Composition and quality attributes of conventionally and organically farmed Pangasius fillets (Pangasius hypophthalmus) on the German market
Article first published online: 11 DEC 2009
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2621.2009.02103.x
© 2010 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2010 Institute of Food Science and Technology
Issue

International Journal of Food Science & Technology
Volume 45, Issue 1, pages 56–66, January 2010
Additional Information
How to Cite
Karl, H., Lehmann, I., Rehbein, H. and Schubring, R. (2010), Composition and quality attributes of conventionally and organically farmed Pangasius fillets (Pangasius hypophthalmus) on the German market. International Journal of Food Science & Technology, 45: 56–66. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2621.2009.02103.x
Publication History
- Issue published online: 11 DEC 2009
- Article first published online: 11 DEC 2009
- (Received 25 March 2009; Accepted in revised form 18 September 2009)
- Abstract
- Article
- References
- Cited By
Keywords:
- Composition;
- DSC;
- fatty acids;
- Pangasius;
- polyphosphate;
- RFLP-SSCP;
- texture
Summary
A range of conventionally and organically farmed Pangasius or sutchi catfish fillets available on the German market were analysed to compare both composition and quality. Differentiation of Pangasius hypophthalmus from Pangasius bocourti was achieved by RFLP-SSCP analysis. The protein content of conventionally farmed fillets ranged between 13.3 and 15.7%, whereas organically produced fillets had significantly higher protein contents of between 17.0 and 17.4%. No difference in the fat content between farming methods was observed, which varied between 1.4 and 3.2%. Polyunsaturated fatty acids represented about 24% of the total fatty acids with a high level of linoleic acid. The comparison of the proximate composition indicated that water was added to most of the conventionally farmed products, in different amounts, as well as water-binding capacity enhancing additives. Differential scanning calorimetry was used to demonstrate the presence of polyphosphate on muscle proteins. Differences in texture, water-binding capacity and colour are discussed.

1365-2621/asset/IJFS_left.gif?v=1&s=a516bb06c5b35d4ece4be88f442cf2e7cfcbd9c5)
1365-2621/asset/IJFS_right.gif?v=1&s=c6f9e3b365d5d3b34126a5d627bc4c7c5887797c)