Quality of plant-based ground beef alternatives in comparison to ground beef of various fat levels

S. Davis, K. Harr, K. J. Farmer, E. Beyer, S. B. Bigger, Michael D. Chao, A. J. Tarpoff, D. Thomson, J. Vipham, M. Zumbaugh, T. O’Quinn
{"title":"Quality of plant-based ground beef alternatives in comparison to ground beef of various fat levels","authors":"S. Davis, K. Harr, K. J. Farmer, E. Beyer, S. B. Bigger, Michael D. Chao, A. J. Tarpoff, D. Thomson, J. Vipham, M. Zumbaugh, T. O’Quinn","doi":"10.22175/mmb.12989","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The objective of this study was to compare the quality characteristics of current plant-based protein ground beef alternatives (GBA) to ground beef (GB) patties of varying fat percentages. Fifteen different production lots (n = 15 / fat level) of 1.36 kg GB chubs of three different fat levels (10%, 20%, and 27%) were collected from retail markets in the Manhattan, KS area. Additionally, GBA products including a foodservice GBA (FGBA), a retail GBA (RGBA), and a traditional soy-protein based GBA (TGBA) currently available through commercial channels were collected. Consumers (n = 120) evaluated sample appearance, juiciness, tenderness, overall flavor liking, beef flavor liking, texture liking, and overall liking. Additionally, samples were evaluated for color, texture profile, shear force, pressed juiciness percentage (PJP), pH, and fat and moisture percentage. All three GB samples rated higher (P < 0.05) than the three GBA samples for appearance liking, overall flavor liking, beef flavor liking, and overall liking by consumers. Similar results were found with trained sensory panelists, which rated the GBA as less (P < 0.05) juicy, softer (P < 0.05), and lower (P < 0.05) for beef flavor and odor intensity and higher (P < 0.05) for off-flavor intensity than the GB. Moreover, the GBA had less (P < 0.05) change in shape through cooking and a lower (P < 0.05) percentage of cooking loss and cooking time than the GB. Also, the GBA all had lower (P < 0.05) shear force and PJP values than the GB. The color of the GBA differed (P < 0.05) from the GB, with the GB samples being more (P < 0.05) red in the raw state. These results indicate that the GBA provide different eating and quality experiences than GB and should thus be considered as different products by consumers and retailers.","PeriodicalId":18316,"journal":{"name":"Meat and Muscle Biology","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Meat and Muscle Biology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22175/mmb.12989","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

The objective of this study was to compare the quality characteristics of current plant-based protein ground beef alternatives (GBA) to ground beef (GB) patties of varying fat percentages. Fifteen different production lots (n = 15 / fat level) of 1.36 kg GB chubs of three different fat levels (10%, 20%, and 27%) were collected from retail markets in the Manhattan, KS area. Additionally, GBA products including a foodservice GBA (FGBA), a retail GBA (RGBA), and a traditional soy-protein based GBA (TGBA) currently available through commercial channels were collected. Consumers (n = 120) evaluated sample appearance, juiciness, tenderness, overall flavor liking, beef flavor liking, texture liking, and overall liking. Additionally, samples were evaluated for color, texture profile, shear force, pressed juiciness percentage (PJP), pH, and fat and moisture percentage. All three GB samples rated higher (P < 0.05) than the three GBA samples for appearance liking, overall flavor liking, beef flavor liking, and overall liking by consumers. Similar results were found with trained sensory panelists, which rated the GBA as less (P < 0.05) juicy, softer (P < 0.05), and lower (P < 0.05) for beef flavor and odor intensity and higher (P < 0.05) for off-flavor intensity than the GB. Moreover, the GBA had less (P < 0.05) change in shape through cooking and a lower (P < 0.05) percentage of cooking loss and cooking time than the GB. Also, the GBA all had lower (P < 0.05) shear force and PJP values than the GB. The color of the GBA differed (P < 0.05) from the GB, with the GB samples being more (P < 0.05) red in the raw state. These results indicate that the GBA provide different eating and quality experiences than GB and should thus be considered as different products by consumers and retailers.
以植物为基础的碎牛肉替代品与不同脂肪水平的碎牛肉的质量比较
本研究的目的是比较目前基于植物蛋白的碎牛肉替代品(GBA)与不同脂肪百分比的碎牛肉(GB)肉饼的质量特征。从曼哈顿,KS地区的零售市场收集了15个不同的生产批次(n = 15 /脂肪水平)1.36 kg GB圆胖,脂肪水平为三种不同(10%,20%和27%)。此外,GBA产品包括餐饮GBA (FGBA),零售GBA (RGBA)和传统的大豆蛋白GBA (TGBA),目前可通过商业渠道获得。消费者(n = 120)评估样品外观、多汁性、嫩度、总体风味喜好、牛肉风味喜好、质地喜好和总体喜好。此外,还对样品的颜色、质地、剪切力、压汁率(PJP)、pH值、脂肪和水分百分比进行了评估。三个国标样品在外观喜欢度、整体风味喜欢度、牛肉风味喜欢度和消费者整体喜欢度上的评分均高于三个GBA样品(P < 0.05)。经过培训的感官小组成员也发现了类似的结果,他们认为GBA比GB多汁少(P < 0.05),更软(P < 0.05),牛肉风味和气味强度更低(P < 0.05),异味强度更高(P < 0.05)。蒸煮过程中GBA的形状变化较小(P < 0.05),蒸煮损失率和蒸煮时间比GB低(P < 0.05)。大湾区的剪切力和PJP值均低于大湾区(P < 0.05)。GBA的颜色与GB不同(P < 0.05),其中GB样品在原始状态下更显红色(P < 0.05)。这些结果表明,大湾区提供的饮食和质量体验与国标不同,因此消费者和零售商应该将其视为不同的产品。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信