Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T01:25:11.475Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Evaluation of cowpea germplasm lines for protein and mineral concentrations in grains

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 July 2011

Ousmane Boukar*
Affiliation:
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), PMB 5320, Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria
Festo Massawe
Affiliation:
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), PMB 5320, Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria
Satoru Muranaka
Affiliation:
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), PMB 5320, Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria
Jorge Franco
Affiliation:
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), PMB 5320, Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria
Bussie Maziya-Dixon
Affiliation:
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), PMB 5320, Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria
Bir Singh
Affiliation:
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), PMB 5320, Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria
Christian Fatokun
Affiliation:
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), PMB 5320, Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Cowpea, an indigenous crop to sub-Saharan Africa, is found mainly in the dry savanna regions along with cereals such as millets and sorghum. Cowpea is grown primarily for human consumption of the grains, which are rich in protein, carbohydrates and contain some minerals. The development and deployment of cowpea varieties with higher nutritional value will be of immense benefit to consumers. As a first step in the enhancement of mineral content in cowpea grains, several germplasm lines (1541) of different origins and obtained from the genetic resources unit at IITA were sown in the experimental field in Minjibir, Kano State, Nigeria. The grains were analysed for protein and nine mineral contents. However, in this study, we shall report data on crude protein, Fe, Zn, Ca, Mg, K and P. The data generated from the chemical analysis were subjected to the ‘mixture of normal distributions’ clustering method, which distributed the cowpea lines into nine groups. Groups G7 and G9 contained 174 genotypes and these were characterized by high mineral concentrations. The mean nutritional content values for group G9 were 24.7% for protein, and 58.9, 41.5, 1107, 2132, 15,282 and 5664 mg/kg for Fe, Zn, Ca, Mg, K and P, respectively. On the other hand, the 363 lines making up groups G2, G3 and G6 showed low amounts of nutrients in their grains. Some of the lines in G7 and G9 would be good as parents to use in breeding programmes that aimed at developing nutrient-dense cowpea varieties.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © NIAB 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bãnziger, M and Long, J (2000) The potential for increasing the iron and zinc density of maize through plant-breeding. Food Nutrition Bulletin 21: 397400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beebe, S, Gonzalez, A and Rengifo, J (2000) Research on trace minerals in the common bean. Food Nutrition Bulletin 21: 387391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bliss, FA (1975) Cowpea in Nigeria. In: Milner, M (ed.) Proceedings of Symposium on Nutritional Improvement of Food Legumes by Breeding. 3–5 July, 1972. New York, NY: United Nations Protein Advisory Group, pp. 151158.Google Scholar
Bressani, R (1985) Nutritive value of cowpea. In: Singh, SR and Rachie, KO (eds) Cowpea Research, Production and Utilization. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd., pp. 354359.Google Scholar
Carnovale, E, Marletta, L, Marconi, E and Brosio, E (1990) Nutritional and hydration properties in cowpea. In: Ng, NQ and Monti, LM (eds) Cowpea Genetic Resources. Ibadan: IITA, pp. 111118.Google Scholar
Elias, LG, Colindres, FR and Bressani, R (1964) The nutritive value of eight varieties of cowpea (Vigna sinensis). Journal of Food Science 29: 118122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FAO(2008) FAOSTAT Database. http://faostat.fao.org Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. Accessed October 2010.Google Scholar
Franco, J, Crossa, J, Villasenor, J, Taba, S and Eberhart, S (1998) Classifying genetic resources by categorical and continuous and variables. Crop Science 38: 16881696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, RD, Welch, RM and Bouis, HE (2001) Addressing micronutrient malnutrition through enhancing the nutritional quality of staple foods: principles, perspectives and knowledge gaps. Advances in Agronomy 70: 77142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marconi, E, Lombardi-Boccia, G, Carnovoale, E and Ng, Q (1990) Nutritional evaluation of wild and cultivated species of cowpea. In: Ng, NQ and Monti, LM (eds) Cowpea Genetic Resources. Ibadan: IITA, pp. 101110.Google Scholar
Mardia, KV, Kent, JT and Bibby, JM (1979) Multivariate Analysis. Academic Press, London. pp 338347.Google Scholar
Simonne, AH, Simonne, EH, Eitenmiller, RR, Mills, HA and Cresman, CP III (1997) Could the Dumas method replace the Kjeldahl digestion for nitrogen and crude protein determinations in foods? Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 73: 3945.3.0.CO;2-4>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, MD, Brick, MA, McGinley, JN and Thompson, HJ (2009) Chemical composition and mammary cancer inhibitory activity of dry bean. Crop Science 49: 179186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Townsend, MS, Henning, JA, Smith, DW, Ray, IM and Currier, CG (1999) Differential concentration of ten minerals among four ancestral alfalfa germplasms. Crop Science 39: 574578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, PJ and Broadley, MR (2009) Biofortification of crops with seven mineral elements often lacking in human diets – iron, zinc, copper, calcium, magnesium, selenium and iodine. New Phytologist 182: 4984.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Boukar Supplementary Material

Boukar Supplementary Material

Download Boukar Supplementary Material(File)
File 2.8 MB