Skip to main content
Log in

The protein quality of lupins (Lupinus mutabilis) alone and in combination with other protein sources

  • Published:
Plant Foods for Human Nutrition Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The chemical compositions, of raw and treated lupine flour were determined and compared with other plant protein sources. The protein content in the dry matter was 47.7% in untreated seeds ofLupinus mutabilis and about 56% in debittered seeds. The oil-cake contained 65.3% protein. The amino acid analysis showed that lupine protein is characterized by a low level of S-amino acids, the content of which amounts to only 50% of that of the FAO standard reference pattern. The protein quality was measured using the biological tests PER (Protein Efficiency Ratio), NPU (net protein utilization), and BV (biological value) in rats on diets with and without DL-methionine supplementation. PER determinations gave low values for the non-supplemented lupine proteins (1.34, semi-sweet variety; 1.53, water-extracted seeds; 1.19, oil-cake; 3.09, casein), but the PER's were improved by the addition of 0.2% DL-methionine to the diets (3.05, 2.69, 2.81, respectively). Raw as well as processed lupine protein showed an excellent apparent digestibility (80.0–85.8%; casein, 87.1%). The observed NPU and BV values confirmed the importance of methionine supplementation. The true digestibility of 92% was equivalent to that of casein. The complementation effects of mixing lupine protein with proteins from wheat, oat, barley, rice, maize, potato, quinua or fish were investigated by determination of the PER values of the respective mixtures. Feeding lupine protein with cereal proteins resulted in PER values that exceeded by far those of the proteins fed separately (true complementation). This result was not observed for the mixture of potato and lupine. High quality proteins like quinua and fish protein also showed no complementation effect with lupine protein but did improve the quality of the lupine protein to a great extent. The best results could be obtained with combinations of three different plant proteins, in which lupine protein always contributed one third of total protein. These mixtures resulted in PER values equal to those for casein or other animal proteins and may be applied as an economical way to prevent and combat malnutrition.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gross R, v Baer E (1975) Die Lupine, ein Beitrag zur Nahrungsversorgung in den Anden 1. Z. Ernaehrungswiss. 14, 224–228

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bleitgen R, Gross R, Gross U (1979) Die Lupine, ein Beitrag zur Nahrungsverorgung in den Anden 5. Einige Beobachtungen zur traditionellen Entbitterung von Lupinen im Wasser. Z. Ernaehrungswiss. 18, 104–111

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hatzold T, Gonzáles J, Bocanegra M, Gross R, Elmadfa I (1980) Possibilities of Lupine debittering through extraction with different solvents. In: Agricultural and Nutritional Aspects of Lupines (R. Gross and E.S. Bunting, Ed.) GTZ.-Schrifrh. Nr. 125:333–349.

  4. Association of Official Agricultural Chemists (1975) Official Methods of Analysis. 12 Ed., Washington D.C.

  5. Miller DS, Bender AE (1955) The determination of the net protein utilization of proteins by a shortened method. Brit. J. Nutr. 9. 382–388

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hartmann K, Voss C, Hartmann N (1977) Zur Gesamt koerperanalyse von Ratten unter besonderer Beruecksichtigung der Fettbestimmung. Die Nahrung 21, 919–924

    Google Scholar 

  7. Pereira EM, Pion R (1977) Metabolic and digestive utilization of aminoacids in some proteaginous seeds. In: Protein quality from leguminous crops. Kirchberg, Luxemburg Commission of European Communities, 198–216 (cited in: Nutr. Abstracts and Reviews 49, Nr. 6, 2196 Serves B. 1979)

  8. Schoeneberger H, Sam O, Cremer HD, Gross R, Elmadfa I (1980) Protein quality ofLupinus mutabilis and its influence through preparation and supplementation. In: Agricultural and Nutritional Aspects of Lupines (R. Gross and E.S. Bunting, Ed.) GTZ-Schrifrh. Nr. 125:693–705

  9. Schoeneberger H, Ildefonso C, Gross R, Cremer HD, Elmadfa I (1980) Bestimmung antinutritiver Inhaltsstoffe in Lupinen. Aktuelle Ernaehrungsmedizin 5:153–156

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ballester D, Yañez E, Rubén G, Erazo S, López F, Haardt E, Cornejo S, López A, Pokniak J, Chichester CO (1980) Chemical composition. Nutritive value and toxicological evaluation of species of sweet lupine (Lupinus albus andLupinus luteus). J Agric Food Chem 28:402–405.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hove EL, King S, Hill GD (1978) Composition, protein quality and toxins of seeds of the grain legumes Glycine max., Lupinus ssp, Phaseolus ssp., Pisum sativum and Vicia faba. NZJ Agr Res 21:457–462

    Google Scholar 

  12. Yañez E, Gattas V, Ballester D (1979) Valor nutritivo del lupino y su potencial como alimento humano. Arch Lat Nutr 29:510–520

    Google Scholar 

  13. Bressani R, Valiente AT (1962) All vegetable protein mixtures for human feeding. VII. Protein complementation between polished rice and cooked black beans. J Food Sci 27:401–406

    Google Scholar 

  14. Sirinit K, Soliman AM, van Loo AT, King KW (1965) Nutritional value of Haitian cereal-legume blends. J Nutr 86:415–423

    Google Scholar 

  15. Bressani R, Valiente AT, Tejada CE (1962) All vegetable protein mixtures for human feeding. VI. The value of combinations of Lime-treated corn and cooked black beans. J Food Sci 27, 394–400

    Google Scholar 

  16. Akinrele IA, Edwards CCA (1971) An assessment of the nutritive value of a maizesoya mixture, ‘Soy-Ogi’, as a weaning food in Nigeria. Brit J Nutr 26, 177–185

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kofranyi E (1967) Die biologische Wertigkeit gemischter proteine. Nahrung 11:863–873

    Google Scholar 

  18. Gross R, von Baer E (1976) Eiweissproduktion, aber wie? Umschau in Wissenschaft und Technik 76:305–308

    Google Scholar 

  19. Knorr D (1978) Protein quality of the Potato and Potato protein concentrates. Lebensm.-Wiss. u.-Technol. 11, 109–115

    Google Scholar 

  20. White PL, Alvistur E, Dias C, Vinas E, White HS, Collazos C (1955) Nutrient content of quinoa and cañihua, edible seed products of the Andes mountains. Agric Food Chem 3:531–534

    Google Scholar 

  21. Bruin de A (1964) Investigation of the food value of quinoa and Cañihua seed. J Food Sci 29:872–876

    Google Scholar 

  22. Campbell JA (1960) Evaluation of protein in foods for regulatory purposes. J Agr Food Chem 8:323–327

    Google Scholar 

  23. Beck AH, Schmidtborn H, Spindler M, Tanner H (1978) Bestimmung von gebundenen und supplementierten Aminosaeuren in Futtermitteln und Mischfutter mit Hilfe der Ionenanstouschchromatögraphie. Kraftfutter 3:118–124

    Google Scholar 

  24. Schoeneberger H, Gross R, Cremer HD, Elmadfa I (1982) Composition and protein quality ofLupinus mutabilis. J Nutr 112:(1)70–76

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schoeneberger, H., Gross, R., Cremer, H.D. et al. The protein quality of lupins (Lupinus mutabilis) alone and in combination with other protein sources. Plant Food Hum Nutr 32, 133–143 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01091334

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01091334

Key words

Navigation