Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T06:45:08.709Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Protein quality in cereals and pulses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 December 2008

J. E. Ford  and
D. Hewitt
J. E. Ford
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AT
D. Hewitt
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AT
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. The Streptococcus zymogenes assay procedure was modified and used in the estimation of available methionine and relative nutritional value in rice (Oryza sativa L.), sorghum (Sorghum vulgare Pers.), barley and field beans (Vicia faba L.). The results were assessed in relation to the content of tannins and ‘dye-binding lysine’, and to published information on the nutritional quality of some of the test samples.

2. In grain of ten varieties of sorghum, for which other workers had reported a correlation (r — 0.82; P < 0.01) between tannin content and amino acid digestibility in chicks, the available methionine content ranged from 6.3 to 17.7 g/kg protein (nitrogen × 6.25) and was highly correlated with tannin content (r — 0.97; P < 0.001). The content of total methionine and dye-binding lysine varied little between varieties and was not related to tannin content.

3. In nine samples of rice the availability of methionine was uniformly high, in accordance with literature values for true digestibility of the N.

4. In field beans the presence of tannins in the seed coat was associated with a significant (P < 0.001) reduction in the availability of methionine. In eleven tannin-free varieties the coefficient of availability averaged 0.791, compared with 0.685 in eleven tannin-containing varieties. The standard deviation associated with both values was 0.04. There was no such difference between the corresponding dye-binding lysine values.

5. Thirty-three samples of barley were examined, representing fourteen varieties, four of which had been grown at several widely different latitudes in England and Sweden. There was little difference in methionine content between samples. The average availability coefficient for eighteen samples grown in England was 0.995 ± 0.044, and for fifteen varieties grown in Sweden it was 0.851 ± 0.042. The difference was not associated with any difference in tannin content, which was uniformly low. The findings contradict published evidence for marked increase in tannin content with increase in geographical latitude of cultivation, associated with decrease in digestibility of N.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 41 , Issue 2 , March 1979 , pp. 341 - 352
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1979

References

Bond, D. A. (1976). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 86, 561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyne, A. W., Ford, J. E., Hewitt, D. & Shrimpton, D. H. (1975). Br. J. Nutr. 34, 153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bressani, R., Elias, L. G. & Juliano, B. O. (1971). J. agric. Fd Chem. 19, 1028.Google Scholar
Carpenter, K. J. & Woodham, A. A. (1974). Br. J. Nutr. 32, 647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. E., Howe, J. M. & Lee, C. J. (1971). Am. J. clin. Nutr. 24, 324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Muelenaere, H. J. H., Chen, M. L. & Harper, A. E. (1967). J. agric. Fd Chem. 15, 310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eggum, B. O. & Juliano, B. O. (1973). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 24, 921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elwell, D. & Soares, J. H. (1974). Poult. Sci. 54, 78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, J. E. (1962). Br. J. Nutr. 16, 409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, J. E. (1964). Br. J. Nutr. 18, 449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, J. E. & Salter, D. N. (1966). Br. J. Nutr. 20, 843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gohl, B. & Thomke, S. (1976). Poult. Sci. 55, 2369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, D. W. & Jones, D. I. H. (1977). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 28, 983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegsted, D. M. & Juliano, B. O. (1974). J. Nutr. 104, 772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurrell, R. F. & Carpenter, K. J. (1975). Br. J. Nutr. 33, 101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurrell, R. F. & Carpenter, K. J. (1976). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 35, 23A.Google Scholar
Martin-Tanguy, J., Guillaume, J. & Kossa, A. (1977). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 28, 757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maxson, E. D. & Rooney, L. W. (1972). Cereal Chem. 49, 719.Google Scholar
Miller, E. L., Carpenter, K. J., Morgan, C. B. & Boyne, A. W. (1965). Br. J. Nutr. 19, 249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miyamoto, T., Shinkai, T., Ikehata, H. & Murata, K. (1961). Rep. Sci. Living, Osaka city Univ. 9, 7.Google Scholar
Nelson, T. S., Stephenson, E. L., Burgos, A., Floyd, J. & York, J. O. (1975). Poult. Sci. 54, 1620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varnish, S. A. & Carpenter, K. J. (1975). Br. J. Nutr. 34, 339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar