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...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2023-06-01
|
| Series: | Foods |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/12/11/2246 |
| _version_ | 1797597528056659968 |
|---|---|
| author | Bjørn Petrat-Melin Svend Dam |
| author_facet | Bjørn Petrat-Melin Svend Dam |
| author_sort | Bjørn Petrat-Melin |
| collection | DOAJ |
| 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 (<i>n</i> = 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-11T03:07:20Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-1fb375e14b7b45039c2e745080a47a5b |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2304-8158 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-11T03:07:20Z |
| publishDate | 2023-06-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Foods |
| spelling | doaj.art-1fb375e14b7b45039c2e745080a47a5b2023-11-18T07:52:15ZengMDPI AGFoods2304-81582023-06-011211224610.3390/foods12112246Textural and Consumer-Aided Characterisation and Acceptability of a Hybrid Meat and Plant-Based Burger PattyBjørn Petrat-Melin0Svend Dam1Business Academy Aarhus, School of Applied Sciences, 8260 Viby J, DenmarkBusiness Academy Aarhus, School of Applied Sciences, 8260 Viby J, DenmarkThe 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 (<i>n</i> = 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.https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/12/11/2246acceptabilitymeat alternativepreference mappingcheck-all-that-applyconsumer survey |
| spellingShingle | Bjørn Petrat-Melin Svend Dam Textural and Consumer-Aided Characterisation and Acceptability of a Hybrid Meat and Plant-Based Burger Patty Foods acceptability meat alternative preference mapping check-all-that-apply consumer survey |
| 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 | acceptability meat alternative preference mapping check-all-that-apply consumer survey |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/12/11/2246 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT bjørnpetratmelin texturalandconsumeraidedcharacterisationandacceptabilityofahybridmeatandplantbasedburgerpatty AT svenddam texturalandconsumeraidedcharacterisationandacceptabilityofahybridmeatandplantbasedburgerpatty |