Nutritional and functional properties of lentil (Lens culinaris), broad bean (Faba vicia L.) and chickpea (Cicer arietinum) as an alternative in animal feed.

Keywords: Legumes, Proximal chemical analysis and Techno-functionality

Abstract

Legumes in animal feed represent an alternative due to their high content of protein, fiber and bioactive compounds. They can be used alone or in mixed crops with grasses, replacing soybeans and other oilseeds, as they are less expensive and easy to acquire. Given the above, the objective was to carry out a comparative study of the nutritional and techno-functional properties of lentil, broad bean and chickpea for use in animal feed. Study material: lentil (Lens culinaris), broad bean (Faba vicia L.) and chickpea (Cicer arietinum). They were physically characterized: size, hectoliter weight, color and weight. Subsequently, they were ground to determine their proximal chemical composition (moisture, ash, protein, carbohydrates, fiber and lipids) (AOAC, 2005) and techno-functional properties (solubility index and water absorption). The results indicate significant differences in the physical properties due to the typical characteristics of each legume. The chemical composition highlights that the lentil is high in protein (30.62%) and crude fiber (10.92%) with respect to broad beans and chickpeas (protein: 26.37 and 22.74%; crude fiber: 3.0 and 4.80%), the oil in chickpeas (5.08%) was higher compared to lentil and broad bean (1.56 and 1.93%). The broad bean has the highest ash content (3.40%) with respect to chickpea (3.36%) and lentil (2.80%). In the techno-functional properties, the chickpea presented the highest IAA compared to broad beans and lentils (0.22, 0.11 and 0.13), with differences between chickpeas, lentils and broad beans, the highest ISA was for lentils (2.46), there was no significant difference. with chickpea and broad bean (2.25 and 2.39). It is concluded that the analyzed legumes, highlighting the lentil, have nutritional and functional properties suitable for use in animal feed and are comparable to the values reported for soybean meal, and lentils can be used as a potential substitute.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

FAO. (8 de OCTUBRE de 2022). Estudio FAO Alimentación y Nutrición. FAO ISBN 978-92-5-3067336: https://www.fao.org/3/i1953s/i1953s.pdf
Hall, C., Hilen, C., & Garden-Robinson, J. (2017). Composition, Nutritional Value, and Health Benefits of Pulses. Cereal Chemestry, 94: 11-31. https://doi.org/10.1094/CCHEM-03-16-0069-FI
Luna Jiménez, A. (2006). Valor Nutritivo de la Proteína de Soya. Investigación y Ciencia, 14: 29-34. https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=67403606
Minuzzi, A., Mora, F., Sedrez-Rangel, M. A., De Lucca-Braccini, A., & Scapin, C. A. (2007). Características Fisiológicas, Contenido de Aceite y Proteína en Genotipos de Soya, Evaluadas en Diferentes Sitios y Épocas de Cosecha, Brasil. Agricultura Técnica (Chile), 67: 353-361. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0365-28072007000400003
Molina, E., & Rubio, L. A. (2016). Las leguminosas en alimentación animal. ARBOR Ciencia, Pensamiento y Cultura, 192: 315-320. : http://dx.doi.org/10.3989/arbor.2016.779n3005
NOM-FF-55-1984. (8 de octubre de 2022). Norma Oficial Mexicana: NOM-FF-55-1984 Productos Alimenticios no Industrializados Para uso Humano - Cereales - Trigo - Método de Prueba. https://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=4657947&fecha=12/03/1984&print=true
Olmedilla-Alonso, B., Farré-Rovira, R., Asencio-Vegas, C., & Martín-Pedrosa, M. (2010). Papel de las leguminosas en la alimentación actual. Actividad Dietética, 14: 72-76. https://www.elsevier.es/es-revista-revista-espanola-nutricion-humana-dietetica-283-articulo-papel-leguminosas-alimentacion-actual-X2173129210523381#:~:text=Las%20leguminosas%20se%20consideran%20excelentes,el%20almid%C3%B3n%20de%20digesti%C3%B3n%20r%C3%A1pida.
SIAP. (07 de Octubre de 2020). Servicio de Información Agroalimentaria y Pesquera. Datos abiertos. Estadística de Producción Agrícola. http://infosiap.siap.gob.mx/gobmx/datosAbiertos.php
Taghi-Gharibzahedi, S. M., Mousavi, S. M., Mahdi-Jafari, S., & Faraji, K. (2012). Proximate composition, mineral content, and fatty acids. Chemistry of Natural Compounds, 24: 976-978. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsci.2016.05.005
Udahogora, M. (2012). Health benefits and bioactive, compounds in field peas, faba beans, and chickpeas. Cereals and Pulses: Nutraceutical Properties and Health Benefits, 199-215. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118229415.ch14
Veloz-Estrada, D. M. (24 de Febrero de 2010). Utilización de Diferentes Niveles de Harina de Algas de Agua Dulce en "Sustitución de la Soya en la Alimentación de Conejos Californianos desde el Destete Hasta el Inicio de la Vida Reproductiva. Escuela superior Politécnica de Chimborazo: http://dspace.espoch.edu.ec/handle/123456789/1130
Zubillaga, M. F., Kei, A. Y., Aramburu, M., & Gallego, J. J. (25 de Noviembre de 2020). Ensayo comparativo de rendimiento de poroto como alternativa proteica para alimentación animal en la Patagonia Norte. Obtenido de Universidad Nacional de Río Negro: https://rid.unrn.edu.ar/handle/20.500.12049/6038
Published
2023-06-15
How to Cite
Nambo Santiago, Eder Noé, José Herrera-Camacho, and Berenice Yahuaca-Juárez. 2023. “Nutritional and Functional Properties of Lentil (Lens culinaris), Broad Bean (Faba Vicia L.) and Chickpea (Cicer Arietinum) As an Alternative in Animal Feed.”. Archivos Latinoamericanos De Producción Animal 31 (Suplemento), 103-8. https://doi.org/10.53588/alpa.310519.