Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the palatability traits and consumer acceptance of three plant-based ground beef alternatives in comparison to ground beef in a foodservice-like hamburger application.
Study Description: Three popular plant-based ground beef alternatives (GBA) and 80% lean, 20% fat composition ground beef chubs (n = 20) were selected for consumer analysis. Samples were cooked to an internal temperature of 160°F, plated on a bun and served to consumers with the opportunity to apply ketchup, mustard, cheese, lettuce, and pickles. Consumers evaluated the differences in palatability traits and purchase intent for the samples identified as: Ground Beef, Foodservice GBA, Retail GBA, and Traditional GBA.
Least squares means for consumer (n = 120) panel ratings for hamburgers with ground beef and plant-based ground beef alternatives (GBA)1
| Trait2 | Ground beef | Foodservice GBA | Retail GBA | Traditional GBA | SEM3 | P-value |
| Hamburger panels4 | ||||||
| Juiciness | 66.4a | 55.3b | 53.5b | 39.1c | 2.2 | < 0.01 |
| Tenderness | 64.7a | 61.4a | 62.6a | 48.8b | 2.1 | < 0.01 |
| Texture | 64.6a | 55.0b | 50.0b | 40.5c | 2.3 | < 0.01 |
| Overall flavor | 67.7a | 48.6b | 43.4bc | 37.4c | 2.5 | < 0.01 |
| Beef flavor | 66.1a | 47.2b | 41.0c | 36.8c | 2.7 | < 0.01 |
| Overall liking | 67.5a | 49.6b | 42.3b | 34.1c | 2.6 | < 0.01 |
| Purchase intent5 | 63.3a | 42.2b | 34.5c | 28.3c | 2.7 | < 0.01 |
| Purchase price6 | 4.8a | 3.2b | 2.7bc | 2.1c | 0.2 | < 0.01 |
abcLeast squares means in the same row without a common superscript differ (P < 0.05).
1Foodservice GBA = plant-based ground beef alternative most commonly sold in foodservice establishments (restaurants).
Retail GBA = plant-based ground beef alternative most commonly sold in retail markets (grocery stores, supermarkets).
Traditional GBA = plant-based ground beef alternative most indicative of a traditional soy-based product.
2Sensory scores: 0 = extremely dry/tough, dislike texture/overall flavor/beef flavor/overall; 50 = neither dry nor juicy/neither tough nor tender, neither like nor dislike texture/overall flavor/beef flavor/overall; 100 = extremely juicy/tender, like texture/overall flavor/beef flavor/overall.
3Standard error of the means (largest) of the least square means.
4Consumers were served a hamburger patty on a white bun with an option to add cheese, ketchup, lettuce, mustard, and pickle to their hamburger samples.
5If price were not a factor, likelihood of purchase; 1 = Not Likely, 100 = Extremely Likely.
6 Price, in US dollars, willing to be paid at foodservice for a comparable product.
Bottom Line: This research indicates the use of ground beef and ground beef alternatives provide different eating experiences when consumed as a complete hamburger and should be marketed as such by the foodservice and retail sectors.
The full research report is available. Egger, L. A.; Farmer, K. J.; Beyer, E. S.; Lybarger, K. R.; Vipham, J. L.; Zumbaugh, M. D.; Chao, M. D.; and O’Quinn, T. G. (2023) “Consumer Sensory Evaluation of Ground Beef and Plant-Based Ground Beef Alternatives Used in a Hamburger Application,” Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Reports: Vol. 9: Iss. 1. https://doi.org/10.4148/2378-5977.8425
