Ohio State University Extension Bulletin

Research and Reviews: Meat 2001

Special Circular 183-02

The Influence of Egg White and Tumbling on Gel Texture of Catfish Muscle

Results and Discussion

Texture Profile Parameters

Although gel strength was significantly increased by egg white and the tumbling process, the same statement may not be true, in general, for the other texture profile parameters. For example, cohesiveness was only significantly higher than fresh tissue in the egg white plus tumbling treatment while it was lowered in the control and tumbling only groups (Figure 2). Springiness was lowered with tumbling, and showed a negative trend with all other processing treatments and was significantly decreased with the tumbling only group when compared to fresh tissue (Figure 2). Gumminess and chewiness values were increased significantly with egg white and egg white plus tumbling, but they were lower in the control group when compared to the zero-time treatment (Figure 2). Similar results were reported with egg white in fish gels which improved the textural characteristics of the minced fish gels (Arocha and Toledo, 1982). It has been reported that there are many factors effecting the textural and biochemical properties of fish muscle. Haard (1992) and Love (1992) reported that ontogeny, diet, fasting, exercise, body temperature, pressure and environmental conditions can influence the amount of enzymes, their activity and chemistry in fish muscle tissue. Therefore, some conflicting results would also be expected due to the above statement. For example, trout received a higher cohesiveness, springiness and hardness scores among the other evaluated fish species.

Figure 2. Changes in cohesiveness (area 2/area 1), springiness (mm), gumminess (N/g), and chewiness (N/g/mm) during tumbling and egg white incorporation in catfish. Fresh: Zero Time, CNT: Control Non-Tumbled, CT: Control Tumbled, ENT: Egg White Non-Tumbled, ET: Egg White Tumbled.
^abcdMeans with the same letters within a bar set are not significantly different (P > 0.05).

The best result for textural quality of the product was obtained with the egg white plus the tumbling treatment. Textural quality improvements with egg white and soy protein addition into a fish product was also reported by Arocha and Toledo (1982), and similar results were noted with egg white in a pork ham (Liu and Chen, 1993). Figure 2 indicates that cohesiveness values increased as gel hardness increased and there was a statistically significant positive correlations (r = 0.53) between those parameters. Similar results were also reported by Hsieh and Regenstein (1989). However, Yang and Froning (1992) measured the texture profile of mechanically deboned poultry meat, and found that gumminess and chewiness increased as gel strength increased while cohesiveness decreased. Again, the restructured hams tumbled at 25 rpm for 3,000 revolutions were significantly harder, gummier and chewier than that of higher revolution numbers.

The effects of tumbling and egg white on the texture profile were further analyzed, and the results can be seen in Table 1. The data does not contain observations from the fresh-zero time tissue. Since the interactions were not significant, the mean values of the related parameters were combined where appropriate, and pooled data for each treatment is presented. As can be seen from the table, all the texture profile values were increased with egg white, and in general, the same statement holds for the tumbling treatment when compared to the non-tumbled groups (except springiness). Therefore, in general, it can be concluded that higher values for textural quality parameters in the fish product could be produced using either egg white or tumbling. That is, both tumbling and egg white together demonstrated higher results for the textural analysis compared to the control group (Figures 1 and 2).

Table 1. The influence of the egg white and tumbling on texture profile parameters of processed fish muscle.

Parameter No-EW Added^* ± SE EW Added^* ± SE

Gel Strength¹ 0.433^b 0.019 0.546^a 0.018

Cohesiveness² 0.370^b 0.015 0.487^a 0.008

Springiness³ 3.890^b 0.188 4.860^a 0.046

Gumminess⁴ 0.161^b 0.010 0.267^a 0.011

Chewiness⁵ 0.649^b 0.064 1.300^a 0.053

GF Sen Eva⁶ 4.630^b 0.166 5.510^a 0.150

Parameter Non-Tumble^** ± SE Tumbled^** ± SE

Gel Strength¹ 0.458^b 0.019 0.521^a 0.023

Cohesiveness² 0.408^b 0.013 0.449^a 0.021

Springiness³ 4.600^a 0.121 4.150^b 0.206

Gumminess⁴ 0.189^b 0.012 0.238^a 0.018

Chewiness⁵ 0.895^b 0.071 1.054^a 0.111

GF Sen Eva⁶ 4.820^b 0.182 5.320^a 0.177

*Tumbling data was combined, EW: Egg White, SE: Standard Error.
**Egg white data was combined.
¹First bite peak force (N/g sample).
²Second bite area/first bite area (mm²/mm²).
³Second bite distance elapse (mm).
⁴Hardness x Cohesiveness.
⁵Gumminess x Springiness.
⁶Gel Firmness determined by Sensory Evaluation [1-9 (firm) scale].
^abMeans with the same superscript letters in a row are not significantly different (P > 0.05).

The correlation coefficient analysis showed that there were significant positive correlations between total protein and GS, and between GS and each of the TPA parameters (GS, cohesiveness, springiness, gumminess and chewiness). However, significant negative correlations were noted between pH and gumminess, GS and expressible moisture; between lipid content and each of the TPA parameters, and between proteolysis and chewiness, springiness and cohesiveness. Similar results for the relations of GS and cohesiveness were reported with frozen stored fish minces (Hsieh and Regenstein, 1989). However, Lee et al. (1981) stated that an increase in fat content caused a reduction in the hardness of meat emulsions. Also, Yetim (1993) reported a significant negative correlation (r = -0.50) between lipid content and gel hardness with fish gels. The negative relationships between pH and expressible moisture, between pH and GS, and between GS and lipid content indicate that increasing the pH caused a reduction in functional properties of fish proteins, and increasing the lipid content decreased the GS of the product. Similar results were reported by Lee et al. (1981) and Park et al. (1989) for emulsion products.

Back | Forward | Table of Contents

Table 1. The influence of the egg white and tumbling on texture profile parameters of processed fish muscle.
Parameter	*No-EW Added^ ± SE**		*EW Added^ ± SE**
Gel Strength¹	0.433^b	0.019	0.546^a	0.018
Cohesiveness²	0.370^b	0.015	0.487^a	0.008
Springiness³	3.890^b	0.188	4.860^a	0.046
Gumminess⁴	0.161^b	0.010	0.267^a	0.011
Chewiness⁵	0.649^b	0.064	1.300^a	0.053
GF Sen Eva⁶	4.630^b	0.166	5.510^a	0.150
Parameter	Non-Tumble^ ± SE**		Tumbled^ ± SE**
Gel Strength¹	0.458^b	0.019	0.521^a	0.023
Cohesiveness²	0.408^b	0.013	0.449^a	0.021
Springiness³	4.600^a	0.121	4.150^b	0.206
Gumminess⁴	0.189^b	0.012	0.238^a	0.018
Chewiness⁵	0.895^b	0.071	1.054^a	0.111
GF Sen Eva⁶	4.820^b	0.182	5.320^a	0.177
Tumbling data was combined, EW: Egg White, SE: Standard Error. *Egg white data was combined. ¹First bite peak force (N/g sample). ²Second bite area/first bite area (mm²/mm²). ³Second bite distance elapse (mm). ⁴Hardness x Cohesiveness. ⁵Gumminess x Springiness. ⁶Gel Firmness determined by Sensory Evaluation [1-9 (firm) scale]. ^abMeans with the same superscript letters in a row are not significantly different (P > 0.05).