Advertisement

Pseudocereals: An Efficient Food Supplement

  • Saubhik Das
Chapter

Abstract

Pseudocereals are defined as fruits or seeds of non-grass species that are consumed in very similar way as cereals having nutritive value very much competitive to conventional crop, in most cases even better. India is one of the versatile centers of diversity of cultivated plants gifted with enormous landrace diversity. Wild relatives and progenitors of cultivated plants are of particular importance. About 326 such plants have been identified in India. Nearly 1000 wild plant species which are edible have been widely exploited by native tribals. All India Coordinated Research Project (AICRP) has identified few plants in India which are to be considered for utilization specially the pseudocereals (amaranths, Quinoa and Buckwheat). As far as protein content and protein qualities are concerned, the pseudocereals are much better than the cereal species, lack enzyme inhibitors and allergens which are known to be present in cereals. Average protein score is either equal or much greater than rice, wheat, soybean maize. Net Protein Utilization (NPU) or Protein Efficiency Ratio (PER), Protein digestibility or bioavailability of protein in Pseudo-cereals is higher than cereals. Furthermore pseudocereals also contain dietary fiber in high proportion, which improves lipid metabolism.

Keywords

Celiac Disease Protein Efficiency Ratio Chenopodium Quinoa Winged Bean Fagopyrum Esculentum 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Arora RK (1985) Genetic resources of less known cultivated food plants. NBPGR science monograph 10Google Scholar
  2. Arora RK (1987) Ethbotany and its role in domestication and conservation of native plant resources. In: Jain SK (ed) Manual of ethnobotany. Scientific Publication, Jodhpur, pp 94–102Google Scholar
  3. Arora RK, Nayar ER (1984) Wild relatives of crop plants in India. NBPGR science monograph no. 9. 90 pGoogle Scholar
  4. Arora RK et al (1991) Plant diversity in the Indian gene centre. In: Plant genetic resources conservation and management – concepts and approaches. IBPGR Regional Office for South and Southeast Asia, New Delhi, pp 25–54Google Scholar
  5. Been MM, Fellers DA (1982) Composite breads in Bolivia; technical aspects. In: Proceedings 7th World Cereals and Bread Congress, PragueGoogle Scholar
  6. Bressani R, Garcia-Vela LA (1990) Protein fractions in Amaranth grain and their chemical characterization. J Agric Food Chem 38(5):1205–1209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caperuto LC, Amaya-Farfan J, Camargo CRO (2001) Performance of Quinia (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) flour in the manufacture of gluten-free spaghetti. J Sci Food Agric 81:95–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chauhan GS, Eskin NAM, Tkachuk R (1992) Nutrients and antinutrients in quinoa seed. Cereal Chem 69:85–88Google Scholar
  9. Drzewiecki J, Delgado-Licon E, Haruenkit R et al (2003) Identification and differences of total proteins and their soluble fractions in some Pseudocereals based on electrophoretic patterns. J Agric Food Chem 51(26):7798–7804CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Gorinstein S, Zemser M, Paredes-Lopez O (1996) Structural stability of globulins. J Agric Food Chem 44:100–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gorinstein S, Zemser M, Fliess A et al (1998) Computational analysis of the amino acid residue sequences of Amaranth and some other proteins. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem 62(10):1845–1851CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Gorinstein S, Jaramillo NO, Medina OJ et al (1999) Evaluation of some cereals, plants and tubers through protein composition. J Protein Chem 18:687–693CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Gorinstein S, Pawelzik E, Delgado-Licon E et al (2002) Characterization of pseudocereals and cereals proteins by protein and amino acid analyses. J Sci Food Agric 82(8):886–891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ker YC, Chen RH, Wu CS (1993) Relationship of secondary structure, microstructure, mechanical properties of heat-induced gel of Soy 11S globulin. Biosci Biotech Biochem 57:536–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Khoshoo TN (1995) Census of Indian biodiversity, tasks ahead. Curr Sci 69(1):14–17Google Scholar
  16. Konishi Y, Yoshimoto H (1989) Amaranth globulin as a heat stable emulsifying agent. Agric Biol Chem 53:3327–3328Google Scholar
  17. Kuhn M, Wagner S, Aufhammer W et al (1996) Einflub von pflanzenbaulischer Mabnahmen auf die Mineralstoffgehalte von Amaranths, Buchweizen, Reismelde und Hafer. DT Lebensm Rundshau 92(1):47–152Google Scholar
  18. Lorenz K, Coulter L (1991) Quinoa flour in baked products. Plant Foods Hum Nutr 41:213–223CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Malik SS, Singh SP (2006) Role of plant genetic resources in sustainable agriculture. Indian J Crop Sci 1(1–2):21–28Google Scholar
  20. Marcone MF (1999) Evidence confirming the existence of a 7S globulin-like storage protein in Amaranthus hypochondriacus. Seed Food Chem 65:533–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Myers N (1990) The biodiversity challanges: expanded hotspots analyses. Environmentalist 10:243–256CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Nayar MP (1996) Hotspots of endemic plants of India, Nepal and Bhutan. TBGRI, ThiruvananthpuramGoogle Scholar
  23. Nayar MP, Sastry ARK (1987–1990) Red data book of Indian plants, vol 3. Botanical Survey of India, KolkataGoogle Scholar
  24. Oleszek W, Junkuszew M, Stochmal A (1999) Determination and toxicity of saponins from Amaranthus cruentus seeds. J Agric Food Chem 47:3685–3687CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Pandey DN (1998) Ethno-forestry: local knowledge for sustainable forestry and livelihood security. Himangshu Publication, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  26. Segura–Nieto M, de la Rosa AP B, Parades-Lopez O et al (1994) Biochemistry of amaranth protein. In: Amaranth: biology, chemistry and technology. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 75–106Google Scholar
  27. Sharma JR, Mudgal V, Hajra PK (1997) Floristic diversity- review, scope and perspective. In: Mudgal V, Hajra PK (eds) Floristic diversity and conservation strategies in India, vol I. Botanical Survey India, Kolkata, pp 1–45Google Scholar
  28. Shewry PR (2002) The major seed storage proteins of Spelt Wheat, Sorghum, Millets and Pseudocereals. In: Belton P, Taylor J (eds) Pseudocereals and less common cereals, grain properties and utilization potential. Springer, pp 1–24Google Scholar
  29. Singhal RS, Kulkarni PR (1988) Composition of the seeds of some amaranthus species. J Sci Food Agric 42:325–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Souci SW, Fachman W, Kraut H (2000) Food composition and nutritional table. Wissenschaft Verlago GmbH, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  31. Taylor JRN, Parker ML (2002) Quinoa. In: Belton PS, Taylor JRN (eds) Pseudocereals and less common cereals: grain properties and utilization. Springer, Berlin, pp 93–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vetter J (1994) Minerals and amino acids in the seeds of the new, cultivated cereal-like species Amaranthus hypochondracus. Z. Lebensm. Unters Forsch 198:284–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zheleznov AV, Sonenko LR, Zheleznova NB (1997) Seed proteins of the wild and cultivated Amaranthus species. Euphytica 97:177–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Saubhik Das
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BotanyTaki Government CollegeTakiIndia

Personalised recommendations