







































 
 
 

 

57 
 

Agriculture and Food Sciences Research 
Vol. 5, No. 2, 57-63, 2018 

ISSN(E) 2411-6653/ ISSN(P) 2518-0193 
DOI: 10.20448/journal.512.2018.52.57.63 

 

 
 
Comparative Evaluation of the Nutritional, Physical and Sensory Properties of Beef, 
Chicken and Soy Burgers 

 
ADENIYI Paulina O.1    

OBATOLU Veronica A.2      

KEHINDE Hammed A.3     

 
 
1,2Institute of Agricultural Research and Training, Obafemi Awolowo University, Moor Plantation, Apata, Ibadan, Nigeria 

 
3Federal College of Agriculture, Moor Plantation, Apata, Ibadan, Nigeria 
 
( Corresponding Author) 

 
Abstract 

The sporadic technological advancement witnessed worldwide since the beginning of the twenty first 
century has encouraged civilization and urbanization culminating into changes in lifestyle from active to 
sedentary globally. People now prefer instant foods and eating out in different food service units to home 
cooked meals. Burger is a special delicacy which is seldom prepared at home but commonly purchased from 
restaurants. The need to encourage human consumption of soybean cannot be over emphasized due to the 
unrivalled nutritional and health benefits derivable from it especially in combating some communicable 
diseases, the epidemic of which is becoming alarming globally, hence, harnessing soybean potentials in the 
production of burger is of pertinent importance. This experimental study was therefore designed to 
compare the nutritional, physical and sensory properties of soy burger with those of the conventional beef 
and chicken burgers. Soy cheese was prepared from soybeans using appropriate culinary procedure. Equal 
portions of minced beef, minced chicken and soy cheese were processed into burgers using basic recipe. Beef, 
chicken and soy burgers were subjected to proximate, thiamine, riboflavin, cholesterol, colour, texture and 
sensory evaluation using standard methods. Mean data were compared using Analysis of Variance at 
p≤0.05. Protein content (Dry Weight Basis) for Beef burger (BB), Chicken Burger (CB) and Soy Burger 
(SB) were 57.87, 50.36 and 53.89% respectively. In similar sequence fat content were 10.02(BB) 10.15(CB) 
and 8.58 (SB). SB was significantly higher than the other two samples in crude fibre, riboflavin and niacin 
while its cholesterol content was negligible. There was no significant difference between SB and CB in 
lightness and redness while the values for yellowness were 10.60, 25.12 and 18.25 for BB, CB AND SB 
respectively. In the same vein there was no significant difference in chewiness, cohesiveness and springiness 
of the three burger samples. For overall acceptability BB was most acceptable followed by SB and then CB. 
The nutritional, physical and sensory properties of soy burger were comparable to that of beef and chicken 
burgers, hence, soy burger may compete favourably with the conventional types of burger and is hereby 
presented as a cholesterol-free alternative with higher health benefits suitable for all even vegans. 
Household and commercial production and consumption of soy burger is hereby recommended. 

 
Keywords: Beef burger, Chicken burger, Soy burger. 

 
Citation | ADENIYI Paulina O.; OBATOLU Veronica A.; 
KEHINDE Hammed A. (2018). Comparative Evaluation of the 
Nutritional, Physical and Sensory Properties of Beef, Chicken and 
Soy Burgers. Agriculture and Food Sciences Research, 5(2): 57-63. 
History:  
Received: 23 April 2018 
Revised: 9 May 2018 
Accepted: 14 May 2018 
Published: 16 May 2018 
Licensed: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons 

Attribution 3.0 License  
Publisher:  Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 
 

Contribution/Acknowledgement: Both authors contributed to the 
conception and design of the study. 
Funding: This study received no specific financial support. 
Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of 
interests. 
Transparency: The authors confirm that the manuscript is an honest, 
accurate, and transparent account of the study was reported; that no vital 
features of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the 
study as planned have been explained. 
Ethical: This study follows all ethical practices during writing.   

 

 

Contents 
1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 58 
2. Methodology ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 58 
3. Result .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 60 
4. Discussion .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 61 
5. Conclusion and Recommendation ................................................................................................................................................ 62 
References .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 62 
 

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.20448/journal.512.2018.52.57.63&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2017-01-14
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
https://orcid.org/orcid-search/quick-search?searchQuery=ADENIYI%20Paulina%20O.
https://orcid.org/orcid-search/quick-search?searchQuery=OBATOLU%20Veronica%20A.
https://orcid.org/orcid-search/quick-search?searchQuery=KEHINDE%20Hammed%20A.


Agriculture and Food Sciences Research, 2018, 5(2): 57-63 

58 
 

 

1. Introduction 
The pros and cons of any concept commonly go hand in hand. If the pros outweigh the cons the concept may be 

considered desirable and helpful. The same is witnessed in the sporadic technological advancement which was 
being experienced since the beginning of the twenty first century. The affirmation of the very rapid advancement in 
technology in the 21st century has been reported [1]. It has enhanced good security while concomitantly 
threatening adequate security globally [1]. It has encouraged sedentary lifestyle which has increased the epidemic 
of some non communicable diseases which may be fondly referred to as ‘diseases of comfort’ the overall causes of 
death by the 22nd century [2]. Sedentary lifestyle predisposes an individual to chronic diseases such as cancer, 
cardiovascular disease, Type 2 diabetes mellitus and osteoporosis and may be regarded as ‘civilization diseases [3]. 
It is therefore imperative that feasible measures should be designed and actualized to cushion the adverse effect of 
technological advancement and civilization on human health and development. One of such measures is to influence 
food choices and habit towards the consumption of adequately healthy foods which are naturally endowed to 
combat or prevent these civilization diseases or diseases of comfort. 

Soybean is of unrivalled nutritional and health benefits. It is the only plant source of complete protein and 
competes favourably with animal protein [4]. The ability of soybean consumption to prevent heart disease, breast 
cancer, prostate cancer and osteoporosis has been well affirmed by both old and recent scientific reports [5-9].  All 
these ascertained the ability of soybean in preventing the so called civilization diseases or diseases of comfort; 
hence, it is of pertinent importance to encourage the consumption of soybean globally. 

Burger, the origin of which is traceable to Germany and America, is now a special delicacy of international 
acceptance and reception, that is, it is now commonly consumed and enjoyed by people all over the world. 
Harnessing the global acceptability of burger in encouraging the consumption of soybean is therefore a thoughtful, 
feasible and viable approach in combating the alarming epidemic of civilization diseases. Burger is commonly 
prepared with minced beef or chicken but other meat sources such as turkey, ostrich, deer, buffalo, sheep, etc may 
be used [10]. A burger is a sandwich of cooked patties of minced meat, usually beef, inside a sliced bread roll or 
burger bun and may be accompanied with cheese, lettuce, onion, tomato, bacon and pickles while condiment such as 
mayonnaise, mustard, ketchup, barbecue sauce may be added. The meat patty may be cooked by pan roasting, pan 
frying, grilling or flame broiling [10]. Meat-like product has been produced from Tofu (Soy cheese) using food 
extruder [11] a food processing invention which may be expensive and may not be affordable for household and 
small/medium scale commercial production and consumption. Preparation of burger from soybean using Tofu is an 
approach of producing meat-like product from soybean, the process of which is simple, affordable and easily 
accessible, hence, this study was designed to compare the nutritional, physical and sensory properties of soy burger 
with that of the conventional beef and chicken burgers with the view of producing soy burger that can compete 
favorably with beef and chicken burgers in these parameters so as to encourage the consumption of the wonder 
bean towards alleviating the incidence of civilization diseases globally. 
 

2. Methodology 
2.1. Collection of Materials 

Soybeans (TGX-1740) were collected from the seed store of the Institute of Agricultural Research and 
Training, Obafemi Awolowo University, Apata, Ibadan, Nigeria. Minced beef and chicken were purchased from 
Shoprite supermarket, Palm Mall, Ring Road, Ibadan. Breadcrumbs was prepared from oven dried sliced bread (My 
Joy, Ibadan, Nigeria). Other ingredients were purchased from local market in Apata, Ibadan. 
 

2.2. Preparation of Soy Cheese 
Soybeans were cleaned manually and soaked in water for16hours at ambient temperature after which the water 

was decanted and the beans were washed with clean water. This was then allowed to simmer in water for 5 
minutes. The hot water was drained off and the beans were wet-milled using plate attrition mill (Amuda Plate Mill, 
India). The paste was diluted with water and sieved using cheese cloth. The extract (soymilk) was allowed to boil 
and while still boiling sour steep water was added in ration 7:1 (v/v) for soymilk: steep water. The curd separated 
immediately and further boiling for 30 minutes was done after which this was poured in a cheese cloth and allowed 
to drain with a heavy load placed on it.  
 
2.3. Preparation of Burger Samples 
The three burger samples were prepared using basic recipe. Ingredients used are expressed in Table 1.  

 
Table-1. Basic ingredients for the preparation of beef, chicken and soy burgers 

Ingredients Beef Burger Chicken Burger Soy Burger 

Meat Minced beef (500g) Minced chicken(500g) Soy cheese (500g) 
Wheat flour 50g 50g 50g 
Bread crumbs 50g 50g 50g 
Bouillon cube (Knorr) 1 cube 1 cube 1 cube 
Bell pepper and onion paste 20ml 20ml 20ml 
Salt 2g 2g 2g 
Margarine (for greasing tray) 5g 5g 5g 

    Source: Aidells [10] 

 
Ingredients were gently mixed together and divided into small portions which were shaped into flat forms of 

about 1.5cm thickness. These were placed in greased aluminium trays and positioned under the grill and allowed to 
grill for 20 minutes for each side to give the three burger samples. These were the subjected to protein, fat, ash, 
fiber, carbohydrate, thiamine, riboflavin, niacin, cholesterol, color, texture and sensory evaluation. 

 
 



Agriculture and Food Sciences Research, 2018, 5(2): 57-63 

59 
 

 

2.4. Moisture Content Determination 
This was determined using the air oven method [12]. A known weight of the sample (3g) was put in a washed, 

dried and cooled crucible and this was dried at 103oC until a constant weight was obtained. This was allowed to 
cool in a desiccator and the difference in weight was used to calculate the moisture content. 
 

2.5. Protein Content Determination 
The crude protein content was determined using the micro Kjeldahl method as described by Kirk and Sawyer 

[12]. A tablet of Kjeldahl catalyst was added to a known weight of the sample (0.2077g) in a long necked Kjedahl 
flask. This was heated in a fume cupboard with 25cm3 of concentrated H2SO4 until a clear solution was obtained. 
This was cooled, poured into a 10cm3 volumetric flask and made up to mark with distilled water after which 10ml 
of this was measured into a distillation set. 5cm3 of boric acid was pipette into a 100ml conical flask and placed at 
the receiving end of the distillation unit with the delivery tube completely dipped into the flask. 40% NaOH was 
used to liberate ammonia out of the digest into the boric acid under alkaline condition and this was titrated against 
0.1N HCl until the first permanent color change was observed. Blank sample was run through the procedure and 
the titer value was used to correct the titer value for the test samples. The protein content was calculated thus: 
%N =   Molarity of HCl x (sample titre- blank titre) x0.014 x DF x100  
                         Weight of sample 
%N was converted to the percentage crude protein by multiplying by 6.25 

 
2.6. Crude Fat Content Determination 

The fat content was determined using Soxhlets extraction method as described by Kirk and Sawyer [12]. A 
known weight of the sample (2g) was put into a weighed filter paper and folded neatly. This was put inside a pre-
weighed thimble (W1). The thimble with the sample (W2) was inserted into the soxhlets apparatus and extraction 
was carried out under reflux with petroleum ether (40oC – 60oC boiling range) or 6 hours. At the end of the 
extraction, the thimble was dried in the oven for about for about 30 minutes at 100oC to evaporate the solvent and 
thimble was cooled in a desiccator and later weighed (W3). Crude fat content of the sample was calculated thus: 
% Fat = Loss in weight of sample x 100       =     W2 – W3  x 100 
                Original weight of the sample               W2 – W1          
 

2.7. Ash Content Determination 
The ash content denotes the total amount of minerals present in the products. This was determined using the 

method as described by Kirk and Sawyer [12]. A known weight (1.5g) of finely ground sample was weighed into 
clean and dry previously weighed crucible with lid (W1). The sample was ignited over a low flame to char the 
organic matter with lid removed. The crucible was then placed in muffle furnace at 600oC for 6 hours until it was 
turned to ash completely. This was then transferred directly to desiccators to cool and was later weighed (W2). 
                 % Ash   =    W2 – W1   x 100 
                                    Weight of sample    
 

2.8. Crude Fibre Determination 
The crude fibre was determined using the method as described by Kirk and Sawyer [12]. Two hundred 

milliliters (200ml) of freshly prepared 1.25%H2SO4 was added to a known weight (3g) of the residue obtained from 
fat extraction and this was boiled for 30 minutes and then filtered after which the residue was washed until it was 
free from acid. The residue was transferred quantitatively into a digestion flask and 1.25%NaOH was added after 
which this was boiled for 30 minutes. This was followed by filtration and the residue was then washed with 
methylated spirit and then petroleum ether to be free of alkali. This was then allowed to drain and the residue was 
transferred to a silica dish (previously ignited at 600oC and cooled). The dish and its content were dried to constant 
weight at 105oC. The organic matter of the residue was burnt by igniting for 30 minutes in a muffle furnace at 
600oC). The residue was cooled and weighed while the loss on ignition was reported as crude fibre. 
 

2.9. Carbohydrate Content Determination 
This was calculated by difference of all other nutrients from 100. 

 

2.10. Thiamine, Riboflavin and Niacin determination 
These B vitamins content were determined using the method as described Kirk and Sawyer [12]. 

 

2.11. Thiamine Determination 
Method as described by Kirk and Sawyer [12] was used  Fifty milliliters (50ml) of 50% methanol and 50ml 0f 

17% sodium carbonate was added to 1g of the sample in order to extract the vitamin. This was then filtered after 
which Folins-Denis reagent was added. This was allowed to cool until a bluish color was developed and absorbance 
was read in a spectrophotometer at 415nm. A standard curve was prepared using the data obtained with Tannic 
acid in place of the sample and the values for the sample were extrapolated from this curve. 
 

2.12. Riboflavin Determination 
The method as described by Kirk and Sawyer [12] was used. To 0.5g of the sample 30ml of Dichloroethane 

and 30ml of 30% HCl were added. This was followed by the addition of 50ml of ammonium hydroxide solution 
after which filtration was carried out and later the absorbance was read at 415nm. A standard curve was 
constructed using the data obtained from the use of standard Riboflavin in place of the sample and the curve was 
used to extrapolate the values for the samples. 
 
 



Agriculture and Food Sciences Research, 2018, 5(2): 57-63 

60 
 

 

2.13. Niacin Determination 
Method as described by Kirk and Sawyer [12] was used. Niacin was extracted by autoclaving the sample (1g) 

with 0.75g calcium hydroxide and 20ml deionised water at 121oC for 30 minutes. The mixture was diluted with 30 
ml of water, mixed thoroughly and allowed to cool after which it was centrifuged at 0oC and 2500 rpm for 15 
minutes. A 15ml sample of the supernatant was adjusted to pH 7 with aqueous oxalic acid. The resulting 
suspension was centrifuged at 2500 rpm for 10 minutes to precipitate the calcium oxalate and the absorbance was 
measured at 650nm. A standard curve was constructed using the absorbance readings obtained from the reference 
niacin solutions in place of the sample and this was used to extrapolate the niacin content of the samples. 
 

2.14. Cholesterol Determination 
This was carried out using the Liebermann-Burchard reaction as described by Kirk and Sawyer [12]. A small 

quantity of the sample was added to 1ml of chloroform and this was stirred with magnetic stirrer. A combination of 
40ml acetic anhydride and 2ml conc. H2SO4 was added. This was later poured into distilled water and a green 
coloration was observed the absorbance of which was read with a spectrophotometer at 640nm. The concentration 
was extrapolated from a calibration curve. 
 

2.15. Color Analysis 
The intensity of the color in the samples (Lightness-L, Redness-a, and Yellowness-b) was determined using a 

colorimeter (Chroma meter CR-410, Japan). The samples were set in the sensor and the value was read from the 
reader. 

 
2.16. Texture Analysis 

Cylindrical samples of 10mm diameter and 12mm height were cut from the burger samples. The texture 
properties of the samples were determined using a texture analyzer (TexVol TVT 300 PH, Sweden). The texture 
parameters determined were: hardness, chewiness, cohesiveness and stringiness.. 
 

2.17. Sensory Evaluation 
Burger samples were subjected to sensory evaluation with a total of 20 trained taste panelists using a 7 point 

hedonic scale with 1 denoting ‘dislike extremely’ and 7 denoting ‘like extremely’. The following sensory properties 
were evaluated: texture, appearance, aroma, taste and overall acceptability. 
 

3. Result 
Data are expressed in mean± standard deviation. 

 
Table-2. Proximate composition of beef, chicken and soy burgers in Dry Weight Basis (DWB) 

Samples Protein (%) Fat (%) Ash (%) Crude fiber (%) Carbohydrate (%) 

BB 57.87a± 0.15 10.02a±0.15 5.11a±0.10 1.29c±0.58 25.71c±1.10 
CB 50.36c± 1.25 10.15a±2.03 5.04a±0.15 1.80b±0.22 32.65a±0.25 
SB 53.89b± 0.20 8.58b± 1.15 4.27b±0.21 2.88a±0.10 30.38b±0.36 

          Note: Data in the same column with different alphabets are significantly different (p≤0.05); BB-Beef Burger; CB- Chicken Burger; SB- Soy Burger. 

 
BB was highest in protein content followed by SB and then CB. Soy burger was least in ash and fat content but 

contained the highest quantity of crude fibre. 
 

Table-3. Vitamin and cholesterol composition of beef, chicken and soy burgers in DWB (mg/100g) 

Samples Thiamine Riboflavin Niacin Cholesterol 

BB 0.98a±0.02 0.51b±0.05 1.04a±0.06 2.99b±0.15 
CB 0.75b±0.15 0.33c±0.03 0.57c±0.10 3.58a±0.21 
SB 0.13c±0.01 0.96a±0.06 0.85b±0.05 0.03c±0.01 

             Note: Data in the same column with different alphabets are significantly different (p≤0.05); BB-Beef Burger; CB- Chicken Burger; SB- Soy Burger 

 
Thiamine, riboflavin and niacin content of the three burger samples are significantly different. Soy burger was 

highest in riboflavin and niacin content but contained the least quantity of thiamine. The cholesterol content of soy 
burger was negligible compared to that of beef and chicken burgers. 
 

Table-4. Colour properties of beef, chicken and soy burgers. 

Samples L (Lightness) a (redness) b (yellowness) 

BB 48.31b±0.39 18.45a±0.12 10.60c±0.80 
CB 51.28a±1.28 10.58b±2.13 25.12a±0.59 
SB 50.09a±1.34 9.54b±1.35 18.25b±0.34 

             Note: Data in the same column with different alphabets are significantly different(p≤0.05); BB-Beef Burger; CB- Chicken Burger; SB- Soy Burger 

 
Soy burger was not significantly different from chicken burger in lightness and redness while for yellowness 

beef burger had the least value followed by soy burger and then chicken burger. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 



Agriculture and Food Sciences Research, 2018, 5(2): 57-63 

61 
 

 

Table-5. Texture properties of beef, chicken and soy burgers 

Parameter BB CB SB 

Hardness (N) 16.54a±0.64 17.71b±1.21 15.40c±1.14 
Chewiness (N.mm) 7.80a±1.21 7.12a±0.20 7.24a±0.68 
Cohesiveness 0.66a±1.23 0.62a±0.12 0.65a±0.24 
Springiness (mm) 0.81a±1.42 0.78a±0.45 0.72ab±0.25 

              Note: Data in the same row with different alphabets are significantly different (p≤0.05); BB-Beef Burger; CB- Chicken Burger; SB- Soy Burger 

 
The three burger samples were not significantly different in chewiness, cohesiveness and but differed 

significantly in hardness and springiness. 
  

Table-6. Scores for the sensory properties of beef, chicken and soy burgers 

Samples Texture Appearance Aroma Taste Overall acceptability 

BB 6.43a±0.58 6.77a±0.06 6.80a±0.10 6.97a±0.06 6.90a±0.10 
CB 5.60b±0.10 6.87a±0.12 6.10b±023 4.50c±0.10 5.07b±0.12 
SB 6.07a±0.12 6.43a±0.06 6.15b±0.28 6.67b±0.12 6.37a±0.15 

     Note: Data in the same column with different alphabets are significantly different (p≤0.05); BB-Beef Burger; CB- Chicken Burger; SB- Soy Burger 

 
Soy burger was not significantly different from beef burger in texture and overall acceptability. In the same 

vein, soy burger was comparable to chicken burger in aroma while there existed no significant difference the 
appearance of the three burger samples. 
 

4. Discussion 
Soy burger was significantly higher in protein content than chicken burger while beef burger had the highest 

value (Table 2). Since same ingredients were used in preparing the burgers, except the meat or meat alternative 
sources, the difference in composition may be attributed to the meat sources. Raw lean beef was observed to contain 
30.61% protein and 3.49% fat at 64.8% moisture which translates to 86.93% protein and 9.91% fat in dry weight 
basis [13]. In the same vein, lean chicken meat of the breast and thigh contained an average of 21.1% protein at 
71.1% moisture content and this translates to 73.1% crude protein in dry weight basis [14]. Soy bean on the other 
hand contained an average of 48.5% protein in high protein seeds and 41.5% in normal protein seeds at 15% 
moisture content thus translating to 57.05% protein in high protein seeds and 48.82% in normal protein seeds 
[15]. It can therefore be inferred from these that in dry weight basis the protein content of lean beef, chicken and 
soybean are 86.96, 73.01 and 57.05% respectively.  

However, in this study chicken burger had the least protein content while the highest value was observed in 
beef burger. This implies that tofu (soy cheese) is a rich in protein and this has been ascertained by past study [16] 
coupled with the fact that the soybean variety used in this study was of exceptionally high protein content. This 
may not be surprising since it is an improved variety. This may also be as a result of the lower protein content of 
the minced chicken used which may be traceable to genetic, dietary and other environmental factors. Soy burger 
contained the least quantity of fat and ash while there were no significant differences in values for beef burger and 
chicken burger. The lower fat content of soy burger may be expected since this ultimately gave allowance for the 
high protein content as earlier discussed.  

Soy burger was significantly higher than both beef and chicken burgers in crude fibre. This is quite expected 
since it is from plant source compared with the other two  conventional burgers which are animal-based foods. 
Chicken burger contained the highest quantity of carbohydrate followed by soy burger and then beef burger. The 
major common sources of carbohydrate in the burgers produced are wheat flour and bread crumbs. The proximate 
composition of beef burger observed in this study was in disparity with that of Carvalho, et al. [17] who reported a 
protein, fat, ash and carbohydrate content of 40.23, 42.50, 8.94 and 8.23% respectively in dry weight basis. This 
may be as a result of variation in ingredients used. Similarly, chicken burger was observed to contain in dry weight 
basis 29.91% protein, 52.61% fat and 7.48% ash [18]. The lower protein and higher fat content of this compared 
with that of the chicken burger observed in this study may be as a result of differences in the ingredients used. 

Beef burger was highest in thiamine followed by chicken burger while soy burger was too low in this vitamin 
(Table 3). On the other hand soy burger was significantly higher than beef and chicken burgers in riboflavin while 
the highest niacin content was observed in beef burger with chicken burger having the least value (Table 3). The 
cholesterol content of soy burger was negligible compared with that of beef and chicken burgers. The differences in 
these nutritional composition, as earlier stated, was mainly attributed to the difference meat or meat alternative 
used since all other ingredients used were the same in type and quantity. Beef was reported to contain 1.2mg/100g 
thiamine, 1.3mg/100g riboflavin and 16mg/100g niacin [19] chicken meat contained 0.09mg/100 thiamine, 
0.16mg/100g riboflavin and 7mg/100g niacin [20].  

The thiamine, riboflavin and niacin content of soybean were; 0.66, 0.22 and 2mg/100g respectively [20]. 
Judging from these data, beef burger should contain the highest quantity of these vitamins followed by soy burger 
while chicken burger is expected to be higher in niacin than soy burger. However, the result observed in this study 
showed that beef burger contained highest quantity of thiamine and niacin only. This may be as a result of 
variation in the diet of the cattle used. Unexpectedly, chicken burger was higher than soy burger in thiamine 
though the frmer contained the least quantity of riboflavin ad niacin as expected. The unexpectedly low thiamine 
content of soy burger may be as a result of loss of this vitamin with ‘whey’ water that was drained from the bean 
curds to obtain soy cheese.  

For color analysis soy burger was not significantly different from chicken burger in lightness and redness. Beef 
burger had the highest value for redness (Table 4) and least values for lightness and yellowness. This may be as a 
result of the higher myoglobin constituent of beef compared with chicken [21] and which is absent in soybean. 
This myoglobin commonly coverts to red oxymyoglobin on exposure to air and when cooked it is converted to 
brown metmyoglobin.  



Agriculture and Food Sciences Research, 2018, 5(2): 57-63 

62 
 

 

The color properties of beef burger observed in this study were different from that of past scientific report. 
Carvalho, et al. [17] observed the lightness, redness and yellowness values for beef burger to be 44.7, 3.3 and 10.6 
respectively. In the same vein, Bestos, et al. [22] observed beef burger to have the following values for lightness, 
redness and yellowness respectively; 32.09, 5.70 and 4.46. The disparity of these from the observation in this study 
may be as a result of differences in ingredients used since only basic ingredients were used in this study in order to 
minimize the influence of confounding variables. Variation in color analyzer used may also be responsible for this. 
On the other hand, the color properties of chicken burger in this study were in close proximity with that observed 
by Uran and Yilmaz [18] who reported values for lightness, redness and yellowness of chicken burger to be 50.29, 
9.07 and 22.12 respectively. Similarity in materials and method used as well as the colour analyzer may be 
responsible for this. 

All the three burger samples were similar in chewiness and cohesiveness (Table 5). For chewiness, beef burger 
had the highest value followed by soy burger and then chicken burger while for cohesiveness followed similar 
trend. The three burgers produced were significantly different in hardness with chicken burger having the highest 
value followed by beef burger and then soy burger.  

Springiness, which is the ability of the sample to resume its original shape when deforming force is exerted and 
removed, was observed to be highest in beef burger and least in soy burger. There existed no significant difference 
between beef burger and soy burger in this texture parameter. In overall, soy burger was comparable to beef and 
chicken burgers in texture parameters since there were close proximity of values even where significant difference 
existed. Texture parameters from past findings are comparable to that observed in this study. Carvalho, et al. [17] 
reported beef burger with hardness, chewiness, cohesiveness and springiness to be 15.38, 8.23, 0.69 and 0.78 
respectively while in this study these parameters were 17.51, 6.58, 0.65 and 0.57 (Table 5). The close proximity of 
the values observed in this study with that of the past study could be as a resultant effect of similarity in the 
methods used in the preparation of the beef burgers. 

For evaluation of sensory properties, the three burger samples did not differ significantly in appearance and 
were judged to be equally liked. For texture there was similarity in the likeness of beef and soy burgers and these 
were more preferred to chicken burger. The aroma of the three burger samples were liked but beef burger was 
most preferred while there existed no significant difference in chicken and soy burgers. The taste of beef and soy 
burgers were more preferred than that of chicken burger. In overall evaluation, beef and soy burgers were equally 
acceptable and more preferred to chicken burger. These show that soy burger can compete favorably in sensory 
properties with beef and chicken burgers 
 

5. Conclusion and Recommendation 
Soy burger is comparable to beef and chicken burgers in proximate composition and texture properties. It is 

higher in riboflavin and niacin than the two conventional burgers types with negligible cholesterol content. 
Furthermore soy burger is similar to chicken burger in color attributes. It is more preferred than chicken burger in 
taste, texture and overall acceptability and is at par with beef burger in overall acceptability. Soy burger can 
therefore compete favorably with beef and chicken burgers, hence, may be presented as a cholesterol-free healthier 
alternative suitable for all, even strict vegetarians. Household and commercial production and consumption is 
hereby encouraged. 
 

References 
[1] A. Mallik, "Technology and security in the 21st century, a demen-side perspective in SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace 

Research Institute)," Research Report, No 20, Oxford University Press, New York, 2004. 
[2] B. C. K. Choi, D. J. Hunter, W. Tsou, and P. Sainsbury, "Diseases of comfort: Primary cause of death in the 22nd century," Journal 

of Epidemiology and Community Health, vol. 59, pp. 1030-1034, 2005. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher 
[3] J. Kruk, "Health and economic costs of physical inactivity," Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention, vol. 15, pp. 7499-7503, 2014. 

View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher 
[4] N. Daniel, "A review on replacing fish meal in aqua feeds using plant protein sources," International Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Studies, vol. 6, pp. 164-179, 2018. View at Google Scholar   
[5] S. Barnes, "Evolution of the health benefits of soy isoflavones," Experimental Biology and Medicine, vol. 217, pp. 386-396, 1998. View 

at Google Scholar | View at Publisher 
[6] M. J. Messina, "Legumes and soybeans: Overview of their nutritional profiles and health effects," American Journal of Clinical 

Nutrition, vol. 70, pp. 439s-450s, 1999. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher 
[7] M. Friedman and D. L. Brandon, "Nutritional and health benefits of soy proteins," Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, vol. 

49, pp. 1069-1086, 2001. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher 
[8] C. R. D’Adamo and A. Sahin, "Soy foods and supplementation: A review of commonly perceived health benefits and risks," 

Alternative Therapy in Health and Medicine, vol. 20, pp. 39-51, 2014.  
[9] M. Messina, "Soy and health update: Evaluation f the clinical and epidemiologic literature," Nutrients, vol. 8, pp. 754, 2016. View at 

Google Scholar | View at Publisher 
[10] B. Aidells, The great meat cook book: Everything you need to know to buy and cook today’s meat. Ed: Rano A.M. New York: Houghton 

Harcourt Publishing Company, 2012. 
[11] Y. Akiyam, S. Yoshihushi, and I. Sakauchi, Processing tofu intomea-like texture. Japan: US4880659A, 1985. 
[12] R. S. Kirk and R. Sawyer, Pearson’s composition and analyses of foods, 9th ed. Longman: United Kingdom, 2005. 
[13] A. Rodaz-Gonzalez, I. L. Larsen, B. Uttaro, M. Juarez, J. Parslow, and J. L. Alhus, "Determination of optimum oven cooking 

procedures for lean beef products," Food Science and Nutrition, vol. 3, pp. 475-485, 2015. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher 
[14] I. Giannenas, A. Tzora, E. Bonos, I. Sarakatslanos, A. Karamoutslos, F. Anastaslou, and L. Skoufos, "Effects of dietary oregano 

essential oil, laurel essential oil and attapulgite on chemical composition, oxidative stability, fatty acid profile and mineral content 
of chicken breast and thigh meat," European Poultry Science, vol. 80, pp. 1-18, 2006. View at Google Scholar   

[15] E. Y. Hwang, Q. Song, G. Jia, J. E. Specht, D. L. Hyten, J. Costa, and P. B. Cregan, "A genome-wide association study of seed 
protein and oil content of soybean," BioMed Central Genomics, vol. 15, p. 1, 2014. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher 

[16] K. Anbarasu and G. Vijayalakshmi, "Improved shelf life of protein-rich tofu using Ocimum sanctum (tulsi) extracts to benefit 
Indian rural population," Journal of Food Science, vol. 72, pp. M300-M305, 2007. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher 

[17] G. R. Carvalho, T. M. G. Milam, N. R. R. Trinca, L. Y. Nagai, and A. C. S. Barretto, "Textures soy protein, collagen and 
maltodextrin as extenders to improve the physicochemical and sensory properties of beef burger," Food Science and Technology, vol. 
37, pp. 10-16, 2017. View at Google Scholar   

[18] H. Uran and I. Yilmaz, "A research on determination of quality characteristics of chicken burgers produced with transglutaminase 
supplementation," Food Science and Technology, (AHEAD), pp. 0-0, 2017. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher 

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Diseases%20of%20comfort:%20Primary%20cause%20of%20death%20in%20the%2022nd%20century
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jech.2005.032805
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Health%20and%20economic%20costs%20of%20physical%20inactivity
http://dx.doi.org/10.7314/apjcp.2014.15.18.7499
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=A%20review%20on%20replacing%20fish%20meal%20in%20aqua%20feeds%20using%20plant%20protein%20sources
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Evolution%20of%20the%20health%20benefits%20of%20soy%20isoflavones
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Evolution%20of%20the%20health%20benefits%20of%20soy%20isoflavones
http://dx.doi.org/10.3181/00379727-217-44249
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Legumes%20and%20soybeans:%20Overview%20of%20their%20nutritional%20profiles%20and%20health%20effects
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/70.3.439s
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Nutritional%20and%20health%20benefits%20of%20soy%20proteins
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/jf0009246
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Soy%20and%20health%20update:%20Evaluation%20f%20the%20clinical%20and%20epidemiologic%20literature
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Soy%20and%20health%20update:%20Evaluation%20f%20the%20clinical%20and%20epidemiologic%20literature
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu8120754
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Determination%20of%20optimum%20oven%20cooking%20procedures%20for%20lean%20beef%20products
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.229
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Effects%20of%20dietary%20oregano%20essential%20oil,%20laurel%20essential%20oil%20and%20attapulgite%20on%20chemical%20composition,%20oxidative%20stability,%20fatty%20acid%20profile%20and%20mineral%20content%20of%20chicken%20breast%20and%20thigh%20meat
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=A%20genome-wide%20association%20study%20of%20seed%20protein%20and%20oil%20content%20of%20soybean
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-15-1
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Improved%20shelf%20life%20of%20protein-rich%20tofu%20using%20Ocimum%20sanctum%20(tulsi)%20extracts%20to%20benefit%20Indian%20rural%20population
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2007.00487.x
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Textures%20soy%20protein,%20collagen%20and%20maltodextrin%20as%20extenders%20to%20improve%20the%20physicochemical%20and%20sensory%20properties%20of%20beef%20burger
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=A%20research%20on%20determination%20of%20quality%20characteristics%20of%20chicken%20burgers%20produced%20with%20transglutaminase%20supplementation
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1678-457x.33816


Agriculture and Food Sciences Research, 2018, 5(2): 57-63 

63 
 

 

[19] P. Williams, "Nutritional composition of red meat," Nutrition and Dietetics, vol. 64, pp. S113-S119, 2007. View at Google Scholar | View at 

Publisher 
[20] R. A. Sanusi, I. O. Akinyele, H. N. Ene-Obong, and V. N. Enujiugha, Nigerian food composition table. Nigeria: Straight-Gate 

Publishers, 2017. 
[21] K. H. Bak, T. Bolamar, A. H. Karlsson, G. Lindahl, and V. Orlien, "Effect of high pressure treatment on the colour of fresh and 

processed meats: A review," Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, pp. 1-25, 2017. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher 
[22] S. C. Bestos, M. E. S. Pimenta, C. J. Pimenta, T. A. Reis, C. A. Nunes, P. A.C.M., L. F. F. Fabricio, and R. S. Leal, "Alternative fat 

substitute for beef burger: Technological and sensory characteristics," Journal of Food Science and Technology, vol. 51, pp. 2046-
2053, 2014. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

Asian Online Journal Publishing Group is not responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability, etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content. 
Any queries should be directed to the corresponding author of the article. 
 

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Nutritional%20composition%20of%20red%20meat
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-0080.2007.00197.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-0080.2007.00197.x
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Effect%20of%20high%20pressure%20treatment%20on%20the%20colour%20of%20fresh%20and%20processed%20meats:%20A%20review
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2017.1363712
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Alternative%20fat%20substitute%20for%20beef%20burger:%20Technological%20and%20sensory%20characteristics
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13197-013-1233-2

