Texture profile analysis and rheology of plant-based and animal meat

Reese A. Dunne; Ethan C. Darwin; Valerie A. Perez Medina; Marc E. Levenston; Skyler R. St. Pierre; Ellen Kuhl A

doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2025.115876

Food Research InternationalFeb 4, 2025BioengineeringPeer-reviewed journal article

Texture profile analysis and rheology of plant-based and animal meat

Reese A. Dunne iD, Ethan C. Darwin iD, Valerie A. Perez Medina, Marc E. Levenston iD, Skyler R. St. Pierre iD, Ellen Kuhl A iD

PDF DOI Preprint

In-depth full-text digest available · Jump to digest ↓

Abstract

Plant-based meat can help combat climate change and health risks associated with high meat consumption. To create adequate mimics of animal meats, plant-based meats must match in mouthfeel, taste, and texture. The gold standard to characterize the texture of meat is the double compression test, but this test suffers from a lack of standardization and reporting inconsistencies. Here we characterize the texture of five plant-based and three animal meats using texture profile analysis and rheology, and report ten mechanical features associated with each products elasticity, viscosity, and loss of integrity. Our findings suggest that, of all ten features, the stiffness, storage, and loss moduli are the most meaningful and consistent parameter to report, while other parameters suffer from a lack of interpretability and inconsistent definitions. We find that the sample stiffness varies by an order of magnitude, from 418.9{+/-}41.7kPa for plant-based turkey to 56.7{+/-}14.1kPa for tofu. Similarly, the storage and loss moduli vary from 50.4{+/-}4.1kPa and 25.3{+/-}3.0kPa for plant-based turkey to 5.7{+/-}0.5kPa and 1.3{+/-}0.1kPa for tofu. All three animal products, animal turkey, sausage, and hotdog, consistently rank in between these two extremes. Our results suggest that-with the right ingredients, additives, and formulation-modern food fabrication techniques can create plant-based meats that successfully replicate the full viscoelastic texture spectrum of processed animal meat.

In-depth summary

Claude Opus 5.5 · xhigh effort · 8 Nov 2026 · from the full text of version 2 (17 Jan 2025) · CC BY 4.0

Plant-based products span stiffness 56.65 kPa (firm tofu) to 418.9 kPa (Tofurky roast), bracketing three processed animal meats; stiffness plus shear storage and loss moduli were the most consistent readouts.

Texture differences are described as the main reason consumers avoid plant-based meat, yet the standard double compression test (texture profile analysis) is unstandardized, with sample dimensions, loading rate and parameter definitions varying across studies. This work pairs that test with oscillatory shear rheology on eight products the group previously tested in tension, compression and shear and in a sensory survey, to judge which parameters are interpretable and how plant and animal products compare.

Key results

ShownPlant-based products bracket the processed animal meats in elastic stiffness. The Tofurky roast is stiffest, firm tofu is softest, and all three animal products sit between them. The plant and animal hotdog and sausage pairs still differ significantly in stiffness and hardness.
First-compression stiffness runs from 418.9 kPa (plant-based turkey) to 56.65 kPa (firm tofu), with animal sausage 257.3, animal turkey 244.0 and animal hotdog 178.5 kPa (n = 13 each). Storage modulus splits the same turkey/sausage vs hotdog/tofu groups, from 113.8 kPa (plant turkey) to 5.7 kPa (firm tofu). Plant vs animal stiffness differs for the hotdog and sausage pairs, p < 0.0001. · Plant-based meats successfully replicate the…; 3. Results; Abstract
ShownAll eight products behave mostly elastically in shear, and their phase angles fall in a narrow band. Loss and complex moduli span a wide range, ordered much like the storage moduli.
Loss modulus runs from 25.3 kPa (plant-based turkey) to 1.3 kPa (firm tofu). Complex modulus runs from 116.6 to 5.8 kPa, with the animal products in between. tan δ runs only from 0.192 (10.9°, extra-firm tofu) to 0.241 (13.5°, animal turkey). Values come from n = 5 frequency sweeps per product, averaged over 0.22 to 4.64 rad/s. · Plant-based meats successfully replicate the…; 2.2.2. Shear testing for rheological analysis
ShownInelastic texture parameters vary little. Every product loses 18% to 38% of its integrity in the first 50% compression cycle, plant-based products fall inside the animal range, and few pairwise differences reach significance.
Cohesiveness runs from 0.804 (animal hotdog) to 0.621 (animal sausage); plant-based sausage is 0.764, turkey 0.722 and hotdog 0.683. Springiness runs from 0.727 (plant-based hotdog) to 0.818 (extra-firm tofu). Chewiness follows hardness, from 0.4 N (firm tofu) to 5.1 N (plant-based turkey), with animal products at 2.1 to 2.7 N. · Plant-based meats replicate the loss of…
SuggestedOf the ten parameters, the authors argue that first-compression stiffness and the shear storage and loss moduli are the most interpretable. Hardness and chewiness add little beyond stiffness, and cohesiveness and resilience sometimes fell outside their expected bounds.
For ideal linear elasticity, stiffness in kPa should be about 40 times hardness in N for these samples. Observed ratios were 47.3 (plant turkey) and 48.2 (animal turkey) vs 65.7 (plant hotdog) and 70.5 (firm tofu). Mean resilience exceeded 1 for animal hotdog, animal sausage and extra-firm tofu, traced to a bump in the unloading curve. Some second peaks exceeded the first. · Critical comparison of texture profile analysis…; Plant-based meats successfully replicate the…; Plant-based meats replicate the loss of…
SuggestedThe instrument rankings agree qualitatively with a sensory panel: the products measured hardest and stiffest were also rated hardest. Panelists still rated the plant versions less fatty, less moist and less meaty than the animal ones.
In a survey, n = 16 participants scored twelve sensory attributes on a 1 to 5 scale. They rated plant-based turkey hardest and most chewy, matching its top measured hardness (8.8 N) and stiffness. Both tofus were rated softest, matching hardness of 0.8 N (firm) and 1.7 N (extra-firm). No correlation statistic is reported. · Texture profile analysis and rheology are…; Plant-based meats successfully replicate the…

Methods, data and reproducibility

Punched cylinders (8 mm by 10 mm) of eight comminuted products were compressed twice to 50% strain at 30%/s on an AR-2000ex rheometer (n = 13 each) for six texture profile parameters, and frequency-swept in oscillatory shear (0.1 to 100 rad/s, about 4.71% strain, n = 5) for storage, loss and complex moduli and phase angle; one-way ANOVA with Tukey-Kramer tests compared products.

Five plant-based products: Field Roast hot dog and frankfurter sausage, 365 Organic Firm Tofu, House Foods Organic Tofu Extra Firm, Tofurky Ham-Style Roast · n = 5 products; 13 compression, 1 amplitude-sweep, 5 frequency-sweep samples each
Three animal products: Oscar Mayer Classic Uncured Wieners, Hillshire Farm Turkey Polska Kielbasa Sausage, Spam Oven-Roasted Turkey · n = 3 products; 13 compression, 1 amplitude-sweep, 5 frequency-sweep samples each
Food texture survey rating twelve sensory attributes of all eight cooked products on a 5-point scale (Stanford IRB-75418) · human · n = 16 participants

Methods & tools: AR-2000ex torsional rheometer (TA Instruments), TRIOS software, MATLAB (anova1, multcompare), texture profile analysis (double compression test), oscillatory shear rheology (amplitude and frequency sweeps), biopsy punch
Reproducibility gaps: No code is mentioned. Raw data are available only on request; Table 3 gives the derived parameters as means and standard deviations.

Limitations (6)

Texture profile analysis has no agreed standard: each group chooses its own compression level, rate and specimen dimensions, and parameter definitions differ. The authors say this strongly limits comparison across studies. · stated by the authors
Some samples gave a second compression peak above the first, or a mini-peak during unloading that pushed resilience above 1. The authors suggest causes such as rheometer sampling at high rates, slippage, buckling, shape change or moisture change. · stated by the authors
The authors conclude that their data show the limits of running texture profile analysis on a standard rheometer for non-linear, complex materials. · stated by the authors
In every product, storage moduli fall below the three-times-stiffness value the authors expect for an incompressible isotropic solid. They attribute this consistent gap to the different loading rates of the two tests. · stated by the authors
Some numbers differ between sections. The abstract gives plant-based turkey a storage modulus of 50.4 kPa, but the results give 113.8 kPa (50.4 kPa is animal turkey's value there). The methods give a sweep range of 0.1 to 100 rad/s, but Table 2 gives 0.01 to 100 rad/s. · noted in this summary
Each category is a single commercial comminuted product, and the amplitude sweep is n = 1 per product. The sensory link rests on qualitative agreement in rankings from 16 participants, with no correlation statistic, so the claim that plant-based meats replicate animal texture rests on few products. · noted in this summary

Read this if you measure food or soft-material texture with a rheometer and want to know which double compression and shear parameters are worth reporting, with reference values for commercial plant-based and processed meats.