The protein content of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) grown at different locations

Singh, Ummed; Kumar, Jitendra; Gowda, C L L

doi:10.1007/bf01091338

Cited by 17 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The mean amounts of this mineral do not differ significantly between known varieties of chickpea (desi and kabuli). This is in contrast to the findings for fiber (Jambunathan and Singh, 1981;Rossi et al, 1984) or in crops grown in different locations, a factor known to influence protein content (Singh et al, 1983).…”

Section: Introductioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Nutritional Assessment of Magnesium from Raw and Processed Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) in Growing Rats

Nestares

Urbano

Barrionuevo

1997

J. Agric. Food Chem.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We studied the effect of different processing methods (dry heating, soaking in distilled water, acidic solution, or basic solution, and soaking + cooking) on the nutritive utilization of magnesium from chickpeas (Cicer arietinum L.) in growing rats. We also investigated the effects of processing on several seed components that affect magnesium utilization. Chemical and biological methods were used for nutritional determinations. Although a large amount of the magnesium from raw chickpeas was absorbed (3.92 ± 0.36 mg/rat/day), the digestive utilization of magnesium (apparent digestibility coefficient) from unprocessed chickpeas was low. Processing led to an overall decrease in magnesium absorption and digestive utilization, because of modifications in certain components (e.g., fiber) of the legume. Under our experimental conditions feeding with raw or processed chickpeas led to elevated urinary excretion of magnesium (4.22 ± 0.37 mg/rat/day) in comparison with that found in growing rats fed a standard diet (1.11 ± 0.09 mg/rat/day). This increase resulted in a negative metabolic balance of this element. However, muscle and bone concentrations of magnesium were not affected by any of the experimental diets. Keywords: Chickpea; fecal excretion; fiber; magnesium; nutritive utilization; processing techniques

show abstract

Section: Introductioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Nutritional Assessment of Magnesium from Raw and Processed Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) in Growing Rats

Nestares

Urbano

Barrionuevo

1997

J. Agric. Food Chem.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The chickpea‐based snacks’ lipid content/55g serving, 2.7 to 3.2 g/serving, is within the range of low‐fat product (≤ 3 g fat/serving) per the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Labeling Guide 21 CFR 101.62(b) (FDA, ). The protein content (23.33% to 30.95%) of the chickpea types varied significantly ( P ≤ 0.05) from each other on an as‐is basis possibly due to differences in (1) soil type, (2) genetic background, (3) seed bed preparation, (4) planting time, (5) fertilizer use, (6) temperature, (7) moisture availability, and (8) a combination thereof (Singh, Kumar, & Gowda, ; Singh, Williams, & Nakkaoul, ). Chavan et al.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality of a Chickpea‐Based High Protein Snack

Gupta

Liu

Sathe

2019

Journal of Food Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A chickpea‐based high protein, ready‐to‐eat snack was prepared using six chickpea types. The chickpea seeds and their corresponding snack products were analyzed for proximate composition, antinutrients, and select quality parameters. Chickpea types had: lipid (4.25% to 6.98%), moisture (6.63% to 9.15%), protein (23.33% to 30.95%), and carbohydrate (54.60% to 60.40%) contents exhibiting significant (P ≤ 0.05) differences. Ash content (1.94% to 2.41%) did not register significant differences. Chickpea types did not show variability in either polypeptide profile or in vitro protein digestibility. In the tested seeds, hemagglutinins and α‐amylase inhibitors were not detected, while trypsin (12.73 to 19.58 units/mg sample) and chymotrypsin inhibitors (62.91 to 84.91 units/mg sample) activity varied significantly (P ≤ 0.05). The chickpea‐based snack product had intermediate‐moisture (23.31% to 27.81%), was low in lipids (5.09% to 5.84%), free of antinutrients, and was a good source of proteins (12.45% to 14.10%), carbohydrates (51.86% to54.96%), and minerals (1.53% to 2.43%). The L*, a*, and b* values of the products ranged from 75.97 to 79.38, 3.46 to 4.75, and 27.65 to 34.65, respectively. The hardness, springiness, and fracturability of the product were 700.89 to 955.23 g, 43.38% to 47.14%, and 5.26 to 5.90 mm, respectively. Practical Application Development of new bean‐based products, such as a chickpea‐based snack with an overall good nutrition and taste, may play an important role in increasing the consumption of underutilized dry beans in the United States, shown to promote better health and wellness.

show abstract

“…Starch and amylose concentrations showed genotype × environment interaction in both desi and kabuli varieties, but protein concentration did so only in desi varieties (Table 3). Seed composition traits are less affected by genotype × environment interaction as compared with thousand‐seed weight and yield 16, 29, 30…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Genotype and growing environment influence chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) seed composition

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The protein content of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) grown at different locations

Cited by 17 publications

References 5 publications

Nutritional Assessment of Magnesium from Raw and Processed Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) in Growing Rats

Nutritional Assessment of Magnesium from Raw and Processed Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) in Growing Rats

Quality of a Chickpea‐Based High Protein Snack

Genotype and growing environment influence chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) seed composition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About