein

Percent
Fat

abillty

Sj

5225.0

5.208

5.125

4.883

1.001

16.970

8.616

:a

7786.0

6.291

5.041

4.675

0.723

17.530

0.245

5850.0

5.375

5.083

4.924

0.903

16.210

0.220

-1555.3

-0.330

-1.332

-1.409

9ja

-1.166

1050.0

1:

-1605.3

0.748
-9.676

$ 34
-38425.2

-9.003

-is

-0.159

0.084
-5.250

:laq
RA2

0.761

0 824
.

l 0
.

l 0
.

1 0
.

Table

zo--Regression

prepared

from

Coefficlent

various

coefficients
pollock,

for
wbiting

the experimental
spegified
responses
and sole
combinations
30f soy
with

patties

Estimated

Coefficient

Firmness

Flavor

Score

Score

Overall
Accegtabillty
Score

Cost
Using
Fillets

Protein

Percent
Fat

Break-

point
Value

for
proteln

Values

Percent

:z

6947.3

6.508

5.166

4.916

0.749

18.020

0.030

oa

7786.0

6.224

5.041

4.667

0.723

17.528

0.245

5850.0

5.358

5.083

4.916

0.903

16.212

0.220

-1166.7
-1.250

23

2:

-1.502

-1928.0
-1.830

-1.500

0
-1605.3

-0.002

$ 3:

0.084

9.753

-20625.09

RAz

'.

0 922
.

10.146

1 0
.

1 0
.

1 0
.

7-

1AA

that

illustrate

mixtures

the

of

turbot,

sole;

turbot,

and

sole,

respectively,

pollock,

whiting

by each
was

followed

protein

was

The

sole

and

plots

in

breakpoint

fish

species.

altered
that

in

firmer

20 and

of

pollock,

the

of

of

a11

that
patties

the

made

from

whiting

and

well

varying
sole.

of

that

sole

as

patties

had

containing

the

soy

turbot.

When s0y

followed

by

Fig.

in

20.

adding

turbot
and

combinations

of

in

the

these

than
of

Figs.

of
protein

sole

reduces

these

three
also

three

whiting

species
resulted

11 and
30% of

12 with
fish

the

increases

a11

the
of

combinations

altering

the

combinations
The most

to

formulations

of

from

the

patties

replacement

produced
as

texture

whiting

soy

contributed

had

rather

with

turbot,

whiting

effects

pollock

whiting

formulas,

that

turbot
trend

patties

species

shown

pollock,

pollock,

and

on the

A comparison

21 shows

fish
patties

of

pollock

effects

not

patty

21 show

Fig.

in

the

whiting

as

turbot,

minced

11 shows

the

turbpt

firmness

of

the

effect

patties.

firmness
four

in

values

increases

content

formulas

on patties

Including

the

in

to

containing

responses.

included

by pollock,

firming

the

so

effect

and

the

Figure

combinations

various

sole;

species

included

greatest

pollock,

sole

fish

firming

protein

the

was

altered.

somewhat

greatest

and

protein

soy

whiting;

on a11

and

separate

various

and

whiting

protein

soy

of

pollock

and

When

effect

firming
of

profound

these

trends

turbot,
change

that

.145

adding

soy

effect

on breakpoint

firming
fish

had

protein

effect
species.

containing

width)

a long

elastic

curves

of

distinct

sole

had

This

most
without

patties

containing

(wider

width)

breakpoints

of

13 and

Figs.

of

combinations

fish.

ABFE)

(trapezoid

of

and

whiting

whiting

and

sole

ACDE)

Various

nonsoy

turbot,

ppllock

and

surface

(trapezoid

turbot,

pollock

comprfsed

and

replacing

overall

of

of

turbot,
turbot,

of

(trapezoid

surface

of

mixtures

in

13 while

Fig.

ingre-

surface

various

side

featured

different

patty
side

containing

were

represented

whiting

of

A comparison

seemed

made

side

side

left

the

combinations
the

right

of

side

ACDE).

(trapezoid

that

ABFE)

left

rfght

the

protein
sole

by

combinations

while

blends

pollock

the

by

range.

right

and

containing

22 were

Fig.

left

represented

Soy protein

more

22 further

13 and

The

22 were

had

a narrower

Figs.

represented

combinations

indicating

protein

over

described.

vague

Breakpoint

soy

3-dimensional

trends

the
of

the

sole

very

range

''bite.''

little

the

three

because
gave

a wide

over

these

illustrate

dient

protein

in

other

the

occurred

soy

with

range

reduction

the
to

likely

combination

species

was

relative

breakpoints

A comparison

surfaces

fish

response

patties

(narrow

the

on

to

have

30% of

fish

the

a masking

acceptability

23 and

Figs.

with

protein

effect

scores

24 with

on
of

the

the

14 and
soy

variations

minced

fish

15 shows
protein
in
patties

the

146
caused

by varying

This

occurred

represented

protein

containing

24.

than

protein

fish

Fig.

26,

cost

appearing

the

minced

eftcts
on

producing

in

Fig.

panel

the

levels

whiting

pollock
has

and

a greater

and

fish

The

top,

feature

the

flavor
from

in
in

firmness

scores

protein

pollock

Fig.

Fig.

and

and

whole

and

reveals

increases

breakpoint

breakpoint

28.

whiting

whiting

levels

fat

26 that

scores

a similar
whiting

the

patties

plot

pollock

and

four

figures

displayed

contour

sensory

as

the

construct

the

patties

20 shows

accept-

protein.

these

to

27,

the

trend

that

of

turbot,

Figure

SOy

3-dimensional

overall

firmness

various

firmness.

not

species.

used

of

at

species

or

of

soy

both

panel

fish

fish

The
in

of

increasing

increasing

models

surface

response

combinations

except

specific
the

of
whether

without

23

be maximized

mixtures

of

sensory

the

and

soy
Figs.

in

to

formulas.

surfaces

for

The mixture

patty

of

17 lists

of

the

with

plots

contents

that

in

side

fillets

species

various

right

in

fish

for

mixtures

contour

shows

single

trends

formulated

Table

a diversity

similarities

species

similar

of

the

in

the

illustrated
tended

species.

containing

15 than

and

the

score

and

16 show

ability

fish

Figs.

fish

variation

protein

nonsoy

scores

included

25 and

shown

by

more

any

was

Figs.

the

four

the

greater

combinations

featuring

rather

of

was

of

Acceptability

mixtures

left

there

scores

mixtures

combinations

because

acceptability

and

the

increased,
increasing

147
effect

than

pollock,

on increasing

whereas

the

A eomparison

replacing

30% of

masking

effect

patties

of

four

fish

much

fish

in

Fig.

ability

scores

could

have

for

fish.

protein
66.5%

scores

This

correlation

for

of

both

significant
made

at

with

sponding
values

protein

soy

of

made

patties

corresponding

sensory

because

was

each

there
individual

protein

than

particular,
of

the

fish
in
the

firming

the

patties

made

discrepancy
effect

of

in
sole

A-12

and

of

than

of
This

firming
made
soy

itself

corre-

breakpoint
were

relative

was

patties
of

patties

resolved

mixtures.

Table

without

the

firm-

collected

the

the

the

data

scores.

in

values

the

protein

firmness

in

in

predictor

agreement

species

breakpoint

values

soy

accept-

substituting

fish

a11

in

the

and

variation

scores

without

more

by
in

a better

panel

Perhaps

containing

firmness

scores

firmness

Breakpoint

were

panel

sensory

firmness

26.

the

listed

0.01.

of

using

responses

combinations

Variatidns
of

of

scores

various

Fig.

that

ha@ a large

minimized

obtained

was

these

been

17 shows

firmness

range

protein

soy

Fig.

on both

0.665)

the

the

protein

soy

(r2

for

ness

by

than

score

protein

the

17 than

of

explained

in

The

effect

soy

soy

species.

masking

less

with

effect

greater

firmness
26 with

caused

greater

has

Fig.

on variations

fish

was

of

the

minced
the

panel

sensory

whiting.

pollock

their
occurred

effect

of

with

soy

protein.

In

positioning
between

these

l48
firmness

two
patties

previously

as

The
flavor

is

scores

acceptability

in

by

correlating

these
highly

pollock,

the

ability

of

various

sole

could

flavor

al1

response

and

scores

panel

mixture

be

the

used

two

predict

SO

are

plots

contour
of

combination

turbot,

overall

trends

in

did

not

responses
made

patties

treatment

same

for

responses

panel

of

determined

as

surface

sensory
to

These

scores.

for

on

0.93)

collected

A-12

two

panel

sensory

scores

Table

in

corresponding

(r2

93%

these

the

the
in

flavor

in

Since

effects

with

explain

data

responses.

whiting

the

to

trends

Variation

panel

sensory

a11

the

23.

scores

correlated,

showing

added

was

26 illustrating

agreement

Fig.

in

in

two

Fig.

total

acceptability

variation

at

in

plot

the

protein

soy

described.

plot

contour

overall

when

responses

acceptsensory
correlate

without

SOy

protein.
A comparison
in

the

whiting.

The

shown

nations

only
in

fish

in

the

Fig.

27 plot.

the

cost

of

and

whiting

the

treatment

$.27/1b

the

when

Fig.

each

mixtures

the

two

18 plot

Replacing
individual

patties

in
and

replaced

by

with

the

pieces

the

same

thitd
of

treatment

is

that
soy

s6y

combinations

maintaining

pollock

the

plots

fish

similar

turbot,

between

contour
was

18 reveals

of

difference

while

bits

27 and

Figs.

various

of

cost

of

four

protein

protein

of
trend.

treatment
the

30I

turbot,
A11
group

fish

species

trends
and

combiof

the
in

reduces

pollock
15 of
cost
are

149
used

to

than

the

whole
the

make

the

of

cost

of

producing

these

of

the

of

to

Trends

shown

combinations

of

and
in

concentrate

in

contents

are

Fig.

19.

Since

blend

has

a higher

a11

combinations

whiting,

replacing

30% of

of

tions
the

protein

trend

and

by

caused

Correlations
the

group

pollock,

whiting

Table

in

specific
of

SOy

the

flour

SOy

protein

fat

various

those

to
and

and

turbot,

fish

of

on patty

similar

with

fat

lower

content

and

protein

soy
for

without

protein

soy

pollock

contents

species

their

effects

exactly

the

a11

results
combina-

interfering

with

variation.

the

between
of

soy

assessments

plus

protein

values

correlated
of

textural

soy

so

levels

protein
30% of

of

15 treatments

and

firmness

the

subjective

listed

in

the

minced

fish

were

listed

scores

were

and

turbot,

are

correlations

the

attributes

variables

response

in

replaced
The

of

responses

Breakpoint
0.01)

sole

the

varying

treatments
and

of

each

formulation.

patty

between

(a

The

2l.

each

A-l2.

ratio

than

Corylations

Response

from

this

whiting

and

of

lower
fish

three

these

and

the

pollock

to

higher

fish

the

23% less

without

28 for

Fig.

relative

in

for

from

concentrate.

turbot,

fat

and

species

73% less

to

patties

same

patties

protein

soy

62.5

is

cost

fish

these

protein

soy

described

four

producing

substitution

protein

This

cost

fillets

flour

patties.

were

objective

similat.

made

in

Table

positively

Table

set of
ppllock,

zl--correlations
15
minced

wbiting

fisb
and

between
tbe specified
response
prepared
from
patty
treatment
sole
formulated
with
protein
soy

Responses

Overall
Accept-

Responses

Firmness
Score

Breakpoint
Value

0.665

Firmness
Score

,
>'rvr

Flavor

-0.090

-0.177

Cost
Uslng
Fillets

ability

Score

variables
determined
combinations
various

Score
-0.359

-0.774

Percent

Protein

-0.548

-0.318

Percent

for the
of turbot,

0.557

0.765

Fat
%k

* *

-0.315

-0.543

Flavor

Score

0.930

Acceptability
Score
Cost

0.122

-0.248

0.130

Using
-0.683

Percent
Protein

**

-0.040

0.089

0.250

Fillets

* iq

#r *

0.802

%*

-0.197

Significant

at

0.05.

Significant

at

0.01.

15l

Flavor
(a

and
0.01)

between

correlated.

these

of

nations
the

two

effect

tuted

This

without

patty

these

with

have

had

so

from

because

softer,

more

the

formulas.

not

correlate

protein,

the

rather

whiting

effect

on patty

costly

to

patties
fillets

panel
made

sole

and

overall

The

cost.

protein

increased.

fat

whole

the

turbot,

appeared

firmness
of

cost
sole

and

firmer,

patties
fillets,

This

cheaper

the

mixtures,

and

Lurbot

of

pollock,

species

and

the

decreased

in
did

scores
the

significantly
decreased

protein

soy

decreased.

content

scores

substi-

panel

acceptability

patties

firmness
from

the
in

species

of

whiting

of

fish

texture

sensory

cost

the

acceptability.

with
pollock,

Flavor

30% soy

sensory

and

increased,

the
are

attributes

values

increased

of

30I

than

100Fo
have

to

combinations

flavor

combi-

comprise

seems

when

species

amount

sole

texture

unfavorable

turbot,

When various

but

fish

group of treat-

same

and

negatively,correlated

firmness

patty

and

sole

patty

primary

whole

pollock

the

protein,

Breakpoint

occurred

as

whiting

indicates

were

as

pollock,

four

the

ingredients.

made

the

evident

not

was

protein.

soy

protein,

soy

result

scores

in

responses

positively

were

correlation

on acceptability,

of

content

scores

This

turbot,

total

major

to

acceptability

formulated

ments

of

overall

70I

fish

increased
and

the

whiting

of

cst
and

152

Recomendation:
Further

textural

research

studies

fish

made

one

suggestion.

and

amounts

fish

patties

of

of

studied,

flours,

alginates

and

flavor

characteristics

seasonings

processing

fish

patty

variables

effects

of

forces

attributes

binding
other

and

than

combina-

vegetables,

spice

information

more

minced

minced

Experiments

gums.

provide

these

types

types

of

protein

soy

is

various

quality

dhydrated

fish

some
of

by

interactions
with

the

done

patties

may

prior
have

attributes.
shear

applied

accompanied

charides

of

work

textural

may provide

cific

of

various

and/or

of

preliminary

that

shear

of

Minced
studied

yet

Some of

and

may

not

textural

mixture

areas.

effects

brands

types

through

of

fish

the

the

on

than

reported

study.

The

on the

of

initiated.

already

mixes,

patties

on the

include

improving

a number

on the

be

different

this

fish

types

matrixes

might

involving

in

from

might

ones

minced

Research

ingredients

tions

of

Study

toward

ma# encompass

patties

the

directed

attributes

design

f or Further

useful

those
of
themselves

effect

an

magnitude

the

on minced

the

protein,

fat,
one

performed

duration

during
the

These

involving

and

and

about

products.

another

of

mixing

textural
types

identification
water

suggested

studies

batters

patty

information

finished

study

our

Rheology

stress

to

to

and

might

of

studies

of

spe-

Polysacaid

in

the

153
elucidation
by

of

increasing

0.4Fo of

the

the

of

of

methods,
tures
various
also

be

and

bake

and

further
oi1

bake

devised

to

inactivate

may be

time,

of

A storage

study
of

because

fry

minced

be

and

tempera-

and

the

adversely
patties

considered
opr

may

lipases
the

through
than

peanut

The
and
in

of

use

effecting

other

in

the

as

conditions

conducted

not

such

fish

freezing

Methods

experiments.

storage

effects

various

patties.

oils

the

different

times

and
Other

are

patties,

the

future

should
was

the

frying

various

packaging

of

caused

0.2

during

enzymes

the

in

study

of

without

fqt

attempted

storage

and

oxidase

Deep

weight.

patties

fry

to

study.

types

fat

of

battr

a number

methods

attributes

between

effects

using

deep

trimethylamine

textural

on the

effect

level

for

recocnended

of

softening

raw

manufacture,

effects
to

patty

variation

their

the

alginate

fish

variables

temperature

stages

for

sodium

minced

processing

of

a mechanism

effects
different

further

work.

experiments

limitations.

time

Conclusions
Results
designed
turbot,
concentrate
of minced

from

to

study

pollock,
and
fish

the

three

the

effects

whiting,
sodium
patties

experimental
of

sole,

alginate
show

various

soy

firmer

groups

combinations

flour,

on the
that

treatment

soy

textural
or

softer

of

protein
attributes
patties

154
may be

produced

by adlusting

ingredients.
sodium

Firmer

alginate

patty

batter

trate

content

whiting

0.4%
of

level

flour

and

turbot

the

level

and

sole

The

correlations

three

treatment

predictable

trends

cannot

be

ratings

of

of

trends

can

can

be

plots.

any

be

noted

accuracy

These

pletely.
useful

of

to

the

the

mixtures

these
mixture

food

trends

processor

the

amount

increasing

variables

in

product

formula-

acceptability

responses

Desirable

tables

show

only

should

be

attempting

and

required

the

response

surface

contour

predicted

trends,

evaluated

relying
surface

not

were

groups.

response

on

to
them

contour
to

some

response

subjective

the

for
with

breakpoint

before

response

and

mixtures,

and

correlation

mixture

0.2

processor

use

these

plots

contour

ingredient

of

producing

from
the

the

the

the

by

the

in

experimental

from

and

response

objective

ingredients

determined
Since

be

because
the

pollock

patty.

the

predicting

of

the

raw

of

patty,

provide

the
in

the

the

concen-

decreasing

in

can

of

between

of

between

0.2%

of

be produced

can

concentrate

in

level

protein

levels

weight,

content

the

various

soy

alginate

fish

the

and

and

protein

patties

of

additional
the

batter

that

in

combination

the

gropps

use

the

correlated

and

sodium

Unfortunately,

tions.

flour

patties

of

soy

0.4

soy

Softer

the raw patty

increasing

the

the

of

when

between

increases,

the

of

soy

the

decreases

increase.

level

result

patties

weight,

increasing

the

produce

test

com-

plots

are

a product

l55
containing
the

a chosen

optimization

of

plots

contour

can

patty

formula

compositional

the

food

based

on

ingredient

are

to

maximizing

studied

the

result

and

exclusively

a patty

from
content

level.

When selecting

from

protein,

should

provide

optimum

cost.

A patty

containing

may be

selected

with

turbot,
50:50

30Fo soy

protein

acceptability.
the
made

higher
from

These
costs

bits

flour

for
and

of

turbot

whiting
pollock

only

and whiting

of

the

as

a compromise

four

latter

two

fish

of

the

same

various
without

its

fillets

fish

component

from

the

formulated

between

cost

take

into

combinations

fish

soy

production

species

If

total
alginate

mixture

examples

fillets.

its

A-10

protein

whole

minimum

a pure

of

whole

of

sole

as

Table

total

from

pollock

pollock

in

sodium

and

at

responses

combinations

its

15I

of

range

and/or

of

a 0.2%

at

patty

producing

ingredient

other

acceptance

pieces

of

formulations

an example

combinations

the

cost

the

fish

on what

of

the

pollock,

as

and

85I

and

blend

economic

containing

patty

of

fish

sllmmarized

soy

mixtures

a minced

treatments

turbot,

protein

various

pieces

surface
experi-

within

the

of

of

group
in

chosen
depending

acceptability

in

might

be

on

these

Many minced

studied

bits

of

choose

Minimizing

from

based
The

organoleptic,

can

levels

made

patties

results

studied.

optimized.

be

the

the

ingredients

attributes.

processor

combinations

the

and

from

responses

ingredient

of

selected

any

provided

help

ments

combination

species.

and
account
Were

the

156

production

costs

component

remains

a11

four

can

be

fish

would
fixed

species

combination

of

other

the

purpose

of

meeting

an

advertising

claim
may also

to

the

particular

of

the

four

and

levels

of

Further

concentrate.

to

fulfill

this

option.

the

factors

of

same.

In

this

want

as

in

made

by

alginate,

the

considering

experimentation

possibly

would

make

Program.

variable

back

leftovers

various

flour,

to

lunch

a
for

content

filleting

with

soy

or

cost

of

a mixture

case

a schopl

return

protein

pieces

the

protein

goals,

use
to

soy

on acceptability
such

for

the

as

cost

nutritional
or

long

the

completely

species

sodium

as

because

mixture

fish

equal

are

based

selected

A processor

be

and

be

combinations
soy

protein

required

'jy

Table
A-l--summary
and costs
Ingredient

Amount

of

ingredients

used

and

Ingredient
Names
and

Purcbased

Pollock;
lb
8, 16.5
blocks
Turbot;
125,
1 lb
blocks
Wblting;
lb
2, 16.5
blocks
lb
Sole;
2, 16.5
blocks

Rich
Post

Soy Protein
Concentr4te

Ralston
Protein

SPF-200;

60

lb

in

St.

tbe

minced

Suppliers'
Addresses

Sea Pack Corporation

Box 667
Office
Island,
Simons
Georgia

fisb

patty

experiments,

Cost of Inyredient
tbe Speclfied

at

January

$1.00/1b
$1.35/1b
Purina
Division

Checkerboard
St. Louis,

February

Company
Square

Missouri

10,000

Kelco

February

Onions
Lot

8 lb

Compan
8355 Aero Drlve
California
San Diego,
Foremost-Gentry

1981
for a
lb shipment

63188

Sodium

Debydrated
#6400-73
/114161

9,

$.61/1b

January

3 lb

1981

$1.54/1b

Central
Soya Company
Cbemurgy
Division
Ft.
lndiana
46802
Wayne,

Alginate
KT 4929-A9

27,

Date

$1.05/1b

Soy Flour
Bontrae
TVP 21021
25 lb

Keltone

suppliers

92123

Company

Dehydrated
Vegetable
Division
Post
Street
0ne
San Francisco,
California
94104

30,

$.32/1b
2400

lb

6,

$5.52/1b
2000
February

lb

4,

$1.65/1b
5000

lb

1981
for a
sbipment
1981
for a
sbipment
1981
for a
sbipment

Table

A-l--continued
Ingredient
and
Names

Ingredient
and
Amount Purcbased
Debydrated

Cross-cut
#29-7041

Sodium

Celery
Code
4 lb

Chloride

Sodium Tripolyphospbate
Fine,
ligbt
density
2 lb
Batter

and

Breading

$3.90/1b
sbipment
5000 lb

March

FMC Corporation
Division
Industrial
Cbemical
2000 Market
Street
Philadelpbia,
Pennsylvania

January

Host

Modern

27,

January
(CVC)

Diamond
Crystal
Salt
Company
916 Soutb
Riverside
Missouri
48079
St. Clair,

Date

1981
for a
of
or greater

1981

13,

bag
for a lo-ton
sbipment
(s-ton
minimum order)

$3.03/80-1b

1981

30,

$38.25/100-1b

bag

19103

Favorite

Chicago,

Breading
11 Purpose
Breading

Cost of Ingredient
at tbe Specified

Foods
General
Corporation
California
Vegetables
Concentrates
c/o Maxwell
1125 Hudson
Street
Hobpken,
07030
New Jersey

Nortb

Recommended

Suppliers'
Addresses

American

Illinois

Food

Service

Corporation

--

60606

Maid

Plaza
200 Garden
City
New York
Garden
City,

Marcb
11530

16,

1981
$12.39 for 6,
5-1b tins
in a
truckload
*

Table

A-l--continued

Ingredient
and
Amount Purcbased

Ingredient
Names

and

Suppliers'
Addresses

Recommended
Batter
Tempura
Batter
Mix
11056

Modern Maid
200 Garden
Clty
Plaza
Garden
New York
City,

Peanut
0i1
10 gal.

Hi Neighbor
3310 Nortb
Gainesville,

Wbolesale
Main
Street
Florida

Cost of Ingredient
at tbe Specified
Marcb

11530

Company

32601

16,

1981

for

$12.51
5-1b

tins
truckload

February

Date

4,

6,
in

1981

$36.54/5-ga1.
container

l6l

Table
fish

A-z--Results
of
species,
turbot,

of
sole

tbe

four

Percent
of Component
Spec i f ied Fi sh Skec 1es
Signif
icant
Varlation

Component

E ac jy

Turbot

zc

14.7
zc 7

Protein

ab

zj.

1.1 b

Asb

zo

Total

100.9

83 1
j: () y

Wbi ting
b

84 6
j: () 4

Sole

84 6
z () 6

bc

15.5

0.03 a
zc. 1

a
0
zo.1

0.3 a
zo. !

1.2 c
zo.c

0.9 a
zo.o

1.
zo.o

100.5

13.5 a

gc.7

+0.8

.4

101.4

100.0

by the same
values
in eacb row designated
different
significantly
letter
not
as
were
determined
Range
by tbe Duncan's
Multiple
test
of significance.
0.01
level
at tbe a

Mean

16.2 c
zg j
@

.8

12

Fat

component

Found
in tbe
and Ind ication
of
in tbe Level
of
Between
Fi sh Spec ies

Pollock

72 3a

Moi s t ur e

abcd

tbe proximate
analysis
pollock,
wblting
and

6d

l62

A-3--Duncan's
Table
Multiple
Range
indicating
tests
( a
0.01)
in the breakpoint
values
(grams force),
fisb
made
from tbe various
patties
combinations
of
specified
species
=

Single

Fisb

Combinations

Wbiting

Pollock

2133 c

Double

Fish

Pollock
Sole

1047

Triple

1175 a

abc

Breakpoint

significantly
p1e Range

Pollock
Whi ting

ab

Turbot

1567

Wbiting
Sole

967 a

Combinations

Pollock:

Wbiting
Sole

Turbot
Whi ting
So1 e

1095 a

Wbi ting

1050 a

Turbot

Wbi ting
95O a

:
:

Sole

61O a

Pollock
Turbot

Turbot

668 a

Fish

Turbot
:

ab

800

Quadruple

Wblting:
Sole

bc

2000

Pollock
Turbot

855

Pollock

Sole

Combinations

and

differences
for minced
tbe four
fisb

575 a

Sole

Pollock
Turbot

858 a

followed
value
by tbe same letter
means
yere not
different
by tbe Duncan's
Multias determined
0.01
of significance.
level
at tbe
a
test
=

163

1625
1575
1525
1475
1425

1375

//

tm

za25
z27,
1225

o
m
<

//

1475

1125
1075
1025
975

925
100:0

)
75:25

50:50

j
25:75

ZATIO OF S0Y FLOUR TO SOY PROTEIN

j
0:100

CONCENTRATE

Fig.
A-l--Effect
of the ratio
of soy flour
to soy protein
breakpoint
of minced
value
fish
concentrate
pattiep.
on the
Total
in the patties
The vertical
soy protein
was 161.
lines
l standard
deviation
above
and below
represent
the
values.
mean

164

1985
1855
1715
1595
1465
1335

fp

447.7

+ 570.5R

+ 5985.2R2

1205

1075

m
2
<
17

945

815
685
555
425
295
l65
0:100

6:94

12:88

18:82

24:76

30:70

RATIO OF S0Y PROTEIN TO FISH

A-z--Effect
Fig.
the breakpoint
vertical
lines
below
the mean

of the ratio
of soy
(BP) of minced
values
+1 standard
represent
values.

(R) on
to fish
protein
patties.
The
fish
qnd
above
deviation

165

'

2330
2220
2110
2000
1890

Matrix

and

Gum

xanthan

1780
Matrix

Alone
..&-u
-

1670

1560

1450

1340

<

't

-'r'

zzao

1z2o

-e--'k

..'-

.-x

10 10

..

900
790

1. 6

3.2

4.8

6.4

8 0
.

PERCENT MATRIX
A-3--Effect
Fig.
of matrix
level
on the breakpoint
with
minced
fish
0.2% xanthan
patties
and without
in the formula.
The vertical
lines
l
represent
deviation
above
and below the mean values.

values
of
gum included
standard

166
3650
3470
3290
3110
2930
2750
2570

q 2390

V 2210

2o3o

1850

z/

,670
z,9o

,/

1310
1130

95oO

0.8

1.6

2.4

3.2

4.0

4.8

5.6

6.4

7.2

PERCENT SODIUM ALGINATE

Fig.
A-i--Effect
of sodium
alginate
on the breakpoint
of minced
fish
The vertical
lines
represent
katties.
standard
deviatzon
above
and below
the mean values.

values

8.0

167

2420
2300
2180

2o6o y
1940

1820
MATRIX
1700
N)
<>

1580
=
o
m
<
=
m

1460
1340
1220
.(

SODIUM ALGINATE

1100

.,,

---

j.

.j

.
.j

a6o
)
7z''o
O
0.4
0

0.8

0.8

1.6

2.4

3.2

l.2
1.6
2.0
2.4
2.8
PERCENT SODIUM ALGINATE

4.0

4.8

5.6

3.2

3.6

4.O

6.4

7.2

8.0

PERCENT MATRIX
Fig.
A-s--Effect
of comparative
and sodium
matrix
alginate
levels
breakpoint
of
the
values
minced
fish
patties.
on
vertical
lines
1 standard
deviation
above
and
represent
below
the mean values.

The

168

2550

l
l
I
I

2420
2290

I
j

2160

0.31

Sodium

TPP

0.5% Sodium

P-%

Chloride

.--0

2o3o

1!'
I
'''

1900

1770

Ey--.

sodjum Tpp apd

o.az
5:
sodxum chlorzde
o

.h
.

#j j

1640

-;

k 1510
;
m 1380

<

jjj

.,-.

-1-

1250
-.$

z12o

.x

99O

T
-

---

T'/

-.w

.
86O

j
730
O

:
O l
.

T
O 2
.

j
0 3
.

l
O 4
.

PERCENT

0 8
.

1 6
.

2 4
.

3 2
.

4 0

SODIDM ALGIXATE

Fig.
A-6--Effect
of sodium
alginate
on
of minced
fish
patties
formulated
with
and/or
0.3% sodium TPP.
The vertical
standard
deviation
above
and below
the

values
the breakpoint
0.51
sodium
chloride
lines
1
represent
mean values.

l69
1325
1275
1225
1175
1125
1075
1025

--

975

925

<

m 875
825
775
725
675

6250.5

0.7

0.9

1.1

1.3

1.5

1.7

1.9

2.1

2.3

PERCENT SODIUM CHLORIDE

A-7--Effect
Fig.
of sodium
chloride
on yhe breakpoint
of minced
fish
patties.
The vertical
lines
represent
standard
deviation
above
and below
the mean values.

2.5

values
1

170
900
860
820
78O
740
7O0
Frying
Time
2 Minutes
at

660

=
D

m
<

62O

3750F

580
54O

500
460
Time
Frying
45 Seconds
at

420

375*F

38O

340

30o

j
20.0

22.5

1- j

25.0

t- )
27.5

30.0

BAKING TIME
(MINUTES AT 400@F)
Fig.
A-8--Effect
breakpoint
values
lines
represent
mean values.

of deep fat
frying
and baking
time on the
fish
of minced
patties.
The vertical
1 standard
deviation
above and below
the

171

Table
A-4--A
summary of the ingredient
varieties
and levels
comprising
tbe set of 54
designed
treatments
study
tbe
effects
to
of
various
turbot,
pollock,
flour,
soy
soy protein
and sodium
concentrate
alginate
combinations
on
textural
attributes
of formulated
patties

Level
of Protein
Contributing
Percent
of the Total
Protein

lngredient
as
in tbe Treatment

Soy Protein
Fish

Soy

100

85

15

85

15

70

30

70

30

70

15

15

Fish

1.
2.
3.

Combinations
Turbot
Pollock
Turbot:pollock

Percent

1.
2.
3.

Soy Protein
Concentrate

Flour

0.2
O.3
0.4

Sodium

(1:1)
Alginate

Levels

l72

Table

A-5--A
model,
fngredlent
summary of the regression
coding
equations
and tbe responses
measured
for a11
for tbe experiment
treatments
desgned
tbe
to study
effects
of various
combinations
of turbot,
pollock,
soy
flour,
and sodfum
alginate
concentrate
soy protein

Yj

(i

8)

1 to

$zxz

izxz

+ SI:XZX:

Xl

Xz

Xa

IFih

szxa

$2aX2Xa

s:zxzxz
+

70

30

Isoy

Flour

30

Isoy

Protein

Concentrate
30

X1

Yj

X2

Xa

Breakpoint!

Acceptabillty
Fillets,

Firmness
Score,
Based
Cost
and IFat

Iprotein
.

'

Score,

Flavor
Score,
Whole
on
Leftovers,

Cost
Based
Filleting
on

Overall
Fisb

l73

X:

Fish
(1001)
Soy Flour
soy Protein

(01)

concentrate

Fish

Fish
Soy Flour
Soy Protein

(701)

concentrate

(0:)

Fish
(01)
Soy Flour
Soy Protein
Concentrate

(30:)

Xz

yn'

SOy

(0:)

(70:)

Flour
SOy
Protein
Concentrate

Fish

(1001)
(0%)

Soy Flour
Soy Protein
Concentrate

(01)
(30:)

(0%)
(01)
(1001)

Fig.
A-g--Mixture
experimental
region
showing
limits
for
levels
of fish.
flour
and
in
soy
concentrate
soy protein
the treatments
chosen
the effects
of various
to study
combinations
of turbot,
pollock,
soy flour,
soy protein
and
sodium
alginate.
concentrate

174

Table
A-6--A
model,
summary of tbe regression
ingredient
and responses
coding
equations
measured
for a11 treatfor tbe experiments
ments
designed
tbe effects
to study
of various
combinations
of turbot,
and
pollock
whiting
!
formulated
sole
and without
witb
soy protezn

i
i (

to

7)

: 1Xz + $2Xc + $ aXa + CqX. + :

$ z aXIXa + $ z :XTX: + $2
+ ZaNXaX: + SIZaXIXZX:
CIaqXZXaX.

SZZaNXIXZXaX:
Treatments

Formulated
Soy Protein

Witbout
X

ITurbot

Ipollock

:ZaqXZXaX:

:ZZqXIXZX:
+

Treatments
With

Formulated

Soy Protein

70

IWbiting
1 00

TWbiting

Isole

Isole

1O0

70

70

Xq

X2

Breakpoint
Firmness
Score , Flavor
Score
:
Acceptabill
ty Score , Cpst Based on Wbole
Fi llets
Iprote in and WfF'at
,

Xa

Xq

$2 qXCX:

Ipollock

100
=

2X!X2

ITurbot
70

l 00
=

aXZXS

Overall
Fish

175

100% Turbot
Z-

5O% Turbot,
5O% Pollock
X:=X2=1/2
Xs=Xq=O

xI=1

xz=xz=x:=1/3
Xz=O

50I Turbot,

5O% Turbot,

50% Sole

5OI Whiting

x,=xq=1/2
xa=xa=o

X:=X3=l/2
Xz=X.=0

-J

XI=Xs=X.=1/3
X2=0

Xz=Xz=Xz=X:=l/4

O
x:=x2=xa=

1/

zy

X:=O

50% Pollock,
0% Sole
Xz=Xq=1/2
Xz=Xz=0

Xc=Xa=Xq=1/3
XT=0

.&.

100% Sole
X.=1

()
100% Pollock
Xz

50% Whiting,

50I Sole
5OI Pollock
50% Whiting
Xz=Xs=1/2
XT=X:=0

Fig.
A-lo--Four
coyponent
Indicate
the design
points
pollock,
whiting
and sole

Xa=X:=l/2
ox
X!
2
.0

1001 Whiting
Xz=l

mixture
experimental
the combinations
of
in the 15 treatments.

design

turbot,

where

176

Table

A-7--Minced
analysis
sequential

fisb
formulas
used
patty
for screening
panelists

Percent
Fisb/soy

Ingredient

of

in

tbe

lngredient
Ratio

Protein

70:30

85:15

Pollock

33.34

40.48

Wbiting

33.35

40.48

14.29

7.14

5.56

2.78

8.73

4.36

Soy

Protein

Soy

Flour

Concentrate

Water
Rebydrated

Celery

1.10

1.10

Rebydrated

Onions

2.18

2.18

Sodium

TPP

0.43

0.43

Sodium

Chloride

0.71

0.71

Sodium

Alginate

0.30

0.30

99.99

99.99

Total

Breakpoint

4362

766

2442

564

l77

Table
A-8--compositions
for evaluating
tbe

of
specified

tbe minced
of
group

Percent

Group I
Pollock,
Turbot,
Soy Flourj
Soy
Protein
Concenand Sodium
trate
Alyinate
Comblpations

Ingredient

(G1)

Turbot

Ingredient
in
the Specified
Group 11
Pollock,
Turbot,
Wbiting
and Sole
Comblnations
Formulated

Wftbout
Soy Protein
(I)

66.84

Pollock
--

Sole

47.84

--

Protein
Concentrate

Soy

Flour

Water

28.65
--

--

--

Group 111
Pollock,
Whiting
and Sole
Comblnations
Formulated
With
Soy Pyotein
Turbot,

(c1)

--

33.49

14.35
5.56
8.79

1.02

1.02

1.02

2.01

2.01

2.01

0.40

0.40

0.40

0.66

0.66

0.66

0.40

0.20

0.20

99.98

99.97

99.97

Rebydrated

Onions
Sodium

TPP

Sodium
Cbloride
Sodium
Alginate

Total

used

the Reference
Group

--

--

Rebydrated
Celery

references
combinations

33.49
47.84

Whiting

Soy

of
for

fisb
patty
ingredient

178
Table
A-g--summary
of
prices
used to calculate
the minced
fisb patty
Ingred

Turbot

ingredient
unit
the cost
of a11
formulas
treatment

ient

Cost/lb

$1
a

Pollock

54

$1.05

Whiting
Sole

tbe

$1.00

$1. 35

Soy

Protein

Soy

Flour

Concentrate
b

Debydrated

Celery

Debydrated

Onions

Sod ium Cblor

61

32

$3. 90

$1.65

ide

04

38

Sod ium Tr ipolypbosphate

Sodium

$5.52

Alginate

.42

Batter

Breading

.41

a Tbe
1ef tovers
for
pr ice of f illeting
f our f isb species
at
was calculated
$ 30/ 1b.
b
Hydrat
of
ing soy f lour
at tbe level
1 part
water
to 1
parts
soy f lour
'
reduces
this
ingredient
to
s cost
$ 12 / lb
c Rebydrated
celery
to
was adjusted
$1. 35/1b.
d Reb
drated
onions
to
were adjusted
.

.65

$.7

I/lb.

a11

Table

A-lo--Averae
values
for treatment
patties
response
(T
combinations
of flsb
turbot;
pollock;
and T:P
P
and sodium
alginate
concentrate
soy flour,
soy protein
=

Protein
Total

Fish

Source
and Percent
Protein
Represented
Source
in Treatment
Soy Flour

85

70

0
15
0
30

formulated
P in

T plus

witb
the specified
amounts),
qual

of
by

Soy Protein
Concentrate

100
85
85
70
70
70
100
85
85
70
70
70
100
85
85
70
70
70

100
85

0
0
15
0

Sodium
Alginate
Leyel

Cf)

Average
Breakpoint

Average

Value

Firmness

(g)

Score

Average
Flavor
Score

Average
Acceptability
Score

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

1900
2933
2883
4125
4483
4975
1221
1524
1511
2458
2717
2667
811
1181
1635
1987
2933
2492

3.1
4.5
5.7
5.6
7.2
6.4
2.3
2.9
3.0
4.0
5.3
4.9
1.8
2.8
2.9
3.2
5.6
4.7

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.A
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
5.2
4.9
5.1
5.1
4.4
5.0
5.1
4.2
5.2
5.3

O.2
0.2
0.2
0.2

2616
4850
4158
5079

4.2
6.1
6.3
7.2

5.1
4.9
4.9
4.4

5.1
5.0

4.6
4.1

<
ko

Table

A-lo--continued

Protein
Total

Fisb

and Percent
Source
Protein
Represented
Source
in Treatment
Soy

Flour

of
by
Sodium
Alginate

Soy Protein
Concentrate

Leyel

Cf)

Average
Breakpoint

Value

(g)

70
70
100
85
85
70
70
70
100
85
85
70
70
70

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

30
15
0
Q
15
0
30
15
0
0
15
0
30
15

0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
O.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.A

4658
4808
1308
2550
3317
4742
3750
6025
1438
1775
2342
3208
3317
3458

100
85
85
70
70
T:P
70
100
85
85
70

0
15
0
30
0
15
0
15
O
30

0
0
15
0
30
15
0
0
15
0

0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3

1767
2600
3292
4129
3742
4000
1253
1925
2202
3150

Average
Firmness

Score
7.5
6.7

4.2
4.5
6.0
6.5
7.3
7.4
3.1
4.0

4.8
6.2
7.2

6.3
3.3

4.4
5.8
6.3
6.4
6.8
2.9
4.0

5.0
4.7

Average
Flavor
Score

Average
Acceptability
Score

4.3
4.7
5.4
5.2
5.1
4.9
4.2
4.5
5.2
5.3
5.2
4.4
4.4
5.2

3.8
4.0
4.8
4.9
4.9
4.8
3.8
4.0
4.5
4.7
4.9
4.7
4.1
5.0

5.8
5.3
5.6
4.5
4.8
5.1
5.4
5.4
5.4
4.6

5.4
5.2
5.4
4.3
4.6
4.7
4.8
5.0
5.4
4.5
o

Table

Protein
Total

A-lo--continued

and Percent
Source
Represented
Protein
Source
in Treatment

Fisb

70
70
100
T:P 85
85
70
70
70

Soy

Flour

of
by

Soy Protein
Concentrate

Sodium
Alginate
Leyel

Cf)

0
15
0
15

30
15

0.3
0.3

0
0

0.4

15

0.4

30
0

0
30
15

0.4
0.4

15

0.4
0.4

Average
Breakpoint

Average

Average

Average
Accept-

Value

Firmness

Flavor

ability

(g)

Score

Score

Score

6.7
6.4
2.6
3.4
4.4
4.0
6.4
5.0

4.9
5.0
5.5
5.4
5.4
4.6
5.2
5.3

4.6
4.7
4.4
5.1
5.1
4.4
4.8
5.2

3704
4113
1071
1775
1625
2808
2717
2425

Table

A-lo--continued

Protein

Total

Source
Protein

Source
Fisb

Soy

and

of

Percent

by

Represented
in
Flour

Treatment

Sodium
Alginate

Soy Protein
Concentrate

100
85
85
70
70
70
100
85
85
70
70
70
100
85
85
70
70
70

100
85
85
70

70
70

Leyel

(t)
O.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

0
15
0
30
0
15

0
0
15
0
30
15

0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2

Cost

Using
Pieces
(Cost
Per
1b)

$.35
$.33
$.38

Cost

Using

Fillets
(Cost

Per

$1.26

14.0
14.4
16.6
14.8
19.2
17.0
14.0
14.0
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.A4
10.45
8.60
8.62
8.61
12.27
10.43
10.44
8.59
8.61
8.60

15.5
15.7
17.9
15.8
20.2
18.0

0.03
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.04

$1.10

$.31
$.36

$1.00

$.33
$.39
$.31
$.42
$.37
$.36

$1.16
$
$1.06

$.35

$.34

$.39

$.32

$.42
$.37

Percent
Fat

Protein

$1.16
$

$.42

Percent

1b)

.95

$1.05

$1.26
$1.11
.95

$1.00

$1.26
$1.11
$1.16
.95

$1.06
$1.01
.90

$.35
$.33
$.38
$.31
$.42
$.36

$
$

$
$

$
$

.80

.85

.70

.80

.75

0.03

Table

A-lo--contlnued

Protein
Total

and Percent
Source
Protein
Represented
Source
in Treatment

Fisb

Soy

10O

85
85
70
70
70
1O0

85
85
70
70
70
100
85
85
70
70
T:P
70
10O

85
85
70
70
70

Flour

of
by
Sodium
Alginate

Soy Protein
Concentrate

Leyel

Cf)

Cost

Using

Pieces

(Cost
Per
1b)

0
15
0
30
0
15
0
15
0
30
O
15

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

0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4

$.35
$.33
$.39
$.31
$.42
$.37
$.36
$.34
$.39
$.32
$.42
$.37

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

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

0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
O.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3

$.35
$.33
$.38
$.31
$.42
$.36
$.35
$.33
$.39

$.31
$.42
$.37

Cost Psing
Fillets
(Cost
Per
1b)
.90

.8O
.85

.70

.81

.75

.91

.80

.86

.70

.81

.76

$1.08
$
.95

$1.00
.82

$
$
$
$1.08
$
.93

.88

.95

$1.01
.82

$
$
$

.93

.88

Percent

Percent

Protein

Fat

15.5
15.7
17.9
15.8
20.2
18.0
15.5
15.6
17.8
15.8
20.2
18.0

0.03
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.03

14.8
15.0
17.2
15.3
19.7
17.5
14.8
15.0
17.2
15.3
19.7
17.5

6.16
5.24
5.25
4.31
4.33
4.32
6.16
5.23
5.24
4.31
4.33
4.32

Table

A-lo--continued

Protein

Total

Fish
100
85
85
T:P
70
70
70

of
by

Source
and Percent
Protein
Represented
Source
in Treatment
Soy

Flour

0
15
0
30
0
15

Soy Protein
Concentrate
0
0
15
0
30
15

Sodium
Alginate
Leyel

Cost

(Cost
Per
1b)

(*1)
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4

Using

Pieces

'

$.36
$.34
$.39
$.32
$.42
$.37

Cost

Using

Fillets

(Cost
Per
1b)

Percent
Protein

$1.09
$
$1.01
$
$

14.8
15.0
17.2
15.3
19.6
17.5

.96

.83

.94

.88

Percent
Fat

6.15
5.23
5.24
4.30
4.32
4.31

>

Table
A-ll--Averaje
combinations
of

flsb

values
for
response
that
formulated
were

and Percent
Protein
Source
Protein
by
Represented
in Treatment

treatment
witbout

100
0
0
0
50
50
50
0
0
0
33
33
33
0
25

Whiting

from

tbe

Average
Value

Pollock

soy

prepared
protein

specified

of Total
Source
Breakpoint

Turbot

patties

30I

Sole

(g)

Ayerage
Flrmness
Score

Average
Flavor
Score

Average
Acceptabillty
Score

1037

2.5

5.2

4.1

100

1825

4.6

4.8

4.8

100

1654

3.9

4.8

4.5

100

2640

3.8

5.1

4.5

50

1541

3.4

4.8

4.3

50

1496

3.1

5.1

4.7

50

1775

3.2

5.0

4.7

50

50

1700

4.1

5.0

4.9

50

50

2117

4.2

5.0

4.8

50

50

2038

3.8

5.1

4.6

33

33

1304

3.4

5.1

5.0

33

33

1600

3.8

4.9

4.4

33

33

1434

3.0

5.1

4.7

33

33

33

1775

4.2

4.9

4.8

25

25

25

1550

3.8

5.1

4.7

Table

A-ll--continued

Protein
and Percent
Source
Protein
Represented
by
in Treatment

Turbot
100
0

Pollock

0
100

Wbiting
0

of Total
Source

Cost

Using

Fillets

Sole
0
0

100

100

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

33

33

33

33

33

33

33

33

33

33

33

33

25

25

25

25

(Cost
Per
1b)

$1.26
$
$

Percent
Protein

Percent
Fat

14.0

12.30

15.5

0.03

14.8

0.34

13.0

0.30

14.8

6.16

14.4

6.32

13.5

6.30

15.2

0.18

14.2

0.17

13.9

0.32

14.8

4.22

14.2

4.21

13.9

4.31

14.4

0.22

14.3

3.24

.90

.86

$1.12
$1.10

$1.06
$1.19
$
$1.01
$
$1.01
$1.09
$1.08
$
$1.04
.88

.99

.96

Table

A-lz--Average
combinations
of fish

Protein

Protein

values
for
response
tbt
formulated
were

and Percent
Source
by
Represented
in Treatment

patties
prepared
treatment
witb 30I soy protein

Average
Value

Pollock

Wbiting

tbe

specified

of Total
Source
Breakpoint

Turbot

from

Sole

(g)

Average

Average
Firmness
Score

Average
Flavor
Score

Acceptabillty
Score

70

5225

5.2

5.1

4.9

70

6947

6.6

5.2

4.9

70

7786

6.3

5.0

4.7

70

5850

5.4

5.1

4.9

35

35

7683

6.0

5.0

4.7

35

35

6117

5.7

4.8

4.4

35

35

5800

5.0

5.3

5.l

35

35

7075

6.2

4.8

4.4

35

35

5917

5.9

4.7

4.5

35

35

6417

5.8

5.1

4.8

23.3

23.3

23.3

6071

5.8

5.4

5.1

23.3

23.3

23.3

6288

6.3

4.7

4.5

23.3

23.3

23.3

4629

5.1

4.8

4.7

23.3

23.3

23.3

5575

6.0

5.1

4.9

17.5

17.5

17.5

17.5

5058

5.9

5.2

5.1
-4

Table

A-lz--continued

Protein
Protein

Turbot

70
0
0
0
35
35
35
0
0
0
23.3
23.3
23.3
0
17.5

and Percent
Source
Represented
by
in Treatment

Pollock
0
70
O
0
35
0
0
35
35
0
23.3
23.3
0
23.3
17.5

Whiting
0
0
70
0
0
35
0
35
O
35
23.3
0
23.3
23.3
17.5

of Total
Source
Sole
0
0
0
70
0
0
35
0
35
35
0
23.3
23.3
23.3
17.5

Cost Psing
Fillets
(Cost
Per
1b)

$1.00
$

Percent
Protein

Percent
Fat

17.0

8.62

18.0

0.03

17.5

0.24

16.2

0.22

17.5

4.32

17.2

4.43

16.6

4.42

17.8

0.14

17.1

0.12

16.9

0.23

17.5

2.96

17.1

2.96

16.9

3.03

17.2

0.16

17.2

2.28

.75

.72

$
.90

$
$
$

.88

.86

.95

$
.74

$
$
$
$
$
$

.83

.81

.82

.88

.88

.79

$
.84

REFERENCES

Allen,

C.E.:

and

E.A. Foegeding,
teristics
interactions
Food Technology
35 (5):

1981.
Some lipid
in muscle
foods--A
253-257.

and

Amerine,
M.A.,
Sequential
Evaluation
New York.
Anon.,

1973.
Western

1980.
A.O.A.C.
edition.
Washington,
Babbitt,

Babbitt,

Bailey,

Pangborn,
and E.B.
In ''Principles
analysis.
of Food/'
p. 445-449.

R.M.

Better

Fisheries

use

6f
87

''Official
Association
D.C.

fish

Methods

of

when

37,

(1):

of
Official

characreview.

Roessler,
1965.
of Sensory
Academic
Press,
used

in

patties.

45.
Analysis
1
Analytzcal

''

13th
Chemists,

and D.K.
D.L.
Crawford,
J.K.,
Law, 1972.
Decomposition
of trimethylamine
oxide
and changes
in
protein
extractability
during
frozen
of minced
storage
(Merluccius
and qntact
products)
muscle.
hake
Journal
of Ayricultural
Foo
20
C
emistry
1052-1054.
an
(5):
J.K.,

D.K.

Law,

acceptapce
shrimp.

and
Journal

shelf

of

and D.L.
Improved
Crawford
1976.
t
of frozen
mznced
with
life
fish
Food
Science
35-37.
41 (1):

R.S.,
1976.
of the resources
A review
vailable
with
fisheries,
reference
particular
to British
to
minced
fish
technology.
In James N. Keay (ed.)
''Conference:
The Production
and Utilization
of MechaniFish)
Fish
cally
Recovered
Flesh
(llnced
p. 9-17,
:
Ministry
Fzsheries
proceedings.
of Agriculture,
and
Food,
Torry
Research
Station,
Aberdeen.
''

Barr,

J.H.
A.J.,
Goodnight,
J.P.
1979.
''User's
D.M. Chilko,
Inc.,
Raleigh,
NC.

Bello,

R.A.,
utilizing
of Food

and

G.M.
minced

Science

Sall,
Helwig,
J.T.
and
Ed.
Guide.''
SAS Institute,

Pigott,
1979.
A new approach
fish
flesh
products.
in dried
44 (2):
362.
355-358,

l89

to
Journal

l9O

Bello,

R.A.,
Storage
of Food

and G.M.
stability
Processing

1980.
Pigott,
Dried
fish
considerations.
and economic
and Preservation
(4):

Blackwood,

patties:
Journal
247-260.

1973.
C.M.,
Utilization
of mechanically
flesh--canadian
rated
experience.
In Rudolf
''Fishery
Products/'
(ed.)
Fishing
p. 325-329.
(Books)
Ltd.
Surrey,
England.

bremner,
H.A.,
Australian
trials.
Bremner,

panel
from
13:

sepaKreuzer
News

Mechanially
1978.
separated
fish
from
flesh
species--A
of storage
snmmary of results
Food Technology
in Australia
30 (10):
393-401.

H.A.,
G.M.
assessment
Australian
307-318.

Laslett,
and J. O11ey:
Taste
1978.
minces
of textural
of fish
propertzes
species.
of Food
Technology
Journal

Brown,

Toledo,
D.D.,
Relationship
and R.T.
1975.
between
chopping
and water
and fat
binding
in
temperatures
Journal
comminuted
batters.
of Food Science
4O:
meat
1061-1064.

Carver,

J.H.,
quality

and F.J.
protein.

King,
Food

1971.

Fish

Engineering

Chao,

L. 1979.
of ektruded
Development
underutilized
fish
species.
M.S.
Florida,
Gainesville,
Florida.

Cheng,

C.S.,
thermal
of Food

Cheng,

C.S.,
Effects
texture.

Cochran,
2nd
Cole,

D.D.

of

W.G.:
editton,

seafood
thesis,

patties
University

from
of

and N.B. Webb, 1979a.

Effect
of
minced
fish
ge1
Journal
texture.
on
A4:
1080-1086.

Hamann,

processing
Science
D.D.

offers
high
scrap
43 (1):
75-76.

Hamann,

X.B.
Webb, and V. Sidwell,
1979b.
and storage
fish
gel,
time on minced
of Food Science
44:
1087-1092.

species
Journal
and

G.M.

Jobn

Cox,
Wiley

''Experimental
1957k
New York.
and Sons,

Design/'

and J.N.
1976.
of rancidKeay,
The development
in minced
herring
products
during
cold
storaye.
The Productzon
In James
N. Keay (ed.)
''Conference:
Recovered
Flesh
of Mechanically
and Utilization
Fish
(Minced
Fishl/l
66-69,
of
proceedings.
Ministry
p.
Fisheries
and Food,
Research
Torry
Agriculture,
Aberdeen.
Station,
B.J.;

ity

1981.
Cornell,
J.A.,
and the
Models,
Wiley
and Sons,

with
''Experiments
Mixtures:
Data.''
Analysis
of Mixture
Incw
New York,
N.Y.

Designs,
John

19l

Cornell,
J.A.,
variables
experiments.

and
and

J.C.
Deng,
ingredient
of
Journal

1981.
Combining
process
in mixing
comppnents
Food Science,
in review.

Babbitt,
Crawford,
D.L.,
D.K. Law, J.K.
and L.S.
l4cGill,
Yield
and acceptability
of machine
1972.
separated
minced
flesh
from some marine
food fish.
Journal
of
Food
Science
37 (4):
551-553.
B.,
Dgblartsson,
1975.
Utilization
of blue whiting,
Microfor human consumption.
mesistius
poutassou,
Journa
Board
Res.
Fish.
32:
747-751.
Canada

Daley,

Development
L.H.,
J.C.
and J.A.
Deng,
Cornell,
1978.
of a sausage-type
mullet
from minced
product
using
surface
methodology.
Journal
of
Food
Science
response
43 (5):
1501-1506.

Delvalle,

F.R.,

plant
Pilot
with
trials
38
Science

Padilla,
A. Ruz,
and R. Rodriguez,
1973.
production
of and large
scale acceptance
quick-salted
fish
cakes.
of Food
Journal
246-250.
(2):

M.

Toledo,

Deng,

R.T.
J.C.,
temperature
actomyosin
273-277.

Deng,

R.T.
Toledo,
and
J.C.,
protein
interaction
and
comminuted
flesh
produts.
46 (4):
1117-1121.

Deng,

Tomaszewski,
The use
and F.B.
1980.
J.C.,
of response
methodology
surface
determine
the effects
of salt,
to
tripolyphosphate
and sodium
alginate
of
on the quality
fish
from minced
patties
prepared
fish
crpaker.
In
''Advances
and
in Fish
Science
p. 218-223.
Ltd.
Farnham,
Published
by Fishing
News Books
Surrey,
Egland.

and D.A. Lillard,

1976.
Effect
of
and pH' on protein-protein
interaction
in
solutions.
Journal
of Food Science
41:
1981.
D.A. Lillard,
Prteinfat
and water
binding
in
of Food Science
Journal

TechnologyzM

Tomaszewski,

and
surface
response
from minced
fish
review.

The
Cornell,
1981.
the preparation
of
mullet.
of Food
Journal

Deng,

F.B.
J.C.,
mixed
use of
fish
patties
Science,
in

Dingle

J.R.,
and J.A.
1975.
Hines,
Protein
instability
in
t
mtnced
flesh
from fillets
and frames
of several
commercial
atlantic
fishes
Journal
during
storage
at -5OC.
Res.
32 (6):
775-783.
Fish.
Board Canada

J.A.
in

192

F.A.O.

1971.
Gullard,

''The Fish
ed. Fishing

Fedetal

Register,
38
rules

Department
1973
9134-9235.
(70):

Furia,

1972.
T.E.?
Sequestrants
of Additives.''
Ed. Furia,
Cleveland,
Ohio.

Gill,

T.A.?

Keith,

R.A.

Hare,

L.B.,
tion.

Rose,
A.J.
John Wiley

1974.

Mixture

Food

the Ocean.''
Ltdo
Lpndon,
of

J.A.
England.

Agriculture,

proposed

''The Handbook
Rubber
Co.,

in food.
In
Chemical
T.E.

Textural
and B.S. Lall,
1979.
red hake and haddock
muscle
in frozen
and changes
to chemical
parapeters
of Food Science
proteins.
Joprnal

deterioration
of
related
storage
as
in the myofibrillar
44q
661-667.
Gilman,
L.,
and
Approach.''

Resources
of
News Books

1970.
and

''APL/360.
Inco
Sons,

An Interactive
New York,
N.Y.

applied
designs
28 (3):
50-56,

Technology

to food
62.

formula-

Hing,

and C.G. Cavaletto,

Tang,
F.S.,
N.Y.A.
1972.
Stability
of fish
Journal
of
at 1ow temperature
storage.
sausage
Food
37 (2):
Science
191-194.

Ishii,

and K. Amnno,
1973.
S.,
Reprocessing
In Rudolf
products.
posite
Kreuzer
Products/'
News
Fishing
p. 281-283.
England.
Surrey,

King,

King,

King,

1973b.
F.J.,
for the fish

F.J.,
paties
F.J.,
Fisheries

Improving

stick

Review

F.J.,
and
the ocean'
12-21.

Product
King,

into
''Fishery
(Books)
Ltd.,

F.J.,
1973a.
Acceptability
of main
dishes
based
mixtures
of
ground
beef
with
ground
on
obtained
from underused
Journal
of
sources.
Food Technology
504-508.
36 (10):

Fisheries
King,

fish

(ed.),

J.H.

food.

trade:
35

carver, t970.
commercial

and G. Flick,
eqally
rate
Development
and

G.J.
Review

(8):

the supply
A progress
26-32.

Flick,

1973a.
in taste
7

(9):

Beefish

preference
100, 104.

1973b.
Beefish
31-33.
35 (7):

(entrees)
fish

Xilk

of minced
report.

How to
Fisheries

nearly
Review

use

and

com-

and

blocks
Marine
a11
32

(12):

hamburger
Food
tests.

patties.

Marine

193
King,

F.J.,
F.
ized
fish
Fisheries

Learson,
R.J.:
applicatton
processing.
Lee,

Heiligman,
and E. Weirbicki,
1974.
food
muscle
material.
binding
as a
Review
36 (1):
18-20.

SolubilMarine

G. Reierstad,
and V.G. Ampola,
1972.
The
of continuous
geafood
centrifugation
to
Food Technology
26 (7):
32-34.

C.M.,
and R.T.
Toledo:
1976.
Factors
affecting
characteristlcs
textural
of cooked
fish
comminuted
muscle.
of Food Science
Journal
391-397.
Y1 (2):

Martin,

R.E.,
Technology

Miyauchi,

D.,

storage
(Sebastes
use o
592-594.
Miyauchi,
of
6

D.,
edible

(4):

1976.
30

Mechanically-deboned

(9):

fish

flesh.

Food

64-70.

M. Patashnik,
and G. Kudo, 1975.
Frozen
of minced
keeping
qulity
black
rockfish
spp.)
washing
improved
by cold-water
and
Ish
binder.
Journal
of Food Science
40 (3):
and M. Stetnberg,
flesh
from fish.
165-171.

1970.
Fishery

Machine
Industrial

separation
Research

Moledina

K.H.,
J.M. Regenstein,
R.C. Baker,
and K.H.
t
Sternkraus,
1977a.
for
A process
the preparation
of
dehydrated
fish-soy
salted
cakes.
Jurnal
of Food
Science
765-767.
42 (3):

Moledina
and K.H.
K.H.,
J.M. Regenstein,
R.C. Baker,
!
Effects
1977b.
Steznkraus,
of antioxidants
and chelaof frozen
stored
echanically
tors
on the stability
deboned
flounder
after
filleting.
meat from racks
of Food Science
Journal
42 (3):
759-764.
Morris,

Polysaccharide
1973.
conformation
of food structure.
In Birch,
and L.F.
G.G.,
(ed.),
''Molecular
and Function
of
Structure
Carbohydrate/'
Applied
Sciene
p. 125-132.
Ltd:
New York.
E.R.,

as

a basis

Green
Food
Publishers

dhemical
T.,
Nakayama,
and M. Yamamoto,
1977.
Physical,
and
evaluations
of frozen-stored
deboned
sensory
(minced)
Journal
fish
flesh.
of Food Science
42 (4):
900-905.

Reforming
1976.
Newman, D.A.,
of fish
products
with
texture
from frozen
fish--the
Copitrol
flake
cutting
system.
In James
N. Keay
The Production
(ed.), ''Conference:
and Utilization
of Mechanically
Recovered
Fish
Flesh
Fishl/'
(Minced
31-33,
proceedings.
Ministry
of
p.
Fisheries
Research
Agriculture,
Torry
and Food,
Station,
Aberdeen.

l94
Okada,

1973.
E. Noguchi,
Trends
in the utklization
pollock
In Rudolf
in Japan.
Kreuzer
(ed.),
''Fishery
Products/'
189-193.
Fishing
News (Books)
p.
England.
Ltd.,
Surrey,
M., and
of Alaska

Patashnik,
M., G. Kudo, and D. Miyauchi,
1974.
Bone parof some minced
ticle
fish
muscle
products.
content
Journal
of Food Science
39 (3):
588-591.
Ravichander,

and

The production
1976.
and
Keay,
fish
from several
commercially
Imprtant
In James
species.
''Conference:
N. Keay (ed.),
The Productton
and Utilization
Recovof Mechanically
Flesh
Fishl/'
ered
Fish
(Minced
18-24,
proceedings.
p.
of Agriculture,
Ministry
Fisheries
and Food,
Torry
Research
Aberdeen.
Station,
N.,

of

properties

Rees,

1972.
126:

D.A.,
Journal

J.N.
minced

Shapely
257-273.

polysaccharides.

Rekhina,
N.I.,
The use of fish
1973.
for human consumption.
In Rudolf
Products/'
''Fishery
295-296.
p.
Ltd.,
England.
Surrey,
Rizvi,

1981.
kheological
Tecbnology
Food
systems.

S.S.H.,

meat

Seligsohn'
Food
1974.
, M.R.,
Food
Enginerring
future?
Shenouda ! S.Y.K.,
frozen
durtng
Research
26:

from

1980.
Theories
of fish
storage
275-311.

of lower market
value
Kreuzer
(ed.),
(Books)
News
Fishing

sea:

(6):

Wave
47-59.

of protein
flesh.

E.F.,
J.G.
Endres,
P.T.
Tybor,
and
Use of vegetable
ptotein
in processed
Journal
of the American
Oi1 Chemists'
320-327.

Soo,

H.M.,

Sander,
1977.
textural
parameters
profile
texture
42 (1):
163-167.

E.H.

to
response
Instron
using
Food
Science

comminuted
238-243.

35 (5):

Sipos,

and

of

properties
the

46

Biochemical

of

the

denaturation
Advances
in

Food

1979.
Y. Nakajima,
seafood
products.
56 (3):
Society

of sensory
of breaded
shrimp
shapes
analysis.
Journal
of

Prediction

Effect
1967.
of frozen
T.,
Sorensen,
storage
tional
properties
of separated
fish
mince.
''Conference:
Keay (td.),
The Production
of Mecianically
Recovered
tion
Fish
Flesh
Fishl/'
proceedings.
Ministry
p. 56-65,
Fisheries
Torry
Research
and Food,
ture,
Aberdeen.

the funcIn James

and Uttliza(Minced
6f AyriculStatzon,

on

N.

195

Spinelli,

J.,

Expanded

species.
Teeny,

F.M.,

zation
muscle.
414-417.
Webb,

Koury,
H. Groninger,
for fish
protetn
Food Technology
31

B.

used

from

(5):

R. Miller,
underutilized
184-187.

1977.

and D. Miyauchi,
1972.
Preparation
and utiliof frozen
blocks
of minced
black
rockfish
Journal
of Milk
and Food Technology
35 (7):

E.R.
and A.J.
Hardy,
G.G. Giddings,
Howell,
Influence
of mechanical
1976.
separation
proxiupon
functional
and teltural
properties
mate composition,
of frozeh
muscle
characteristics
Atlantic
croaker
of Food Science
Journal
tissue.
1 (6):
1277-1281.
N.B.,

M.,
and J. Wong: 1974.
method
chemical
for tsolating
Journal
of Food
fih
flesh.
1260.

Yamamoto,

Young,

and

A research
note:
bone fragments
39 (6):
Science

Simple
in minced
1259-

R.H.,
E. Coria,
Baldry,
and J.
E.,
Cruzs
1979.
Develogment
and acceptabilzty
of a modified
testing
salt/fzsh
product
from shrimp
by-catch.
prepared
Journal
of Food Technology
14 (5):
509-519.

BIOGRAPHICAL

Robert

in

Queens,

received
tbe

New

bis

Agriculture

May 1979

after

September

Englewood

Cliffs,

f rom June

to

Florida

obtaln

b1s

llved

He

was

o btained

and

Life

tbrough

tbe

Master

at

September
of

New

at

Cornell

1979.

tbe

Lipton

J.

Soups
tben

He

1979

Science

until

degree

May 1982.

196

school

of

State

of

Inc.,
Dfvislon,

the

tbe

from

product

Meals

May 1982

in

from

graduatlng

attended

from

College

Unlversity

Company
and

from

Bachelor

York

area

and

Jersey,

Universlty
After

in

xew Jersey,
1979.

tbe

Cornell

worked

Tbomas

August

from

from

H1s

1957,

31,

NeW

high

Clifton.

Sclences

May

be

Cllfton,

up tbrough
in

system

on December

ln

education

Unverslty,
fr

born

was

attendance

1975

development

of

York.

scbool

k egree

Cornell

Rockower

early

public

science
of

Keith

SKETCH

University

and

bopes

University

to
ln

that
I certify
opinion
it conforms
and is
presentation
thesis
for
the
as a

this
study
and th4t
I have read
in my
standards
of
acceptable
scholarly
to
fully
adequate,
in scope
and quality,
degree
of Master
of Science.
x

C airman
W. Ste en Otwe
Professor,
Food
Assistant
Nutrition
and
Science
H=an
,

that
I certify
conforms
opinion it
and is
presentation
thesis
for
the
a
as

and that
this
study
in my
I have read
of
cholarly
standards
to acceptable
fully
adequate,
in scope
and quality,
of Mqster
of Science.
degree

I certify
that
opinion
it conforms
presentaion
and is
for
thesis
the
as a

V..

,,'

k.

t.w

' C Deng
r
J'* Associate
Science

oc

al

an
Food
sor,
Human Nutrition

Prof

and

in my
this
study
and that
I have read
cceptable
standards
of scholarly
to
fully
and qvality,
adequate,
in scope
degree
of Master
of Sctence.

J.A.

'*

Cornell
Professor,
Institute
Agricultural
Statistics

Statistics
of Food and
Sciences

This
submitted
Faculty
kas
thesis
to the Graduate
Council,
of Agriculture
and to the Graduate
College
futfillment
of
the
requirements
partial
acceptd
as
of Science.
of Master
degre

May

T.

1982
Dea

Dean

College

of

ra duate
or
and Research

of

iculture

Studies

the
and was
for the

y(,..,'
1::::7--*
1::::7-.*
!!llt,.d
d::::7--*
''.'
:::!''''
::::r.''
::::'
:::::.*
::::7-.*
:::::)19*
1::::---*
,s,,d
ir:jjk,d
.'7..:11:.*
':::::)*
*r:::!I.'
::!r!''
2::::*
11*
5*
:7.::1k..*
yd
y'ikty';d
d4*
E'
!!!!21ik..'
lkti..'d
:'2:2:::.*
6.'.')6:(;'
-..'
!!j!jljj,,d
.t'..'7''q.''
848
d.*::::::,41*
'.''':'('
'..!4,,;;,.67:*

@'t'jt.C'
11::::::)1)*
11::::2:81.*
dk'
4:t'
$L....;'jj?'t.'-..',-',)t
d!jd
slli!i!r:d
1!!:!211k,.*
11:::::::11-*
11::2:::)11*
*3*3*
1:::::::)).*
11:2::::::)*
11::::::)4.*
(1141)1;*
*)jy..'.'
11::::::11,*
11::::::11)*
11::2:::2:.*
11:::::22:.*
14:::::::,,*
11:::::221.*
:td
!'
::::::z::d
p,'
I,'
qd
;,'
'yd
l:!!!s!!:,d
liisiss!!:d
')'
,'.'''.'
,t;-'-.'-';'-'
'-'
'ty'y'
',''
j:!j!!!!!rd
dt''1)..'
'.('
'C'
'iiit..E;'
.'','
'k'.'
..,:!tttjjjd
E;'.'
y'
ddd
p;d
,','i't.t'
'.','
11::::::)1.*
.!:1112:!!:*
11::::::1,3*
'.'.'
jd
;'X'-t''-.'t'
!'
-'i'
lli!!ll-d
jd
7::111::::7'.*
q::jlr::::'''d
'1j!::22rL'
.'.'
ik'
''''''....'''.
.'.d'l)i)d
:'ijt'''lrrt.
jl!i!!!);d
liii!!!lkd
liii!l;/d

t'')'.;'
1IIiEiii5!!:'
41122!E!111.,*
-i1!EiEE11r,.'
(:::1IL--.-.'
1il!E2I:..'
(:::111....,*
1i!!EEEi11t,'
-i1!!!E2lI(..'
(:::1It''-..'
!I1!EEEEiI!..'
111E1EE125!t*
(:::11!....,*
!:1lr:7'1:11:.'
411:E5!E!!:k*
-.!!!!Ej!1r,.'
(:::jIi.-,,.'
11IEiE5!!!t;'
IIi!!E!::'
111:E5151!t:*
111!2E!11:,.*
dll:EiEii!lkd
-'i!!EEEp1(.,'
111Ei2E5!!l:'
1;1!2EEEj1t,,*
1i!!EEEi1j.'
dlE!siiil!::d
4;!15E!411r,.8
I:!j!EErIj'
lliL...:1II:.'
:2iI::7'r:)l..'
'I!iiiEEIh:''
'11k---::1Ik-.'
11EEEE522,:*
11E152!!,::*
iI!!!Ep11.,'
,'.1!:5E1111:,*
I1!EE!!!1l..'
.1!iE!i11l..'
::11!::::--'*
ll!!EEpll.-d
;::11k.,,,'
:::jIt-.-..'
ll!:r':!jl!.d
:!E!!lk'
:::11L.....'
:::IIt-,-..'
:::11(-,.,.*
:::IIL..,.'
:::11:--,..*
1!E!E!!1k*
15jE4!,1;*
l;sE!!!!!:d
kkiEiiiill;d
(:::11L---.,'
illEiE!i!!t:d
IlliE!!!!!:d
r1I::::::)'
1 ($
#

!.

'

d,..d

.111::::::)*
.'.'
'.'
IIE!!EEI,kX
x )j.:. jtt ) j E
E
; .Ltl q.)$(
'*4
7li?
tly
)t ;1.'tLL.(..).
i E
'. tsljj
F i'
!..Ct.i
tlf
)q.(.
I6tL
E
gi)(k ..t !
). L..
)
ilt y(il t 11'.). .(
t
k ) k j ' ti:1 t
i
k
1
7 ii
'ilti'L ?? .1l'i:1.
E
7).t:i@
i
l k;..yq
.)L!t,kL@
(!.,. t.17.
.! E
E
r ,j(L.).?E )$t
:'t
iE
C'l)Ll
i
% l h
y. )
.$)'41 )k?F t')
i
flj J)
li1..t ).5li
.
t...t
''' LL'''' '$ hYt E7 1
?
.L%'' l r, j.t '7
? 1
))v 11ILt ::E'
??.':C'.'iF.'
i....'.
4).t Lb
..
. ..
It.!-i!..tE.;.... ' .'.''..
.. .. '.
...L-,'...,'.--.':,,-'..i;;'.
(i. ,'. y'.''..'.
Et). ..... ..
''t...'.
''r!')((qi'.
.
.

.
.''.' '..'...
...
' '''.''''....''' .'.'
' '' '''''.'''
.'' ' '''...... '''......'....
' '''
'''
q.. ' . ..
'.''''
.. ''.
''''.'..''.'''.'
'' '..''t'7'...' ''..'''.
.
...
.
'
'
' ''
'bb. . '..'...
' ...'.'' ''...
.
'
' '.' .'''....''.'.....
....
'..'''' .
. ..' '.''.'....
' '
::11:::.7:11k,.
' ' ....
.-112::::::.
(:::1Ik,,.,.
i
':jI(::r':11k..
,1IiE55E!!,:.
;,Ei!!!1r.
,;1!EEEE1Ij;.
IllEii!!l;.
llill:llll
lqjll:llll 't
.......
. ...''..
s'i
.
.'.
.
.'''.' .
*v'.t'Kt.tr'qy''.j.t.t..
jl:::!r: tl::::l,i
41::::19, j!!!!lk
1d;:::::
44::::,4
(4:::!:,.
11!!!2k
11:::)11.
dt::::)p12::::)).
k!!!sll-.
qrltrrr''
IIEE!Ik
.11E251k.
dlEE!!
IIEE!Ik
,!EEl,.
::jh:::''
:::Ik,,.
41:E2!,:
::IL..,
(::Ik,,.
qjl:r-:lk.::1:7.:1k..L
'
.-y...;gi-,.,t(..-..)-'.....$i-.........,:......'...-,..-..).-'......',.'...'.-.,'..-..
.
..
..
,
'
):,
'
...
..
X
ZIQ
'
UJ
l.n
S
C
1.
Z.
8
O C
i e 1'
' ''''' .
1. $
C
li
().).y
re S Cn t2R i On 8
. '' '. .'
t
11:::::::!:.
Iliii!!l)''
'.t
1iI:::::2::.
..
::::i!t-,,-.
'
..
111255E25,15.
jll!:!!Es!!:.
:1!EEE!1.1I1iEiE5i!!:.
.i!!EEEEllL,.
11IIE5ii!!!:..
1tiEEEEE!!t.
111:2E555!,:.
.r...- ''
.. . .('''.
..
.
.. .(q'i-'.
.'.
'i?-'''t',#;.1k'...'........'.
.
'''t.
.t3tL.q
..
t.
......
... .
.
)q. .
.f#/..d'
t
tr,kgh
. .!'.' . '.
... .
.
. . t'... .....
)..
ty
/:'.,
'
'... '.
'F.
.. '
''
.. ... ..... '...'
.
. . ' jjjjj!!r ' .. ' '.
jjjjjjjgs
qj!;):1jj,.
(gjj,:.,
qjjgyq)jjj
'
.
.
..
)!
.. ....
lkli!!!l;IIEEEEE!IL.
4.11.:::::2.
'::1It::!!'-' lli!!!!l.
IIIEEEE!IL.
.
r.... .. ..
.. .'.'..'..
1i!!iEE)l..'':II::7'::II;.'.
.
.
.
.
lkllrk
.
.
j'i,bi.fq'-'qi,,
.
. . '' ....'....
),?jj,)..t).'jL.,j,b:..jL';....i
jj:y;)j.
jty))l jjk!jyjs
gjjj.,.
(ygjj,,j
...
.
.'
.
tjj,..
rggjryy
)
.
'' .
tyy.k.
'''. ..' '
X
. t' X.' .' .'.'.'..'''''''
.
..1. ' t''' '.''..''..''.'' ' ..
.. . ' .''' '''.
Cl
'kv...
..' .'
''.t. t..'' .' '' '.''..'''.''.'''
.
.. .......i..
'11::::.
4:::::,' ::il:::-'
.'!ip,;I''
.
. ..''.
'lr::::,
::1dk,-.
::11k,,.
jlE!!!j.
'jI.-j:1r, klEjsll..:!l::-:l:k
:::!k...
tjj!!jj.,
.k1EjEyl.,
,IEEE!!;.
jijEli:!EE!I;
rglrrrr''
ljyttstk
.'.
'
11j::::::r:.
.
.:111::7-::11,.
..11!:2::::..
..11:2:::::.
1;!2!E5,11$,.
:IIIEE!II;.
112!!E!11k..
411!E!E!11t,.
.11:E5E!2!,:.
::::11,...,.
illEE!i!!,r
.ii!EEEEl1l-..
::::11..,...
'.
'.
'.
.
.
'
'.' . .
.
..'.......'.
.'.. .'
. tj.., ''i'.'.
-Q.
ty4lpEkkiLtikrJkkt'it'f!
C 81'1
l.n
S CO
U 1.
& O 1JA t: e
. .):'. .''. ''..''
Lq'.' .t..:.
AQ.
t: 1p
re S en t2a t: 1. 01*1 8.17. 1. S
.
. . ..''.....
t3.
.
. . ...
'.' '.'.''''...'.'
''
'
Y
S
C
C
C
k)'L.3.'
S
1.
C
C
O
.
C
V
S
O
Cr
S
yiy
e r
t'.y:
o r tr e
a a t: e
. .... ...
.
....
. . ..
' 't.... . ''. ... ...'.'
(3'
'
t.. . . ...
.).(Jl;)g
. .
. .. . ...
k/kl.
'
......;.,,.::.'331
. . ' ' .... .
.
.
'''
... .. . ... .'.
w...
.,..
..... '.. . .
.
.... . .
.......
.1t ..... . . .....
.
) t..t$
tt5Jl...p(j
' '.
.r
tji'.jjg ' . ..'.' ...
(2::1jj,,,,,*.
.. .t.. ... .. ... ... .
411::::::.4.
..' ...'..'.'.''.''''......' ..
..''
:::11(::::7,. lliiii!!l;.
::::I1k,.-,.
. .' ..!.
. .
.....' . .. .'.
.'''?.t.j(.''..'.k''tt.?..'k.7
.......
...'t.h...
.
..
.
.
.
:::1i!-..,..
. ' '''..' ' ''''' . '.....'
':;I2:C'7:1It..
'D:::11@::::'.-*
' .L
'. .. 'y;..
.t ..'..-'....'.'..'.'.
...
tTt
. .''.......
'
.. ' . '..'.''''
.
'.
'
'
.
t.t
,L..L. ' ' ''' ' .'
.kCl' tti'''' 't' ' '''''' '''' '
.k. t6.'?.6;
. '.. .
'
.1 1 . )
' ' ..
l
2l''. .''. .'
.k.k. '''. ...
ii'.$1'
'' ''.'...
'' '
).. ' 4' ' t.i'''' '''
t
'
.
jjjjjji Ijjjjjj
dj:jjj!r q:jg::r''
. ' '. ..'' ' '''''''.''''..'''
'''...)
'qlijj;p!'
(:)jk,..
jISjjjj,,.
q:jjk,,.
qrjl:::''(jjk,..
.jI:r22.
.Q
'jIr::r,
7
'.
t.
'
't
41:1121j.
442::12: 11::::)).
' . . '' ..'...' ....''''..'.'.'.
41::2:)j.
j!!i!;k 4!:2::,).
dt::::)j
i!j!jl,.
$12:::)
1:r22!; tljij!!r
C!!lk
ljj!!li
:ll::r''
,!!jE1j,,
t:::::y
ljq!!;i
:jl:77:jk,
(:)1:y,,
(::1L...
:11:7.:1k.
::1;,..
.. ..
t.(''.'/
r'':' t.
1112:::2:::.
'''.''...'''.. ..'''.'
.
.
'111.-,::11(..
.
4.t
'- .ik't-L.'.
111!EEE2!!!:.
.-i....
''
''1Ik---2:IIt,.
-i1!!Ei!11r,.
':jIr::'':)1k,.
r.
'jI:::''!:1t,.
'
'
,1IE:EEEi!!:.
::!!E2!1).
. t.t... .... ...........
,jI!!!EE)jj,.'.
.-'..'?'.'.
.. .'.'..vt'y.(''.
.: jbb.bslk'
-L::t)LL1'-''.
. .. .
.,.-.!.'.
.'.
. ..).,'.'.
.'.'-'.
jjjjjjjj
jjjjjjjrs
445jj!!j. 44::):),
jjjjjjk
44:222)j.
. . '.....
jjjjjjj
'j(ryr:,
.!)j'''...ky!....)y(.
(rljj..j
jjjjjj.
gjjjjjj
' '...'.
(zgjl,,y
qrjj::y''
qrjl:::''
q:jj:::tb
'....''..'.'. ' '...
'XIJ4C'
t Ult
'.... .' .'..' .
h . '''
. . ..'.''''...
' .t.L'..t........
...' '.'t''..''.'''''''..''''.''...
.''
..
.
..''.'..'.
..
'.
.''.. '.'..'...'...
'.t(,.'$'
.
(. .,
.
'.i5'.
.. ....... .
k..
. ..
.
.
.'.
.
.
.'.
.
..
.
tl.
.
.
..
.
.. . . ... ......... . .
..
...
....
..
(g.
jj.'
'
'
'
.
'
'
.
t.
'
.
.
.
.
.. ........... ........ ..
tyjrj
.
.
..... tt(1.!..
. . . .... .
.....
...
....
' .
.'
.tLt'
''' .. ''''11::::1). '
.
. . ' ..'. .'.'.''...' ''.'''..'''''
111E51!j
..
.(g tq.tyt;....r,r..' '.. '.''''
'.' '.'. ...' ..
''
ijii!!i!lk.
''112:::::L.
1:::11Ld....
11k,,,....
1:::llt.....
11..,,....
.1!!E1E111..
liiEEEii!!l:.
. .,*1..
.s,.lrqitp.' ..' ' ..'..'. .....'.!.'..'...
lbL?tibiL.jjkllsL'.
'.
.
.
..'!?r''''?'.
..... .
.':thq'.
.
.
.
.'. ...''.........
,4::::.,
.1:225,: k::::)'.
,4::::,.
,.....,,k,f.,,--L.,,---b,.---.,.-..,.-..,--.--..-.---..,b-,.,--CjEEEik
....
::1L.,.
.,t,-;:I;.
-!!E!!l..
:zl::). !Ir::::.
' 1. '.. .. .
'''''''''''''''''''''..
''.' i'...'.tt.' '.'.' '...'''''''
4::112::::.,.
..112..;::11k,.
::::11k,.,.. 1111E5E!!,,:.
;1!iEi!1;;.
t'yk,''
'.....
'
..)(.. .'... ..'.'.':.......
.
.
.
.
.
''t: ' ... .... ...'.....''''...'. .
S
Z
X
S
Q,C
'
Y Y, i.
'
3% r. tt'.. 'k.i.7..
. ......
X4k
. L.'..1.'' /' .t.i...t
' '' '. ''...''''''''..'.'' . .
tt ... .''
'' ..'''...'.'
L
'J .1 %'t/.
. '''t. . ....
''..'..''
.
k.k':tiV
. ' .t ''/'st).''..''''..''.' ''.'.'''.''...
'V li.
. 1' ' '. ''''
''.'' '''.
'
''
''
' X '''1' vit
'
'
'
' ''. ''. ''' '''''''..
..'
tf t.
'
'
'
.'
.
''
.
.
'
'
'''. .
' . ' . ..i.' ...''''...'..
'::2lk::::'''
Ili!islk.tli!!!Elk. ::::IIk.....
iji!!lk.
1112E115!2,:.
-i!!EE5!l1k..
''!Ik---;:1lt..
1l1EEiii5!,:.
ii!!!Eil:,. '11t::::::.
lji!ii!!;;.. 111EEiEi!!:.
.;1!E!!E)1k..
.....
::::IIk,,,..
. 4t
'.
..
'
'
'
.j''
.''
.
.
. t ...'.
.t,...y... ..... .
:$').'?
$ . .t. .':;'.
tr),
ys
Llate
ZS
8.
O
CX i
to t e
V ((.V5?h
ra
e e o
an
o
lliY' t
rk cu ture
1? kS@
...''..
. . ' ...t' '. .'t...''......'..'.' ''..''.''''
.:111::--:,1k,.
.711::::::).
111:::::2::.
IIIEEEE!!!,:.
idlEE!ii!!t:.
$12EE4E!11.
'r
:::ll!-,,,, 1111EEE5,,h.
'.L::::I1k,,,,. ''1It,--2:1j(..
'..''...
.'' ' . . . ...''
. ':IIr:'':11t..
.
....j.
1b'%
.ttf. t'st'.tfy'?t...'
.
. . .....
'
. . ..'...
.)) t t
llii!!i!;k.
' ....'....'.''....
I:::IIi...-. dlliiEii!!'t.
'1iiiEEi!!:l.
'
'td-..l'.tt''
. 'Vjjqjt.
..''''.' ' . ' ' '''
'
. '%A*spt.t.'
. .',''.. ............. . .
' ' ' '' ''' '
')3,.
!/
..
..... ......
. .... .
..r;.l..'....t.
tb,..j,qLL...,.,..
'
. '.. .
.'!(,.'
. .'...
.(.'
.
.'!'...'q'kr'
. .
....'''
. .:... . .'.
'
'.
t.' t(. ..'*2*.
jjjt,..
sj'.
.
...
.
.
.
.
..(g::. ytt'..
.
.
. .q'.r.q...(.(.tl
.
.
.
.
..sjjLj'.
.
.
.
.
.
.... . . . .
.
.
.
....
..
.....
.
. . . .. .
.......
. i. .... .....
. .... .
.
...
t./.. (:
.
.
'111(::--111:..
.
d1iEEiii!!::.'
''l1k,-k::IIk..
111:E11E5!2:.
111:1E1152,:,
!C
'!' .'...' '-.'
lilEEii!!!k.
'.-...-'..
't?-t-,d?-t-,d.rr''
' ''..'.'''...'.
.'
. '''
.
'''my. t.''';''kb.'. . . ...
' ' t...t....y..
%khb..$;t....'.kb
'...
......
.. t.(........
. . . ....
' ..
.t ..''''.'....
.
t' L):'.
.
.. ...
..' ..''''. '...'
.
IjA 'tt' ' ..'..
''
''.
.
C'k . '.'
''. ''''.'.''.''.'''''' ''.
'' .(yy'.
''11!:::::2,
. . .'''.''...''' .
11111EE!!!!:..
!:::Ijt,,,,.
':jjI:r''!1jj,,
'
..'..'.
.i(.,..:.(..
... ........... ..
.
. .t..p2qt?.
.
.:?tt'!.(jj;,'fi
t't4,..
..
.
.
..
id:::lzr
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
....(.......
SlElEll..qli:r'!hk.
t!!!!!k.
jl:EE!:.
. .... .t.'.....:k....!...::
..............
'bt.iLLI;L''iLLL)../LL
. .'.
tt5:'
. .''....''.
$'..
.''. '..'''..
' .....
tkl l'.
'
t' '.' '' '''
J' t '.
'.
''
.'....'''..''' ''.''
.. '..'..
''''''
lt
.
.tt')..'ik''-' ''.' '.''''...
' ''''..-'.'...'' .
...'..''''
t. ''''
.''.''..'''
. '
i.
'''.'
.
''.
''.
'''' .. .'.'.'.''''..''.'.''''.7'''''
.
''''.'.' .'
.IE'V J'.'t.
bgjq.L.i. ' .$t.' 'i ' ' '''' ' '

:
L
'.
: E
?:.
'..'.

'.

()?F)

' ''.)

..

II!EEEE
.'.'.'
..,'''
.'
':11r:7
.-11t::
'

X'v.x

'.

::

)'

'

'.

'

''

'

'
:

''

.)

' '

'.
'...
': : '.

':

'.

'

'.

'.

'

'
''.:

3 '

'

'.
..:

ttE

.'

'h

')

't

>.''

..

' )C

:''

.'.;'
''CIIE
't'.t'
':11!
..,'
.'''''
''k'd
'''''k.
.2t'
...,.,
'1:1
II!E
.(''t
.'.d
':::i
4:1
.

'

...

:.

t 7'.
:'

k''

U'

::

,q.'(j..........

-.-.

:...

:
:

..

jjy

$)5

'''

-j1:7-:lk,

.j'Lj.'

-1!k:::.

41!!521;.

,!!51k.41:::::;

dt::::)j.

,.vL.jL))
(..
L);L.,
t:. ..6.,.,'..E t .p. y ...... :
''':j4$4.'.'#'ii'.i
i
'
vyky::jiytjyiyiyit,tt/tklpyE,tltti::
11 i.:' i'l

4.

4:

::

4y

L.'.

.:

.-11!::::::.

,11::::)

.1!::::.

.'

'

''''iikI;;',''
'

:
.

.:

i..'

:. ':

''t

)). ('

tl!!!!!lj:,.

111:2::::2:.

-'
...

;..i.'i'LLL;',.'.'.'L..

...

'

'llL

''

''

''

''

L.(:,j(

:'

t'it

..

'C

'

'

::

''

:''.

ttL.

.k?

xxkr.

LL'.'

g.
%yj ! ;(qt
i
'? 7 'i
7,sj) 6zti'
) L j;(y.2.y E ''t
'Ip'k
.).'' t
6E.
.t..
'j! t''.k'''--.
2i3'!pyt.Itj '-'. ..''! .. ..
kty'.
fttl:Jj.
q:t;........
jrj4...
...... ....
$!t.'.)kk;
?q
il:;.'siqt.::':l7.':i
t ..
ti
.I

''.:1
'7i!
.71
.-1
.'.t'
..-'.11
.'.(
'.d
..'
...'
.,i,
.''.'
.''!..
.t'

'

'

'

'

.
.

'

5
.

''

:'

..112::::::.

':::11::::7--.

.-

'.

-.
..

4j

x:

't

dll:::::::ji.

-..-.

k.rr.w...

-'.

.k..(

?'..

:)?

:.

:.r3

,'.j).

.:.....

..:

..:

.t

'.

...

..

.*.':
5
'

.. .

,'''%$

':
#..i j lf'q))t.
C)
4tti.)
'..
''?t.IILILLLj)../..;
2..:.2'......
i...
LL/t:'
91).. y:.C'.
.L i )..)
i
!
Lj, ;.!.).
..(jjtj.j.(.
(..t
R.

..'.

LjEIS;L

.:.

.'.(

J?

'

.:

...

.n

'..

.E..

//

')

t..'.':.'.

:t.L

...'

'

..

:(

j.3.

..

..

:,

/!

...'''

.g''

f.

li

''

lk ''''<'

..'?

r..t.

pj/''

jqf :

a)

',us..

.?.

.,

u ..'

.y?

''

<a!

/.'

<F

yyh

,;/'

....

.oa.

..

..

Lqt'

z'

./?.

&

s'

.'

('
@)

pr.

!;

k
ltjj lttk).t.
(y.Itt. (4.
?..( ! t ':.
.
jt.jt !LlL.
lt.'.h
x.
E.$
.@t4t ?..:..
;( $E ty).q..q:...(!....'.C..
(3l.:(;(jtt.
;)L. L(;?,
t
'.('..
u, g
?LLL.);(,L,
i ))::j(. ..'..' i
i..(.j:.....:.i...t: E.
'b.
F
'...
'':.
it?-. .r'.
..;t..?'. ..
'tt't.Eqt:.5LL:.'4.'.
'.
i''. i'.i'.'L.$'t.
'L1fbL..;;.'
L?
$ i t.L.'...'..............
r))g..
tj
Lt t'ilt
'jq
b
L q
1:
) !
..
%..) q@. q
/ V) C% 6 Z i
i
% tj. ' 496)
) q'.'?@
iiii'i
t t
, yjZts
); yy
%
.' ' k) i ii?'' i $ t E
l L),. E ?t'l i
' . l1qiiLsh:ri$ i ?). '.:.:(
'.k
dlL...I.
5;.
;;.jjL..?1L6L.t)?:. E
lbi''qbslb $ C6.
6.'
hX,*,:.4.l.iLtk.yt
'?
?k..'-.'..'.......-.)'.....-....'...
,
tky'y..tt.,.f.q'i..it.C.t...$.$y
.k
kklll
..2.'j
g.; : t
Ll.'.i'ytEt:jy:.'??''
i
q c
EL tt
t b'it'.
'.
'. '
(..p-!.
..
....'.
i...'...''.''.
;;
Q'
tkr.
X%i L'.'$Lt't't$''.
6CFkq
.L,.:k;
6
F t
ljf
L)
$ ky
:t.

y'

k'

,g?

....

..

J/.

r;.

...

...

LzL:yr

...

N..

f'

g.>f'

' 54t
....1RLuu...

jp

y.s'''1t;'

..'.'

njs....

'''''''

'''

'''

v.

.*

sf
t

.:

:'

> ''''

iu

p''

g.v

J'

pe

e;

''

t..2

'

,:,.

....

pturi.ee'

'j!!y;j

'.

,Ejjq1

).E

j;jjjjjjj

jjjjjj!js

..

..

jj!jjjjk.

..*

..

da..'79f'

'.'.

.1E.

't

t.:

(.$($.'Et$Eky

111:::::::1,.

...

'
E .
.

:-'-'.

:.'. E
.

:....':E.....:.:'......:.:.

;,'?;'.

dl!::::::ll.i

.11::::::)11.

;j;,.

:..

4,.

jj,

j;j

,jjyrygy

,jjgyg).

':

'.

.)jgy.:jj,

jijjjjj,d,

jjjjjjj,,'gjgy.yjjj

jjg:r)rijjjjjjjjs

.'..

xl

.E

...

:.. ..

' '.
'.
'

'

'

..

' :

.k .

:::E)t

..

'''''.
*'C
. 4

'.t

'

'

'f'

':

7::

''

: :.

k''.
'
k.k..2..

...tEi

.:

't'''''

' *5

'

: :EE

'.

'.

:.

....

xi

:
: .

:...

: :.)

:.

...:

'.:

''..'

.'

jjj

j,k

dj.

'.

,1!::::,

.11:::2,

,1!::::.

,11::::j

.:

d!!!jll.

dl:!!!!g.

dp!j!jk-,

.'.:

:i

.'.?

.. '..
'

-'
ii
.

y':

'

.'.

'

,t...

'' .

111:::::::14.

111::::::21/..

111:::::
::j..

411:::::2::.

IIIEIEE!III

111:::2:2!:.

'::11j::::!.''

.:11(:7.-:)1k..

,11:::::::141*.

'

'''

.::kL

..

111:::::::1k.

''. 'tl'.
:'.
:.2*

Ey

:
:

'.
')),

<:

t:

1:

<.

'to

'

'ti'y

.t

..

...

'...j

..

...

'

':.

j,

..

.(Lk..t'
1..i l )itkL
1(tt jL..
t
k i
jg i. % $'t:y''l
'!
ytilqklqjibik/q:qjLtxi
y,
Jq.i.?(.lt)k:.7.
.bs' .1 J'klL'
q., L.. ...
f.'..::j;t;...,.,....L.i
..1t:;,)2kq..
<:1j):.
)k.2y.l1.(ktr.h
i
yf ) jti
<7:..?(
q..)) @
1 l
)
..
t
;.L.L,t.;)'t.
k)L,L('

..'k t

..

t::

s'

.,,,..

:..

.....:

. ...

t.:E

...

:.

....

k:..

..

ljnqL);

h!

..

..

''

:'..'...

CLLLL.LLLLL.I/,?

,.qbb(3
)q. ?..
(/qllL3ji'L).b
') E
k. 1.L
..:kL
ji.:.2. $! .@
t y..:;rj:.
.
vq;L).L'..q'.;'.j.'
$1:
.T(y
('.?....
.jfj,,L.
? .'.
j..'L.L;L..LL..
i.....
$.
'. )q,,,,',,(bL..
.b. (y!. yj)j':.'..(.i.'j('.t..:'...:.'t.
.,)L...
)
yp.(lj);; s(.
),.. lj,t..;
E ....)

:..

.'

..ltjj,y.jg...p:

..

.f?

xF'

18

:.

lf
pr

1.

''..

...

....'

..

EE

..

E
.

. :

(t;, .

,
'lkk

32....,

''.....

(4

..

,?

Eg

.?.'.

..112::::::.

.'..''.

- - .
.

'.

sz'

'.

'

. ..t
''f''..'.'.'..'.:'

114::::::)1)-

--...--''

''''?'i

-.'.

'
(......,'/3.

i,,

ill::::::
!!i

.'

:.
.

o.)

'.'

':

: '

'

''

''.
'-

':

.(

'

'

.:

:.

..?

.'

:1

i'k

'

''

'

'.C

'.

:.

:''

'k''

'

.:

'.

:
.'

.'. E

n.
t :
:.q.'....',..'.

'

'

:'

.'l

.'

'.

'

(7*(.

-.
.

'..

L .''t

'.'

'.

.L.

''

'

'''

'.

jy
gl
E

..

::

C
i

'

'

..........

''

'..

''..

.e.... .;...

:
.,,.

''..:

..'.j..

jt.

hI

(y.

!k.....

,,

.,....,.,.jp$()y,.'.

...2.

jj:z::!rjjjjjj!j,

'.

. :
..

..

''kt....,''''K'F..

..

..,....

'.

....

.,....,

.,

''..'''

ffLL''''

..

.,

'......

.t

:,

6.

'.......''h

. ..
''':

.EtE '

'1j::'yjjs

jj:::!!y

jj:gg;)j

jjj

:.

.'..)L..'

. :
k
'
.'.)

':

'
'......

'

'...

....:
.

..(

..

..
'...')

.:

'
.

'

dl.

'

:'' ''t .'.':

..

7.'1'b'6): ..!t.

,11::::.

:.

'.

.'t

.'t

':

' '

''
k
'
: .. ) .'.:
'
E
'
. t'.'. .
.
''.

.:

.'.

'L

r.i...

lt

4.

.711:::2:::.

1t(:::::
:2:.

..11k..k2:11;,.

:
.

!''

1e

til:::::!!;.

'.'i.

L/.

)llE

.!!::::

.:1:7.:)..

-.-c.--........,-....-.-......,.
...
Li
F:'
k L SJ$'k(J'ttt.i5l iqi .ii7
'C
.t. ''L .E
5j)
%/' ii
'lk. i i iii'.
E
'.
..
:,
'''.
':?'@'t,'.
p4:'''.
...
.y
.);L'.
.. E.y:.'..
fkb.' iE
F'.
)'.st.?Lj
tyE
.2..t'.
.L.k't.
.?.'..'.''
1.
.170102k4?.
.L?.
kr.;.k)ttjEj)Ehky.q?.t3yttF).kk't:6:
? .'
lpsil !. Ei
??i .:.
1. .jE.k.j.
'jltL().
.197% E tq.t
h
':
C'trhzllg
li.'
iit
).)42.it 1 i.?LiiiiL.Q..''.
' .k
k.L
?
> ti l p.
?i lki .) L..
LL+ql' J'l.tt. E?p : kl l 6t
l t,.
t 4y.
.E !
j
iq
t. Lj(.
t
1:
?x
.1 F.F
j
%Et,
). .I.
3' W
)
x ..LL J Slb
F E7
'A'# .klk
.i)1J i
iE:
X' il' p't E$'71 6
.%L
Jli 1't $k
7
7
i
)t.)' i )'
;
(
'>)lilt'
3 L ?
':'
il'
b
t
.tk
1:yrj(J$).
it
.k.ktrj(.:..
L4t
gfili t)l i
j?jyt. .1).22yj?
i
!
1*-..*:
.' ... !'' ! ..
$'-t..!'kl'-'' i-.!.
.-.'r?q'--.'i;-F'.?jj':--'.-kt'.. i''.'i''.
i).
'.'.
't mvt?''j'...'-t.q't;-''.
?.
'
ytty
fypj,yj
(2
LLtujtj. r: ) 6
. j!
($t)7 t' i i''''
'
;i.
17
.1$4(1
.
$ L.'..1i 1 F
AA.LLLLLLL
q
j.
- t
j-kt'i 8.;j..'.'tj,t;'
..'.
..'! .i..'qE..':'.'.t''.'. '.'. ''..
.4jg.
-1L*..
..'(;t''.
''y,.
t..E
th..)
'?)
:EF
?.t
k. ! ( 1....
''L..Q.'. '''
/t, ).t.t ).'?'.'i.F:'':
t'
i '''t.'.
tiyi.
..
..
1*,..$'..-.t,p'i....'.k)-.
7
''i;t:'X:''Ck'
'
?.:k
;L.'i.'i( ?; t
.;,...;,...:);t:k
4g'

il'q..x
11::::::!2,.
..''':':;:lli

EE'. '.'?. ''

L.z..

ds'

.4p....

:
.

. ''.

,jI....

.r

...

t'.

''.

...

'1

,j.

j.,

..

..

...:

(k..

..

..

: '

: '''''''
::

..
:tk1!.

,.

)?k.?lEj).

:j,j.

jjjjjjjrs

x'

t ...

''xx.lriEt.hE

jjjjj!!rs

jljjjjjjk

jjyjjj!r

''.

''.

'.,

xj

jjjjjj!r

:'

:
.

....:

'.

111:::::::1,.

'jj::r2;

. :

:!::( :

.:
5

..

jjjjjjj.

'

'.

.'.

.:.

' :
, .

'

E
'.
1.
(..
)(k(.
.E
..
qki jtl)
j tk
).:62tt.'.)'gt
.2
j. ('.y(
.'.
1:
. ,tL,1.131 (.().'i't..)!
::.t
q'q.q . .$E
kj().?/:C. 7 q.
.1* C'L
)'('i.'
'$jt7L ?'C')i1...:. ') ?
j
E
:1qsl
q i ii.L1
9 )
> t)../ i;iLbtj..,,)
(tj)k.k.k:.1.,.)ki.
'...
;.,..;4,,i.b.
.':kk..(((
E
.!
Lr.
J1i$L.iLi..'b.
6$5F tE.
''k.....2)''
9
'''.t'3)y.7
tl:l.ki. t' ). ''7 EE i ?
'.. i;L.j.i . ..tL(
...
):.k. .t..E.
..*1
1 ...E.i
1.
't't',..lE;
.''. ..
'.
t.'i'i..
i', 'i(':
,rr

jjjj!jj,s

...

k.

'..

:..''.
:r'i(7'4('.
:t@..
.
.
:
k.:.(7.kp.t:E)..k.
..,1.

''i1!r2::::.

.:11(::..:111,.

':

i, '.

'.

ill:::::::l,.

'j((yry,

'

''

?EE ' L
E.(i'.1
.:.

k..i

.k'..t
y.'

.r

dl!!!plj,

.t

49!!!!1
1:,.

'

'

.:

'j!::r:)

d!!!sjl,,

yl:::::i

..

''

..tE
l
%.
ls ftA'.
'k .p n' i'' 4'.Ft
..)u
).:Ai' t .q'
l l' 2. i 7''.'9
.tk:'.L. ('..SE?
$', : L.),L.
tkyjjiji
q
lF:li'' t
):j..yy.
94$.).)
g)r!.
.t(
..
F.E.
tqE..
..8?7:,44..
(.(. (''q'. 37:*.
'''''ltt'.k!t...(yy.
(. t','. ''iy'. ..
'.1!. y.i'.
l:.'.
tq'.
?'.
'E.!
!
@.
kE
7.
pitfl'?jq.
p
42

jl!jzj!,j

142:::)).

:
'..
: L :
L
:
'
..L.'.L....;.....L...'......'.'..'...'....

''k7

'

14::::1)1

'

.
.

(t't'';
;
!'. ;!'...'.
..'...
:'-'.
E'tx'l itjt'. tt'.
.L ;''.q i y i
.t.j..%%%(
.(..LL.L3.:.y'3'.L.$.s...;..

.11:2::.

ql!::::.

'!!::::

'j::':1:,

:...

:
:

'7'.i.5

41,

d!'

11;

'.

.L

..
.

j:!jjlj.

'jj:2r:,

jlkjjz!j,j!!jjjj,,

jljjjjj,,

'.

..

..

'

tt'

'

jjjjjjj,y

jtz:;:!ijljjj!j.

;>

t'

'jl:2r2.

'j!jrrr.

'j!rrrr.

:.

''

EE'

<:

:':

:.

..':

?,

:'

'.'

'

...'.'(:..:l......'(.2

'
E ' 57

''

' C

'

'

*':7

'''

dld

1111::::2:::

illEii!ii:!tE

: '.L'..':...
E
:
'

'

''

)'

:'.
:

::

b:.':':'t

')F'.

dll

4,.

'

kk

'

-:2..-.,*.
--'f'. . .'..'.

333.

..

.......'.''

.'

'

:
qi

'

tk..

.k.

,,1!!!!24j1,,.

llj::::::!
11j:::::::11.
!;.

ljl;jjjjsjl;,

...

l
g

pi
!

i'

k'.

..

.C'

::.

'

tE

'B' ,...,

c:j

.s.'

j(..,....'
....''

q'

).

tl'/'''

;.
d'

kjp

IL'
)
!
t ,L:
; $t...):
t..t)
;.
(.:
'.j, 4..42 (:7:t:.. i y.i'.
gygygjq t?'tj'.
<l)j
k).jjjl j.)1gj'(t:'k '.? 'E
i
.
'.
1.j.E.'''' F:' s''.
I E'1i
i)k,'?L'L(')('.
'.
!.y.'kE.
';.-t''.F'. '. '..
Lfjk.'-'-l
('. .. .'...
I 4.'''. -...
''1)Li)J'i'I'((::''.
'(kiikjjj .q '7
6
E.
'
yt)tt
.?.hb1?q;.,,q,1L3...LLL
..: .''
jk'
...1;));..
? k'!..'.!.
. n''ib'-k''. i.::.
4*.
...
.. ..
,L-.
?.'.
!... '.''.'. ?'. ..
8t''.(,';@'.
::..;?-,'iL.1''...
i ).'!t't'.
(q1.
''''uj.hl/
)).
ql'tki:'i 6
''6
%$ ).;$t'' .L1
CE
i
Lq.
5i. E1:
i
! li7)'
J ;.$C.l F' ? t
.lLhL''
.'...
t
b;
t' i E 't
kjilltCi? +,''i) C' ' C
j j;%
kQLIL
.4 i
('?
1:1
'EY
k
t V1 t ''EI
%%%
':
'' S( :7.( J
%qlLL.
) E1.1t.'...
t
.t lk..t
;.
p11 LL.
'Cl?'
gj1.k.fk.....:2.
tl.. .!t:.y:'kt.''.q..:.L..
fjL'L,;'t..j:;?jL
'C:r.,y;.
61 5
1':' !
PS b%E'ts.'(:::
11.ji
$tjgjl
j'
q1
k 't''
.1.(t .(y t '('.l
L'.)i'.'.:' !
.v%4.2.b,(Lj
.@)(t.
)....L'?q'..'..!......:'...
'f.'...,..t...t'.......$'..z'....'':..'.E.:..'.......'.....'
y.ki$.$..L.tf)'bq'
l' ''lxbL' ''?q'.( t
)' L,'/1
@y)))' k
.5 t 2.'t
l j
E
J.. t9*:t1t.
l
E?....t.
.t.q'''-(:. i ..',.i.
k....y';4'.
:

...
1

r'''

)k.

!
k
j?

tj

''

: .

:jy
F

.'.
....
:.'
'.. .'.'

'.

::

..
i.'y'.:..'.::

:..t.

...
..:.'.:.

,......7.

ZL

...

:'.

? :'

.'

;..

'''

,j)

,,..

..

..

..

. :

ii

'.

Y'tx

.:

:.

kl

C :.

:'..:

' .'..'.(.

:'

:'y.'':

:4

..

:.

:*.*'7:

...

'.'

'

'

:h

'

'.

.'

'.

''

'

'.

'.

.'

.':.

'i

'

')

'.

:.

'

''

'

: ''

:.

''

.''.':

'

'.

''.

::

%Q

' '
'''

't

'L

:..:.

E':.E

'
.

.
.

5*

'

'

Ip.

4!1

i'r

'.112:::2::.

::

..1!!:::::).

'

-'.

,ktD

,''(

:
' ':
'
'@
: :
'
'. h '
...).F.(
.'. '..

' ' '

'''''
':$

'(

---'-'
:-. ..
.

':

'

'

L
'.::

CC ? : ''

,
:4.);j(. .:::y

'.

':'

21

''

'E'

iiltttv

:'?E

.'':..i

'

'

-'.

,'

t,

<,

(1

'y..'r-':y,,
-:?';:.)).

'

' '

...

j)

...

.:'

.'
'''

.7'

.:

:j.ttt'?i.

.'
'.t.
E

ip,tdrl.
s.ll.ll.y.

.
-.

'

':

'

'.

:'.

'p,i
.
.,,'.

4:

'.

4;!:!!!2
11j..

''.''',. .

<F

.t

'::j1:::::','

,11::::::
:11.

illsb!!!!!:.

41,:::::22:. ill:!!!!!!!:.

ti
''''IE'...jk..,..

.t

'.t

-.''

.r

111::::::19)1

,.

t.

..''.

..

:.

:'

:.'

:11525115!,:.

'.

i. '
.
''..
-'.
.'-..
''''$''t.'.''l''''''''i'k''':'':'k'''''.'':

111::::2::11.

111:::::
::1,-

111::::::2:.

.11:::::t::.

''h'

.:c

':

''

' ''

'

lk

;,..'''

;.LtL
.?;.
Lg.ILL.,y '.' $.'., E
.@.(yL,titl1..l::
C
..

: k

....

....::

b.(.b..LL)tL.t.t;..,,

.tjk .t.

...'

...

.t

..

'

''

..

...''
: .
..

..
'.'-..
.t.'....
3l):E
3?k 3'ji(:k
)
l.yj:
6.LLq.L...b
..q
!Jj. l
)
''..il5.)'I'j)J ij
tq E.
. .

'(l

''

':

jS

'..

..

....
.....

,*

')

...

..

'.

'

,!!i'.

'.

''

.'

':
.
t ''t.! .
.L''.
..

,''

...

''.

'.

:
.

()
E

441!5jjj!2):.

111:::::
::j)!

: ,'..

IIEEE!!:E

..(:......k.

t.'

.'.

'''

''

'

:
'
C '. '
:

'

'
.ILq..

::

.'

'

'

:
L

.'.

'L

:.q

'

''

k.''.

'

..!

':

'

::

''

:7 .

? '
'

'

'.

''

'

'q

: L:

'

iL

b$

':.i

'..

.L

:'

'

'''

'

'.''

't

:
''

'

'.

''..

'.

'E

':

'

'

'

'

'

'.

'L

'''

..

..

k 'C

'

'

:.

.:

'

'h .:
t
'
.. : : k

'.

: :
' :
...,

':

.':

'.(

'?

,L'.

kjs

..

.<,z...:'''

''

.k;)!
:
q@,.
.
:??F.:S'.jll..

,:

'

'.

.,:y,,

.;.

111:::::
::1,1

'

'
L :
:

':

)b;t.

;:j. j

.'

':

''

''.'

k'

.,,,

F.

f.

yr/s.

(?i' i' l i
lh.
ht1!! t'S
$7
5''( .;.7 3 !
1LL
il.f
.(1
ltliiii
!i
S !7:6.7:.%
lk'
t.z.t.)1i6Cl' t i
J! iEL
'.
;'.
'.
5i.
j'. ttt(..
@2t'.
(h?';:
ijL.. ::(,
..
.$LLi,L$'.
l.lht.
t':
E. ). .'E
! t'.@....
i. i .( (.
'';)7E'
1L1.?(,'.b'Lqq.L.?,
..:...:....
''( .():....'.
.:
'4/
d i ''9
'... 1!tt/..r
'' t''.
l ;1,)'? .it 7...7i F
'%'L
%. E( ?/
4' ; k' $ ) F
Q. )jl
(
w y. Itgli:9V''7
!)) J ;
''''''''
h'13..3L6L;..bL''.'i
.7 L'.
tlk)( LC '.L;'i
q
:1
n?.$''
i's L'
Sj'' j 1l C .;. qi
it: tcli..'4
.XL ..)
)
:17
l
L'
( .1i 2k.1$tEJ
..h:;.j?E
F
(t .'
L)
).k L)t t'. .$.'ii 7.
.kjt y'.'j?t.:../7f'..?
E
) l''t 1. i
(
't%.t l L1.;L
.q
i
'7 JV)1F7
.iq'71
y? 6
'q
ktfjy.
...)
y
.(

t,

j,'.

.,.

'd?.
;
r
'k.
#.
k.. .,:/3

).

'''.'
i''
'
k).'?i1'
.
lr .7' '11..
?' : .
))L.3j.
'jjp;
jLL.q1,. ; yt)
,jj;tj)E.
lt: .) !:Li. L t t. : E
ik?t.t!
.:.:11'.% i
'.). ? 6 k ''. '
.).
6C)l)ll
!).l
'
5 ''''
I .LLL. :
ktt

.....

..-tj'-'''.

k.'

.,

s,.h

-?,'''

:..

''.'.'.'.

::?...

't'
CtEC).'

.. 'E

..

y.
j4....
,...,,()jj,

(j:.

jljjjjlk.

..

! -

..:.''.k'

f'',;rp,.

,..

)''

t)C

.i'''''''

.'

i:''

..

-'. i
'E''..E..
. p..
6@?iF'.
.

y;.

.E.

..

.:

:.t..

.:

..
....

i.

''i2C'

.:

'

..

.) ..

.'.

:
:'.. :.

t ?

lt

..

:.

: :.
: .

'''x3.

:.:

. :

'''.

.'''-''
@
?'j
..
)'-t'-:

pC

'.

tgiqt''

t,
i''.

,'

.'.

jj.Lj,
)($rk(jj.j;
)'k. .j.y).r.)...?. .'..
18 24
''lrlzl.zs
''lj
(..t.)..'..'.
:
k'..
..
LjL,.L,.iL?L.
.jy,'i.'..;'.
.k. ..
(
k.ls;l t.fE.
;'. ?'. .'j
..;?$L(qfL''j')i...
E
I.CL.t
jl..'((.'.L(.'k:'t.'.1.
k' ?. .E.t
l11?k.
.t
. y!.@
L..)j..
)q.
....L t..p
'.LqL.j?(j.L''
h.,
.).
.,::.:....t.
:''... .(f.k;jjjL).L....ttj )
'i .:
bb.L?)j, )
i
?f
..l'
.AktIIjt.
::i'Lb )
kj''t:

'.

jl!!s!lk.

.:11:::7.

'.i,..

1111::::::).