meat
Authors
Objective:The objective of this study was to evaluate the physical attributes of three different plant-based, ground beef alternatives in comparison to ground beef of three different fat percentages.
Study Description:Ground beef of three different fat percentages, a retail pea protein-based ground beef alternative, and a traditional soy-based ground beef alternative were obtained from retail stores (n=15 lots/treatment). Samples from 15 lots of a foodservice soy protein-based ground beef alternative were obtained from a foodservice chain. All samples were fabricated into 0.25 lb patties assigned to one of four assays: color analysis, texture profile analysis, shear force, and pressed juice percentage.
Results:When evaluating raw color, traditional ground beef alternative had the highest (P<0.05) a* value and were redder when compared to all other treatments, with retail ground beef alternative having the lowest (P<0.05) a* value. Traditional and retail ground beef alternative had the highest (P<0.05) a* value, while foodservice ground beef alternative, and 30% and 10% fat ground beef had the lowest (P<0.05) a* value for cooked surface color. For texture attributes, retail and foodservice ground beef alternatives had lower (P<0.05) values for cohesiveness, gumminess, hardness, and chewiness, as well as higher (P<0.05) values for springiness, than all other treatments evaluated. For shear force, the three ground beef alternatives were more tender (P<0.05) than all three ground beef treatments, with foodservice and retail ground beef alternatives being more tender (P<0.05) than all treatments. The three ground beef treatments had greater (P<0.05) pressed juice percentage values than all ground beef alternatives, indicating the ground beef was juicier than any of the ground beef alternatives evaluated.
The Bottom Line:While the ground beef alternative products attempt to mimic ground beef, they provide very different color, texture, tenderness, and cooking characteristics than traditional ground beef.
Keywords: alternative proteins, ground beef, texture
How to Cite: Harr, K. M. , Davis, S. G. , Bigger, S. B. , Thomson, D. U. , Chao, M. D. , Vipham, J. L. , Apley, M. D. , Ensley, S. M. , Haub, M. D. , Miesner, M. D. , Tarpoff, A. J. , Olson, K. C. & O'Quinn, T. G. (2021) “Comparison of the Physical Attributes of Plant-Based Ground Beef Alternatives to Ground Beef”, Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Reports. 7(1). doi: https://doi.org/10.4148/2378-5977.8037