Cargando…
Textural and Consumer-Aided Characterisation and Acceptability of a Hybrid Meat and Plant-Based Burger Patty
The hamburger has been targeted for substitution by numerous plant-based alternatives. However, many consumers find the taste of these alternatives lacking, and thus we proposed a hybrid meat and plant-based burger as a more acceptable alternative for these consumers. The burger was made from 50% me...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10253062/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37297490 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods12112246 |
_version_ | 1785056317806739456 |
---|---|
author | Petrat-Melin, Bjørn Dam, Svend |
author_facet | Petrat-Melin, Bjørn Dam, Svend |
author_sort | Petrat-Melin, Bjørn |
collection | PubMed |
description | The hamburger has been targeted for substitution by numerous plant-based alternatives. However, many consumers find the taste of these alternatives lacking, and thus we proposed a hybrid meat and plant-based burger as a more acceptable alternative for these consumers. The burger was made from 50% meat (beef and pork, 4:1) and 50% plant-based ingredients, including texturised legume protein. Texture and sensory properties were evaluated instrumentally and through a consumer survey (n = 381) using the check-all-that-apply (CATA) method. Expressible moisture measurements indicated a significantly juicier eating experience for the hybrid compared to a beef burger (33.5% vs. 22.3%), which was supported by the CATA survey where “juicy” was used more to describe the hybrid than the beef burger (53% vs. 12%). Texture profile analysis showed the hybrid burger was significantly softer (Young’s modulus: 332 ± 34 vs. 679 ± 80 kPa) and less cohesive than a beef burger (Ratio 0.48 ± 0.02 vs. 0.58 ± 0.01). Despite having different textural and CATA profiles, overall liking of the hybrid burger and a beef burger were not significantly different. Penalty analysis indicated that “meat flavour”, “juiciness”, “spiciness” and “saltiness” were the most important attributes for a burger. In conclusion, the hybrid burger had different attributes and was described with different CATA terms than a beef burger but had the same overall acceptability. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10253062 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-102530622023-06-10 Textural and Consumer-Aided Characterisation and Acceptability of a Hybrid Meat and Plant-Based Burger Patty Petrat-Melin, Bjørn Dam, Svend Foods Article The hamburger has been targeted for substitution by numerous plant-based alternatives. However, many consumers find the taste of these alternatives lacking, and thus we proposed a hybrid meat and plant-based burger as a more acceptable alternative for these consumers. The burger was made from 50% meat (beef and pork, 4:1) and 50% plant-based ingredients, including texturised legume protein. Texture and sensory properties were evaluated instrumentally and through a consumer survey (n = 381) using the check-all-that-apply (CATA) method. Expressible moisture measurements indicated a significantly juicier eating experience for the hybrid compared to a beef burger (33.5% vs. 22.3%), which was supported by the CATA survey where “juicy” was used more to describe the hybrid than the beef burger (53% vs. 12%). Texture profile analysis showed the hybrid burger was significantly softer (Young’s modulus: 332 ± 34 vs. 679 ± 80 kPa) and less cohesive than a beef burger (Ratio 0.48 ± 0.02 vs. 0.58 ± 0.01). Despite having different textural and CATA profiles, overall liking of the hybrid burger and a beef burger were not significantly different. Penalty analysis indicated that “meat flavour”, “juiciness”, “spiciness” and “saltiness” were the most important attributes for a burger. In conclusion, the hybrid burger had different attributes and was described with different CATA terms than a beef burger but had the same overall acceptability. MDPI 2023-06-01 /pmc/articles/PMC10253062/ /pubmed/37297490 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods12112246 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Petrat-Melin, Bjørn Dam, Svend Textural and Consumer-Aided Characterisation and Acceptability of a Hybrid Meat and Plant-Based Burger Patty |
title | Textural and Consumer-Aided Characterisation and Acceptability of a Hybrid Meat and Plant-Based Burger Patty |
title_full | Textural and Consumer-Aided Characterisation and Acceptability of a Hybrid Meat and Plant-Based Burger Patty |
title_fullStr | Textural and Consumer-Aided Characterisation and Acceptability of a Hybrid Meat and Plant-Based Burger Patty |
title_full_unstemmed | Textural and Consumer-Aided Characterisation and Acceptability of a Hybrid Meat and Plant-Based Burger Patty |
title_short | Textural and Consumer-Aided Characterisation and Acceptability of a Hybrid Meat and Plant-Based Burger Patty |
title_sort | textural and consumer-aided characterisation and acceptability of a hybrid meat and plant-based burger patty |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10253062/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37297490 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods12112246 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT petratmelinbjørn texturalandconsumeraidedcharacterisationandacceptabilityofahybridmeatandplantbasedburgerpatty AT damsvend texturalandconsumeraidedcharacterisationandacceptabilityofahybridmeatandplantbasedburgerpatty |