EVALUATION OF THE TEXTURAL ATTRIBUTES

MINCED FISH PATTIES MADE FROM PISH

(TURBOT AND POLLOCKI,S0Y FLOUR,
SOY PROTEIN CONCENTRATE AND
SODIUM ALGINATE
R.K.

Rockower,
Department

OF

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

Nutrition'
Food
Science
of
an d Human
2
Departiment
of Statistics
and
of Florida
University
Florida
32611
Gainesville
,
J.C.

cornellz

INTRODUCTION
Recent

emphasis

on

qxpandlng

use

of

domestic

seafood

has

resources

and totdl
of nontraditfonal
attention
fish
speciesy
focused
on utilization
(Bel1o
and
flesh
utilization
of
fish
and
The
1980).
Pigotts
recovery
of prodcing
wolesome,
industry
the challenge
ttractive
seafood
faces
products
and from the
from the flesh
of notraditional
fish,
fishery
fillet
of fish
production.
approaches
used
for
Many
trimmings
common
challenge,
solve
the
this
particular,
in
have been taken
to meet
to
klth
associated
formulated
minced
problems
with
fishery
products
textural
The
textural
attributes
of
minced
flesh
in
cdm/arison
fish
fish.
are poor
flesh
becauke
of the difference
and chemical
in their
to intact
jhysical
differences
Shenouda
and
their
these
consequence
nature.
(1980) reviews
and Rizvi
the adverse
effects
that
the micihg
(1981) describes
on texturey
has ou fish
flesh.
process
Many researchers
have
the problem
of oblectioattempted
to solve
through
and King
fish
product
formulation.
Carver
able minced
texture
(1971)
cakes
fish
eomposed
of tecovered
whiting
flesh,
onions
developed
potatoes,
flesh
with
minced
fish
King ahd Flick
and seasonings.
(1973) blended
yy
beef
produce
product
they
label
beefish
patties
a
to
a
s a met u,a
groun
and Pigott
minced
color
and texture
problems.
Bello
(1979) blended
to solve
flesh
and
with
structured
modified
starch
fiber,
tapfoca
protefn
fish
fish
cake.
Deng
sodium chloride
in an attept
to produce
a satisfactory
Tomaszewski
monitored
fish
fot
patties
made
and
acceptance
consumer
(1980)
sodium
and sodium
alginate.
chloridey
sodium
trypolyphosphate
from croaker,
Rockower
of minced
fish
attributes
the textural
et a1.
(1982) studied
with
fish
goy
made
of
blended
with
and without
protein.
4 species
patties
jy

The

diversity
in
problem.

researched

formulations

reflectg

the

complexity

of

the

textural

bits
made from fish
patty
0ur work has focused
on developing
a fish
(Pollahius
frozen
blocks
of pollock
remaining
cutting
and pieces
after
hlppoglpssuides).
(Reinhardtius
These
turbot
and Greenland
virens)
two
blended
in
tespectively,
lean
fatty
species
species,
fish
and
vatyfhg
were
a
algfnate.
and sodlum
with
formulations
concentrate,
soy protein
soy flour
Oblective
and sublective
studied
as a function
were
develop
to
a marketable
was
characteristics.
sitional

and cost
compositioh,
parameters
characteristics,
of this
work
The purpose
levels.
of ingredient
and cmpoeconomic
product
based
on sensory,
work
becuse
This
study
from previous
varies

36

fish
species
of the two speciflc
wheat
flour,
and
rlce
or
potato,
studiedt
ingredients

selection
used,
the specific

of
lvels

rather
soy flour
and combinatons

than
of

METHODS AND MATERIALS

(Pollachius
virdns)
(Reinhardtiqe
Pollock
and Greenland
turbot
hippoglossuides)
fillet
blocks
in the frozen
from the Rich
were purchased
Sea Pack Corporation.
The frozen
blocks
:nd minced
cut
to exemplify
were
(SPF-200)y
and pieces.
Structured
ffber
fish bits
protein
soy flour
(Bontrae
2101),
(Keltone),
sodum
dehydrated
alginate
dehydrated
onionsy
sodium
chloride
and light
density
sodium
tripolypbosphate
celery,
were
by the Ralston
th
the Central
Purina
Company,
Soya Company,
supplied
Kelco Company,
the Foremost-Gentry
Vegetables
California
ConcenCompany,
the Diamond
and the FMC Corporation,
Crystal
Salt
Company
respectrates,
of the North
Host Favorite
batter
and breading
products
American
tively.
Food Servlce
oi1 were
obtained
from the Hi Neighbor
Corporation,
and peanut
Florida.
Wholesale
Gainesville:
local
distributor
located
Company,
in
a
PATTY PREPARATION
The

minced

fish

patties

were

prepared

by

placing

the

combination

of

required
for
fnto
fish and soy proteins
treatment
an aluminum
a particular
and
Rehydrated
and celery,
trlpolyphosphate
sodium
onions
hobart bowl.
along
with
chloride
then
added
fixed
level
ingredfents
sodium
the
were
as
sodium
alginate
variable,
alginate.
The sodium
final experimental
was
weight
0.3 and 0.4Z levels
based
total
ingredients
sed at 0.2,
on the
reduced
lation.
Pollock
and
turbot
blocks
to pieces
f ormu
were
per patty
imately
cubic
inch
diwensions
mixing
prior
to the
process.
t
o f approx
basis)
Before
free
the soy flou:
(50Z protein
to
was added
on a moisture
Frozen
the wix, it was hydrated
at 1 part
to l.6
parts
water.
soy flour
hydrated
basis
(93Z protein
free
to
on a moisture
soy prote in concentrate
and
The dry onions
65Z moisture)
at 35 0F be f ore mixing.
was thawed
5 minutes.
for
rehydrated
ip cold
celery pieces
water
(35 0F), distilled
were
The ingredients
in a
speed
No. 2 for
10 minutes
at hobart
were blended
C
d room to p revent
heating
the mixture.
35 F refrigerate
platey
Efghtfive
of the mixture
into
one petri
grams
was weighed
experimental
oil.
plates
packed
with
soybean
Nine
precoated
were
per
shaped
removed
from the petri
then
The circular
patties
treatment.
were
and
placed
7:
solution
of
calcium
chloride
for
in a
30 seconds.
plates
gelatinous
film
sodium
with
calcium
caused
thin
of
alginate
Interaction
a
surface
described
by Morris
in a mechanism
to form on the patty
(1973).
fryed
breaed
and deep
fat
in
The pattfes
subsequently
battered,
were
immedithe patties
After
frying
were
peanut oi1 at 375 0F f or 45 seconds.
them from freezer
and aluminum
foil
in wax paper
ately wrapped
to protect
(-300F).
cooking
A11 processing
frozen
except
steps
burn during
storage
0
This
protein-protein
advetse
at 35 F.
was d one to p revent
were executed
deterioration.
from contributing
interactions
to textural

EXPERIMENTAL
combintions

Six

of

DESIGN

fish,

and
concentkate
soy protei
soy flour,
tutbot
compohehti
once with
as the fish
with
of turbot
and pollok.
a 1t1 ratio
18 cmbinations
These
replicated
alginate
0,2,
levels
at 3 sodium
were
nd 0.4Z for
of 54 treatments.
0.3
The level:
choen
of fish
a total
were
proteinaceous
ihgredients.
Likewis,
at 100, 85, and 70V of the total
of soy flour
and soy protein
levels
varied
15 and 30
concentrate
at l0,
proteinaceous
of the total
ingtedients.
These
levels were chosen to fit
(Cornell,
design
1981).
mixture
a simplex-lattice

formulated
sodium alginate
were
pollock
and finally
again using

Mathematical
models
fitted
collected
to data
were
(Yi
values
for
eight
Brekpoint
responses
Scorey
Flavor
Scorey
Overall
Acceptability
Cost
bcote,
Filletsy
Using
Protein
and Fat Content).
Expetimehtal

to predict

Ys

$1T +

$45 SA

tretmet
on each
value,
Firmnss
Piece:
Using

2345

$2P + ;aB

$123 TPB

04S

...

+ $5A + SIZTP
$a45BSA

SjjTB

jIZg4T/BS

dos:

model;
+

...

s..

P2B S A + $
A
T P B
3 4 5
12345 1 2 3 s 4 5

f or the ingredient
variables
turbot
T
y
(tange 0 to 100Z) ,
pollock
0
1001)
the
Bnttae
B
f
lour
to
y
(range
(range 0 tci 30Z) ,
soy
the soy protein
SPF-200
0
algin'ate
and
A
concentrate
to 30Z)
(range
'
(Cochran
0
The
(range
0
and
1957)
.4Z)
Cox
(!
coef
f
icient
to
,
s are
which
when esiimated
indicate
the ef fects
values
of various
ingredienvt
of the responye
combfnations
When using
model
the reohse,
this
to predict
of
the
lndependent
variables
the sum
T , P, B and S must
equal
The
100Z
of the model
f irst
portion
containing
subscripts
f3' s with single
represent
blendfng
ef f ects
the linear
of the mixture
componentts
Model
cohtainterls
subscripts
ef f efs
of
ing 6 s with double
the nonlinear
blending
represent
The portion
of the equation
pairs.
containing
the $ terms
component
subscripts
with triple
the nonlinea'r
blerding
represqnts
ef fects
cased
three
by blending
Similar
explanafions
pertain
components
to the modl
$1 s with f our and f ive subscripts
terms containing

where
P
S

.2

31 model
describ
to adequately
terms
(f3' s) were teqttired
f ive
ingredient
variables
ih
on the eight
responses
models
generated
their
respectife
to predict
responses
Two statistical
the inclusiol
methods
of a speii
to detertnine
were used
A t-test
individual
in the
term in the model.
terms
was perf otrmed on the
the ratio
of the estimated
ahd its
value
model using.
(! coef f iciellt
and a test
models
to deterii
error,
was perf ornted' on competitive
s tandard
adlusted
there
multi/le
in the model:
whether
or npt
an improvement
wa
(RA2) as a result
coef f icient
of the modl'
of the incluslon
correlation
2
(Cochran
and Cox y 1957)
1
,
The closer
model
is to 1 , tjl
R
tem
ue
va
a
s
A 2
sltoul j not
the modl
values
f its
observed
the
better
RA
responses
tdel
orrelition
with
the vales
coef
f
be confused
of the
icient
(r).
simple
that were
between
respohes
the telation
to compate
Not

a11

of the
the ef fect
of
the
eight
each

calculatedE

RESPONSE

IVASUREMENTS

Breakpoint
of patty
firmness
obtained
by using
measurements
were
Universal
Machine.
The
lnstron
Testlng
equipped
with
Instron
was
a
an
deformatlon
resulting
force
when a 1.9
large CCTM load cell
to measure
crosshead
probe
the patty
into
surface
at 2 cm/min
was pushed
cm dameter
encountered
thickness
by the plunger
2
Patty
with
speed.
was
cm
a
deformation
distance
of 1.8 cm beyond
the surface.
The resulting
standard
chart
speed.
patties
de f orma tion
Frozen
pattern
at 5 cm/min
was recorded
OF
for
by
immediately
30
prepared
the
baking
for
Instron
min.
at 400
were
then
allowing
cool
the
for
least
patties
and
to
at room temperature
at
Three
testing.
for break1 hour before
patties
tested
treatment
per
were
and
readfngs
recorded
for
4 firmness
point response
were
per patty
a total
values
breakpoint
values
Increasing
in
of 12 response
treatment.
per
2
increased
firmness.
patty
g / cm denoted
selected
panel,
froa
eight
judges
twenty
sensory
were
their
ability
distinguish
levels
to
pqtty
texture
on
studied.
of the
analysis
A sequential
treatments
proce(Amerine
the
1965).
prospective
et a1.,
screen
Judges
Each of the eight
selected
panelists
the 54
to evaluate
were
descrlbed
earlier
firmness
from 1 to 9 for
treatments
(1
on a scale
the
than
the
reference
extremely
than
softer
firmer
extremely
to 9
scale
flavor
and overall
reference).
A similar
acceptto rate
was used
and texture.
Flavor
and acceptability
of flavor
ability
as a combnation
than
the reference
scale
extremely
(1
poorer
on a 9 point
were rated
A11 54 treatments
extremely
better
than
the reference).
were
to 9
panelist
for
each
3 times
by each
of the 3 sensory
ttributes
evaluated
slices
Foury
one-quarter
treatment
patty
scored per treatment.
were
of
along
with
slice
sitting
one-quarter
per
presente d to eac h pan elist
equal
breakpoint
value
approximately
reference
having
the
to
patty
a
a
breakpoint
values.
of al1 54 treatment
An attempt
grand average
was made
presented
level
balance
the texture
of the 4 treatment
patties
to evenly
based
breakpoint
rqsponse.
on prior
per sitting
To form

the

based
volunteers
within the range
dure was used to

COST
of the patty
The cost
of each
treatments
was taken
as the weighted
1
Table
lists
the
of
each
ingredient
each
ingredient.
prlces
of
sun
23.33:
based
level
of
the cost.
Prfce
into
figured
constant
on a
was
and
from
breadingy
of
this
factor
from
batter
and
25Z
75Z
constant
batter
based
dehydrated
celery
and
adjusted
The
of
onions
breading.
costs
were
hydrarespectively,
through
as determined
on 188 and 120Z rehydration,
studies.
tion
COMPOSITION
and pollock
the proximate
analysls
of turbot
Table
2 lists
as determined
(AOAC, 1980).
tested
from
samples
methods
Six replicate
were
by standard
Composition
ingredients
of other
species.
was
each component
per fish
each
for
and fat
Tbe protein
patty
content
provided by the manufacturer.
found
ingredients
in
based
the
of
tbe
various
amount
treatment
was
on
per

39

Table
1:
Summary
of a11 the minced

of the
unit
prices
ihgredient
fish
formulas.
treatment
patty

Proteinaceous
Ingredipt:

( $/ lb )

aTurbot

$1
t

apollock
SPC
bSF

Table

.05

.61

of f illeting
price
$ 30 / lb
bll dratng
at
y
soy f lour
reduces
this
ingredients

to

calculate

2:

32 '

1ef tovers

($/1b)

S. Alginate
Celery
Onions
NaC1
NaTPP
Batter
Breading

$5.52
1.35
.75
.04
.38
.42
.41

f or

both

f ish

species

calculated

was

the
'

level
of 1 part
cost
to $ 12/1b
.

of

Moisture

Turbot

72 3

Pollock

83

'(

(o

th

two fish

f lour

soy

to

7j

14 7

(0

16 2

(0

7)

turbot

species,

12 8
.

.5)

parenthesis

parts

are

standatd

deviation.

40

water

and

pollock.

-h

.01

in

.65

.03

(1

(0

0)

1.1

(0.0)

1)

1.2

(0.0)

a ' hR'Mean values

in each
columh
designated
by the same letter
dif f erent
f icantly
determined
by
the
Duncan
s
s Multiple
level
of signif
the
icance
=0

Protein

0 3)

at
'

analysis

Proximate

cost

Additional
Ingredients

Fish

Avalues

the

.54

a The

used

were not signiRange

test
at

the specific
tlons
were

formulas.
raw patty
assumed
constant
over

Battery
breading
tratments.

and

frying

contribu-

a11

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The

simple

correlation
coefficients
(r's) between each of the specified
listed
in Table
3.
Breakpoint
values
and sensory
panel
are
responses
firmness
correlated
that
were highly
the oblective
scores
(p<0.01) suggesting
might
be used
with
onfldnce
of the sublective
measurement
as a predictor
The use of a screened
panel
contributed
response.
may have
to such a high
Denj and Tomaszewski
correlation.
found
that
oblective
breaking
(1980)
an
force measurement
in predicting
firmness
tool
was a useful
sensory
scores
experiment
with
minced
in their
croaker
patties.
Rockower
et al.
(1982)
made similar
conclusions
in the evaluation
of minced
fish
made
patties
fish
from four
Breakpoint
species.
values
and firmness
scores
were negacorrelated
with
flavor
tively
indfcating
that
becawe
scores
as the patties
flavor
flrmery
in
general
declined.
Thus,
when
slectlng
scores
patty
formulatlons
firmness,
the flavor
to control
of the patky
could be adversely
Flavor
and overall
affected.
acceptability
highly
correlated
scores
were
(p<0.1),
while
and
overall
acceptability
texture
measurements
not
were
correlated
significantly
This
indicates
that
flavor
(p<0.05).
serves
as
predictor
of acceptability
than
does
however,
this
does
texture,
a better
from being
texture
factor
acceptability.
not preclude
a malor
n product
Since
oblective
wiih
correlated
texture
acceptability;
our
was not
values
breakpoint
be used
acceptability.
cannot
Thus,
to predict
a sensory
be elimnated
in the process
of product
panel cannot
Flavor
development.
acceptability
and overall
correlated
scores
were positively
xith percent
correlated
fat and negatively
with
thp main
protein.
Since
percent
and fat
variation
fn the patties
content
reason for protein
was the fish
fl/vor
turbot
with
increased
and
component the fatty
was associated
'response

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

41

Table 3--correlations
the set of 54 minced
and levels of turbot,
alginatq.

between the specific

fish patty treatments
pollock,
soy flour,

Firmness
Score

Reyppnses

determined
for
response variables
prepared
combinations
from various
and sodium
soy protein
concentrate

Scqre

Acceptability
Score

Prtein

Percent
Fat

-0.728*

-0.602

0.553

-0.S30

-0.824**

-0.683*

0.754*

-0.756*

-0.958**

0.931WW

-0.887**

0.886**

Flavor

Percent

Breakpoint

Value

.939**

Firmness
Score
Flavor

Score

951*

Acceptability
Score
Asignificant

at a

0.05.

eWsignificant

at a

0.01.

Table

4--The

effects

fish
set of 54 minced
soy protein
soy flour,

of fish
combination
and alginate
level
patty
prepared
from
treatments
various
concentrate
and sodiun alginate.

on the average
combinations

Cost
BreakIngredient

Acceptability
Score

point

Firmness

Flavor

(g/cm2)

Score

Score

4.21a

5.35C

4.872

Turbot

871a

Pollock

1242b

Turbot:
Pollock
(1:1)

946a

..<

88b

98b

Using
Pieces

($/1b)

specified

and levels

Cost
Using
Fillets

($/1b)

responses

of turbot,

for

the

pollock,

Protein

Fat

(p)

(l)

0.562

1.09C

15.98a

9.85C

4.54a

0.36a

0.80a

17.17C

0.50a

4.87b

0 56a

16 57 b

4.95 b

>

Mginate
Linear

4.93 a

.19

N.S

N.S

N.S.

Trend
abcMean

values

ermined by
* Linear

trend

in the sme
the Duncan's
significant

column followed by the

Range test at

Nltiple

at a

0.05

level;

N.S.

same letter
are not significantly
the a
0.05 level of significpne.
=

not

significant.

different

as det-

level,
Holding
a11 variables
for
the alginate
there
except
constant
firmness
level
increased
decrease
in patty
as the alginate
was a linear
(Table
Althqugh
and
increases
4).
from 0.2 to 0.4 percent
patty
cost
from 0.2
level
decreases
increases
content
protein
as the
the lginate
mall
these
changes
and of no essential
consequence.
are
to 0.4 percent,
despit
for
The use of plginate
its
two reasons,
expense
was Justified
itudies
dewonstrated
sodium
alginate
preliminary
that
First,
was required
Second,
alginate
is
cohernce
to the patties.
in the mixture
to iwpart
yurfaces,
gelatinous
film
via
lnterneeded
to form a thin
on the patty
would
flm
with
CaC1 after
The gelatinous
extrusion.
prevent
action
durfng
processing.
belts
other
surfaces
from sticking
to conveyor
patties
or
models
Mathematical
from the data
the
tp predict
were deVeloped
studied.
levels
of
within
the ingredient
the range
of each
magnitude
response
combination
particular
of a
models
the potential
These
to evaluate
were used
alginate
and sodium
of pollock,
concentrate
turbot:
soy floury
soy protein
studied.
Flgure
and compositional
economic
b ase d on the sensory,
responses
behind
choosing
example
the
rationale
illustrate
provided
to
as
an
was
surface
formula.
This
figure
contains
mixtre
contour
response
a potential
overall
breakpoint
values,
predicted
with
the models
plots
to reflect
variability
ingredient
and cost
examples
In these
acceptability
responses.
flour
protein
limited
combinations
and
of
turbot,
concento
soy
soy
was
included
alginate
level.
Other
variables
0.2
the
not
at
percent
were
trate
The
llustration.
of the
1 in order
the complexity
in Figure
to limit
:
plots
used
these
models
mathematical
to generate
are
as f ollows

Overall

accept.

+ 0.583T5
Cost

(g)

value

Breakpoint

($/1b)

score

1716.9T

4333.38

5.125T

4.1758

+
+

46005
4.8335

1.833T8

2.7585
=

0.3491

0.31B

0.4175

-70)/30,

(Bontrae)
Zsoy Flour
T
a11 combinations,

and S
Zsoy
The
1.
S
Protein
concentrate/3o and for
than
and cost
models
the breakpoint
value
RA2, s for
greater
were both
because
model
could
the acceptability
An RA2 for
not be calculated
0-85.
wodel
and
used
fltting
the
of freedom
in
were
none
a11 degrees
were
RA2.
along
the
A11 ingredient
combinations
same contour
left to compute
an
tends
toward
the S vertex,
tle
concentrate
lines are slanted
soy protein
Breakpoints
increase
ef
the
f
lour
have
f
f
iming
than
ect
greater
a
soy
to
and 0Z soy protein
f or the
of 606 g/cm2
100Z turbot
from the minimum value
g/cm2
and 30Z soy
turbot
1622
the
value
of
f
the
maximum
70Z
to
ixture
or
m
increase
acceptability
Overall
combination.
protein
concentrate
scores
flour
100
level
decreases
from
79Z,
the
maximum
to
turbot
soy
to a
as
decreases
0
and
protein
from
concentrate
13Z
increases
to
component
soy
yielded
the maxlmum
that
of ingredients
The combinatlon
from 30 to 17Z.
and l0Z
flour
contained
turbot,
acceptabllity
1lZ
80Z
overall
soy
score
acceptability
and
of
the
frmness
A comparison
concentrate.
soy protein
increasfng
with
acceptability
Plots
showed
that
scores
were maximized
firmness
in
that
the increase
firmness
subjet
patty
to the condition
patty
flour
of soy
1:l
of a nearly
ratio
to
fn the level
came from an increase
concentrate.
soy protein

where T

(ZTurbot

/30

44

B +

MK y

100%

70 *Jo Turbot &

30 % s:y Flour
70 % Terbo# &
s:y pratein
Concentrole

882
1:58

Turbo#

V
sa

1234
1411

1.

1587
B

>

(A)

*'

<

Pwl=
b

(a)

<

B
Fig.

panel
tures

(C)

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

sensory
mfx-

The

cost

plot

indicated

that

the

of

prices

the

patties

increased

as

of soy protein
the level
increased
from 0 to 30Z for patties
concentrate
made from turbot
Turbot
pieces.
level
did not affect
When our
cost.
plots
compared
found
that
cost and acceptability
both
the least
were
we
combination
(70Z turbot
and 30Z soy flour)
expensive
as $.31/1b and the
combination
(70Z turbot
and 30Z soy protein
concentrate)
most expensive
acceptable.
The most
at $.42/1b were among the least
combinaacceptable
(70Z trbot,
tion
and 17Z soy protein
13Z soy flour
concentrate)
was
intermediate
in cost
This
example
demonstrated
that
the
(ca. $.36/1b).
product
is not always
the most acceptable.
most expensive
Discoveries
such as this
and time
expended
developto do product
Justify the expense
study.
h s imilar
to this
ment researc
NOTE

This
preliminary
will
in complete
be presented
form,
paper
to include
model
the specific
Annual
of
Food
Institute
Technologist
pyrameters,
at the
in Las Vegas,
Nevada,
June
meeting
1982, and subsequently
should
be
in the Journal
published
df Food Science.
This
work was supported
with
funds from the National
Fisheries
Instititute,
Washingtony
and the
D.C.,
University

of

Florida's

Instftute

of

46

Food

and

Agricultural

Sciences.