Last updated: 16-07-2026

Which Hybrid Ingredient at What Inclusion Level? A Formulation Framework for Meat and Dairy

Choosing a hybrid ingredient is only half the formulation decision; the inclusion level, typically somewhere between 5 and 40 percent of the plant-derived component, determines whether a product reads as a genuine hybrid or drifts toward a full meat or dairy substitute that loses the taste and texture parity hybrid is meant to deliver.

This is a framework question, not a recipe, and it deserves more structured thinking than it usually gets. Textured wheat, fava protein, soy protein, rice fibre, mycoprotein, mushroom, and sugar beet fibre each behave differently depending on both the target application, chilled mince, sausage, cheese, milk, or yoghurt, and the inclusion level chosen within it.

Why Inclusion Level Matters More Than Ingredient Choice Alone

The same ingredient can succeed or fail in a hybrid formulation purely on inclusion level: a 5 percent addition of an ingredient often functions as a flavour or nutrition booster with minimal sensory risk, while a 40 percent addition fundamentally changes texture, cook behaviour, and cost structure, and requires a different formulation strategy entirely. Category teams and R&D groups sometimes anchor a project on ingredient selection, mycoprotein versus fava, for example, without first agreeing what inclusion level the commercial brief actually requires. That sequencing error costs formulation cycles later. The wider B2B hybrid food and ingredients opportunity session at Hybrid Foods Europe, featuring Crespel & Deiters and ADM, addresses exactly this ingredient-to-application matching question.

Meat Applications: Textured Wheat, Fava, Soy, and Mushroom

In chilled mince and sausage applications, textured wheat and soy protein typically enter formulations at higher inclusion levels, often approaching 40 percent, because they can carry structure and bind independently, while mushroom and mycoprotein tend to work at lower inclusion levels where their role is flavour, umami, and moisture retention rather than structural replacement. Fava protein sits in between, contributing both nutrition density and moderate structural function, which is why it appears across a wider inclusion range depending on the specific cut and cooking format. Sugar beet fibre, by contrast, rarely functions as a headline protein source; it usually enters at low inclusion levels as a juiciness and moisture-retention aid, the same functional role Cosun Beet Company brings to its Innovation Plaza formulation sessions at HFE.

Dairy Applications: A Narrower Inclusion Window

Hybrid dairy applications generally tolerate a narrower inclusion range than hybrid meat, since cheese melt, milk mouthfeel, and yoghurt set are more sensitive to plant-ingredient interference; PlanetDairy's own Albert Heijn hybrid milk, for example, holds 60 to 70 percent dairy, implying a 30 to 40 percent plant-ingredient ceiling before functionality visibly degrades. Rice fibre and fava protein both appear in dairy-adjacent formulations, typically at the lower end of the inclusion spectrum, where their role is closer to a functional additive than a structural replacement. This is the same inclusion-level ceiling question Farm Dairy and PlanetDairy work through in their Formulating Hybrid Dairy session with Studio Fava at Hybrid Foods Europe.

The Sensory Layer: Why Inclusion-Level Decisions Need Sensory Data, Not Just Cost Models

Inclusion-level decisions are frequently made on cost and functionality data alone, but sensory response, specifically where in the eating experience a consumer notices the plant-ingredient presence, is just as decisive for repeat purchase. Sensory neuroscience firms such as Thimus, whose EEG-based testing measures implicit consumer response at each stage of a bite, from first taste to aftertaste, offer one route to pinpointing the exact inclusion level at which a plant-ingredient addition starts to register negatively with consumers, rather than relying on inclusion-level assumptions alone. This kind of granular sensory mapping is the missing link between a cost-driven inclusion decision and one that actually protects repeat purchase.

Comparison: Illustrative Inclusion Ranges by Ingredient and Application

These ranges are illustrative starting points for formulation discussion, not fixed specifications; actual inclusion levels depend on the specific cut, format, and cost target.

Take-Home Messages

Commercial

• Agree the target inclusion level with the commercial brief before selecting an ingredient, not after.

• Higher inclusion levels typically mean greater cost savings but higher sensory and reformulation risk.

• Dairy applications tolerate a narrower plant-ingredient inclusion window than meat before functionality visibly degrades.

• Sensory testing at the inclusion-level decision stage protects repeat purchase better than cost modelling alone.

  
  

Technical

• Textured wheat and soy protein can function structurally at higher inclusion levels; mushroom and mycoprotein generally cannot.

• Sugar beet fibre and rice fibre function as moisture and texture aids at low inclusion levels rather than as headline protein sources.

• EEG-based sensory neuroscience testing can isolate the exact inclusion level at which a plant-ingredient addition becomes detectable to consumers.

• Inclusion-level decisions should be revisited per cut, format, and processing method, not treated as a single fixed recipe rule.

  
  

Verdict & Next Step

The FoodConNext community's ingredient conversations consistently return to the same point: which ingredient matters less than how much of it, and at what stage of the eating experience it needs to disappear. This inclusion-level framework, and the sensory tools now available to test it precisely, are exactly what the Innovation Plaza's hands-on tasting sessions at Hybrid Foods Europe, Van der Valk Zuidas, Amsterdam, 14-16 September 2026, are built to work through with real formulations. Innovation Plaza slots are filling ahead of September. Register now to bring your own inclusion-level questions to the ingredient partners in the room.

About Gerard Klein Essink

Gerard Klein Essink is Founder & CEO of FoodConNext Foundation. He has run an international plant-based foods and proteins community for more than 20 years, published numerous industry reports, and written innovation reports on proteins for the Dutch government. He has advised the Canadian government on its pulse strategy, produced strategic outlook reports for Pulse Canada and the Australian Grains Research & Development Corporation, and leads FoodConNext Foundation's 100+ member Global Research Ecosystem. He has led multiple Horizon EU protein-transition projects, including Metaphor, Prominent, Plenitude, Profuture, HealthFerm, and Giant Leaps, and spoke at the European Parliament and European Commission in June 2026.

About FoodConNext Foundation

At FoodConNext Foundation, we believe that the future of food lies at the intersection of innovation, sustainability, and global collaboration. Our foundation is dedicated to accelerating the transition toward more resilient and responsible food systems by connecting key stakeholders across the agri-food ecosystem.

Our Mission

FoodConNext Foundation exists to bridge gaps in the global food system — bringing together entrepreneurs, researchers, policymakers, and investors to co-create solutions that address some of the world's most pressing challenges, including food security, sustainability, and nutrition.