IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i9p4918-d797428.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Calcium-Rich Pigeonpea Seed Coat: A Potential Byproduct for Food and Pharmaceutical Industries

Author

Listed:
  • Dhanapal Susmitha

    (Genebank, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru 502324, India
    Centre for Plant Breeding and Genetics, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University (TNAU), Coimbatore 641003, India)

  • Thiyagarajan Kalaimagal

    (Centre for Plant Breeding and Genetics, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University (TNAU), Coimbatore 641003, India)

  • Ramachandran Senthil

    (Genebank, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru 502324, India)

  • Mani Vetriventhan

    (Genebank, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru 502324, India)

  • Seetha Anitha

    (Nutrition Cluster, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru 502324, India)

  • Swaminathan Manonmani

    (Centre for Plant Breeding and Genetics, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University (TNAU), Coimbatore 641003, India)

  • Prabhakaran Jeyakumar

    (Office of the Registrar, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University (TNAU), Coimbatore 641003, India)

  • Surender Reddymalla

    (Genebank, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru 502324, India)

  • Ovais Peerzada

    (Genebank, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru 502324, India)

  • Venkata Narayana Arveti

    (Genebank, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru 502324, India)

  • Vania C. R. Azevedo

    (International Potato Center (CIP), Lima 1558, Peru)

  • Kuldeep Singh

    (Genebank, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru 502324, India)

Abstract

Pigeonpea is a protein-rich legume which is consumed worldwide in a variety of forms (whole seed, dhal , and as a green vegetable). In India, pigeonpea is milled to yield dhal (cotyledon) and this process generates 25–35% waste byproducts. The hull (seed coat) which accounts for 10% of the byproduct is disposed of either as waste or low-cost cattle feed. To recycle the waste byproducts into the food value chain, this study was conducted with the objectives: (i) to estimate nutrient accumulation in the major seed fractions (cotyledon and seed coat), (ii) to estimate the percentage of nutrient contribution by major seed fractions, (iii) to assess the percentage of nutrient loss due to dehulling, and (iv) to determine the scope of seed coat in nutritional value addition. For this, a subset of 60 diverse pigeonpea accessions selected from 600 pigeonpea accessions raised during the 2019 and 2020 rainy seasons at ICRISAT, Patancheru, India, was subjected to a cotyledon and seed coat nutrient analysis. The three-way analysis of variance revealed the significant influence of cropping years, seed fractions, genotypes, and their interactions on nutrient accumulation. The nutrients, namely protein (32.28 ± 2.29%), P (476.51 ± 39.05 mg/100 g), K (1557.73 ± 66.82 mg/100 g), Fe (4.42 ± 0.41 mg/100 g), Zn (2.25 ± 0.21 mg/100 g), and Cu (0.95 ± 0.07 mg/100 g) were enriched in cotyledon. Mn was equally enriched in both the cotyledon and seed coat (1.02 ± 0.12 mg/100 g and 0.97 ± 0.34 mg/100 g, respectively). The seed coat had a high concentration of Ca (652.02 ± 114.82 mg/100 g), and Mg (249.19 ± 34.12 mg/100 g) with wide variability for Fe (2.74–5.61 mg/100 g), Zn (0.88–3.95 mg/100 g), Cu (0.38–1.44 mg/100 g), and Mn (0.58–2.18 mg/100 g). It is noteworthy that the protein and P contents in the cotyledon were 7 and 18 times higher than that in the seed coat, respectively, and the Ca content in the seed coat was 12 times higher than that in the cotyledon. A correlation study revealed that for overall nutrient improvement in dhal , selection for a small seed size was desirable. On an average, the percentage of nutrient contribution by major seed fractions revealed that the cotyledon portion contributed around 95% protein and P; 90% K and Zn; 85% Fe, Cu, and Mn; and 75% Mg, while the seed coat portion contributed nearly 65% Ca to the whole grain. The findings of high Fe and protein concentrations in the cotyledon and high Ca accumulation in the seed coat can serve as a new guide for improved technological fractionation of these components to serve as a novel functional food ingredient and as a dietary supplement that can address malnutrition.

Suggested Citation

  • Dhanapal Susmitha & Thiyagarajan Kalaimagal & Ramachandran Senthil & Mani Vetriventhan & Seetha Anitha & Swaminathan Manonmani & Prabhakaran Jeyakumar & Surender Reddymalla & Ovais Peerzada & Venkata , 2022. "Calcium-Rich Pigeonpea Seed Coat: A Potential Byproduct for Food and Pharmaceutical Industries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-17, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:9:p:4918-:d:797428
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/9/4918/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/9/4918/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. AfDB AfDB, . "Improving Statistics for Food Security, Sustainable Agriculture & Rural Development - An Action Plan for Africa (2011–2015) - Bulletin N°3," Global Strategy Implementation Bulletin, African Development Bank, number 368.
    2. Meenakshi, J.V. & Johnson, Nancy L. & Manyong, Victor M. & DeGroote, Hugo & Javelosa, Josyline & Yanggen, David R. & Naher, Firdousi & Gonzalez, Carolina & García, James & Meng, Erika, 2010. "How Cost-Effective is Biofortification in Combating Micronutrient Malnutrition? An Ex ante Assessment," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 64-75, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Emily Aparecida Ferreira Brandão & Thiago da Rocha Santos & Stephan Rist, 2020. "Connecting Public Policies for Family Farmers and Women’s Empowerment: The Case of the Brazilian Semi-Arid," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-22, July.
    2. Jinyang Cai & Fengxiang Ding & Yu Hong & Ruifa Hu, 2021. "An Impact Analysis of Farmer Field Schools on Hog Productivity: Evidence from China," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-14, October.
    3. Gómez, Miguel I. & Ricketts, Katie D., 2013. "Food value chain transformations in developing countries: Selected hypotheses on nutritional implications," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 139-150.
    4. Oludele Akinloye Akinboade & Segun Adeyemi Adeyefa, 2018. "An Analysis of Variance of Food Security by its Main Determinants Among the Urban Poor in the City of Tshwane, South Africa," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 137(1), pages 61-82, May.
    5. Imen Turki Abdelhedi & Sonia Zouari Zouari, 2020. "Agriculture and Food Security in North Africa: a Theoretical and Empirical Approach," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 11(1), pages 193-210, March.
    6. Gersch Inka, 2018. "Producer organizations and contract farming: a comparative study of smallholders’ market strategies in South India," ZFW – Advances in Economic Geography, De Gruyter, vol. 62(1), pages 14-29, March.
    7. repec:lib:00johs:v:16:y:2020:i:2:p:55-65 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Nguema, Abigail & Norton, George W. & Fregene, Martin & Sayre, Richard & Manary, Mark, 2011. "Expected economic benefits of meeting nutritional needs through biofortified cassava in Nigeria and Kenya," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 6(1), pages 1-17, March.
    9. Edeh, Hyacinth Onuorah & Gyimah-Brempong, Kwabena, 2014. "Determinants of Change and Household Responses to Food Insecurity: Empirical Evidence from Nigeria," 88th Annual Conference, April 9-11, 2014, AgroParisTech, Paris, France 169750, Agricultural Economics Society.
    10. Carolina González & Nancy Johnson & Matin Qaim, 2009. "Consumer Acceptance of Second‐Generation GM Foods: The Case of Biofortified Cassava in the North‐east of Brazil," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(3), pages 604-624, September.
    11. Jae Yeon Park & Arlette Saint Ville & Timothy Schwinghamer & Hugo Melgar-Quiñonez, 2019. "Heterogeneous factors predict food insecurity among the elderly in developed countries: insights from a multi-national analysis of 48 countries," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 11(3), pages 541-552, June.
    12. Suleiman, A. & Tosan, Fregene, 2011. "Analysis of Costs and Returns of Artisanal Fish Marketing in Kebbi State, Nigeria," Journal of Rural Economics and Development, University of Ibadan, Department of Agricultural Economics, vol. 20, pages 1-9, June.
    13. Alia, Didier Y. & Agamile, Peter & McFeely, Micah & Anderson, C. Leigh, 2023. "Assessing the Benefits of Multi-biofortified Rice in Nigeria and Ghana using the Disability-Adjusted Life Years Framework," 2023 Annual Meeting, July 23-25, Washington D.C. 335948, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Tendai Chigavazira & Horácio Lucas Zandamela, 2021. "Behaviour Change in Drought Response and Management: Case Study of Mudzi District, Zimbabwe," Journal of Public Administration and Governance, Macrothink Institute, vol. 11(2), pages 294316-2943, December.
    15. Ratana Sapbamrer & Ajchamon Thammachai, 2021. "A Systematic Review of Factors Influencing Farmers’ Adoption of Organic Farming," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-28, March.
    16. Sujan Chandra Paul & Md Arif Hosen & Jyotirmay Biswas & Shahadat Hossain, 2021. "Primary education and its impact on literacy rate: A division wise comparative study of Bangladesh," International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147-4478), Center for the Strategic Studies in Business and Finance, vol. 10(4), pages 391-405, June.
    17. Adewale Oparinde & Abhijit Banerji & Ekin Birol & Paul Ilona, 2016. "Information and consumer willingness to pay for biofortified yellow cassava: evidence from experimental auctions in Nigeria," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 47(2), pages 215-233, March.
    18. Mogues, Tewodaj & Yu, Bingxin & Fan, Shenggen & Mcbride, Linden, 2012. "The impacts of public investment in and for agriculture: Synthesis of the existing evidence," IFPRI discussion papers 1217, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    19. Renkow, Mitch & Byerlee, Derek, 2010. "The impacts of CGIAR research: A review of recent evidence," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 391-402, October.
    20. repec:lib:00johs:v:16:y:2020:i:2:p:134-148 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Pienaar, Louw & Traub, Lulama, 2015. "Understanding the smallholder farmer in South Africa: Towards a sustainable livelihoods classification," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212633, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    22. Gasparatos, A. & von Maltitz, G.P. & Johnson, F.X. & Lee, L. & Mathai, M. & Puppim de Oliveira, J.A. & Willis, K.J., 2015. "Biofuels in sub-Sahara Africa: Drivers, impacts and priority policy areas," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 879-901.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:9:p:4918-:d:797428. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.