Some quality aspects and proximate composition of some legumes in Sudan.
A legume is a plant in the family Fabaceae or Leguminosae, or the fruit or seed of such a plant. Legumes are grown agriculturally, primarily for their food grain seed (e.g. beans and lentils, or generally pulse), for livestock forage and silage, and as soil-enhancing green manure. Legumes are notable in that most of them have symbiotic nitrogen-fixing bacteria in structures called root nodules. Well-known legumes include alfalfa, clover, peas, beans, lentils, lupins, mesquite, carob, soybeans, peanuts and the woody climbing vine wisteria. Grain legumes are cultivated for their seeds, and are also called pulses. The seeds are used for human and animal consumption or for the production of oils for industrial uses. Grain legumes include beans, lentils, lupins, peas, and peanuts .
Legumes are plants that bare their fruit in pods, which are casings with two halves, or hinges. Legumes are a very healthy food because it is low in fat and high in protein. Legumes are also very high in fiber and other nutrients. Legumes are rich in some minerals such as Ca, Mg, Fe, Mg, P, K, Z, as well as some vitamins as folate, riboflavin, thiamin and B6 .
According to the nutritionists, edible legumes, an excellent source of dietary proteins and oils, can play an important role in fulfilling requirements of rapidly increasing population. The pulses contain 20-24% proteins  and can provide a balanced diet when eaten in combination with wheat, rice and other cereals . Protein content in legume grains range from 17 to 40 %, contrasting with 7-13 % of cereals , and being equal to the protein contents of meats (18-25 %) .
Legumes are among the best protein sources in the plant kingdom. The low concentrations of the amino acid methionine in legumes may be compensated for simply by eating more of them. Since legumes are relatively cheap compared to meat, eating more legumes may be an alternative to meat for some.
Legumes have a very specific place from the nutritive point of view and play an important role in nourishment of world population. Pea is highly consumed in Asian countries, common bean in Latin American and African countries, chick pea in India and lentil in countries of the Middle East .
In Sudan many types of legume are used for human food and animal feed such as faba bean, kidney bean, chick pea, lablab bean, cow pea. Utilization of legumes in food formulations as a source of protein is increasing as they provide balanced amino acids profile Therefore, the objectives of the study were to estimate some proximate composition of some legumes and define some quality aspects..
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Seeds of five legumes namely faba bean, kidney bean, chick pea, lablab bean, cow pea were analyzed in the laboratory. Tests of some quality aspects (100-seed weight, non-soaker percentage and hydration coefficient) were determined according to the methods described by Ali et al.  and Elsayed . From each sample 100 seeds were counted randomly in triplicate and weight was recorded. All samples were soaked overnight (16 hours) at room temperature. The percentage of non-soaker for each sample was calculated after sorting and weighing of non-soaker seeds. The hydration coefficient was calculated as follows:
Hydration coefficient (%) = weight of soaked seeds/initial weight X 100
The proximate composition (moisture content, Ash content and Protein content) was carried out according to AOAC .
Each sample was analyzed in triplicate and the figures were averaged. The data was subjected to the analysis variance  and the Duncan's multiple range test.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Quality aspects: Table 1 showed the results of quality aspect of some legumes
100 seed weight valuesof super faba bean, English faba bean, kidney bean, chick pea, lablab bean, cow pea were 131.94, 62.85, 39.02, 16.12, 27.86 and 8.96 g, respectively. The results of super and English faba beans were higher than the findings of Elsayed  and Elhabib  and that of cow pea is lesser than what obtained by Nadeemet al. . Statistical analysis showed that there were significant (P [less than or equal to] 0.01) differences between legumes cultivars in 100 seed weight. This could be attributed to disparity in the cultivars and size of the legume seeds
Hydration coefficients of super faba bean, English faba bean, kidney bean, chick pea, lablab bean and cow pea were 286.29, 121.18, 37.63, 23.79, 61.29 and 14.48%, respectively. Hydration coefficientsof super faba bean result was higher than that of Elsayed  and Elhabib  whereas that of English faba bean was less than the mentioned range. Statistical analysis revealed that there was significant difference (P [less than or equal to] 0.01) in the hydration coefficients of the investigated legumes. High hydration coefficient indicates that the seeds are capable of imbibing water efficiency after soaking and it is valuable quality factor for a consumer which correlates positively with cookability.
Non soaker percentages of super faba bean, English faba bean, kidney bean, chick pea, lablab bean, cow pea were 1.00, 2.67, 47.33, 1.33, 0.33 and 24.67%, respectively. Non soaker percentages of super and English faba beans were in the range of Elsayed . There was significant variation (P [less than or equal to] 0.01) in non soaker percentages for the tested legumes. Non soaker is big problem in legumes and it could be due genetic and/or environmental factors in the field
Proximate composition Table 2 illustrated proximate composition of some legumes
Moisture content of super faba bean, English faba bean, kidney bean, chick pea, lablab bean and cow pea was 5.00, 5.00, 3.9, 3.4, 4.50 and 4.27%, respectively. Moisture content results were less than that reported by Elkhidir . The results of super and English faba beans were within the range of Elsayedet al. . Moisture contents of investigated legumes in this study were less than the standards of Codex Alimentarius . This might be due to different climatic conditions, marketing practices, storage and transport. There was no significant difference between moisture contents of the legume cultivars
Ash content of super faba bean, English faba bean, kidney bean, chick pea, lablab bean and cow pea was 3.93, 2.60, 3.60, 2.23, 2.70 and 2.83%, respectively. Ash content findings were in close agreement with what reported by Elkhidir  and Elsayed et al.  with regard to super and English faba bean. The result of chick pea was relatively consent with the data achieved by Bojnanska et al. . No significant variation between the studied legumes in ash content.
Crude protein content of super faba bean, English faba bean, kidney bean, chick pea, lablab bean and cow pea was 29.70, 20.33, 21.17, 19.92, 22.27 and 19.50%, respectively. Crude protein content of faba beans was in concur with what reported with Elsayed et al. . Chick pea data was less than the findings of Bojnanska et al.  and that of cow pea was less than what reported by Nadeem et al. . This could attributed to the differences in cultivars, soil types and fertilizers used. The differences between protein content of the above mentioned legumes were significant (P < 0.01). Legumes are considered as a good source of plant protein which could a proper substitute for that of animal especially for low income people.
From the study findings, it was concluded that super faba bean achieved the highest level of quality aspects (100 seed weight, non soakers percentage and hydration coefficient) also acquired high percentage of protein content. This research is imperative for the application of legumes in nutritional purposes as food and feed as well as for food processing and breeding for selection of good cultivars.
Received 14 Feb 2014
Received in revised form 24 February 2014
Accepted 29 March 2014
Available online 14 April 2014
 Wikipedia, 2013. Legume <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legume#cite_ref-CDI1-0>. Visited on 30.5.2013.
 LaBarbera, M., 2012. List of Legumes-Healthy Protein <http://www.nourishinteractive.com/healthyliving/free- nutrition-articles/120-list-legumes> cited on 27.5.2013.
 Nazir, S., 1996. Crop production. Grain legumes. National Book Foundation, Islamabad, pp: 306. 1996.
 Nadeem, M.A., A. Ali, R. Sohailand, M. Maqbool, 2004. Effect of Different Planting Pattern on Growth, Yield and Quality of Grain Legumes. Pak. j. life soc. sci., 2(2): 132-135.
 Bojnanska, T., M. Tokar, R. Gazar, 2010. Pharinographic characteristics of wheat dough with natural additives. In Journal of Food Physics, 23: 9-12. Cited in Bojnanska et al. (2012).
 Cubon, J., M. Kacaniova, P. Hascik, P. Foltys, B. Balaz, L. Privarova, 2011. Analyzazakladnehozlozeniaaaminokyselinovejskladbymasateliat z ekologickejprodukcie. In Proteiny 2011 (Zbornikprispevku VI. rocnikumedzinarodi conference). Zlin: UTB, 2011, pp: 40-52.
 Costa de Almeida, G.E., K.S. Queiros Monicl, S.M.P.M. Reis, A.K.S. Costa de Oliviera, 2006. composition, dietary fibre and resistant starch content of raw and cooked pea, common bean, chickpea and lentil legumes. In Food chemistry, 94: 327-330.
 Ali, A.E., A.M. Ali and I. El-Bashir, 1983. Report on-back up research seed quality test. ICARDA/IFAD Nile Valley Project on Faba Beans. Food Research Centre, Shambat, Khartoum, Sudan.
 Elsayed, M.E.O., 1994. The influence of genotype and locality on quality aspects of faba bean Viciafaba cultivars. MSc Thesis, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Khartoum, Sudan.
 AOAC, 1984. Official Methods of Analysis. Association of official Agricultural Chemists (AOAC) Washington, DC.
 Snedecor, G.W. and W.G. Cochran, 1987. Statistical Methods. 17th ed. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, USA.
 Elhabib, I.E., 2000. Proximate composition and quality aspects of faba bean., Graduation Project Thesis, Faculty of Natural Resources and Environmental Resources, University of Kordofan, Elobied, Sudan.
 Elkhidir, A.O., 2008. Production of Nutritional Cereals Crops in Sudan, Islamic University, Sudan. In Arabic.
 Elsayed, M.E.O., A.H. Khattab, A.H. Eltinay and A.E. Ali, 2003. Effect of genotype and location on proximate composition faba beans. U. of K. J. Agric. Sci., 11(2): 204-219.
 Codex, A., 2007. Cereals, Pulses, Legumes and Vegetable Proteins. 1st edition, FAO and WHO, ISBN 978-92-5-105842-8.
 Bojnanska, T., H. Francakova, M. Lukova and M. Tokar, 2012. Legumes-the Alternative Raw Materials for Bread Production. Journal of Microbiology, Biotechnology Food Sciences, pp: 876-88.
(1,3) Mohamed Elmustafa O. Elsayed, (1) Razaz E. Omer and (2) Ahmed M. El-Naim
(1) Department of Food Tecknnology and biochemistry, Faculty of Natural Resources and Environmental Studies, University of Kordofan, Elobeid, Sudan.
(2) Department of Crop Sciences, Faculty of Natural Resources and Environmental Studies, University of Kordofan, Elobeid, Sudan.
(3) Gum Arabic Research Centre, University of Kordofan, Elobeid, Sudan.
Corresponding Author: Mohamed Elmustafa O. Elsayed, Department of Food Tecknnology and biochemistry, Faculty of Natural Resources and Environmental Studies, Gum Arabic Research Centre, University of Kordofan, Elobeid, Sudan. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Table 1: Some quality aspects of some legumes. Parameter Legume 100 seed weight (g) super faba bean 131.94 ([+ or -] 6.47) (a) English faba bean 62.85 ([+ or -] 1.40) (b) kidney bean 39.02 ([+ or -] 0.99) (c) chick pea 27.86 ([+ or -] 0.08) (d) lablab bean 16.18 ([+ or -] 0.05) (e) cow pea 8.96 ([+ or -] 0.27) (f) Parameter Legume Hydration coefficient (%) super faba bean 286.29 ([+ or -] 13.69) (a) English faba bean 121.18 ([+ or -] 3.99) (b) kidney bean 37.63 ([+ or -] 1.73) (de) chick pea 61.29 ([+ or -] 0.69) (c) lablab bean 23.79 ([+ or -] 17.65) (de) cow pea 14.48 ([+ or -] 1.60) (e) Parameter Legume Non soaker (%) super faba bean 1.00 ([+ or -] 1.00) (cdef) English faba bean 2.67 ([+ or -] 0.58) (cde) kidney bean 47.33 ([+ or -] 1.53) (a) chick pea 0.33 ([+ or -] 0.58) (efh) lablab bean 1.33 ([+ or -] 0.58) (cdefh) cow pea 24.67 ([+ or -] 8.08) (b) Values are means [+ or -] SD (between brackets) Means not sharing common letters in column are significantly different at p < 0.01 Table 2: Some proximate composition of some legumes. Legume Parameter Moisture content (g) super faba bean 5.00 ([+ or -] 1.02) English faba bean 5.00 ([+ or -] 1.02) kidney bean 3.90 ([+ or -] 0.00) chick pea 4.50 ([+ or -] 2.15) lablab bean 3.40 ([+ or -] 2.18) cow pea 4.27 ([+ or -] 0.60) Legume Parameter Ash content (%) super faba bean 3.93 ([+ or -] .87) English faba bean 2.60 ([+ or -] 0.30) kidney bean 3.60 ([+ or -] 0.53) chick pea 2.70 ([+ or -] 0.30) lablab bean 2.23 ([+ or -] 1.26) cow pea 2.83 ([+ or -] 0.40) Legume Parameter Protein content (%) super faba bean 29.70 ([+ or -] 0.89) (a) English faba bean 20.33 ([+ or -] 0.85) (cdef) kidney bean 21.17 ([+ or -] 0.57) (bcde) chick pea 22.27 ([+ or -] 0.55) (b) lablab bean 19.92 ([+ or -] 0.83) (efgh) cow pea 19.50 ([+ or -] 0.108) (efg) Values are means [+ or -] SD (between brackets) Means not sharing common letters in column are significantly different at p<0.01
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Elsayed, Elmustafa O.; Omer, Razaz E.; El-Naim, Ahmed M.|
|Publication:||Advances in Environmental Biology|
|Date:||Mar 1, 2014|
|Previous Article:||Effect of kenaf fibre on starch based biopolymer composite.|
|Next Article:||Gelatin as an ingredient in food and pharmaceutical products: an Islamic perspective.|