Next Article in Journal
Moulded-Pulp Packaging: A Straightforward Method for Quickly Designing, Manufacturing and Testing Complex Shapes for Crash Protection Pads
Previous Article in Journal
The Development of Fruit and Vegetal Probiotic Beverages Using Lactiplantibacillus pentosus LPG1 from Table Olives
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effect of Fermentation Technology and Storage Time on the Quality of Salami-Type Sausages
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 14
Issue 24
10.3390/app142411513
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Comparison of Physical, Sensorial, and Microstructural Properties to Assess the Similarity Between Plant- and Animal-Based Meat Products

by
Fouad Ali Abdullah Abdullah
1,2,
Matej Pospiech
3,
Dani Dordevic
3,* and
Eliska Kabourkova
1
1
Department of Animal Origin Food & Gastronomic Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Hygiene and Ecology, University of Veterinary Sciences, Palackého tř. 1946/1, 61242 Brno, Czech Republic
2
Department of Medical Laboratory Technology, College of Health and Medical Techniques, Duhok Polytechnic University, Duhok 42001, Iraq
3
Department of Plant Origin Food Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Hygiene and Ecology, University of Veterinary Sciences, 61242 Brno, Czech Republic
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14(24), 11513; https://doi.org/10.3390/app142411513
Submission received: 3 November 2024 / Revised: 4 December 2024 / Accepted: 5 December 2024 / Published: 10 December 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Recent Processing Technologies for Improving Meat Quality)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The aim of this study was to compare the physical, sensorial, and microstructural properties of selected meat products with their plant-based alternatives to assess how closely the alternatives mimic the original products. Six meat analogue products, including Frankfurter sausage (SuA), steak (StA), Hungarian sausage (KA), minced meat (MA), salami (SaA), and burger (BA), were compared with their corresponding meat products (SuM, StM, KM, MM, SaM, and BM, respectively). The study measured colour indicators, texture parameters, sensory attributes, and microstructural properties. The redness values (a*) of the external surfaces of SuM and KM, as well as the hardness of MM, were similar to those of their alternative products, with no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05). Sensory evaluation revealed similar ratings for two attributes: product similarity and overall appearance. However, significant differences were found in the descriptors for animal character and meat taste.

1. Introduction

The consumption of meat alternative products from plant-based sources is increasing due to the environmental and health concerns related to meat production [1]. The global market size of meat analogues was USD 6.6 billion in 2023 and is projected to reach USD 18 billion by 2035, with a compound annual growth rate of 8.9% (from 2024 to 2035) [2]. Meat production has a significant environmental impact due to the intensive use of land, water, and energy, as well as the increase in greenhouse gas emissions. Another concern is animal welfare, which is affected by the breeding and slaughtering practices involved in meat production. Additionally, meat products raise public health concerns due to the risk of contamination by foodborne pathogens [3]. Also, red meat consumption can increase the risk of societally relevant diseases such as ischemic heart disease, the obesity epidemic [4], and colorectal cancer [5]. For these reasons, an increasing number of people are choosing to reduce their meat consumption or eliminate meat from their diets altogether, leading to the creation of alternatives to conventional animal products [6]. The production of meat analogues is intended to help consumers reduce their meat consumption [7]. Various terms are commonly used to describe alternatives to animal products, including “meat analogues”, “imitation meat”, “meat substitutes”, “meat replacements”, “mimic animal meat”, “meatless meat”, “mock meat”, and “faux meat”. Meat-free food products that closely resemble traditional meat in appearance, texture, taste, and nutritional composition are referred to as “meat analogues” [8,9]. These plant protein-based products are designed to mimic the sensory properties of meat and meat products [7]. The primary functions of meat analogue products are to replace meat, provide similar sensory attributes, and be prepared and consumed as if they were meat. The resemblance of sensory properties—such as colour, texture, appearance, taste, and smell—to those of meat is particularly important for consumers who are accustomed to choosing meat [10]. The development of plant-based meat analogues is focused on the modifications of physical properties (through proper sensory attributes), on the one hand, and the provision of similar nutritional values, on the other [11]. Most characteristics of meat analogues (such as sensory, physicochemical, and functional properties) are designed to mimic conventional meat products by modifying their texture, appearance, flavour, mouthfeel, and nutrient bioavailability [12].
The aim of the study was to determine the degree of similarity between selected meat analogue products and conventional meat products by comparing their physical, sensorial, and microstructural properties.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sampling

Six types of analogue meat products were evaluated in this study, including Frankfurter sausage (SuA), steak (StA), Hungarian sausage (KA), minced meat (MA), salami (SaA), and burger (BA). These analogue meats, which are alternatives to meat products, were compared with meat products, including sausage (SuM), steak (StM), Hungarian sausage (KM), minced meat (MM), salami (SaM), and burger (BM) (Figure 1). In total, 70 samples of meat analogues and 70 samples of meat products were analysed, including 10 samples each of MA, MM, BM, BA, KA, KM, SaA, and SaM and 15 samples each of StA, StM, SuA, and SuM. The sources of analogue meat and conventional meat product samples used in our study were retail markets in Brno city in the Czech Republic. Detailed information about the products that were used as samples in this study is shown in Table 1. The nutritional values and ingredients of the analogue meat products and conventional meat products are shown in Table 2, which is from our previous work [13].

2.2. Physical Properties Methodology

2.2.1. Colour Methodology

The colour indicators (lightness, L*; redness, a*; yellowness, b*; Chroma C* = (a*2 + b*2)0.5; and hue h° = tan − 1(b*/a*)) [14] for the external surfaces and cut surfaces (only for KA, KM, SuA, and SuM) of analogue meat and conventional meat products were measured. The measurement of colour indicators was conducted using a spectrophotometer CM-5 (Konica Minolta Sensing, Inc., Tokyo, Japan) according to the CIE L*a*b* system. The calculation of parameters was performed by using SpectraMagic NX Color Data Software (CM-S100w 2.03.0006, 2003–2010), and the mean ± SD of five measurements of each sample was reported.

2.2.2. Texture Methodology

The texture parameters of samples were measured using an Instron Universal Testing Machine (model 5544) (Instron Corporation, High Wycombe, UK). Computer software (Instron 5544, Software IX Series) was used to obtain the indicators. A texture profile analysis (TPA) test was used to measure hardness and cohesiveness (in Newton, N) for SuA, SuM, KA, KM, MA, MM, SaA, SaM, BA, and BM. Samples with cylindrical shapes (1 cm high, 1.25 cm in diameter) were prepared for TPA, which compressed the samples with a compression plate (36 mm in diameter) twice (to 50% of their original height) at a crosshead speed of 50 mm/min. The Warner–Bratzler test was used to measure the shear force (in Newtons, N) and toughness (in kilopascals, kPa) for StA and StM. Samples with a size of 1.0 cm wide, 1.0 cm high, and 2.0 cm long were prepared and tested with a crosshead speed of 80 mm/min. Each value is reported as the mean ± standard deviation (SD) of 5 measurements.

2.3. Sensory Analysis

Panellists conducted the hedonic sensory analysis for the identification of descriptors: texture, product similarity, overall appearance, overall impression, interest in the product, aroma, animal character, taste, and meat taste. The sensorial analysis was conducted in a panel room established according to ISO 8589 [15]. A non-structured, 100 mm hedonic scale for the quantitative descriptive sensory analysis and hedonic sensory testing was used. The samples were served on sensory-neutral dishes anonymously by marking them with random three-digit numbers. The samples that required heat treatment (in accordance with the product label), such as SuM, StM, MM, BM, and their analogues, were evaluated after and before heat treatment (separately), whereas SaM, KM, and their analogues were evaluated at room temperature only. Ten panellists participated in the evaluation process (aged 19–70 years old) and possessed the necessary knowledge about sensory analysis (previously trained on the evaluation process). Every single panellist received only 6 samples per session to avoid fatigue. The panellists were selected in order to simulate a regular consumer frame of mind based on their expertise with sensory analysis and willingness to cooperate in the study. The panellists were not acquainted with any details about the nature of samples prior to the analysis, meaning that they tasted without information (perceived liking). Table 3 provides the descriptors of each characteristic at the lowest and the highest point of the scale.

2.4. Microstructural Characteristics

2.4.1. Light Microscopy

The samples (35 × 25 × 2 mm) were fixed in formaldehyde (10% v/v). After fixation, samples were washed under running water (30 min) and dehydrated with an alcohol series (30%, 50%, 70%, 80%, 90%, 96%, 100%; v/v), following xylene (100%) in four baths. The samples were then processed by paraffin sectioning. Subsequently, samples were stained with haematoxylin and eosin [16] and PAS–Calleja staining [17].

2.4.2. Electron Microscopy

The samples (35 × 25 × 2 mm) were fixed in cacodylate buffer (0.2 mol/L) in glutaraldehyde (3% v/v). After fixation, the samples were washed for 15 min 3 times in cacodylate buffer (0.2 mol/L). After fixation, the samples were cut to 25 × 2 × 2 mm and fixed in octahedral oxide (1% w/V). After fixation, the samples were washed for 15 min 3 times in cacodylate buffer (0.2 mol/L) and dehydrated with an alcohol series (30%, 50%, 70%, 80%, 90%, 96%, 100%; v/v) at 15 min intervals. Samples were cold fractured in liquid nitrogen and processed in a critical point dryer (Emitech K850; Quorum Technologies, Laughton, UK). The dried samples were coated with 10 nm gold Q150R ES (Quorum Technologies, Laughton, UK). Six images were taken for each sample using a SEM MIRA3 instrument (Tescan, as., Brno, Czech Republic). The procedure was modified according to [18].

2.5. Statistical Analysis

The mean and standard deviation were computed for all data using Microsoft Office Excel 2016 (Redmond, WA, USA). Statistical analysis of data via Student’s t-test was performed for the determination of differences between plant- and animal-based meat products. The 0.05 level of significance was employed.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Physical Properties

3.1.1. Colour

The importance of colour for plant-based meat products is attributed to providing such products with a flesh-like appearance. Natural colouring agents are usually used in order to achieve the required colour for each product [19]. The results of the colour indicator analysis are presented in Table 4. The lightness (L*) values of StM, MM, and BM were significantly (p < 0.05) lower than those of their alternative products, indicating that these meat products were darker. Conversely, SuA, KA, and SaA were significantly (p < 0.05) darker (lower L* values) than their corresponding meat products (SuM, KM, and SaM, respectively). The L* values decreased with an increase in protein content in the meat products, as noted by Youssef and Barbut [20]. In contrast, the lightness of meat analogues increased with a reduction in textured vegetable protein content and a higher oil content [21,22]. The MM sample exhibited significantly higher redness (a*) compared to its alternative (MA), which can be attributed to the higher concentration of myoglobin pigment [23]. The results also indicated that StA, SaA, and BA had a redder colour than their corresponding meat products, StM, SaM, and BM, respectively. The redness values (a*) of SuM and KM were similar to those of their alternatives (SuA and KA), with no statistically significant differences observed. However, SuM and KM were more yellow (higher b* values) than their alternative products, SuA and KA, while the yellowness indicator (b*) of StA, MA, SaA, and BA was significantly (p < 0.05) higher than that of the meat products. Meat-like pigments (pink, red, brown, or yellow) are produced from different plant sources such as annatto, caramel, beetroot, and vegetable juices [24,25].

3.1.2. Texture

Plant-based meat analogues are formulated by the texturisation of different plant-based ingredients (such as legumes, cereals, algae, fungi) to produce a product characterised by mixed gel systems [26]. Soy and pea protein, as well as wheat gluten, are usually used to form a protein network in plant-based meat analogues, playing an important role in creating a texture similar to that of conventional meat and giving the product its fibrous and chewy texture [27]. The results of the texture parameters are detailed in Table 5. Texture profile analysis (TPA) is a compression technique used to determine multiple textural parameters in a single measurement, including hardness, cohesiveness, adhesiveness, chewiness, and springiness [28]. TPA is widely used for evaluating the texture of both meat analogues and meat products in various forms, such as whole-muscle products and emulsified sausage products [7]. The hardness values of the meat products (SuM, KM, and BM) were significantly (p < 0.05) higher than those of their analogue counterparts. However, there were no statistically significant differences in hardness values between MM and its alternative, MA. Achieving a meat-like texture is considered essential for the acceptability of plant-based meat products by consumers. Such products are designed in order to resemble conventional meat texture qualities, including tenderness, juiciness, and chewiness [27]. Salt plays a significant role in the texture of plant-based analogue meat products. A suitable amount of salt with various hydrocolloids can be used to provide meat-like textures [29].
The values of cohesiveness for KM, MM, and BM were significantly higher (p < 0.05) than those for their analogue counterparts KA, MA, and BA, respectively, while no statistically significant difference was observed between SuM and SuA. The physicochemical properties of vegetable oils differ considerably from those of animal fats, which can impact the juiciness and texture parameters of the products [30,31]. Fat plays a crucial role in determining the tenderness and juiciness of both meat and meat analogue products. However, it is well recognised that meat analogues differ from meat in terms of texture, mouthfeel, flavour, and taste [10,23]. Oils (sunflower, coconut, palm, etc.) as well as various plant-based ingredients (particularly structural) are used to ensure that the texture (connection and shape stability) and properties are similar to those of meat [32]. The Warner–Bratzler test, which measures the maximum shear force of meat products through the application of a knife-cutting motion, is commonly used to analyse the texture of various types of meat products, particularly whole-muscle products and sausages [7,28]. In this study, the shear force and toughness values of StM were significantly higher (p < 0.05) than those of StA. However, the texture of salami was not measured because it was not possible to prepare the samples in the required shape and size due to the thin slices of this product. The texture and structure of meat analogue products depend on a combination of three factors, including of ingredient selection, processing methods, and formulation techniques. Such factors play an important role in creating a product with textural and structural characteristics that closely mimic those of conventional meat [33,34].

3.2. Sensorial Properties

The results of the sensory analysis are presented in Figure 2a–f, with each graph comparing the sensorial attributes of one meat product to those of its alternative (meat analogue). Overall, the panellists generally rated conventional meat products higher than their analogue counterparts, with a few exceptions, such as in the minced product category. This trend aligns with findings from Godschalk-Broers et al. [35], who observed that panellists preferred conventional chicken pieces and burgers over their analogues in a similar study. In this study, the panellists rated StA, MA, and BA at similar levels to StM, MM, and BM, respectively, with no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) observed in most of the evaluated sensory attributes. However, exceptions were noted in the “animal character” and “meat taste” descriptors. This outcome highlights the degree of similarity (mimicry) between the meat products and their analogues, which was a key focus of our study. For Frankfurter sausage, Hungarian sausage, and salami, similar evaluation ratings (with no statistically significant differences: p > 0.05) were observed between the meat products and their analogues in specific sensorial attributes. For instance, product similarity and overall appearance were comparable for Frankfurter sausage and Hungarian sausage, while texture and overall appearance were similar for salami. Meat analogues are designed to be desirable and acceptable to consumers by closely matching the organoleptic properties of conventional meat products [6]. However, replicating the “animal character” and “meat taste” descriptors in analogue products remains challenging [13]. The absence of the animal character descriptor in analogues may be related to the fact that plant proteins, particularly soy, are the primary protein sources in these products [36]. These findings suggest that achieving visual indistinguishability (mimicking phenotypic characteristics) between meat and analogues may be more feasible than replicating other sensory attributes such as meat taste and animal character. Replicating the textural properties of meat products in analogues is generally less complex than simulating a meat aroma [37,38]. Some analogue burgers use plant-based haeme to mimic a meaty flavour and appearance [39]. The aroma of meat analogues is often enhanced by spices, which significantly influence the final product’s scent [40]. However, Ettinger et al. [41] found significant differences (p < 0.05) between plant-based meat analogues and real meat products in terms of flavour, texture, and overall acceptability, highlighting ongoing challenges in fully replicating the sensory experience of conventional meat.

3.3. Microstructural Characteristics

Meat analogues have become more popular in recent times but are still far from the consumer expectation that their sensory characteristics are comparable to those of the model. To achieve this goal, it is also important prepare meat analogues with microstructural characteristics comparable to those of the model products. Light and electron microscopes were used for microstructural comparison.

3.3.1. Light Microscopy

Microstructural characteristic easily showed that the raw materials used for meat products and their analogues were different. PAS–Calleja staining is a special staining method to highlight carbohydrates in a pink colour. Light microscopy showed that meat analogues were formed generally from carbohydrates (Figure 3 and Figure 4). In meat-origin products, the typical structure was detected. The soft-cutting products were formed from a meat protein matrix (Figure 3 and Figure 4—SuM, SaM), whole-meal and grain meat products were created from meat fibres and fat tissues in a large region (Figure 3 and Figure 4—StM, KM, MM, BM).
SuA and SuM showed high similarity in microstructure. Both products are formed from a protein matrix (Figure 3—a, A). The matrix pores contained different contents; in meat products, the pores contain fat and water (Figure 3—B), whereas in SuA, pores formed from starch were filled with water (Figure 3—b). A small difference was observed in the size of the pores, where the SuA pores were smaller. These differences did not impact the hardness or cohesiveness (Table 5). The formed protein matrix was similar to that described Roesch and Corredig [42] as a soy protein emulsion stabilised by heating. The ability to form a structure similar to meat binder was also previously confirmed for non-fibrillar protein [43]. StA and StM showed that the microstructure of the meat alternative was close to the meat product. In StA, the fibrillar structure was formed from texturised plant protein (Figure 3—c), and the size of the textural protein is similar to that of meat fibres (Figure 3—C). In StA, the binder for texturised protein is formed similarly to that in the soft-cutting product. This is different from StM, where collagen tissue works as a natural binder (Figure 3—D). In StM, plant raw material was also observed (Figure 3—E). KA and KM showed significant differences. KM was formed as a typical meat sausage, where meat fibre and fat tissue are bound by small amount of binder from meat protein (Figure 3—C, B*, A). KA is formed from the whole part of the plant structure (Figure 3—d). According to the structure, this seems to be soy protein [44]. Light microscopy did not confirm the binder between different plant parts. This result is in conformity with the textural analysis, where the hardness and cohesiveness of KA were lower than those of KM (Table 5). MA and MM also exhibited differences in structure, mainly in the raw material used. In MM, typical meat fibres (Figure 4—C) were bound to each other by collagen and by muscle protein interactions (Figure 4—A). MA also showed protein interactions between plant proteins, which were organised as texturised protein (Figure 4—c). The other structure in MA was carbohydrate raw material (Figure 4—d), which did not bind together and cause lower cohesiveness of the MA. These results are in conformity with cohesiveness, where significant differences were also confirmed (Table 5). SaA and SaM showed similar results to those of SuA and SuM. The microstructure was comparable but with differences in pore size (Figure 4—b, B). Smaller pores were confirmed in SaA, as well as starch content (Figure 4—b). Differences between pore size are caused by different matrices used. In a previous study, differences in pore size were also confirmed with different protein additions [45]. And a similar effect to the microstructure was also confirmed with different fat additions used for meat dough emulsification [31]. In SuA, a low content of texturised plant protein was organised in small area of the protein matrix (Figure 4—c). In SaM, collagen tissue was embedded within the protein matrix (Figure 4—F). However, sensory analysis revealed no significant differences in texture characteristics between SaA and SaM (Figure 2). BA and BM exhibited structures reflecting the raw materials used. In BM, meat fibres, fat tissue, and collagen tissue were identified (Figure 4—C, B*, F), whereas BA contained texturised plant protein with a high carbohydrate content (Figure 4—c) and distinct carbohydrate regions (Figure 4—d). Binding activity was not observed in BA, aligning with the textural analysis results, which showed lower hardness and cohesiveness in BA.

3.3.2. Electron Microscopy

Light microscopy is not able to reach a resolution higher than 1000× according the to the Abbe theory. For this reason, SEM microscopy was used for a detailed description of formed meat alternative (Figure 5 and Figure 6).
SuA and SuM confirmed the light microscopy results. Both products form compact matrices with included fat particles (Figure 5—c, C). SuA exhibited smaller fat particles with higher density. Partial air bubbles were also included in both products (Figure 5—b, B).
StM was formed from meat fibres (Figure 5—A) connected with collagen fibres, as shown Figure 3. A low content of fat was also shown. In comparison, StA was formed from texturised protein, as shown in Figure 1; the binder for this protein is shown in Figure 5—d. The formed matrix is compact with air bubbles homogenously distributed in (Figure 5—b).
KA and KM exhibited similar results to those from light microscopy. Figure 5 (KA and KM—a and A) shows differences in the structure of fibrillar proteins. In KM, muscle myofibrils were observed, while KA also exhibited a fibrous structure but with different characteristics, including greater thickness and porosity. The variation in porosity is influenced by the production process of the extruded protein, as well as the addition of starch or oil, which affects the final structure [44,46]. Differences between texturised protein and cooked meat fibres were also previously confirmed [23].
MM was formed as typical meat product, where muscle myofilaments were also shown (Figure 6—A). MA was formed from parts of plant-origin raw material and demonstrated starch particles included in the cells. The cell wall was also present, and binder was present in small amounts (Figure 6—a, b).
SaA and SaM showed similar results to those from light microscopy, with a protein matrix typical of these products (Figure 6—b, B). A small amount of muscle fibre was also observed, which is characteristic of meat binders and does not significantly impact the final structure [47]. Fat was included in the matrix, whereas SaA contained smaller particles than SaM (Figure 6—c, C).
MM displayed the typical structure of a minced meat product, with visible meat fibres, including myofilaments (Figure 6—A) and collagen forming areolar connective tissue (endomysium) (Figure 6—D). MA, on the other hand, exhibited a fibrillar structure derived from plant proteins, though with a distinct organisation (Figure 6—d). The microstructure of MA also revealed plant raw materials (Figure 6—e) mechanically integrated with the fibrillar protein.
At the microscopic level, the addition of salt and hydrocolloids to plant-based meat analogue products increases cross-linking bonds and structural compactness while also enhancing the development of a fibrous structure [29].

4. Conclusions

The study evaluated the similarity between meat analogues and conventional meat products by analysing their physical, sensory, and microstructural properties. While some analogues effectively mimicked attributes such as redness (a*) and hardness, significant differences were observed in sensory traits like “animal character” and “meat taste”. Microstructural analysis showed that plant-based analogues lacked the muscle fibres and fat tissues present in conventional meat, leading to differences in texture and cohesiveness. Despite these challenges, the findings highlighted the potential of analogues to closely resemble traditional meat in appearance and texture. Improvements in texture, binding, and flavour complexity—possibly using natural flavours, fermentation techniques, and plant-based fat systems to replicate the juiciness and melting behaviour of animal fats—could enhance their sensory appeal. The study also emphasised strong similarities in redness and hardness values between certain analogue and meat pairs, with sensory evaluations for some analogues approaching those of their meat counterparts, except for descriptors like “animal character” and “meat taste”. Further advancements, combined with consumer research and product innovation, could help bridge the gap between plant-based and conventional meat, improving both market acceptance and product quality.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.A.A.A., E.K., M.P. and D.D.; methodology, F.A.A.A., M.P. and E.K.; software, F.A.A.A.; validation, F.A.A.A., M.P., D.D. and E.K.; formal analysis, F.A.A.A., M.P., D.D. and E.K.; investigation, F.A.A.A., M.P. and E.K.; resources, F.A.A.A., E.K., M.P. and D.D.; data curation, F.A.A.A., E.K. and M.P.; writing—original draft preparation, F.A.A.A. and M.P.; writing—review and editing, D.D.; visualization, F.A.A.A., M.P. and D.D.; supervision, F.A.A.A., E.K., M.P. and D.D.; project administration, E.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the University of Veterinary Sciences Brno, Palackého tř. 1946/1, 612 42 Brno, Czech Republic via project IGA 221/2021/FVHE.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article; further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Niva, M.; Vainio, A.; Jallinoja, P. Barriers to increasing plant protein consumption in western populations. In Vegetarian and Plant-Based Diets in Health and Disease Prevention; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 157–171. ISBN 9780128039694. [Google Scholar]
  2. Allied Market Research. Meat Substitute Market Size, Share, Competitive Landscape and Trend Analysis Report, by Category, by Product Type, by Source: Global Opportunity Analysis and Industry Forecast, 2024–2035. 2024. Available online: https://www.alliedmarketresearch.com/meat-substitute-market (accessed on 28 August 2024).
  3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC Estimates of Foodborne Illness in the United States. Atlanta: CDC. Available online: http://www.cdc.gov/foodborneburden/2011-foodborne-estimates.html (accessed on 5 November 2018).
  4. Rohrmann, S.; Overvad, K.; Bueno-de-Mesquita, H.B.; Jakobsen, M.U.; Egeberg, R.; Tjønneland, A.; Nailler, L.; Boutron-Ruault, M.-C.; Clavel-Chapelon, F.; Krogh, V.; et al. Meat consumption and mortality—Results from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. BMC Med. 2013, 11, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Larsson, S.C.; Wolk, A. Meat consumption and risk of colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis of prospective studies. Int. J. Cancer 2006, 119, 2657–2664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Sun, C.; Ge, J.; He, J.; Gan, R.; Fang, Y. Processing, Quality, Safety, and Acceptance of Meat Analogue Products. Engineering 2021, 7, 674–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Schreuders, F.K.G.; Schlangen, M.; Kyriakopoulou, K.; Boom, R.M.; van der Goot, A.J. Texture methods for evaluating meat and meat analogue structures: A review. Food Control 2021, 127, 108103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Arêas, J.A.G. Extrusion of food proteins. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 1992, 32, 365–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Cheftel, J.C.; Kitagawa, M.; Quéguiner, C. New protein texturization processes by extrusion cooking at high moisture levels. Food Rev. Int. 1992, 8, 235–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Hoek, A.C.; Luning, P.A.; Weijzen, P.; Engels, W.; Kok, F.J.; de Graaf, C. Replacement of meat by meat substitutes. A survey on person- and product-related factors in consumer acceptance. Appetite 2011, 56, 662–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kyriakopoulou, K.; Dekkers, B.; van der Goot, A.J. Plant-based meat analogues. In Sustainable Meat Production and Processing; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 103–126. ISBN 9780128148747. [Google Scholar]
  12. He, J.; Evans, N.M.; Liu, H.; Shao, S. A review of research on plant-based meat alternatives: Driving forces, history, manufacturing, and consumer attitudes. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2020, 19, 2639–2656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Abdullah, F.A.A.; Dordevic, D.; Kabourkova, E.; Zemancová, J.; Dordevic, S. Antioxidant and Sensorial Properties: Meat Analogues versus Conventional Meat Products. Processes 2022, 10, 1864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Saláková, A.; Straková, E.; Válková, V.; Buchtová, H.; Steinhauserová, I. Quality Indicators of Chicken Broiler Raw and Cooked Meat Depending on Their Sex. Acta Vet. 2009, 78, 497–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. ISO 8589:2007; Sensory Analysis—General Guidance for the Design of Test Rooms. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2007.
  16. Petrášová, M.; Zichová, E.; Pospiech, M.; Tremlová, B.; Javůrková, Z. Possibilities of microscopic detection of isolated porcine proteins in model meat products. Slovak J. Food Sci. Potravin. 2016, 10, 202–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Lukášková, Z.Ř.; Tremlová, B.; Pospiech, M.; Renčová, E.; Randulová, Z.; Steinhauser, L.; Reichová, A.; Bednář, J. Comparison of immunohistochemical, histochemical and immunochemical methods for the detection of wheat protein allergens in meat samples and cooked, dry, raw and fermented sausage samples. Food Addit. Contam. Part A Chem. Anal. Control Expo. Risk Assess. 2011, 28, 817–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Běhalová, H.; Tremlová, B.; Kalčáková, L.; Pospiech, M.; Dordevic, D. Assessment of the Effect of Secondary Fixation on the Structure of Meat Products Prepared for Scanning Electron Microscopy. Foods 2020, 9, 487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Wang, Y.; Cai, W.; Li, L.; Gao, Y.; Lai, K.H. Recent advances in the processing and manufacturing of plant-based meat. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2023, 71, 1276–1290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Youssef, M.K.; Barbut, S. Physicochemical Effects of the Lipid Phase and Protein Level on Meat Emulsion Stability, Texture, and Microstructure. J. Food Sci. 2010, 75, 108–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Youssef, M.K.; Barbut, S. Fat reduction in comminuted meat products-effects of beef fat, regular and pre-emulsified canola oil. Meat Sci. 2011, 87, 356–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Wi, G.; Bae, J.; Kim, H.; Cho, Y.; Choi, M.-J. Evaluation of the Physicochemical and Structural Properties and the Sensory Characteristics of Meat Analogues Prepared with Various Non-Animal Based Liquid Additives. Foods 2020, 9, 461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Samard, S.; Ryu, G.H. A comparison of physicochemical characteristics, texture, and structure of meat analogue and meats. J. Sci. Food Agric 2019, 99, 2708–2715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ryu, K.K.; Kang, Y.K.; Jeong, E.W.; Baek, Y.; Lee, K.Y.; Lee, H.G. Applications of various natural pigments to a plant-based meat analog. LWT 2023, 174, 114431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Yan, Z.; Liu, C.H.; Zhang, X.H.; Wen, C.L.; Olatunji, O.J.; Lee, C.C.; Ashaolu, T.J. Plant-based Meat Analogs: Perspectives on Their Meatiness, Nutritional Profile, Environmental Sustainability, Acceptance and Challenges. Curr. Nutr. Rep. 2024, 13, 921–936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Liu, H.; Zhang, J.; Chen, Q.; Hu, A.; Li, T.; Guo, F.; Wang, Q.; Liu, H.; Zhang, J.; Chen, Q.; et al. Preparation of Whole-Cut Plant-Based Pork Meat and Its Quality Evaluation with Animal Meat. Gels 2023, 9, 461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Gasparre, N.; Rosell, C.M. Wheat gluten: A functional protein still challenging to replace in gluten-free cereal-based foods. Cereal Chem. 2023, 100, 243–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Novakovi, S.; Tomaševi, I. A comparison between warner-bratzler shear force measurement and texture profile analysis of meat and meat products: A review. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2017, 85, 012063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Taghian Dinani, S.; Zhang, Y.; Vardhanabhuti, B.; van der Goot, A.J. Enhancing Textural Properties in Plant-Based Meat Alternatives: The Impact of Hydrocolloids and Salts on Soy Protein-Based Products. Curr. Res. Food Sci. 2023, 7, 100571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Paneras, E.D.; Bloukas, J.G. Vegetable Oils Replace Pork Backfat for Low-Fat Frankfurters. J. Food Sci. 1994, 59, 725–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Barbut, S.; Marangoni, A. Organogels use in meat processing—Effects of fat/oil type and heating rate. Meat Sci. 2019, 149, 9–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ishaq, A.; Irfan, S.; Sameen, A.; Khalid, N. Plant-Based Meat Analogs: A Review with Reference to Formulation and Gastrointestinal Fate. Curr. Res. Food Sci. 2022, 5, 973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Benković, M.; Jurinjak Tušek, A.; Sokač Cvetnić, T.; Jurina, T.; Valinger, D.; Gajdoš Kljusurić, J. An Overview of Ingredients Used for Plant-Based Meat Analogue Production and Their Influence on Structural and Textural Properties of the Final Product. Gels 2023, 9, 921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Lee, C.C.; Taştemir, İ.A. Direct heat exchangers in the food industry. In Thermal Processing of Food Products by Steam and Hot Water; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2023; pp. 181–208. [Google Scholar]
  35. Godschalk-Broers, L.; Sala, G.; Scholten, E. Meat Analogues: Relating Structure to Texture and Sensory Perception. Foods 2022, 11, 2227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Day, L.; Swanson, B.G. Functionality of Protein-Fortified Extrudates. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2013, 12, 546–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Michel, F.; Hartmann, C.; Siegrist, M. Consumers’ associations, perceptions and acceptance of meat and plant-based meat alternatives. Food Qual. Prefer. 2021, 87, 104063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Flores, M.; Piornos, J.A. Fermented meat sausages and the challenge of their plant-based alternatives: A comparative review on aroma-related aspects. Meat Sci. 2021, 182, 108636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Van Loo, E.J.; Caputo, V.; Lusk, J.L. Consumer preferences for farm-raised meat, lab-grown meat, and plant-based meat alternatives: Does information or brand matter? Food Policy 2020, 95, 101931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Belleggia, L.; Milanovic, V.; Ferrocino, I.; Cocolin, L.; Haouet, M.N.; Scuota, S.; Maolonia, L.; Garofaloa, C.; Cardinalia, F.; Aquilanti, L.; et al. Is there any still undisclosed biodiversity in Ciauscolo salami? A new glance into the microbiota of an artisan production as revealed by high-throughput sequencing. Meat Sci. 2020, 165, 108128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ettinger, L.; Falkeisen, A.; Knowles, S.; Gorman, M.; Barker, S.; Moss, R.; McSweeney, M.B. Consumer Perception and Acceptability of Plant-Based Alternatives to Chicken. Foods 2022, 11, 2271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Roesch, R.R.; Corredig, M. Texture and microstructure of emulsions prepared with soy protein concentrate by high-pressure homogenization. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2003, 36, 113–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Liu, W.; Lanier, T.C. Combined use of variable pressure scanning electron microscopy and confocal laser scanning microscopy best reveal microstructure of comminuted meat gels. LWT 2015, 62, 1027–1033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Noguchi, S.; Saio, A. Microstructural Studies of Texturized Vegetable Protein Products: Effects of Oil Addition and Transformation of Raw Materials in Various Sections of a Twin Screw Extruder. Food Struct. 1987, 6, 57–61. [Google Scholar]
  45. Petrášová, M.; Král, M.; Pospiech, M.; Halamová, P.; Tremlová, B.; Walczycka, M. Pork protein addition effect on structural and qualitative parameters of frankfurter-type sausage. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2019, 99, 1888–1897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zhu, L.J.; Shukri, R.; de Mesa-Stonestreet, N.J.; Alavi, S.; Dogan, H.; Shi, Y.C. Mechanical and microstructural properties of soy protein—High amylose corn starch extrudates in relation to physiochemical changes of starch during extrusion. J. Food Eng. 2010, 100, 232–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Sadeghi-Mehr, A.; Raudsepp, P.; Brüggemann, D.A.; Lautenschlaeger, R.; Drusch, S. Dynamic rheology, microstructure and texture properties of model porcine meat batter as affected by different cold-set binding systems. Food Hydrocoll. 2018, 77, 937–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Applsci 14 11513 g001
Figure 1. Conventional meat products (left side) versus analogue meat products (right side): (a) SuM vs. SuA; (b) StM vs. StA; (c) KM vs. KA; (d) MM vs. MA (e) SaM vs. SaA; (f) BM vs. BA.
Figure 1. Conventional meat products (left side) versus analogue meat products (right side): (a) SuM vs. SuA; (b) StM vs. StA; (c) KM vs. KA; (d) MM vs. MA (e) SaM vs. SaA; (f) BM vs. BA.
Applsci 14 11513 g001
Applsci 14 11513 g002aApplsci 14 11513 g002b
Figure 2. Sensorial properties of analogue meat products versus conventional meat products: (a) SuA vs. SuM; (b) StA vs. StM; (c) KA vs. KM; (d) MA vs. MM (e) SaA vs. SaM; (f) BA vs. BM.
Figure 2. Sensorial properties of analogue meat products versus conventional meat products: (a) SuA vs. SuM; (b) StA vs. StM; (c) KA vs. KM; (d) MA vs. MM (e) SaA vs. SaM; (f) BA vs. BM.
Applsci 14 11513 g002aApplsci 14 11513 g002b
Applsci 14 11513 g003
Figure 3. Microstructure of Frankfurter sausage (analogue vs. conventional), steak (analogue vs. conventional), and Hungarian sausage (analogue vs. conventional) products.
Figure 3. Microstructure of Frankfurter sausage (analogue vs. conventional), steak (analogue vs. conventional), and Hungarian sausage (analogue vs. conventional) products.
Applsci 14 11513 g003
Applsci 14 11513 g004
Figure 4. Microstructure of minced meat (analogue vs. conventional), salami (analogue vs. conventional), and burger (analogue vs. conventional) products.
Figure 4. Microstructure of minced meat (analogue vs. conventional), salami (analogue vs. conventional), and burger (analogue vs. conventional) products.
Applsci 14 11513 g004
Applsci 14 11513 g005
Figure 5. Microstructure of Frankfurter sausage (analogue vs. conventional), steak (analogue vs. conventional), and Hungarian sausage (analogue vs. conventional) products.
Figure 5. Microstructure of Frankfurter sausage (analogue vs. conventional), steak (analogue vs. conventional), and Hungarian sausage (analogue vs. conventional) products.
Applsci 14 11513 g005
Applsci 14 11513 g006
Figure 6. Microstructure of minced meat (analogue vs. conventional), salami (analogue vs. conventional), and burger (analogue vs. conventional) products.
Figure 6. Microstructure of minced meat (analogue vs. conventional), salami (analogue vs. conventional), and burger (analogue vs. conventional) products.
Applsci 14 11513 g006
Table 1. Information about the products used in this study.
Table 1. Information about the products used in this study.
Sample TypeProduct No.Batch No.Weight of Product (g)Storage
Temperature (°C)		Packaging TypeProducer
SuA1512001–7VacuumSoya frankfurtes classic: from Well Well potraviny s.r.o. Hrabinská 498/19 73701 Český Těšín, Czech Republic
SuM152750Up to 6Protective atmospherePork sausages: from Tesco Stores CZ a.s., Vršovická 1527/68b, 100 00 P Prague 10, Czech Republic
StA151180Up to 8Modified atmosphereGarden Gourment: from Nestlé Česko s.r.o., Mezi Vodami 2035/31, 143 20 Praha 4
StM151300Up to 4Modified atmospherePork steak: from Matušák Agrion s.r.o. Kunčina 27, 569 24, Czech Repblic
KA102300Up to 8VacuumHungarian klobaňa smoked classic—vegan: from Good Nature s.r.o., Kollárova 88, 036 01 Martin, Slovakia
KM102400Up to 20Protective atmosphereHungarian sausages Mives hot: from Pick Szeged Zrt. H-6725 Szeged Szabadkai út 18., Hungary
MA101200Up to 4Modified atmosphereGarden Gourment: from Nestlé Česko s.r.o., Mezi Vodami 2035/31, 143 20 Praha 4, Czech Republic
MM102500Up to 8Modified atmosphereLean ground beef: from Bidfood Kralupy s.r.o., V Růžovém údolí 553, 278 01 Kralupy nad Vltavou, Czech Republic
SaA1011001–5Protective atmosphereSoy salami: from KALMA, k.s., Ostravská 256,739 25 Sviadnov, Czech Republic
SaM1011001–7Protective atmosphereJunior salami: from Kostelecké uzeniny a.s., č.p. 588 61 Kostelec, Czech Republic
BA101150Up to 8Modified atmosphereGarden Gourment: from Nestlé Česko s.r.o., Mezi Vodami 2035/31, 143 20 Praha 4, Czech Republic
BM1026200 ± 4Modified atmosphereBeef burger: from CHOVSERVIS a.s., TORO Hlavečník, Hlavečník u Kladrub nad Labem, Czech Republic
Table 2. Main compositions (in g/100 g) of the plant- and animal-based meat products [13].
Table 2. Main compositions (in g/100 g) of the plant- and animal-based meat products [13].
TypesNutritional Values per 100 gIngredients
ProteinSaccharidesFatSaltFibre
SuA18.04.9 including 1.0 sugars 10 including 0.9 saturated fatty acids 1.90.7Soya protein (10.86%), rapeseed oil, wheat protein (7.28%), modified starch (E1422), salt, aromas, thickener—carrageenan (E407), ground red pepper, colourant—iron oxides and hydroxides (E172), smoky aroma
SuM13.22.2 including 1.7 sugars 23.3 including 8.2 saturated fatty acids 2.7 Pork (83%), water, salt, glucose, stabilisers (diphosphates, sodium citrates), aromas, spices, spice extracts, antioxidant (sodium erythorbate), preservative (sodium nitrite)
StA16.016.0 including 2.4 sugars 12.0 including 1.3 saturated fatty acids 1.35.5Breadcrumbs (16.4%) (wheat flour, water, rapeseed oil, yeast, salt, spice extracts: sweet pepper, turmeric), vegetable oils in various proportions (rapeseed, sunflower), wheat protein (5.8%), soy protein (5.5%), dried egg proteins, mayonnaise (sunflower oil; fermented alcohol vinegar; dried egg yolks; mustard; iodised table salt: table salt, potassium iodate; sugar), corn starch, citrus fibre, fermented alcohol vinegar, dried yeast extract, wheat flour, spice mix (sweet pepper, cumin, chili pepper, oregano), onion powder, tomato concentrate, salt, garlic, garlic powder
StM Pork (20%), breadcrumbs, egg, flour, milk, salt, rapeseed oil, butter
KA9.612.48 including 1.52 sugars 7.2 including 1.32 saturated fatty acids 2.03 Wheat, soy, ground barley, oatmeal, sunflower oil, garlic, ground pepper, salt, spices
KM22.0<0.5 including <0.5 sugars 42.0 including 17.0 saturated fatty acids 3.7 Pork, lard, salt, spices, ground hot pepper (1.2%), sweet ground pepper (1.0%), spice extract, colour (E160c), sugar, preservative (E250, E202), smoke Stuffed into edible pork intestine
MA17.33.6 including 1.0 sugars 7.9 including 2.9 saturated fatty acids 1.05.0Soy protein (22.9%), vegetable oils (rapeseed, coconut), stabiliser (methylcellulose), natural aromas, fermented alcohol vinegar, garlic and onion powder, fruit and vegetable concentrates (beets, carrots, peppers, blackcurrants), malted barley extract, black pepper
MM18.20.15 including 0.01 sugars 14.2 including 7.38 saturated fatty acids 1.55 Beef (94.5%), water, salt, stabiliser—sodium acetate
SaA17.05.1 including 1.3 sugars 6.9 including 0.6 saturated fatty acids 1.92.1Soy protein (9%), textured soy protein (7%), rapeseed oil, wheat protein (5%), modified corn starch, salt, thickeners: carrageenan and spices, powdered vinegar, barley sweet extract, colour E172
SaM10.75.2 including <0.3 sugars 14.7 including 6.2 saturated fatty acids 2.40.7Pork (28%), water, pork skin, beef (12%), lard, potato starch, salt, pork protein, stabilisers (E250, E450, and E451), modified starch (E1422), thickeners (E407a, E415, and E412), emulsifier (E471), antioxidants (E301 and E330), acidity regulators E500, Vegetable fibre, flavour enhancers (E621 and E635), colour (E120, E150c, and E162), spices, garlic, spice extracts
BA17.32.8 including 0.5 sugars 13.0 including 3.6 saturated fatty acids 0.736.0Soy protein (19.9%), vegetable oils, rapeseed coconut, fermented alcohol vinegar, aromas, stabiliser (E461—methylcellulose), plant concentrates (apple, beet, carrot, hibiscus), malted barley extract
BM20.00 including 0 sugars 9.6 including 4.0 saturated fatty acids 1.1 Beef (99%), salt
Table 3. Description of each characteristic for sensorial analysis at the lowest and the highest point of the scale.
Table 3. Description of each characteristic for sensorial analysis at the lowest and the highest point of the scale.
DescriptorVerbal Description ProvidedLowest PointHighest Point
TextureSoft consistency 1,4; stiff consistency, solid, cohesive 2,3,6; cohesive 4; brittle 5Too soft or too stiff 1,6; incoherent 6; too soft or stiff 2,3,4; solid parts 5Optimally soft 1;solid, cohesive 2,3,6; soft, cohesive 4; brittle 5
Product similarityThey resemble each other *Completely different *Absolutely identical *
Overall appearanceSurface discolouration, air bubbles, surface stains 1,3; uniform golden brown colour 2; uniform colouration, typical 4,6; flesh-pink colour 5Obvious numerous defects *No deviations *
Overall impressionoverall impression with regard to the evaluated parameters *Disgusting *Delicious *
Interest in the product-Definitely would not buy it *Would definitely buy it *
AromaTypical, moderately intense, pleasant 1,3,4,6; typical, soft, after frying, pleasant, without foreign odours 2; smoked, mildly spiced 3,5Weak, strong foreign odour 1,3,4,5,6; bland, unsalted, with a foreign flavour 2Typical, without any foreign smell *; typical, optimally salty 2
Animal characterOrigin of the product *Plant-based *Animal-based *
TasteTypical, moderately intense, pleasant 1,3,4,6; typical, soft, after frying, pleasant, without foreign odours 2; smoked, mildly spiced 3,5Bland, with a foreign flavour 1,2,3,4,6; unsalted 1,2,3,5; not spicy 5Typical, without foreign flavours 1,2,3,4,5,6; optimally salty 1,2,3
Meat tastePresence of meat taste *Absolutely not meaty taste *Absolutely meaty taste *
1 Applicable for SuA, SuM; 2 applicable for StA, StM; 3 applicable for KA, KM; 4 applicable for MA, MM; 5 applicable for SaA, SaM; 6 applicable for BA, BM; * Applicable for all.
Table 4. Colour indicators of analogue meat and conventional meat products.
Table 4. Colour indicators of analogue meat and conventional meat products.
Sample TypeL*a*b*C*h°
SuA57.63 ± 1.10 b15.30 ± 0.3125.13 ± 0.42 b29.42 ± 0.50 b58.67 ± 0.24 b
SuM64.63 ± 1.75 a14.94 ± 0.9632.90 ± 1.35 a36.14 ± 1.55 a65.60 ± 0.90 a
SuA ˣ62.19 ± 0.57 b14.00 ± 0.28 a22.71 ± 0.23 a26.67 ± 0.33 a58.35 ± 0.31 b
SuM ˣ79.10 ± 0.89 a5.82 ± 0.38 b12.49 ± 0.18 b13.78 ± 0.21 b65.02 ± 1.51 a
StA58.06 ± 1.19 a15.64 ± 1.58 a30.18 ± 2.57 a34.00 ± 2.92 a62.62 ± 1.29
StM51.88 ± 3.07 b10.61 ± 0.65 b20.56 ± 2.09 b23.15 ± 1.98 b62.59 ± 2.16
KA29.75 ± 3.06 b23.32 ± 2.5310.54 ± 0.89 b25.59 ± 2.6624.40 ± 0.82 b
KM34.05 ± 0.77 a21.70 ± 0.7915.38 ± 0.96 a26.60 ± 1.1635.31 ± 1.02 a
KA ˣ52.47 ± 1.00 a17.69 ± 1.39 b26.19 ± 2.21 a31.61 ± 2.48 a55.93 ± 1.52 a
KM ˣ44.92 ± 1.58 b21.15 ± 1.13 a18.36 ± 1.12 b28.02 ± 1.56 b40.95 ± 0.69 b
MA51.84 ± 0.85 a12.96 ± 0.40 b16.31 ± 0.48 a20.84 ± 0.5951.52 ± 0.58 a
MM43.90 ± 1.62 b15.39 ± 1.19 a13.05 ± 1.02 b20.19 ± 1.4040.30 ± 1.96 b
SaA45.12 ± 0.32 b21.93 ± 0.48 a21.71 ± 0.27 a30.86 ± 0.51 a44.72 ± 0.39 b
SaM57.61 ± 0.27 a12.54 ± 0.29 b14.09 ± 0.18 b18.86 ± 0.31 b48.34 ± 0.37 a
BA53.92 ± 1.04 a10.58 ± 0.47 a12.98 ± 0.53 a16.75 ± 0.66 a50.83 ± 0.91 b
BM47.27 ± 3.08 b7.33 ± 0.96 b10.91 ± 0.92 b13.16 ± 1.20 b56.16 ± 2.55 a
Values in columns with different superscript letters a,b between analogue meat and conventional meat products are significantly different (p < 0.05); ˣ cut surface of product.
Table 5. Texture parameters (hardness, cohesiveness, shear force in Newtons, toughness in KPa) of analogue meat and conventional meat products.
Table 5. Texture parameters (hardness, cohesiveness, shear force in Newtons, toughness in KPa) of analogue meat and conventional meat products.
Sample TypeHardnessCohesiveness
SuA8.70 ± 0.59 b1.19 ± 0.01
SuM13.89 ± 1.92 a1.19 ± 0.03
KA7.36 ± 1.07 b1.05 ± 0.01 b
KM25.22 ± 3.70 a1.28 ± 0.02 a
MA2.05 ± 0.181.00 ± 0.04 b
MM2.04 ± 0.221.11 ± 0.04 a
BA1.25 ± 0.15 b0.96 ± 0.06 b
BM2.98 ± 0.33 a1.12 ± 0.02 a
Shear forceToughness
StA13.12 ± 2.35 b61.79 ± 13.33 b
StM21.09 ± 2.70 a72.55 ± 6.57 a
Sample types HardnessCohesiveness
Values in columns with different superscript letters a,b between analogue meat and conventional meat products are significantly different (p < 0.05).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Abdullah, F.A.A.; Pospiech, M.; Dordevic, D.; Kabourkova, E. Comparison of Physical, Sensorial, and Microstructural Properties to Assess the Similarity Between Plant- and Animal-Based Meat Products. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11513. https://doi.org/10.3390/app142411513

AMA Style

Abdullah FAA, Pospiech M, Dordevic D, Kabourkova E. Comparison of Physical, Sensorial, and Microstructural Properties to Assess the Similarity Between Plant- and Animal-Based Meat Products. Applied Sciences. 2024; 14(24):11513. https://doi.org/10.3390/app142411513

Chicago/Turabian Style

Abdullah, Fouad Ali Abdullah, Matej Pospiech, Dani Dordevic, and Eliska Kabourkova. 2024. "Comparison of Physical, Sensorial, and Microstructural Properties to Assess the Similarity Between Plant- and Animal-Based Meat Products" Applied Sciences 14, no. 24: 11513. https://doi.org/10.3390/app142411513

APA Style

Abdullah, F. A. A., Pospiech, M., Dordevic, D., & Kabourkova, E. (2024). Comparison of Physical, Sensorial, and Microstructural Properties to Assess the Similarity Between Plant- and Animal-Based Meat Products. Applied Sciences, 14(24), 11513. https://doi.org/10.3390/app142411513

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop