ArticlePDF Available

Traditional Plant-based Meat Alternatives, Current, and Future Perspective: A Review

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Abstract It is well known that the world population is increasing at an incredible pace; subsequently, worldwide food production without compromising the ecosystem is an enormous challenge for the global community. From the beginning of human civilization, meat plays a vital role in acquiring proteins and other nutrients. Despite the indispensable part of the meat in the human diet, it is also considered a critical factor in environmental alterations, greenhouse gas emissions, animal welfare, and land water usage. The excessive use of natural resources and extensive animal production causes greenhouse gas emissions, which triggered reduced meat consumption and the need for more novel meat alternatives. To overcome the extraordinary demand for red meat, the phenomena of meat alternatives or meat substitutes evolved. Subsequently, meat analogs express a higher trend with low cost, safe consumption, and meaty structure and texture. Meat substitutes are predominantly vegetable centered food products that comprise proteins from pulses, cereal, microorganisms, and other fillers and flavorings mediators. Moreover, Meat products with texturized vegetable protein, mushroom, wheat gluten, pulses are considered an excellent source of as a substitute for animal protein. Additionally, mycoprotein had an impressive profile, including higher protein, low fat, health-promoting agents, with good taste and texture. However, there remains a gap in research articles focusing on the regular consumption of meat substitutes. In the current review, an attempt has been made to summarize various types of meat substitutes, different protein sources, production preparation methods, nutritional, functional properties, including current and future perspectives of meat alternatives. Key words – Cereal protein, Legume protein, Meat analog, Soy protein, Textured vegetable protein
Content may be subject to copyright.
농업생명과학연구
55(1) pp.1-10
Print ISSN 1598-5504
Online ISSN 2383-8272
https://doi.org/10.14397/jals.2020.55.1.00
Journal of Agriculture & Life Science 55(1) pp.1-10
* Corresponding author: Seon-Tea Joo
Tel: +82-55-772-1943
Fax: +82-55-772-1949
E-mail: stjoo@gnu.ac.kr
Traditional Plant-based Meat Alternatives, Current,
and Future Perspective: a Review
Allah Bakhsh1·Se-Jin Lee1·Eun-Yeong Lee1·Young-Hwa Hwang2 and Seon-Tea Joo1,2,3*
1
Division of Applied Life Science (BK21), Gyeongsang National University, Jinju 52828, Korea
2
Institute of Agriculture & Life Science, Gyeongsang National University, Jinju 52828, Korea
3
Department of Animal Science, Gyeongsang National University, Jinju 52852, Korea
Received: SEP. 14. 2020, Revised: JAN. 7. 2021, Accepted: JAN. 20. 2021
Abstract
It is well known that the world population is increasing at an incredible pace; subsequently, worldwide food production without
compromising the ecosystem is an enormous challenge for the global community. From the beginning of human civilization, meat plays
a vital role in acquiring proteins and other nutrients. Despite the indispensable part of the meat in the human diet, it is also considered
a critical factor in environmental alterations, greenhouse gas emissions, animal welfare, and land water usage. The excessive use of natural
resources and extensive animal production causes greenhouse gas emissions, which triggered reduced meat consumption and the need
for more novel meat alternatives. To overcome the extraordinary demand for red meat, the phenomena of meat alternatives or meat substitutes
evolved. Subsequently, meat analogs express a higher trend with low cost, safe consumption, and meaty structure and texture. Meat substitutes
are predominantly vegetable centered food products that comprise proteins from pulses, cereal, microorganisms, and other fillers and
flavorings mediators. Moreover, Meat products with texturized vegetable protein, mushroom, wheat gluten, pulses are considered an excellent
source of as a substitute for animal protein. Additionally, mycoprotein had an impressive profile, including higher protein, low fat,
health-promoting agents, with good taste and texture. However, there remains a gap in research articles focusing on the regular consumption
of meat substitutes. In the current review, an attempt has been made to summarize various types of meat substitutes, different protein
sources, production preparation methods, nutritional, functional properties, including current and future perspectives of meat alternatives.
Key words
Cereal protein, Legume protein, Meat analog, Soy protein, Textured vegetable protein
Introduction
The term “meat analog” denotes food products that are not
made from red meat exclusively; meat analogs are also referred
to as meat substitutes, fake meat, faux meat, or synthetic meat
(Ismail et al., 2020). It has been established previously that
food choice is strongly linked with human health and our environ-
ment's health, with excessive meat consumption often viewed
as detrimental for both factors (Tilman and Clark, 2014). For
instance, various protein types, e.g., soy protein, wheat gluten,
and bean flour, nuts, are considered excellent sources of a meat
alternative, producing similar taste and texture as meat. Similarly,
decades before, livestock was considered a principal protein
source before the nutritional changeover in the 20th century
(Grigg, 1995). Moreover, globally experts claim that food se-
curity is a critical issue with severe consequences in the future,
and therefore hassle significance of conversion is needed to
sustain meat consumption (Boland et al., 2013). Meat production
will be unsustainable by 2050 at current and projected con-
sumption rates. Meat substitutes open a large market for nutritious
protein alternatives that can provide similar taste, texture, and
nutrition density (Joshi et al., 2016). Likewise, the high demand
for red meat production and consumption has a potential threat
to the environment, land water, pollution, greenhouse gas emis-
sion, and endangering biodiversity (Machovina et al., 2015).
Globally, there is an insufficient supply of protein from natural
resources. To tackle the shortage of animal protein, meat analogs
are considered to be an alternative source. Therefore, plants,
insects, and microalgae are considered as a probable novel source.
The fundamental role of producing different types of meat analogs
has to diminish livestock's environmental effect.
2Journal of Agriculture & Life Science 55(1)
Fig. 1. History of meat analogs. Source (Ism ail et al., 2020).
Several types of meat substitutes are available in the market,
known as a meat alternative or meat analogs. However, the
market stakes of current meat analogs are minor; it is projected
to be 1-2% compared to the red meat industry. Plant-based meat
substitutes that mimic the taste, texture, and appearance of ani-
mal-based products have surpassed 44,00 products worldwide.
The United Arab Emirates and China are considered the fastest
emergent vegan market worldwide, followed by Australia.
Numerous efforts have been made to produce the best meat
alternative to satisfy consumers' demand and reduce the limi-
tations of meat analogs' production and preparation. Still, technol-
ogy has several hindrances to create meat alternatives with
meat-like taste, texture, and nourishment (Elzerman, 2006).
In the current review, we attempt to discuss the impacts
of red meat production and population demands to estimate
the inflection point by which meat-rich diets become
unsustainable. We also evaluate the total available market for
meat alternatives, health safety, animal welfare, barriers to entry,
and future innovation opportunities.
Cons umption history of pl ant-based meat alternative s
1. Ancient times
The concept of an alternative to meat as a protein source existed
from ancient times, consisting of traditional products, i.e., tempeh,
tofu, and Seitan. Tofu, a standard meat analog, was developed
in China by the Han dynasty (206 BC
220 AD). The tofu was
extensively consumed throughout the Tang dynasty (618
907) and
probably spread to Japan during the later Tang or early Song
dynasty (Shurtleff & Aoyagi, 2013). The brief history of meat
analog during a different era of modification is shown (Fig. 1).
2. Early 20th period
In the early twentieth century, nut and cereal-based products
emerged, such as Nuttose and Protose, created by pioneers like
John Harvey Kellogg, to promote good health (Shurtleff &
Aoyagi, 2014). Moreover, besides traditional Asian products,
the concept of dry texturized vegetable protein was also evolved,
which was obtained from the extruded defatted soy meal, soy
protein concentrates, or wheat gluten (King & Lawrence, 2019).
3. Mid to late 20th period
Following the 2nd world war, tangible signs of progress were
made in the production and packaging industry, which added
significant developments in plant protein concentrates, isolates,
and textured proteins. These developments supported the for-
mation of soy-based meat alternatives throughout the time when
meat consumption was surging in several industrialized nations
through agricultural expansions and strengthened animal
farming. Targeted at a niche vegetarian demographic, products
such as Tofurky emerged in the US in 1980 (Pullen, 2018).
4. Early 21st period
Burger King is the first American meat alternative that entered
the food chain in 2002 as a traditional plant-based burger. In the
new millennium, consciousness about the well-being and sustain-
ability indications of users’ diets sustained to increase together with
the rising demand for alternatives to conventional meat (Green,
2019). The new era of products such as Impossible Burger and
Byeon Burger has created a new generation of analogs, which causes
the plant-based meat industry to be doubled. Supported by modern
Traditional Plant-based Meat Alternatives, Current, and Future Perspective: a Review 3
Type of protein Source Reference
β
-conglycinin Soybean (Sun et al., 2008)
Glycinin, Vicilin Legumes (Kang et al., 2007)
Legumin, Albumins,
Globulins Glutelins Oilseeds (Marcone, 1999)
Gluten Gliadins
Glutenins
Wheat, rye,
and barley (Green and Cellier, 2007)
Mycoprotein Fusarium venenatum
(Filamentous fungus) (Denny et al., 2008)
Tabl e 2. Major non-meat protein sources suitable for meat analog
Ingredient Purpose Usage level (%)
Water Ingredient distribution,
Emulsification, juiciness, cost 50 to 80
Textured vegetable proteins: textured soy flour, textured soy
concentrate, textured wheat gluten, textured protein
combinations such as soy and wheat
Water binding, texture, and mouthfeel,
Appearance, protein fortification/nutrition
Source of insoluble fiber
10 to 25
Non-textured proteins: isolated soy proteins, functional soy
concentrate, wheat gluten, egg whites, whey proteins
Water binding, emulsification Texture/mouthfeel
Protein fortification/nutrition 4 to 20
Flavors/spices
Flavor, savory, meaty, roasted, fatty,
serumy Flavor enhancement (for example, salt)
Mask cereal notes
3 to 10
Fat/oil Flavor Texture/mouthfeel, Succulence,
Maillard reaction/browning l0 to 15
Binding agents: wheat gluten, egg whites,
gums and hydrocolloids, enzymes, starches
Texture/“bite,” water binding, may contribute to fiber content,
can determine production processing conditions 1-5
Coloring agents: caramel colors,
malt extracts, beet powder, FD&C colors Appearance/eye appeal, Natural or artificial 0 to 0.5
Table 1 . Typical meat analog ingredients and their purpose (Egbert and Borders, 2006; Malav et al., 2015)
developments in food science and manufacturing, plant-based meat
targets to mimic the taste, texture, appearance, and functionality,
of conventional sausages, burgers, and fillets. Furthermore, meat
alternatives, made from combinations of plant proteins, fats, gums,
spices, and extruders or unique processing technologies, have ach-
ieved robust consumer acceptability globally (Court E, 2018).
Ingredients of meat analogs
The major constituents used to establish meat alternatives
are soy proteins, myco proteins, cereal protein, vegetables, and
pulses. A fermentation process is followed for soy, and other
oilseed extracts proteins, various substrates, and microorganisms
are used to produce meat analogs (Kumar et al., 2017). Brief
descriptions of typical meat analogs ingredients and their func-
tion are presented in (Table 1). Plant proteins are a vital part
of meat substitutes, but shortly bacteria and mushrooms would
be probable novel supplements because they multiply rapidly
and are valued among consumers (Hegenbart, 2002). Similarly,
the Major non-meat protein sources suitable for meat analogs
are shown in (Table 2).
1. Soy Protein
Soy is well recognized to have tremendous nutritional and
functional assistance. It is considered a replacement for red
meat due to its proportional nutrients content and is extensively
used for individuals with cardiovascular diseases (Kumar et
al., 2017). On the Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid
Score scale, soy protein was designated identical to animal pro-
tein with a score of 1.0, the maximum possible score (Hoffman
& Falvo, 2004). Soy proteins support diminished blood choles-
terol and lower coronary heart disease (Golbitz & Jordan, 2006).
Soy protein is used in products like meat-free sausages, chick-
en-style breasts, chicken-style nuggets, and products similar
to sliced cooked meats.
Consequently, textured vegetable protein is obtained from
defatted soy flour, from which soluble carbohydrate has been
detached, and the filtrate is textured by spinning or by extrusion.
It is considered to mimic meat muscle, thus providing a different
eating texture to other soy layouts because it allows for chewiness
and fibrous characteristics (Sadler, 2004). The textured vegetable
protein has also been used in various types of meat-free con-
venience products such as bean burgers and patties to reduce
the cost without lowering nutritional value (Penfield &
Campbell, 1990).
2. Legume protein
The legume family of plants accounts for 27% of primary
4Journal of Agriculture & Life Science 55(1)
crop production worldwide and is second in importance only
to cereal grasses (Riascos et al. 2010). Protein is the main compo-
nent of a legumes-based diet. In many more species, seed protein
content varies from 20% to 30% of total dry weight (Riascos
et al. 2010). It has been established that legumes from numerous
sources like chickpea, lentil, lupine, and other types of the bean
are examined on characteristics such as gel formation emulsifica-
tion and foam stabilization, among them the most favorable
for meat analog was pea protein (Osen et al., 2014). Previously
researchers have effectively formulated meat analogs from pea
protein isolates (90% protein) in combination with gluten (80%
protein) and starch at high moisture, which has a fibrous texture
which was similar to chicken and fish meat (Elaine, 2009).
Legumes grain plays an essential role in human nutrition. In
several regions of the world, the legume protein is considered
poor man meat, particularly in the developing world (Riascos
et al., 2010). There is a tremendous increase in legumes-based
meat, especially in quality, texture, and other functional proper-
ties; the main reason could be economic values (Malav et al.,
2015).
3. Cereal protein
Cereals hold an essential spot in food crops, and the products
obtained from grain are of substantial importance in the food
processing industry. Cereal protein is used as seed, flour, or
flakes (Malav et al., 2015). Wheat protein is fundamentally
prepared from gluten that has been treated and extruded to
look like the texture of meat (Asgar et al., 2010). Food products
comprising wheat gluten delivers textured vegetable protein in-
gredients that can be applied as meat extenders and meat analog
products. In-ground meat patties gluten can be used as an ex-
tender and bind chunks for trimmings to generate rearranged
items. Gluten that has been hydrated could be extruded and
texturized and convert into fibers to produce numerous kinds
of meat substitutes (Malav et al., 2015).
4. Mycoprotein
The first product of mycoprotein to be marketed was begun
long before 1985. Mycoproteins are free of cholesterol, little
saturated fats with a good fatty acid profile, and fiber content
equivalent to other vegetarian protein sources. Mycoprotein
can considerably reduce blood cholesterol levels because of
its fibrous nature (Denny et al., 2008). The mycelia of fila-
mentous fungus are highly preferred for a meat substitute since
mycelia's fibrous arrangement resembles the final product. For
the preparation of products that resemble mycoprotein, the bind-
ing agent obtained from egg albumin is mixed with fungal
biomass and added with flavoring agents and the rest of the
components depending upon the final product (Denny et al.,
2008). The heating process causes protein binders to form the
gel, which sticks together with the hyphae. The product obtained
had similar textural characteristics resembles meat products
(Rodger, 2001).
5. Coloring agents
The quality of meat alternatives depends significantly on
color and variations of color. Thus, coloring agents are consid-
ered an essential entity in meat additives (Kyriakopoulou et
al., 2019). Cumin, carotene, and turmin pigments are considered
heat-stable coloring agents and preferred among consumers
(Vrljic et al., 2018). Heat-labile colorants and reducing sugars
are used in various combinations based on color preparation,
which resembles the final product (Rolan et al., 2008). Besides,
lowering sugar content can be added as a browning mediator;
subsequently, they can counter the amine protein groups in
a Maillard-type reaction, which shows similarity with meat's
browning (Kyriakopoulou et al., 2019).
Predominantly in plant-based meat, coloring agents are ap-
plied as coloring solutions before the extrusion process. The
other way of mixing colorants with proteins consisting of materi-
al entered the extruder or injected into the extruder barrel (Orcutt
et al., 2008). Regardless accessibility of coloring agents in meat
analogs, the color of meat analogs is not standard quality; the
way to solve this problem is to insert acidulants such as citric
acid, lactic acid, or acetic or their combinations (Orcutt et al.,
2008). However, a particular solution has a limitation as an
alteration in pH leads to deterioration of protein and variation
in taste of the ultimate final product. Furthermore, along with
the coloring agents, color retention aids such as maltodextrin
and hydrated alginate are used to inhibit or control the color
migration from the dyed structured meat analog (Orcutt et al.,
2008).
6. Flavors and other ingredients
Good flavor and taste are significant criteria for an average
consumer to accept a meat analog (Kyriakopoulou et al., 2019).
Along with iron complexes savory spicing, meat, and savory
aroma, their precursors are currently used as flavoring agents
in meat analogs (Fraser et al., 2017). Amino acid-containing
sugar and sulfur play an essential part in expanding meat flavor
(Hsieh et al., 1980). Moreover, the mushroom concentrate can
also be used as a flavor formulate and flavor enhancer in place
of monosodium glutamate or hydrolyzed vegetable protein.
Sodium, calcium, potassium, and magnesium improved the meat
analogs' functional potentials when applied in combination with
plant proteins (Singh et al., 1997).
Traditional Plant-based Meat Alternatives, Current, and Future Perspective: a Review 5
Company Product Country
Quorn Foods Low-fat Chicken UK
Melissa Foods Soy Taco Canada
Marlow Foods Quorn UK
Turtle Island Foods Tofurky USA
Sogolwek Quinoa Based Meat Patties Israel
Veggie Patch Meatless Meat Balls USA
Mute Soybadi India
Sol cuisine Meatless Burgers Canada
Gardein Crispy Chicken UK
Sources (Bryan, 2012)
Table 3. Commercially available meat analogs in market and their brand names
Preparation and processing of meat analog
Meat analog products are currently manufactured by two
fundamental processes, through either thermoplastic extrusion
or fiber spinning. Thermoplastic extrusion involves adapting
production processes that are more commonly associated with
the making of ready-to-eat cereal products. Extruders are simple
and are considered to be a cost-effective method of accom-
modating large-scale productions. It also provides the con-
ditions that are crucial to the formation of the desirable fibers.
The wet mix is mixed in a heated vessel at a temperature
lower than the proteins' coagulation temperature. The high tem-
perature helps lower the dough's viscosity and allows for a
more homogenized mixing process. Special caution must be
taken not to overmix the dough as it has been known to sub-
stantially decrease the number of fibers formed (Boyer, 1954).
Extruders should be set to the temperature in which the protein
used will start to solidify for max efficiency. Gluten and soy
proteins coagulate at 75 °C and 68 °C, respectively. Since
the extruder also cooks the product, the extruder's inner walls'
temperature should be within the range of 77 °C to 149 °C.
Turbulent conditions caused by aggressive mixing and agitation
should be avoided during processing as it contributes to the
undesirable formation of randomly oriented, non-meat like
fibers. Unidirectional and parallel fibers can only be formed
through extruding and stretching under none turbulent or lami-
nar conditions. Laminar flow condition occurs under low veloc-
ities where the fluid in question flows smoothly with over-
lapping layers, and it is typically characterized by having a
Reynolds number below 2000. However, this depends on the
system and can vary significantly in complex fluids (Choueiri
et al., 2018). Stretching of the meat analog would take place
simultaneously during the extrusion. Ideally, the amount of
linear expansion of the protein dough should be around 50%
in either direction (Boyer, 1954).
The fiber spinning method is not commonly used to produce
meat analogs due to its complexity, and it also negates one
of the critical advantages of meat analogs. This production
method increases production cost, eliminating the advantage
of creating an inexpensive meat/protein substitute. The fiber
spinning techniques were adopted from the spun fiber method
to create synthetic fibers in the textile industry. In general,
fibers are made by creating filaments out of the protein used
as the starting material. The process begins through the dis-
persion of proteins into a dispersing medium such as an alkaline
aqueous solution. This dispersion is then fed through a spinner-
et, a device used to extrude a polymer solution to form fibers,
and deposited into an acidic salt solution with a pH range
of 5.6 to 6.4 enhanced coagulation. After exiting the spinneret's
small die, the filaments would have a diameter of around 0.003
inches. These filaments are then stretched and elongated until
the average thickness is about 20 microns (Boyer, 1954). The
excess salt solution is then removed from the fibers through
squeezing or centrifuging before further processing. After the
drying process, edible binders such as proteins, starches, ce-
reals, dextrins, carboxymethylcellulose, or a combination of
them, are added to keep the fibers physically tied together
through functioning as an adhesive or serving as a matrix
in which the fibers embedded. The fibers are then passed
through a bath of melted fat and pressed together to form
the final product. The meat analog is then cut into a suitable
length for either packaging and distribution or further process-
ing (Boyer, 1954).
Common meat substitutes
Several types of meat substitutes are available globally with
different tastes, flavors, and textures. Table 3 is a list of various
types of meat substitutes with a brand name in various countries.
6Journal of Agriculture & Life Science 55(1)
Fig. 2. Traditional plant-based meat analog.
1. Soy meat/ Texture vegetable protein
Soy meat or texture vegetable protein is produced from
soybeans primarily in Asian countries (Fig. 2A). The pro-
duction method is somewhat laborious, however the end prod-
uct has a fibrous consistency, which is very similar to meat.
With different seasonings, a great variety of flavors can be
achieved. Soy meat is extremely rich in protein with over
50 percent protein contents, but the protein content drops when
texture vegetable protein is rehydrated (Riaz, 2005). The texture
vegetable protein has been developed in the USA and in-
troduced to the European market in the late 1960s, with modest
success. The quality of texture vegetable protein has been
improved for the last 40 years. The textured vegetable protein
is produced using hot extrusion of defatted soy proteins, result-
ing in expanded high protein chunks, nuggets, strips, grains,
and other shapes. The denatured proteins give textured vegeta-
ble protein textures similar to meat. The fibrous, insoluble,
porous textured vegetable protein can soak up water or other
liquids a multiple of its weight. The texture vegetable protein
can be consumed directly or added as a meat extender in
meat analog. The dissimilarity between meat extenders and
meat analogs is the reliance on raw materials for texturization
by extruders (Riaz, 2004). If cooked alone, meat extenders
are not analogous to meat in appearance, texture, or mouthfeel.
These types of textured products are mixed with meat for
further processing to improve overall functional properties.
On the other hand, meat analogs are considerably similar to
meat in appearance, color, flavor, and texture when hydrated
and cooked (Riaz, 2004).
2. Tofu
Tofu is a traditional Asian foodstuff and a basis for meat
replacements made from soy protein (Fig. 2B). In meat alter-
natives, soybeans are considered widely recognized; they pro-
duce an outstanding protein, calcium, and iron source. Tofu
is a plant-based meat alternative and is also well known among
consumers as bean curd, with tremendous nutritional and health
benefits. Tofu is popular plant-based food in various countries,
including Korea, India, America, Australia, Cambodia, China,
Europe, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Myanmar, New Zealand,
Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam (Pal et al., 2019).
It is typically manageable in the slab, and it is highly penetrable
and freely takes tastes of steeps, pulps, and extra dressing (Malav
et al., 2015). Due to the absence of cholesterol and dietary
fibers and low energy values, tofu has unique nutritional value
(Stanojević et al., 2010). Tofu has specific nutritional standards
due to dietetic fibers, cholesterol, and low energy value. The
physiological values of tofu are incredible due to the high content
of minerals and vitamins (Wang and Murphy,1994). Tofu is
a good source of protein, vitamins (A, C, D, E, K, and the
B vitamins, such as riboflavin, thiamine, niacin, pantothenic
acid, biotin, vitamin B-6, vitamin B-12, and folate), and minerals
(calcium, phosphorus, potassium, magnesium, iron, zinc, man-
ganese, selenium, and copper). Besides, tofu is also a rich source
of omega-3 fatty acids that are needed for good health. Tofu
also provides the required amino acids, which are crucial to
healthy and balanced diets. It is mentioned that one block of
hard tofu, weighing 122 grams (g), contains 177 calories, 5.36
g of carbohydrate, 12.19 g of fat, 15.57 g of protein, 421 mg
of calcium, 282 mg of phosphorus, 178 mg of potassium, 65
mg of magnesium, 3.35 mg of iron, 2 mg of zinc, and 27
micrograms of folate (Pal et al., 2019).
3. Tempeh
Tempeh is an Indonesian-based meat alternative manufac-
tured from fermented soybean cake and cooked soybeans, e.g.,
rice and millet, shared with the Rhizopus oligoporus culture
(Fig. 2C). Tempeh is available commercially in different forms
like strip, cake, and cookery context; it is considered tofu because
it comprises entire soybeans it has a thicker, “meatier”
consistency. Fermented soybean cake, or ‘tempeh,’ is an out-
standing low-cost source of protein, having on an average of
19.5% protein, which matches favorably with chicken (21%),
beef (20%), eggs (13%), and milk (3%). Moreover, with the
enzymatic protease process, mold is produced during the fermen-
tation, the soluble protein content in tempeh rises abruptly,
making it extra consumable than unfermented soybeans (Astuti
et al., 2000). Tempeh has the essential properties of nutritional
benefits, including high protein, fiber, and extra nutrients. It
also benefits from covering Vitamin B12, a by-product of the
fermentation process (Liem et al., 1977).
Traditional Plant-based Meat Alternatives, Current, and Future Perspective: a Review 7
4. Wheat gluten / Seitan
Seitan is another kind of vegetarian meat analog known as
wheat meat or wheat gluten (Fig. 2D). Seitan is achieved through
the continuous washing process of wheat flour dough until the
chewy mass, or proteinaceous gluten is produced. Seitan is
chewy and flavorful meat alternative with an excellent option
for a population with no sensitivity toward gluten, although
individuals showing sensitivities toward gluten avoided the prod-
uct (Schepker, 2012). Seitan-based meat substitutes like vegeta-
rian burgers, sausages, and nuggets are considered cheapest,
and the main reason is it produced from simple raw material.
Seitan products are easy to handle, and it could be seasoned
and prepared in multiple ways. Furthermore, around the world,
the wheat crop is intuitive to most countries. Hence, the potential
production of Seitan is possible worldwide. Seitan consistency
is exceptionally similar to the chewy fibers that establish meat's
uniformity (Schmidinger, 2012).
5. Fibers from lupines
For vegetarian meat production, sweet lupines are used in
many ways. Previously a Dutch company, Meatless B.V., suc-
cessfully prepared 100% vegetable fibers from lupine or wheat.
Several types of fibers are produced with different shapes, colors,
and flavors. Meatless fibers replace a large portion of meat;
the primary purpose is to developed hybrid products and meat
alternatives (Schmidinger, 2012). Recently there are other lu-
pines-based meat alternatives, but these products still have not
made access to the relevant market until now (Fig. 2E).
6. Sufu
Sufu is a fermented soybean curd and a vastly flavored,
lenient creamy cheese-type product that can be used in the
same way as cheese. There are several native processors of
sufu in China, with mold-fermented sufu being the most popular
product (Han et al., 2001). Traditionally, in the western world,
sufu has been known as Chinese or bean cake or fermented
tofu. By action of mold, sufu is a combined product of soybean
and curd. The primary consumption comes from the Chinese.
Three major steps are involved in the manufacturing of sufu
preparation, molding, and brining. After overnight washing and
soaking soybeans and then grounded with water to dry bean
ratio 10:1 is typically used. The groundmass is boiled for about
2 min, and the hot mass is strained through a cloth bag.
Magnesium and calcium salts have been used for the curdling
process (Han et al., 2001). To subtract the curdling whey, the
curd is turned into a wooden tray lined with cloth and hard-press-
ed (Elzerman 2006). Typical sufu is shown in (Fig. 2F).
7. Rice-based products
Risofu is rice-based burgers and sausages produced by a
U.S. company named Bahama Rice Burger (Fig. 2G). Risofu
is derived from the Italian word riso, which means rice and
tofu, meaning rice tofu. The company developed the product
with inspiration from the Shan region of Thailand, where
rice-based tofu is made. Risofu mixes white, brown, and wild
rice to obtain as many nutrients as possible (Schmidinger, 2012).
8. Algae
Algae could also be a potential precursor of vegetarian meat
alternatives, together with cereals, rice, edible oils, and thicken-
ing agents. Algae is another promising and novel source of
protein consisting of seaweed and microalgae (Fig. 2H). Seaweed
is a multicellular organism and complex. Meanwhile, microalgae
are grouped as a single-celled organism (Chlorella and the dia-
tom) and multicellular forms (kelp) (McKellar et al., 2019).
Microalgae-based meat analogs are grown in many environments
and less impact on the environment than beef, pork, and chicken
(Smetana and Heinz, 2019).
9. Animal welfare
Annually more than 56 billion farmed animals are slaughtered,
countless of which go through enormous discomfort in the proc-
ess (Joshi et al., 2016). Consumers, particularly from developed
countries, are concerned about the treatment of livestock. Some
are questioning animals' treatment and the ethical justification
for using animals in human food production (Croney et al.,
2012). To improve animal welfare, plant-based meat alternatives
and Vitro meat can both widely reduce the number of animals
farmed to minimize the burden on animal protein requirements
globally (Croney et al., 2012).
In a broader agricultural system, traditional meat production,
primarily obtained from ruminants, is considered a vital agricul-
tural system (Hou et al., 2008). Moreover, currently, the pro-
duction of cultured meat techniques researchers cannot elimi-
nate animal products' usage (Post, 2012). Excluding livestock
from food production is not the only way to address animal
well-being complications. Other options involve redesigning
husbandry systems and employing conventional breeding
technologies. Cloning is another technology that is used to
increase the genetic improvement of agricultural animal species.
However, this particular technique may have some negative
impacts on animal welfare. While keeping animal welfare in
mind previously, a trial has been carried out in cattle with
a total of 2,170 implanted embryos; only 106 live offspring
were born. At the same time, 24 of them died soon after birth.
8Journal of Agriculture & Life Science 55(1)
On closer look, 11 of these 24 offspring had severe physiological
abnormalities, including digestive abnormalities, skeletal prob-
lems, deformities in the urinary tract, and respiratory failure
(Cibelli et al., 2002).
11 . Nutritional and health aspects
The Health benefits and nutritional value of certain foods
are well recognized based on their composition. The fundamental
dietary drive of meat in the diet is providing protein of out-
standing quality. In case the meat is entirely exchanged for
meat-analog product, the particular product should provide a
similar nutritional value. It has been established that a meat
analog with a protein content of up to 30% with a low fat/lipid
level can be an excellent alternative to meat from a nutritional
perspective. Concerning public health benefits, meat substitutes
had a wide range of potential as a functional food (Sadler,
2004). The meat proteins have great biological value with a
reasonable volume of vitamins and minerals, which improve
the nutritional value of meat products. However, meat cannot
be recommended due to its high-fat content. The meat also
includes cholesterol and a greater quantity of saturated fatty
acids. Atherosclerosis or clogging of the arteries leads to a
heart attack caused by saturated fat in meat, whereas in
plant-based meat, a considerable amount of linolenic acid is
present (Key et al., 1999). To provide a high quality of protein
in the diet is the primary purpose of meat in the diet. From
a nutritional perspective, it has been suggested that meat sub-
stitutes consisting of 30% protein with a lower quantity of fat
can be an excellent replacer to meat (Kyriakopoulou et al.,
2019). Previously it has been reported that plant-based meat
has various health assistances, e.g., reducing obesity-induced
metabolic dysfunction (Wanezaki et al., 2015), cardiovascular
disease (Craig, 2010), cancer (Goldberg, 2003), retaining anti-
cancer, anti-inflammation activity, and immune activity (Nakata
et al., 2017). Consequently, improving clinical indices in Type
2 diabetes (Clifton, 2011) improves weight loss and weight
maintenance (Kristensen et al., 2016).
Environmental aspects of meat analogs
Greenhouse gas is an environmental calamity, and food activ-
ity is considered responsible for 30% of greenhouse gas emis-
sions (Smetana et al., 2015). Consumer awareness has been
amplified at increasing food demand (Steinfeld et al., 2006).
Moreover, ecological and socio-economic activities, such as
food safety, deforestation, and pollution, are of greater
significance. Grossly livestock contributes a significant portion
of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide 9%, methane
39%, and nitrous oxide 65% (Steinfeld et al., 2006). Based
on soy and grain's total production, approximately 40% of the
entire grain and 75% of whole soy are being utilized for animal
feeding. Land as the whole of the planet, 30% is dedicated
to animal production, which is considered 70% of total arable
land (Kumar et al., 2017). Furthermore, extensive livestock pro-
duction and expansion had a tremendous effect on limited natural
resources, and it is considered a key factor in the deforestation
of forests and greenery (Pimentel & Pimentel, 2003). Thus,
meat analogs are considered the best alternatives to overcome
the overproduction of livestock and produce environ-
ment-friendly meat products that could reduce the burden on
our planet's natural resources.
Food marketing will be very complicated; a flow toward
more sophisticated meat alternatives is booming up. Food manu-
facturers face a significant challenge to provide nutritious, eco-
nomical, and healthy foods to ensure that food products have
tempting taste and texture. Genetic engineering silencing can
increase the quality of plant-based food products (Asgar et al.,
2010). Meat production by conventional methods reaches its
edges, additional increases in production will require innovative
technologies and techniques. In the current meat industry, only
traditional meat and limited types of meat alternatives are present
in the market place. The red meat industry's future perspective
through artificial meat and technologies will keep the meat
industry's current pace to cope with increased consumer demand
with time. As the demand for meat surges, the resources available
shrink, and the monitoring environment convert, more intricate
conventional meat production will probably suffer high costs,
making meat more expensive.
Similarly, when the price of conventional meat increases,
the demand for more inexpensive meat substitutes will surges.
The principal foodstuffs which are likely to produce strong
opposition for traditional meat are meat substitutes manufactured
from plant or insect proteins. These products are the most striking
to manufactures and have the lowermost obstacles to
commercialization. This may create momentum for meat, partic-
ularly red meat, into the most incredible end of the market.
Previously research and development have reported that
meat-like structure can be achieved using plant-based in-
gredients, such as soy and legumes, and with a combination
of different technologies like extrusion and shearing process.
Although due to the oxidation process, off-flavor complaints
have been reported alongside these ingredients can produce
highly nutritional products (Rackis et al., 1979). Covering these
odors is a choice, but imitating the particular meat taste is
relatively tricky (Claeys et al., 2004). Consequently, new com-
pounds had been explored, which could change the color and
aroma, which can mimic the properties' appearances and taste
of meat products. The mouth feeling of meat analog is a vital
parameter; new methods are being incorporated to assimilate
Traditional Plant-based Meat Alternatives, Current, and Future Perspective: a Review 9
water, fat, and flavoring constituents to improve sensorial prop-
erties (Kyriakopoulou et al., 2019). Besides the sensory feature,
consumer behavior can be affected by price, nutritional proper-
ties, food labels, country origin, and health claims (Gadema
& Oglethorpe, 2011). Previous reports have confirmed that’s
consumers' behavior is regularly affected if the meat product
fulfills the numerous aspects of a particular meat analog. The
meat analogs can be adjusted by formula and by collecting
components to satisfy a range of consumer demands. Regarding
the dietary benefits of the altered protein-rich ingredients and
by merging deferent sources, the health benefits can be manifold
(Kyriakopoulou et al., 2019).
Saturated fat and cholesterol are considered hazardous to
health; plant protein, unlike meat, did not include these two
compounds. Subsequently, Plant-based meat analog secured its
place in the diet of health-conscious and economically poor
consumers. The phytochemicals and fibrous nature of
plant-based meat analog are considered desirable in a diet. The
food products we generally consume should be higher in protein,
easily accessible, financially sustainable, and environmentally
safe. Consumers’ requirements of high protein can efficiently
overcome by quality plant-based meat analogs. Additionally,
vegan food is consumed easily than non-vegetarian food. It
includes low LDL cholesterol and physiologically active com-
pounds such as protease inhibitors, phytosterols, saponins, and
isoflavones. Meat analogs will help solve the global food crisis,
but more astonishingly, it will slow down climate change and
animal welfare issues. Due to their superior dietary profile,
entirely meat-free, plant-based meat analogs have a reasonably
good chance to secure their food market position than traditional
vegan products.
References
Asgar M, Fazilah A, Huda N, Bhat R and Karim A. 2010.
Non-meat protein alternatives as meat extenders and meat
analogs. Compr. 9: 513-529.
Astuti M, Meliala A, Dalais FS and Wahlqvist ML. 2000. Tempe,
a nutritious and healthy food from indonesia. Asia Pac.
J. Clin. Nutr. 9: 322-325.
Boland MJ, Rae AN, Vereijken JM, Meuwissen MP, Fischer
AR, Van Boekel MA, Rutherfurd SM, Gruppen H,
Moughan PJ and Hendriks WH. 2013. The future supply
of animal-derived protein for human consumption.
Trends Food Sci. Technol. 29: 62-73.
Boyer RA. 1954. High protein food product and process for
its preparation. U.S. Patent 2,682,466.
Bryan S. 2012. Meat analogs in industry future.
http://www.meatpoultry.com (2020.5.20.).
Choueiri GH, Lopez JM and Hof B. 2018. Exceeding the asymp-
totic limit of polymer drag reduction. Phys. Rev. Lett.
120: 124-501.
Cibelli JB, Campbell, KH, Seidel GE, West MD and Lanza
RP. 2002. The health profile of cloned animals. Nat.
Biotechnol. 20: 13-14.
Claeys E, De Smet S, Balcaen A, Raes K and Demeyer D.
2004. Quantification of fresh meat peptides by sds-page
in relation to ageing time and taste intensity. Meat Sci.
67: 281-288.
Clifton PM. 2011. Protein and coronary heart disease: The role
of different protein sources. Curr. Atheroscler. 13:
493-498.
Court E. 2018. Beyond meat products out of stock at whole foods
stores due to high demand. https://www.plantbasednews.org/
lifestyle/beyondmeat- (2020.6.2.).
Craig WJ. 2010. Nutrition concerns and health effects of vegeta-
rian diets. Nutr. Clin. Pract. 25: 613-620.
Croney CC, Apley M, Capper JL, Mench JA and Priest S.
2012. Bioethics symposium: The ethical food movement:
What does it mean for the role of science and scientists
in current debates about animal agriculture? J. Anim.
Sci. 90: 1570-1582.
Denny A, Aisbitt B and Lunn J. 2008. Mycoprotein and health.
Nutr. Bull. 33: 298-310.
Egbert R and Borders C. 2006. Achieving success with meat
analogs. Food. Technol. 60: 28-34.
Elaine W. 2009. Pea protein could challenge soy as meat
analogue. http://www.foodmanufacture.co.uk (2020.6.15.).
Elzerman H. 2006. Substitution of meat by NPFs: Sensory prop-
erties and contextual factors. Envir. Pol. 45: 116-122.
Fraser R, Brown POR, Karr J, Holz-Schietinger C and Cohn
E. 2017. Methods and compositions for affecting the
flavor and aroma profile of consumables. U.S. Patent
9,808,029.
Gadema Z and Oglethorpe D. 2011. The use and usefulness
of carbon labelling food: A policy perspective from a
survey of U.K. supermarket shoppers. Food Policy 36:
815-822.
Golbitz P and Jordan J. 2006. Soyfoods: Market and products.
Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, FL, pp.1-21.
Goldberg G. 2003. Plants: Diet and health. Report of the British
Nutrition Foundation Task Force, Oxford: British
Nutrition Foundation/Blackwell.
Green E. 2019. Food discovery: “The Adventurous Consumer”
tipped as top trend for by Innova Market Insights.
https://www.foodingredientsfirst (2020.6.7).
Green PHR and Cellier C. 2007. Celiac disease. N. Engl. J.
Med. 357: 1731-1743.
Grigg D. 1995. The nutritional transition in western europe.
10 Journal of Agriculture & Life Science 55(1)
J. Hist. Geogr. 21: 247-261.
Han BZ, Rombouts FM and Robert Nout MJR. 2001. A Chinese
fermented soybean food. Int J. Food. Microbiol. 65: 1-9.
Hegenbart S. 2002. Soy: The beneficial bean. Food Product
Design 2002(12): 83-97.
Hoffman JR and Falvo MJ. 2004. Protein which is best? J.
Sports. Sci. Med. 3: 118-130.
Hou FJ, Nan ZB, Xie YZ, Li XL, Lin HL and Ren JZ. 2008.
Integrated crop-livestock production systems in China.
Rangeland J. 30: 221-231.
Hsieh Y, Pearson A and Magee W. 1980. Development of
a synthetic meat flavor mixture by using surface response
methodology. J. Food Sci. 45: 1125-1130.
Ismail I, Hwang YH and Joo ST. 2020. Meat analog as future
food: A review. J. Anim. Sci. Technol. 62: 111-120.
Joshi I, Param S, Irene and Gadrre M. 2016. Saving the plant:
The market for sustainable meat alternatives.
https://scet.berkeley.edu/wpcontent/up-
loads/CopyofFINALSavingThePlanetSustainableMeat
Alternatives.pdf (2020.6.3).
Kang, IH, Srivastava P, Ozias-Akins P and Gallo M. 2007.
Temporal and spatial expression of the major allergens
in developing and germinating peanut seed. Plant
Physiol. 144: 836-845.
Key TJ, Davey GK and Appleby PN. 1999. Health benefits
of a vegetarian diet. Nutr. Soc. 58: 271-275.
King T and Lawrence S. 2019. Meat the alternative-Australia's $3
billion opportunity. https://www.foodfrontier.org/wpcon-
tent/uploads/2019/09/Meat_the_Alternative_FoodFrontier.pdf
(2020.6.3).
Kristensen MD, Bendsen NT, Christensen SM, Astrup A and
Raben A. 2016. Meals based on vegetable protein sources
(beans and peas) are more satiating than meals based
on animal protein sources (veal and pork)-a randomized
cross-over meal test study. Food Nutr. Res. 60: 32634.
Kumar P, Chatli M, Mehta N, Singh P, Malav O and Verma
AK. 2017. Meat analogues: Health promising sustainable
meat substitutes. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr 57: 923-932.
Kyriakopoulou K, Dekkers B and Van Der Goot AJ. 2019.
Plant-based meat analogues. In Sustainable meat pro-
duction and processing. Galanakis CM. pp.103-126. ed.
Elsevier Academic Press, Cambridge, Mass, USA.
Liem I, Steinkraus K and Cronk T. 1977. Production of vitamin
b-12 in tempeh, a fermented soybean food. Appl.
Environ. Microbiol. 34: 773-776.
Machovina B, Feeley KJ and Ripple WJ. 2015. Biodiversity
conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption.
Sci. Total Environ. 536: 419-431.
Malav O, Talukder S, Gokulakrishnan P and Chand S. 2015.
Meat analog: A review. Crit Rev Food Sci. Nutr. 55:
1241-1245.
Marcone MF. 1999. Biochemical and biophysical properties
of plant storage proteins: A current understanding with
emphasis on 11S seed globulins. Food Res. 32: 79-92.
McKellar S, Lasek M, Day J, Muñoz A and Tzafestas K. 2019.
Future food sources: Market developments and in-
tellectual property landscape. https://www.ip-pragmatics.com/
media/1214/ip-pragmatics-future-food-sources-white-paper_
jan2019.pdf (2020.5.28).
Nakata T, Kyoui D, Takahashi H, Kimura B and Kuda T. 2017.
Inhibitory effects of soybean oligosaccharides and wa-
ter-soluble soybean fibre on formation of putrefactive
compounds from soy protein by gut microbiota.
International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 97:
173-180.
Orcutt MW, Sandoval A, Mertle TJ, Mueller I, Altemueller
PA and Downey J. 2008. Meat compositions comprising
colored structured protein products. U.S. Patent
12,061,843.
Osen R, Toelstede S, Wild F, Eisner P and Schweiggert-Weisz
U. 2014. High moisture extrusion cooking of pea protein
isolates: Raw material characteristics, extruder re-
sponses, and texture properties. J. Food Eng. 127: 67-74.
Pal M, Devrani M and Ayele Y. 2019. Tofu: A popular food
with high nutritional and health benefits. Food &
Beverages Processing. New Delhi India, pp.54-55.
Penfield MP and Campbell AM. eds. 1990. Experimental food
science (3rd ed.). Academic Press, San Diego,
pp.294-330.
Pimentel D and Pimentel M. 2003. Sustainability of meat-based
and plant-based diets and the environment. Am. J. Clin.
Nutr. 78: 660-663.
Post MJ. 2012. Cultured meat from stem cells: Challenges and
prospects. Meat Sci. 92: 297-301.
Pullen JP. 2018. Tofurky wants to save the world, one
Thanksgiving roast at a time. It’s now sold 5 million.
http://fortune.com/longform/tofurky-vegan-vegetarian-
thanksgiving-recipes-company-founding/ (2020.6.20).
Rackis J, Sessa D and Honig D. 1979. Flavor problems of
vegetable food proteins. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 56:
262-271.
Riascos JJ, Weissinger AK, Weissinger SM and Burks AW.
2010. Hypoallergenic legume crops and food allergy:
Factors affecting feasibility and risk. J. Agric. Food
Chem. 58: 20-27.
Riaz MN. 2004. Proteins in food processing. In Texturized
soy protein as an ingredient. Yada RY. pp.517-557. ed.
Woodhead Publishing Limited, England.
Riaz MN. 2005. Textured soy protein utilization in meat and
Traditional Plant-based Meat Alternatives, Current, and Future Perspective: a Review 11
meat analog products. In Soy applications in food. Riaz
MN. pp.155-184. ed. Boca Raton.
Rodger G. 2001. Production and properties of mycoprotein as
a meat alternative. Food Technol. 55: 36-41.
Rolan T, Mueller I, Mertle TJ, Swenson KJ, Conley C, Orcutt
MW and Mease LE. 2008. Ground meat and meat analog
compositions having improved nutritional properties.
U.S. Patent 11,963,375.
Sadler MJ. 2004. Meat alternatives market developments and
health benefits. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 15: 250-260.
Schepker K. 2012. Meet the meatles(s)-A guide to vegetarian
meat substitutes. pp.1-13. https://holisticprimarycare.net/top -
ics/cooking-for-health/meet-the-meatless-a-guide-to-vegetarian-
meat-substitutes-sp-135270867/ (2020.5.20).
Schmidinger K. 2012. Worldwide alternatives to animal derived
foods-overview and evaluation models-solutions to glob-
al problems caused by livestock. PhD Thesis, University
of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, VA, Austria.
Shurtleff W and Aoyagi A. 2013. History of tofu and tofu
products (965 CE to 2013). California: Soyinfo Centre,
p.5. http://www.soyinfocenter.com/pdf/163/Tofu.pdf
(2020.6.26).
Shurtleff W and Aoyagi A. 2014. History of meat alternatives.
California: Soyinfo Centre, p.36. http://www.soyinfocenter.com
/pdf/179/MAL.pdf (2020.6.6).
Singh RB, Rao K, Anjaneyulu AR, Rao KS and Dubey P.
1997. Effect of caseinates on physico-chemical, textural
and sensory properties of chicken nuggets from spent
hens. J. Food Sci. Technol. 34: 316-319.
Smetana S and Heinz V. 2019. Sustainability of meat substitutes:
Plant analogues, microalgae, insects and cultured meat.
ICoMST 2019 65th International Congress of Meat
Science and Technology: Potsdam, German.
Smetana S, Mathys A, Knoch A and Heinz V. 2015. Meat
alternatives: Life cycle assessment of most known meat
substitutes. Int. J. Life Cycle Ass. 20: 1254-1267.
Stanojević SP, Barać MB, Pešić MB, Milovanović MM and
Vučelić-Radović BV. 2010. Protein composition in tofu
of corrected quality. Acta Period. Technol. 41: 77-86.
Steinfeld H, Gerber P, Wassenaar T, Castel V, Rosales M, Rosales
M and De Haan C. 2006. Livestock's long shadow:
Environmental issues and options. Food & Agriculture
Org. http://www.fao.org/3/a0701e/a0701e00.htm
Sun P, Li D, Li Z, Dong B and Wang F. 2008. Effects of
glycinin on IgE-mediated increase of mast cell numbers
and histamine release in the small intestine. J. Nutr.
Biochem. 19: 627-633.
Tilman D and Clark M. 2014. Global diets link environmental
sustainability and human health. Nature 515: 518-522.
Vital RJ, Bassinello PZ, Cruz QA, Carvalho RN, De Paiva
J and Colombo AO. 2018. Production, quality, and ac-
ceptance of tempeh and white bean tempeh burgers.
Foods 7: 136.
Vrljic M, Solomatin S, Fraser R, Brown POR, Karr J,
Holz-Schietinger C, Eisen M and Varadan R. 2018.
Methods and compositions for consumables. U.S. Patent
10,039,306.
Wanezaki S, Tachibana N, Nagata M, Saito S, Nagao K, Yanagita
T and Kohno M. 2015. Soy β-conglycinin improves obe-
sity-induced metabolic abnormalities in a rat model of
nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Obes. Res. Clin. Pract.
9: 168-174.
Wang HJ and Murphy PA. 1994. Isoflavone content in commer-
cial soybean foods. J. Agric. Food Chem. 42: 1666-1673.
... Fats, thickening agents, adhering agents, colorants, flavorings, minerals, vitamins, antioxidants, antimicrobials [10] Review article general Nonanimal proteins, lipids, polysaccharides, flavoring ingredients, coloring agents, fortification ingredients [11] Review article general Protein ingredients, lipid ingredients, carbohydrate ingredients, flavor enhancers, coloring agents [21] Book section general Proteins, fat or oil, binding agents, flavorings and taste enhancers, coloring agents [24] Review article general, emulsion-type, burgers/patties/nuggets, chickens/steak Plant proteins, binding and texturizing agents, fat, oil and oil substitutes, flavor and coloring agents, water [29] Review article general Proteins, coloring ingredients, flavoring ingredients [28] Review article general Proteins, oil and fats, binding agents, taste and flavor enhancers, coloring agents [30] Systematic literature review article general Texturized vegetable proteins, binding agents, fat/oil, and other ingredients [31] Review article general Plant proteins, coloring agents, flavors, and other ingredients [32] Hence, this review aims to address this gap by examining the available scientific literature and providing updated insights into the primary ingredients used in the development of plant-based burger meat alternatives, along with their functionality. ...
... The use of soybean is worldwide, and many of the PBMAs commercialized are based on soy protein due to its availability, specific properties, and low prices [32]. The functional properties of soy proteins, including their ability to hold water, form gels, absorb fat, and emulsify, make them a popular choice for use in meat analogues. ...
... These properties enable the creation of products that closely mimic the texture and mouthfeel of meat. Moreover, from a nutritional point of view, processed soy protein has a very balanced amino acid composition and a high Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score is mostly identical to the animal protein [32]. Textured soy proteins, when hydrated, can emulate meat-like textures and are, therefore, highly versatile food ingredients [45]. ...
Article
Full-text available
The development of plant-based meat analogues has become a significant challenge for the food industry in recent years due to the increasing demand for sustainable and healthier proteins in the context of a global protein transition. Plant-based meat analogues imitate the visual, textural, and chemical properties of traditional meat products and are required to closely resemble meat to appeal to consumers. In addition, consumers demand natural, clean-label, and nutritional, and healthy products. To address these challenges, the food industry must develop highly healthy, nutritious, and E-number-free meat analogue products. Understanding the functionality of each ingredient and its role in the food matrix is crucial to being a key player in the innovation of the meat analogue market. This review provides updated information on the primary ingredients utilized for the development of plant-based burger meat alternatives and their functionality. The key components of meat analogue burgers are outlined, including plant proteins, binding agents, fats and oils, flavorings, colorings, preservatives, fortificants, and clean-label considerations.
... Nine-point hedonic scale [189] Legumeat® Beef-Bean (defatted soy, bean, rice) ...
... Accordingly, future endeavors by modern food producers and scientists ought to concentrate on technological challenges as well as nutritional value enhancement and process optimization to reduce production costs and promote balanced environmental effects. [189,203] Because of emotional attachment (pleasure and enjoyment of eating meat) and/or a fear of consuming unfamiliar food products, modern foods can be less attractive and may even be rejected by consumers who prefer to keep their existing dietary behavior. Consequently, it is essential to promote a greater awareness and understanding of plantbased meat analogues and the environmental issues associated with conventional meat production. ...
Article
Full-text available
Recently, there has been significant research on plant-based meat as a substitute for animal meat. However, developing meat analogues with suitable techno-functional properties and a meat-like texture presents several challenges. In lieu of animal meat, plant-based meats offer a sustainable and healthy alternative. The nutritional and textural properties of meat analogues are mostly influenced by the specific type of proteins utilized and the various processing techniques implemented. Despite this, alternative proteins sourced from various plants such as legumes, pulses, and cereals, continue to be underutilized, with limited research done on their use in meat analogue development. The sustainability of production technologies and the selection of proteins can have a direct impact on both cost effectiveness and consumer of meat analogues. The challenges associated with the development of gluten-free meat analogues are currently being examined. Moreover, the extraction techniques employed in the isolation of plant proteins are of paramount importance, as they contribute to the organoleptic and textural attributes of meat analogues. By utilizing advanced technologies to sustainably utilize diverse plant proteins, it is feasible to conquer the challenges encountered in the production of plant-based meat products that are palatable to both consumers and the food industry. In this review we have discussed the functional roles of various ingredients and additives for enhancing nutritional and textural properties of meat analogues and current technologies used for texturizing plant-based meat analogues. Further we have discussed various analytical methods for testing the quality attributes of meat analogues and technological and consumer perception/acceptability-related challenges and opportunities.
... However, in terms of beef hotdogs, both protein source and fat content had a significant positive impact. The missing significance of protein source in the case of plant-based hotdogs can be tied to the incomplete amino acid profile of plant proteins against the complete 20 amino acids in meat [36]. Dieticians describe this difference as not providing the desired protein content [35]. ...
... Regarding the fat content, the participants from our survey had the highest preference for hotdogs containing 9.58 g, which was the medium fat level considered for the study. Since plant proteins generally have lower fat content, the negative association can be explained [36]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Plant-based meat has been the primary strategy to reducing meat consumption. While this category has demonstrated success, with the market value estimated to reach USD 20 billion by 2023, the subsequent reduction in meat consumption has not been proportionate. An alternative approach is hybrid products, which are thought to produce products that more closely resemble meat products. However, whether consumers will be willing to purchase hybrid products remains uncertain. Therefore, the present study uses a conjoint analysis approach to assess the product features driving the selection of a hybrid hotdog. This approach uncovers factors driving consumers’ purchase intentions for hybrid meat products when offered as a choice against 100% plant-based and 100% beef products. In an online survey, participants (n = 454; 45.6% female) were asked to select the product they would be most willing to purchase, varying in four characteristics: protein source, price, fat content, and price. Following this task, participants answered questions related to meat attachment, food neophobia, health, ecological, social, and moral motives regarding food consumption. The results revealed that protein source was the most important factor driving product selection, followed by price, fat, and packaging claims (35%, 24%, 21%, and 20% relative importance, respectively). In this study, hybrid hotdogs were the least preferred to beef and plant-based (−16, −2.5, and 18 part-worth utility, respectively). These product-specific attributes (protein, fat, and price) had distinct relationships with the choices of hybrid, plant-based, and hybrid hotdogs, with these factors together explaining slightly more variability in the selection of hybrid (9%) compared to plant-based (7%) and beef hotdogs (4%). For hybrid hotdogs, protein had the greatest influence (B = −1.2) followed by fat (B = −0.8) and price (B = −0.5). Interestingly, person-related parameters (health, meat attachment, ethics, and food neophobia) had no relationship with the selection of hybrid hotdogs, contrary to plant-based (7%) and beef hotdogs (5%). This influence of the different parameters on the selection of hybrid meat is thought to be due to the lack of consumer knowledge and familiarity with hybrid products. The current understanding of plant-based products may not correspond to hybrid products. Engaging with consumers during the development of these products is critical to ensure consumer acceptance and thus support the transition to a more sustainable diet.
... Kumar and his co-workers reported that because of the proportionate nutritional content of soybeans, it is being used to substitute red meat [ 21 ]. On the level of Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score, soybean protein received the highest possible score of 1.0 for being equivalent to animal [ 22 ]. The meat analogues are made from a combination of non-textured and textured soy proteins [ 23 ]. ...
... The meat analogues are made from a combination of non-textured and textured soy proteins [ 23 ]. Soy proteins were utilized to make various products, including chicken-style nuggets and breasts, meat-free sausages, and sliced cooked meats [ 22 ]. Patterned soy protein concentrates resemble the fibres of meat muscle, such as those found in chicken breast meat [ 24 ]; provide meat-like fibrous qualities such as mouth feel, chewiness, and hardness [ 25 ]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Animal proteins from meat and its stuffs have recently been one of main concerns in the drive for sustainable food production. This viewpoint suggests that there are exciting prospects to reformulate meat products that are produced more sustainably and may also have health benefits by substituting high-protein nonmeat ingredients for some of the meat. Considering these pre-existing conditions, this review critically reviews recent data on extenders from several sources, including pulses, plant-based components, plant byproducts, and unconventional sources. We used the related keywords from Scopus-database without limiting the publishing date. With an emphasis on how these findings may impact the sustainability of meat products, it sees them as a great chance to enhance the functional quality and technological profile of meat. Therefore, to promote sustainability, meat alternatives such as plant-based meat equivalents are being made available. To boost consumer acceptability of these goods, further initiatives should also be developed to enhance the functioning of these innovative food items and increase public knowledge of plant-based meat analogues.
... Besides, curiosity and an appetite for adventure lead certain customers who are prepared to explore various dishes and culinary innovations. PBMAs provide people the chance to experiment with new and inventive plant-based cuisines and recipes, broadening their culinary horizons [119]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Purpose of Review Plant-based meat analogs (PBMAs) have been the subject of interest over the past few years due to consumers' demand for environmentally friendly, healthful, and non-animal-based foods. A better comprehension of the composition, structure, texture, nutrition, and sustainability of these PBMAs is necessary. Recent Findings This review articulates the protein sources and composition of PBMAs and their “meatiness” with respect to texture, structure, and flavor enhancement. The components used in the analogs, such as unsaturated fats, fibers, vitamins, minerals, carbohydrates, and plant-based oils enriching their nutritional profile, are described. The study identifies the environmental and sustainability impact of PBMAs, as crucial to the survival and maintenance of biodiversity. Summary More studies are warranted to scope and underscore the significance of the analogs and comprehend the texture or structure-function relationships. Further product development and testing thereof may ultimately result in quality meat analogs that respect meat taste, health and acceptance of consumers, environmental sustainability, animal welfare, and current challenges.
... Plantbased products are often more expensive than their animal-based counterparts, partly due to the complex processing methods and lower economies of scale (McMillan, 2023). This price disparity can limit access, particularly in developing economies where consumers may be more price-sensitive (Bakhsh et al., 2021). Several other factors also affect the acceptance of plant-based proteins. ...
Article
Full-text available
The burgeoning interest in plant-based proteins stems from a growing awareness of their health benefits, environmental sustainability, and potential to meet global food security needs. This paper provides a comprehensive exploration of the innovations, nutritional value, and consumer acceptance of plant-based proteins. Historically, legumes and pulses have been central to plant-based diets, valued for their rich nutrient profiles and environmental benefits. Technological advancements, such as high-pressure processing and fermentation, have significantly improved the quality and functionality of plant proteins, making them viable alternatives to animal proteins. Nutritionally, plant-based proteins offer several health benefits, including improved cardiovascular health, weight management, and reduced risks of chronic diseases. However, they often lack certain essential amino acids found in animal proteins. This gap can be bridged through strategic combinations of plant proteins and modern processing techniques. Fortification and supplementation further enhance the nutritional profile of plant-based diets, ensuring they meet all dietary requirements. Consumer acceptance of plant-based proteins is influenced by taste, texture, cost, and environmental concerns. Brands like MorninStar Farms, Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat have successfully navigated these challenges, creating products that closely mimic the sensory attributes of meat. The market for plant-based proteins is expanding rapidly, driven by technological innovations and increasing consumer demand for sustainable and ethical food options. Looking ahead, emerging trends such as synthetic biology, IoT automation, and 3D food printing are poised to revolutionize the plant-based protein industry. New protein sources, including underutilized legumes, aquatic plants, and fungi, offer promising alternatives that can enhance the diversity and sustainability of plant-based diets. This paper concludes that the ongoing advancements in food technology and consumer education will be crucial in sustaining the growth and acceptance of plant-based proteins, contributing significantly to global health and environmental sustainability.
... Modern PBMAs are specifically formulated to mimic the sensory attributes and macronutrient profiles of traditional meat using plant proteins (e.g., soy, pea, jackfruit, rice, wheat, mushroom), plant-based fats (e.g., canola, coconut, sesame, mustard, soybean, sunflower oil) and other novel ingredients such as soy leghemoglobin, redcolored vegetable extracts and flavouring agents. Mushroom concentrate, for instance, is used as a substitute for monosodium glutamate (MSG) and hydrolyzed vegetable protein for flavour enhancement [4]. Additionally, essential vitamins and minerals typically found in meat, such as iron, zinc, and vitamin B, are being progressively added to PBMAs to enhance their nutritional value [5]. ...
Article
Aim: This study aims to elucidate the differences between PBMA and chicken meat patties by comparing their physico-chemical and sensory attributes. Study Design and Methodology: The plant-based meat analogue (PBMA) market is expanding rapidly alongside the burgeoning alternative protein sector. To enhance marketability, the sensory and textural attributes of PBMA must closely mimic those of traditional meat products. Commercial PBMA patties from three brands and chicken patties from two brands available in the Indian market were analysed. The frozen samples were thawed at refrigeration temperature (4±1℃) before laboratory analysis of various physico-chemical and sensory properties. Results: Qualitative analysis indicated that PBMA patties had lower moisture content but higher fat, crude fiber and total ash content compared to chicken patties. Notably, the cholesterol content of PBMA patties was negligible. Linoleic acid was the most abundant fatty acid in PBMA samples, with significant amounts of oleic and palmitic acids also present. The predominant saturated fatty acid (SFA) in all samples was palmitic acid (C16:0). Sensory evaluation revealed that chicken patties scored higher for overall acceptability than PBMA patties. Conclusion: Overall, the study demonstrates significant differences in proximate composition, texture and sensory qualities between PBMA and traditional meat patties, highlighting the distinct characteristics of PBMA as an alternative protein source. The texture and sensory evaluations showed that PBMA patties, while promising, still fall short in replicating the sensory qualities of chicken patties, particularly in appearance and flavour. The PBMA patties can be a good alternative to meat patties in terms of nutritional composition.
... Lupine meat analog was developed according to the method of Bakhsh, Lee, Sabikun et al. [31], (Fig. 2). A preliminary experiment was done to estimate the desired pasting temperature, the proportion of minor ingredients, and water. ...
Article
Full-text available
White lupine is a legume crop rich in adequate valuable nutrient profiles especially used as a possible source of proteins where animal-based proteins are scarce. However, there is little documented information about the effect of processing conditions to produce lupine protein-based meat analog. This study explores the impact of roasting temperature (raw, 130, 140, and 150 °C) and soaking time (raw, 2, 4, and 6 days) on the chemical compositions, physical quality, and sensory attributes of meat analog. The result showed that roasting at 140 °C and soaking for 4 days significantly increased (p˂0.05) the proximate and mineral contents of the meat analog. The highest protein content (82.46 %) was obtained at T2t2 (roasted at 140 °C and soaked for 4 days). While the lowest protein content (62.47 %) was observed at T3t3 (roasted at 150 °C and soaked for 4 days). Similarly, the highest (93.17 %) and lowest (79.47 %) cooking yields were obtained at T2t2 and T3t3 respectively. Roasting and soaking conditions also showed a significant effect (p˂0.05) on the anti-nutrient contents of meat analog. The highest overall sensory acceptability (6.40) of the meat analog was observed at T2t2. The research suggests that suitable processing conditions can enhance the nutritional profiles of lupine protein-based meat analog, potentially enabling its industrial production and global market entry.
Article
The article presents the results of a study of the mineral composition and organoleptic evaluation of semi-smoked sausage from vegetable raw materials. Soy and chickpeas were selected as vegetable raw materials. As a result of experiments, it was revealed that the optimal ratio of soy and chickpeas for the production of semi-smoked sausage is 4:1. According to the results of an organoleptic evaluation of semismoked sausage from vegetable raw materials, it was found that the third sample, the ratio of soy isolate and chickpeas of which is 4:1, had a consistency, smell and taste more characteristic of semi-smoked sausage than the rest of the samples being developed. Based on studies of the mineral composition of semi-smoked sausage from vegetable raw materials, it is proved that there are more minerals in the first and second samples than in the third sample. Since soy isolate increases 3-5 times during cooking due to binding to water, soy texturate and chickpea sausage contains more macro- and microelements than soy isolate and chickpea sausage. However, the third sample contains 1.58% and 0.98% more phosphorus compared to samples № 1 and № 2, respectively. Research has proven that the use of soy and chickpeas as the main ingredients, completely replacing meat in semi-smoked sausage, is possible and relevant.
Article
Full-text available
The definition of meat analog refers to the replacement of the main ingredient with other than meat. It also called a meat substitute, meat alternatives, fake or mock meat, and imitation meat. The increased importance of meat analog in the current trend is due to the health awareness among consumers in their diet and for a better future environment. The factors that lead to this shift is due to low fat and calorie foods intake, flexitarians, animal disease, natural resources depletion, and to reduce greenhouse gas emission. Currently, available marketed meat analog products are plant-based meat in which the quality (i.e., texture and taste) are similar to the conventional meat. The ingredients used are mainly soy proteins with novel ingredients added, such as mycoprotein and soy leghemoglobin. However, plant-based meat is sold primarily in Western countries. Asian countries also will become a potential market in the near future due to growing interest in this product. With the current advance technology, lab-grown meat with no livestock raising or known as cultured meat will be expected to boost the food market in the future. Also, insect-based products will be promising to be the next protein resource for human food. Nevertheless, other than acceptability, cost-effective, reliable production, and consistent quality towards those products, product safety is the top priority. Therefore, the regulatory frameworks need to be developed alongside.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Introduction The lack of protein sources in several parts of the world is triggering the search for locally produced and sustainable alternatives. Insects, microalgae and plants are recognized as a potential solution. Industry of cultured meat is dynamically developing through investments from meat companies and venture capitals. The production of various meat substitutes (based on plants, microalgae and animal-based biomass) aims to reduce the environmental impact caused by livestock and find safe and reliable supply alternatives. This study outlines the comparative analysis of meat substitutes’ environmental performance in order to estimate the most promising options. Methods The study relies on attributional and consequential Life Cycle Assessment modelling for the estimation of the most impacting types of meat substitutes. It considered “cradle-to-gate” meal life cycle with the application of ReCiPe and IMPACT 2002+ methods. Inventory was based on literature and field data. Consideration of functions and functional unit (FU) variations were included. Results of meat substitutes (high-moisture intermediates or fresh meat) LCA were compared to conventional benchmark meats (beef, pork, chicken). LCAs are followed by sensitivity analyses, which identify the most promising directions towards sustainable production of meat analogues and estimate the magnitude of impact reductions if those directions are to pursue by the industry. Results Results showed the highest impacts for cultured meat (based on own study and recent publications), which was in the upper impact level of beef. The highest impacts of meat culturing were associated with production of culture media. Even with more progressive scenarios of culturing meat on cyanobacteria- produced media, the impact of cultured meat is very high (Figure 1). Microalgae-based meat analogues had lower environmental impact than beef, such intermediates were not competitive against pork and chicken (autotrophic microalgae grown in food grade conditions). Heterotrophic cultivation of microalgae on industrial side-streams or underutilised but safe organic matter has a potential to result in more sustainable meat substitutes comparable in impact to analogues based on insects, plants or chicken. Legal requirements for treating insects as livestock animals increase the impact of insect-based meat substitutes (need to grow insects on animal feed) to the levels of lower impact range of chicken. Similarly to microalgae, environmental impact of insect can be improved if they are grown on wastes or food industry side streams. Plant-based meat analogues were the most environmentally beneficial type of meat substitutes (nutritional properties are not similar however). The results were very sensitive to the changes of FU. Midpoint impact category results were the same order of magnitude as some previously published work, although wide ranges of possible results and system boundaries made the comparison with literature data challenging. Conclusion The results of the comparison were highly dependable on selected FU. Therefore, the proposed comparison with di0erent integrative FU indicated the lowest impact of plant-based meat substitutes (which corresponds to other studies). Analyses of insect meat substitutes corresponds with other findings in the literature, indicating insect-based intermediate as more sustainable than fresh chicken meat. Insect-based meat substitutes have a potential to be more sustainable with the use of more advanced growing and processing techniques. Contradictory to other publications modelling of culture meat production on industrial level and analysis of economic and environmental e0iciency of cellular meat production indicated its lower e0iciency in terms of resource use (higher price and higher environmental impact) comparing to conventional beef production. Upscaling of cultured meat production and identification of reliable and cheap cultured media would make it environmentally competitive to the upper impact boundaries of beef. The consequential LCA indicated that transforming organic residuals into meat substitute biomass could result in lower environmental impacts if composting or anaerobic digestion (as a waste treatment technology) is avoided.
Article
Full-text available
The food industry has been challenged to develop new healthy food products. Tempeh, originating in Indonesia and produced by fungal fermentation, would be an alternative healthy food for the Brazilian population. This study was designed to produce white bean (cv BRS Ártico) tempeh burger, to determine and compare its nutritional and sensory properties with conventional soybean-based tempeh burger. The production and the analyses of proximal composition and microbiological contamination were determined in the tempeh, following reference methods. For the sensory analysis, a nine-point hedonic scale test was performed with 82 untrained evaluators, and at the end, a question of purchase intent was answered. The results indicated significant differences in the nutritional value of the tempehs, which is justified by the difference in the composition of the raw materials used. The samples did not present a risk of microbiological contamination for consumption. The white bean tempeh burgers showed similar appearance and crispy consistency, but received lower scores for flavor, compared to the soybean burgers, probably due to their residual beany flavor. The beany flavor could be minimized by increasing the cooking time of the beans. White bean tempeh can be a good alternative for healthy eating, and its manufacture could promote the production of new products made from beans, giving a new focus to the Brazilians’ traditional food. It is still necessary to improve the techniques of production and test new ingredients for the preparation of tempeh burgers to obtain higher acceptability.
Article
Full-text available
Background: Recent nutrition recommendations advocate a reduction in protein from animal sources (pork, beef) because of environmental concerns. Instead, protein from vegetable sources (beans, peas) should be increased. However, little is known about the effect of these vegetable protein sources on appetite regulation. Objective: To examine whether meals based on vegetable protein sources (beans/peas) are comparable to meals based on animal protein sources (veal/pork) regarding meal-induced appetite sensations. Design: In total, 43 healthy, normal-weight, young men completed this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, three-way, cross-over meal test. The meals (all 3.5 MJ, 28 energy-% (E%) fat) were either high protein based on veal and pork meat, HP-Meat (19 E% protein, 53 E% carbohydrate, 6 g fiber/100 g); high protein based on legumes (beans and peas), HP-Legume (19 E% protein, 53 E% carbohydrate, 25 g fiber/100 g); or low-protein based on legumes, LP-Legume (9 E% protein, 62 E% carbohydrate, 10 g fiber/100 g). Subjective appetite sensations were recorded at baseline and every half hour using visual analog scales until the ad libitum meal 3 h after the test meal. Repeated measurements analyses and summary analyses were performed using ANCOVA (SAS). Results: HP-Legume induced lower composite appetite score, hunger, prospective food consumption, and higher fullness compared to HP-Meat and LP-Legume (p<0.05). Furthermore, satiety was higher after HP-Legume than HP-Meat (p<0.05). When adjusting for palatability, HP-Legume still resulted in lower composite appetite scores, hunger, prospective consumption, and higher fullness compared to HP-Meat (p<0.05). Furthermore, HP-Legume induced higher fullness than LP-Legume (p<0.05). A 12% and 13% lower energy intake, respectively, was seen after HP-Legume compared to HP-Meat or LP-Legume (p<0.01). Conclusion: Vegetable-based meals (beans/peas) influenced appetite sensations favorably compared to animal-based meals (pork/veal) with similar energy and protein content, but lower fiber content. Interestingly, a vegetable-based meal with low protein content was as satiating and palatable as an animal-based meal with high protein content.
Article
The drag of turbulent flows can be drastically decreased by adding small amounts of high molecular weight polymers. While drag reduction initially increases with polymer concentration, it eventually saturates to what is known as the maximum drag reduction (MDR) asymptote; this asymptote is generally attributed to the dynamics being reduced to a marginal yet persistent state of subdued turbulent motion. Contrary to this accepted view, we show that, for an appropriate choice of parameters, polymers can reduce the drag beyond the suggested asymptotic limit, eliminating turbulence and giving way to laminar flow. At higher polymer concentrations, however, the laminar state becomes unstable, resulting in a fluctuating flow with the characteristic drag of the MDR asymptote. Our findings indicate that the asymptotic state is hence dynamically disconnected from ordinary turbulence.
Article
Soybeans are part of the traditional food consumed in Asia countries. In this study, we investigated inhibitory effects of soybean oligosaccharides and water-soluble soybean fibre (Soyafibe) on putrefactive compounds from soy protein by gut microbiota in rats. Caecal microbial fermentation products and microbiota in rats fed 20% soy protein (SP-1) and whole soybean flour (SFL: protein content was 20%) diets were determined. The caecal environment in rats fed 20% soy protein without dietary fibre (SP-2) or with 2% Soyafibe (SFB) was also determined. Compared to SP-1 and SP-2 group, low indole content with high lactic acid was shown in SFL and SFB group, respectively. Using the 16S rRNA genes polymerase chain reaction-denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (PCR-DGGE) and pyrosequencing. Prevotella, Gram-negative anaerobic rods, were detected as dominant in both SFL and SFB groups. Our findings indicated that fermentable polysaccharides in soybeans have inhibitory effects on the formation of putrefactive compounds generated from soy protein by the microbiota.
Article
The food scientists are giving priorities to the specific end-product uses rather than on generalities, for developing palatable meat analogs. Despite soy's position being the most common protein used in analogs, several different proteins can be used in making meat-mimickers. Innovations will prove to be a vital element in the future years to move analogs and soy to the next plateau. Fresh thinking, continued progress, and eyeing market opportunities will be essential in realizing this technology's full potential.