Adding cricket (Gryllus assimilis) flour in hybrid beef patties: physicochemical, technological and sensory challenges

Abstract

SummaryThe effect of replacing partially lean meat (21.7% protein, 4.5% fat) with cricket (Gryllus assimilis) flour (CF) in the physicochemical, technological, and sensory properties of beef patties was evaluated. Four formulations were elaborated, a control with 66% w/w of beef (FC) and the others with substitution of the meat at 10 (F10%), 15 (F15%), and 20% w/w (F20%) levels with CF. Analysis of chemical composition, shrinkage, cooking yield, moisture and fat retention, pH, color, lipid oxidation (TBARS), texture, and sensory profile (Acceptance test and CATA questions) were performed. An increase in fat content, moisture, and fat retention was observed in products with cricket flour. Adding CF resulted in softer meat products with lower shrinkage and cooking loss. FC was lighter and redder than products with CF. TBARS values were higher as CF addition increased, with no difference among FC and F10%. FC and F10% had greater sensory acceptance (scores above 8.0 and 7.0 for overall liking, respectively). By the CATA test consumers linked FC and F10% with the descriptors associated to overall liking, such as burger aroma, meat aroma, and juicy and F15% and F20% were associated to undesirable descriptors such strange and unpleasant aroma, bad and dry appearance, sandy, and crumbly. The results showed that cricket flour could replace beef by a fraction of up to 10%, obtaining a hybrid meat product with appropriate technological and sensory characteristics.

Potential of Cricket (Acheta domesticus) Flour as a Lean Meat Replacer in the Development of Beef Patties

“…This reduction in cooking loss in beef patties is attributed to the beneficial WHC and OHC properties of CF, and the effect becomes more pronounced with increasing levels of CF. This aligns with the findings of Gomes Martins et al [31], who reported that the cooking yield increases in beef patties with higher levels of Gryllus assimilis flour addition. Additionally, similar findings have been reported in other studies, where the partial addition of CF resulted in decreased cooking loss in cooked meat products [12,13].…”

“…Higher diameter reductions, ranging between 14.06% and 18.55%, were observed in beef patties with G. assimilis addition [31]. However, the addition of insect flour resulted in a lower diameter reduction when compared to the standard formulation [31]. Other studies have reported diameter reduction values ranging from 14% to nearly 25% in beef and pork patties [36,37].…”

“…The popular reception of insects as food encompasses several dimensions that affect the willingness to eat, including psychological, social, cultural, contextual, ecological, and practical factors such as price, availability, and taste [30]. In this context, the lower sensory scores of beef patties with higher concentrations of insect protein may be linked to food neophobia, feelings of disgust, unfamiliarity with insect-based foods, and other nutritional and environmental psychological factors [31,32]. The superior sensory properties of the CF5.0 treatment may be attributed to the fact that these beef patties were more similar to the control group.…”

“…There is a direct relationship between cooking loss and diameter reduction values because the reduction in diameter of beef patties results from protein denaturation during heat treatment, leading to increased water and fat loss [36]. Higher diameter reductions, ranging between 14.06% and 18.55%, were observed in beef patties with G. assimilis addition [31]. However, the addition of insect flour resulted in a lower diameter reduction when compared to the standard formulation [31].…”

Meat‐reduced sausage substituted with germinated mung bean flour: proximate composition, physicochemical properties, and sensory acceptability

“…However, high intakes of red meat, especially processed meat such as sausages, have been linked to chronic diseases such as type 2 diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular disease, and some types of cancer (Libera et al, 2021). To address this, many studies have been carried out to produce healthier sausages by reducing animal meat content and using alternative proteins (Gomes Martins et al, 2023;Rout & Srivastav, 2023). These products, substituting meat with sustainable protein sources, are gaining popularity due to the demand for healthier and more environmentally friendly protein choices (Benkovi c et al, 2023).…”