Indian Journal Of Agricultural Research

Physicochemical and Organoleptic Characteristics of Different Parts of Vegetable Cowpea [Vigna Unguiculata (L.) Walp]

DOI: 10.18805/IJARe.A-5148    | Article Id: A-5148 | Page : 662-668
Citation :- Physicochemical and Organoleptic Characteristics of Different Parts of Vegetable Cowpea [Vigna Unguiculata (L.) Walp].Indian Journal Of Agricultural Research.2019.(53):662-668
Deepa Tiwari, Anuradha Dutta, Y.V. Singh, R.S. Raghuvanshi, Pushpa Shukla, Raushan Khan and Soni Tilara adutta.gbpuat@gmail.com
Address : Department of Foods and Nutrition, College of Home Science, G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Udham Singh Nagar, Pantnagar-263 145, Uttarakhand, India.
Submitted Date : 13-10-2018
Accepted Date : 4-09-2019
First Online:

Abstract

All parts of the cowpea crop are nutritious and edible. The present study analyzed the nutritional, anti-nutritional and organoleptic qualities of vegetable cowpea pods, shells and seeds. Two varieties of vegetable cowpea viz. PusaSukomal and PVCP-20 were studied in three parts (pods/shells/seeds). Proximate composition, seven minerals, dietary fiber and two anti-nutrients were analyzed. The study showed that both varieties of vegetable cowpea are nutritious with PusaSukomal being rich in macronutrients and PVCP-20 rich in micronutrients. The three different parts of cowpea differed from each other nutritionally as well as in their anti-nutrient content. Among the different parts analyzed shells were rich in dietary fiber. Seeds were nutrient dense as compared to pods and shells, but more in anti- nutrients. Organoleptically seeds of PusaSukomal were preferred over other forms.  It is revealed from the study that PusaSukomal seeds are nutritionally and organoleptically superior to the other samples studied.

Keywords

Nutritive value Organoleptic characteristics PVCP-20 PusaSukomal Vigna unguiculate

References

  1. A.A.C.C. (American Association of Cereal Chemistry) Report (2001). The definition of dietary fiber. Cereal Foods World. 46(3): 112-126.
  2. A.O.A.C. (1970). Official Methods of Analysis.Hornitz, W. Ed. Washington, Association of Official Analysis chemist. 11th ed. Washington D.C., U.S.A.
  3. A.O.A.C. (1995). Official Methods of Analysis. Hornitz, W. Ed. Washington, Association of Official Analysis chemist. 16th ed. Washington D.C., U.S.A.
  4. Boys, K., Faye, M., Fulton, J. and Lowenberg-De Boer J. (2007). The economic impact of cowpea research in Senegal: an ex-post analysis with disadoption. Agricultural Economics. 36: 363–375.
  5. Davis, D.W., Oelke, E.A., Oplinger, E.S., Doll, J.D., Hanson, C.V. and Putnam, D.H. (2008). Alternative Field crop Manual, Center for Alternative Plant and Animal Products, University of Minnesota, MN 55108. pp. 15-17.
  6. Deol, J.K. and Bains, K. (2010). Effect of household cooking on nutritional and anti-nutritional factors in green cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) pods. J. Food Sci. Technol. 47 (5): 579-581.
  7. Eashwarage, I.S., Herath, H.M.T. and Gunathilake, K.G.T. (2017). Dietary fiber, resistant starch and in vitro starch digestibility of selected eleven commonly consumed legumes Mung bean, Cowpea, Soybean and Horse Gram) in Sri Lanka. J. Chemical Sci. 7(2): 27-33.
  8. Fiske, C.H. and Subba, R.Y. (1925). Estimation of phosphorus. J. of Biological Chemi. 66: 375.
  9. Fritz, J. and Sehenk, G.H. (1979). Quantitative Analytical Chemistry.4th ed. Allyn and Bacon, Inc., Boston. p. 11-53. 
  10. Gerrano, A.S., Rensburg, W.S.J.V., Adebola, P.O. (2017). Nutritional composition of immature pods on selected cowpea varieties in South Africa. Aus. J. of Crop Sci. 11(2):134-141.
  11. Jackson, M.L. (1973). Soil Chemical Analysis. 2nd ed. Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi. p.61-65.
  12. Lesly, W.D. (2005). Characterization and Evaluation of Cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp] Germplasm. M.Sc. Thesis.University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad. pp. 120.
  13. Liu, K. and Markakis, P. (1989). An improved colorimetric method for determining anti-tryptic activity in soyabean products. Cereal Chemistry. 66 (5):415-422.
  14. Mudambi, R.S., Rao, M.S. (1989). Food Science. New Age International Publishers Ltd. Chennai. India. pp. 204.
  15. Ojimelukwe P.C, Nwofia G.E, Nnadi O. (2014). Comparison of the nutrient composition and physical characteristics of nigerian local vegetable cowpea varieties [Vigna unguiculata (L.)Walp.] and exotic ones. Int. J. Curr. Res. 6: 4873-4876.
  16. Pasquet, R.S. (1999). Genetic relationships among subspecies of [Vigna unguiculata (L.)Walp.] based on allozyme variation. Theor. and Appl. Genet. 98:1104–1119.
  17. Pottorff, M., Ehlers, J.D., Fatokun, C., Roberts, P.A. and Timothy, J. (2012). Leaf morphology in Cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp]: QTL analysis, physical mapping and identifying a candidate gene using synteny with model legume species. BMC Genomics. 13:234.
  18. Preet, K. and Punia, D. (2000). Proximate composition, phytic acid, polyphenols and in vitro digestibility of four brown cowpea varieties. Int.J. of Food Sci. and Nutri. 51(3): 189-193.
  19. Prodanov, M., Sierra, I. and Vidal, V.C. (2004). Influence of soaking and cooking on the thiamin, riboflavin and niacin contents of legumes. Food Chem. 84 (2): 271–277.
  20. Raghuramulu, N., Nair, K.M. and Kalyanasund, A.S. (2003). A manual of laboratory techniques. National Institute of Nutrition, ICMR, Hydrabad, India
  21. Soetan, K.O. and Oyewole, O.E. (2009). The need for adequate processing to reduce the anti-nutritional factors in plants used as human foods and animal feeds: A review. African Journal of Food Science. 3(9): 223-232.
  22. Tiwari, A.K. and Shivhare, A.K. (2016). Pulses in India: Retrospect and Prospect. 2: 167-174.
  23. Venkatesan, M., Prakash, M. and Ganesan, J. (2003).Correlation and path analysis in cowpea (Vigna unguiculata). Legume Res. 26(2): 105-108.
  24. Wheeler, E.L. and Ferrel, R.E, (1971). A method for phytic acid determination in wheat and wheat fractions. Cereal Chemistry. 48:312-320.

Global Footprints