Next Article in Journal
Fortification of Bread with Carob Extract: A Comprehensive Study on Dough Behavior and Product Quality
Previous Article in Journal
Pathogen and Spoilage Microorganisms in Meat and Dairy Analogues: Occurrence and Control Strategies
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Solid State Fermentation—A Promising Approach to Produce Meat Analogues

1
Department of Biotechnology and Food Analysis, Wroclaw University of Economics and Business, Komandorska 118/120, 53-345 Wroclaw, Poland
2
Adaptive Food Systems Accelerator-Science Centre, Wroclaw University of Economics and Business, Komandorska 118/120, 53-345 Wroclaw, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Foods 2025, 14(10), 1820; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods14101820
Submission received: 10 April 2025 / Revised: 16 May 2025 / Accepted: 17 May 2025 / Published: 20 May 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Food Biotechnology)

Abstract

:
The increasing demand for sustainable dietary options has intensified the development of plant-based meat analogues. Despite growing market availability, these products often fail to replicate conventional meat’s sensory and nutritional properties. Solid-state fermentation (SSF) has emerged as a promising biotechnological approach to enhance the quality of plant-derived protein ingredients. This review summarizes recent findings on the use of SSF in meat analogue production, focusing on microbial strains, substrate selection, and fermentation conditions. The reviewed studies indicate that SSF improves protein digestibility, enhances essential amino acid profiles, reduces anti-nutritional factors, and generates desirable flavour compounds. Furthermore, SSF offers advantages over submerged fermentation in energy and water efficiency, supporting its application in sustainable food processing. The findings highlight SSF’s potential to address key limitations of current meat alternatives and its relevance for developing nutritionally adequate and sensory-appealing products. Integration of SSF into plant-based protein processing may play a critical role in advancing environmentally friendly protein systems.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

The escalating global demand for meat and increasing concerns regarding the environmental and ethical implications of traditional livestock farming have spurred significant interest in alternative protein sources. This review explores the potential of solid-state fermentation as a promising avenue for producing meat analogues, addressing both the sustainability challenges and the nutritional requirements of a growing population. While meat is a vital protein source, it is also associated with unsustainable production practices and potential health risks stemming from excessive consumption, particularly in developed nations. Plant-based meat alternatives have emerged as a viable solution, mitigating adverse effects on human health and the environment compared to conventional meat, mainly processed variants [1]. Meat analogues are not plant-based, protein-rich products; meat analogues are meat-looking/tasting substitutes, with fibrillar characteristics of meat texture and mimicking the colour of meat. The EAT-Lancet Commission advocates a dietary shift towards plant-based proteins like legumes, nuts, and beans to enhance environmental and public health. These alternatives are gaining traction due to the rising global population, limited resources, ethical considerations, and health concerns [2,3]. However, ensuring these alternatives meet consumers’ sensory expectations and nutritional needs remains a key challenge. The evolution of SSF fermentation for meat analogue production is shown in Figure 1.
The production of meat analogues is gaining considerable momentum, with numerous products entering the market that mimic the sensory attributes of animal-based meats [4]. Fermentation technologies, particularly solid-state fermentation, present a unique opportunity to enhance these meat alternatives’ nutritional value, sensory properties, and overall quality [5]. As shown in Table 1, solid-state fermentation offers multiple advantages over conventional processing methods, positioning it as a promising technology for next-generation meat alternatives.
Despite the growing market for plant-based meat alternatives, achieving products that match the sensory properties and nutritional profiles of conventional meat remains challenging. Recent innovations point to integrating fermentation technologies, particularly solid-state fermentation (SSF), as a game-changer in addressing these limitations [6].
SSF allows the utilization of agricultural by-products such as wheat bran, soybean meal, or okara, converting them into high-value protein ingredients through microbial action, often involving filamentous fungi or bacterial cultures [7]. This method supports the development of meat analogues with improved protein bioavailability and digestibility, and is enriched in bioactive compounds, flavour precursors, and desirable textural characteristics [5,6].
SSF enables the bioconversion of complex plant matrices into substrates with reduced anti-nutritional factors, like phytic acid and tannins, while promoting the accumulation of essential amino acids and vitamins [7]. The formation of flavour-active metabolites during fermentation, including short-chain fatty acids and volatile aromatic compounds, mimics the characteristic umami and meaty notes of animal-derived products [4]. This positions SSF as a sustainable and efficient method to improve the sensory appeal of plant-based analogues, meeting consumer expectations for taste, texture, and nutritional adequacy.
The key differences between conventional meat analogue production methods and SSF highlight why SSF represents a transformative approach for the industry, as shown in Figure 2.
While submerged fermentation has been widely explored, SSF is gaining recognition for its lower water and energy demands, aligning with circular economy principles and green biotechnology [9]. The potential to tailor fermentation conditions (such as micro-organism selection, substrate composition, and process parameters) offers vast opportunities to innovate meat analogue development and optimize product formulations [9].
Therefore, this review aims to highlight the role of solid-state fermentation in developing next-generation meat alternatives, emphasizing its technological potential, environmental advantages, and contributions to enhancing nutritional and sensory quality.

2. Fundamentals of Solid-State Fermentation

Solid State Fermentation (SSF) is a distinctive bioprocessing technique where micro-organisms grow on solid substrates with minimal free water, unlike Submerged Fermentation (SMF), which is performed in liquid media. SSF creates environments resembling natural habitats where many micro-organisms, particularly filamentous fungi, have evolved [10]. The defining characteristic of SSF is the growth of micro-organisms on water-insoluble substrates with sufficient moisture to support metabolism without exceeding the water-binding capacity of the solid matrix, which creates a three-phase system: solid substrate particles, a thin liquid film, and gas-filled pores for oxygen transfer often yielding higher productivities and more distinct metabolite profiles than SMF [11]. The key differences between SSF and mF are summarized in Table 2.
The spatial heterogeneity of SSF (Figure 3) creates diverse microenvironments within a single bioreactor, sometimes supporting microbial succession patterns or enabling stable co-cultivation of multiple micro-organisms.
Equipment designs for SSF range from simple tray systems to sophisticated bioreactors. Scale-up represents perhaps the most significant challenge limiting wider industrial adoption of SSF [12]. Unlike SmF, where scale-up follows well-established engineering principles, SSF scale-up is complicated by the heterogeneous nature of the process and difficulties in heat removal from large substrate beds. The critical parameters that need to be controlled during SFF are shown in Figure 4.
Despite these challenges, advances in bioreactor design, process monitoring, and control strategies have significantly improved the industrial viability of SSF processes, positioning them as a viable alternative to SmF for applications including protein-rich biomass production suitable for meat analogue development.
Table 2. Comparison of solid-state fermentation (SSF) vs Submerged Fermentation (SmF).
Table 2. Comparison of solid-state fermentation (SSF) vs Submerged Fermentation (SmF).
ParameterSolid-State Fermentation (SSF)Submerged Fermentation (SmF)Refs.
Medium CompositionSolid substrates with minimal free waterLiquid media with dissolved nutrients[10,11]
Water ContentLow (40–80% moisture)High (>95% water)[13,14]
Oxygen TransferThrough gas-filled pores in substrate matrixVia mechanical agitation and aeration[11]
Preferred Micro-organismsFilamentous fungi (hyphal growth mode)Bacteria, yeasts, unicellular organisms[15]
Growth KineticsOften linear growth patternsExponential growth patterns[16]
Heat TransferPoor (low thermal conductivity)Efficient (convection in liquid)[17]
pH ControlDifficult (relies on initial adjustment)Relatively easy (continuous monitoring)[10]
Scale-up ComplexityHigh (heterogeneous environment)Moderate (well-established principles)[18]
Capital CostsLowerHigher[16]
Product Yield/ConcentrationOften higher for certain processesVariable, depending on application[12]
Common ApplicationsEnzymes, bioactive compounds, biomassAntibiotics, organic acids, recombinant proteins[10,12]

3. Substrates for SSF in Meat Analogue Production

The selection of appropriate substrates is critical for solid-state fermentation (SSF) systems designed for meat analogue production. Unlike traditional SSF applications primarily focusing on enzyme or metabolite production, meat analogue development requires substrates supporting microbial growth while providing substantial protein content, appropriate texture-forming capabilities, and desirable sensory attributes [13].
Cereal grains and legumes constitute the primary substrate classes employed in SSF for meat analogues, with legumes being particularly valuable due to their naturally high protein content. Soybeans and soybean derivatives dominate commercial applications, building upon their long history in traditional fermented foods like tempeh and their established role in conventional meat alternative products [14]. The protein content of soybeans, typically 35–40% on a dry weight basis, provides an excellent starting point for developing nutritionally adequate meat substitutes. Beyond protein quantity, soybeans offer a relatively complete amino acid profile compared to other plant proteins, though they remain somewhat limiting in sulphur-containing amino acids like methionine [18].
Other legumes, including chickpeas, lentils, fava beans, and lupins, have garnered increasing attention as alternative substrates. Chickpeas (20–22% protein) have demonstrated excellent fermentability in SSF systems while contributing unique flavour profiles [17]. Cereal grains, while generally having lower protein content than legumes, serve essential functional roles in SSF substrate formulations. Wheat, with approximately 12–14% protein content, contributes vital glutenin and gliadin proteins that impart viscoelastic properties crucial for developing fibrous, meat-like textures [15]. Despite its relatively low protein content (7–9%), rice offers excellent fermentability and neutral flavour profiles that serve as effective matrices for incorporating flavour compounds during fermentation [13] (Table 3).
Agricultural by-products and waste streams present compelling alternative substrate options, aligning sustainability objectives with functionality requirements. Cereal brans, particularly wheat bran, provide excellent structural support for fungal growth in SSF while contributing significant fibre content and micronutrients to the final product [16]. Recent studies have highlighted the growing interest in utilizing mixed substrate systems combining legume flours with agricultural by-products to enhance the protein density and functional properties of the SSF matrix. For instance, the co-fermentation of soybean flour and wheat bran has improved microbial growth and final product texture due to synergistic nutrient availability and enhanced aeration properties [2]. Such hybrid substrates also enable the tailoring of fermentation conditions to support specific microbial consortia, offering new avenues for designing products with optimized flavour and nutritional profiles. Oilseed cakes and meals, residual materials from oil extraction processes, offer protein contents sometimes exceeding 45%, along with residual lipids that can enhance the sensory properties of meat analogues [19].
Various pre-treatment methods have been developed to improve substrate accessibility in SSF systems. Physical pre-treatments, including milling, grinding, and extrusion, increase surface area and disrupt cell wall structures, thereby enhancing the accessibility of intracellular nutrients to microbial action [16]. Particle size optimization represents a particularly critical consideration; Rahardjo et al. [20] demonstrated that soybean particles between 2 and 4 mm in diameter provided an optimal balance between surface accessibility and maintenance of inter-particle void spaces necessary for oxygen diffusion during tempeh production.
Enzymatic pre-treatments represent more targeted approaches to enhancing substrate accessibility. The application of cellulases and hemicellulases facilitates partial hydrolysis of plant cell wall components, releasing trapped nutrients and creating pathways for hyphal penetration in filamentous fungi-based processes [21].
Emerging bioprocessing strategies also explore the use of underutilized crops and pseudocereals such as quinoa, amaranth, and buckwheat in SSF systems aimed at meat analogue production. These substrates offer unique amino acid profiles, including higher levels of lysine than most cereals, and their compatibility with filamentous fungi like Rhizopus and Monascus opens possibilities for functional food innovation [22]. Integrating such novel raw materials into SSF-based meat analogues may contribute to nutritional diversification and resilience in protein supply chains.

4. Microorganisms in SSF for Meat Analogues

Microorganism selection is critical for solid-state fermentation (SSF) in meat analogue production, requiring efficient conversion of plant substrates into protein-rich biomass with desirable sensory and nutritional properties [23] (Table 4).
Filamentous fungi dominate commercial SSF applications due to their hyphal growth mode, which effectively colonizes solid substrates. Rhizopus species (R. oligosporus, R. oryzae), extensively used in tempeh production, exhibit rapid growth and secrete amylolytic and proteolytic enzymes while synthesizing B-vitamins [24,25]. Their mycelial networks create meat-like textures through physical hyphal entanglement with substrate particles, yielding coherent, sliceable products with desirable mouthfeel [25].
Aspergillus oryzae produces diverse hydrolytic enzymes (amylases, proteases, lipases) that enhance substrate digestibility and flavour development [26]. Unlike surface-growing Rhizopus, Aspergillus penetrates deeper into substrate particles, extensively modifying internal structures—valuable for recalcitrant substrates like cereal brans or lignocellulosic materials [13,26].
Neurospora intermedia, used in Indonesian oncom production, grows rapidly on challenging substrates including peanut press cake, coconut residue, and cassava by-products [27]. Its carotenoid-derived orange pigmentation offers potential for developing visually appealing red meat analogues [27].
Table 4. Micro-organisms and their roles in SSF-based meat analogues production.
Table 4. Micro-organisms and their roles in SSF-based meat analogues production.
CategoryExamplesKey FunctionalitiesRefs.
Filamentous FungiRhizopus (R. oligosporus,
R. oryzae)
Rapid growth, enzyme secretion (amylases, proteases),
B-vitamin synthesis, meat-like texture formation
[24,25]
Aspergillus (A. oryzae)Hydrolytic enzyme production (amylases, proteases, lipases), deep substrate penetration, enhanced digestibility[28]
Neurospora (N. intermedia)Fast growth on diverse substrates,
carotenoid production (natural pigmentation)
[29]
BacteriaBacillus (B. subtilis)Protease production, protein hydrolysis, flavour
enhancement, improved digestibility
[30]
Lactic Acid Bacteria (Lactobacillus, Pediococcus, Lactococcus)Lactic acid production, pH reduction,
microbial inhibition, preservation
[31]
Mixed CulturesCo-cultures (e.g., Rhizopus + LAB)Combination of complementary metabolic pathways for enhanced texture, flavour, and safety[32]
While filamentous fungi dominate current applications, several bacterial species demonstrate promising capabilities for meat analogue production via SSF. Bacillus subtilis and related species feature prominently in traditional fermented foods like natto and contribute valuable functionalities in meat analogue contexts [30]. These organisms produce extracellular proteases that extensively hydrolyse substrate proteins, releasing free amino acids and peptides that enhance flavour profiles while improving protein digestibility.
Lactic acid bacteria (LAB), including Lactobacillus, Pediococcus, and Lactococcus species, typically play secondary roles in SSF systems for meat analogues but contribute valuable functionalities. These organisms rapidly acidify the substrate through lactic acid production, inhibiting the growth of undesirable microorganisms while contributing to preservation and safety [31].
Mixed culture fermentations represent a promising frontier in developing next-generation meat analogues via SSF, potentially combining complementary metabolic capabilities of multiple microorganisms. Traditional fermented foods like tempeh and oncom often involve complex microbial consortia rather than pure cultures, suggesting unexplored potential in designed co-cultures [32].
The selection criteria for starter cultures in meat analogue SSF must balance multiple considerations. Growth rate represents a primary criterion, with rapid colonisation abilities necessary to outcompete potential contaminating microorganisms while achieving reasonable production timelines. Protein productivity, safety considerations, and sensory contributions significantly influence starter culture selection, particularly on strains that produce desirable flavour compounds, textures, and visual attributes reminiscent of conventional meat products [14].

5. Technological Aspects of Meat Analogue Production via SSF

Translating solid-state fermentation (SSF) from laboratory-scale investigations to industrial meat analogue production necessitates careful consideration of numerous technological aspects. Unlike conventional meat alternative manufacturing, which typically relies on established extrusion technologies, SSF-based approaches introduce unique processing considerations related to substrate preparation, fermentation control, post-fermentation processing, and integration with complementary technologies [28] (Figure 5).
SSF process optimization for meat analogues requires multidimensional approaches, primarily focusing on substrate formulation and fermentation parameters. Response surface methodology (RSM) effectively identifies optimal variable combinations in complex systems. Handoyo and Morita [24] optimized tempeh production using RSM, determining optimal conditions (30 °C, 85% RH, 36 h fermentation) that maximized protein content and textural properties. Advanced computational methods, including artificial neural networks (ANNS) and genetic algorithms, offer improved optimization for nonlinear SSF processes with complex variable interactions. Hölker and Lenz [33] demonstrated ANN superiority over RSM in predicting glucoamylase production during Aspergillus niger SSF, achieving higher predictive accuracy (Table 5).
However, the practical application of these optimization methods often faces several limitations. The complexity and variability of SSF systems, combined with the high heterogeneity of solid substrates, pose challenges in process reproducibility, monitoring, and control. Scalability remains a major bottleneck, as laboratory-optimized conditions do not always translate directly to pilot or industrial scales [35].
SSF monitoring presents unique challenges due to substrate heterogeneity and sampling difficulties. Near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) enables non-invasive monitoring of moisture, protein, and substrate consumption, while respirometric techniques, measuring O2 consumption and CO2 evolution, indirectly measure microbial activity correlating with growth and metabolism [10].
Despite these advances, real-time control and standardization of SSF processes remain difficult. In homogeneous microbial growth, variable moisture gradients, and limited heat and mass transfer can lead to inconsistent product quality, limiting broader adoption of SSF in large-scale applications [23].
Post-fermentation processing converts fermented substrates into consumer products. Traditional tempeh requires minimal processing—simple cooking before consumption [25]. Shelf-stable products need additional steps, including controlled drying, with freeze-drying preserving protein functionality and flavour compounds. Texturization enhances the meat-like properties of SSF products. High-moisture extrusion of fermented substrates creates fibrous structures resembling muscle tissue [19]. Extrusion of fermented soybean (30–40% moisture, 150 °C, 120 rpm) produces aligned protein fibres mimicking chicken breast texture. Integrating SSF with complementary technologies advances meat analogue development. Combining SSF with high-moisture extrusion synergistically leverages fermentation-derived flavours and extrusion-based texturization [34]. Fermentation-induced partial protein hydrolysis facilitates realignment during extrusion while preserving thermally stable flavour compounds (Figure 6).
Emerging additive manufacturing technologies, mainly 3D food printing, offer intriguing possibilities for creating structurally complex meat analogues incorporating fermented components. Combining 3D printing’s structural control with fermentation’s flavour development capabilities presents up-and-coming opportunities for replicating complex meat products like marbled steaks that remain challenging for conventional technologies.
Quality control and standardization approaches represent essential considerations for industrial-scale production of SSF meat analogues. Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP) frameworks adapted specifically for fungal fermentations identify critical control points, including initial substrate contamination levels, inoculum quality, temperature control during fermentation, and moisture management [24].
Nonetheless, industrial implementation requires overcoming technical, economic, and regulatory barriers. A more robust understanding of process dynamics, as well as standardized protocols, will be crucial to support commercial scalability [35].

6. Nutritional and Functional Properties of SSF-Derived Meat Analogues

The nutritional and functional properties of solid-state fermentation (SSF) derived meat analogues represent critical determinants of their consumer acceptance, market positioning, and potential health impacts. Unlike conventional meat alternatives primarily developed through the physical processing of plant proteins, SSF products undergo complex biochemical transformations that significantly modify their nutritional profiles, bioactive compound content, and techno-functional characteristics (Table 6) [32].
Due to multiple complementary mechanisms, protein quality in SSF-derived meat analogues typically exceeds that of their unfermented counterparts. The microbial biomass contributes high-quality protein with amino acid compositions often complementary to plant protein limitations [25]. Analysis of Rhizopus oligosporus biomass reveals exceptionally high levels of lysine and methionine, amino acids frequently limiting plant proteins, potentially enhancing the biological value of the composite protein in fermented products [15].
SSF provides significant nutritional enhancements to meat analogues. Sparringa and Owens [36] showed fungal biomass contributes 12–15% of total protein, especially essential amino acids. Protein digestibility improves by 15–25% in legume substrates through antinutritional factor degradation (phytates, tannins), enzymatic hydrolysis, protease inhibitor inactivation, and protein structure modification [37,38]. Micronutrient bioavailability increases substantially during SSF. Eklund-Jonsson et al. [39] demonstrated R. oligosporus fermentation reduced barley phytate by 97%, enhancing iron, zinc, and calcium accessibility. B-vitamin synthesis also occurs, with riboflavin increasing 2.5-fold and niacin 2-4-fold during Rhizopus fermentation [40].
Beyond basic nutrition, SSF generates bioactive compounds, including phenolic compounds and peptides with antioxidants, antidiabetic, anticancer, anti-inflammatory, and ACE-inhibitory activities [38]. SSF-derived products often demonstrate superior sensory characteristics while offering comparable or enhanced nutritional profiles to other alternative proteins like conventionally processed plants or single-cell proteins. The natural flavour development during fermentation provides distinctive savoury notes that are difficult to achieve through conventional processing or flavour addition alone. Additionally, the fibrous textures created through mycelial network formation offer structural attributes that complement or potentially exceed those achievable through conventional extrusion or spinning technologies [14].

7. Sensory Attributes and Consumer Acceptance

The sensory characteristics of solid-state fermentation (SSF) derived meat analogues represent critical determinants of consumer acceptance and market success. Unlike conventional meat alternatives that rely on exogenous flavour additives and extensive processing to achieve meat-like properties, SSF products develop complex sensory attributes through natural microbial metabolic activities [26] (Table 7). These natural transformations can yield unique and desirable sensory properties, though they simultaneously present challenges related to standardization and control. Recent studies have highlighted SSF’s potential to naturally generate desirable flavour and texture characteristics without requiring additional chemical additives or texturizing agents [2].
Flavour development during SSF occurs through multiple complementary biochemical pathways that generate complex taste and aroma profiles (Figure 7).
Proteolytic activity releases amino acids contributing to taste, with glutamic and aspartic acids providing umami notes essential for meat-like flavour [41]. Feng et al. [42] identified over 45 volatile compounds in Rhizopus-fermented barley, including 2-methylpyrazine, 2,5-dimethylpyrazine, and 2-acetylpyrrole, which contribute roasted, nutty, and meat-like aromas.
Volatile profiles are strain-dependent and modifiable through inoculum selection and fermentation conditions [6]. Co-culture approaches combining Rhizopus with yeasts or lactic acid bacteria enhance flavour complexity and mask undesirable plant matrix off-notes [43].
The texture characteristics of SSF products derive primarily from fungal mycelia networks that penetrate and bind substrate particles, creating natural fibrous structures resembling meat without extensive extrusion or spinning processes [19]. Mycelial network density, controlled by fermentation time, temperature, and substrate composition, determines firmness, cohesiveness, and chewiness. Manipulating fermentation variables, including substrate porosity and particle distribution, enables texture customization for specific consumer preferences (Figure 8) [6].
Substrate particle size significantly influences SSF texture, with coarser particles (2–3 mm) yielding firmer, meat-like textures than finer particles (<1 mm) that produce softer products [24]. Moisture content also affects texture—higher levels (65–70%) promote extensive mycelial growth but may reduce structural integrity compared to moderate moisture (55–60%). Colour presents challenges as SSF typically produces off-white to greyish products, contrasting with meat’s red/pink/brown hues [25]. Natural pigmentation strategies using Monascus purpureus and Neurospora strains offer clean-label solutions [2]. N. intermedia produces orange-red carotenoid pigments suitable for salmon/tuna analogues, while M. purpureus generates red pigments resembling beef [2].
Consumer perception studies reveal complex relationships between sensory properties, familiarity, and acceptance of SSF-derived meat analogues (Figure 9).
Consumer acceptance of SSF-based meat analogues correlates with familiarity with fermented foods, with traditional fermented food consumers showing higher acceptance rates. Product positioning affects the perception SSF products marketed as novel proteins receive higher acceptance than those positioned as meat substitutes, especially among meat consumers. Chef-led presentations enhance associations with premium, natural, and sustainable qualities [43]. Sensory improvement strategies include substrate blending, controlled pre-fermentation, and post-fermentation enhancements (marination, smoking). Precision fermentation and metabolomic monitoring increase reproducibility and enable precise sensory profile customization [6].
Heat treatment plays a crucial role in determining the final sensory quality of SSF-derived meat analogues. Cooking processes such as steaming, baking, or frying can enhance the release of volatile compounds developed during fermentation, intensifying umami and roasted flavours. Moreover, heat application modifies the texture—typically increasing chewiness and cohesiveness—making the final product more meat-like and palatable for consumers [36,46]. Thus, evaluation of sensory characteristics post-cooking is essential for assessing the real-world eating quality and consumer acceptance of SSF products.

8. Food Safety Considerations

Food safety represents a critical dimension of solid-state fermentation (SSF) meat analogue production that requires systematic attention throughout product development and manufacturing processes (Table 8).
Unlike conventional extrusion-based alternatives, SSF products require unique safety considerations, including starter culture purity, contaminant management, mycotoxin prevention, and allergenicity control [46]. Microbial safety requires validated starter cultures, with commercial production favouring defined cultures over traditional undefined mixed cultures [47]. Organisms should possess GRAS status or a documented safe use history. Feng et al. [42] showed commercial lyophilized R. oligosporus offered superior safety and consistency compared to traditional hibiscus leaf-derived starters [1].
Substrate preparation represents a critical safety control. Near-neutral pH of SSF substrates necessitates thermal treatments (boiling, steaming, autoclaving) to reduce microbial loads and inactivate antinutritional factors [1,25]. Nout et al. [48] demonstrated pre-fermentation acidification to pH 4.5 effectively inhibited pathogens while allowing normal Rhizopus development, establishing critical safety hurdles during early fermentation. Implementing HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points) principles provides a framework for addressing safety concerns of SSF meat analogue production (Figure 10).
Steinkraus [30] identified critical control points specific to tempeh production, including substrate thermal treatment, acidification (pH < 4.5 before fungal inoculation), and fermentation temperature control (maintaining < 35 °C to prevent growth of thermophilic pathogens while supporting desired fungal development).
Mycotoxin risks require particular attention in fungal SSF systems due to the potential for some filamentous fungi to produce these secondary metabolites under certain conditions [46,48].
Fortunately, Rhizopus species commonly employed in tempeh and similar fermentations are not known to produce significant mycotoxins, confirming the absence of aflatoxin, ochratoxin, and other common mycotoxins in properly produced tempeh [37]
Aspergillus species employed in specific SSF applications present more complex considerations, as some strains within this genus can produce mycotoxins under certain conditions. Therefore, selecting strains with low mycotoxin-producing potential is crucial for ensuring the safety of SSF meat analogues. Industrial strains of Aspergillus oryzae employed in koji production have been extensively evaluated and generally lack the genetic capacity for producing aflatoxins or other concerning mycotoxins [38].
Allergenicity considerations for SSF-derived meat analogues encompass both substrate-related and fermentation-induced dimensions. Many common SSF substrates, particularly soybeans and other legumes, contain known allergens that persist through fermentation. Beyond substrate allergens, fungal biomass presents potential allergenic concerns, although thermal processing significantly reduces the allergenic potential of these proteins. Recent studies have provided insights into managing allergenicity in SSF products, highlighting the need to carefully select substrates and processing conditions [1].
Regulatory aspects and compliance frameworks for SSF-derived meat analogues vary significantly between jurisdictions, presenting challenges for international commercialization. Standardized safety validation protocols tailored to SSF-derived meat analogues would facilitate substantial regulatory compliance and market access. Recent reviews have called for harmonized regulatory approaches to support the global trade of SSF meat analogues [39].

9. Conclusions

Solid-state fermentation offers a promising and sustainable strategy to enhance plant-based meat analogues’ nutritional and sensory properties. It improves protein quality, reduces anti-nutritional factors, and contributes to flavour development, supporting the creation of clean-label products. However, challenges such as process scalability, substrate consistency, and optimal microbial selection remain. Further research should address these limitations by focusing on fermentation optimization, strain improvement, and process standardization to enable industrial implementation. Incorporating SSF into plant-based protein processing could significantly advance the development of high-quality, functional, and commercially viable meat alternatives, opening new opportunities for innovation in the food industry.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.H.; methodology, A.M. and J.H.; validation, J.H.; formal analysis, J.H.; investigation, A.M.; resources, J.H.; data curation, J.H.; writing—original draft preparation, A.M. and J.H.; writing—review and editing, J.H.; visualization, A.M.; supervision, J.H.; funding acquisition, J.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Elhalis, H.; See, X.Y.; Osen, R.; Chin, X.H.; Chow, Y. Significance of Fermentation in Plant-Based Meat Analogs: A Critical Review of Nutrition, and Safety-Related Aspects. Foods 2023, 12, 3222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Elhalis, H.; See, X.Y.; Osen, R.; Chin, X.H.; Chow, Y. The Potentials and Challenges of Using Fermentation to Improve the Sensory Quality of Plant-Based Meat Analogs. Front. Microbiol. 2023, 14, 1267227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Mandliya, S.; Pratap-Singh, A.; Vishwakarma, S.; Dalbhagat, C.G.; Mishra, H.N. Incorporation of Mycelium (Pleurotus eryngii) in Pea Protein Based Low Moisture Meat Analogue: Effect on Its Physicochemical, Rehydration and Structural Properties. Foods 2022, 11, 2476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Andreani, G.; Sogari, G.; Marti, A.; Froldi, F.; Dagevos, H.; Martini, D. Plant-Based Meat Alternatives: Technological, Nutritional, Environmental, Market, and Social Challenges and Opportunities. Nutrients 2023, 15, 452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Molfetta, M.; Morais, E.G.; Barreira, L.; Bruno, G.L.; Porcelli, F.; Dugat-Bony, E.; Bonnarme, P.; Minervini, F. Protein Sources Alternative to Meat: State of the Art and Involvement of Fermentation. Foods 2022, 11, 2065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Juhrich, L.C.; Grosse, M.; Mörlein, J.; Bergmann, P.; Zorn, H.; Gand, M. Nutritional and Sensory Properties of Meat Analogues: A Current Overview and Future Considerations. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2025, 73, 2236–2248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Betchem, G.; Monto, A.R.; Lu, F.; Billong, L.F.; Ma, H. Prospects and Application of Solid-State Fermentation in Animal Feed Production—A Review. Ann. Anim. Sci. 2024, 24, 1123–1137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. McClements, D.J.; Grossmann, L. A Brief Review of the Science behind the Design of Healthy and Sustainable Plant-Based Foods. NPJ Sci. Food 2021, 5, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Valentino, V.; Magliulo, R.; Farsi, D.; Cotter, P.D.; O’Sullivan, O.; Ercolini, D.; De Filippis, F. Fermented Foods, Their Microbiome and Its Potential in Boosting Human Health. Microb. Biotechnol. 2024, 17, e14428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Pandey, A.; Soccol, C.R.; Larroche, C. Current Developments in Solid-State Fermentation; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  11. Hölker, U.; Höfer, M.; Lenz, J. Biotechnological Advantages of Laboratory-Scale Solid-State Fermentation with Fungi. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2004, 64, 175–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Cerda, A.; Gea, T.; Vargas-García, M.C.; Sánchez, A. Towards a Competitive Solid State Fermentation: Cellulases Production from Coffee Husk by Sequential Batch Operation and Role of Microbial Diversity. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 589, 56–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Thomas, L.; Larroche, C.; Pandey, A. Current Developments in Solid-State Fermentation. Biochem. Eng. J. 2013, 81, 146–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Dekkers, B.L.; Boom, R.M.; van der Goot, A.J. Structuring Processes for Meat Analogues. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 81, 25–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Asgar, M.A.; Fazilah, A.; Huda, N.; Bhat, R.; Karim, A.A. Nonmeat Protein Alternatives as Meat Extenders and Meat Analogs. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2010, 9, 513–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Day, L. Proteins from Land Plants—Potential Resources for Human Nutrition and Food Security. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2013, 32, 25–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Xiao, Y.; Xing, G.; Rui, X.; Li, W.; Chen, X.; Jiang, M.; Dong, M. Effect of Solid-State Fermentation with Cordyceps Militaris SN-18 on Physicochemical and Functional Properties of Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) Flour. LWT 2015, 63, 1317–1324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ismail, I.; Hwang, Y.H.; Joo, S.T. Meat Analog as Future Food: A Review. J. Anim. Sci. Technol. 2020, 62, 111–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ramachandran, S.; Singh, S.K.; Larroche, C.; Soccol, C.R.; Pandey, A. Oil Cakes and Their Biotechnological Applications—A Review. Bioresour. Technol. 2007, 98, 2000–2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Rahardjo, Y.S.P.; Tramper, J.; Rinzema, A. Modeling Conversion and Transport Phenomena in Solid-State Fermentation: A Review and Perspectives. Biotechnol. Adv. 2006, 24, 161–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Gervais, P.; Molin, P. The Role of Water in Solid-State Fermentation; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2003; Volume 13. [Google Scholar]
  22. Zhang, W.; Deng, Z.; Liu, T.; Liang, J.; Liu, J. Fermentation with Edible Mushroom Mycelia Improves Flavor Characteristics and Techno-Functionalities of Soybean Protein. Food Biosci. 2024, 59, 104123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Artola, A.; Font, X.; Moral-Vico, J.; Sánchez, A. The Role of Solid-State Fermentation to Transform Existing Waste Treatment Plants Based on Composting and Anaerobic Digestion into Modern Organic Waste-Based Biorefineries, in the Framework of Circular Bioeconomy. Front. Chem. Eng. 2024, 6, 1463785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Sharma, R.; Garg, P.; Kumar, P.; Bhatia, S.K.; Kulshrestha, S. Microbial Fermentation and Its Role in Quality Improvement of Fermented Foods. Fermentation 2020, 6, 106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Handoyo, T.; Morita, N. Structural and Functional Properties of Fermented Soybean (Tempeh) by Using Rhizopus Oligosporus. Int. J. Food Prop. 2006, 9, 347–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Bohrer, B.M. An Investigation of the Formulation and Nutritional Composition of Modern Meat Analogue Products. Food Sci. Hum. Wellness 2019, 8, 320–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Appiani, M.; Cattaneo, C.; Laureati, M. Sensory Properties and Consumer Acceptance of Plant-Based Meat, Dairy, Fish and Eggs Analogs: A Systematic Review. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2023, 7, 1268068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Chen, H. Modern Solid State Fermentation Theory and Practice; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  29. Surono, I.S. Ethnic fermented foods and beverages of indonesia. In Ethnic Fermented Foods and Alcoholic Beverages of Asia; Springer: New Delhi, India, 2016; pp. 341–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Steinkraus, K.H. Industrialization of Indigenous Fermented Foods; Marcel, D., Ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2004; ISBN 0824747844. [Google Scholar]
  31. Di Cagno, R.; Coda, R.; De Angelis, M.; Gobbetti, M. Exploitation of Vegetables and Fruits through Lactic Acid Fermentation. Food Microbiol. 2013, 33, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Nout, M.J.R.; Kiers, J.L. Tempe Fermentation, Innovation and Functionality: Update into the Third Millenium. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2005, 98, 789–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ng, G.C.F.; Choy, M.J.Y.; Tan, V.W.K.; Theng, A.H.P.; Ng, F.S.K.; Ong, D.S.M.; Ong, K.S.; Lim, P.Y.; Madathummal, M.; Chong, P.H.; et al. Comparative Analysis of Sensory, Textural, Microstructural, Amino Acids and Protein Digestibility Properties of Animal and Alternative Meat Products in the Asian Market. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2024, 59, 5837–5858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kim, A.; Öström, Å.; Mihnea, M.; Niimi, J. Consumers’ Attachment to Meat: Association between Sensory Properties and Preferences for Plant-Based Meat Alternatives. Food Qual. Prefer. 2024, 116, 105134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Sánchez, A.; Oiza, N.; Artola, A.; Font, X.; Barrena, R.; Moral-Vico, J.; Gea, T. Solid-State Fermentation: A Review of Its Opportunities and Challenges in the Framework of Circular Bioeconomy. Afinidad 2024, 81, 50–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Szenderák, J.; Fróna, D.; Rákos, M. Consumer Acceptance of Plant-Based Meat Substitutes: A Narrative Review. Foods 2022, 11, 1274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Wang, H.L.; Ruttle, D.I.; Hesseltine, C.W. Antibacterial Compound from a Soybean Product Fermented by Rhizopus oligosporus. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 1969, 131, 579–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Machida, M.; Yamada, O.; Gomi, K. Genomics of Aspergillus Oryzae: Learning from the History of Koji Mold and Exploration of Its Future. DNA Res. 2008, 15, 173–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Malila, Y.; Owolabi, I.O.; Chotanaphuti, T.; Sakdibhornssup, N.; Elliott, C.T.; Visessanguan, W.; Karoonuthaisiri, N.; Petchkongkaew, A. Current Challenges of Alternative Proteins as Future Foods. NPJ Sci. Food 2024, 8, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Keuth, S.; Bisping, B. Vitamin B12 Production by Citrobacter Freundii or Klebsiella Pneumoniae during Tempeh Fermentation and Proof of Enterotoxin Absence by PCR. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1994, 60, 1495–1499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Chiang, J.H.; Loveday, S.M.; Hardacre, A.K.; Parker, M.E. Effects of Soy Protein to Wheat Gluten Ratio on the Physicochemical Properties of Extruded Meat Analogues. Food Struct. 2019, 19, 100102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Feng, X.M.; Passoth, V.; Eklund-Jonsson, C.; Alminger, M.L.; Schnürer, J. Rhizopus Oligosporus and Yeast Co-Cultivation during Barley Tempeh Fermentation-Nutritional Impact and Real-Time PCR Quantification of Fungal Growth Dynamics. Food Microbiol. 2007, 24, 393–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Tao, A.; Zhang, H.; Duan, J.; Xiao, Y.; Liu, Y.; Li, J.; Huang, J.; Zhong, T.; Yu, X. Mechanism and Application of Fermentation to Remove Beany Flavor from Plant-Based Meat Analogs: A Mini Review. Front Microbiol. 2022, 13, 1070773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Godschalk-Broers, L.; Sala, G.; Scholten, E. Meat Analogues: Relating Structure to Texture and Sensory Perception. Foods 2022, 11, 2227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Lin, J.W.X.; Maran, N.; Lim, A.J.; Ng, S.B.; Teo, P.S. Current Challenges, and Potential Solutions to Increase Acceptance and Long-Term Consumption of Cultured Meat and Edible Insects—A Review. Future Foods 2025, 11, 100544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Su, T.; Le, B.; Zhang, W.; Bak, K.H.; Soladoye, P.O.; Zhao, Z.; Zhao, Y.; Fu, Y.; Wu, W. Technological Challenges and Future Perspectives of Plant-Based Meat Analogues: From the Viewpoint of Proteins. Food Res. Int. 2024, 186, 114351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Han, B.Z.; Beumer, R.R.; Rombouts, F.M.; Nout, M.J.R. Microbiological safety and quality of commercial sufu—A Chinese fermented soybean food. Food Control 2001, 12, 541–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Nout, M.J.R.; de Dreu, M.A.; Zuurbier, A.M.; Bonants-van Laarhoven, T.M.G. Ecology of Controlled Soyabean Acidification for Tempe Manufacture. Food Microbiol. 1987, 4, 165–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Evolution of plant-based meat alternatives and SSF technology.
Figure 1. Evolution of plant-based meat alternatives and SSF technology.
Foods 14 01820 g001
Figure 2. Conventional methods and solid-state fermentation for meat analogue production [5,6,7,9].
Figure 2. Conventional methods and solid-state fermentation for meat analogue production [5,6,7,9].
Foods 14 01820 g002
Figure 3. Three-phase structure of solid-state fermentation.
Figure 3. Three-phase structure of solid-state fermentation.
Foods 14 01820 g003
Figure 4. Critical parameters in solid-state fermentation.
Figure 4. Critical parameters in solid-state fermentation.
Foods 14 01820 g004
Figure 5. Process flow for SSF-based meat analogue production [19,24,33].
Figure 5. Process flow for SSF-based meat analogue production [19,24,33].
Foods 14 01820 g005
Figure 6. Integration of SSF with complementary technologies.
Figure 6. Integration of SSF with complementary technologies.
Foods 14 01820 g006
Figure 7. Flavour development pathways in SSF-derived meat analogues.
Figure 7. Flavour development pathways in SSF-derived meat analogues.
Foods 14 01820 g007
Figure 8. Factors influencing texture development in SSF-derived meat analogues.
Figure 8. Factors influencing texture development in SSF-derived meat analogues.
Foods 14 01820 g008
Figure 9. Factors influencing consumer acceptance of SSF-derived meat analogues [27,33,34,44,45].
Figure 9. Factors influencing consumer acceptance of SSF-derived meat analogues [27,33,34,44,45].
Foods 14 01820 g009
Figure 10. HACCP framework for SSF-derived meat analogue production [44].
Figure 10. HACCP framework for SSF-derived meat analogue production [44].
Foods 14 01820 g010
Table 1. Key benefits of solid-state fermentation in meat analogue production.
Table 1. Key benefits of solid-state fermentation in meat analogue production.
AreaSpecific AdvantagesImpact on Meat AnaloguesRefs.
Nutritional
Enhancement
  • Increased protein content
  • Improved amino acid profile
  • Enhanced digestibility
Better nutritional match to conventional meat[5,6]
Sensory
Properties
  • Natural flavour development
  • Desirable texture formation
  • Meat-like umami notes
Enhanced consumer acceptance and palatability[4,5]
Sustainability
  • Utilizes agricultural byproducts
  • Lower water usage than submerged fermentation
  • Energy-efficient process
Reduced environmental footprint[7,8]
Functional Properties
  • Anti-nutritional factor reduction
  • Bioactive compound production
  • Natural preservation effects
Improved health benefits and shelf stability[6,8]
Economic
Benefits
  • Cost-effective production
  • Waste stream valorization
  • Minimal processing requirements
Lower production costs compared to alternatives[6,7]
Table 3. Substrates and their functional roles in SSF for meat analogues.
Table 3. Substrates and their functional roles in SSF for meat analogues.
Substrate ClassExamplesProtein Content (% d.w.)Key PropertiesRef.
LegumesSoybeans, chickpeas, lentils, fava beans, lupins20–45%High protein content, rich amino acid profile, good fermentability[17]
Cereal GrainsWheat, rice7–14%Structural properties (glutenin & gliadin in wheat), neutral flavour profile (rice)[13]
Agricultural
by-products
Wheat branVariableStructural support for fungal growth, high fibre and micronutrient content[16]
Oilseed Cakes
and Meals
Residues from oil extraction (soybean, rapeseed meals)>45%High protein content, residual lipids enhancing sensory properties[19]
Table 5. Optimization methods for SSF-based meat analogue production.
Table 5. Optimization methods for SSF-based meat analogue production.
Optimization MethodKey CharacteristicsApplication to SSFAdvantagesLimitationsApplicable Conditions
and Practical Limitations
Ref.
Response Surface
Methodology (RSM)
Statistical technique that explores relationships between variables and responsesOptimizing temperature (30 °C), relative humidity (85%), and fermentation time (36 h) for tempeh productionProvides visual representation of optimal conditions;
identifies interactions between variables
Limited to relatively simple systems with few variablesBest for small-scale studies with few variables; less suited for complex systems[24]
Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs)A machine learning approach that models complex nonlinear relationshipsPrediction of glucoamylase production in Aspergillus niger SSFSuperior predictive accuracy for complex systems; handles highly nonlinear responsesRequires substantial data for training; “black box” nature limits interpretabilityIdeal with large datasets; “black-box” may limit insight[33]
Genetic
Algorithms
The evolutionary computational approach that mimics natural selectionOptimizing multi-variable SSF processes with complex interactionsCan search large solution spaces efficiently; not limited by mathematical constraintsComputationally intensive; may converge to local optimaBest for complex, multidimensional problems[34]
Design of
Experiments (DoE)
Structured approach to determine cause-and-effect relationshipsIdentifying critical process parameters in SSF systemsReduces experimental burden; systematic approachMay oversimplify complex biological systemsGood for early-phase or screening studies[13]
Process Analytical
Technology (PAT)
Framework for designing, analyzing, and controlling manufacturingReal-time monitoring of moisture, protein concentration, and substrate consumptionEnables real-time process adjustments; improves consistencyImplementation challenges in heterogeneous SSF systemsSuited for well-equipped setups; costly to implement[10]
Hybrid
Approaches
Combination of multiple optimization techniquesIntegration of empirical models with machine learning for comprehensive process optimizationLeverages strengths of multiple methods; improved robustnessIncreased complexity; requires multidisciplinary expertiseGreat for advanced settings with computational tools[19]
Table 6. Nutritional enhancements in SSF-derived meat analogues.
Table 6. Nutritional enhancements in SSF-derived meat analogues.
Nutritional
Parameter
Enhancement During SSFKey Findings from ResearchRefs.
Protein
Quality
Addition of complementary amino acidsRhizopus oligosporus biomass contributes high levels of lysine and methionine[20]
Protein
Contribution
Increased protein contentFungal biomass contributes 12–15% of total protein content[36]
Protein
Digestibility
15–25% improvementEnzymatic hydrolysis, inactivation of protease inhibitors, structural modifications[37,38]
Mineral
Bioavailability
Significant increase97% reduction in phytate content, increased iron, zinc, and calcium accessibility[39]
Vitamin
Content
2–4-fold increases2.5-fold increase in riboflavin,
2–4-fold increase in niacin
[40]
Antioxidant
Capacity
2–3-fold increasesEnhanced DPPH radical scavenging activity in Aspergillus oryzae fermented soybeans[38]
Table 7. Key sensory attributes of SSF-derived meat analogues.
Table 7. Key sensory attributes of SSF-derived meat analogues.
Sensory AttributeObservationsInfluencing FactorsRefs.
Flavour
Development
Complex profiles with umami notes; over 45 distinct aroma compounds including 2-methylpyrazine, 2,5-dimethylpyrazine, and 2-acetylpyrroleMicrobial strain selection, fermentation duration, proteolytic activities releasing amino acids[41,42]
Texture
Formation
Natural fibrous structure from mycelial network; meat-like properties without extensive extrusionSubstrate particle size (2–3 mm optimal), moisture content (55–70%), fermentation time and temperature[19,24]
Colour
and Appearance
Typically off-white to greyish appearance; Neurospora strains produce orange-red pigments; Monascus purpureus generates red pigmentsFungal strain selection, fermentation conditions, substrate composition[2,25]
Consumer
Perception
Higher acceptance when positioned as novel protein sources rather than meat substitutes; cultural background influences acceptanceFamiliarity with fermented foods, product positioning, chef-led introduction[43]
Enhancement
Strategies
Substrate blending, co-culture fermentation, post-fermentation treatments (marination, smoking)Integration of precision fermentation and metabolomic monitoring[6,43]
Table 8. Key food safety considerations in SSF-derived meat analogues.
Table 8. Key food safety considerations in SSF-derived meat analogues.
Safety
Consideration
Control MeasuresObservationsRefs.
Starter Culture SafetyUse of defined GRAS cultures; validation of purityCommercial lyophilized cultures show superior consistency and safety compared to traditional starters[42,47]
Substrate
Preparation
Thermal treatments (boiling, steaming, autoclaving); acidification to pH 4.5Pre-fermentation acidification effectively inhibits pathogen growth while allowing normal Rhizopus development[25,48]
Process
Control
HACCP implementation; temperature control (<35 °C); monitoring of fermentation parametersCritical control points include substrate thermal treatment, acidification, and fermentation temperature[44]
Mycotoxin
Prevention
Selection of non-mycotoxigenic strains; control of fermentation conditionsRhizopus species do not produce significant mycotoxins; industrial A. oryzae strains lack genetic capacity for aflatoxin production.[26,37]
Allergenicity ManagementCareful substrate selection; appropriate thermal processingThermal processing reduces allergenic potential of fungal biomass proteins[1]
Regulatory ComplianceAdherence to regional requirements; safety validation protocolsHarmonized regulatory approaches are needed to support global trade of SSF meat analogues[39]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Milcarz, A.; Harasym, J. Solid State Fermentation—A Promising Approach to Produce Meat Analogues. Foods 2025, 14, 1820. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods14101820

AMA Style

Milcarz A, Harasym J. Solid State Fermentation—A Promising Approach to Produce Meat Analogues. Foods. 2025; 14(10):1820. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods14101820

Chicago/Turabian Style

Milcarz, Agata, and Joanna Harasym. 2025. "Solid State Fermentation—A Promising Approach to Produce Meat Analogues" Foods 14, no. 10: 1820. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods14101820

APA Style

Milcarz, A., & Harasym, J. (2025). Solid State Fermentation—A Promising Approach to Produce Meat Analogues. Foods, 14(10), 1820. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods14101820

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop