Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-14T10:04:58.657Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The quality of protein in various lines of peas*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

Satinder Bajaj ,
Olaf Mickelsen ,
L. R. Baker  and
Deran Markarian
Satinder Bajaj
Affiliation:
Department of Foods and Nutrition and Department of Horticulture, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48823, USA
Olaf Mickelsen
Affiliation:
Department of Foods and Nutrition and Department of Horticulture, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48823, USA
L. R. Baker
Affiliation:
Department of Foods and Nutrition and Department of Horticulture, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48823, USA
Deran Markarian
Affiliation:
Department of Foods and Nutrition and Department of Horticulture, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48823, USA
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 protein quality as evaluated by nitrogen incorporation efficiency (NIE) and protein efficiency ratio (PER) was determined for twenty-eight breeding lines of peas (Pisum sativum L.) which had been grown under similar field conditions.

2. Different lines of peas, when given as the sole source of protein to weanling rats at a 10 % level in an otherwise adequate diet, varied from 18 to 78% of that of casein in their ability to support growth and nitrogen retention. There was close correlation between PER and NIE values.

3. From analysis of rat growth curves, the pea lines were separated into those that produced fairly good growth and those that barely maintained the initial body-weight. However, growth rate alone did not rank pea lines in the same order as PER or NIE.

4. Carcass protein, as a percentage of body-weight, was higher in pea-fed (20.4%) than in casein-fed rats (18.8%).This was probably associated with a difference in body fat content.

5. There was no correlation between protein quality and the protein content of the different pea lines.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , March 1971 , pp. 207 - 212
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1971

References

Association of Official Agricultural Chemists (1965). Official Methods of Analysis 10th ed., p. 774. Washington, DC: Association of Official Agricultural Chemists.Google Scholar
Campbell, J. A. (1963). Methodology of Protein Evaluation. A Critical Appraisal of Methods for Evaluation of Proteins in Foods. Division of Food Technology and Nutrition Faculty of Agricultural Science, American University of Beirut, Lebanon. Publ. no. 21.Google Scholar
Carpenter, K. J. (1953). J. Nutr. 51, 435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esh, G. C., De, T. S. & Basu, U. P. (1959). Science, N. Y. 129, 148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fao, (1957). Food Balance Sheet. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
Hegsted, D. M. (1964). In Nutrition, a Comprehensive Treatise Vol. 1, p. 116 [Beaton, G. H. and McHenry, E. W., editors] New York: Academic Press Inc.Google Scholar
Henry, K. M. (1965). Br. J. Nutr. 19, 125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jansen, G. R. (1962). J. Nutr. 78, 231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mertz, E. T., Bates, L. S. & Nelson, O. E. (1964). Science, N. Y. 145, 279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mertz, E. T., Mosse, J., Dimler, R. J. & Nelson, O. E. (1966). Fedn Proc. Fedn Am. Socs exp. Biol. 25, 1662.Google Scholar
Mertz, E. T., Vernon, O. A., Bates, L. S. & Nelson, O. E. (1965). Science, N. Y. 148, 1741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mickelsen, O. & Anderson, A. A. (1959). J. Lab. clin. Med. 53, 282.Google Scholar
Morrison, A. B. (1964). In Symposium on Foods: Proteins and Their Reactions p. 364 [Schultz, H. S. and Anglemier, A. F., editors] Westport, Conn.: Avi Publishing Co. Inc.Google Scholar
Pesola, V. A. (1955). Chem. Abstr. 49, 7069.Google Scholar
Stucki, W. P. & Harper, A. E. (1962). J. Nutr. 78, 278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar