Plant Foods for Human Nutrition

, Volume 47, Issue 4, pp 301–307 | Cite as

Nutritive value evaluated on rats of new cultivars of common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) released in Chile

  • E. Yañez
  • I. Zacarias
  • M. Aguayo
  • M. Vasquez
  • E. Guzman


Five new cultivars of common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) recently released were analyzed for their proximate chemical composition and protein biological quality. The crude protein content in these cultivars ranged from 21.9 percent in cultivar Arroz 3 to 26.9 percent in cultivar Tórtola Diana (dry matter basis). Rats fed cultivar Tórtola INIA gained more weight, had a higher protein intake and registered higher PER and NPR than Tórtola corriente. On the other hand, rats consuming cultivars Arroz 3 and Fleetwood had lower weight gain, lower protein intake and lower PER and NPR than cultivar Coscorrón corriente. However, all these cultivars have a relatively good protein value as compared to other plant protein sources.

Key words

Chemical composition Common beans Grain legumes Net protein ratio Nutritive value Protein efficiency ratio 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bressani R (1973) Legumes in human diets and how they might be improved. In: Nutritional improvement of food legumes by breeding. New York, NY: Protein Advisory Group of the United Nations Systems.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Morrow B (1991) The rebirth of legumes. Food Technol 45(9): 96–121.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    NRC (1989) Diet and health: Implications for reducing chronic desease risk. Washington, DC: Natl Res Council, National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gupta YP (1987) Anti-nutritional and toxic factors in food legumes: a review. Plant Foods Hum Nutr 37: 201–228.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    AOAC (1990) Official Methods of Analysis, 15th ed. Washington, DC: Association of Official Analytical Chemists.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schmidt-Hebbel H (1973). Determinación de ácido ascórbico. En: Ciencia y Tecnologia de los Alimentos. Santiago, Chile: Edit. Universitaria.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chapman DG, Castillo R, Campbell JA (1959) Evaluation of protein in foods, 1: A method for the determination of protein efficiency ratios. Can J Biochem Physiol 37: 679–686.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bender AE, Doell BH (1957) Biological evaluation of proteins: a new aspect. Br J Nutr 11: 140–148.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tobin G, Carpenter KJ (1978) The nutritional value of the dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris): a literature review. Nutr Abstr Rev Ser A 48: 920–936.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sgarbieri VC, Antunez PL, Almeida LD (1979) Nutritional evaluation of four varieties of dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). J Food Sci 44: 1306–1308.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hosfield GL (1991) Genetic control of production and food quality factor in dry bean. Food Technol 45(9): 98–103.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bender AE (1956) Relation between protein efficiency and net protein utilization. Br J Nutr 10: 135–143.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Evans RJ, Bandemer SL (1967) Nutritive value of legume seed proteins. J. Agr Food Chem 15: 439.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sgarbieri VC, Whitaker JR (1982) Physical, chemical, and nutritional properties of common bean (Phaseolus) proteins. Adv Food Res 28: 93.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sathe SK, Deshpande SS, Salunkhe DK (1984) Dry beans of Phaseolus. A review, Part 1: Chemical composition: proteins. CRC Critical Rev Food Sci Nutr 20: 1–46.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. Yañez
    • 1
  • I. Zacarias
    • 1
  • M. Aguayo
    • 1
  • M. Vasquez
    • 2
  • E. Guzman
    • 1
  1. 1.Unit of Food Science and Technology, Institute of Nutrition and Food Technology (INTA)University of ChileSantiagoChile
  2. 2.Department of Agroindustries, School of AgronomyUniversity of ChileSantiagoChile

Personalised recommendations