The results of the macronutrient content of selected plant foods are given in Table 1. The results of the moisture content of cereal foods tested ranged from 6.54% (Maize) to 10.84% (Low GI Rice), pulses from 5.05% (Bengal gram whole) to 7% (Cowpea), roots and tubers from 74.7% (Colocasia) to 80.35% (Yam) and plantain 84.67%. The results of the protein among the cereals ranged from 6.99% (Ragi) to 11% (Foxtail), pulses from 16.32% (Bengal gram whole) to 22.92% (Green gram dhal), roots and tubers from 7.74% (Colocasia) to 11.87% (Yam) and plantain showed 6.71%, fat content among the cereals tested was ranged from 2.17% (Market rice) to 6.06% (Maize), pulses from 2.3% (Green gram whole) to 6.53% (Green gram whole), roots and tubers from 0.3% (Yam) to 0.49% (Colacasia) and plantain contains 0.14%, ash content of cereals ranged from 0.44% (Market rice) to 2.16% (Ragi), pulses from 2.58% (Cowpea) to 4.06% (Red gram dhal), roots and tubers from 1.18% (Potato) to 1.38% (Yam) and plantain contains 0.73% and the carbohydrate of cereals ranged from 59.21% (Perl millet) to 80.35% (Market rice), pulses from 19.06% (Red kidney bean) to 47.76% (Green gram dhal), roots and tubers from 11.86% (Potato) to 16.72% (Colocasia) and plantain contains 11.49% respectively. Study results are similar to the proximate composition of the major cereal grains (sorghum, millet, maize and rice) of Iree, Oyo State, Nigeria. The water, oil, ash, protein and carbohydrate contents were in the ranges 9.4-11.0%, 0.3-4.9%, 0.8-2.6%, 6.5-10.9% and 70.7-82.4%, respectively (
Adeyeye and Ajewole, 1992). Another study has reported the proximate composition of Oats (
Avena sativa) and the moisture, crude protein, crude fat, crude fiber, ash and total carbohydrate contents were in the range of 8.5-9.8, 11.9-15.8, 6.7-10.3, 2.1-3.5, 1.2-1.3 and 72.6-74.3 g/100 g DM
(Getaneh et al., 2021). The available carbohydrate was found in the range of 75.86% in sorghum to 72.99% in millet, the highest protein in wheat (12.39%), maize 8.58%, ash content ranged from 0.56% for rice to 1.67% for millet, fat and fiber was between 2.50 to 3.94% and 1.09 to 3.19% (
Abdulrahman and Omoniyi, 2016). A study reported that the proximate compositions such as carbohydrate, protein, fat, ash and dietary fiber of wheat varieties, sorghum varieties maize varieties
(Salamatu et al., 2020). In another study, they reported the macronutrients such as moisture, ash, fat, protein and carbohydrate of cereal grains and black gram soya (
Gowri and Bhaminy, 2019). The proximate composition and starch nutritional properties of twenty cooked lentils were studied to identify unique varieties that could be used in value-added foods
(Dan et al., 2020). The proximate composition such as Protein, fat, crude fiber, ash and available carbohydrates and energy of both raw taro and yam were studied
(Zelalem et al., 2019). Both raw taro and yam had a substantial quantity of the proximate composition and could be promising crops for securing the food supply. The proximate compositions such as moisture, crude protein, ash, crude fiber and carbohydrates of unripe plantain were studied
(Adepoju et al., 2012).
The results of the resistant starch, non-resistant starch and total starch content are mentioned in Table 2. From the table, it is evident that the resistant starch content of cereals analyzed ranged from 0.16% (Foxtail millet) to 5.71% (Jowar), pulses from 1.86% (Bengal gram dhal) to 29.4% (Red gram dhal), roots and tubers from 28.41% (Potato) to 45.7% (Colocasia) and plantain contains 39.88% respectively. The results of the non-resistant starch content of cereals tested ranged from 49.63% (Maize) to 73.18% (Market rice), pulses from 5.05% (Red gram dhal) to 35.98% (Green gram dhal), roots and tubers from 2.43% (Yam) to 19.31% (Potato) and the plantain contains 17.03% respectively and the total starch is the sum of the resistant starch and non-resistant starch. The total starch content of cereals ranged from 50.1% (Maize) to 74.39% (Market rice), pulses from 23.97% (Green gram whole) to 37.22% (Lentil), roots and tubers from 33.62% (Yam) to 48.58% (Colocasia) and the plantain contains 56.91% respectively. The resistant starch (RS) content of twenty-five cereal, potato and legume products and the highest RS concentration reported in the legume group and processed potato products. Among the cereal foods, bread with enclosure of intact rye grains, barley flakes and semolina porridge has an RS level in the higher range (Liljeberg, 2002). The RS content of wheat, Kolam rice, legumes, cooked food product of cereals such as Khichdi, Puri, paratha, Chapatti and Bhatura, legume preparations such as freshly cooked Pithle, cooked Chole and germinated Moong, Moong Usal and soaked Kabuli chana (
Madhuri and Nigudkar, 2014). RS content of raw roots/tubers RS in descending order was tapioca>colocasia>sweet potato>potato>yam
(Mahamood et al., 2006). RS content of cereals tested is low. The non-resistant starch and total starch contents were higher in the low amylose rice than in the high amylose rice. The total starch contents of rice varied from 68.57 to 74.76%, whilst the total starch in sweet corn was only 36.23%. The highest amount was observed in the lesser yam (23.25%) followed by cassava root (9.69%). The lowest RS content was found in sweet potatoes. Non-resistant starch of lesser yam and yam bean was lowest, whilst the non-resistant starch in the remaining roots and tubers varied from 49.35% (sweet potato) to 59.61% (taro). The lowest total starch content was found in yam bean, whereas the other roots and tuber were found between 52.54 and 65.70%. They have also reported that the good source of resistant starch is green banana while the non-resistant starch varied from 19.38 to 31.99%. Total starch contents were 62.77, 66.90 and 67.45% in Musa AAA, Musa AAB and Musa ABB (
Anuchita Moongngarm, 2013). The RS content within and between each food item category can be influenced by many factors such as breeding techniques that can increase the amylose to amylopectin ratio of the starch granule to allow for RS formation during the cooling process
(Diane et al., 2013).