Plant Foods for Human Nutrition

, Volume 64, Issue 2, pp 174–180 | Cite as

Variability of Nutritional and Cooking Quality in Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L) as a Function of Genotype

  • Supradip Saha
  • Gyanendra Singh
  • V. Mahajan
  • H. S. Gupta
Original Paper


Screening of natural biodiversity for the better quality traits are of prime importance for quality breeding programs. The objective of this investigation was to select candidate accession of bean having high concentrations of protein as well as macro and micro minerals with good cooking quality for use as parents in breeding programme for these compounds. Thirty-five accessions of bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L) were field grown and their seeds were analyzed for their cooking quality and nutritional composition. Wide variations were observed in most of the measurements e.g. protein (18.7–26.2%), iron (79.4–137.6 ppm) and hardness after cooking (4.65–9.88 Kg) suggesting that there are considerable levels of genetic diversity. Across all accessions the concentration of potassium was negatively correlated with protein (r = −0.43, P < 0.05). Concentrations of protein was significantly greater in accessions VIII, XIII and XIX compared to other accessions analyzed. Iron concentrations were greatest (137 ppm) in XIX and lowest (79 ppm) in XXVII. Lines with less cooking time were line III, X, XXVI, XXX and XXXI. Bean line XIX contains high protein (24.9%) with high zinc (33.3 ppm) and highest iron (137.6 ppm), but it has high hardness after cooking (7.32 kg). Four clusters were computed by cluster analysis that explained quite a good variation in the traits. The great variability for these attributes suggests that these selected accessions may be useful as parents in hybridization programs to produce bean with value-added traits. This information was also potentially useful for pulse breeders working on the development of new varieties.


Phaseolus vulgaris Variability Protein Iron Tannin Cooking quality 


  1. 1.
    Agbo GN, Hosfield MA, Uebersax MA, Klomparens K (1987) Seed microstructure and its relationship to water uptake in isogenic lines and a cultivar of dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Food Microstr 6:91–102Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    AOAC (1990) Official methods of analysis, 15th edn. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barampama Z, Simard RE (1993) Nutrient composition, protein quality and antinutritional factors of some varieties of dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) grown in Burundi. Food Chem 47:159–167Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barampama Z, Simard RE (1994) Oligosaccharides, antinutritional factors, and protein digestibility of dry beans as affected by processing. J Food Sci 59:833–838. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2621.1994.tb08139.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baudoin J, Maquet A (1999) Improvement of protein and amino acid contents in seeds of food legumes. A case study in Phaseolus. Biotechnol Agron Soc Environ 3:220–224Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bressani R, Elias LG (1980) Nutritional value of legume crops for humans and animals. In: Summerfield RJ, Bunting AH (eds) Advances in legume science. Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew, Richmond, London, pp 135–155Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fernie AR, Tadmor Y, Zamir D (2006) Natural genetic variation for improving crop quality. Curr Opin Plant Biol 9:196–202. doi:10.1016/j.pbi.2006.01.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Guzman-Maldonado SH, Acosta-Gallegos J, Paredes-Lopez O (2000) Protein and mineral content of a novel collection of wild and weedy common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L). J Sci Food Agric 80:1874–1881. doi:10.1002/1097-0010(200010)80:13<1874::AID-JSFA722>3.0.CO;2-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hohlberg AI, Stanley DW (1987) Hard-to-cook defect in black beans. Protein and starch considerations. J Agric Food Chem 35:571–576. doi:10.1021/jf00076a033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kigel J (1999) Culinary and nutritional quality of Phaseolus vulgaris seeds as affected by environmental factors. Biotechnol Agron Soc Environ 3:205–209Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Koehler HH, Iung-Hsia Chang CH, Scheier G, Burke DW (1987) Nutrition composition, protein quality and sensory properties of thirty-six cultivars of dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L). J Food Sci 52:1335–1340. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2621.1987.tb14076.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lees R (1975) Food analysis. Analytical and quality methods for the food manufacturers and buyer, 3rd edn. Leonard Hill Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Martinez C, Ros G, Periago MJ, Ortuno J, Lopez G, Rincon F (1998) In vitro protein digestibility and mineral availability of green beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L) as influenced by variety and pod size. J Sci Food Agric 77:414–420. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0010(199807)77:3<414::AID-JSFA60>3.0.CO;2-D CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Meiners CR, Derise NL, Lau HC, Crews MG, Ritchey SJ, Murphy EW (1976) The content of nine mineral elements in raw and cooked mature dry legumes. J Agric Food Chem 24:1126–1130. doi:10.1021/jf60208a036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moraghan JT, Grafton K (1997) Accumulation of calcium in bean cultivars differing in seed size. J Sci Food Agric 74:251–256. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0010(199706)74:2<251::AID-JSFA799>3.0.CO;2-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Moraghan JT, Grafton K (2001) Genetic diversity and mineral composition of common bean seed. J Sci Food Agric 81:404–408. doi:10.1002/1097-0010(200103)81:4<404::AID-JSFA822>3.0.CO;2-H CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mwandemele DD, Nchimbi S (1992) Variability for cookability and storability in common beans. Indian J Genet Plant Breed 52:68–71Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Norton G, Bliss FA, Bressani R (1985) Biochemical and nutritional attributes of grain legumes. In: Summerfield RJ, Roberts EH (eds) Grain legume crops. Collins, London, pp 73–114Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Reyes-Moreno C, Paredes-Lopez O (1993) Hard-to-cook phenomenon in common beans: A review. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 33:227–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Saha S, Gupta A, Mahajan V, Kundu S, Gupta HS (2008) Physico-chemical and nutritional attributes in 20 black soybean lines (Glycine max L.) of Himalayan region, India. J Food Qual 31:79–95. doi:10.1111/j.1745-4557.2007.00185.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Singleton VL, Rossi JA (1965) Colorimetry of total phenolics with phosphomolybdic-phosphotungstic acid. Am J Enol Vitic 16:155–158Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Taussky HH, Shorr E (1953) A microcolorimetric method for the determination of inorganic phosphorus. J Biol Chem 202:675–682Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Welch RM (1999) Making harvest more nutritious. Ag Res 47:4–6Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zimmermann MB, Hurrell RF (2002) Improving iron, zinc and vitamin A nutrition through plant biotechnology. Curr Opin Biotechnol 13:142–145. doi:10.1016/S0958-1669(02)00304-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Supradip Saha
    • 1
  • Gyanendra Singh
    • 1
  • V. Mahajan
    • 1
  • H. S. Gupta
    • 1
  1. 1.Vivekananda Institute of Hill AgricultureAlmoraIndia

Personalised recommendations