Cooking quality of chickpea

Transcription

1 Cooking quality of chickpea Lopez Bellido L., Fuentes M. in Saxena M.C. (ed.), Cubero J.I. (ed.), Wery J. (ed.). Present status and future prospects of chickpea crop production and improvement in the Mediterranean countries Zaragoza : CIHEAM ptions Méditerranéennes : Série A. Séminaires Méditerranéens; n pages Article available on line / Article disponible en ligne à l adresse : o cite this article / Pour citer cet article Lopez Bellido L., Fuentes M. Cooking quality of chickpea. In : Saxena M.C. (ed.), Cubero J.I. (ed.), Wery J. (ed.). Present status and future prospects of chickpea crop production and improvement in the Mediterranean countries. Zaragoza : CIHEAM, p (ptions Méditerranéennes : Série A. Séminaires Méditerranéens; n. 9)

2 CIHEAM ptions Mediterraneennes Cookingquality of chickpea L. LPEZ BELLID M. FUENES DEPARAMEN DE CIENCIAS Y RECURSS AGRICLAS UNIVERSIDAD DE CRDBA ' APARAD CRDBA, SPAIN ( ) to detemine the cooking quality of chickpea. he influence of of on on and on and ash content of of as on to the size and of the seed. "Qualité culinaire du pois chiche". Différents paramètres ont été testés durant quatre années ( ) pour déterminer l'aptitude à la cuisson du pois chiche. avons étudié l'influence du cultivar, de l'environnement et des techniques de culture en Andalousie sur cette qualité. Le climat et le cultivar modifient fortement tous les paramètres de qualité. Le nombre de graines par kilogramme dépend plus du cultivar que de l'environnement. La teneur en protéines et en cendres et l'aptitude à la cuisson sont fortement influencées par l'environnement, les meilleurs résultats étant obtenus dans les vertissols argileux de l'andalousie. Les meilleures aptitudes à la cuisson, mesurées au pénétromètre, sont obtenues avec les graines de pois chiche ayant la plus forte teneur en protéines et en cendres. La quantité d'eau absorbée par les graines augmente avec le pourcentage de tégunzents. Ce dernier dépend principalement du cultivar et est lié à la taille et à la rugosité de la graine. Introduction Chickpea plays an in the diets of most he way it is eaten is quite may be eaten soaked and cooked then eaten whole mashed, and eaten as a snack. he into hus the way in which cooking quality is is quite depending on the way it is going to be eaten, often cooking studies on chickpea, especially on its cooking quality, have begun to be out. of these few studies have been conducted by have dealt with the influence of the genotypes on size have to the influence that especially cooking, has hompson, 1983; Williams and Nakkoul, 1983; Smithson and 1988). Smithson and hompson (1985) have pointed out, few studies which analyse the effects of the on the cooking quality of chickpea. A study onthe influence of (1988) and one on the influence of soil and locality by Fuentes et al. (1987) should be mentionend. that the chickpea in Spain eaten as a whole soaking, size is of the influence that climate, soil ques have on this tests out in the Andalusian between to evaluate cooking quality using the following indexes: ing.. a) Weight of the as the of as the weight of b) psi) with cooking time was 30 minutes and distilled ptions n :

3 CIHEAM ptions Mediterraneennes at a volume ten times the weight of the sample was used. by muffle oven at 650 "C until constant weight of a sample was obtained. e) Seed coat as coat weight as cent of the total weight of the f) by the of soaking, as the of with to the initial weight of the he of the study shown in the following section. Influence of cultivars on cooking quality Five chickpea studied; being of lano), one of one a line able 1 shows the cooking quality indexes of these able 1. Average cooking quality for different chickpea cultivars. ; Bhnco lechoso SD , s a he of is closely to genotype, with the belonging to the lechoso and he also had the lest and had the highest. with without soaking of the with each he in ing, small and Fuentesauco and lechoso. Ash content was the index which between quite he between the least values being lano and Fuentesauco the which showed slightly and seed coat tively. between although the size of the does not seem to have any influence. lechoso, with the and with the smallest one, the two which had the highest of he most significant between the indexes shown in Fig. 1 and 2. he between (with without soaking) and yield, and and ash content is negative and quite all he soils, with potentially yield chickpea, also the ones which cooking quality, hence the negative between chickpea yield and he negative between and and ash content is also quite significant. is a positive between and ash content and ash and seed coat Each of the showed a slightly (Fig. 1 and 2): culas the was significantly to content to ash content and yield. Likewise, Fuentesauco does not show a significant ash and seed coat Y b/ "/ 3.2 5, os os Influence of environment on cooking quality he influence of climate on the cooking quality of chickpea was studied at the same location Fig. 3 shows the climatic data these he of 1984 (coinciding with the ing minimum the studied. he maximum in 114

4 CIHEAM ptions Mediterraneennes CV. Blancs lcchoso 2. CV. Podrosillt~tio 3.CV. Fuontrcauco IZ.P I i I.y= x;r=0.7 ** 2.y= ~; r=0.83** 3.y~ ~; r =0.74** psi l.y= x; r 0.02"* 2.y= 9.3t1.2~; r r0.89"' y=34.2t0.8x; r =0.75** :I{ psi 2.y:: SW Il& Ise# IS& Yiold (kg/ha) I.y= ~; r=g.84f* ~; r=.76** 3.y Sx;r=0.85** 110. X loo œ go m S.c > so c 70 0 eo f s 27 S 2) Protoin (#l ( D ondoromotric l Fig. 1. in 115

5 CIHEAM ptions Mediterraneennes 1. CV. Elenco Iocho*o 2. c v. Podrorillano 3. CV. Fuon~orauco 4.CV. Macarona e 26 i.f 25 t m h y= X; 2.y X; 3. y =l0.7 i 4.7 x; r=0.87** r=q.82** Y =0.88** 8 I4. L œ L 9 I30 120?S 110 t l.y= ~; r=0.65** 2.y= X ; r=0.70** 4.y= lx;r=0.59**,S, I I I i Ash ("/o) I I.y= ~; r=0.71** 2.y= ~; r=58*& 4 y = ; r = Seed coat ("h) Fig

6 CIHEAM ptions Mediterraneennes ( max.). (min.). (mm.) MARCH JULY APRIL JUNE MAY.. : Y oar Sopt. Fob. otal I l I Fig. 3. in Spain). 117

7 CIHEAM ptions Mediterraneennes 1984 also than the he maximum and minimum the between June and July, do not in the Except the influence that climate might have had on yield, significant the between climatic conditions in the studied which can explain the seasonal in the cooking quality indexes analysed. Fig. 4 shows the annual influence on chickpea yield and on the of he size of the was in 1985 and in Cooking quality by the (Fig. 5) was affected by the when soaked was the showed the best cooking quality all he in content in the not significant and ash values in 1986 and 1987 with to the two (Fig. 6). Likewise, skin and also less in the last was the influence of soil type on chickpea cooking quality. Five types studied and physicalchemical given in able 2. in in the lechoso, Fuentesauco and (Fig. 8, 9 and 10). and C able 2. Soil analysis of the tested fields. Sand (%) Silt (%) Clay (%) (%) p (lsen)(ppm) ActiveCaC, (%) CaC,equivalent (%) CEC (meq/100 g.) ExchangeableCa (meq/l g) Exchangeable (meq/100 g) Exchangeable Na (meq/l g) Exchangeable (meq/l g) A C soils E ly showed content than in the one on soils and E, as well as a i.e., cooking quality. Likewise in the soils, although with slight the had a analysis data of the five soils (able 2) it may be that the soils (A, and C), besides having a had a assimilable potassium content, a capacity of exchangeable cations and exchangeable calcium, magnesium and potasium values. Soils and E quite he had a high of calcium and active limestone while the showed values these two components. studies in soil ly cooking quality indexes. of cropping tecniques on cooking quality he influence of ing quality was also studied. tests out sowing with the lano and (able 3) sowing date had a able 3. Cooking quality indexes as affected by sowing time of two chickpea cultivars (mean of 2 years). lndexes F (W) withcut soaking (p$ with soaking (psi) Ash (%Y skin (%)c (%)c Nau Feb , 121 i Nov b/ 1 "/ in both Feb ; l 118

8 CIHEAM ptions Mediterraneennes CV. Blanco ICh80 CV. Macarona CV. Podro8illano U Maan 4 I500 I300 I oar X cultivar I I No graindouncr I30 I20 oar 1 Cultivar Yrar x cultivar l IC I

9 CIHEAM ptions Mediterraneennes CV. Blanco lrchoro CV. Macarrna 1 CV. Prdrorillano rl Moa n ~ r a r Cultivar c: 04 PS i I ~ r a r I Cultivar 1 oar x cultivar. 50 *" 30. W r Q I U o C o L 120

10 CIHEAM ptions Mediterraneennes.. 1 II 28 I CV. Blanco Iochoro CV. Mocorona CV. Podrorillono Moan Cultivar oar x cultivar t 2' 20 L I984 L I Fig. 6. of < 0.05) as affected by seasons. 121

11 CIHEAM ptions Mediterraneennes t I I i CV. Blanco I~choro CV. Macarona CV. Podrorillano Moan n 1 Voar Cultivar l Yoar X cultivar, I oar Cultivar I40 I3 t 1 ~ oor x cultivar I 2" I987 Fig. 7. Skin and seasons. of < 0.05) as affected by 122

12 CIHEAM ptions Mediterraneennes Blanco lechoso Pedrorillono Fucntraauco Macorsna Cultivars Fig. 8. of soils on of of 2 m Soil A Soil 0 EsZq soil c m,.... ;..///.._...''.; soil o Seed coat ("h) Blanco lechoso Fusntesauco Pedrorlllano Cultivars Mocorano Fig. 9. of soils dn the skin % of of 2 123

13 CIHEAM ptions Mediterraneennes Soil A mj soi, Soil B Soil c 1 Soil E pai n Blanca lechoso Psdrorillano. Cultivars Fig. 10. of soils on with of chickpea (mean of 2 N" groinr/auncr so i plontr Fig. 11. of 124 no.

14 CIHEAM ptions Mediterraneennes influence on cooking quality: the the sowing date the the without soaking, but soaking of the no significant difcontent, seed coat indexes affected by sowing date. Ash content was by delay in the sowing date, as was also the case with seed coat in the dates. wo doses of (50 and 100 kg/ha,), also tested soils with an available content of 810 ppm. No influence on the cooking quality indexes was found. he influence of plant density on cooking quality was tested with the lechoso None of the indexes studied showed significant changes with densities 16.6 to 63.6 plants/m2 with the exception of the of some tests and in Fig. 11 shows that the the plant density the the of References Spain. FUENES, arietinum). of food legume ings of and Lentils in the 1980s (Saxena, (Cicer arietinum) in Actas del of 28 (6): of (Cicer (1983):Somenewconcepts in S., I ' 125