Impact of Five Soy Proteins on Lean Chicken Breast Systems with Varying Moisture Contents: Cooking Loss, Texture, Microstructure, and T2 NMR
2025
Weilun Lin | Shai Barbut
With increasing global meat consumption, meat&ndash:plant hybrid products have gained interest as a sustainable alternative. Soy proteins have been used in small quantities (2&ndash:3%) as meat extenders, yet limited data exist on their use at higher levels. Here, five commercial soy proteins (four isolates: SPI-A to -D: one concentrate: SPC) were used for meat replacement in lean meat batters with 0/40/80% added water. Cooking loss, texture, light micrographs, and T2 relaxation were analyzed. At 33% and 66% meat replacement, soy protein treatments maintained comparable or reduced cooking loss: SPI-D and SPC were the least and most effective, respectively. Complete replacement eliminated cooking loss in 0% and 40% water systems but failed to form self-supporting gels in the 80% system. At 33% replacement, SPI-A to -C generally increased hardness, whereas increasing the replacement level further to 66% decreased it. In the 0% and 80% systems, SPI-A treatments exhibited hardness comparable to controls, SPI-D treatments drastically reduced hardness, and SPC treatments maintained greater hardness than the controls even at 66% replacement. Micrographs offered potential explanations for these macroscopic measurements. NMR T2 data indicated that soy proteins restricted water mobility both pre- and post-cooking. Specifically, in the 40% and 80% systems, the T22 peaks (expelled liquid) of the hybrid samples containing 33% SPI-A were ~350 ms and 760 ms, compared to ~570 ms and 1170 ms for the meat controls, respectively. In conclusion, most soy proteins (except SPI-D) enhanced water binding, with SPI-A showing optimal texture and SPC showing promise as a more economical alternative.
Show more [+] Less [-]AGROVOC Keywords
Bibliographic information
This bibliographic record has been provided by Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute