chickpea info

8/8/2019 Chickpea Info

1/6

N u t r i t i o n a l A s s e s s m e n t o f R a w a n d P r o c e s s e d C h i c k p e a (Cicer

ar ie t inum L . ) P r o t e i n i n G r o w i n g R a t s

Teresa Nest ar es, Magda lena Lopez-Fr as,* Mercedes Barrionuevo, and Gloria Urbano

Depart ment of Physiology, School of Phar macy, and Institu te of Nutrition a nd Food Technology,University of Granada, E-18071 Granada, Spain

We studied the digestive and metabolic utilization of chickpea protein (Cicer arietinum L.) fromraw and processed chickpeas (dry-heated, soaked in distilled water or an acid, or a base solution,and soaked + cooked). Chemical a nd biological methods were used for nu tritional determ inationsin growing ra ts. Food inta ke, calculated as a fun ction of body weight, wa s h igher for pr ocessedtha n for raw chickpeas. The digestibility of chickpea protein was not affected by soaking, but wa sincreased after soaking + cooking. This effect m ay be r elated t o reduced trypsin inh ibitor a ctivityand tan nin content . Nitrogen reten tion (nitrogen balan ce) was better after soaking in basic mediumwithout cooking and after soaking + cooking regardless of th e pH of th e soak ing medium. However,nitrogen balance was lower t han expected from the chemical ana lyses of the protein in th e differentdiets. Soaking in basic medium with or without cooking led to the highest food inta ke, nutr itiveutilization of protein, and weight gain. The faster r ate of growth wa s probably due to the improvedutilization of carbohydrat es in chickpeas soaked in ba sic medium.

K e y w o r d s : Chickpeas; nu tritive u tilization; protein; processing techn iques

INTRODUCTION

Chi ckpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is a good sour ce of protein, carbohydrat es, calcium, a nd phosphorus, amongot h e r com p ou n d s . I t i s t h e m os t w id e ly con s u m e dlegume throughout Spain and is especially popular inAnda lusia (Varela et al., 1995). Together with otherlegumes, i t has long been one of the most i mpor tantsources of protein in rur al populat ions. Chickpea is alsowidespr ead in Asia and Cent r al and Sout h Amer ica,where is satisfies a considerable portion of the popula-tions protein requirement s. Although th e seed is rich

in protein (about 21.5%; Chavan et al., 1989), both thequant i ty and the qual ity of pr otein var y consider ablydepend ing on soil and climat ological condit ions (locat ion,agricultur al pr actices) (Singh et al., 1983; Rossi et al.,1984). This mak es is necessary to investigate differentcultivars grown in different regions individually.

Like other pulses, chickpeas contain several antinu-tritional factors (R-galactosides, trypsin inhibitors, tan-nins, etc.) which may limit their consumption and thenut ritive utilization of their protein. These ant inutr i-tional factors can be elimina ted or redu ced by cookingor with other simple technologies (Nestares et al., 1993a;Vi da l e t a l ., 1 99 4; U r b a n o e t a l ., 1 99 5), a l t h ou g hprocessing will modify t he nu tritive u tilization of pro-tei n. These changes differ widely dependi ng on th e

technology a nd conditions involved (Nestar es et al.,1993a; Urban o et al., 1995).

T h e ob je ct ive of t h is s t u dy w a s t o e va lu a t e t h enut r i t i onal quality of a chi ckpea cult ivar habituallygr own and consumed in souther n Spain. I n addition,we investigated how different, commonly used process-ing techniques affect the nutritive utilization of chickpeapr otei n and the antinutr i t ional f actor s that i nf luencethi s uti lizati on. To r emove heat- sensit ive a ntinutr i-

t ional factor s, we used dr y-heating under pr essur e.Thermostable factors were removed by soaking chick-peas in distilled water or acid or basic medium and bysoaking followed by cooking.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

S a m p l e s . Raw, dried chickpeas (R) (Cicer arietinum L.)were grown in Andalusia (South ern Spain). The seeds weresubjected to seven different t reatmen ts: H ) dr y he a ting, S) soaking in distilled water, SA ) soaking in acid medium,SB ) soaking in basic medium, SC ) S + cooking, SAC ) SA+

cooking, SBC)

SB+

cooking.P r o c e s s i n g T e c h n i q u e s . Heating. Raw chickpeas weredry-heated under presure at 120 C, 1 atm, for 15 min.

Soaking. In pr ocesses S, SA, and SB, raw seeds were soakedat r oom tem perat ure for 9 h in distilled water (pH ) 5.3), citr icacid solution (0.1%, pH ) 2.6), or sodium bicar bonate solution(0.07%, p H ) 8.4). The seed t o solution r at io was 1:3 (wt:vol).The soaking liquid was dra ined off, and the seeds were blendedand lyophilized.

Cooking. Soaked chickpeas were cooked (SC, SAC, SBC)by boiling in dist illed wat er for 35 min, at a seed to wat er ra tioof 1:6.67 (wt:vol). The cooking wa ter was dr ained off, an d th eseeds were crushed and lyophilized.

A n a l y t i c a l T e c h n i q u e s . Nitr ogen wa s de te r m ine d withthe method of Kjeldahl. The protein conversion factor was6.25.

Water content was determined by oven-drying at 105 ( 1C until a constant weight was obtained.

P r ote in nitr oge n c onte nt wa s de te r m ine d in pr ote in pr e -cipitated with copper acetate.

The amino acid composition of the proteins was determinedby high-performance liquid chromatography (Pico-Tag method)of acid-digested samples; cysteine a nd methionine were ana -lyzed after performic acid oxidation.

B i o l o g i c a l M e t h o d s . Experimental Design and Diet. Weused a biological balance techniqu e, recorded food int ake, an dchanges in body weight and calculated nitrogen intake andfecal and urina ry n itrogen excretion.

Eight experiments were done in which raw or processedchickpeas were th e only source of food: group R, ra w chick-peas; group H, chickpeas dry-heated under pressure; groupS, chickpeas soaked in distilled water; group SB, chickpeas

* Address correspondence to th is au thor a t Depto. deFisiologa, Facul tad de Far m acia, Campus de Car tuja,Universidad de Granada E-18071 Granada, Spain (tele-phone +34-58-243879; fax +34-58-243879).

2760 J. Agric. Food Chem. 1996, 44, 27602765

S0021-8561(95)00545-0 CCC: $12.00 1996 American Chemical Society


2/6

soaked in basic medium; SA, chickpeas soaked in acid medium;group SC, chickpeas soaked in bidistilled water and cooked;group SBC, chickpeas soaked in basic medium and cooked;SAC, chickpeas soaked in acid medium and cooked.

Ea c h e xpe r im ent la ste d 10 da ys. Dur ing the f ir st 3 da ysthe r a ts we r e a llowe d to a da pt t o the die t a nd e xpe r im e nta lconditions, an d t he m ain experimental period comprised t he

next 7 da ys, during which body weight and food inta ke wererecorded and feces and urine were collected for subsequenta na lysis. The die t a nd bidistil le d wa te r we r e a va ila ble adlibitum throughout the experimental period.

Animals . I n e a ch e xp er i m en t w e u s e d 1 0 y ou n g a l b in oWista r r a ts ( 5 m a le , 5 f e m a le ) , r e a r e d in the Unive r sity of Grana da Laboratory Animal Services. The growing animals(recent ly weaned), with a n in itial body weight of 58.8 ( 1.5 g,we r e house d in individua l m e ta bolic c a ge s ke pt in a the r -moregulated room (22 ( 1 C) with a controlled 12 h light:dark period (lights on at 9.00).

Biological Indices. The following indices and pa rameterswere determined for each group, according to the formulasgiven below: intake (expressed as dry weight), body weight,protein efficiency rat io (PER, eq 1), apparent digestibilitycoefficient (ADC, eq 2) for protein and nitrogen retention

(nitr ogen ba la nce , e q 3), a nd pe r ce nt nitr ogen r e te ntion/ nitrogen absorption (%R/A, eq 4).

In accordance with the formulas recommended by the FAO/WHO (1966), th e factors used were I (nitrogen intak e), F (fecal

nitrogen), an d U (urinary nitrogen).

Body weight and protein intakes were expressed as (g/rat)/day.

Statistical Methods. The results from all experiments an dana lyses were test ed stat istically by analysis of varian ce usingStatgraphic Statistical Graphics 2.1 System software (Statisti-cal Graphics Corp., Rockville, MD) with an IBM PersonalS yste m /2 M ode l 20 com pute r (I nte r na tiona l B usine ss M a -

chines Corp., North Har bour Portsmouth, U .K.).

RESULTS

C h e m i c a l An a l y s i s . Table 1 gives the values f orpercent protein, total nitrogen conten t, an d nonproteinnitrogen content in raw and processed chickpea diets.Raw chickpeas cont ained 3.38% total nitr ogen, of which8.81% was nonprotein nitrogen. These values were notsignificantly affected by any of the processing techniquestested here. The apparen t increase in nitrogen concen-tra tion was du e to solubilization of carbohydrat es in th esoaking a nd cooking liquids.

The amino acid composition of chickpea protein issumm arized in Table 2. None of the processes used toprepare chickpeas before feeding modified the aminoacid composition significant ly. The t otal am ino acidcontent in all diets, expressed as grams of amino acidper 100 gr ams of diet , was vir tually t he same as t heprotein conten t.

The percent relat ive am ounts of essent ial amino acidsin dietar y pr oteins ar e shown in Table 3, r ef er r ed tochicken egg album in (FAO/WHO, 1973). The chemicalscore for chickpea protein sh owed th at this figure waslimited m ainly by meth ionine, cysteine, an d th reonine,which received scores of 45.17, 54.91, and 91.15, respec-tively, in raw chickpeas. Processing ha d no significan teffect on these values.

B i o l o gi c a l An a l y s i s . Food intake, expr essed as

g r a m s of d i et p e r 1 00 g r a m s of b od y w e ig h t , w a s

T a bl e 1 . C o m p o s i ti o n o f N i t r o g e n o f R a w a n d P r o c e s s e d C h i c k p e a s i n D r y M a tt e r

diet acrude pr otein

(%)total N conten t

(%)nonproteinN conten t b diet a

crude pr otein(%)

total N conten t(%)

nonproteinN conten t b

R 21.2 3.38 8.81 SB 22.9 3.65 8.93H 22.4 3.58 8.75 SC 23.0 3.67 8.89S 21.8 3.50 8.61 SAC 24.1 3.86 9.09SA 22.5 3.58 8.82 SBC 23.8 3.81 9.02

a R, raw chickpeas; H, heated chickpeas; S, soaked chickpeas; SA, chickpeas soaked in acid medium; SB, chickpeas soaked in basicmedium; SC, soaked and cooked chickpeas; SAC, chickpeas soaked in acid medium and cooked; SBC, chickpeas soaked in basic mediumand cooked. b As percent of total nitrogen content.

T a b l e 2 . A m i n o A c i d ( AA ) C o m p o s i t i o n o f R a w a n d P r o c e s s e d C h i c k p e a s ( G r a m s p e r 1 6 g o f N i t r o g e n , i n D r y M a t te r )a

a m in o a cid R H S SA SB SC SAC SBC

Asp 2.23 2.38 1.94 2.37 2.34 2.38 2.32 2.41Glu 3.83 4.11 4.02 4.04 4.05 4.10 4.15 4.16Ser 0.97 1.02 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.05 1.13 1.07Gly 0.94 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.03 1.02 1.11 1.08H is 0.29 0.30 0.37 0.31 0.30 0.32 0.32 0.33Th r 0.77 0.84 0.81 0.85 0.85 0.82 0.90 0.88Ala 0.99 0.98 0.91 1.00 1.02 1.05 1.08 1.13Ar g 1.83 1.88 2.05 2.01 2.09 2.08 2.15 2.13P r o 0.98 1.12 1.31 1.12 1.17 1.20 1.32 1.28Va l 1.46 1.39 1.31 1.42 1.44 1.46 1.57 1.52Ile 1.17 1.22 1.17 1.27 1.24 1.29 1.36 1.31Leu 2.13 2.29 2.16 2.31 2.35 2.40 2.52 2.47P h e 1.39 1.45 1.50 1.41 1.47 1.47 1.68 1.58Lys 1.42 1.57 1.46 1.46 1.61 1.50 1.77 1.60

Met 0.33 0.36 0.39 0.36 0.38 0.38 0.41 0.42Cys 0.41 0.46 0.46 0.45 0.45 0.43 0.36 0.44t ot a l AA (%) 21.13 22.38 21.88 22.38 22.81 22.94 24.13 23.81t ot a l br a n ch ed AA 4.76 4.90 4.64 5.00 5.03 5.15 5.45 5.30t ot a l su lfu r ized AA 0.74 0.82 0.85 0.81 0.83 0.81 0.77 0.86

a R, raw chickpeas; H, heated chickpeas; S, soaked chickpeas; SA, chickpeas soaked in acid medium; SB, chickpeas soaked in basicmedium; SC, soaked and cooked chickpeas; SAC, chickpeas soaked in acid medium and cooked; SBC, chickpeas soaked in basic mediumand cooked.

P E R )weight gained ((g/rat)/day)

protein inta ke ((g/rat )/day)(1)

ADC )I- F

I 100 (2)

balance ) I- (F+ U) (3)

%R/A )I- (F+ U)

I- F 100 (4)

Nutritional Assessment of Chickpea Protein J. Agric. Food Chem., Vol. 44, No. 9, 1996 2761


3/6


4/6

Like nitrogen balance, the rat io of nitrogen r etainedto nitrogen absorbed (%R/A) was significantly higher forthe basic-soaked an d a ll three cooked diets in compar i-son with all other groups (Table 6).

DISCUSSION

C h e m ic a l An a l ys e s o f P r o te i n . The chickpeastested in these experiments ha d a m ean pr otein contentof 21.22%, which was close to t he value of 21.5% givenby Cha van et a l. (1989). The slight increase in nitr ogenconcent ra tion after processing reflected th e loss of tota lcarbohydrates (Vidal-Valverde et al., 1993), a phenom-enon descr ibed by Sa vage an d Thompson (1993) inc h i c k p e a s s o a k e d i n w a t e r a t 1 2 C f o r 1 8 h a n d i nchickpeas cooked in water for 40 min.

The amino acid composition of the chickpeas we testedw a s s im i la r t o t h a t r e p or t e d b y o t h er s (S in g h a n dJambunathan, 1981b; Chavan et al., 1989; Combe et al.,1991) for th is legum e. Pr ocessing did not significan tlyaffect amino acid content, a result that contrasts withthe findings of Geervani and Theophilus (1980), whonoted that cooking reduced the content of some aminoacids, possibly as a result of the experimenta l conditionsthese author s used.

Percent total amino acid content in each diet testedher e was close to pr otein content . This suggests th atalthough as much as 8.81% of the total nitrogen contentwas in t he f or m of nonpr ot ein nitr ogen, t hi s por tioncompr i sed ami no acids and peptides that might havebeen digestible and utilizable, as postulated by Singhand J ambuna t han (1981a). These auth or s found tha tnonprotein nitrogen in chickpeas accounted for 11.2%of the tot al ni tr ogen content. The h ighly significantcorrelation that Singh and J ambu nat han (1981a) foundbetween protein content and nonprotein nitrogen (r)0.802) suggests that the chickpeas we tested may havecon t a in e d l es s n it r og en t h a n t h os e u s ed b y t h e seauthor s.

Our chemical scores for protein in raw and processed

ch i ck p e a s s h ow t h a t t h e l im i t in g a m i n o a c id s w er emet hioni ne and cysteine. I n an ear lier study, Chavanet al. (1989) also found th ese to be the limiting aminoacids in chickpeas, although their chemical scores fort h e s e t w o a m i n o a ci ds w er e h i gh e r t h a n ou r s . T h isdifference was probably du e t o the larger proportion ofglobulin in chickpeas, since this protein fraction con-tai ns the lar gest amount s of sul f ur - contai ning aminoacids ( Singh and J ambuna than , 1982).

The high protein content of chickpeas means that thislegume supplies enough essential a mino acids to coverthe growing ra ts nut ritional requirement s, as specifiedby the Na tional Research Council (U.S.) (1990). Nut ri-tional requirements were calculated from food intake

(Table 4) and am ino acid content (Table 2) as pr eviouslyreported (Nestares et al., 1993b).The pr opor tion of essenti al an d nonessent ial a mino

acids in chi ckpea pr otein is appr oxi mately 53-47%.According to th e r eference values given in a review bySantidr ian (1987) ( appr oximatel y 33% essential a nd66% nonessential amino acids for pr otei ns of h ighnut ritional value, versus 25% essential an d 75% nones-sent ial amin o acids in pr oteins of low nu trit iona l value),the chickpeas we stu died are of moderately good nut ri-tional value. The indispensable/dispensa ble am ino acidr a t i o (I/D) w a s 1 :2 , m a k i n g t h i s s ou r ce of p r ot e inappr opr iate f or gr owing r ats, in accor dance with thefindings of Stucki and Har per (1962). These researchersobtained optimal growth after weaning with feeds in

which the I/D rat io was 4:1. These findings suggest th at

y ou n g r a t s fe d w it h t h e ch i ck p ea p r ot e in w e t e s t edwould be expected to show good growth.

The similarities in percent pr otein conten t a nd pr oteinnitrogen in the chickpea we tested and other cultivarsreported in earlier st udies facilita ted comparisons of th emetabolic and digestive parameters.

B i o l o g i c a l A n a l y s e s o f P r o t e i n . Earlier researchat our laboratory showed that a more accurate indica-tion of f ood intake was obtained when r esul ts wer eexpressed as grams of food consumed per 100 g of bodyw e i g h t , t h a n w h e n t h i s p a r a m e t e r w a s e x p r e s s e d a sgram s of food in gested per ra t per day (Lopez-Fr as etal., 1985). Recordings of food intak e expressed withreference to body weight during t he 7 day m ain periodof the exper iment showed th at this value was signi fi -cantly lower in r ats f ed with r aw chickpeas than inweanling rats fed a diet adjusted to 12 or 20% proteincont ent (casein + DL-methionine) (Nesta res et al., 1993;Fer na n dez et al., 1993). The lower food inta kes in groupR tha n in r ats fed with a 12% casein-meth ionine dietmay ha ve been due in pa rt t o the greater protein supplyfrom chickpeas (Harper et al., 1967; Peters and Harper,1 98 5). I n r a t s , h i gh e r s u p p li es of d i e t a r y p r o t ei nincr ease the ser um concentr ation of br anched ami noacids (Johnson an d Anderson, 1982); this effect would

partially account for decreased appetite (Anderson etal., 1982), either directly, by increasing brain levels offree a mino acids, or indirectly, by blocking t he upta keof neut ral am ino acids such as tr yptopha n an d tyrosinein th e brain (Tews et al., 1978). These two amino acidsar e pr ecur sor s f or the synthesis of neur otr ansmi t ter sinvolved in appetite control.

The lower intake of the raw chickpea diet in compari-son with the 20% casein-methionine diet may havebeen due in par t to a difference in protein quality. Theamino acid imbalance in chickpeas may have reducedi n t a k e ( P e t e r s a n d H a r p e r , 1 9 8 5 ) b y c a u s i n g l a r g e ,unspecific changes in plasma and br ain ami no acidprofiles (Tackman et al., 1990).

The lower sacchar ose content in r aw (3.53%) an d

processed chickpeas (1.76-1.93%) in comparison witha standard diet (approximately 30%) (Nestares et al.,1993b) probably accounted for the lower intake of theless palatable chickpea diets.

The fat content of chickpeas is a ppr oximately 5%(Chavan et a l., 1989), a value within the limits r ecom-mended by the National Research Council (1990) forgrowing rat s. Unsa tur ated fat mak es up 67% of the to-tal fat conten t (Chavan et a l., 1989); thus, in both qual-itative and quantitative terms, chickpea fat satisfies ther equir ements f or gr owing r ats. The type and am ountof fat in th is food do not affect in ta ke (Le Magn en, 1983).

The presence of ant inutr itional factors su ch as R-ga-lactosides and tann ins m ay also be par t l y r esponsi ble

for the lower intake of chickpea diets in comparison witha casein diet. Raw chickpeas from the sam e lot as thoseused to pr epar e th e diets in the pr esent study contain4.84% R-galactosides (0.46% raffinose, 2.70% ciceritol,1.68% sta chyose) (Nestares et al., 1993a), compound swhich reduce intake in hum ans a nd an imals by causingflatulence (Singh et al., 1982; Savitri and Desikachar,1985). The ta nn in conten t of raw chickpeas (1.19 mg/1 00 g of d r y w ei gh t ) (N e st a r e s e t a l ., 1 99 3a ) a l sodecreases int ake by precipitat ing salivary proteins an dthus interfering with swallowing (Mole, 1989).

The significan tly higher inta kes (expressed a s gram sof food p er 100 g of body weight ) of th e pr ocessed diets(especially SB) in comparison with raw chickpeas cannotbe explained by differences in amino acid content, which

was n ot affected by h eating, soaking, or cooking. The



5/6

greater intakes of processed chickpeas may have beend u e t o r e d u ct i on s i n a n t i n u t r it i on a l fa ct or s d u r in gtrea tment (Nesta res et al., 1993a). However, this wasprobably not the only caus e, as un der our experimenta lconditions we found no direct correlat ion between R-ga-l a ct os id e or t a n n i n con t e n t a n d food i n t a k e. T h isimplies that the lower intake of raw chickpeas and thegreater intak es of processed diets in compar ison with acontrol casein-met hionine diet of similar (20%) or lower(12%) protein content were caused by a combination ofall the factors noted above tha t regulate intak e. In addi-tion, greater intakes were associated with a better over-al l pr otein synthesis, and f aster gr owth, whi ch madethese animals less susceptible to antinutritional factors.

The digest ive uti l ization of r aw chickpea pr otein,expr essed as the ADC, was withi n t he r ange r epor tedin earlier studies for this legume (Chavan et al., 1989;Combe et al ., 1991; Savage and Thompson, 1993).However, this ADC was below the figure we obtainedfor a 12% casein-meth ionine contr ol diet (Nestar es etal., 1993b). This may ha ve been du e to the presence oftrypsin inhibitors (10.43 + 0.77 units/mg of dry weight)(Nestar es et al ., 1993a), whi ch impede the completed ig es t ion of p r o t ei n . T a n n in s , a l so p r e s e n t i n t h echickpeas we test ed, incr ease the endogenous fecal

excretion of nitrogen and were a lso partly r esponsiblefor the decrease in protein ADC. The consu mption oflegumes increas es endogenous n itrogen loss through t heshedding of intest inal mu cosa (San oja and Bender, 1983;Fairweat her-Tait et al., 1983), an effect which furt herreduces protein ADC.

Dr y-heating under pr essur e signi ficantl y r educedprotein ADC in compa rison with th e value we found forr aw chickpeas, despite t he fact t hat this pr ocessingr educed tr ypsin inhibit or activity (TI A) by 30% andr educed tan nins by 47% (Nestar es et al ., 1993a). Thelow digestive u tilization of chickpea protein a fter thisd r y-h e a t in g w a s d u e t o d e n a t u r a t ion of t h e p r ot e inmolecules (Bender, 1978), which reduced the bioavail-ability of some amino a cids (Kirk, 1984). Soaking in

solutions of different pH did not improve the ADC incompar ison with th at for ra w chickpeas. Although th eint ake of soaked chi ckpeas was gr eater , so was f ecalexcretion of nitrogen, probably because soaking onlypart ially reduced, but did n ot entirely remove, trypsininhibitors or tann ins (Nestar es et al., 1993a). Soakingfollowed by cooking led to higher ADC th an an y othertype of pr ocessing; this r esult was due the f act thatincr eased pr otein intake was not a ccompani ed by afurther increase in fecal nitrogen excretion, probablybecau se cooking r emoved tr ypsin inhibitors and part lyr educed tan ni n content (Nestar es et al ., 1993a). I naddition, cooking (in contrast to dry-heating) did notdegr ade pr otei ns, pr obably because of the pr otective

effect of the cooking water (Varela et al., 1967) and thelower cooking tempera tur e a nd gentler cooking condi-t ion s w e u s e d. O u r r e su lt s a r e s im ila r t o t h o se of Savage a nd Thompson (1993), who found tha t cookingin water improved the ADC of chickpeas and explainedthis effect as a result of the removal of trypsin inhibitors.

The metabolic utilization of chickpea protein, assessedas nitrogen balance, was lower than expected in viewof t h e ch e m ica l s cor e w e ob t a in e d . O u r a n a l yt i ca lmet hods did not take into account amino aci d imbal-ances or differences in their rates of absorption, nor didthey account for a number of other factors such as thepossible interactions between protein and other com-ponents of the diet.

The metabolic uti lization of chickpea pr ot ein we

report here is higher than the value we obtained under

similar experimental conditions for the legume lentil( Lens culinaris) (Urban o et al., 1995). In contr ast withchickpea, the chemical score of lentil protein showedthat this legume is unsuitable for satisfying the require-ments of growing rats for essential amino acids.

I n th e pr esent stu dy we found that nitr ogen bal ancew a s l ow er t h a n t h a t r e p or t e d b y ot h e r a u t h o r s f orchickpea (Chavan et al ., 1989; Combe et al ., 1991;Savage and Thompson, 1993). The discr epancies a r elogical , in view of the fact t hat in our exper i mentschickpeas were the only source of food.

Basic-soaking (SB) and cooking preceded by soakingin a ny of the thr ee media (SC, SAC, and SBC) signifi-cantly improved th e m etabolic ut ilization of protein.This effect was not necessarily associated with increasedbody weight; for example, in groups SC and SAC, bodyweight incr eased much less than we would have ex-pected from the value we obtained for nitrogen reten-tion. I n gr oups SB an d SBC, body weight incr easedm a i n ly a s a r e s u lt of t h e ch a n g es i n ca r b oh y dr a t e sduring ba sic-soaking an d cooking. The u tilization ofcarbohydrates probably increased since the digestibilityof starch is affected by some processing and cookingtechnologies (Holm et al ., 1988). Soaking i n basi cmedium makes available an initially indigestible frac-

tion of sta rch (retrograde am ylose) an d, thu s, increasesthe nutritive utilization of starch (Tovar et al., 1990).T h is w ou l d a ccou n t for t h e g r ea t e r w ei gh t g a in i nanimals fed with basic-soaked chickpeas t han withchickpeas soaked in th e other m edia. Similar findingswer e r epor ted by Rao and Rao ( 1978) , who t est ed acasein-methionine diet adjusted with chickpea starchan d found th at body growth was fast er with cooked thanwith raw chickpeas, as a result of the increased avail-ability of starch after cooking.

In conclusion, the chemical evalua tion (aminogram,chemical scor e, cr ude pr otein, a nd pr otein ni t r ogencontent) of protein from raw and processed chickpeashowed that the high pr otein content and ami no acidprofile of this legume were adequa te for sat isfying the

nut ritional r equirements of growing ra ts. All processescompared improved the palatability of chickpeas andincreased food intak e. The largest increases were foundin rats fed with basic-soaked chickpeas and chickpeascooked after soaking in distilled water or basic or acidm e d iu m . T h es e f in d in g s m a y h a v e b e en d u e t o t h er emoval or r eduction of antinut r i t ional fact or s (i .e.,R-galactosides an d ta nn ins) during soaking an d cooking.The improved n utr itive u tilization of chickpea pr oteinwith the basic-soaked diet and chickpeas cooked aftersoaking in distilled water or ba sic or a cid medium wasnot related to increases in body weight; rather, weightg a in w a s m or e cl os e ly r e la t e d t o m od ifi ca t i on s i ncarbohydrat es caused by different processing meth ods.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

We t h a n k M s . K a r en S h a s h ok for t r a n s l a t in g t h eoriginal manuscript into English.

LITERATURE CITED

Anderson, G. H.; Glan ville, N. T.; Li, E. T. S. Amino acids an dthe regulation of quan tita tive and qualitat ive aspects of foodintake. In Am ino Acids: Metabolism an d M edical Applica-tions; Blackburn, G. L., Young, V. R. Y., Grant, J. P., Eds.;J. Wright-PSG Inc.: Littleton, MA, 1982.

B en d er , A. E . Food Processing and Nu trition ; AcademicPress: London, 1978; pp 219-254.

C ha va n, J . K. ; Ka da m , S . S ., S a lunkhe , D. K. C hickpe a . I n

Handbook of World Food Legumes: Nutritional Chemistry,

2764 J. Agric. Food Chem., Vol. 44, No. 9, 1996 Nestares et al.


6/6

Processing Technology, and Utilization ; S a lunkhe , D. K. ,Kada m, S. S., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Rat on, FL, 1989; Vol.I, pp 247-288.

Combe, E.; Achi, T., Pion, R. Compar ed met abolic and digest iveut ilisat ions of faba bean , lentil and chickpea. Reprod., N utr.,Dev. 1991, 31 (6), 631-646.

Fairweat her-Tait, S. J .; Gee, J. M.; J ohnson, I. T. The influenceof cooked kidney beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) on intestinaltur nover a nd faecal nitr ogen excretion in rat s. B r . J . N u t r .1983, 49 , 303-312.

FAO/WHO. Pr otein Requirements. Meeting on N utrition andAdvances; FAO: Rome, 1966; No. 37.

FAO/WHO. Energy and Protein Requirements, Report of aJ oint FAO/WHO Ad H oc Expert Committee. Rep. Ser. No522, WHO: Geneva, 1973; p 63.

Fer na n dez, M. M.; Ara nd a, P .; Lopez-J ur ad o, M.; Ur ban o, G.;Estr e lla , E. ; Dia z , C . ; F r ia s, J . ; P r oda nov, M . ; Vida l-Valverde, C. E ffect of processing on some an tinut ritivefactors of faba beans: influence on protein digestibility andfood i n t a k e i n r a t s . I n Recent Advances of R esearch inAntinutritional Factors in Legum e S eeds ; Van Der Poel, A.F. B., Huisman, J. H., Saini, S., Eds.; Wageningen Press:Wageningen, The Netherlands, 1993; pp 467-471.

Geervani, P.; Theophilus, F. Effect of home pr ocessing onnu trient composition of certa in high yielding legume variet-ie s Indian J. Nutr. Diet. 1980, 17, 443.

Harper, A. E. Effect of dietary protein content and amino acidpa tte r n on food inta ke a nd pr e fe r e nce . I n Hand book of

Physiology. Alimentary Canal; Code, C. F., Ed., AmericanPhysiological Society: Washington, DC, 1967; Vol. I, pp39 9-410.

Holm, J .; Lun dquist , I.; Bjorck, I.; Eliasson, A.-N.; Asp, N . G.Degree of star ch gelatinization, digestion rat e of star ch invitro, and metabolic response in rats. A m . J . C l in . N u t r .1988, 47, 1010-1016.

Johnson, D. J . ; Ande r son, G. H. The pr e dic tion of pla sm aa m ino a cid conc entr a tion fr om diet a m ino a cid conte nt.Physiol. Rev. 1982, 24 3, 99-103.

Kirk, J . R. Biological a vailabilty of nutr ients in pr ocessed foods. J. Chem. Educ. 1984, 61 (4), 364.

L e M a g n en , G . B od y e n er g y b a l a n ce a n d food i n t a k e: aneuroendocrine regulatory m echan ism. Physiol. Rev. 1983,63 , 314-386.

Lopez-Frias, M.; Llopis, J .; Montellano, M. A.; Ur ban o, G.

Influence of gesta tion an d hydr ocortisone-acetate t reat menton the nutritive utilization of protein. N a h r u n g 1985, 29(1), 11-18 .

Mole, S. P olyphenolics and the nut ritional ecology of hervi-bores. In Toxicants of Plant Origen, Phenolic; Cheeke, P.R., Ed.; CRC Press : Boca Ra ton, FL, 1989; Vol. 4, pp 191-223.

National Research Council. Nutrient Requirements of Labora-t or y A n i m a l s, 4th revised ed., Na tional Academy of Sci-ences: Washington, DC, 1990.

Nestares, T.; Barrionuevo, M.; Lopez-Frias, M.; Urbano, G.;Prodanov, M.; Frias, J.; Estrella, E.; Vidal-Valverde, C.Effect of processing on some antinutritive factors of chick-pea: Influence on protein digestibility and food intake inr a t s . I n Recent Ad vances of Research in Antinu tritionalFactors in Legume Seeds; Van Der P oel, A. F. B., Huisma n,

J . H., Saini, S., Eds.; Wageningen Pr ess: Wageningen, TheNetherlands, 1993a; pp 487-491.

Nesta res, T.; Lopez-Jur ado, M.; Sa nz, A.; Lopez-Frias, M.Nutr itional Assessment of two vegetable protein concen-tr a te s in gr owing r a ts. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1993b , 41 ,1282-1286.

P e t er s , J . C .; H a r p er , A. E . Ad a p t a t ion of r a t s t o d ie t scont ain ing differen t levels of protein : Effects on food inta ke,pla sm a a n d br a in a m ino a c id conc entr a tions a n d br a inneurotransmitter metabolism. J . N u t r . 1985 , 11 5, 382-398.

Rao, C. N.; Rao, B. S. N. Influence of starches from differentsources on protein utilization in rats. B r . J . N u t r . 1978, 40 ,1-9.

Rossi, M.; Germondari, I.; Casin, P. Comparison of chickpeacultivars: Chemical composition, nu tritional evaluat ion, an doligosaccharide contents. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1984, 32 ,

81 1-814.

Sanoja, S.; Bender, E. The effect of cooked legumes on mucosalcell turnover in the rat. J . N u t r . 1983, 43 , 89.

Santidrian, S. Consideration on protein nutritional aspects.OFFARM 1987, 5, 47-54 .

Savage, G. P.; Thompson, D. R. Effect of processing on thetrypsin inhibitor content and nutritive value of chickpeas(Cicer arietinum ). In Recent Advances of Research in Anti-nutritional Factors in Legume Seeds; Van Der Poel, A. F.B ., H uism a n, J . H . , S a ini, S . , Eds. ; Wa geningen P r e ss:Wageningen, The Netherlands, 1993; pp 435-440.

Savitr i, A.; Desikachar , H. S. R. A compara tive stu dy of flatu sproduction in relation to the oligosaccharides content of

some legumes. Nutr. Rep. Int. 1985, 31 , 337-344.Singh, U.; Jambunathan, R. Relationship between non-protein

nitrogen and total nitrogen in chickpea (Cicer arietinu m L .)seed. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1981a , 29 , 423-425.

S in g h , U . ; J a m b u n a t h a n , R . S t u d ie s on desi a n d kabulichickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) cultivars: Levels of proteaseinhibitors, level of polyphenolic compounds and i n v i t roprotein digestibility. J. Food S ci. 1981b , 46, 1363-1367.

S ingh, U. ; Ja m buna tha n, R . Distr ibution of se e d pr ote infractions and amino acid in different anatomical parts ofchickpea (Cicer arietinu m L.) and pigeon pea (Canajus cajanL.). Qual. Plant-P l an t F ood s H u m . N u t r . 1982, 31 , 347-354.

Singh, U.; Kherdekar, M. S.; Jambun atha n, R. Studies on desia nd kabuli chickpea cultivars: Levels of amylase inh ibitors,levels of oligosaccharides and in vitro star ch digestibility.

J. Food Sci. 1982, 47, 510-512.Singh, U.; Kumar, J .; Gowda, C. L. L. The pr otein content of

chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) grown at different locationsQual. Plant.sP l an t F ood s H u m . N u t r . 1983, 32 , 179.

S tucki, V. P . ; Ha r pe r , A. E . E ffe cts of a lter ing t he r a tio of indispensable to dispensable am ino acids in diets for rats.J . N u t r . 1962, 78 , 278-286.

Tackman, J. M.; Tews; J. K.; Harper, A. E. Dietary dispropor-tions of a m ino a cid in the r a ts: e ffe cts on f ood inta ke ,plasma an d brain am ino acids and brain serotonin. J . N u t r .1990, 12 0, 521-533.

Tews, J. K.; Good, S. S.; Harper, A. E. Transport of threonineand t ryptophan by rat brain slices: Relation to other a minoa cids a t conc entr a t ions found in pla sm a . J. Neurochem.1978, 31 , 581-589.

Tovar , J .; Bjorck, I. M.; Asp, N .-G. Analytical an d nu tr itional

implications of limited enzymic availability of starch incooked red kidney beans. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1990, 38 ,48 8-493.

Ur ban o, G.; Lopez-J ur ado, M.; H ern an dez, J .; Fer na n dez, M.;Moreu, M. C.; Fria s, J .; Diaz-Pollan , C.; Pr odanov, M.; Vidal-Va lve r de , C . Nutr it iona l a sse ssm e nt of r a w, he a te d a ndgerminated lentils. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1995, 43 , 1871-1877.

Varela, G.; Moreiras, O.; Vidal, C.; Murillo, A.; Luque, J. A.Influencia del tra tam iento t ermico sobre la calidad de laprote na del cachu ete. II. Accion protectora de la hu meda dy d e l a g r a sa y e fe ct o d e l a g lu cos a y d e l a s a ca r os a(Influence of heat tr eatment on protein quality in the groundnut II. Protective action of humidity and fat, and effect ofglucose and saccharose). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 1967, 27, 1-7.

Varela, G.; Moreiras, O.; Carbajal, A.; Campo, M. National

Study in Nutrition and Alimentation 1990/ 91 ; P ublicacionesdel Instituto Nacional de Estadstica: Madrid, 1995.

Vidal-Valverde, C.; Fr ias, J .; Valverde, S. Chan ges in theca r bohydr a te com position of legum e a fte r soa king a ndcooking J. Am . Diet. Assoc. 1993, 93 , 547-550.

Vidal-Valverde, C.; Frias, J .; Estr ella, I.; Gorospe, M. J .; Ruiz,R.; Bacon, J . E ffect of processing on some an tinut ritivefactors of lentils J . Agric. Food Chem. 1994, 42 , 2291-2295.

Received for r eview Augu st 11, 1995. Accepted May 28, 1996.X

This st udy wa s su pported by P rojects CICYT ALI88-466-C02-02 a nd CICYT ALI 91-1092-C02-01.

JF950545Q

X Abstra ct published in Advan ce ACS Abstracts, J u l y

15, 1996.


chickpea info

Documents