Printer Friendly

The proximate and chemical composition of improved chickpea cultivars grown under the pure stand and banana intercrop systems in South Western Uganda Agro ecological Zone.

INTRODUCTION

South Western Uganda Agro ecological Zone (SWAEZ) is a major banana producing region of Uganda faced with inter-related challenges of food insecurity, poverty and malnutrition resulting from consumption of inadequate and low nutrient foods [1]. Malnutrition is also partly attributed to high intake of banana (with diet shares between 54 and 69 percent), which contains inadequate protein, essential amino acids and most micronutrients compared to high protein foods [2]. It is further compounded by limited access to animal sources of protein, forcing the resource-poor households to look for cheaper foods, in order to fit their household budgets. Malnutrition is mainly manifested among children, pregnant women and persons living with HIV and AIDS. Severe acute malnutrition (SAM) is particularly high, with the prevalence rate of stunting among children under five years of age at 49.6 % [3].

Conventional legumes such as beans, supply proteins in the diets of many resource-poor households, but their production still remains insufficient and is too commercialised [4]. To improve food and nutrition security as well as household incomes in the region, five (ICCV 96329, ICCV 00305, ICCV 97105, ICCV 92318 and ICCV 00108) high yielding and stress tolerant chickpea cultivars were introduced. Chickpeas, which are still an under-utilised legume in the region, have high potential for improving the quality of the diets because of their high nutritive value.

Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) belongs to the legume family and is a major source of dietary nutrients for many people, especially in developing countries [5]. It contains high protein (19.0 %), carbohydrate (61.0 %) and fibre (17.0 %) contents. The legume also provides the body with all the essential amino acids for humans except sulphur-containing amino acids, which can be complemented by adding cereals to the daily diet [5].

Its protein quality is considered to be better than other pulses, with its protein hydrolysates being potential bioactive ingredients. It is a good source of minerals especially potassium and contains important vitamins such as riboflavin, niacin, thiamin, folate and the vitamin A precursor, [beta]-carotene [5]. Chickpea also has desirable agronomic advantages like fixing nitrogen in amounts of 140 kg N [ha.sup.-1], which improves soil fertility, benefits intercrops and subsequent crops, hence increasing their yields and saving fertilizer costs [6]. It is a drought-tolerant crop that can potentially contribute to household income and food security in the banana farming system. It is less labour-intensive and its production demands low external inputs compared to cereals. But like other legumes, chickpea contains anti-nutritional factors which impose a restriction on its consumption. In the previous studies, chickpea whole seeds have been found to contain 9 to 31 mg/g (dry weight basis) of trypsin inhibitors [7], 740-763 mg/100 g (dry weight basis) of tannin and 138-171 mg/100 g of phytate (dry weight basis) [8].

In the last decade, there has been an increased grower interest in using intercropping, because it results in enhanced ecosystem productivity vis-a-vis environment-friendly management of pests [9], effective use of available resources and efficient use of labour, erosion control and food security. Other advantages of intercropping are efficient use of labour and food security as it provides insurance against crop failure or against unstable market prices for a given commodity, especially in areas subject to extreme weather conditions such as drought and flood. But, crop variety or cultivar performance varies under different management regimes. Therefore, in spite of the good nutritional profile as well as desirable agronomic characteristics of chickpea, its chemical composition and therefore its nutritive value is subject to fluctuations. These variations can be either due to intrinsic or extrinsic factors. To maximise land productivity and allow biodiversity in the management of pests and diseases, farmers in SWAEZ grow the crop with banana intercrop. Elsewhere, chickpea is frequently grown as a sole plant or intercropped with other plants, especially cereals but the focus has been on its agronomic performance and yield, and no reports are available on the effect of the cropping method on its seed nutrient composition and therefore its nutritive value. Besides, the proximate composition and mineral element content of the introduced cultivars are not known. The objective of this study therefore, was to determine the proximate and chemical composition of the introduced chickpea cultivars, as affected by the cropping method in the SWAEZ.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sample collection

Chickpea seeds of the five improved cultivars (ICCV 00108, 1CCV 00305, 1CCV 92318, 1CCV 96329 and 1CCV 97105) collected from 96 farmers' fields (of the major soil types and similar environmental conditions as classified by farmers, community development facilitators and local leaders) hosting the experiment as monocrop or intercrop with banana were used as replicates in unbalanced treatment structure. The fields are located in Birere and Masha sub counties of Isingiro district in South Western Uganda, at 0[degrees]42'.01" N, latitude, 30[degrees]41'.78" E longitude and altitude range of 1367-1419 m above sea level [10]. The experiments were managed by farmers with support from the research team. All experiments were kept weed and pest free by regular hand hoeing and pesticide application when needed. At maturity, all cultivars were harvested, sun-dried and threshed.

Sample preparation

The seeds for each cultivar were manually sorted to remove the split, wrinkled and mouldy ones, and foreign materials; ground with an electric grinder to pass through a 0.425 mm sieve, a size suitable for proximate and chemical composition analysis; and then stored in screw tight containers until required for analysis.

Chemicals and reagents

All chemicals and reagents used were purchased from BDH Chemicals--Kampala and were of analytical grade.

Proximate composition analysis

Moisture content, total ash, crude protein (N x 6.25), crude fibre and crude fat of the seed flours were determined according to AOAC (2000), using the official methods 925.09, 923.03, 979.09, 962.09 and 4.5.01 respectively [11]. Moisture content was determined based on weight loss after oven-drying at 105[degrees] C for 3 hours. Ash was determined by incineration of known weights of the chickpea flour samples in a muffle furnace at 550[degrees] C (Gallenkamp, size 3) for 6 hours. Total nitrogen was measured using the Kjeldahl method and protein content was calculated as N x 6.25. Crude fibre was determined after digesting the chickpea flour samples by refluxing 1.25 % boiling sulphuric acid and 28 % boiling potassium hydroxide. In proximate analysis, the crude fibre represents the insoluble carbohydrate while the Nitrogen Free Extractives (NFE) represents the soluble components, which together form the total carbohydrate of a food material. Crude fat was determined by exhaustively extracting a known weight of flour sample in diethyl ether (boiling point, 55[degrees]C) in a Soxhlet extractor and the ether evaporated from the extraction flask [11]. All the assays were performed in triplicate and the results were expressed as a percentage of total dry matter of the chickpea flour sample.

Chemical composition analysis

Minerals were determined after wet ashing by concentrated nitric acid and perchloric acid (1:1, v/v). Minerals: copper (Cu), magnesium (Mg), manganese (Mn), iron (Fe), zinc (Zn) and phosphorus (P) were determined according to the method of AOAC (2000) [12], using Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer (Perkin-Elmer, Model 2380, USA). The flame photometer (Corning 410, England) was applied for calcium (Ca), potassium (K) and sodium (Na) determination, according to the method described by James (1995) [12]. All values were expressed in mg/100g of chickpea flour sample.

Statistical analysis

The analysis was carried out in triplicates for all determinations. The data generated were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) using Statistical Analysis Systems version 9.1 SAS (2003) software package. A multiple comparison procedure of the treatment means was then performed, following the Duncan's multiple range test (DMRT) [13]. Significance was defined at p<0.05.

RESULTS

Proximate composition

Results for proximate composition of the cultivars used in the study are presented in Table 1. The proximate composition ranged between 11.11-12.14 % for moisture, 18.00-19.04 % for crude protein, 3.29-4.69 % for crude fat, 3.38-12.14 % for ash while crude fibre content ranged between 4.43-11.20 % of dry matter (DM). The data indicate that the Proximate composition levels of moisture, crude protein and crude fat did not significantly differ (P<0.05) but the ash and crude fibre composition varied among the chickpea cultivars. The ash content in ICCV 97105 was significantly higher (12.14 [+ or -] 0.21) than in cultivars ICCV 00108, 00305, 92318 and 96329. The crude fibre content was also significantly higher in cultivars ICCV 00108 (10.41 [+ or -] 2.17) and 97105 (11.20 [+ or -] 0.88) than that recorded in the rest of the cultivars. Analysis of variance indicated that the cropping method did not significantly affect the content of all the proximate parameters analysed (Table 2).

Chemical composition

Table 3 presents data on chemical composition (mg/100g of DM) of the cultivars used in the study. The Fe content ranged between 15.98-31.19 mg/100g, Zn content ranged between 248.42-292.18 mg/100g, Cu was between 12.91-25.95 mg/100g and Mn was between 84.82-112.1 mg/100g. The K content was between 855-1060 mg/100g, Na was between 269.17-590 mg/100g, Mg was between 85.84-95.84 mg/100g, Ca was between 464.17-507.5 mg/100g, and P was between 366.67-418.34 mg/100g.

Among the cultivars, mineral content varied significantly for all parameters except P. Cultivar ICCV 97105 had the highest (418.34 mg/100g) content of P while ICCV 96329 had the highest content (1060.00 mg/100g and 590.00 mg/100g) of K and Na respectively. Analysis of variance however revealed that the chemical content of all minerals except Ca, Cu and P was affected by the cropping method (Table 4). The pure stands of chickpea generally had higher content of all the analysed chemical elements except Na and Mn, than the intercropped chickpea.

DISCUSSION

The differences observed in the proximate composition between the cultivars in the present study can be attributed to inherited (genetic) differences (for ash and crude fibre) and cropping method effects (for chemical composition). Environmental conditions are known to exert significant influences on chemical composition of legumes [14]. Elsewhere, significant genetic variations in chemical composition of legume seeds have also been reported [15].

There are several physical (example, competition) mechanisms by which certain crops affect the nutrient content of others when intercropped. The effect of the cropping methods on the content of certain minerals in chickpea in the present study could possibly be due to competition and stress, resulting from the banana and chickpea roots competing for those particular minerals in the soil. Allelopathic effects on roots have also been reported elsewhere and may vary in intensity from subtle to startling, depending upon the nature of the receiving plant and the physiological/metabolic processes that are influenced [16]. Amongst several processes susceptible to allelopathic influences, which could significantly hamper root growth and physiological activity, is the decrease in cell water potential [17]. In the present study, the roots of chickpea could have had a significant reduction in tissue water concentration due to the companion crop (banana), subjecting it to stresses like salinity and drought. Such stress has also been reported in an earlier study [18]. Therefore, such effects may have affected the ability of chickpea roots to take up some minerals from the soil, thus affecting the nutritional quality of the chickpea seed. Except for P, the effect of the cropping method on the Ca and Cu content is not yet fully understood. Consistent with a previous study [18], no significant difference was observed in the P content of monocropped and intercropped chickpea cultivars. This can be partly attributed to the fact that legumes secrete more acid phosphatases in the rhizosphere than other crops, often leading to greater enzyme activity and increased P availability [19].

The results further indicate that, the maximum and minimum moisture content observed in the chickpea cultivars was 12.14 [+ or -] 0.21 and 11.11 [+ or -] 0.97 % respectively. The moisture content of all the cultivars analysed falls within the recommended range of 0-13 %, suitable for storage and processing without microorganism degradation of the triglyceride. It was however slightly higher than that reported elsewhere [20]. The variation of moisture content may be attributed to a variation in the drying temperatures. Moisture content is an integral part of the proximate composition analysis of any food material in order to determine its stability, and achieving a dry state of flours is of utmost importance for their shelf stability. At low moisture levels, any food possesses low water activity hindering any microbial growth. Moreover, dry flours are devoid of moisture required for the spore growth and physiological activity.

The data show that Chickpea is a valuable source of protein. The observed protein content (17.32-19.47 %, dry weight basis) is in the same range as that reported (17.62 [+ or -] 0.9) in a previous study [21]. It is also much higher than that of cereals (wheat and maize), and comparable to other legumes and can therefore provide an alternative source of protein to the resource-poor households. Nevertheless, the crude fat (3.29 [+ or -] 0.04-4.69 [+ or -] 1.02) content does not qualify these chickpea cultivars as oil rich, especially when compared with other legumes like groundnuts and soybeans [22]. The crude fibre content (4.43-11.20 %) observed in the current study was higher than that (3.82) recorded in the previous study [22]. The crude fibre content depends on the thickness of the seed coat, because it is present mainly in the outer seed testa. It was higher in cultivars ICCV 00108 (10.41 [+ or -] 2.17) and 97105 (11.20 [+ or -] 0.88) which were of the Desi type, characterized by a thick and rough seed coat, than that recorded in the rest of the cultivars (Table 1). Legume plants get minerals from their soil environment and deposit them to their seeds, and in turn use them for plant growth and development. These minerals collectively contribute towards the ash fraction of the seed. All mineral contents, except K and Mg in the analysed chickpea cultivars were higher than those reported elsewhere [23]. The high (3.05-12.14 %) content of ash suggests that chickpea contains appreciable amounts of mineral elements and if processed well to reduce the amount of antinutrients, its regular consumption can supplement efforts to combat mineral deficiencies in the region. Deficiency in minerals can have a major impact on health and nutrition of a people. In the present study, both macro (Na, K, Ca, Mg, P) and trace elements (Zn, Cu, Fe, Mn) were analysed because they are of most public health importance in the region; quite often limited in diets of the resourcepoor and other vulnerable persons, especially pre-school children, adolescents, HIV/AIDS infected persons, pregnant and lactating women [24].

But like other pulses, chickpea contains anti-nutritional factors such as tannins, trypsin inhibitors, oxalates and phytates, which affect nutrient bioavailability, thus imposing a restriction on its consumption. Tannins interact with proteins to form complexes, which decrease protein digestibility and protein solubility, reducing protein bioavailability [25]. They also inhibit the utilisation of nutrients through astringency and enzyme inhibition. Trypsin inhibitors are a widespread anti-nutritional substance which blocks trypsin activity thereby reducing digestibility of proteins. The major concern about the presence of phytate is its negative effect on mineral absorption. Minerals of concern in this regard include Zn, Fe, Ca, Mg, Mn and Cu [26]. Consumption of high oxalate-containing foods has been linked to recurrent nephrolithiasis in some kidney stone patients [27]. However, chickpea is considered a relatively low oxalate--containing food, with 9 mg/100g (wet weight) compared to most other legumes that contain 42-469 mg/100g (wet weight) of oxalates [27] but its oxalate bioavailability has not been extensively studied.

Removal of undesirable components is therefore essential to improve the nutritional quality of legumes and effectively utilise their full potential. Reduction in the amount of most anti-nutritional factors, either by technological and house processing or by endogenous enzymatic catalysis during seed germination has been reported [28]. Different processing treatments (germination, boiling, pressure cooking and roasting) are known to effectively reduce the content of anti-nutritional factors and improve the bioavailability of the proteins and other nutrients in chickpea [28]. As phenolic tannins are water soluble, they may be eliminated by thermal and hydrothermal processing treatments. Cooking generally inactivates heat-sensitive factors such as protein inhibitors. In many instances, the use of only one method may not completely remove a given anti-nutritional compound and a combination of two or more methods is required [29]. Seed germination also has a documented effect in the removal of anti-nutrients in legumes, since it mobilises those compounds which are thought to function as reserve nutrients, for example; phytates, oligosaccharides and, in some instances, protein anti-nutritional compounds [29]. The presence of anti-nutritional factors identified should therefore not pose a problem to humans if the seeds are properly processed.

From a nutritional point of view, chickpea contains higher contents of protein, crude fat, ash and all analysed mineral elements except Cu, than bananas. Comparing the observed mineral element content to WHO's recommended dietary allowances [30], the chickpea cultivars analysed in this study may provide sufficient amounts of Ca, Fe, Zn, Mn and Cu in human diets and have a potential to meet human dietary requirements in an adequate manner among different age groups. In view of the overall proximate and chemical composition analysis, these five chickpea cultivars can be considered as an economic and alternative protein source that could supplement efforts to alleviate protein and trace element malnutrition in the region. The results in this study revealed that selection of the cultivars for cultivation in SWAEZ can be one of the options to improve the protein and mineral status of the vulnerable groups in the region.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the cropping method did not significantly affect the chickpea seed proximate content but affected all chemical element contents analysed except Ca, Cu and P. The findings of this study also demonstrate that the five analysed chickpea cultivars are a good source of protein. Mineral element analysis showed that all the chickpea cultivars were rich in trace elements, especially Zn and are therefore a potential source of micronutrients in the diets of resource-poor households in South Western Uganda Agro ecological Zone.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We gratefully acknowledge McKnight Foundation for funding this research. The authors are also grateful to Makerere University-Kampala, Mbarara Zonal Agricultural Research and Development Institute (MBAZARDI) and Foundation for Aids-Orphaned Children (FAOC) for hosting the experiments.

REFERENCES

[1.] Bukusuba J, Muranga F and S Nampala Effect of processing techniques on energy density and viscosity of cooking banana: Implication for weaning foods in Uganda. Int. J. Food Sci. Tech. 2007; 48 (8): 1424-1429.

[2.] Abele S, Twine E and C Legg Food Security in Eastern Africa and the Great Lakes. Final report submitted to USAID on October 15th, 2007.

[3.] Ssewanyana S and I Kasirye Addressing the Poor Nutrition of Ugandan Children. EPRC POLICY BRIEF. 2012; 19.

[4.] ISAR. Bean Program. Rwanda Agricultural Research Institute 2011. http://www.isar.rw/spip.php article45 (last accessed 5 December 2013).

[5.] Jukanti AK, Gaur PM, Gowda CL and RN Chibbar Nutritional quality and health benefits of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.): a review. Br. J. Nutr. 2012; 108 (1): S11-26.

[6.] Corp M, Machado S, Ball D, Smiley R, Petrie S, Siemens M and S Guy Chickpea Production Guide. Dry Land Cropping System. Oregon State University Extension Services. 2006; 13.

[7.] Sharma S, Yadav N, Singh A and R Kumar Nutritional and antinutritional profile of newly developed chickpea (Cicer arietinum L) varieties. Int. Food Res. J. 2013; 20 (2): 805-810.

[8.] Muhammad Z, Shahid I, Shakeel A, Muhammad I, Abdul N and MI Bhanger Nutritional and compositional study of Desi chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) cultivars grown in Punjab, Pakistan. FoodChem. 2007; 105: 1357-1363.

[9.] Mitchell CE, Tilman D and JV Groth Effect of grassland plant species diversity, abundance and composition on foliar fungal disease. Ecol. 2002; 83: 1713-1726.

[10.] Mbarara Zonal Agricultural Research and Development Institute Enhancing sustainable productivity and utilization of chickpea (Cicer arietinum) in the banana farming system of Uganda. Annual progress report Submitted to CCRP on 5th October 2011.

[11.] AOAC. Association of Official Analytical Chemists Official methods of Analysis Vol. II 17th edition Washington, DC, USA, Official Methods 925.09, 923.03, 979.09, 962.09, 4.5.01 and 923.05. 2000.

[12.] James CS Analytical Chemistry of Foods. 1st ed. Chapman and Hall, New York. 1995.

[13.] Steel RGD, Torrie JH and DA Dickey Principles and procedures of statistics: A biometrical approach. 3rd ed. McGraw Hill Book Co., New York. 1997.

[14.] Al-Karaki GN and KI Ereifej Chemical Composition of Pea Seeds as Related to Seed Yield under Arid and Semiarid Mediterranean Environment. J. Agro. Crop Sci. 1997; 78: 97-102.

[15.] Gil J, Nadal S, Luna D, Moreno M and A De Haro Variability of Some Physicochemical Characters in Desi and Kabuli Chickpea Types. J. Sci. Food Agric. 1996; 71: 179-184.

[16.] Bezuidenhout SR and MD Laing Allelopathy and its influences in soil systems. In: N. Uphoff et al. (Eds). Biological approaches to sustainable soil systems. Taylor and Francis Group, NY, 2006:231-240.

[17.] Putnam AR and CS Tang Allelopathy: State of the science. In: A.R. Putnam, & C.S. Tang (Eds.). The science of allelopathy. Wiley, New York. 1986; 1-19.

[18.] Gill S, Abid M and F Azam Mixed cropping effects on growth of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Pak. J. Bot. 2009; 41: 1029-1036.

[19.] Li L, Tang C, Rengle Z and FS Zhang Chickpea facilitates phosphorus uptake by intercropping wheat from an organic phosphorus source. Plant and Soil. 2003; 248: 305-312.

[20.] Saleh A, Alajaji A, Tarek A and A El-Adawy Nutritional composition of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) as affected by microwave cooking and other traditional cooking methods. J. Food Comp. Anal. 2006; 19: 806-812.

[21.] Hassan G and I Khan Post emergence herbicides control of Asphodelus tenuifolius in Desi chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) at Lucky Marwat, Pakistan. Pak. J. Weed Sci. 2007; Res.13 (1-2):33-38.

[22.] Vadivel V, Stuetz W, Scherbaum V and HK Biesalski Total free phenolic content and health relevant functionality of Indian wild legume grains: effect of indigenous processing methods. J. Food Comp. Anal. 2011; 24: 935-943.

[23.] Tareka E Nutritional composition and antinutritional factors of chickpeas (Cicer arietinum L.) undergoing different cooking methods and germination. Pl. Foods Hum. Nutr. 2002; 57: 83-97.

[24.] FANTA-2 The Analysis of the Nutrition Situation in Uganda. Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance II Project (FANTA-2), Washington, DC: AED, 2010.

[25.] Clemente S, Mareggiani G, Broussalis A, Martino V and G Ferraro Insecticidal effects of Lamiaceae species against stored products Insects. Boletin de sanidad vegetal. Plagas, 2003; 29: 421-426,

[26.] Rehman ZU and WH Shah Tannin contents and protein digestibility of black grams (Vigna mungo) after soaking and cooking. Pl. Foods Hum. Nutr. 2001; 56: 265-273.

[27.] Weiwen C and M Liebman Oxalate content of legumes, nuts, and grain-based flours. J. Food Comp. Anal. 2005; 18: 723-729.

[28.] Minihane AM and G Rimbach Iron absorption and the iron binding and antioxidant properties of phytic acid. Int. J. Food Sc. Tech. 2002; 37: 741-748.

[29.] Vidal-Valverde C, Frias J and S Valverde Effect of processing on the soluble carbohydrate content of lentils. J. Food Prot. 1992; 95: 301-304.

[30.] Dickinson A Recommended Intakes of Vitamins and Essential minerals. In: CRN (Council for responsible Nutrition). The benefits of Nutritional Supplements, 2000.

Matovu HA (1) * Muyanja CK (1) and S Byenkya (2)

* Corresponding author's e-mail: ahmatovu@caes.mak.ac.ug; matovuhassan@yahoo.com

(1) Department of Food Technology and Nutrition, Makerere University, P.O. Box 7062, Kampala Uganda

(2) Bulindi Zonal Agricultural Research and Development Institute P.O. Box 101, Hoima, Uganda

Table 1: Proximate composition (Dry Matter basis) of
chickpea cultivars used in the study

Cultivar            Moisture                     Ash

                                    % DM

ICCV 00108   11.72 [+ or -] 0.32 (a)   3.46 [+ or -] 0.25 (a)
ICCV 00305   11.44 [+ or -] 0.30 (a)   3.51 [+ or -] 0.52 (a)
ICCV 92318   11.70 [+ or -] 0.46 (a)   3.38 [+ or -] 0.18 (a)
ICCV 96329   11.11 [+ or -] 0.97 (a)   4.12 [+ or -] 0.20 (a)
ICCV 97105   12.14 [+ or -] 0.21 (a)   12.14 [+ or -] 0.21 (b)

Cultivar          Crude Protein              Crude fat

                                    % DM

ICCV 00108   18.00 [+ or -] 0.28 (a)   4.15 [+ or -] 0.74 (a)
ICCV 00305   19.04 [+ or -] 0.62 (a)   4.69 [+ or -] 1.02 (a)
ICCV 92318   17.59 [+ or -] 0.34 (a)   4.54 [+ or -] 0.53 (a)
ICCV 96329   18.13 [+ or -] 0.90 (a)   4.37 [+ or -] 0.99 (a)
ICCV 97105   18.52 [+ or -] 0.83 (a)   3.29 [+ or -] 0.04 (a)

Cultivar           Crude fibre

                      % DM

ICCV 00108   10.41 [+ or -] 2.17 (b)
ICCV 00305   4.43 [+ or -] 0.04 (a)
ICCV 92318   4.83 [+ or -] 0.74 (a)
ICCV 96329   6.48 [+ or -] 3.03 (a)
ICCV 97105   11.20 [+ or -] 0.88 (b)

Values are means [+ or -] SD, n=3. Means within column with
different superscripts are significantly different (P <
0.05).

Table 2: Effect of cropping method on proximate composition
(% DM) of different cultivars of chickpea

                           Moisture                     Ash

Cultivar/cropping method

ICCV    Monocrop    11.70 [+ or -] 0.20 (a)   3.43 [+ or -] 0.03 (a)
00108
        Intercrop   11.74 [+ or -] 0.05 (a)   3.49 [+ or -] 0.02 (a)

ICCV    Monocrop    11.38 [+ or -] 0.10 (a)   3.50 [+ or -] 0.11 (a)
00305
        Intercrop   11.50 [+ or -] 0.05 (a)   3.52 [+ or -] 0.03 (a)

ICCV    Monocrop    11.70 [+ or -] 0.20 (a)   3.35 [+ or -] 0.15 (a)
92318
        Intercrop   11.70 [+ or -] 0.03 (a)   3.41 [+ or -] 0.02 (a)

ICCV    Monocrop    11.22 [+ or -] 0.23 (a)   4.12 [+ or -] 0.00 (a)
96329
        Intercrop   11.00 [+ or -] 0.20 (a)   4.14 [+ or -] 0.04 (a)

ICCV    Monocrop    12.12 [+ or -] 0.16 (a)   12.14 [+ or -] 0.02 (a)
97105
        Intercrop   12.16 [+ or -] 0.04 (a)   12.14 [+ or -] 0.04 (a)

             Crude protein              Crude fat

Cultivar/cropping method

ICCV    18.00 [+ or -] 0.50 (a)   4.20 [+ or -] 0.02 (a)
00108
        18.00 [+ or -] 0.20 (a)   4.10 [+ or -] 0.10 (a)

ICCV    19.08 [+ or -] 0.09 (a)   4.69 [+ or -] 0.01 (a)
00305
        19.00 [+ or -] 0.13 (a)   4.69 [+ or -] 0.01 (a)

ICCV    17.55 [+ or -] 0.16 (a)   4.56 [+ or -] 0.07 (a)
92318
        17.63 [+ or -] 0.17 (a)   4.52 [+ or -] 0.07 (a)

ICCV    18.10 [+ or -] 0.25 (a)   4.33 [+ or -] 0.01 (a)
96329
        18.16 [+ or -] 0.01 (a)   4.40 [+ or -] 0.20 (a)

ICCV    18.12 [+ or -] 0.22 (a)   3.33 [+ or -] 0.18 (a)
97105
        18.62 [+ or -] 0.02 (a)   3.25 [+ or -] 0.06 (a)

              Crude fibre

Cultivar/cropping method

ICCV    10.42 [+ or -] 0.07 (a)
00108
        10.40 [+ or -] 0.05 (a)

ICCV    4.43 [+ or -] 0.04 (a)
00305
        4.43 [+ or -] 0.03 (a)

ICCV    4.23 [+ or -] 0.08 (a)
92318
        4.89 [+ or -] 0.02 (a)

ICCV    6.44 [+ or -] 0.06 (a)
96329
        6.52 [+ or -] 0.02 (a)

ICCV    11.00 [+ or -] 0.35 (a)
97105
        11.4 [+ or -] 0.05 (a)

Data are expressed as % of seed dry weight. Values are
means [+ or -] SD, n=3. Means within column with different
superscripts for each cultivar are significantly different
(P < 0.05)

Table 3: Chemical composition (dry weight basis) of
chickpea cultivars used in the study

Cultivar     Macro-elements (mg/100g)

                        Na                          K

ICCV 00108   269.17 [+ or -] 0.20 (a)   923.84 [+ or -] 1.00 (a)
ICCV 00305   335.82 [+ or -] 1.40 (b)   865.67 [+ or -] 0.19 (b)
ICCV 92318   334.00 [+ or -] 2.00 (b)   865.00 [+ or -] 2.00 (b)
ICCV 96329   590.00 [+ or -] 2.00 (c)   1055.00 [+ or -] 1.50 (c)
ICCV 97105   429.00 [+ or -] 1.50 (d)   920.17 [+ or -] 1.50 (a)

Cultivar     Macro-elements (mg/100g)

                        Ca                        Mg

ICCV 00108   464.10 [+ or -] 1.03 (a)   95.70 [+ or -] 0.04 (a)
ICCV 00305   478.67 [+ or -] 1.10 (b)   85.94 [+ or -] 0.04 (b)
ICCV 92318   480.25 [+ or -] 1.00 (b)   86.65 [+ or -] 0.50 (b)
ICCV 96329   480.33 [+ or -] 1.00 (b)   86.67 [+ or -] 0.08 (b)
ICCV 97105   508.50 [+ or -] 1.00 (c)   95.34 [+ or -] 0.08 (a)

Cultivar                P               Trace elements (mg/100g)

                                                   Mn

ICCV 00108   399.34 [+ or -] 0.16 (a)   98.54 [+ or -] 0.35 (a)
ICCV 00305   398.17 [+ or -] 0.23 (a)   99.19 [+ or -] 0.35 (a)
ICCV 92318   390.00 [+ or -] 1.00 (a)    m.11 [+ or -] 0.40 (c)
ICCV 96329   398.67 [+ or -] 0.05 (a)   80.82 [+ or -] 0.50 (b)
ICCV 97105   400.34 [+ or -] 0.14 (a)   111.10 [+ or -] 0.55 (c)

Cultivar     Trace elements (mg/100g)

                        Zn                        Cu

ICCV 00108   261.62 [+ or -] 0.04 (a)   25.10 [+ or -] 0.10 (a)
ICCV 00305   240.42 [+ or -] 0.85 (b)   15.60 [+ or -] 0.34 (b)
ICCV 92318   262.59 [+ or -] 0.66 (a)   25.98 [+ or -] 0.08 (a)
ICCV 96329   266.26 [+ or -] 0.95 (a)   14.98 [+ or -] 0.04 (b)
ICCV 97105   294.16 [+ or -] 0.18 (c)   24.00 [+ or -] 0.51 (a)

Cultivar     Trace elements (mg/100g)

                       Fe

ICCV 00108   6.79 [+ or -] 0.03 (a)
ICCV 00305   31.26 [+ or -] 0.22 (c)
ICCV 92318   16.38 [+ or -] 0.32 (b)
ICCV 96329   15.58 [+ or -] 0.02 (b)
ICCV 97105   25.83 [+ or -] 0.18 (d)

Values are means [+ or -] SD, n=3. Means within column with
different superscripts are significantly different (P < 0.05)

Table 4: Effect of cropping method on chemical
composition of chickpea cultivars

Treatment           Macro-elements (mg/100g)

                               Na

00108   Monocrop    269.17 [+ or -] 1.99 (a)
        Intercrop   225.12 [+ or -] 0.12 (b)
00305   Monocrop    335.84 [+ or -] 2.40 (a)
        Intercrop   301.12 [+ or -] 1.25 (b)
92318   Monocrop    350.00 [+ or -] 1.00 (a)
        Intercrop   302.00 [+ or -] 0.86 (b)
96329   Monocrop    590.00 [+ or -] 1.00 (a)
        Intercrop   510.00 [+ or -] 1.00 (b)
97105   Monocrop    430.00 [+ or -] 2.00 (a)
        Intercrop   380.00 [+ or -] 1.00 (b)

Treatment           Macro-elements (mg/100g)

                                K

00108   Monocrop    915.84 [+ or -] 1.00 (a)
        Intercrop   705.44 [+ or -] 0.56 (b)
00305   Monocrop    866.67 [+ or -] 0.17 (a)
        Intercrop   650.66 [+ or -] 0.21 (b)
92318   Monocrop    855.00 [+ or -] 3.00 (a)
        Intercrop   570.00 [+ or -] 2.00 (b)
96329   Monocrop    1060.00 [+ or -] 2.00 (a)
        Intercrop   850.50 [+ or -] 1.68 (b)
97105   Monocrop    934.17 [+ or -] 0.82 (a)
        Intercrop   760.22 [+ or -] 0.65 (b)

Treatment           Macro-elements (mg/100g)

                               Ca

00108   Monocrop    464.17 [+ or -] 1.03 (a)
        Intercrop   464.18 [+ or -] 1.05 (a)
00305   Monocrop    476.67 [+ or -] 1.17 (a)
        Intercrop   476.89 [+ or -] 1.22 (a)
92318   Monocrop    481.25 [+ or -] 0.45 (a)
        Intercrop   480.31 [+ or -] 0.50 (a)
96329   Monocrop    483.33 [+ or -] 0.43 (a)
        Intercrop   482.35 [+ or -] 0.46 (a)
97105   Monocrop    507.50 [+ or -] 0.00 (a)
        Intercrop   507.90 [+ or -] 0.05 (a)

Treatment           Macro-elements (mg/100g)

                               Mg

00108   Monocrop    95.84 [+ or -] 0.01 (a)
        Intercrop   72.22 [+ or -] 0.06 (b)
00305   Monocrop    85.84 [+ or -] 0.05 (a)
        Intercrop   50.00 [+ or -] 0.00 (b)
92318   Monocrop    86.25 [+ or -] 0.10 (a)
        Intercrop   45.66 [+ or -] 0.24 (b)
96329   Monocrop    86.67 [+ or -] 0.08 (a)
        Intercrop   50.00 [+ or -] 0.10 (b)
97105   Monocrop    93.34 [+ or -] 0.02 (a)
        Intercrop   48.55 [+ or -] 0.10 (b)

Treatment           Macro-elements (mg/100g)

                               P

00108   Monocrop    378.34 [+ or -] 0.14 (a)
        Intercrop   377.54 [+ or -] 0.15 (a)
00305   Monocrop    369.17 [+ or -] 0.03 (a)
        Intercrop   370.10 [+ or -] 0.07 (a)
92318   Monocrop    385.00 [+ or -] 1.00 (a)
        Intercrop   385.10 [+ or -] 0.95 (a)
96329   Monocrop    366.67 [+ or -] 0.03 (a)
        Intercrop   365.88 [+ or -] 0.04 (a)
97105   Monocrop    418.34 [+ or -] 0.14 (a)
        Intercrop   417.36 [+ or -] 0.18 (a)

Treatment           Trace elements (mg/100g)

                               Mn

00108   Monocrop    96.34 [+ or -] 0.25 (a)
        Intercrop   68.68 [+ or -] 0.35 (b)
00305   Monocrop    99.16 [+ or -] 0.32 (a)
        Intercrop   70.16 [+ or -] 0.30 (b)
92318   Monocrop    102.11 [+ or -] 0.30 (a)
        Intercrop   78.16 [+ or -] 0.22 (b)
96329   Monocrop    84.82 [+ or -] 0.47 (a)
        Intercrop   50.68 [+ or -] 0.24 (b)
97105   Monocrop    112.10 [+ or -] 0.69 (a)
        Intercrop   65.12 [+ or -] 0.55 (b)

Treatment           Trace elements (mg/100g)

                               Zn

00108   Monocrop    262.62 [+ or -] 0.03 (a)
        Intercrop   220.00 [+ or -] 0.22 (b)
00305   Monocrop    248.42 [+ or -] 0.83 (a)
        Intercrop   202.24 [+ or -] 0.12 (b)
92318   Monocrop    273.57 [+ or -] 0.68 (a)
        Intercrop   210.24 [+ or -] 0.32 (b)
96329   Monocrop    266.26 [+ or -] 0.94 (a)
        Intercrop   205.22 [+ or -] 1.00 (b)
97105   Monocrop    292.18 [+ or -] 0.18 (a)
        Intercrop   225.58 [+ or -] 0.20 (b)

Treatment           Trace elements (mg/100g)

                               Cu

00108   Monocrop    25.12 [+ or -] 0.10 (a)
        Intercrop   25.22 [+ or -] 0.20 (a)
00305   Monocrop    15.40 [+ or -] 0.29 (a)
        Intercrop   15.50 [+ or -] 0.36 (a)
92318   Monocrop    25.95 [+ or -] 0.06 (a)
        Intercrop   25.44 [+ or -] 0.08 (a)
96329   Monocrop    12.91 [+ or -] 0.03 (a)
        Intercrop   12.89 [+ or -] 0.05 (a)
97105   Monocrop    22.99 [+ or -] 0.31 (a)
        Intercrop   23.00 [+ or -] 0.36 (a)

Treatment           Trace elements (mg/100g)

                               Fe

00108   Monocrop    26.74 [+ or -] 0.04 (a)
        Intercrop   19.00 [+ or -] 0.02 (b)
00305   Monocrop    31.19 [+ or -] 0.21 (a)
        Intercrop   15.22 [+ or -] 0.11 (b)
92318   Monocrop    17.34 [+ or -] 0.36 (a)
        Intercrop   10.45 [+ or -] 0.34 (b)
96329   Monocrop    15.98 [+ or -] 0.02 (a)
        Intercrop   10.00 [+ or -] 0.02 (b)
97105   Monocrop    25.84 [+ or -] 0.17 (a)
        Intercrop   13.12 [+ or -] 0.12 (b)

Data expressed as mg/100g of DM. Values are
means [+ or -] SD, n = 3. Means within column
of the same cultivar with different superscripts
are significantly different (P < 0.05)
COPYRIGHT 2015 Rural Outreach Program
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2015 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Matovu, Hassan Ahmad; Muyanja, C.K.; Byenkya, S.
Publication:African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development
Geographic Code:6UGAN
Date:Dec 1, 2015
Words:5756
Previous Article:Participatory varietal selection and agronomic evaluation of African eggplant and roselle varieties for fruit, leaf and calyx production in Mali.
Next Article:Message from the chair, SAA/SAFE.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |