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.
The 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

Beyer, E. S.

Chao, M. D.

Egger, L. A.

Farmer, K. J.

Lybarger, K. R.

O\u27Quinn, T. G.

Vipham, J. L.

Zumbaugh, M. D.

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.
The 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

Kansas State University

Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Reports Volume 9 Issue 1 Cattlemen's Day Article 15 2023 Consumer Sensory Evaluation of Ground Beef and Plant-Based Ground Beef Alternatives Used in a Hamburger Application L. A. Egger Kansas State University, lane11@ksu.edu K. J. Farmer Kansas State University, kjfarmer@ksu.edu E. S. Beyer Kansas State University, erbeyer@ksu.edu See next page for additional authors This report is brought to you for free and open access by New Prairie Press. It has been accepted for inclusion in Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Reports by an authorized administrator of New Prairie Press. Copyright 2023 Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service. Contents of this publication may be freely reproduced for educational purposes. All other rights reserved. Brand names appearing in this publication are for product identification purposes only. No endorsement is intended, nor is criticism implied of similar products not mentioned. K-State Research and Extension is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Follow this and additional works at: https://newprairiepress.org/kaesrr  Part of the Beef Science Commons, and the Meat Science Commons Recommended Citation 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 Consumer Sensory Evaluation of Ground Beef and Plant-Based Ground Beef Alternatives Used in a Hamburger Application Abstract 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. The 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. Keywords ground beef, ground beef alternatives, plant-based Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Authors L. A. Egger, K. J. Farmer, E. S. Beyer, K. R. Lybarger, J. L. Vipham, M. D. Zumbaugh, M. D. Chao, and T. G. O'Quinn This meat science is available in Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Reports: https://newprairiepress.org/kaesrr/vol9/iss1/15 Cattlemen's Day 2023KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITYCATTLEMEN’S DAY1Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension ServiceConsumer Sensory Evaluation of Ground Beef and Plant-Based Ground Beef Alternatives Used in a Hamburger ApplicationL.A. Egger, K.J. Farmer, E.S. Beyer, K.R. Lybarger, J.L. Vipham, M.D. Zumbaugh, M.D. Chao, and T.G. O’QuinnAbstractThe objective of this study was to evaluate the palatability traits and consumer accep-tance of three plant-based ground beef alternatives in comparison to ground beef in a foodservice-like hamburger application. One ground beef (80% lean/20% fat; 1 lb chubs) and three commercially available plant-based ground beef alternative (GBA) treatments (n = 20 production lots/treatment) were formed into 2.5 oz patties to be served to consumers on a bun with an opportunity to apply ketchup, mustard, cheese, lettuce, and pickles to samples. The GBAs were selected as representatives of GBAs well-known to be sold at foodservice (FGBA) and retail (RGBA). In addition, a popular “traditional” soy-based patty (TGBA) on the market was selected for use. Consumers (n = 120) evaluated samples for juiciness, tenderness, texture, flavor liking, beef-like flavor intensity, overall liking, and willingness to purchase. Panelists rated each of the samples as acceptable or unacceptable for these sensory traits. Furthermore, panelists assigned a purchase price they would be willing to pay for each sample if purchasing a similar product at foodservice. Overall, GB was preferred by consumers compared to all three GBAs. The GB treatment rated higher (P < 0.05) for juiciness and texture compared to all GBAs. The GB, FGBA, and RGBA tenderness ratings were similar (P > 0.05), but all three rated higher (P < 0.05) than the TGBA. Consumer ratings for overall flavor liking, beef-like flavor intensity, and overall liking showed GB was higher (P < 0.05) compared to all three GBAs. However, GB and FGBA were similar (P > 0.05) for the percentage of samples rated acceptable by consumers for juiciness and texture, but both had a higher (P < 0.05) percentage rated acceptable for these traits than RGBA and TGBA. Similar to the consumer ratings, the percentage of samples rated acceptable for tenderness for GB, FGBA, and RGBA were similar (P > 0.05), but all three had a higher (P < 0.05) percentage rated acceptable than the TGBA. The GB treatment had a higher (P < 0.05) percentage of samples rated acceptable for overall flavor liking, beef-like flavor intensity, and overall liking than all GBAs. Moreover, consumers rated GB higher (P < 0.05) for purchase intent than all GBAs and indicated they would be willing to pay a price more than 50% higher (P < 0.05) for the GB than all the GBAs. Subsequently, this research shows 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.2Cattlemen’s Day 2023Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension ServiceIntroductionDuring the past decade, modern plant-based ground beef alternatives have grown in market share in food markets. A push for healthy, environmentally friendly food production has sparked consumer interest in the trend to use plant-based meat alter-natives. While research has been completed comparing ground beef alternatives and ground beef directly, the research of these products in at-home or a foodservice envi-ronment is minimal (Davis et al., 2021). The addition of toppings is commonplace for American consumers in hamburger consumption and can affect palatability preferences among consumers. Thus, 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.Experimental ProceduresOne ground beef (80% lean, 20% fat; 1.0 lb chubs) and 3 commercially available plant-based ground beef alternative (GBA) treatments (n = 20 production lots/treatment) were purchased from five supermarkets in the Manhattan, KS, area over a 5-month period. The plant-based GBAs were selected as representatives of GBAs well-known to be sold at foodservice (FGBA) and retail (RGBA). In addition, a popular “traditional” soy-based patty (TGBA) on the market was selected for use. Ground beef (GB) and the 3 GBA packages were stored frozen at the Kansas State University Meat Laboratory in Manhattan, KS, for no more than 4 months prior to patty fabrication. All lots were formed into 2.5 oz patties to be served to consumers on a bun with an opportunity to apply ketchup, mustard, cheese, lettuce, and pickles to samples.A total of 20 sensory panels were conducted at the Kansas State University Meat Science Sensory Lab. Consumers (n = 120) evaluated samples for juiciness, tenderness, texture, flavor liking, beef-like flavor intensity, and overall liking on 100-point contin-uous line scales anchored on both ends with descriptive terms. Panelists rated each of the samples as acceptable or unacceptable for each of the sensory traits. Furthermore, panelists rated each sample on their willingness to purchase on a 100-point continuous line scale, and assigned a purchase price they would be willing to pay for each sample if purchasing a similar product at foodservice.Results and DiscussionOverall, GB was preferred by consumers compared to all three GBAs (Table 1). The GB treatment rated higher (P < 0.05) for juiciness and texture compared to all GBAs. The GB, FGBA, and RGBA tenderness ratings were similar (P > 0.05), but all three rated higher (P < 0.05) than the TGBA. Consumer ratings for overall flavor liking, beef-like flavor intensity, and overall liking showed GB was higher (P < 0.05) compared to all three GBAs. However, GB and FGBA were similar (P > 0.05) for the percentage of samples rated acceptable by consumers for juiciness and texture, but both had a higher (P < 0.05) percentage rated acceptable for these traits than RGBA and TGBA (Table 2). Similar to the consumer ratings, the percentage of samples rated acceptable for tenderness for GB, FGBA, and RGBA were similar (P > 0.05), but all three had a higher (P < 0.05) percentage rated acceptable than the TGBA. The GB treatment had a higher (P < 0.05) percentage of samples rated acceptable for overall flavor liking, beef-like flavor intensity, and overall liking than all GBAs. Moreover, consumers rated GB higher (P < 0.05) for purchase intent than all GBAs and indicated they would be 3Cattlemen’s Day 2023Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Servicewilling to pay a price more than 50% higher (P < 0.05) for the GB than all the GBAs (Table 1).ImplicationsThis research indicates that when ground beef and ground beef alternatives are used as an ingredient to make products such as a hamburger patty, ground beef provided a different eating experience preferred by consumers. Therefore, 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.ReferencesDavis, S. G., K. M. Harr, K. J. Farmer, E. S. Beyer, S. B. Bigger, M. D. Chao, A. J. Tarpoff, D. U. Thomson, J. L. Vipham, M. D. Zumbaugh, and T. G. O’Quinn. 2021. Quality of Plant-Based Ground Beef Alternatives in Comparison with Ground Beef of Various Fat Levels. Meat and Muscle Biology 5(1): 38, p.1–15.Table 1. Least squares means for consumer (n = 120) panel ratings for hamburgers with ground beef and plant-based ground beef alternatives (GBA)1Trait2Ground beefFoodservice GBARetail GBATraditional GBA SEM3 P-valueHamburger panels4Juiciness 66.4a 55.3b 53.5b 39.1c 2.2 < 0.01Tenderness 64.7a 61.4a 62.6a 48.8b 2.1 < 0.01Texture 64.6a 55.0b 50.0b 40.5c 2.3 < 0.01Overall flavor 67.7a 48.6b 43.4bc 37.4c 2.5 < 0.01Beef flavor 66.1a 47.2b 41.0c 36.8c 2.7 < 0.01Overall liking 67.5a 49.6b 42.3b 34.1c 2.6 < 0.01Purchase intent5 63.3a 42.2b 34.5c 28.3c 2.7 < 0.01Purchase 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 (restau-rants).Retail GBA = plant-based ground beef alternative most commonly sold in retail markets (grocery stores, supermar-kets).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 mean (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 comparable product.4Cattlemen’s Day 2023Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension ServiceTable 2. Least squares means for the percentage of ground beef and plant-based ground beef alternatives (GBA)1 hamburger samples rated acceptable for each palatability trait by consumers (n = 120)TraitGround beefFoodservice GBARetail GBATraditional GBA SEM2 P-valueHamburger panels3Juiciness 89.7a 81.5ab 79.0b 50.0c 5.1 < 0.01Tenderness 93.4a 92.5a 86.7a 70.1b 4.3 < 0.01Texture 86.7a 82.5ab 72.5b 55.0c 4.5 < 0.01Overall flavor 90.9a 67.6b 50.8c 45.0c 4.6 < 0.01Beef flavor 89.4a 61.8b 52.5bc 39.9c 4.8 < 0.01Overall liking 90.2a 69.4b 49.2c 49.9c 4.8 < 0.01abcdLeast 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 (restau-rants).Retail GBA = plant-based ground beef alternative most commonly sold in retail markets (grocery stores, supermar-kets).Traditional GBA = plant-based ground beef alternative most indicative of a traditional soy-based product.2Standard error of the means (largest) of the least square means.3Consumers were served a hamburger patty on a white bun with an option to add cheese, ketchup, lettuce, mustard, and pickle to their hamburger samples.

Consumer Sensory Evaluation of Ground Beef and Plant-Based Ground Beef Alternatives Used in a Hamburger Application

https://newprairiepress.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=8425&context=kaesrr

Consumer Sensory Evaluation of Ground Beef and Plant-Based Ground Beef Alternatives Used in a Hamburger Application

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Kansas State University