Plant Foods for Human Nutrition

, Volume 46, Issue 1, pp 71–76 | Cite as

Protein digestability of vegetables and field peas (Pisum sativum)

Varietal differences and effect of domestic processing and cooking methods
  • Saroj Bishnoi
  • Neellam Khetarpaul
Article

Abstract

Protein digestibility was found to be 60.4 to 66.5 percent in raw unprocessed seeds of different pea cultivars. Protein digestibility (in vitro) was improved by the common methods of domestic processing and cooking including soaking, dehulling, ordinary cooking, pressure cooking and sprouting of legume grains. Pressure cooking had more pronounced effect on protein digestibility followed by ordinary cooking, sprouting, soaking for 18 h and (12 h) and dehulling. Pressure cooking of soaked and dehulled seeds was noticed to give most improved protein digestibility.

Key words

Cooking methods Domestic processing Field peas Protein digestibility 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Savage GP, Deo S (1989) The nutritional value of peas: A literature review. Nutr Abst Rev (Series) 59: 66–83.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Akeson WE, Stahmann MA (1964) A pepsin pancreation digest index of protein quality evaluation. J Nutr 83: 257–259.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Singh U, Jambunathan R (1981) Studies on desi and kabuli chick pea cultivars: The levels of protease inhibitors, level of polyphenolic compounds and in vitro digestibility. J Food Sci 46: 1364–1367.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Panse YG, Sukhatme PV (1961) Statistical methods of agriculture workers, 2nd ed. New Delhi: Indian Council of Agricultural Research, pp. 12: 87.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Khokhar S (1985) Studies on nutrient composition and antinutritional factors of moth bean (Vigna aconitifolia). MSc Thesis. Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, India.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sharma A (1989) Effect of processing and cooking methods on nutrient composition and antinutritional factors of Bakla (Vicia faba). MSc Thesis. Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, India.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jood S, Chauhan BM, Kapoor AC (1987) Polyphenols in chick pea and black gram as affected by domestic processing and cooking methods. J Sci Food Agric 38: 145–149.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kataria A, Chauhan BM, Gandhi S (1988) Effect of domestic processing and cooking an antinutrients of black gram. Food Chem 30(2): 149–156.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Laurena AC, Garcia VV, Mendoza EMT (1987). Effect of heat on the removal of polyphenols and in vitro protein digestibility of cowpea (Vigna ungiuculata L.). Plant Foods Hum Nutr 37(2): 183–192.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shrivastava PP, Das H, Prasad S (1990) Effect of roasting process variables on in vitro protein digestibility of bengal gram, maize and soybean. Food Chem 35: 31–37.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kaur D (1986) Studies on nutrient composition and antinutritional factors of rice bean (Vigna umbellata). MSc Thesis. Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, India.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hamza MH (1983) Electrophoretic studies on seed protein of some Egyptian and German legume seeds. PhD Thesis. Faculty of Agriculture University of Alexandria.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yousef MM, Abd-El, Ael MH, Laila AES, Ziena HM (1987) Effect of dehulling, soaking and germination on chemical composition, mineral element and protein pattern of faba bean (Vicia faba L.). Food Chem 23: 129–138.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Saroj Bishnoi
    • 1
  • Neellam Khetarpaul
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Foods and NutritionHaryana Agricultural UniversityHisarIndia

Personalised recommendations