1980
DOI: 10.1002/food.19800240414
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Untersuchungen zur Erfassung des Texturprofils von Fleischerzeugnissen

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

1
1
0

Year Published

1982
1982
1988
1988

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

1
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
1
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The average composition of raw beefburgers in this study was 54g water, 25g fat, 14g protein and 6g carbohydrate and 2g ash per 1OOg. The analysis compares with 56g water, 21g fat, 15g protein and 5g carbohydrate per lOOg reported for 36 samples of 6 brands (Paul and Southgate 1978). A similar value was found for fat content, at 23g per lOOg (Food Standards Committee, 1980) confirming little change in fat content in recent years.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 68%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The average composition of raw beefburgers in this study was 54g water, 25g fat, 14g protein and 6g carbohydrate and 2g ash per 1OOg. The analysis compares with 56g water, 21g fat, 15g protein and 5g carbohydrate per lOOg reported for 36 samples of 6 brands (Paul and Southgate 1978). A similar value was found for fat content, at 23g per lOOg (Food Standards Committee, 1980) confirming little change in fat content in recent years.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 68%
“…These attributes include the geometrical characteristics of particle size, shape and orientation (Szczesniak 1963) and are modified by the reduction and mixing with saliva occurring during bolus formation. Thus it seems that objective measurements on the intact burger are insufficient to predict those attributes relating to the temporal process of its reduction before swallowing (Muschiolik and Schmandke 1980). The finding that moistness was related to the weight of fat-free dry matter and to the total area of expressed fluid, compares with the relationship of expressed juice, using the Grau and Hamm method, with an hedonic rating of juiciness in experimental and commercial frankfurters (Ackerman et al 1981).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%