Water-dispersible coating composition for fried foods and the like

A water-dispersible coating composition for parfried foods containing high levels of rice (e.g., as flour) and dextrin, and little or no cornstarch, with the rice and dextrin components on a percentage weight basis of from about 25% to 70% rice dextrin based upon the total weight of the solids content of the coating composition, and ratios of rice to dextrin between about 1.0:1 to 5:1. The use of such high amounts of both rice and dextrin provides a substantial increase in the coated product's crispness and extended holding time following either complete initial cooking or secondary reconstitution in gradient heat, convention, or microwave oven after limited initial cooking (e.g., parfrying) and freezing, without detracting from the final product's excellent appearance, taste, tenderness, and tooth compaction characteristics, and does so in a highly cost-advantageous manner. The coating composition also preferably contains modified low-amylose potato starch and minor amounts of sugar, salt, coloring agents, leavening agents, and stabilizing agents, and it may be applied as a dry mix of ingredients or in wet, slurry form. Also disclosed are methods of preparation for the composition and final cooked coated product using deep-fat frying, oven baking, convection, or microwave oven reconstitution methods.

EXAMPLE 1 Control 1: Dry Mix Coating Without High Rice Flour/Dextrin Combination Mixed With Water to Form a Slurry (to Demonstrate the Prior Art) Control 1 Ingredients: 56% potato starch, 15% medium grain rice flour, 5% tapioca dextrin, 1% sodium acid pyrophosphate, 0.7% sodium bicarbonate, 2% sugar, 4% salt, 0.2% xanthan gum, 0.2% corn syrup solids, and 15.9% cornstarch. Control 2: Dry Mix Coating With High Rice Flour/Dextrin Combination Containing High Rice and Moderate Dextrin Levels Mixed With Water to Form a Slurry (to Demonstrate One Embodiment of the Present Invention) Control 2 Ingredients: 41.9% potato starch, 35% medium grain rice flour, 15% tapioca dextrin, 1% sodium acid pyrophosphate, 0.7% sodium bicarbonate, 2% sugar, 4% salt, 0.2% xanthan gum, 0.2% corn syrup solids, and 0.0% cornstarch. &lsqb;Note that Controls 1 and 2 utilize 42% dry mix coating and 58% water to form the final water-dispersible coating composition.&rsqb; Test 1: Dry Mix Coating With High Rice/Dextrin Combination Having Equal Amounts of Rice Flour and Dextrin, Mixed With Water to Form a Slurry (to Demonstrate Another Embodiment of the Invention) Test 1 Ingredients: 46.9% potato starch, 22.5% medium grain rice flour, 22.5% tapioca dextrin, 1% sodium acid pyrophosphate, 0.7% sodium bicarbonate, 2% sugar, 4% salt, 0.2% xanthan gum, 0.2% corn syrup solids, and 0.0% cornstarch. Test 2: Dry Mix Coating With High Rice/Dextrin Combination Having Less Rice Flour Than Dextrin, Mixed With Water to Form a Slurry (to Demonstrate Another Embodiment of the Invention) Test 2 Ingredients: 46.9% potato starch, 15% medium grain rice flour, 30% tapioca dextrin, 1% sodium acid pyrophosphate, 0.7% sodium bicarbonate, 2% sugar, 4% salt, 0.2% xanthan gum, 0.2% corn syrup solids, and 0.0% cornstarch. Test Preparation Procedures Both the final products of the present invention and that of the prior art were deep fat fried to completion, known as finish frying, from a previously parfried and frozen state, using a conventional deep-fat fryer containing soybean oil heated to a temperature of 350° F. for 2½ minutes. Such finish frying would be essentially similar to that done for coated food products served in a typical food service restaurant. Sensory evaluation sheets containing a five-point hedonic scale to assess the above-mentioned characteristics were then completed after a sampling of the potato products embodying the prior art and others embodying the present invention. The five-point hedonic scale was followed by a numeric scale of one to five, with one being the highest positive numeric value to rate and determine the overall best sample. Evaluatory Criteria and Procedures After samples of the prior art and present invention coatings were completed, panelists completed evaluatory sheets ascertaining various appearance, texture, and flavor characteristics of each sample. Appearance characteristics for evaluation included surface roughness, amount of coating, and coating uniformity. Texture characteristics evaluated included initial crispness, toughness, and tooth compaction, and re-evaluation of these same characteristics after the samples had been placed under a heat lamp for a period of ten minutes. Flavor characteristics included an evaluation as to whether the final coated product had a good, fair, or poor potato flavor and whether or not a foreign flavor was present. Discussion of the Results In view of Tests 1 and 2, it was shown that Control 2, utilizing a slurry-form coating in accordance with the present invention, achieved significantly increased crispness and holding time as compared to the coating of the prior art represented by Control 1. Tests 1 and 2 also demonstrated that it was possible to use the dextrin component in an amount equal to or even greater than the rice flour component in the present invention's high rice flour/dextrin combination while still obtaining increased crispness and holding time compared to that of the prior art coating composition of Control 1. However, these tests also demonstrated that high rice/dextrin formulas made with either an equal ratio of rice flour to dextrin (Test 1) or less rice flour than dextrin (Test 2) produced a final coated product having a comparatively rough and less uniform visual appearance than when the ratio of these components favors a greater amount of rice flour to dextrin in combinations according to the present invention. Since the coated products of Test 1 and Test 2 were somewhat rougher than those of Control 2, one would have expected that either of these test products would have had increased crispness, greater than that of Control 2. However, this was not the case. It was determined that the coated products of Test 1 and Test 2 had slightly less or equal crispness and holding time as compared to those of Control 2, but did not have the superior visual appearance characteristics of Control 2, which are required or at least greatly desired by the food industry. However, it should be noted that Test 1 and Test 2 did produce a final product that had greater crispness and holding time than Control 1 (the prior art), indicating that products made in accordance with Test 1 and Test 2 could function acceptably as alternative embodiments of the present invention. Thus, an example of the preferred embodiment of the present invention can be seen in Control 2. Those seeking substantially clear, smooth, and “invisible” coatings for food products, especially potato substrate products, without producing a dark, opaque, oily, broken, or rough surface texture, but having very desirable qualities and extended holding periods would prefer the coating of Control 2. Similar tests have also been done on potato strips of essentially the same type which were dry-coated with ingredient mixes of the same formulations after the strips were similarly treated, blended, and superficially dried. In some of these tests, the dry-coated strips were parfried, frozen, and then reconstituted, while in other tests, the dry-coated strips were simply frozen and later finish-fried directly to a ready-to-eat status. In all such tests, much the same kind of improvements were observed in crispness, tenderness, flavor, and other such hedonic qualities, and essentially the same surprisingly extended holding times were provided, both under heat lamps and merely at room temperature. Also, there was little or no clumping of the dry-coated strips, either during freezing or subsequent deep frying. The above description of the new and inventive coating formulation and related processes and procedures is considered that of the preferred embodiments only. Modifications of the invention may occur to those skilled in the art and to those who make or use the invention after learning of these preferred embodiments. Therefore, it is to be understood that the embodiments described above are merely illustrative and should not be used to limit the scope of the invention, which is defined by the following claims as interpreted according to the principles of patent law, including the doctrine of equivalents.