Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Nov;41(6):983-996.
doi: 10.5851/kosfa.2021.e50. Epub 2021 Nov 1.

Evaluation of Rheological and Sensory Characteristics of Plant-Based Meat Analog with Comparison to Beef and Pork

Allah Bakhsh  1 , Se-Jin Lee  1 , Eun-Yeong Lee  1 , Young-Hwa Hwang  2 , Seon-Tea Joo  1   2
Affiliations

Evaluation of Rheological and Sensory Characteristics of Plant-Based Meat Analog with Comparison to Beef and Pork

Allah Bakhsh et al. Food Sci Anim Resour. 2021 Nov.

Abstract

This study explored the physicochemical, textural, and sensorial properties of a meat analog (MA) as compared to beef and pork meats. Results illustrate that MA patties had lower moisture, fat, and protein content, as well as higher ash and crude fiber than beef and pork. Likewise, MA patties had a higher pH, lightness (L*), and redness (a*) than either beef or pork. Pork meat exhibited the highest released water (RW) and cooking loss (CL) values, followed closely by MA with beef displaying the lowest values. Regardless of patty type, the post-cooking diameter patties were reduced significantly (p<0.05). However, the Warner-Bratzler shear force (WBSF), hardness, chewiness, and gumminess of beef were significantly higher than that of either pork or MA. The visible appearance of MA patties had more porous and loose structures before and after cooking. Consequently, based on sensory parameters, MA patties demonstrated the higher values for appearance and firmness, followed by beef and pork respectively, although the difference was not statistically significant. Therefore, the current study demonstrated that some physicochemical, textural, and sensory characteristics of beef and pork exhibited the most similarity to MA.

Keywords: beef; meat analog; plant-based ingredients; pork; textured vegetable protein.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.. Flow diagram for manufacturing the meat analog.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.. External and internal appearance of meat analog in relation to beef and pork.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.. Sensory properties of meat analog in relation to beef and pork.
MA, meat analog.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Ahirwar R, Jayathilakan K, Reddy KJ, Pandey MC, Batra HV. Development of mushroom and wheat gluten based meat analogue by using response surface methodology. Int J Adv Res. 2015;3:923–930.
    1. Aiking H. Future protein supply. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2011;22:112–120. doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2010.04.005. - DOI
    1. Akesowan A. Quality characteristics of light pork burgers fortified with soy protein isolate. Food Sci Biotechnol. 2010;19:1143–1149. doi: 10.1007/s10068-010-0163-2. - DOI
    1. Alamu EO, Busie MD. Effect of textured soy protein (tsp) inclusion on the sensory characteristics and acceptability of local dishes in Nigeria. Cogent Food Agric. 2019;5:1671749. doi: 10.1080/23311932.2019.1671749. - DOI
    1. AMSA . Research guidelines for cookery. American Meat Science Association; Chicago, IL, USA: 1995. p. 8. p.