Advertisement

Content and Quality of Protein in Proso Millet (Panicum miliaceum L.) Varieties

  • Jana Kalinova
  • Jan Moudry
Article

Abstract.

Proso millet belongs to the oldest cereals that human is using. Eight varieties of proso millet were cultivated in Ceske Budejovice from1998 to 2000 and Cerveny Dvur from 1999 to 2000. The crude protein content was determined according to Kjehladl method and amino acid content was determined chromatographically after acid and oxidative acid hydrolysis. Although the protein content of proso (11.6% of dry matter) was similar to wheat, the grain of proso was significant richer in essential amino acids (leucine, isoleucine, methionine) then wheat. Hence, the protein quality of proso (Essential Amino Acid Index) was higher (51%) compared to wheat. The proso grain contained about 3.3 g kg−1 of the limiting amino acid-lysine. Significant differences in protein and its quality were found among the evaluated proso varieties. The varieties Toldanskoe and Lipetskoe were the most different from the others in protein and amino acid content and Amino Acid Score of individual acids. They had the lowest content and quality of protein. The seed coat of these varieties was red. The amino acid and protein content was significantly influenced by weather during the year. Dry conditions caused an increase of protein but its quality was decreased.

Key words:

Amino acids Nutrition value Panicum miliaceum L. Proso Protein Wheat 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by grant of the Ministry of Education of the Czech republic MSM: 6007665806.

References

  1. 1.
    Seetharam G (1999) Small millet research. Indian J Agric Sci 68: 431–438.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Petr J (1995) Pěstování pohanky a prosa. Metodiky pro zavádění výsledků výzkumu do praxe. ÚZPI, Praha 7: 35Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Becker HG (1994) Buchweizen, Dinkel, Gerste,Hafer, Hirse und Reis- die Schäl- und Spelzgetreide und ihre Bedeutung für die Ernährung. AID-Verbrauchrdienst 39(6): 123–130.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dendy DAV (1995) Sorghum and Millets: Chemistry and Technology. St. Paul, Minnesota: American Association of Cereal Chemists, p 406.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kumari KS, Thayumanavan B (1998) Characterisation of starches of proso, foxtail, barnyard, kodo and little millets. Plant Food Hum Nutr 53: 47–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yanez GA, Walker CE, Nelson LA (1991) Some chemical and physical propreties of proso millet (Panicum milliaceum) starch. J Cereal Sci 13: 299–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nishizawa N, Fudamo Y (1995) The elevation of plasma concentration of high-density lipoprotein chloesterol in mice fed with protein from proso millet (Panicum miliaceum). Biosci Biotech Biochem 59(2): 333–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nishizawa N, Sato D, Ito Y, Nagasawa T, Hatakeyama Y, Choi MR, Choi YY, Wei YM (2002) Effects of dietary protein of proso millet on liver injury induced by d-galactosamine in rats. Biosci Biotech Biochem 66(1): 92–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Aubrecht E, Horacsek M, Gelencser E, Dworschak E (1998) Investigation of prolamin content of cereals and different plant seeds. Acta Aliment Hung 27(2): 119–125.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Denery-Papini S, Nicolas Y, Popineau Y (1999) Efficiency and limitation of immunochemical assays for the testing of gluten-free foodss. J Cereal Sci 30: 121–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yarosh NP, Agafonov NP (1978) Protein quality and contens in grains of proso milet varieties and of other millet crops. Sorghum Millets Abstr 3(2): 23.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jašovskij IV (1987) Selekcija i semenovodstvo prosa. Moskva: Agropromizdat, p 255.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Michalová A, Čejka L (1996) Variabilita agronomických a nutričních znaků v genofondech pohanky, prosa a laskavce—možnosti jejího využití. Sborník. Alternativní a maloobjemové plodiny pro lidskou výživu. VURV, Praha pp 37–50.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Food and Agriculture Organisation of The United Nations (1970) Amino Acid Content of Foods and Biological Proteins. Roma: FAO.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bareš I, Michalová A (1995) Rozšíření maloobjemových plodin pro potravinářské a technické využití ke zvýšení rentability rostlinné výroby. VÚRV Praha—Ruzyně, p 170.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Matuz J, Bartók T, Mórocz-Salamon K, Bóna L (2000) Structure and potential allergenic charcter of cereal proteins, I. Protein content and amino acid composition. Cereal Res Commun 28(3): 263–270.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Clamot G (1984) Genetic variability of the protein and lysine content of spelt (Triticum spelta). Z. Pflanzenzuchtung 93: 106–114.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Luis ES, Sullivan TW, Nelson LA (1982) Nutritional value of proso millet in layer diets. Poultry Sci 61: 1176–1182.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ravindran G (1991) Studies on millets: Proximate composition, mineral composition and phytate and oxalate contents. Food Chem 39: 99–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ravindran G (1992) Seed protein of millets: Amino acid composition, proteinase inhibitors and in-vitro protein digestibility. Food Chem 44: 13–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Prugar J, Hraška Š (1989) Kvalita jačmeňa. Bratislava: Príroda, p 226.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Konstantinov SI, Grigoraščenko LV, Gorbačeva VJ (1987) Variability of valuable characters in proso and their correlation dependence. Sel Semenovod 4: 22–24.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of South BohemiaFaculty of AgricultureCeske BudejoviceCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations