Plant Foods for Human Nutrition

, Volume 47, Issue 4, pp 333–339 | Cite as

Comparative nutritive value of winged bean (Psophocarpus tetragonolobus (L) DC) and other legumes grown in Tanzania

  • B. V. Mnembuka
  • B. O. Eggum


Chemical analyses and feeding experiments using rats were conducted to evaluate the nutritive value of winged bean and other legumes (soyabean, green gram, bambarra nuts, pigeon peas, field beans, cow peas) sources grown in Tanzania. Proximate analyses showed that the composition of winged bean was similar to soyabean, while the composition of the other legumes differed considerably. This was also the case for antinutritional constituents and minerals. As to the amino acid composition, the lysine level was high with the highest value in winged bean (7.5 g/16 g N). However, the concentration of methionine and cystine was low which limits their protein quality. Another important amino acid, threonine, was generally high, especially in winged bean (4.3 g/16 g N). With exception of field bean, true protein digestibility was above 80%, soyabean having the highest value (90.7%). The biological value was also highest in soyabean (76.1%) followed by winged bean (69.9%). Utilizable protein was high in soyabean (28.8%) and somewhat lower in winged bean (23.4%). Energy digestibility was around 80%, soyabean having the highest value of 85.8%. The study findings support the idea that winged bean is a good alternative plant protein source in Tanzania.

Key words

Digestibility Nutritive value Plant proteins Winged bean 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Misra, PS, Misra G, Prakash D, Tripathi RD, Chaudhary AA, Misra RN (1987) Assay of some nutritional and antinutritional factors in different cultivars of winged bean (Psophocarpus tetragonolobus (L.) DC) seeds. Plant Foods Hum Nutr 36: 367–371.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kantha S, Hettiarachchy, NS, Herath, HMW (1979) Development of trypsin inhibitors in the seeds of winged bean, (Psophocarpus tetragonolobus (L.) DC Proc 35th Annual Session Sri Lanka Assoc Adv Sci 35: 9.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    AOAC (1975) Official Methods of Analysis, 12th ed. Washington, DC: Association of Official Agricultural Chemists.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stoldt W (1957) Vorslag zur Vereinheitlichung der Fettbestimmung in Lebensmitteln. Fette und Seifen 54: 206–207.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    MacRae JC, Armstrong, DG (1968) European method for determination of α linked glucose polymers in biological materials. J Sci Food Agric 19: 578–581.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clegg M (1956) The application of the anthrone reagent to the estimation of starch in cereals. J Sci Food Agric 7: 40–44.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mason VC, Bech-Andersen S, Rudemo M (1980) Hydrolysate preparation for amino acid determination in feed constituents. Tierphysiol Tiernährg Futtermittelkde 43: 146–164.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goering HK, Van Soest PJ (1970) Forage fibre analysis: Agricultural Handbook, No. 379. Washington, DC: USDA/ARS.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Boisen S (1983) Protease inhibitors in cereals: Occurence, properties, physiological role and nutritional influence. Acta Agric Scand 33: 369–381.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eggum BO, Christensen KD (1975) Influence of tannin on protein utilization in feedstuffs with special reference to barley. In: Breeding for seed protein improvement using nuclear techniques. Vienna: IAEA, pp 135–143.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Milner BA, Whiteside PJ (1981) Introduction to atomic absorption spectrophotometry Cambridge, UK: Pye Unican.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stuffins CB (1969) The determination of phosphate and calcium in feeding stuffs. Analyst 92: 107–111.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Eggum BO (1973) A study of certain factors influencing protein utilization in rats and pigs. Copenhagen: National Institute of Animal Science, Report 406.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pond WG, Maner JH (1974) In: Swine production in temperat and tropical environments. 646 pp. San Francisco: Freeman and Co.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Prakash D, Misra PN, Misra PS (1987) Amino acid profile of winged bean (Psophocarpus tetragonolobus (L.) DC): A rich source of vegetable protein. Plant Food Hum Nutr 37: 261–264.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kadam SS, Smithard RR (1987) Effects of heat treatments on trypsin inhibitor and hemagglutinating activities in winged bean. Plant Food Hum Nutr 37: 151–159.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Singh U, Eggum BO (1984) Grain quality and biochemistry: Chickpeas and pigeonpeas, 2: Amino acid composition. Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, 102 pp.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Saxena KB, Faris DG, Singh U, Kumar RV (1987) Relationship between seedsize and protein content in newly developed high protein lines of pigeonpea. Plant Food Hum Nutr 36: 335–340.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kachare DP, Chavan JK, Kadam SS (1988) Nutritional quality of some improved cultivars of cowpea. Plant Food Hum Nutr 38: 155–162.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Joint FAO/WHO/UNU Expert Consultation (1985) Energy and Protein Requirements. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO, WHO Tech Rept Ser No 724.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. V. Mnembuka
    • 1
  • B. O. Eggum
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Animal Science and ProductionSokoine University of AgricultureMorogoroTanzania
  2. 2.National Institute of Animal Science Animal Physiology and Biochemistry FoulumTjeleDenmark

Personalised recommendations