1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Food Science and Technology
  4. Volume 13, 2022
  5. Article

Annual Review of Food Science and Technology

Volume 13, 2022

Materials Properties, Oral Processing, and Sensory Analysis of Eating Meat and Meat Analogs

Abstract

To increase the appeal of plant protein–based meat analogs, further progress needs to be made in their sensory perception. Given the limited number of studies on meat analogs, this review focuses on structure, oral processing, and sensory perception of meat and subsequently translates the insights to meat analogs. An extensive number of publications has built the current understanding of meat mechanical and structural properties, but inconsistencies concerning terminology and methodology execution as well as the wide variety in terms of natural origin limit solid conclusions about the control parameters for oral processing and sensory perception. Consumer-relevant textural aspects such as tenderness and juiciness are not directly correlated to single structural features but depend on an interplay of multiple factors and thus require a holistic approach. We discuss the differences in mastication and disintegration of meat and meat analogs and provide an outlook toward converting skeptical consumers into returning customers.

Keyword(s): meat, meat substitutes, mechanical testing, oral processing, sensory analysis, structure
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-food-090821-032332
2022-03-25
2024-05-11
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/food/13/1/annurev-food-090821-032332.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-food-090821-032332&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Agrawal KR, Lucas PW, Prinz JF, Bruce IC. 1997. Mechanical properties of foods responsible for resisting food breakdown in the human mouth. Arch. Oral Biol. 42:11–9
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Aguayo-Mendoza MG, Ketel EC, van der Linden E, Forde CG, Piqueras-Fiszman B, Stieger M. 2019. Oral processing behavior of drinkable, spoonable and chewable foods is primarily determined by rheological and mechanical food properties. Food Qual. Preference 71:87–95
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Bendall JR. 1967. The elastin content of various muscles of beef animals. J. Sci. Food Agric. 18:12553–58
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Benjamin O, Silcock P, Kieser JA, Waddell JN, Swain MV, Everett DW. 2012. Development of a model mouth containing an artificial tongue to measure the release of volatile compounds. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 15:96–103
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bertram HC, Aaslyng MD, Andersen HJ. 2005. Elucidation of the relationship between cooking temperature, water distribution and sensory attributes of pork: a combined NMR and sensory study. Meat Sci 70:175–81
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bertram HC, Andersen HJ 2008. Proton NMR relaxometry in meat science. Modern Magnetic Resonance GA Webb 1729–33 Dordrecht, Neth: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bertram HC, Ersen HJ. 2004. Applications of NMR in meat science. Annu. Rep. NMR Spectrosc. 53:157–202
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bertram HC, Karlsson AH, Rasmussen M, Pedersen OD, Dønstrup S, Andersen HJ 2001. Origin of multiexponential T2 relaxation in muscle myowater. J. Agric. Food Chem. 49:63092–100
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Biswas AK, Mandal PK. 2020. Current perspectives of meat quality evaluation: techniques, technologies and challenges. Meat Quality Analysis AK Biswas, PK Mandal 3–17 Cambridge, MA: Academic
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Bohrer BM. 2019. An investigation of the formulation and nutritional composition of modern meat analogue products. Food Sci. Hum. Wellness 8:4320–29
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Bonnet M, Faulconnier Y, Leroux C, Jurie C, Cassar-Malek I et al. 2007. Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase and leptin are related to marbling differences among Limousin and Angus or Japanese Black x Angus steers. J. Anim. Sci. 85:112882–94
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Bourne MC. 1968. Texture profile of ripening pears. J. Food Sci. 33:2223–26
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Bourne MC. 2002. Food Texture and Viscosity: Concept and Measurement Cambridge, MA: Academic
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Bouton PE, Ford AL, Harris PV, Ratcliff D 1975. Objective-subjective assessment of meat tenderness. J. Texture Stud. 6:3315–28
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Bouton PE, Harris PV. 1972. A comparison of some objective methods used to assess meat tenderness. J. Food Sci. 37:2218–21
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Bouton PE, Harris PV, Shorthose WR. 1971. Effect of ultimate pH upon the water-holding capacity and tenderness of mutton. J. Food Sci. 36:3435–39
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Braxton D, Dauchel C, Brown WE. 1996. Association between chewing efficiency and mastication patterns for meat and influence on tenderness perception. Food Qual. Preference 7:3–4217–23
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Brown WE, Langley KR, Mioche L, Marie S, Gérault S, Braxton D 1996. Individuality of understanding and assessment of sensory attributes of foods, in particular, tenderness of meat. Food Qual. Preference 7:3–4205–16
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Butler G, Poste LM, Mackie DA, Jones A. 1996. Time-intensity as a tool for the measurement of meat tenderness. Food Qual. Preference 7:3–4193–204
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Chen J. 2009. Food oral processing: a review. Food Hydrocoll 23:11–25
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Chen J. 2014. Food oral processing: some important underpinning principles of eating and sensory perception. Food Struct 1:291–105
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Chen J, Khandelwal N, Liu Z, Funami T. 2013. Influences of food hardness on the particle size distribution of food boluses. Arch. Oral Biol. 58:3293–98
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Civille GV, Carr BT, Meilgaard M. 2015. Sensory Evaluation Techniques Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. , 5th ed..
  24. Coghlan A. 2013. What's the beef? Cultured meat remains a distant dream. New Sci. 2929:10
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Cornet SHV, Snel SJE, Lesschen J, van der Goot AJ, van der Sman RGM. 2021. Enhancing the water holding capacity of model meat analogues through marinade composition. J. Food Eng. 290:110283
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Cross HR, Carpenter ZL, Smith GC. 1973. Effects of intramuscular collagen and elastin on bovine muscle tenderness. J Food Sci 38:6998–1003
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Damez J-L, Clerjon S 2008. Meat quality assessment using biophysical methods related to meat structure. Meat Sci 80:1132–49
     [Google Scholar]
  28. de Boer J, Vijver M, van Wesenbeeck L, Herok C, Kuik O 2006. Social desirability: national and international context. Sustainable Protein Production and Consumption: Pigs or Peas? H Aiking, J de Boer, J Vereijken 129–53 New York: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  29. de Wijk RA, Prinz JF. 2005. The role of friction in perceived oral texture. Food Qual. Preference 16:2121–29
     [Google Scholar]
  30. de Wijk RA, Prinz JF, Engelen L, Weenen H 2004. The role of α-amylase in the perception of oral texture and flavour in custards. Physiol. Behav. 83:181–91
     [Google Scholar]
  31. del Pulgar JS, Gázquez A, Ruiz-Carrascal J. 2012. Physico-chemical, textural and structural characteristics of sous-vide cooked pork cheeks as affected by vacuum, cooking temperature and cooking time. Meat Sci 90:3828–35
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Dick A, Bhandari B, Prakash S. 2019. 3D printing of meat. Meat Sci 153:35–44
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Diehl KC, Hamann DD. 1980. Relationships between sensory profile parameters and fundamental mechanical parameters for raw potatoes, melons and apples. J. Texture Stud. 10:4401–20
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Djekic I, Ilic J, Lorenzo JM, Tomasevic I 2021. How do culinary methods affect quality and oral processing characteristics of pork ham?. J. Texture Stud. 52:136–44
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Duconseille A, François O, Bruno P, Céline L, Marie-Agnès P, Martine H. 2019. Measuring the effects of in vitro mastication on bolus granulometry of shredded meat: a proposal for a new methodological procedure. Food Res. Int. 116:1266–73
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Duizer LM, Gullett EA, Findlay CJ. 1996. The relationship between sensory time-intensity, physiological electromyography and instrumental texture profile analysis measurements of beef tenderness. Meat Sci 42:2215–24
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Edelman PD, McFarland DC, Mironov VA, Matheny JG. 2005. Commentary: in vitro-cultured meat production. Tissue Eng 11:5–6659–62
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Elzerman JE, van Boekel MAJS, Luning PA. 2013. Exploring meat substitutes: consumer experiences and contextual factors. Br. Food J. 115:5700–10
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Fehér A, Gazdecki M, Véha M, Szakály M, Szakály Z. 2020. A comprehensive review of the benefits of and the barriers to the switch to a plant-based diet. Sustainability 12:104136
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Finnigan TJA 2011. Mycoprotein: origins, production and properties. Handbook of Food Proteins GO Phillips, PA Williams 335–52 Cambridge, UK: Woodhead Publ.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Frank D, Ball A, Hughes J, Krishnamurthy R, Piyasiri U et al. 2016. Sensory and flavor chemistry characteristics of Australian beef: influence of intramuscular fat, feed and breed. J. Agric. Food Chem. 64:214299–311
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Friedman HH, Whitney JE, Szczesniak AS 1963. The texturometer—a new instrument for objective texture measurement. J. Food Sci. 28:4390–96
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Funami T. 2017. In vivo and rheological approaches for characterizing food oral processing and usefulness of polysaccharides as texture modifiers: a review. Food Hydrocoll 68:2–14
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Gy P. 2004. Sampling of discrete materials—a new introduction to the theory of sampling: I. Qualitative approach. Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 74:17–24
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Han M, Bertram HC 2017. Designing healthier comminuted meat products: effect of dietary fibers on water distribution and texture of a fat-reduced meat model system. Meat Sci 133:159–65
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Harris PV, Shorthose WR 1988. Meat texture. Developments in Meat Science R Lawrie 245–96 London: Elsevier
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Heymann H, Hedrick HB, Karrasch MA, Eggeman MK, Ellersieck MR. 1990. Sensory and chemical characteristics of fresh pork roasts cooked to different endpoint temperatures. J. Food Sci. 55:3613–17
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Hildrum KI, Nilsen BN, Mielnik M, Naes T 1994. Prediction of sensory characteristics of beef by near-infrared spectroscopy. Meat Sci 38:167–80
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Hocquette J-F, Gondret F, Baéza E, Médale F, Jurie C, Pethick DW 2010. Intramuscular fat content in meat-producing animals: development, genetic and nutritional control and identification of putative markers. Animal 4:2303–19
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Hoek AC, Luning PA, Weijzen P, Engels W, Kok FJ, De Graaf C. 2011. Replacement of meat by meat substitutes. A survey on person- and product-related factors in consumer acceptance. Appetite 56:3662–73
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Honikel KO. 1998. Reference methods for the assessment of physical characteristics of meat. Meat Sci 49:4447–57
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Horsfield S, Taylor LJ. 1976. Exploring the relationship between sensory data and acceptability of meat. J. Sci. Food Agric. 27:111044–56
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Hughes JM, Oiseth SK, Purslow PP, Warner RD. 2014. A structural approach to understanding the interactions between colour, water-holding capacity and tenderness. Meat Sci 98:3520–32
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Hutchings JB, Lillford PJ. 1988. The perception of food texture: the philosophy of the breakdown path. J. Texture Stud. 19:2103–15
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Ilić JG, Tomašević IB, Đekic IV. 2019. Modelling solid food oral processing using quality function deployment. Food Feed Res 46:2227–34
     [Google Scholar]
  56. ISO 1997. Meat and meat products: determination of moisture content ISO Stand. 1442 Int. Org. Stand. Geneva:
     [Google Scholar]
  57. ISO 2008. Sensory analysis: vocabulary ISO Stand. 5492 Int. Org. Stand. Geneva:
     [Google Scholar]
  58. ISO 2012. Sensory analysis: general guidelines for the selection, training and monitoring of selected assessors and expert sensory assessors ISO Stand. 8586 Int. Org. Stand. Geneva:
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Joubert M, Septier C, Brignot H, Salles C, Panouillé M et al. 2017. Chewing bread: impact on alpha-amylase secretion and oral digestion. Food Funct. 8:2607–14
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Keefe LM. 2018. FakeMeat: How big a deal will animal meat analogs ultimately be?. Anim. Front. 8:330–37
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Ketel EC, Aguayo-Mendoza MG, de Wijk RA, de Graaf C, Piqueras-Fiszman B, Stieger M. 2019. Age, gender, ethnicity and eating capability influence oral processing behaviour of liquid, semi-solid and solid foods differently. Food Res. Int. 119:143–51
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Koch RM, Crouse JD, Dikeman ME, Cundiff LV, Gregory KE. 1993. Effects of marbling on variation and change in beef tenderness in Bos taurus and Bos indicus crosses Rep. 127, Roman L Hruska US Meat Anim. Res. Cent. Clay Center, NE: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1126&context=hruskareports
  63. Kulkarni BV, Mattes RD. 2014. Lingual lipase activity in the orosensory detection of fat by humans. Am. J. Physiol. Regul. Integr. Comp. Physiol. 306:12R879–85
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Kyriakopoulou K, Keppler JK, van der Goot AJ, Boom RM. 2021. Alternatives to meat and dairy. Annu. Rev. Food Sci. Technol. 12:29–50
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Lazarides E. 1980. Intermediate filaments as mechanical integrators of cellular space. Nature 283:5744249–55
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Lenfant F, Loret C, Pineau N, Hartmann C, Martin N. 2009. Perception of oral food breakdown. The concept of sensory trajectory. Appetite 52:3659–67
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Lepetit J, Culioli J. 1994. Mechanical properties of meat. Meat Sci 36:1–2203–37
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Lillford PJ. 2000. The materials science of eating and food breakdown. MRS Bull. 25:1238–43
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Lillford PJ. 2001. Mechanisms of fracture in foods. J. Texture Stud. 32:397–417
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Lillford PJ. 2011. The importance of food microstructure in fracture physics and texture perception. J. Texture Stud. 42:130–36
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Lillford PJ, Clark AH, Jones DV 1980. Distribution of water in heterogeneous food and model systems. Water in Polymers SP Rowland 177–95 Washington, DC: ACS Publ.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Listrat A, Lebret B, Louveau I, Astruc T, Bonnet M et al. 2016. How muscle structure and composition influence meat and flesh quality. Sci. World J. 2016:3182746
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Lorido L, Hort J, Estévez M, Ventanas S 2016. Reporting the sensory properties of dry-cured ham using a new language: time intensity (TI) and temporal dominance of sensations (TDS). Meat Sci. 121:166–74
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Lucas PW, Prinz JF, Agrawal KR, Bruce IC. 2002. Food physics and oral physiology. Food Qual. Preference 13:4203–13
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Maltin C, Balcerzak D, Tilley R, Delday M. 2003. Determinants of meat quality: tenderness. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 62:2337–47
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Marescotti F. 2019. Japanese beef production system: an overview of quality characteristics of Wagyu beef and Kobe beef geographical indication PhD Thesis Univ. Pisa Pisa, Italy:
     [Google Scholar]
  77. McClements DJ. 2019. Towards a more ethical and sustainable edible future: one burger at a time. Future Foods DJ McClements 323–61 New York: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  78. McClements DJ, Weiss J, Kinchla AJ, Nolden AA, Grossmann L. 2021. Methods for testing the quality attributes of plant-based foods: meat- and processed-meat analogs. Foods 10:2260
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Melzener L, Verzijden KE, Buijs AJ, Post MJ, Flack JE. 2021. Cultured beef: from small biopsy to substantial quantity. . J. Sci. Food Agric. 101:17–14
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Mielle P, Tarrega A, Sémon E, Maratray J, Gorria P et al. 2010. From human to artificial mouth, from basics to results. Sens. Actuat. B 146:2440–45
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Milford AB, Le Mouël C, Bodirsky BL, Rolinski S 2019. Drivers of meat consumption. Appetite 141:104313
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Mioche L, Bourdiol P, Monier S, Culioli J 2002a. Meat changes during chewing in young and elderly subjects. Proceedings of the 48th International Congress of Meat Science and Technology148–49 Parma, Italy: Univ. Parma
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Mioche L, Bourdiol P, Monier S, Martin J-F. 2002b. The relationship between chewing activity and food bolus properties obtained from different meat textures. Food Qual. Preference 13:7–8583–88
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Mishellany-Dutour A, Peyron M-A, Croze J, François O, Hartmann C et al. 2011. Comparison of food boluses prepared in vivo and by the AM2 mastication simulator. Food Qual. Preference 22:4326–31
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Motoyama M, Sasaki K, Watanabe A. 2016. Wagyu and the factors contributing to its beef quality: a Japanese industry overview. Meat Sci. 120:10–18
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Nishinari K, Fang Y. 2018. Perception and measurement of food texture: solid foods. J. Texture Stud. 49:2160–201
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Nollet LML, Toldrá F. 2010. Sensory Analysis of Foods of Animal Origin Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press
  88. Offer G, Knight P, Jeacocke R, Almond R, Cousins T et al. 1989. The structural basis of the water-holding, appearance and toughness of meat and meat products. Food Struct. 8:117
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Oladiran DA, Emmambux MN, de Kock HL. 2018. Extrusion cooking of cassava-soy flour with 200 g/kg wheat bran promotes slower oral processing during consumption of the instant porridge and higher derived satiety. LWT 97:778–86
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Palka K. 2003. The influence of post-mortem ageing and roasting on the microstructure, texture and collagen solubility of bovine semitendinosus muscle. Meat Sci. 64:2191–98
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Palka K, Daun H. 1999. Changes in texture, cooking losses and myofibrillar structure of bovine M. semitendinosus during heating. Meat Sci. 51:3237–43
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Pearce KL, Rosenvold K, Andersen HJ, Hopkins DL. 2011. Water distribution and mobility in meat during the conversion of muscle to meat and ageing and the impacts on fresh meat quality attributes: a review. Meat Sci 89:2111–24
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Pematilleke N, Kaur M, Adhikari B, Torley P 2020. Influence of meat texture on oral processing and bolus formation. J. Food Eng. 283:110038
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Peyron M-A, Woda A. 2016. An update about artificial mastication. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 9:21–28
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Pieniazek F, Messina V. 2016. Scanning electron microscopy combined with image processing technique: analysis of microstructure, texture and tenderness in semitendinous and gluteus medius bovine muscles. Scanning 38:6727–34
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Pineau N, de Bouillé AG, Lepage M, Lenfant F, Schlich P et al. 2012. Temporal dominance of sensations: What is a good attribute list?. Food Qual. Preference 26:2159–65
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Poinot P, Arvisenet G, Grua-Priol J, Fillonneau C, Prost C 2009. Use of an artificial mouth to study bread aroma. Food Res. Int. 42:5–6717–26
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Puolanne E, Halonen M 2010. Theoretical aspects of water-holding in meat. Meat Sci. 86:1151–65
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Precis. Res 2018. Chicken and burger alternatives: taste test results Rep. Food Syst. Innov https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5aa6052650a54f0331abebc9/t/5cdca6fa9b747a5b1cc92c09/1557964542205/PB+taste+test+results_published.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Reig M, Lillford PJ, Toldrá F 2008. Structured meat products. Food Materials Science JM Aguilera, PJ Lillford 501–23 New York: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Richardson DP. 1982. Consumer acceptability of novel protein products. Developments in Food Proteins BJF Hudson 217–46 London: Elsevier
     [Google Scholar]
  102. Rizo A, Peña E, Alarcon-Rojo AD, Fiszman S, Tárrega A 2019. Relating texture perception of cooked ham to the bolus evolution in the mouth. Food Res. Int. 118:4–12
     [Google Scholar]
  103. Roldán M, Antequera T, Martín A, Mayoral AI, Ruiz J. 2013. Effect of different temperature-time combinations on physicochemical, microbiological, textural and structural features of sous-vide cooked lamb loins. Meat Sci 93:3572–78
     [Google Scholar]
  104. Romero de Ávila MD, Isabel Cambero M, Ordóñez JA, de la Hoz L, Herrero AM 2014. Rheological behaviour of commercial cooked meat products evaluated by tensile test and texture profile analysis (TPA). Meat Sci 98:2310–15
     [Google Scholar]
  105. Ruiz de Huidobro F, Miguel E, Blázquez B, Onega E 2005. A comparison between two methods (Warner-Bratzler and texture profile analysis) for testing either raw meat or cooked meat. Meat Sci 69:3527–36
     [Google Scholar]
  106. Sadler MJ. 2004. Meat alternatives—market developments and health benefits. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 15:5250–60
     [Google Scholar]
  107. Schouteten JJ, de Steur H, de Pelsmaeke S, Lagast S, Juvinal JG et al. 2016. Emotional and sensory profiling of insect-, plant- and meat-based burgers under blind, expected and informed conditions. Food Qual. Preference 52:27–31
     [Google Scholar]
  108. Shama F, Sherman P. 1973. Identification of stimuli controlling the sensory evaluation of viscosity II. Oral methods. J. Texture Stud. 4:1111–18
     [Google Scholar]
  109. Skamniotis CG, Elliott M, Charalambides MN 2019. Computer simulations of food oral processing to engineer teeth cleaning. Nat. Commun. 10:13571
     [Google Scholar]
  110. Slade P. 2018. If you build it, will they eat it? Consumer preferences for plant-based and cultured meat burgers. Appetite 125:428–37
     [Google Scholar]
  111. Stanley DW. 1983. A review of the muscle cell cytoskeleton and its possible relation to meat texture and sarcolemma emptying. Food Struct 2:111
     [Google Scholar]
  112. Stokes JR, Boehm MW, Baier SK. 2013. Oral processing, texture and mouthfeel: from rheology to tribology and beyond. Curr. Opin. Colloid Interface Sci. 18:4349–59
     [Google Scholar]
  113. Szczesniak AS. 1998. Issues pertaining to the texture profile analysis. J. Text. Stud. 29:vii–viii
     [Google Scholar]
  114. Szczesniak AS. 2002. Texture is a sensory property. Food Qual. Preference 13:4215–25
     [Google Scholar]
  115. Szejda K, Urbanovich T, Wilks M. 2020. Accelerating consumer adoption of plant-based meat Rep. , Good Food Inst. Washington, DC: https://gfi.org/images/uploads/2020/02/NO-HYPERLINKED-REFERENCES-FINAL-COMBINED-accelerating-consumer-adoption-of-plant-based-meat.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Tobin BD, O'Sullivan MG, Hamill RM, Kerry JP 2012. Effect of varying salt and fat levels on the sensory quality of beef patties. Meat Sci. 91:4460–65
     [Google Scholar]
  117. Tomasevic I, Tomovic V, Milovanovic B, Lorenzo J, Đorđević V et al. 2019. Comparison of a computer vision system versus traditional colorimeter for color evaluation of meat products with various physical properties. Meat Sci 148:5–12
     [Google Scholar]
  118. Tornberg E, Andersson K, Josell A 1997. The rheological properties of whole and minced meat during cooking as related to sensory and structural characteristics. Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Food Rheology and Structure EJ Windhab, B Wolf 16–20 Hannover, Ger: Vincent Verlag
     [Google Scholar]
  119. Torrico DD, Hutchings SC, Ha M, Bittner EP, Fuentes S et al. 2018. Novel techniques to understand consumer responses towards food products: a review with a focus on meat. Meat Sci 144:30–42
     [Google Scholar]
  120. Tucker CA. 2014. The significance of sensory appeal for reduced meat consumption. Appetite 81:168–79
     [Google Scholar]
  121. van Eck A, Hardeman N, Karatza N, Fogliano V, Scholten E, Stieger M 2019a. Oral processing behavior and dynamic sensory perception of composite foods: toppings assist saliva in bolus formation. Food Qual. Preference 71:497–509
     [Google Scholar]
  122. van Eck A, Stieger M. 2020. Oral processing behavior, sensory perception and intake of composite foods. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 106:219–31
     [Google Scholar]
  123. van Eck A, Wijne C, Fogliano V, Stieger M, Scholten E. 2019b. Shape up! How shape, size and addition of condiments influence eating behavior towards vegetables. Food Funct 10:95739–51
     [Google Scholar]
  124. Wang X, Chen J. 2017. Food oral processing: recent developments and challenges. Curr. Opin. Colloid Interface Sci. 28:22–30
     [Google Scholar]
  125. Wang X, Sun Y, Liu A, Wang X, Gao J et al. 2015. Modeling structural and compositional changes of beef during human chewing process. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 60:21219–25
     [Google Scholar]
  126. Warner KF. 1929. Progress report of the mechanical test for tenderness of meat. J. Anim. Sci. 1929:1114–16
     [Google Scholar]
  127. Warner RD 2017. The eating quality of meat—IV Water-holding capacity and juiciness. Lawrie's Meat Science F Toldra 419–59 Cambridge, UK: Woodhead Publ.
     [Google Scholar]
  128. Watanabe G, Motoyama M, Orita K, Takita K, Aonuma T et al. 2019. Assessment of the dynamics of sensory perception of Wagyu beef strip loin prepared with different cooking methods and fattening periods using the temporal dominance of sensations. Food Sci. Nutr. 7:113538–48
     [Google Scholar]
  129. Weinrich R. 2019. Opportunities for the adoption of health-based sustainable dietary patterns: a review on consumer research of meat substitutes. Sustainability 11:154028
     [Google Scholar]
  130. Weston AR, Rogers RW, Althen TG 2002. The role of collagen in meat tenderness. Prof. Anim. Sci. 18:2107–111
     [Google Scholar]
  131. Wheeler TL, Shackelford SD, Koohmaraie M. 1997. Standardizing collection and interpretation of Warner-Bratzler shear force and sensory tenderness data. Proc. Recip. Meat Conf 50:68–77
     [Google Scholar]
  132. Wheeler TL, Shackelford SD, Koohmaraie M. 2005. Shear force procedures for meat tenderness measurement USDA Rep. Roman L. Hruska US Meat Anim. Res. Cent. Clay Center, NE: https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/30400510/protocols/ShearForceProcedures.pdf
  133. Winger RJ, Hagyard CJ. 1994. Juiciness—its importance and some contributing factors. Quality Attributes and Their Measurement in Meat, Poultry and Fish Products AM Pearson:94–124 New York: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  134. Woda A, Mishellany-Dutour A, Batier L, François O, Meunier JP et al. 2010. Development and validation of a mastication simulator. J. Biomech. 43:91667–73
     [Google Scholar]
  135. Yven C, Culioli J, Mioche L 2005. Meat bolus properties in relation with meat texture and chewing context. Meat Sci 70:2365–71
     [Google Scholar]
  136. Zimoch J, Findlay CJ. 1998. Effective discrimination of meat tenderness using dual attribute time intensity. J. Food Sci. 63:6940–44
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-food-090821-032332
Loading
Materials Properties, Oral Processing, and Sensory Analysis of Eating Meat and Meat Analogs
Annual Review of Food Science and Technology 13, 193 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-food-090821-032332
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-food-090821-032332
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-food-090821-032332
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplemental Material

Supplementary Data

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error