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
. 2024 May 8;13(10):1444.
doi: 10.3390/foods13101444.

Sensory and Physical Properties of Fibrous Meat Analogs Made from Faba Bean, Pea, and Oat Using High-Moisture Extrusion

Affiliations

Sensory and Physical Properties of Fibrous Meat Analogs Made from Faba Bean, Pea, and Oat Using High-Moisture Extrusion

Antti Knaapila et al. Foods. .

Abstract

Faba bean is a promising source of ingredients for the production of meat analogs. However, sensory properties of faba bean, especially the bitter taste of the protein concentrate, restrict its use. Our aim was to assess the feasibility of two types of faba bean ingredients-flour (from germinated, gently heat-treated beans) and groat (from non-germinated, roasted beans)-in combination with pea protein isolate and oat fiber concentrate for producing meat analogs using high-moisture extrusion. We produced six samples using varying recipes, while maintaining constant process parameters. An untrained panel (55 participants) evaluated the samples for key sensory attributes (check-all-that-apply) and rated their pleasantness. The water absorption capacity and mechanical properties of the samples were assessed using instrumental measurements. The samples were frequently described as 'beany' and 'tasteless', but very rarely as 'bitter'. The most frequently cited attributes for mouthfeel varied between the samples containing 30% ('tough', 'gummy') and 50% ('crumbly', 'floury') of faba bean flour/groat and were associated with corresponding mechanical properties. On average, the sample containing a blend of faba bean groat and pea protein isolate (50% each) appeared to be the most pleasant. Our results suggest that faba bean groat with pea protein isolate enables the production of fibrous meat analogs with acceptable taste and texture, without the bitter off-taste.

Keywords: CATA; Vicia faba; consumers; hedonic value; meat alternative; plant-based protein; sensory evaluation; texture profile analysis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Sensory profiles of the extrudates according to the check-all-that-apply (CATA) task. In CATA, the participants selected all attributes from the provided list (see Table 2) that applied to a sample based on the sensory evaluation. Bars show the percentage out of the 55 participants who selected an attribute to describe a sample (the attributes are sorted in descending order of the average citation frequency). Samples contained faba bean groat (F) or faba bean flour made of germinated beans (GF); number indicates the percentage (30, 35, or 50%). Two of the samples (F35+O and GF35+O) included 30% oat fiber concentrate, and the rest (45–70%) were pea protein isolate (percentages are of dry matter; see Table 1 for details).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Photographs of the extrudates’ inner structure (see Table 1 for details of the samples).
Figure 3
Figure 3
PLS bi-plot including extrudates (F30, F50, F35+O, GF30, GF50, and GF35+O), instrumental mechanical properties of hardness, gumminess, springiness, and chewiness, CS_L (longitudinal cutting strength), and CS_P (perpendicular cutting strength), WAC (water absorption capacity) and texture-related CATA attributes gummy, chewy, crumbly, and floury. PLS component-1 explains 62.7% of the variation in x and 53.9% of the variation in y, while PLS component-2 explains 19.5% of the variation in x and 27.4% of the variation in y.

Similar articles

References

    1. Wood P., Tavan M. A Review of the Alternative Protein Industry. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2022;47:100869. doi: 10.1016/j.cofs.2022.100869. - DOI
    1. Lanz M., Hartmann C., Egan P., Siegrist M. Consumer Acceptance of Cultured, Plant-Based, 3D-Printed Meat and Fish Alternatives. Future Foods. 2024;9:100297. doi: 10.1016/j.fufo.2024.100297. - DOI
    1. Onwezen M.C., Bouwman E.P., Reinders M.J., Dagevos H. A Systematic Review on Consumer Acceptance of Alternative Proteins: Pulses, Algae, Insects, Plant-Based Meat Alternatives, and Cultured Meat. Appetite. 2021;159:105058. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2020.105058. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Anusha Siddiqui S., Bahmid N.A., Mahmud C.M.M., Boukid F., Lamri M., Gagaoua M. Consumer Acceptability of Plant-, Seaweed-, and Insect-Based Foods as Alternatives to Meat: A Critical Compilation of a Decade of Research. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2023;63:6630–6651. doi: 10.1080/10408398.2022.2036096. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Aschemann-Witzel J., Gantriis R.F., Fraga P., Perez-Cueto F.J.A. Plant-Based Food and Protein Trend from a Business Perspective: Markets, Consumers, and the Challenges and Opportunities in the Future. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2021;61:3119–3128. doi: 10.1080/10408398.2020.1793730. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources