Jambunathan, R

Singh, U

Subramanian, V

ICRISAT Open Access Repository

Grain Quality Of Sorghum, Pearl Millet, Pigeon-Pea, And Chick-Pea

TABLE 2. Chemical Composition of Pigwmpm, and Chkkpcsa Dhe18 Slampbes3 Pigeon-pea Chick-peab - Constituent No. of Range Mean No. of samples Range Mean samples Protein (%) 12,828' 13.2-26.5' 20.4' 17,679' 10.631.1 20.5' 8,575 15.1-31.5 ~ 3 . 2 ~  32 20.6-30.5 25.4d Starch (%) 10 56.3-64.1 60.7 32 51.1-58.1 55.6 Soluble sugars (%) 10 4.7-5.7 5.2 32 4.1-6.0 5.1 Fat 1%) 10 1.2-2.2 1.6 32 3.5-6.8 5.5 Crude fibre (O/O) 10 1.0-1.2 1.2 32 0.7-1.3 1.1 Ash (%) 10 3.3-4.3 3.9 32 2.1-3.7 2.9 r .  Deconicated split cotyledons. b. All v a l w  excwt c and dare given on a dry-weight basis c. Wholaseed samples. In the largely cereal- and legume-based diet of the Indian population. legumes serve as f the major suppliers of protein. From the large collection of germplasm : s t i ons  of pigeon-pea and chick-pea from va"ous parts of the wodd available at ICRISAT, several thousand samples have been anabed for their protein content and a few for their proximate composition as well (table 2). The mean protein content of pigeon-pea whole seed was 20.4 per cent and that of dhal (decorticated split cotyledons) 23.2 per cent; that of chickpea whole seed was 20.5 per cent (Jambunathan and Singh 1979, 1980). Cultivan of high-protein content could be potential sources for the development of high-protein lines. So could the wild relatives of pigeon-pea and chick-pea: the protein content in dhal samples of wild relatives of pigeon-pea such as Atyiosia, Flemtngia, and Rhynchcxsia spp. ranged between 28.3 and 30.5 per cent (Singh et at. 1981 1. while some wild relatives of chick-pea showed a protein range from 25.6 to 31.7 per cent. The quality of a protein may be estimated by comparing its amino acid composition with standard reference patterns (FAOtWHO. 1973). the most limiting amino acid presumably determining the nutritive value. Generally the amino acid scxxe is calculated as fellows: mg of amino acid in 1 g of test protein x 100. Amino acid score = a mg of amino acid in 1 g of reference protein The lowest score obtained for any essential amino acid may be taken as a first approximation to the probably efficiency of utilization of the test protein by cllildren (FAOMIHO 1973). Applying calculation to the essential amino acid composition of sorghum, as shown in table 3, it is deer that by far ths most limiting amino abd is INTERFACES BETWEEN AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FOOD SCIENCE ( c \ K ~ ~ @ P . T  C Q ~ ~ ,  Proceedings of a workshop held at- India. 1 6 1 2  November 1981. co- sponsored by the Un~ted Nations University (UNU), the International Crops Research tnstitute for the Semi-arid Tropics (ICRISATI, the National Institute of Nutrition (NIN), and the Central Food Technological Research Institute (CFTRI) Edited by K.T. Achaya THE UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSITY GRAIN QUALITY OF SOR0HUM, PEARL MILLET, PIGEON-PEA, AND CHICK-PEA R. JauhlR.thm, U. S&@t, md V. 4Bwbra-i.n International Crops Research Institute for tha S.misrkl Tlopics, Pstmdwu, bdh  fie results of analyses d sorghum 6otghurn bicolor (L.) Mom&/, p e d  W t  Rennisetum amerrcanom (L.), pfgeonpes Cajanus cajan fL .I Mdbp.), and chick-gea db" r erietinum fL .t), (br tW chemicd c o m p o d M m M g  protein amtent sent& mino acid mmpmitim-m &disrrticm patterns ot various protein iriwtha h these g8hs nd the krsb d m  d the jnti-fw#itw fscas v t  in mdchkkpss a m ~ t e d . . ~ , ~  wqwy thscrwrs mnialwiin i ~ i u t o s t ~ ~ h e u t i ~ ~ i a t # m d t h p s a ~ ~  m i n d u d d t h e t d h g  drsrscteristics of @pmn$m snd chickpea, end rtrs mbliions~s betwen certain physmdwmi~8/ ~ t e r i s t f c s  nd m&ng q d ,  sns chcmsd There are severd compormts to grain qudhy, such as visual quslity; nutrtborwl . . quality, includmg digestibiw and bmwaMMy of nut-; m&mtMiond fscton; milling chmctsristia; cooking quaNty; consumer auspta&ility; and stomgo stability. Gninquditydesg-ssimQortmtaplscoinevWmofmvariatierrcw~yieM snd yield stability. Grain prodwed in a fwmer's f i  passes through several transfomwtions before it b cons& in the fonn of food. To enwe that these tr6nsfomu,tions are accomplished effkhmtly Md with minimum nutrisnt loss, be- interectians between different disciptinss we needed, and an undeWp&ng d wkus  m b  of grain qmlity becomes vitd. This raport describas the pqress thd hasv been msds at ICRISAT in understanding soms camponants of grain qu&y in bphtlrn, pearl millet, pigeorrpsa. and chick-pea. Nutrltlonel Quality Sorghum and pearl milet ate staple foods that supply a major pqmbm of mbhs and protein to large segments of the populations living in the smMaid t-s TABLE 1. S lc ldWightndChania lmdmdwnd PaadMiWaGrain - - Sorghum Pearl millet Constituent No. of Range Meana No. of 9EBmOC8s samples Range Meana Starch (%I WuMe sugars (%I Cnrde fibre (%) Fat (%) Ash (Yo) of Africa and Asia. H u b  et d. (1980) have pubkshed an whawtive &ew of- chemical compositiQrr and nutritive d u e  of sorghum snd many m W .  Sorghum and millet grain sampbr anJyrsd in our laboratory exhibith r wide range in diemrd composition (BW 11: NO attempt wu, made in thew m s  to stucty t h  genotyp04Mmment irttemcms. Protein content, which showed a wK18 VBtiafm, represents the results of analysis of samples obtained from hgh fertikty, low fertility, unirrigated, and irrigated fields. It shouMberroZ~thatthsstacctrvaloasfeportadwerabsssdonactusS~errd w8m not a k u h d  WS obtaid by diff-. The wide variability in chemcd cumpsition undm&om the importarrce of penodrcdty #ral.ysing rspr888ntat'i rmpbrdg*nfmW~sW.r*nondlygravn,nbw-fart*tyMs, o\M r m q t ~  mtimate of ttw of protein anti other nutrirnts cn t~ made. A mdy anukhu3 at K#ISAT using the two hqh-pmtdn. hgh-lpw ~ u m r  IS-11 167 *d~~l1758,rr psrmm, suggested that the high.(ysme gw my rot be stabb br & seed wih a plump enchpen back~mcd (Riky 19801. Howwar. ~ ~ i n t m % r t ~ d y i r ~ t o ~ n t r n d t ~ r ~ m ~ o r t h a . ~ ~ t o  mdifv fhe awdve facmm that hmpw the transfer of the ht@+sm me m m d  pktmp t&qamd. h d y s i d  of ydd and protein contents in dtikars obt81ned f r m  fwrtocatii hbtad mst, in pserl mitlet, it should be po8sib)e to Wxt for incfeassd pro~ein content withart detriment to grain yield or grdn wsrght (tCRtSAT l~~ mino acid sootvb W, followed by methionine and cystine (671, and thrmine m. In millat. ?ysina W), fdowed by methionine and cystine (77), are the fiknitinO mina wick. fhe C#gh lsvel of W n e  present in sorghum has been implicated in ttm h u m  disease, peflagnr (Hulse et d. 1980). It has been recognized that to improve the nutritioird quality of sorghum and pearl millet, it would be desirable-il remum were evaiiath-to analyse the gemphsm accessions of these two crop9 f o r p w i n  *rd Iysm con- and methods for rapid analysis a n  available Uamburmthan 1980). Amino acid composition of pigeon-pea dhal samples (table 4) show that the lim~ting mim, acids are rnethionine and cystine (chemical score 581, tryptophan (741, followed by vadine (92), threonine (95). and isoleucine (97). In chick-pea, methionine, and cystine ($7) fdtowed by valine (891) snd threonine (90) are the limiting amino acids. Surprisingly, tryptophan was not observed to be the limiting amino acid in chick-pea (chemical score 1 15). H m r ,  since the range is large, indicating wide variability, and as no effort was made to study the genotype-environment interaction in these analyses, the data should be treated with caution before drawing my f i n  conclusions. Our results i n d i t e  that screening for either methionine or cystine would be sufficient, as these two amino acids are highly correlated with each other when expressed either as a percentage of protein or as a percentage of sample (Jambunathan and Singh 1982). Using rapid calorimetric procedures. we have estimated methionine content 6 ebout 500 chickpea germQlasm secessions (range 0.81-1 59; mean 1.1 6 @I6 g N) snd about 1 50 p@m+ma germQbsm accessions (range 0.70-1.48; mean 1.08 QIl6 g N) and tryptophan content in about 100 chick-pea accessions (range 0.76-1 -27; mean 1.05 g/16 Q N) and about 60 pigeon-pea accessions (range 0.66.0.95; mean 0.75 QIl8 g N) (Jambumthan et al. unpublished data). 7he protein quality of sorghum and millet results from the different proportions of the va- protein fractions in the grain. Protein fractionation of these cereals is shown in taMe 5. Frsctiorwr II snd Ill am very bw in lymrr concentration. In higMylune so~hum, the proptiem of these two fmthns is )OW81 and that of the first fraction higher than in rrormal sorghum, thus impmhng its overdl protein quality (Jambunathan 1980). Ttw protein qwhty of &pmm is Jikwise related to the proportion8 of various protein Clg1)ses. The prqmtkm of hetiom in the whole seed and cotyledon of chickpea and pqpmpea we showrr in tr#s 6. The methionine plus cystine contents of various oocytedon protarin W i  *low wide variability. Globulin is the major pmtdn oomponsnt in pQe&pm and chick-pea. Since it$ content of methionine plus cystine i* rather low, there is rn overaR deficiency of sulphur amino acids in the whole grain. ##micd ampwith nQ rnirro add -tian give only an approximation ob * -  . , .  A * L & * - - a  L.4. r. . -. - Sorghum • ~ n r S l k S 0  Fractim Range Mean Ranee Mean I Albumin and globulin II Prolamin HI CmWinked prolamin h/ Gkrklin-like V G M n  v l w  Totd TABLE 8. Nitrogen Distribution Cwds of Methionin8 Fbq Cystine C o ~ e n t  in Pigeokpea and Chick-pea Grain (percentagp of total nitrogen) f + g m - w a  (HflC) Chickpea fG-131)) Fraction Whole seed Cor/ledone Wholeseed Cotyledon8 Albumin Globulin Residue Total 8. Emkyo h famowd. b. f iguns in parentheses show mothlonine + cyst& oontont g N) d.t#minrd by ion mxcbqp *-aagnphy animsis and, if possible, children. Maclesn et d (1981) sxxKkrc;ted r t9edirrg.sWy a hildren in Peru, using two hii-lyshe and two conven- &ties d mghum m €7 e soh sourc~ of nitrogm. The meen abwptm and remtion of nitroQlrst &om %ha s ~ r g h u m d i e t w e n r r ~ t ~ b e 4 8 f  17percentMd 14% 99g+erQWlQdintdts. resp8ctiYely,~tvrluesof81J:5peroen~snd38f 3.gewWIldqBCtiWlt)c. *Or -in T rPimiSar ooroli~ons. This indbtm ttmt swghm iap 8 y ~ ~ ) c  d r f f # ~ +  d nitrogcat\fot j a h r ( M . T o o u r ~ . w s r i n j l a r ~ ~ h r l l d a k m R ~ a u d &  ~d-millet, p'rgcbon-pea, or ehick-pes diets. Axtell tbt ,t J.(l3@11 Illur: lWwbmk oom9ounrtr, (commonly refwed to as tannins). phytrc acid, cyerrogew: ~ s r C . a U r r n o t ~ i r r h i b i t o r s i n c o a n e O r s j n s . T h e y h a r e ~ ~ e d  t O P s d u o r , t h r , ~  . . dproteinardothernutricmtskrt,atthesrmcr~, ~ h s v r , r b o ~ ~ t o m ~ e r # w n e ~ e e o f r e s i s t a r r c e c N  tohama bo bid dsprocbthn, prehmmt ~~, and weathering (Huke  et al. I-. In kgumsrr, in &&ion. Mihtcm a f  eruymes such as t w n ,  chytnotrypsh, snd 4WnyhB%t, md Of o @ m c d W h s  such 83 ~taChyUS8, rdhose, and vwbsam, pby important rdes. The Eevsls of these enti-nutritbd foctm haw b e e n ~ % i p i O e o n p e a d c l . c i d t p e a ~ s e e d ( S i n g h a n d 3 s m b u n r t h a n  1961 ; Sir@ st al. 1982). as shown in taMe 7. In general, dcni chick-pea exhibrtsd h r g ) u e r k e v l b t s d M a t h # ,  W. Gemypm sndenvironments thst may rftmgnw*urhwrondsrrninedkcha#,*udies. l=tmever. th.bwWds of4 $ I b W b ~ f ~ b d ) l k p i ( ) b O l L . P 6 L ) d c t r i c k - g e d ,  whic)rwoYldbefuMer ~ o r I d w t r q w j o n i c c r d r f n g , ~ t n o ~ t n s s d f o r ~ n o n ~ 1 6 c o r e . T h e  ~ d g Y W l l ~ d m J P h s ~ o f ~ c o m p l l o u n d s ~ t s r m k w ) i ~ ~ e  ~ ~ W h o l k b b n d n W l m , o r # s a ~ ~ s e e d  r &dihcr,I*r*l .uul  P;.u*(. 4- T I V p l r i n W C  d4mybeinhibitor s- (%I R a f f i m  1%) v- (%I hw -*I im\n'tm dipstbility of protein (YO) A s u r v r r y c w r i s d o u t i n ~ . M e d ) y o ~ . ~ t r d R e j s s m n w l d U n a r  ~ , w l r i c h t o g e t h e f 8 r e t h e m s p r p r o b c t ~ n d ~ ~ f w ~  bnd chick-pea in India (Sngh and JambwMm 1980). yre#eb the fdlawlng obmw-. OWMK~ of 46 b r p s d e  and 130 smdCscsk dhat mills were interviaNsd tatthsir opinions snd unprebsions r e g 8 ~ g  the mjltwng cmerist ics of Mtiourr type3 of pigempea. Some 1 3 0 v i # s g e r r s w s t e i n t ~ i n ~ s a s W n , ~ ~ w a s  ~d tog ivsh lgh@rdhs ly ieMs .A I thoughthcaW~waarspwt+dW~yf rwn  orre mill to another, depemdhg on the procEnrsing method wsd, t)wws appmmd Ea be ~I'COCISBIISU~ that round seeds of med~um-size and $mater hsrdrwras yid$ sr dhal recovery. Village-level home processing was reported to giwe krwar d M  m' o p e n t a d c n i k . ~ w a r s ~  . * nrcweFies than nnrcrrrmry ~ n g m t h s ~ l t i r g t ~ ~ ) u s e d . ~ ~ 2 0 p c r r Q a w ~  v a r i s t i s a i ~ i n W ~ ~ ) f i e i k t s . M ~ a W H l r i r t J w c b C d b b l F ~  ~ o t ~ 4 8 9 o c i r t i o r r a w i t ) c s ~ ~ o d a w .  ,k- obmwd thsta!ste s m e d  tohdtvea~tyeqvrelmothrgtnrrtheneodring~. k r w m u m m p r r c t i c s , ~ ~ $ c s l t W ~ c o t t i v M s g r o w n o n t h e i r o w l )  a n n c ~ w W ~ t k c m n ~ m b u r m n ~ p m e w w d i n t o d t l * , ~  Qypo # miCliun seed Jra ptdemd. About 80 to 70 per cent were convert4 kte-h W, which was urrsd in ~wnntral recipes. Kebuli cultivam were pieferted for whols, sa were boMsilbeded desi types. Consumption of chick-peas in jmmatu~ dmh form, or 8s puffed or parched products, was observled to be r c m n  bncriob. A m m q  of tood ~~ from sorghum and millet was carried out in , 171 villages h#n civwwr lncfian states {Subramanian and Jambunathan 1980). Accwdq to ttm vibga houscrwivlss, the various foods made from sorghum and millet. owld~drrdfisdinwt)Hfolkwingfoodtypes: mti(mu*lenedbrs6d), gwidga, or trailed. steamed, or hisd foods. In Indie, nrtl b tho most dm food prepsred f m  sorghum Md peed mikt. Studies w m  cwr)sd out at ICPlSAT on the relationdrip between roti quetity and c h m c t s r i s ~  of m u m  (S-anien and Jambumtbn 1 981 ). The grain chsncterihcs of 4S sorghum and 16 millet genotypes are given in table 8. It was obunnd that sorghum flar with g o d  dough stickiness produced an mti. The rdetionships between the physieochemical characteristics and roti qudities 8s wabted by a panel of tasters were tested using the methods of rank comb* urd mMpb ngt.sssh. Cllesuk revealed that sererd flour c o m v n t s  ccmphmt  sic)\ other to infhmua roti quality. Water-soluble flaw frsctian, amylose, wter-sdubb protein and sugars appear juintiy to influence arrd contribute to the orwvll mti w e f i a k s  of wwghwn. In regard to pearl millet. swelling capacity of fbw, wmwdubb pmtm amtent, my(oss, and s q m  w m  found to be related to roti quality. Smmd dw pdwb that are prepered in various regions of Africa are eQo bmg evabated at JCRISAT in co-operation with scientists hated in different prrrtsofthswwfd. hmem and othsr ocwrumers in Maharashtra stated that they prefer local sorghum to trykd sorghum (Subrwnani et sl., unpublished data). Therefore, it seems important to awy out cwmmer-lioy srdlss on achmced breeding materials before lhay am cmdded for brgeaah testing and wbequmt release. In another study a\ sirr fadlies in dus RsSwti srcrs (Mmrrhtm),  hybrid cwrd locsl sorghum flours were rupgbed to mzh family for a period d birr weeks. Of the six families, four could notp dffemnthte betwen trybnd and kcsl sorghum. Further stdies on larger numben are n e s l d r l K f d o r v i f y ~ ~ .  TABLE 8. PhysiCOChemic61 Characteristics snd Rcpti Qwlity ot Sorphum' and Pawl Millet Grain SorOhum essil mibt Factom considered Range Mean QWP - - - -  - Physicd characteristics: lOOqrain weight (0) 2.3-5.5 3.8 0.5-1 .O 0.75 Grain hardness (kg)/kemeI 3.0-1 1.8 6.7 1 .W .2  2.3 M I i n g  capscity (final voJumaJinitia1 volume): Grain Hour WSFFd (mgI100 g flour) Chemical characteristics (% in whole grain): Protein wa$duble protein Sta rssters' panel eduation of mti 'sxcs#ent: 4; poor: 1): 'hbw and s p p g a r e ~  1.03.8 2.5 1.63.6 2.6 'e~tufw 1.2-3.8 2.6 1.63.8 2.8 %wour 1.73.4 2.6 3.8-3.2 2.8 .mtb 1.0-3.3 2.6 1 . M . O  2.6 'rsrrend acceptability 1.5-3.6 2.6 1.2-3.0 2.5 bnrrcirrg tor# no0d.d (Hardnrrr tasm* sdwu8ho Cad., Tdryq Ji9n). ~ U . , I I 1 ( I R ~ l % d 0 , ~ ~ S u n y d ~ ~ o ( ~ # s d t ) W , ~  k#rPsno, of Pigmqm in Ida." PIIPclssdi;srgs, lntdmrtfonrl Mshap on -8, vd. 2 16-18 bcmbaf, hPltwucrwru. Andhr8 hdesh, pp. 419-425. - 1981. 'Stdim an and I(rbuli Chidrg#l ~Cicsr arietinum L.) Cultivar~--The Levels of Pmwaw k\hl#aon, LMdr d h l y p h d k  Campcwnds and ln-ur'tm Protein Digestibility." JbuPnrJ dfbod Scbm, 46: 1364-1367. Sa-rg)r, 11.. R. w, 8nd S. Gurtu. 1981. "Seed Protein Fractions and Amino Acid C o y # Q i t i o n ( b l S ~ W i # ~ a f P Q e o n p a a ( ~ n i n s s l . "  JwmalofFaodScienwsnd T-, 1s: 83-85. h g h ,  U., M.S. Ithslddrro, and R. Jambunattun. 1982. "Studies on Detr and Kabuli Chickpea (C%w niaC,inrwn L) Cukh~g--Tha Lmk of Arnytese Inh~biton. Levels of Oligosacchatide~ m d k r - u i g o S c # c h ~ t i b i l i t y . " h m d o f F o a d S c i ( ~ ~ ~ .  Submnsnkrr, V., md R. Jambumthwr. 1980. "Traditiunal Methods of Processing Sorghum lSaphom bfcdbr) Ind P d  Millet Pemkk~Iwn anwkwwrnl Grains in India." Pmmdings. Sympo&um an Sorphrwn and Mdbt ROCSSS'~~I, 5-8 May 1980, Vienna, pp. 115-1 18. Repom ofthQ-- . .  of C a d  Chemistry 10. - lsB1. "Ropmtks of Sorghum Grain in Relationship to Roti Quality." Presented at the lntmutbd on Sorghum Grain Quality, ICRISAT, 28-31 October 1981, P l m m h w u A n d h s s ~ .  

Grain Quality Of Sorghum, Pearl Millet, Pigeon-Pea, And Chick-Pea

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ICRISAT Open Access Repository

ICRISAT Open Access Repository