Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T16:03:13.420Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The protein quality of cassava leaves

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

B.O. Eggum
B.O. Eggum
Affiliation:
Department of Physiology and Chemistry, Agricultural Research Laboratory, DK-1958 Copenhagen V, Denmark
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. A chemical and biological evaluation of the protein content of some leaves and leaf extracts from the eastern region of Nigeria (Biafra) has been made: most were from cassava (Munihot utilissima).

2. The protein content of the leaves was from 3 0 to 40% (expressed as percentage of leaf dry matter). The concentrations of essential amino acids were adequate, except for methionine. The biological criteria, true digestibility (TD) and biological value (BV), showed that the digestibility was from 70 to 80%, whereas BV varied from 44 to 57%, depending on the methionine content.

3. Adding methionine to a diet of cassava leaves raised BV from 49 for the leaves alone to 80 for the mixture. This relationship clearly shows that cassava leaves contain too little available methionine. An investigation into the true availability of the amino acids showed that this is somewhat variable, and only 60% of the methionine is available.

4. The BV of cassava leaves combined with Norwegian dried cod showed a mutual supplementation effect.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 24 , Issue 3 , September 1970 , pp. 761 - 768
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1970

References

REFERENCES

Akinrele, I. A. (1963). Jl W. Afr. Sci. Ass. 8, 74.Google Scholar
Byers, M. (1961). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 12, 20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalziel, J. M. (1955). Useful Plants of West Tropical Africa 2nd ed. London: Crown Agents.Google Scholar
Eggum, B. O. (1966). Z. Tierphysiol. Tierernähr. Futtermittelk. 22, 32.Google Scholar
Eggum, B. O. (1967). Ugeskr. Agron. no. 30.Google Scholar
Eggum, B. O. (1968 a). Acta Agric. scand. 18, 127.Google Scholar
Eggum, B. O. (1968 b). Aminosyrekoncentration og Proteinkvalitet pp. 76, 9, 33, 65. København: Stougaards Forlag.Google Scholar
Eggum, B. O. & Mercer, N. H. (1964). Ugeskr. Landm. no. 50.Google Scholar
Gerloff, E. D., Lima, I. H. & Stahmann, M. A. (1965). J. agric. Fd Chem. 13, 139.Google Scholar
Irvine, F. R. (1952). Econ. Bot. 6, 23.Google Scholar
Luyken, R., de Groot, A. P. & van Stratum, P. G. C. (1961). Nutritional Value of Foods from New Guinea. 2. Net Protein Utilization. Utrecht: Central Institute for Nutrition and Food Research TNO.Google Scholar
Moore, S., Spackman, D. H. & Stein, W. H. (1958). Analyt. Chem. 30, 1185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oke, O. L. (1966). Jl W. Afr. Sci. Ass. 11, 42.Google Scholar
Oke, O. L. (1968). Wld Rev. Nutr. Diet. 9, 227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okiy, G. E. O. (1960). Jl W. Afr. Sci. Ass. 6, 117.Google Scholar
Rogers, D. J. (1959). Econ. Bot. 13, 261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, D. J. & Milner, M. (1963). Econ. Bot. 17, 211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, N. (1964). J. Fd Sci. Technol. 1, 37.Google Scholar
Terra, G. J. A. (1964). Trop. geogr. Med. 2, 97.Google Scholar
Van Veen, A. G. (1938). Geneesk. Tijdschr. Ned.-Indië 78, 2548.Google Scholar
Weidner, K. & Eggum, B. O. (1966). Acta Agric. scand. 16, 115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar