Production Methodologies of Meat Analogues: A Review

Authors

  • Girija J. Author
  • Kamalasundari S. Author
  • Hemalatha G. Author
  • Umamaheswari T. Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.52151/jae2021581.1741

Keywords:

plant-based meat alternative, promoting vegetarianism, meat analogue manufacturing techniques, applications

Abstract

Meat is a non-vegetarian food and is considered as a good source of quality nutrients. Though meat protein provide the required content of good quality protein for the body, they are also associated with higher cholesterol and fat content, which prove to be a leading cause of serious health issues. This became the primary reason for increase in a shift in demands for plant-based protein source foods. The other reason is environmental impact of animal derived products. Meat analogues are plant-based good quality protein source of food that tastes like meat protein, and texture resemble that of meat. These plant-based meat analogues have some amount of anti-nutrients and allergic compounds, but they can be successfully removed by employing certain processing methods and resemble meat in its functionality properties. This approach of mimicking the plantbased foods to resemble meat involves understanding of the biochemical composition and three-dimensional structure of meat, and replicating those qualities using plant-based ingredients. In the current scenario, the best suitable methods of manufacturing meat analogue are by extrusion and structuring techniques. The meat analogues satisfy the need of meat for both vegetarians and non-vegetarians. This review attempts to outline the different manufacturing processes of meat analogue using plant-based foods, and to analyse the best suitable method.

References

Aiking H; de Boer J; Vereijken J. 2006. Sustainable Protein Production and Consumption: Pigs or Peas? Springer Science and Business Media, Spain, 45, 51-98.

Anila H L; Suma D. 2018. Functional properties of raw jackfruit based textured vegetable protein (TVP). Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr., 3(3), 52-54.

Anjum F M; Naeem A; Khan M I; Nadeem M; Amir R M. 2011. Development of texturized vegetable protein using indigenous sources. Pak. J. Food Sci., 21(1-4), 33-44.

AnuBhushani J; Anandharamakrishnan C. 2014. Electrospinning and electro-spraying techniques: Potential food based applications. Trends Food Sci. Technol., 38(1), 21-33.

Arueya G L; Owosen B S; Olatoye K K. 2017. Development of texturized vegetable protein from lima bean (Phaseolus lunatus) and African oil bean seed [Pentaclethramacrophylla (benth)]: Optimization approach. Acta Universitatis CibiniensisSeries E: Food Technol., 21(1), 61-68.

Chen X; Yu J; Cui H; Xia S; Zhang X; Yang B. 2018. Effect of temperature on flavor compounds and sensory characteristics of Maillard reaction products derived from mushroom hydrolysate. Mol., 23(2), 1-19.

Chiang J H; Hardacre A K; Parker M E. 2019. Extruded meat alternatives made from Maillardreacted beef bone hydrolysate and plant proteins. Part II–Application in sausages. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol., 12(3), 23-45.

Consolacion F I; Jelen P. 1986. Freeze texturation of proteins: Effect of the alkali, acid and freezing treatments on texture formation. Food Microstruct., 5(1), 33-39.

Dekkers B L; Boom R M; van der Goot A J. 2018. Structuring processes for meat analogues. Trends Food Sci. Technol., 81, 25-36.

Denny A; Aisbitt B; Lunn J. 2008. Mycoprotein and health. Nutr.Bull., 33, 298-310.

Emin M A; Schuchmann H P. 2017. A mechanistic approach to analyze extrusion processing of biopolymers by numerical, rheological, and optical methods. Trends Food Sci. Technol., 60, 88-95.

Ghorani B; Tucker N. 2015. Fundamentals of electrospinning as a novel deliveryvehicle for bioactive compounds in food nanotechnology. Food Hydrocolloids, 51, 227-240.

Godfray H C J; Beddington J R; Crute I R; Haddad L; Lawrence D; Muir J F; Toulmin C. 2010. Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Sci., 327(5967), 812-818.

Grabowska K J; Zhu S; Dekkers B L; de Ruijter N C; Gieteling J; van der Goot A J. 2016. Shear-induced structuring as a tool to make anisotropic materials using soy protein concentrate. J. Food Eng., 188, 77-86.

Green P H R; Cellier C. 2007. Celiac disease. N. Engl. J. Med., 357, 1731-1743.

Grewal M K; Jaiswal P; Jha S N. 2014. Detection of poultry meat specific bacteria using FTIR spectroscopy and chemometrics. J. Food Sci. Technol, 52(6), 3859- 3869.

Ho W; Sirkar K. 2012. Membrane Handbook. Springer Science & Business Media, LLC, New York , 120-124.

Joshi V K; Kumar S. 2015. Meat Analogues: Plant based alternatives to meat products-A review. Int. J. Food Ferment. Technol., 5(2), 107-119.

Kang I H; Srivastava P; Ozias-Akins P; Gallo M. 2007.Temporal and spatial expression of the major allergens in developing and germinating peanut seed. Plant Physiol., 144, 836-845.

Khurram A Y A Z; Rehman S U; Bajwa U A; Bajwa B E; Jabbar K. 2003. Preparation and evaluation of texturized vegetables meat from legumes. Int. J. Agric. Biol., 4, 523-525.

Krintiras G A; Gobel J; van der Goot A J; Stefanidis G D. 2015. Production of structured soy-based meat analogues using simple shear and heat in a couette cell. J. Food Eng., 160, 34-41.

Kumar P; Chatli M K; Mehta N; Singh P; Malav O P; Verma A K. 2017. Meat analogues: Health promising sustainable meat substitutes. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutrit., 57(5), 923-932.

Kweldam A C. 2011. Method for the preparation of a meat substitute product, meat substitute product obtained with the method and ready to consume meat substitute product. US 2011/0244090 A1.

Larsson S C; Wolk A. 2006. Meat consumption and risk of colorectal cancer: A meta‐analysis of prospective studies. Int. J. Cancer, 119(11), 2657-2664.

Latvala T; Niva M; Makela J; Pouta E; Heikkila J; Kotro J; Hug S. 2012. Diversifying meat consumption patterns: Consumers’ self-reported past behaviour and intentions for change. Meat Sci., 92, 71-77.

Libran C M; Castro S; Lagaron J M. 2017. Encapsulation by electrospray coating atomization of probiotic strains. Innovative Food Sci. Emerg. Technol., 39, 216-222.

Lin S; Huff H E; Hseih F. 2002. Extrusion process parameters, sensory characteristics, and structural properties of a high moisture soy protein meat analog. J. Food Sci., 67, 1066-1072.

Liu K; Hsieh F H. 2008. Protein–protein interactions during high-moisture extrusion for fibrous meat analogues and comparison of protein solubility methods using different solvent systems. J. Agric. Food Chem., 56(8), 2681-2687.

Lugay J C; Kim M K. 1978. Freeze alignment: A novel method for protein texturization. Utiliz. Protein Resour. (USA), 177-187.

MacQueen L A; Alver C G; Chantre C O; Ahn S; Cera L; Gonzalez G M; Zimmerman J F. 2019. Muscle tissue engineering in fibrous gelatin: Implications for meat analogs. NPJ Sci. Food, 3(1), 1-12.

Marcone M F. 1999. Biochemical and biophysical properties of plant storage proteins: Acurrent understanding with emphasis on 11S seed globulins. Food Res. Int., 32, 79- 92.

Mattice K D; Marangoni A G. 2020. Comparing methods to produce fibrous material from zein. Food Res. Int., 128, 108804.

Mejia S M V; de Francisco A; Barreto P L M; Damian C; Zibetti A W; Mahecha H S; Bohrer B M. 2018. Incorporation of β-glucans in meat emulsions through an optimal mixture modeling systems. Meat Sci., 143, 210-218.

Mitchell J R; Areas J A G. 1992. Structural changes in biopolymers during extrusion. Food Extrusion Sci. Technol.,8(2), 345-360.

Miyoshi T; Toyohara K; Minematsu H. 2005. Preparation of ultrafine fibrous zein membranes via electrospinning. Polym. Int., 54(8), 1187-1190.

Narsaiah K; Jha S N. 2013. Mechanical methods for tenderization of goat meat. J. Agric. Eng., 50 (3), 46 -50.

Nieuwland M; Geerdink P; Brier P; Van Den Eijnden P; Henket J T M M; Langelaan M L P; Martin A H. 2014. Reprint of “Food-grade electrospinning of proteins”. Innov. Food Sci. Emerging Technol., 24, 138-144.

Nivetha B R; Sudha K; Rita Narayanan; Vimalarani M. 2019. Development and sensory evaluation of meat analog. Int. J. Current Microbiol. Appl. Sci., 8(8), 1283-1288.

Osen R; Toelstede S; Eisner P; Schweiggert‐Weisz U. 2015. Effect of high moisture extrusion cooking on protein‐protein interactions of pea (Pisum sativum L.) protein isolates. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol., 50(6), 1390-1396.

Post M J. 2014. Cultured beef: Medical technology to produce food. J. Sci. Food Agric., 94(6), 1039-1041.

Post M J; Hocquette J F. 2017. New sources of animal proteins: cultured meat. In: New Aspects of Meat Quality, Woodhead Publishing, 425-441.

Rehrah D; Ahmedna M; Goktepe I; Yu J. 2009. Extrusion parameters and consumer acceptability of a peanut‐based meat analogue. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol., 44(10), 2075-2084.

Reihani S F S; Khosravi-Darani K. 2018. Mycoprotein production from date waste using Fusarium venenatum in a submerged culture. Appl. Food Biotechnol., 5(4), 243-352.

Sadler M J. 2004. Meat alternatives- market developments and health benefits. Trends Food Sci. Technol., 15(5), 250- 260.

Samard S; Ryu G H. 2019. A comparison of physicochemical characteristics, texture, and structure of meat analogue and meats. J. Sci. Food Agric., 99(6), 2708-2715.

Samard S; Ryu G H. 2019. Physicochemical and functional characteristics of plant protein‐based meat analogs. J. Food Process. Preserv., 43(10), e14123.

Schiffman J D; Schauer C L. 2008. A review: Electrospinning of biopolymer nanofibers and their applications. Polym. Rev., 48(2), 317–352.

Schreuders F K; Dekkers B L; Bodnar I; Erni P; Boom R M; van der Goot A J. 2019. Comparing structuring potential of pea and soy protein with gluten for meat analogue preparation. J. Food Eng., 261, 32-39.

Sharima-Abdullah N; Hassan C Z; Arifin N; HudaFaujan N. 2018. Physicochemical properties and consumer preference of imitation chicken nuggets produced from chickpea flour and textured vegetable protein. Int. Food Res. J., 25(3), 1016-1025.

Smetana S; Mathys A; Knoch A; Heinz V. 2015. Meat alternatives: Life cycle assessment of most known meat substitutes. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess., 20(9), 1254-1267.

Sun P; Li D; Li Z; Dong B; Wang F. 2008. Effects of glycinin on IgE-mediated increase of mast cell numbers and histamine release in the small intestine. J. Nutrit. Biochem., 19, 627- 633.

Sun C; Ge J; He Jun; Ga B; Fang Y. 2021. Processing, quality, safety, and acceptance of meat analogue products, engineering. Food Saf. Health Rev. J. Eng. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eng.2020.10.011

TechSci Research. 2021. India Meat Substitutes Market By Product (Quorn, Tempeh, Tofu, Seitan and others), By Source (Soy, Wheat, Pea and Others), By Type (Concentrates, Isolates, Textured), By Form (Solid Vs Liquid), By Company, By Region, Forecast & Opportunities, FY2016-FY2026. Research Pvt. Ltd., Noida, India. https://www.techsciresearch.com/report/india-meat-substitutes-market.

Wi G; Bae J; Kim H; Cho Y; Choi M J. 2020. Evaluation of the physicochemical and structural properties and the sensory characteristics of meat analogues prepared with various non-animal based liquid additives. Foods, 9(4), 461-490. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9040461

Wiebe M G. 2004. Quorn T M Myco-protein - Overview of a successful fungal product. Mycologist, 18(1), 17-20.

Wild F; Michael C; Anke M J; Adriaan P W K; Marija Z; Konrad J D. 2014.The evolution of a plant-based alternative to meat from niche markets to widely accepted meat alternatives. Agro Food Industry Hi Tech., 25(1), 45-49.

World Economics Forum. 2019. Meat: The Future Series Alternative Proteins. White Paper prepared by the Oxford Martin School, Oxford University for the World Economic Forum, Switzerland, January 3, pp: 29.

Yadav P; Ahlawat S S; Soni N; Rani M; Bishnoi S; Jairath G. 2015. Studies on development of meat analogue rolls using various plant sources. Int. J. Res. Agric. Sci., 2(2), 47-51.

Zhan X; Sun D W; Zhu Z; Wang Q J. 2018. Improving the quality and safety of frozen muscle foods by emerging freezing technologies: A review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci.Nutrit., 58(17), 2925-2938.

Published

2022-11-07

Issue

Section

Regular Issue

How to Cite

Girija J., Kamalasundari S., Hemalatha G., & Umamaheswari T. (2022). Production Methodologies of Meat Analogues: A Review. Journal of Agricultural Engineering (India), 58(2). https://doi.org/10.52151/jae2021581.1741