Comparative Analysis of Nutrient Content and Cooking Characteristics between Binamoog and Sonamoog of Bangladesh

Abstract

A study was conducted to ascertain biochemical composition and cooking qualities of mungbean seeds (Vigna radiata). Two varieties, namely Binamoog and Sonamoog (Deshi) were included in the experiment. The varieties differed in their seed size, seed volume and seed density. In the proximate compositions, the moisture, ash, protein, fat, starch, total sugar and reducing sugar contents of Binamoog seeds were found as 12.35%, 3.97%, 22.79%, 1.20%, 49.15%, 2.73% and 2.12%, respectively, while in Sonamoog variety, these compositions were found as 11.29%, 4.6%, 18.29%, 1.07%, 38.12%, 1.99% and 2.12%, respectively. The data revealed that Binamoog had significantly higher values of protein, starch and total sugar content while there was no significant difference in moisture, ash, fat and reducing sugar contents between the two varieties. The results of minerals analysis showed that Binamoog contained significantly higher content of sodium, phosphorus, sulphur as compared to Sonamoog, although, potassium content was significantly higher in Sonamoog than Binamoog. On the other hand, calcium and magnesium were more or less same amount in both the varieties. Two mungbean varieties differed considerably in their cooking characteristics such as hydration coefficient, swelling coefficient, and cookability time. Binamoog had better cook ability than Sonamoog. Soaking the seeds in different soaking media for 12 h reduced the cooking time considerably. Sodium Carbonate (2%) was found most suitable as a soaking medium. It was concluded that both the varieties could play a significant nutritional role in human health.

Keywords: Binamoog, Sonamoog, proximate compositions, minerals, cooking characteristics

Cite this Article

Nusrat Jahan Mukta, Shukla Rani Das, Md. Ahmed Hossain et al. Comparative Analysis of Nutrient Content and Cooking Characteristics between Binamoog and Sonamoog of Bangladesh. Research & Reviews: Journal of Food Science and Technology. 2016; 5(2): 1–9p.