MEAT-ANALOGUE COMPOSITION AND PROCESS FOR THE PREPARATION THEREOF

Abstract

The present invention relates to a meat-analogue composition comprising an oil-in-water structured emulsion and plant protein, a process for preparing the meat-analogue composition, and the use of an oil-in-water structured emulsion in a meat-analogue composition. The structured emulsion, which may comprise a polyhydroxy compound, is characterized by an ordered lamellar gel network and is useful for retaining the moisture and fat content in the meat-analogue upon cooking, obviating use of saturated fatty acids and trans fatty acids.

Claims

1. A meat-analogue composition comprising an oil-in-water structured emulsion and plant protein; wherein said structured emulsion has an ordered lamellar gel network.

2. A meat-analogue composition according to claim 1, wherein the composition comprises 5 to 30 wt. % plant protein.

3. A meat-analogue composition according to claim 1, wherein the composition comprises 35 to 70 wt. % water.

4. A meat-analogue composition according to claim 1, wherein the composition comprises at least 0.01 wt. % carbohydrate.

5. A meat-analogue composition according to claim 4, wherein the carbohydrate comprises starch, flour, edible fibre, or combinations thereof.

6. A meat-analogue composition according to claim 1, wherein the plant protein is selected from the group consisting of algae protein, black bean protein, canola wheat protein, chickpea protein, fava protein, lentil protein, lupin bean protein, mung bean protein, oat protein, pea protein, potato protein, rice protein, soy protein, sunflower seed protein, wheat protein, white bean protein, and protein isolates or concentrates thereof.

7. A meat-analogue composition according to claim 1, wherein the composition further comprises one or more additional components selected from: i) polysaccharides and/or modified polysaccharides; ii) hydrocolloids; and iii) gums.

8. A meat-analogue composition according to claim 1, wherein the structured emulsion comprises a non-ionic emulsifier.

9. A meat-analogue composition according to claim 8, wherein the non-ionic emulsifier is selected from the group consisting of monoglycerides, propylene glycol fatty acid esters, polyglycerol fatty acid esters and combinations thereof.

10. A meat-analogue composition according to claim 1. wherein the structured emulsion comprises an ionic emulsifier selected from the group consisting of acid esters of mono- and diglycerides, fatty acids and metal salts thereof, anionic lactylated fatty acid salts and combinations thereof.

11. A meat-analogue composition according to claim 10, wherein the ionic emulsifier is selected from the group consisting of stearic acid, sodium stearate, sodium palmitate, palmitic acid, sodium stearoyl lactylate (SSL), a diacetyl tartaric acid ester of a monoglyceride (DATEM), and combinations thereof.

12. A meat-analogue composition according to claim 1, wherein the structured emulsion comprises a non-ionic emulsifier and an ionic emulsifier.

13. A meat-analogue composition according to claim 12, wherein the structured emulsion comprises an ionic emulsifier selected from stearic acid, sodium stearate and sodium stearoyl lactylate and a non-ionic emulsifier comprising a monoglyceride.

14. A meat-analogue composition according to claim 1, wherein the structured emulsion comprises a polyhydroxy compound with a molecular weight of 500 g/mol or less.

15. A meat-analogue composition according to claim 14, wherein the polyhydroxy compound of the structured emulsion is selected from the group consisting of sugars, sugar alcohols, disaccharides, oligosaccharides and polysaccharides.

16. A meat-analogue composition according to claim 15, wherein the sugars are selected from the group consisting of glucose, fructose, xylose, ribose, galactose, mannose, arabinose, allulose, tagatose and combinations thereof; the sugar alcohols are selected from the group consisting of ethylene glycol, glycerol, erythritol, sorbitol, xylitol, maltitol, mannitol, lactitol and combinations thereof; the disaccharides are selected from the group consisting of sucrose, maltose, trehalose, lactose, lactulose, isomaltulose, kojibiose, nigerose, cellobiose, gentiobiose, sophorose and combinations thereof; the oligosaccharides are selected from the group consisting of oligofructose, galacto oligosaccharides, raffinose, and combinations thereof; and the polysaccharides are selected from dextrins.

17. A meat-analogue composition according to claim 1, wherein the structured emulsion comprises an amino acid.

18. A meat-analogue composition according to claim 1, wherein the oil of the structured emulsion comprises a vegetable oil selected from the group consisting of aai oil, almond oil, beech oil, cashew oil, coconut oil, colza oil, corn oil, cottonseed oil, flaxseed oil, grapefruit seed oil, grape seed oil, hazelnut oil, hemp oil, lemon oil, macadamia oil, mustard oil, olive oil, orange oil, peanut oil, palm oil, palm kernel oil, pecan oil, pine nut oil, pistachio oil, poppyseed oil, rapeseed oil, rice bran oil, safflower oil, sesame oil, shea butter and its fractions, soybean oil, sunflower oil, walnut oil and wheat germ oil.

19. A meat-analogue composition according to claim 1, wherein the structured emulsion comprises a wax.

20. A meat-analogue composition according to claim 1, further comprising one or more of milk, liquid flavours, alcohols, humectants, honey, liquid preservatives, liquid sweeteners, liquid oxidising agents, liquid reducing agents, liquid anti-oxidants, liquid acidity regulators, liquid enzymes, milk powder, hydrolysed protein isolates (peptides), amino acids, yeast, sugar substitutes, starch, salt, spices, fiber, flavour components, colourants, thickening and gelling agents, egg powder, enzymes, gluten, vitamins, preservatives, sweeteners, oxidising agents, reducing agents, anti-oxidants, and acidity regulators.

21. A meat-analogue food product prepared using the composition according to claim 1.

22. A meat-analogue food product according to claim 21, wherein the food product is a minced or ground meat analogue having the form of a burger, sausage, nugget, meatball, or meatloaf.

23. A meat-analogue food product according to claim 21 which is cooked or part-cooked.

24. A process for preparing a meat-analogue composition, said process comprising the step of: forming the meat-analogue composition by blending a plant protein with an oil-in-water structured emulsion having an ordered lamellar gel network.

25. A process according to claim 24, wherein the process further comprises the step of: preparing the plant protein by providing a dry phase comprising plant protein and blending the dry phase with an amount of water.

26. A process according to claim 24, wherein the process further comprises preparing the oil-in-water structured emulsion by: i) providing an oil phase comprising an emulsifier component and an aqueous phase; and ii) separately heating the oil phase and the aqueous phase to form heated oil and aqueous phases; iii) adding the heated oil phase to the heated aqueous phase to form a mixture; and iv) allowing the mixture to cool to form the oil-in-water structured emulsion.

27. A process according to claim 26, wherein the aqueous phase comprises a polyhydroxy compound with a molecular weight of 500 g/mol or less.

28. A process according to claim 24, wherein the oil-in-water structured emulsion comprises, based on the weight of the structured emulsion, the following: i) from 1 to 8 wt. % emulsifier; ii) from 12 to 40 wt. % water; and iii) from 25 to 70 wt. % oil.

29. A process according to claim 28, wherein the oil-in-water structured emulsion comprises, based on the weight of the structured emulsion: iv) from 1 to 55 wt. % of polyhydroxy compound with a molecular weight of 500 g/mol or less.

30. A process according to claim 28, wherein the emulsifier is present in an amount of from 2 to 7 wt. %.

31. A process according to claim 28, wherein the oil to water weight ratio is from 1.0 to 5.0.

32. A process according to claim 29, wherein the polyhydroxy compound is present in an amount from 10 to 40 wt. %.

33. A process according to claim 28, wherein the oil-in-water structured emulsion comprises, based on the weight of the structured emulsion, 0.01-15% wax.

34. A process according to claim 24, wherein the structured emulsion comprises oil droplets having an equivalent surface area mean diameter of from 0.1 to 3.0 m, as measured by dynamic light scattering (DLS).

35. A process according to claim 24, further comprising cooking or part-cooking the composition.

36. A meat-analogue composition preparable, or prepared, by the process of claim 24.

37. A structured emulsion as defined in claim 1, wherein the structured emulsion reduces oil and/or water loss from a meat-analogue composition during cooking.

Description

[0157] The present invention will now be described by way of reference to the Figure and Examples, in which:

[0158] FIG. 1 shows a photograph of the cross section of burgers both not in accordance with the invention (Comparative Example 1, top) and in accordance with the invention (Example 2, bottom) after frying.

EXAMPLES

General Method for Preparation of Structured Emulsions

[0159] The following procedure was used for the preparation of structured emulsions, Emulsion A, Emulsion B and Emulsion C: [0160] 1. The oil phase was prepared by blending the components of the oil phase shown in Table 1 and heating the mixture to 75 C. for at least 3 minutes; [0161] 2. The water phase was also prepared by blending the components (where applicable) of the water phase shown in Table 1 and heating the mixture to 75 C. for at least 3 minutes; [0162] 3. The oil phase was slowly added to the aqueous phase over the course of two minutes at 75 C. with simultaneous mixing; [0163] 4. The resulting emulsion was allowed to cool naturally to room temperature (20 C.).

[0164] As can be seen from Table 1, Emulsion B differs from Emulsion A and Emulsion C in that is does not comprise a polyhydroxy compound. Emulsion C differs from Emulsion A as it comprises a different polyhydroxy compound and in a smaller amount.

TABLE-US-00001 TABLE 1 Emulsion A Emulsion B Emulsion C Oil phase High oleic sunflower oil (g) 60 60 60 Emulsifier* (g) 5 5 5 Water phase Polyhydroxy compound (g) 27.3** 5*** tap water (g) 7.7 30 deionized water (g) 35 *The emulsifier used was Dimodan HR 85 S6 corresponding to distilled monoglyceride emulsifier comprising 6% by weight of sodium stearate. **The polyhydroxy compound used in this case was a sugar composition, namely Raftisweet S67/100, corresponding to an aqueous solution of nutritive saccharides obtained from sugar comprising 67% sucrose. ***The polyhydroxy compound used in this case was dextrose.

General Method for Preparation of Plant-Based Burgers Using Plant-Protein Composition A

[0165] The following procedure was used for the preparation of the plant-based burgers of the following examples: [0166] 1. Plant-Protein Composition A.sup.+, was blended with ice water (1-3 C.) according to the quantities shown in Table 2 and further hydrated for at least 30 minutes in cold storage (5 C.);

[0167] .sup.30 Plant-Protein Composition A referred to above is a dry/dehydrated powdered plant protein composition comprising pea protein, texturized vegetable protein, thickener (methyl cellulose), salt, spices, vegetable extracts, spice extracts, glucose syrup, flavourings, colourings, as well as fat, carbohydrate and fibre. [0168] 2. Either Emulsion A, Emulsion B or high oleic sunflower oil according to the quantities shown in Table 2 were added at room temperature to the hydrated Plant Protein Mix A and the resulting dough blended for about 1 min; [0169] 3. The dough was rested in a fridge (operating at a temperature of 5 C.) for at least 20 minutes; [0170] 4. Burgers (diameter 8 cm; height 2 cm; weight 100 g) were made from this dough and stored in the fridge (operating at a temperature of 5 C.) prior to cooking; [0171] 5. Burgers were cooked by heating on a frying pan with sunflower oil (5 g) for 6 minutes (4 times 1.5 minutes).

[0172] The compositions of the burgers of Comparative Example 1, Example 1 and Example 2 prepared according to the above general method are shown below in Table 2.

TABLE-US-00002 TABLE 2 Comparative Example 1 Example 1 Example 2 Ice water (g) 598 530 530 Plant-Protein 274 274 274 Composition A (g) High oleic sunflower 128 oil (g) Emulsion A (g) 196 Emulsion B (g) 196 Total (g) 1000 1000 1000 % Moisture (wt. %) 59.8 56.4 59.9 % Fat (wt. %) 13.5 13.4 13.4

[0173] The burgers according to Comparative Example 1, Example 1 and Example 2 have the same mass and similar moisture and fat contents, allowing their properties to be compared. The burgers made in Comparative Example 1 are not according to the present invention, as a structured emulsion was not used.

General Method for Preparation of Plant-Based Burgers Using Texturised Proteins

[0174] The following procedure was used for the preparation of the plant-based burgers of the following examples: [0175] 1. The texturised proteins.sup.++ were hydrated with cold water (5 C.) according to the quantities shown in Table 3 and further hydrated for at least 30 minutes in cold storage (5 C.); .sup.++The texturised proteins referred to above are a blend of textured pea proteins (protein content minimum 70%; format: strips) and textured fava proteins (protein content minimum 60%; format: chunks). [0176] 2. All other ingredients in powder form (stabilizer blend.sup.+++ and flavours) were mixed and hydrated with ice water (1-3 C.) by blending for at least 1 minute, following which they were stored in fridge for at least 30 minutes; .sup.+++The stabiliser blend referred to above is a blend of pea proteins (protein content minimum 83%; format: powder), pea fiber and methylcellulose. [0177] 3. The hydrated texturized proteins were chopped for 20 seconds at low speed; [0178] 4. The ingredients from steps 2 and 3, Emulsion C or sunflower oil and coconut oil, and any further ingredients (e.g. colours, fats, oils) according to the quantities shown in Table 3 were combined at room temperature and the resulting dough blended for about 2 mins; [0179] 5. The dough was rested in a fridge (operating at a temperature from 2 to 5 C.) for at least 30 minutes; [0180] 6. Burgers (diameter 8 cm; height 2 cm; weight 100 g) were made from this dough and stored in the fridge (operating at a temperature from 2 to 5 C.) prior to cooking; [0181] 7. Burgers were cooked by heating on a frying pan with sunflower oil (5 g) for 6 minutes (4 times 1.5 minutes).

[0182] The compositions of the burgers of Comparative Example 2 and Example 3 prepared according to the above method are shown below in Table 3.

TABLE-US-00003 TABLE 3 Comparative Example 2 Example 3 Cold water (5 C.) (g) 174 174 Texturized proteins (g) 70 70 Coconut oil (melted) (g) 24 0 Sunflower oil (g) 26 0 Emulsion C (g) 0 77 Stabilizer blend (g) 25.8 25.8 Ice water (1-3 C.) (g) 96.2 75 Flavours (g) 4 4 Colours (g) 4.4 4.4

[0183] The burgers according to Comparative Example 2 and Example 3 have a similar mass and similar moisture and fat contents, allowing their properties to be compared. The burgers made in Comparative Example 2 are not according to the present invention, as a structured emulsion was not used.

Assessment of Burger Properties Before Cooking

[0184] Texture profile analysis (TPA) was used to determine the hardness, adhesiveness, springiness, cohesiveness, gumminess and chewiness of the burgers of the examples, a market reference vegan burger and a 100% beef burgerwhich parameters are described in more detail in Table 4 below. TPA was performed on a TA.XT.sub.2 machine (by Stable Micro Systems) fitted with a 5 kg load cell and a 25 mm Dia Cylinder Aluminium Probe (P/25). The machine was programmed to run with the following settings: pre-test speed: 1 mm/s; test speed: 5 mm/s; post-test speed: 5 mm/s; compression depth: 5 mm; time between cycles: 5 s; trigger type: automatic on 5 g; data acquisition rate: 200 pps. The test material was compressed two times in a reciprocating motion, mimicking the chewing movement in the mouth. A Force versus Time (and/or distance) graph was obtained, from which the desired information was obtained. TPA and the classification of textural characteristics is described further in Bourne M. C., Food Technol., 1978, 32 (7), 62-66 and Trinh T. and Glasgow S., On the texture profile analysis test, Conference Paper, Conference: Chemeca 2012, Wellington, New Zealand, and may be performed as described therein.

TABLE-US-00004 TABLE 4 Springiness Related to the height that the food recovers during the time that elapses between the end of the first bite and the start of the second bite Cohesiveness Defined as the ratio of the positive force area during the second compression to that during the first compression May be measured as the rate at which the material disintegrates under mechanical action. Hardness Defined as the maximum peak force during the first compression cycle (first bite) and has often been substituted by the term firmness Gumminess Defined as the product of hardness cohesiveness. Gumminess is a characteristic of semisolid foods with a low degree of hardness and a high degree of cohesiveness Chewiness Defined as the product of gumminess springiness (which equals hardness cohesiveness springiness) and is therefore influenced by the change of any one of these parameters. Adhesiveness Defined as the negative force area for the first bite and represents the work required to overcome the attractive forces between the surface of a food and the surface of other materials with which the food comes into contact, i.e. the total force necessary to pull the compression plunger away from the sample.

[0185] Dough workability was measured on a scale of 0 to 5, corresponding to low to good workability respectively.

[0186] The measured properties of the dough and burgers formed in the examples, a market reference vegan burger and a 100% beef burger before cooking are shown in Tables 5 to 7.

TABLE-US-00005 TABLE 5 Comparative Example 1 Example 1 Example 2 Dough 3 (oily) 4 3.5 (bit sticky) workability

TABLE-US-00006 TABLE 6 Property Before Comparative Cooking Example 1 Example 1 Example 2 Weight (g) 99.56 98.87 99.11 Diameter (cm) 8.1 8.0 8.0 Height (cm) 2.2 2.2 2.3 Hardness (g) 757.96 1206.01 815.13 Adhesiveness 37.31 31.01 140.68 (g .Math. sec) Springiness 0.78 0.83 1.00 Cohesiveness 0.60 0.62 0.65 Gumminess 456.62 743.17 525.47 Chewiness 358.13 619.31 522.89

TABLE-US-00007 TABLE 7 Market reference Property Before Comparative vegan 100% Beef Cooking Example 2 Example 3 burger burger Weight (g) 98.37 98.37 112.6 139 Diameter (cm) 7.9 8.0 9.1 8.3 Height (cm) 2.0 2.1 1.8 2.7 Hardness (g) 1073.08 692.68 465.44 1275.63 Adhesiveness 29.7 66.6 14.63 14.45 (g .Math. sec) Springiness 0.82 0.84 0.71 0.89 Cohesiveness 0.48 0.57 0.55 0.74 Gumminess 604.93 450.43 297.24 1041.85 Chewiness 498.18 379.77 211.28 929.49

[0187] Preferred values for the burgers before cooking are as follows: hardness from 400 to 5000 g, preferably from 400 to 1500 g; springiness from 0.1 to 1, preferably from 0.5 to 1; cohesiveness from 0.1 to 1, preferably from 0.4 to 0.8; gumminess from 200 to 4000, preferably from 300 to 1100; and chewiness from 100 to 4000, preferably 300 to 1000. As can be seen in Tables 6 and 7, the burgers according to the present invention fall within these ranges.

[0188] Additionally, it can be seen that the burgers of Example 1, which use an emulsion with a high content of polyhydroxy compound, exhibit improved workability (lower adhesiveness and higher hardness before frying) when compared to those of Example 2, which use an emulsion which does not include a polyhydroxy compound.

Properties of the Burgers of the Examples After Frying

[0189] The properties of the burgers formed in Comparative Example 1, Example 1, Example 2, Comparative Example 2, Example 3, a market reference vegan burger and a 100% beef burger after frying are shown in Tables 8 and 9. The hardness, adhesiveness, springiness, cohesiveness, gumminess and chewiness of the burgers were measured by TPA using the same method as described above. Juiciness was determined by a panel of testers. In particular, a panel of 5 tasters blindly tested the burgers formed in each of the examples after frying. The tasters were asked to provide a juiciness score out of 5; 0 being the least juicy and 5 being the most juicy. The average score was determined.

TABLE-US-00008 TABLE 8 Comparative Example Example Property After Frying Example 1 1 2 Weight (g) 81.32 87.05 87.13 Weight loss (g) 18.24 11.82 11.98 Moisture loss (g) 14.94 10.21 10.37 Other (mainly oil) loss (g) 3.3 1.61 1.61 Yield (%) 82 88 88 Diameter (cm) 7.3 7.5 7.5 Height (cm) 2.4 2.4 2.5 Hardness (g) 1710.17 1920.48 1394.40 Adhesiveness (g .Math. sec) 13.83 20.66 22.01 Springiness 0.80 0.86 0.89 Cohesiveness 0.78 0.82 0.80 Gumminess 1329.70 1566.32 1110.62 Chewiness 1062.45 1351.34 985.40 Juiciness (average out of 5) 2.5 3.5 4.2

TABLE-US-00009 TABLE 9 Market reference 100% Property Comparative vegan Beef After Frying Example 2 Example 3 burger burger Weight (g) 87.10 87.28 90.2 129.35 Weight loss (g) 11.27 11.09 22.4 9.65 Moisture loss (g) 10.73 11.04 19.9 9.65 Other (mainly oil) 0.54 0.05 2.5 0.05 loss (g) Yield (%) 89 89 80 93 Diameter (cm) 7.3 7.7 8.5 7.4 Height (cm) 2.1 2.1 1.7 2.9 Hardness (g) 588.04 881.91 1180.12 1331.94 Adhesiveness (g .Math. sec) 1.05 7.76 11.78 1.68 Springiness 0.99 0.84 0.83 0.99 Cohesiveness 0.78 0.80 0.80 0.88 Gumminess 505.66 760.19 979.68 1205.81 Chewiness 500.70 640.95 816.40 1193.99 Juiciness 4 5 2.5 5 (average out of 5)

[0190] Desirable values for the above parameters after cooking of the burgers are as follows: a) hardness from 500 to 5000, preferably from 700 to 1500 g; b) springiness from 0.1 to 1, preferably from 0.5 to 1; c) cohesiveness from 0.1 to 1, preferably from 0.5 to 1; d) gumminess from 300 to 4000, preferably from 500 to 1500; and/or e) chewiness from 300 to 4000, preferably 500 to 1500. As can be seen in Tables 8 and 9, burgers according to the present invention fall within all of the preferred ranges for the above parameters.

[0191] Tables 8 and 9 also demonstrate that the burgers comprising a relatively small amount of polyhydroxy compound in Example 3 exhibit the highest juiciness rating. This is preferable to the use of no polyhydroxy compound in Example 2, and a larger amount of polyhydroxy compound in Example 1. This suggests that structured emulsions which are of intermediate stability result in the best juiciness. Without being bound by theory, such a structured emulsion is believed to be stable during storage, prior to cooking but breaks down during cooking.

[0192] As shown in Tables 8 and 9, burgers according to the present invention exhibit textural properties comparable to those of the market reference vegan burger and the 100% beef burger.

[0193] These results demonstrate that the burgers formed in Example 1 and Example 2, which include a structured emulsion, result in less weight loss (both from oil and from moisture) and less shrinkage (their diameter and height reduced less) upon cooking when compared to the burger of Comparative Example 1 which does not include a structured emulsion. Similarly, the burger formed in Example 3, which includes the structured emulsion, resulted in less weight loss than the burger of Comparative Example 2 which does not include the structured emulsion.

[0194] The burgers of Example 1 and Example 2 were also found by taste testers to be juicier than those of Comparative Example 1. Overall, the burger of Comparative Example 1 was generally described as more compact, tough to eat and dryer than the other burgers. These conclusions are consistent with the observation that less moisture and less oil were lost from the burgers of Examples 1 and 2, which would be expected to result in a less dry, hence juicier, burger. Similarly, the burger formed in Example 3, was found by taste testers to be juicier than the burger of Comparative Example 2. Overall, the burger of Example 3 was described as the most tender and juicy.

[0195] These tasting comments are also consistent with visual assessment of the cooked burgers shown in FIG. 1, showing Comparative Example 1 (top), and Example 1 (bottom). The burger of Comparative Example 1 is clearly more compact, whilst the burger of Example 1 appears to be the most moist.

Calorimetry Assessment of the Burgers Before and After Cooking

[0196] Using colorimetry (BYK instruments calorimeter), burgers from Comparative Example 1, Example 1 and Example 2 were assessed for their lightness (L*), redness (a*) and yellowness (b*) according to the CIE system. Results before and after cooking are shown in Table 10 below.

TABLE-US-00010 TABLE 10 Comparative Example 1 Example 1 Example 2 Before frying L* 34.55 51.47 47.79 a* 31.59 26.22 29.02 b* 28.73 26.19 29.42 After frying L* 29.84 31.79 31.52 a* 33.78 33.01 35.26 b* 30.57 34.06 35.34 For uncooked burgers, desirable values are as follows: L* from 36 to 58; a* from 14 to 29; and b* from 12 to 30. For cooked burgers, preferred values are as follows: L* from 24 to 40; a* from 9 to 36; and b* from 12 to 36.

[0197] It was found that, before cooking, the burger from Comparative Example 1 had a high a value and a low L* value making it appear more red than the other burgers. The burger from Example 1 had the highest L* and lowest a* and b* values and thus appeared more pink. Following cooking, the colour differences between the burgers observed before cooking reduced and all three values (L*, a* and b*) became much more similar between the four burgers.

Plant-Based Burgers with Texturized Soy Protein

[0198] The previously described General method for preparation of structured emulsions was used for the preparation of structured emulsions, Emulsion D and Emulsion E. As can be seen from Table 11, Emulsion E differs from Emulsion D as it comprises a different polyhydroxy compound and in a smaller amount. The reduced polyhydroxy compound in Emulsion E is compensated by water and oil.

TABLE-US-00011 TABLE 11 Emulsion D Emulsion E Oil phase Rapeseed oil 60 65 Emulsifier* 5 5 Water phase De-ionized water 16.7 25 Polyhydroxy compound 18.3** 5*** *The emulsifier used was Dimodan HR 85 S6 corresponding to distilled monoglyceride emulsifier comprising 6% by weight of sodium stearate. **The polyhydroxy compound used in this case was sucrose. ***The polyhydroxy compound used in this case was dextrose.

General Method for Preparation of Plant-Based Burgers Using Texturized Soy Protein

[0199] The following procedure was used for the preparation of the plant-based burgers of the three following examples: [0200] 1. All ingredients in powder form (stabilizer blend*, flavors) and the texturized soy protein** were mixed. *The stabiliser blend referred to above was a blend of modified starches and hydrocolloids from Ingredion, RD 1020.**The texturized soy protein referred to above had a protein content minimum of 69% and a format of granules. [0201] 2. The colors were diluted in the cold water according to the quantities shown in Table 12, and blended with the ingredients from step 1 for six minutes for hydration. [0202] 3. Emulsion D or Emulsion E or rapeseed oil according to the quantities shown in Table 12 was combined with the ingredients from step 2 and the resulting dough was blended for another 2 minutes. [0203] 4. The dough was packed in a container and rested in a freezer (operating at a temperature of 18 C. to 22 C.) for approximately 10-15 minutes, so that the dough was slightly firm to facilitate the forming of the burgers. [0204] 5. Burgers (diameter 8 cm; height 2 cm; weight 100 g) were made from this dough and stored in the freezer (operating at a temperature of 18 C. to 22 C.) for at least 24 hours. [0205] 6. Burgers were cooked by heating on a grill plate with rapeseed oil (5 g) for 12 minutes (8 times 1.5 minutes).

[0206] The compositions of the burgers of Comparative Example 3, Example 4 and Example 5 prepared according to the above general method are shown below in Table 12.

TABLE-US-00012 TABLE 12 Comparative Example 3 Example 4 Example 5 Cold water (g) 1218.75 1090.29 1040.18 Rapeseed oil (g) 500.00 Emulsion D (g) 769.23 Emulsion E (g) 714.29 Texturized soy protein (g) 475 475 475 Stabilizer blend (g) 175 175 175 Flavors (g) 118.75 118.75 118.75 Colors (g) 12.5 12.5 12.5

[0207] The burgers according to Comparative Example 3, Example 4 and Example 5 have a similar mass and similar moisture and fat contents, allowing their properties to be compared. The burgers made in Comparative Example 3 are not according to the present invention, as a structured emulsion was not used.

Assessment of Burger Properties Before Cooking

[0208] Texture profile analysis (TPA) was used according to the method described in previous examples using a TA.XTplus machine (Stable Micro Systems) fitted with a 36 mm Dia Cylinder Aluminium Probe (P/36 R). Hardness, springiness, cohesiveness, gumminess and chewiness of the burgers of the Comparative Example 3, Example 4 and Example 5 were determined.

[0209] The measured properties of the dough and burgers formed in Comparative Example 3, Example 4 and Example 5 before cooking are shown in Table 13.

TABLE-US-00013 TABLE 13 Property Comparative Before Cooking Example 3 Example 4 Example 5 Weight (g) 98.1 101.4 100.6 Diameter mm) 78.0 77.6 77.3 Height (mm) 23.3 24.2 24.8 Hardness (g) 1521.58 4872.63 2684.94 Springinesss 0.79 0.71 0.68 Cohesiveness 0.70 0.54 0.56 Gumminess 1060.31 1451.14 1147.09 Chewiness 836.52 Poor 1024.20 Good 780.31 Good Dough workability (loosing oil)

[0210] Preferred values for the burgers before cooking are described in previous examples. As can be seen in Table 13, the burgers according to the present invention fall within these ranges.

[0211] Additionally, it can be seen that the burgers of Example 4 and Example 5, which use emulsions containing polyhydroxy compounds, show improved workability when compared to those of Comparative Example 3, which do not use a structured emulsion.

Properties of the Burgers of the Examples After Cooking

[0212] The properties of the burgers formed in Comparative Example 3, Example 4 and Example 5 after frying are shown in Table 14. The hardness, springiness, cohesiveness, gumminess and chewiness of the burgers were measured by TPA using the same method as described above.

[0213] Juice-per-cooked-mass (JCM %) was determined by compressing the cooked burgers in an Aeropress (Model A80 by Aerobie) using a load force of 7 kg for 5 min. Prior to compression, the burgers were chopped with 6 parallel and 6 perpendicular cuts. The weight of the extracted juice was recorded and, by dividing it by the weight of the cooked burger, Juice-per-cooked-mass (JCM) was calculated.

TABLE-US-00014 TABLE 14 Property Comparative After Frying Example 3 Example 4 Example 5 Weight (g) 83.4 90.4 88.6 Weight loss (g) 14.7 11.1 12.1 Moisture loss (g) 11.7 9.9 10.6 Other (mainly oil) loss (g) 2.9 1.2 1.5 Yield (%) 85 89 88 Diameter (mm) 72.5 74.8 75.15 Height (mm) 21.8 22.4 23.3 Hardness (g) 5654.02 2445.12 3137.24 Springinesss 0.87 0.70 0.76 Cohesiveness 0.79 0.61 0.68 Gumminess 4440.65 1479.14 2145.28 Chewiness 3875.48 1040.41 1627.13 Juice-per-cooked-mass (%) 4.0 5.8 6.2

[0214] Desirable TPA values for the burgers after cooking are described in previous examples. As can be seen in Table 14, the burgers according to the present invention fall within these ranges.

[0215] Additionally, Table 14 demonstrates that the burgers comprising a relatively small amount of polyhydroxy compound in Example 5 exhibit a higher Juice-per-cooked-mass than the burgers comprising a larger amount of polyhydroxy compound in Example 4. This result is consistent with the observation in previous examples, that Example 3, comprising a relatively small amount of polyhydroxy compound, showed higher Juiciness than Example 2, comprising a larger amount of polyhydroxy compound. Both results support the suggestion that structured emulsions of intermediate stability result in the best juiciness.

[0216] Furthermore, the results in Table 14 demonstrate that the burgers formed in Example 4 and Example 5, which include a structured emulsion, result in less weight loss (both from oil and moisture) and less shrinkage (their diameter and height reduced less) upon cooking when compared to the burger of Comparative Example 3, which does not include a structured emulsion. These results are in line with observations made in aforementioned examples, comparing Example 1 and Example 2, which include structured emulsions, with Comparative Example 1, not using a structured emulsion, and comparing Example 3 and Comparative Example 2, respectively.