Dairy and Plant Protein Beverages: Managing Off-Notes, Creaminess and Mouthfeel
A practical guide for R&D teams developing milk-based and plant protein beverages: identify the sensory gap, select a complementary flavor direction and evaluate the complete drinking experience.
A protein beverage may deliver an appealing vanilla or chocolate aroma and still leave a dry, bitter or chalky finish. These observations point to different development tasks. A useful brief describes each sensation clearly, so that flavor selection, ingredient choice and texture development can be assessed against the same target.
The objective is a drink whose aroma, taste and mouthfeel work together throughout a serving. Reaching that objective begins with understanding the protein base and the conditions under which the finished product will be made and consumed.
Define the product before choosing the flavor
Record the beverage category, protein source and target protein content in the finished drink. Distinguish protein content from the amount of protein powder added: different ingredients contribute different proportions of protein. Include the planned sweetness, fat level, processing conditions, serving temperature and intended shelf life.
Then describe the intended identity. A creamy milk-based shake, a light pea protein drink and an oat-based coffee beverage need different sensory targets. Decide which characteristics of the base should remain recognizable and which sensations would make the product less enjoyable. Use a relevant finished beverage as the reference.
Separate aroma, taste and texture
Start with the unflavored base at the intended protein concentration. Use precise descriptions: a green or beany aroma, bitterness, mouthdrying and a grainy texture require separate observations. A single score for “protein taste” can hide the issue that needs attention.
Research on model formulations of pea, lupin and potato proteins found that protein type affected tactile perception, with differences in attributes such as smoothness, graininess and astringency. This supports evaluating each candidate ingredient in its intended base, rather than assuming that all plant proteins behave alike. [1]
Use the following diagnostic prompts to organize an initial comparison. They identify useful questions; sensory observations alone do not establish the cause.
Observation | What to record | Useful comparison |
Green or beany aroma | Intensity in the base and persistence during drinking | Protein grades at matched protein content |
Bitter finish | When bitterness appears and how long it remains | Base before and after each flavor adjustment |
Dry or puckering feeling | Intensity after one sip and several sips | Candidates under the same repeated-sip protocol |
Chalky or grainy texture | Perceived particles, smoothness and visible sediment | Preparation conditions and ingredient options |
Bring the production process into early trials
A freshly mixed bench sample does not fully describe the product after processing. A study of pea protein UHT beverages found significant changes in sensory aroma during heat treatment and identified contributions from lipid oxidation and Maillard reaction pathways. The finding makes representative processing an important development checkpoint. [2]
Heating can also affect mouthfeel. In a study of whey protein beverages, mouthcoating, drying and chalkiness increased during repeated consumption, with greater intensities associated with longer heating in the tested systems. The researchers identified thermal denaturation as a contributing factor to mouthdrying. [3]
Compare promising candidates after a process that represents the intended production route, and document preparation and processing conditions. Assess aroma and texture alongside appearance and physical stability. Any proposed process change should be evaluated within the product’s validated production requirements.
Give each flavor intervention a defined job
Select a flavor direction that suits the product’s intended identity. Vanilla, cocoa or coffee can be useful candidates for trials, but their contribution should be tested in the actual base. Assess character, intensity and finish; increasing flavor dosage may change the product identity without resolving the original sensory gap.
T. Hasegawa’s public dairy resources describe milk and cream flavor profiles, as well as applications in dairy-free beverages. Its flavor-modulation materials discuss tailored approaches to bitterness, unwanted notes and mouthfeel, starting with the customer’s base formulation. [4] [5]
Turn these possibilities into a specific trial objective: reduce a persistent green note while keeping the vanilla character clear, for example. Compare the untreated base, the selected flavor and any proposed modulation approach. Record improvements and new sensations together, so that a cleaner aroma is not mistaken for a complete solution.
Evaluate creaminess and mouthdrying separately
Define what “creamy” means for the project. Record milk or cream character, body, smoothness and coating as separate attributes. A formulation can meet the aroma target while remaining too thin, too heavy or unpleasantly dry during drinking.
Increasing fat is not a universal remedy for protein-related drying. In an experimental study of whey protein beverages, the tested increases in fat did not significantly suppress perceived mouthdrying. Texture adjustments therefore need their own sensory confirmation in the finished formula. [6]
Evaluate aroma, taste and texture changes individually during screening, then check their combined effect. Include relevant physical measurements, such as viscosity or sedimentation observations, alongside sensory assessment. A viscosity result helps characterize flow; the panel must still judge smoothness, creaminess and finish.
Use a comparison that reflects real drinking
A focused screening plan helps the team decide what to change next:
Prepare a consistent base. Record protein grade, ingredient lot, concentration, hydration conditions and preparation order. Include an unflavored control and the agreed finished-product reference.
Give each variant a clear purpose. Separate protein-grade comparisons, flavor adjustments and texture changes where practical. Use a planned experimental design when interactions are the question.
Taste beyond the first sip. Use blind codes and consistent serving conditions. Record the first impression, the sensations after several sips and the lingering finish. Repeat the comparison with a balanced presentation order and adequate breaks.
Confirm the processed product. Recheck shortlisted candidates after representative processing, in the intended package and at relevant storage checkpoints. Assess sensory quality and the agreed physical specifications together.
Check acceptance with the intended audience. Use descriptive sensory work to diagnose differences, then assess promising candidates with target consumers. Look for a product people enjoy drinking through a serving, not just an attractive initial flavor.
Start with a brief that makes evaluation easier
Share the product category, protein source and concentration, flavor direction, processing route, packaging and main sensory concern. Reference samples and clear notes on when the problem appears make the next discussion more productive.
Developing a dairy or plant protein beverage for Türkiye or regional markets? Share your brief with Galbora to discuss flavor selection, sample evaluation priorities and the next steps for your project.
Sources
References apply to both language versions. Public web resources accessed 7 September 2026.
[1] Kew, B., et al. (2025). Unveiling plant protein astringency perception through neural and cellular responses. Scientific Reports, 15, 39184. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-23836-9 Primary experimental study of tactile responses to model plant protein formulations.
[2] Trikusuma, M., Paravisini, L., & Peterson, D. G. (2020). Identification of aroma compounds in pea protein UHT beverages. Food Chemistry, 312, 126082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2019.126082 Primary study of aroma changes during UHT processing and refrigerated storage.
[3] Bull, S. P., et al. (2017). Whey protein mouth drying influenced by thermal denaturation. Food Quality and Preference, 56, 233–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.03.008 Primary study of heated whey protein beverages and repeated consumption.
[4] T. Hasegawa USA. Dairy Flavor Concepts. https://www.thasegawa.com/flavors/dairy/ Public description of the company’s dairy flavor profiles and application areas.
[5] T. Hasegawa USA. Flavor Modulation. https://www.thasegawa.com/flavor-solutions/flavor-modulation/ Public description of the company’s formulation-specific flavor approach.
[6] Norton, V., et al. (2021). Investigating Methods to Mitigate Whey Protein Derived Mouthdrying. Foods, 10(9), 2066. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10092066 Primary experimental study; the beverage findings apply to the tested formulations.
The diagnostic prompts and screening plan are practical recommendations developed for this article. Published studies provide context; they do not establish performance for a particular commercial formula.
Comments