Consumers favor ground beef over plant-based alternatives.
by Pat Melgares, K-State Research and Extension
Consumers overwhelmingly chose ground beef over plant-based beef alternatives in a multifaceted study, report Kansas State University (K-State) researchers.
Ground beef — offered with 10%, 20% and 30% fat — was strongly preferred for taste and flavor over plant-based alternatives, and less than one-third of the respondents say they would buy the plant-based alternatives in the store or retail settings, according to K-State meat scientist Travis O’Quinn.
“The results are pretty stark,” O’Quinn says. “Our three ground beef products were highly desired by consumers. We didn’t witness many differences among the three fat levels we offered, but when we compared those to the ground-beef alternatives, every one of the alternatives had a tendency to fall out (of favorability with consumers).”
Consumers rated the plant-based alternatives as “extremely dry,” according to O’Quinn, and rated those products “very low” for flavor. In one test, only 18% of the consumers said they would be willing to buy the plant-based ground beef alternative.
O’Quinn says the researchers tested ground beef alternatives designed for retail and foodservice use, and another consisting of a traditional soy protein base.
The market for plant-based alternatives to all forms of beef has grown in grocery stores and some restaurants during the past six years. O’Quinn notes, however, that “not many of these products are tested or evaluated on how they really do stack up to ground beef.”
“There is a need to assess these products and determine whether the claims that they can substitute for beef or pork or sausage are (legitimate),” O’Quinn says. “We need to make sure that we fact-check those claims to get a good idea of what the science says as it relates to how these products compare to the products they are trying to substitute for.”
The K-State study seems to indicate that they are not comparable, but rather separate food items.“These ground beef alternatives are very different than ground beef,” O’Quinn says. “There’s nothing we can measure that puts it on the same level playing field with ground beef … not how they’re cooked, look or taste.”
Some additional findings reported in the study include:
- Plant-based ground beef alternatives are more tender than regular ground beef. However, with ground products, that’s not necessarily a good thing. The tenderness made the products more soft and less likely to hold together. Ground beef’s ability to stick together provides a texture that was more preferred by consumers.
- While ground beef patties tend to shrink when cooked, the plant-based alternatives stayed the same size — and in some cases even got somewhat bigger.
The team’s work, funded by the Kansas Beef Council, is included in the research report offered during the annual K-State Cattlemen’s Day March 5. The report is available to view online through the K-State Research and Extension bookstore.
Editor’s note: Pat Melgares is a communications coordinator for K-State Research and Extension.
Consumers Still Favor Beef As Protein Source
Researchers compare consumption of beef to plant-based protein alternatives.
Consumers who prefer beef over plant-based protein alternatives said they are willing to pay nearly $2 more per meal for a burger when dining at a restaurant, according to a study from Kansas State University (K-State).
However, the same study notes, those who have turned to plant-based protein alternatives are equally passionate about their choice, saying they would be willing to pay $1.48 more per meal.
Those are among the key findings released by K-State agricultural economists Glynn Tonsor and Ted Schroeder in the study, “Impact of New Plant-Based Protein Alternatives on U.S. Beef Demand.” The study was co-authored by Jayson Lusk, a distinguished professor of agricultural economics at Purdue University.
“Beef has what we call a good image, and we document it as a good image throughout the report,” Tonsor says. “We’ve looked at a litany of questions, such as how does beef compare to plant-based proteins on a lot of dimensions, such as taste, safety, price, nutritional content, protein, iron and even on whether it’s good for farmers, the planet and consumers.”
The nationwide study involved more than 3,000 consumers who represented the population of the country. Nearly 70% of respondents identified themselves as regular meat consumers (those who regularly consume meat or food from animals), while the remainder identified with such alternative diets as vegan, vegetarian, flexitarian or other.
Tonsor says regular meat consumers reported being willing to pay $1.87 more per meal for a beef burger in a restaurant. They also would pay up to $0.29 more per pound for store-brand, 80% lean ground beef at the grocery store.
Those who prefer alternative diets would pay $1.48 more per meal in a restaurant, and up to $2.32 per pound more in the grocery store.
“There’s a big preference among regular meat consumers today for the beef burger, and there’s a strong preference among the alternative diet folks for those newly offered items,” Tonsor says.
Yet the number of consumers choosing beef over plant-based alternatives is clearly in favor of the beef industry. The report notes that beef is consumed three times more often than plant-based proteins in the United States.
Among the factors influencing consumers’ choices are that they consider the taste, safety and price of beef to be more appealing.
“Those are key differentiation points we see in this study and have seen in several studies,” Tonsor says. “Taste and safety, in particular, are key drivers of U.S. beef demand.”
“The protein market is immensely competitive, both from existing and new products being introduced,” he adds. “At the same time, global protein demand is strong and growing. The U.S. beef industry produces a high-quality, tasty, safe, nutritious, healthy and affordable product in an increasingly sustainable way. Capitalizing on what the industry does well while continuously striving to do it better is the best advice we can provide to compete in the evolving global protein market.”
The full report, as well as an executive summary, is available online from the K-State Department of Agricultural Economics’ website, agmanager.info.
Sidebar by Pat Melgares, K-State Research and Extension.