Objective: The objective of this study was to determine if current plant-based protein ground beef alternatives offer similar palatability characteristics to ground beef patties of varying fat percentages.
Study Description: Fifteen different production lots (n = 15/fat level) of 3 lb ground beef chubs of three different fat levels (10%, 20%, and 30%) were collected from retail markets in the Manhattan, KS, area. Additionally, alternative products including a soy and potato protein-based foodservice ground beef alternative, a pea protein-based retail ground beef alternative, and a traditional soy protein-based ground beef alternative, (n = 15 production lots/product) currently available through commercial channels were collected from retail markets and a commercial foodservice chain. All ground beef and alternative treatments were formed into 0.25-lb patties and frozen at -40 degrees F until consumer sensory analysis.
Results: All three ground beef samples rated higher (P < 0.05) than the three alternative samples for appearance, overall flavor, beef flavor, and overall liking. Retail alternative rated lowest (P < 0.05) for appearance, overall flavor, texture, and overall liking. Of the alternative samples, foodservice alternative rated highest (P < 0.05) for juiciness, beef flavor, and texture liking, and traditional alternative rated lowest (P < 0.05) for juiciness. However, the foodservice alternative rated higher (P < 0.05) for tenderness than the 20% fat ground beef samples. Moreover, of the alternative samples, the foodservice alternative and traditional alternative rated similar (P > 0.05) for appearance, tenderness, overall flavor liking, and overall liking. Among the ground beef samples, no differences (P > 0.05) were found for appearance, juiciness, overall flavor liking, beef flavor liking, or overall liking. For the percentage of samples rated acceptable for each palatability trait, all three ground beef treatments had a higher (P < 0.05) percentage of samples rated acceptable for appearance, overall flavor liking, beef flavor liking, texture, and overall liking than the three alternative. Retail alternative had the lowest (P < 0.05) percentage of samples rated acceptable for appearance, overall flavor, texture, and overall liking. Traditional alternative had the lowest (P < 0.05) percentage of samples rated acceptable for juiciness. Among the alternative samples, foodservice alternative had the highest (P < 0.05) percentage of samples rated acceptable for juiciness and beef flavor liking. Furthermore, among the alternative treatments, foodservice alternative and traditional alternative had a similar (P > 0.05) percentage of samples rated acceptable for appearance, overall flavor liking, texture liking, and overall liking.
The Bottom Line: While the ground beef alternative products attempt to mimic ground beef, they provide very different consumer eating experiences than traditional ground beef.
View the complete report by authors S. G. Davis, K. M. Harr, S. B. Bigger, D. U. Thomson, M. D. Chao, J. L. Vipham, M. D. Apley, D. A. Blasi, S. M. Ensley, M. D. Haub, M. D. Miesner, A. J. Tarpoff, K C. Olson, and T. G. O’Quinn at Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Reports: Vol. 7: Iss. 1. https://doi.org/10.4148/2378-5977.8036
