EurekaMag.com logo
+ Site Statistics
References:
53,517,315
Abstracts:
29,339,501
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
EurekaMag Most Shared ContentMost Shared
EurekaMag PDF Full Text ContentPDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full TextRequest PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on FacebookFollow on Facebook
Follow on TwitterFollow on Twitter
Follow on Google+Follow on Google+
Follow on LinkedInFollow on LinkedIn

+ Translate

Protein digestability of vegetables and field peas (Pisum sativum). Varietal differences and effect of domestic processing and cooking methods



Protein digestability of vegetables and field peas (Pisum sativum). Varietal differences and effect of domestic processing and cooking methods



Plant Foods for Human Nutrition 46(1): 71-76



Protein digestibility was found to be 60.4 to 66.5 percent in raw unprocessed seeds of different pea cultivars. Protein digestibility (in vitro) was improved by the common methods of domestic processing and cooking including soaking, dehulling, ordinary cooking, pressure cooking and sprouting of legume grains. Pressure cooking had more pronounced effect on protein digestibility followed by ordinary cooking, sprouting, soaking for 18 h and (12 h) and dehulling. Pressure cooking of soaked and dehulled seeds was noticed to give most improved protein digestibility.

(PDF 0-2 workdays service: $29.90)

Accession: 047112490

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 7971789



Related references

Effect of domestic processing and cooking methods on in-vitro starch digestibility of different pea cultivars (Pisum sativum). Food Chemistry 47(2): 177-182, 1993

Effect of domestic processing and cooking methods on phytic acid and polyphenol contents of pea cultivars (Pisum sativum). Plant Foods for Human Nutrition 45(4): 381-388, 1994

Effect of genotype and pretreatment of field peas (Pisum sativum) on their dehulling and cooking quality. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 77(2): 251-258, 1998

Relationship between physicochemical and cooking properties, and effects of cooking on antinutrients, of yellow field peas (Pisum sativum). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 83(12): 1228-1237, 2003

Phytic acid content of chickpea cicer arietinum and black gram vigna mungo varietal differences and effect of domestic processing and cooking methods. Journal of the Science of Food & Agriculture 49(4): 449-456, 1989

Varietal differences in reaction of peas Pisum sativum L., to herbicides. Mededelingen van de Faculteit Landbouwwetenschappen, Rijksuniversiteit Gent 48(4): 1043-1052, 1983

Antinutritional factors in moth bean vigna aconitifolia varietal differences and effects of methods of domestic processing and cooking. Journal of Food Science 51(3): 591-594, 1986

Varietal differences in physico-chemical characteristics of some varieties of peas (Pisum sativum). Indian Fd Pack 30(4): 5-8, 1976

Energy dispersive x ray analysis of field peas pisum sativum with different cooking quality. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 63(4): 1071-1074, 1983

Studies on the varietal differences in physico-chemical characteristics of some varieties of peas (Pisum sativum). Indian Fd Pckr 30(4): 5-8, 1976

Antinutrients in amphidiploids (black gram x Mung bean): varietal differences and effect of domestic processing and cooking. Plant Foods for Human Nutrition 39(3): 257-266, 1989

Changes in protein quality of coloured beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) and peas (Pisum sativum L.): effect of storage and domestic treatments. Alimentaria 37(314): 151-156, 2000