Asian Food Science Journal

Aims: This research aims to determine the quality of chicken shu-mai with mocaf and tapioca flour substitution based on sensory quality using quantitative descriptive analysis methods.

Study design:  This research was a laboratory experiment with a completely randomised design.

Place and Duration of Study: The study was conducted at the Laboratory of Animal Product Technology, Faculty of Animal Science and Technology, Brawijaya University, between April and May 2026.

Methodology: This research was conducted with 5 treatments and 4 replications. The treatments were 100% mocaf (P1), 75% mocaf and 25% tapioca flour (P2), 50% mocaf and tapioca flour (P3), 25% mocaf and 75% tapioca flour (P4), and 100% tapioca flour (P5). The total binder used was 15% of the weight of the chicken. The samples were then evaluated by 5 trained panellists using the QDA sensory test method. The collected data were tabulated using Microsoft Excel 2013 and further analysed using ANOVA. Duncan's Multiple Range Test (DMRT) was used when there was a significant (P<0.05) or very significant (P<0.01) effect in the data.

Results: The different types of binders used in chicken shu-mai had a very significant effect (P<0.01), increasing aroma and decreasing texture; a significant effect (P<0.05), increasing colour; and no effect (P>0.05) on taste. Aroma (4.05 ± 0.10 to 4.45 ± 0.10) and colour (3.75 ± 0.10 to 4.20 ± 0.16) increased, whereas texture (4.20 ± 0.42 to 3.60 ± 0.53) decreased across the chicken shu-mai treatments; taste ranged from 3.80 ± 0.28 to 4.00 ± 0.16 without a significant treatment effect.

Conclusion: The type of binder influenced the sensory quality of chicken shu-mai by increasing the aroma and colour attribute scores while decreasing the texture attribute score. Modified cassava flour contributed to higher texture scores, indicating a firmer and chewier product, whereas tapioca flour produced higher aroma and colour scores. The taste attribute was not significantly affected by the substitution of modified cassava flour for tapioca flour, suggesting that both binders maintained the characteristic taste of chicken shu-mai. Based on the sensory attributes evaluated, modified cassava flour may be used as an alternative binder when a firmer and chewier texture is desired, whereas tapioca flour may be preferred when a stronger characteristic aroma and a lighter colour are prioritised. Further refinement of the formulation is needed to achieve a better balance among texture, aroma, colour, and taste attributes.