Plant Foods for Human Nutrition 59: 149–154, 2004.

149

C 2004 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.

Nutritional Evaluation of Wheat–Fenugreek Blends for Product Making

SHALINI HOODA & SUDESH JOOD∗

Department of Foods & Nutrition, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar 125 004, India (∗ author for corresponding;
e-mail: ramjood@rediffmail.com)

Abstract. Wheat flour was separately substituted with fenugreek flour
(raw, soaked, and germinated) at 5–20% levels for product making. Nu-
trient analysis of the blends, product development, and their acceptability
were carried out. Replacement of wheat flour with fenugreek flour in-
creased the protein, fat, lysine, minerals, and dietary fibre contents pro-
portionately to the level of substitution. Among the composite flours, the
blends containing germinated fenugreek flour were found superior in nutri-
tional quality compared to others. However, products, viz., bread, biscuits,
noodles, and macaroni prepared from the wheat–fenugreek blends at 10,
15, and 20% levels, were found organoleptically acceptable.
Key words: Fenugreek, Nutritional, Organoleptic, Products, Wheat.
Introduction
India is the second largest wheat-producing nation after
China in the world and contributes approximately 12% to
the world wheat basket [1]. About 90% of the total wheat
area in India is under bread wheat (Triticum aestivum),
wheat flour has been extensively and widely used for the
preparation of various products throughout the world. This
has been attributed to the inherited property of wheat flour to
form dough and retain gases. Apart from good baking qual-
ity and sources of nutrients, e.g., minerals and B complex
vitamins, it is still considered nutritionally poor because of
a deficiency of certain essential amino acids such as lysine
and threonine.
In view of this, various efforts have been made in improv-
ing the nutritional quality of wheat products by supplemen-
tation with staple cereals and pulses [2–6]. In the present
study efforts have also been made to supplement wheat flour
with fenugreek flour to have healthful composite flours for
product development. Fenugreek (Trigonella faenum grae-
cum, L.) contains high protein (25%), lysine (6.7 g/16 g
N), soluble (20%) and insoluble (28%) dietary fibre con-
tents besides being rich in calcium, iron, and β-carotene
[7, 8]. The seeds are known to have hypoglycemic [9] and
hypocholesterolemic effects in humans [7, 10]. Therefore,
fenugreek will offer a logical means to upgrade the quantity
and quality of protein and dietary fibre of cereals. The in-
formation on blending of wheat flour with fenugreek flour
for product development is scanty.
Therefore, by keeping these facts in view, the present
investigation was undertaken to study the physicochemical
and nutritional properties of wheat–fenugreek composite
flour for product development
Materials and Methods
Materials
The bulk samples of commonly grown varieties of wheat,
viz., WH-423 and fenugreek, viz., Pusa Early Bunching,
were obtained from the Department of Plant Breeding, CCS
Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, India. All the grains
were cleaned, and made free from dust and other foreign ma-
terial. The grain samples of wheat were ground in a Junior
Mill to pass through a 60-mesh sieve and stored in airtight
container until used.
Fenugreek seeds were divided into three portions. One
portion was left unprocessed (raw) while other two portions
were soaked and germinated separately.
Processing. Fenugreek seeds were first cleaned and freed
from broken seeds, dust, and other foreign materials, and
then soaked in tap water for 12 hour at 37 ◦ C. A seed to
water ratio of 1:5 (w/v) was used. The unimbibed water was
discarded. The soaked seeds were rinsed twice in distilled
water and then dried at 55–60 ◦ C.
The soaked seeds were germinated in sterile petri dishes
lined with wet filter papers for 48 hour at 37 ◦ C, with fre-
quent watering. The sprouts were rinsed in distilled water
and dried at 55–60 ◦ C. The dried samples of raw, soaked,
and germinated seeds were ground to a fine powder in an
electric grinder and then stored in plastic containers for fur-
ther use.
Preparation of Blends. Fenugreek seed powders (raw,
soaked, and germinated) were blended separately with
wheat flour at different levels, viz., 5, 10, 15, and 20%.
Nutritional Evaluation of Blends. Protein, fat, and lysine.
The treated and untreated samples were analyzed for pro-
tein and fat by using standard methods [11]. Lysine was
estimated as per the method described by Miyahara and
Jikoo [12].
Sugars and dietary fibre. Total soluble sugars were
extracted by refluxing in 80% ethanol [13]. Quantita-
tive determination of total soluble sugars was carried out
according to the colorimetric method [14]. Reducing sug-
ars were estimated by Somogyi’s modified method [15].
150
Nonreducing sugars were determined by calculating the
difference between total soluble sugars and reducing sug-
ars. Total, soluble, and insoluble dietary fibre constituents
were determined by the enzymatic method given by
Furda [16].
Total and available minerals. Available calcium and
zinc were extracted by the method of Kim and Zemel
[17]. Ionizable iron in the samples was extracted accord-
ing to the procedure of Rao and Prabhavathi. Calcium,
iron, and zinc in acid digested samples were determined
by Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer 2380, Perkin-
Elmer (USA), according to the method of Lindsey and
Norwell [18].
In vitro starch and protein digestibility. In vitro starch
digestibility was assessed by employing pancreatic amy-
lase and incubating at 37 ◦ C for 2 hours. Liberated mal-
tose was measured colorimetrically by using dinitrosal-
icylic acid reagent [19]. Protein digestibility (In vitro)
was assessed by employing pepsin and pancreatin [20].
The nitrogen contents of the sample and the undigested
residue were determined by the microkjeldahl method
[11]. The digested protein of the sample was calculated
by subtracting residual protein from total protein of the
sample.
Digested protein
Protein digestibility(%) = × 100
Total protein
Antinutritional factors. Phytic acid was determined by
the method of Haug and Lantzsch [21]. Total polyphenols
were extracted by the method of Singh and Jambunathan
[22] and estimated as tannic acid equivalent according to
the Folin Denis procedure [23].
Preparation of Products
Bread was prepared by using straight dough method
of AACC [24] with remixing procedure of Irvine and
McMullan [25]. Biscuits were developed by the method of
AACC [24] with minor modification. Noodles were made
by a manual sheeting process and macaroni was processed
in a La Parmigiana Extruder from wheat flour and blends.
Organoleptic Evaluation. Organoleptic evaluation of pre-
pared bread, biscuits, noodles, and macaroni was carried
out by a panel of 10 judges for crust color, appearance, fla-
vor, crust texture, taste, and overall acceptability using a 9-
point Hedonic rating scale ranging from 9 (extremely) (9)
to 1 (dislike extremely) for each organoleptic characteristic
as suggested by Austin and Ram [26].
Statistical Analysis. The data were statistically analyzed in
complete randomized design for analysis of variance ac-
cording to the standard method [27].
Results and Discussion
Nutritional Evaluation of Blends
Protein, Fat, and Lysine. Wheat flour supplemented with
the flour of raw, soaked, and germinated fenugreek at 5,
10, 15, and 20% levels had protein contents 13.6–15.3%,
13.5–15.2%, and 13.8–16.3%, respectively (Table 1). Pro-
tein contents of blends increased on increasing the levels
of blending with fenugreek flour. This is due to the higher
protein content of fenugreek flour. Rao and Sharma [28]
also reported higher protein (25.4%) contents in fenugreek
flour.
Fat content of wheat flour was 1.6% which increased
significantly (P < 0.05) on blending at different levels, be-
cause of the higher fat contents of fenugreek flour. The
blends with raw fenugreek flour showed the maximum fat
content as compared to other fenugreek flour supplemented
blends.
Wheat flour contained 2.8/100 g protein lysine. It was
found that at 20% level of supplementation with raw,
soaked, and germinated fenugreek flour, there was an in-
crease of 51, 54, and 80% in lysine contents, respectively,
as compared to the control (Table 1). Among the differ-
ent blends, the wheat and germinated fenugreek composite
flours contained higher concentrations of lysine, other re-
search workers also observed similar results in wheat and
fenugreek composite flour [5, 28].
Sugars and Dietary Fibre. Wheat flour supplemented with
raw fenugreek flour at 5, 10, 15, and 20% levels contained
4.3–4.3% total sugar, 0.6–0.5% reducing sugar, and 3.8–
3.9% non reducing sugar contents (Table 2). Sugar con-
tents decreased on increasing the levels of supplementation
of wheat flour with raw fenugreek flour. Whereas wheat
flour was supplemented with germinated fenugreek flour,
the total sugar contents increased significantly (P < 0.05)
as compared to raw fenugreek and soaked fenugreek sup-
plemented blends. This is due to higher sugar contents
in germinated fenugreek flour as on germination starch
is converted to sugar because of enzymatic hydrolysis
[29].
Whole wheat flour contained 9.0, 3.9, and 5.2% total,
soluble, and insoluble dietary fibre contents, respectively
(Table 2). Wheat flour supplemented with raw fenugreek
flour at 5, 10, 15, and 20% levels contained significantly
(P < 0.05) higher total dietary fibre (11.1–17.3%), sol-
uble fibre (4.6–6.9%), and insoluble dietary fibre (6.5–
10.4%) contents as compared to the blends with soaked
and germinated fenugreek flour at different levels. How-
ever, when wheat flour was supplemented with germinated
fenugreek flour at all levels, it manifested significantly
(P < 0.05) lower contents of total, soluble, and insoluble
dietary fibre compared to soaked and raw fenugreek flour
 151
Table 1. Protein, fat, and total lysine contents of wheat and fenugreek composite flours (on dry
matter basis)

Supplementation level (%) Protein (%) Fat (%) Lysine (g/100 g protein)

Control (wheat) 13.0 ± 0.10 1.6 ± 0.12 2.8 ± 0.09

W:RF
95:5 13.6 ± 0.19 2.0 ± 0.20 2.9 ± 0.05
90:10 14.2 ± 0.09 2.3 ± 0.05 3.2 ± 0.03
85:15 14.7 ± 0.15 2.6 ± 0.11 4.0 ± 0.10
80:20 15.3 ± 0.11 2.9 ± 0.07 4.2 ± 0.07
CD (P < 0.05) 0.59 0.39 0.22
W:SF
95:5 13.5 ± 0.18 2.0 ± 0.11 3.0 ± 0.05
90:10 14.1 ± 0.25 2.2 ± 0.14 3.3 ± 0.08
85:15 14.6 ± 0.29 2.5 ± 0.24 4.0 ± 0.10
80:20 15.2 ± 0.36 2.8 ± 0.08 4.3 ± 0.09
CD (P < 0.05) 0.91 0.51 0.27
W:GF
95:5 13.8 ± 0.22 1.9 ± 0.17 3.2 ± 0.11
90:10 14.7 ± 0.32 2.1 ± 0.22 4.0 ± 0.12
85:15 15.5 ± 0.15 2.3 ± 0.13 4.3 ± 0.10
80:20 16.3 ± 0.20 2.5 ± 0.08 5.0 ± 0.09
CD (P < 0.05) 0.75 0.52 0.34

Note. Values are means ± SD of three independent determinations. W = wheat flour; RF = raw
fenugreek; SF = soaked fenugreek; GF = germinated; fenugreek CD = critical difference at 5% level
of significance. Difference of two means between treatments exceeding this value are significant.

supplemented blends. This is due to significant reduction galactan content. An enzyme α-galactosidase from germi-
in total, soluble, and insoluble dietary fibre on germination nated fenugreek seeds partially attacks galactomannan to
after 48 hours. This decrease is accompanied by a drop in yield galactose [9].

Table 2. Sugars and dietary fibre contents of wheat and fenugreek composite flours (%, on dry matter basis)

Sugars Dietary fibres

Supplementation level (%) Total Reducing Nonreducing Total Soluble Insoluble

Control (wheat) 4.4 ± 0.24 0.6 ± 0.09 3.8 ± 0.29 9.0 ± 0.33 3.9 ± 0.24 5.2 ± 0.17
W:RF
95:5 4.3 ± 0.11 0.6 ± 0.07 3.8 ± 0.18 11.1 ± 0.20 4.6 ± 0.05 6.5 ±0.24
90:10 4.3 ± 0.18 0.6 ± 0.15 3.8 ± 0.34 13.1 ± 0.26 5.4 ± 0.30 7.8 ± 0.12
85:15 4.3 ± 0.15 0.5 ± 0.12 3.8 ± 0.35 15.2 ± 0.21 6.1 ± 0.14 9.1 ± 0.10
80:20 4.3 ± 0.24 0.5 ± 0.10 3.8 ± 0.27 17.3 ± 0.10 6.9 ± 0.16 10.4 ± 0.31
CD (P < 0.05) NS NS NS 0.65 0.60 0.69
W:SF
95:5 4.3 ± 0.12 0.6 ± 0.11 3.7 ± 0.24 10.6 ± 0.16 4.2 ± 0.22 6.4 ±0.15
90:10 4.2 ± 0.17 0.6 ± 0.13 3.7 ± 0.07 12.1 ± 0.10 4.5 ± 0.18 7.6 ± 0.52
85:15 4.2 ± 0.11 0.5 ± 0.11 3.7 ± 0.35 13.6 ± 0.52 4.8 ± 0.08 8.8 ± 0.17
80:20 4.1 ± 0.26 0.5 ± 0.15 3.6 ± 0.07 15.1 ± 0.14 5.1 ± 0.27 10.0 ± 0.15
CD (P < 0.05) NS NS NS 0.39 0.66 0.46
W:GF
95:5 4.9 ± 0.29 0.8 ± 0.08 4.1 ± 0.28 10.0 ± 0.20 3.9 ± 0.25 6.1 ±0.33
90:10 5.0 ± 0.28 0.9 ± 0.11 4.1 ± 0.20 11.1 ± 0.14 4.1 ± 0.18 7.0 ± 0.13
85:15 5.0 ± 0.20 0.9 ± 0.18 4.2 ± 0.09 12.3 ± 0.05 4.3 ± 0.21 8.0 ± 0.21
80:20 5.2 ± 0.11 1.0 ± 0.08 4.3 ± 0.26 13.4 ± 0.31 4.5 ± 0.28 8.9 ± 0.11
CD (P < 0.05) NS NS NS 0.65 NS 0.69

Note. Values are means ± SD of three independent determinations. W = wheat flour RF = raw fenugreek; SF = soaked
fenugreek GF = germinated fenugreek; NS = nonsignificant; CD = critical difference at 5% level of significance. Difference
of two means between treatments exceeding this value are significant.
152
Table 3. Total and percent availability of minerals of wheat and fenugreek composite flours (on dry matter basis)

Ca Fe Zn
Supplementation level (%) Total (mg/100 g) Available (%) Total (mg/100 g) Available (%) Total (mg/100 g) Available (%)

Control (wheat) 62.2 ± 0.12 49.9 ± 0.15 9.4 ± 0.29 48.7 ± 0.19 4.7 ± 0.15 54.1 ± 0.21
W:RF
95:5 62.6 ± 0.11 49.6 ± 0.28 9.4 ± 0.17 47.5 ± 0.36 4.8 ± 0.26 53.6 ± 0.30
90:10 63.0 ± 0.26 49.4 ± 0.17 9.5 ± 0.26 47.0 ± 0.17 4.9 ± 0.13 53.3 ± 0.28
85:15 63.4 ± 0.28 49.1 ± 0.11 9.6 ± 0.17 46.5 ± 0.25 5.0 ± 0.09 53.0 ± 0.18
80:20 63.8 ± 0.33 48.8 ± 0.22 9.7 ± 0.10 46.0 ± 0.27 5.2 ± 0.21 52.7 ± 0.32
CD (P < 0.05) 0.84 0.66 NS 0.88 0.32 0.85
W:SF
95:5 62.2 ± 0.28 49.9 ± 0.15 9.4 ± 0.35 47.8 ± 0.09 4.8 ± 0.17 53.9 ± 0.11
90:10 62.4 ± 0.18 50.2 ± 0.14 9.4 ± 0.30 47.4 ± 0.29 4.9 ± 0.10 53.9 ± 0.14
85:15 62.6 ± 0.07 50.4 ± 0.18 9.5 ± 0.24 46.9 ± 0.20 5.0 ± 0.17 54.0 ± 0.26
80:20 62.8 ± 0.12 50.7 ± 0.25 9.5 ± 0.17 46.5 ± 0.28 5.1 ± 0.14 54.1 ± 0.30
CD (P < 0.05) NS 0.59 NS 0.75 NS NS
W:GF
95:5 62.4 ± 0.24 50.7 ± 0.21 9.4 ± 0.21 49.6 ± 0.16 4.8 ± 0.18 54.7 ± 0.21
90:10 62.6 ± 0.11 51.6 ± 0.11 9.5 ± 0.26 50.2 ± 0.21 4.9 ± 0.21 55.4 ± 0.25
85:15 62.7 ± 0.25 52.5 ± 0.19 9.5 ± 0.11 50.9 ± 0.11 5.0 ± 0.11 56.2 ± 0.11
80:20 62.9 ± 0.13 53.4 ± 0.23 9.6 ± 0.14 51.6 ± 0.37 5.1 ± 0.29 57.0 ± 0.15
CD (P < 0.05) 0.48 0.62 NS 0.77 NS 0.62

Note. Values are means ± SD of three independent determinations. W = wheat flour; RF = raw fenugreek; SF = Soaked fenugreek; GF = Gersinated
fenugreek; NS = Nonsignificant; CD = critical difference at 5% level of significance. Difference of two means between treatments exceeding this value
are significant.

Total and Available Minerals. Wheat flour contained
62.2 mg/100 g calcium, 9.4 mg/100 g iron, and 4.7 mg/100 g
zinc, respectively, which was comparatively lower than raw
fenugreek flour (Table 3). Therefore, supplementation with
fenugreek flour significantly increased the total mineral
contents in all the blends at all levels. Wheat flour sup-
plemented with soaked fenugreek flour at all levels exhib-
ited the lowest contents of all the minerals as compared to
blends containing raw and germinated fenugreek flour at
all the levels. This could be attributed to the leaching out of
total minerals in soaking water [30, 31].
The availability of any element to meet the requirement
cannot be assessed by finding the total amount of that el-
ement present in the food item. This may be attributed to
the fact that absorption and subsequent utilization of any
element is influenced by many factors [32]. In the present
study a significant decrease was found in availability of all
minerals as the level of raw fenugreek supplementation in-
creased with respect to control (Table 3). This might be
due to a higher percentage of antinutrient contents in raw
fenugreek. Blends containing germinated fenugreek flour
showed higher percent availability of Ca, Fe, and Zn at all
levels compared to other fenugreek supplemented blends.
In Vitro Starch and Protein Digestibility
Wheat flour contained 30.8-mg maltose released/g flour by
In vitro starch digestibility which increased progressively
on supplementation of raw, soaked, and germinated fenu-
greek flour at all levels (Table 4). Blends containing raw
fenugreek flour had 35.0-mg maltose released/g flour starch
digestibility at 20% level followed by soaked (36.3-mg mal-
tose released/g flour) and germinated (38.6-mg maltose re-
leased/g flour) fenugreek flour supplemented blends. Max-
imum improvement in starch digestibility was observed on
supplementation of germinated fenugreek flour at all levels.
Wheat flour had 67.7% protein digestibility which
changed significantly on fenugreek supplementation
(Table 4). Blends containing germinated fenugreek flour
had significantly higher contents of In vitro protein di-
gestibility compared to other fenugreek supplemented
blends. Raw fenugreek contained higher contents of antinu-
trients like phytic acid and polyphenols. As phytic acid and
polyphenols are known to associate with protein to form in-
soluble complexes, thus affecting the In vitro digestibility
of protein [33]. Hence, germination may cause reduction
in antinutritional factors, thereby increasing the In vitro di-
gestibility of protein [34].
Antinutrients. The control (whole wheat flour) exhibited
238.2 mg phytic acid/100 g flour and it increased signif-
icantly with the rise in the level of raw fenugreek flours
(Table 4). The maximum (303.5 mg/100 g) increase in
phytic acid over control was found in raw fenugreek blend
while minimum (260.3 mg/100 g) increase was found
in germinated fenugreek composite flour blends at 20%
level. Among the fenugreek supplemented blends, blends
containing germinated fenugreek flour at different levels
 153
Table 4. In vitro digestibility and antinutrient contents of wheat and fenugreek composite flours (on dry matter basis)

In vitro digestibility Antinutrients

In vitro Starch
digestibility In vitro protein Phytic acid Polyphenols
Supplementation level (%) (mg maltose released/g meal) digestibility (%) (mg/100 g) (mg/100 g)

Control (wheat) 30.8 ± 0.51 67.7 ± 0.15 238.1 ± 1.47 335.1 ± 1.24
W:RF
95:5 31.8 ± 0.28 67.4 ± 0.09 253.3 ± 1.88 323.1 ± 1.76
90:10 32.9 ± 0.13 67.2 ± 0.17 269.2 ± 1.05 313.0 ± 1.06
85:15 34.0 ± 0.30 67.0 ± 0.09 286.4 ± 1.49 300.9 ± 1.55
80:20 35.0 ± 0.25 66.8 ± 0.07 303.5 ± 1.14 288.3 ± 1.24
CD (P < 0.05) 0.81 0.36 4.66 4.66
W:SF
95:5 32.3 ± 0.39 68.5 ± 0.15 247.4 ± 1.67 322.6 ± 2.41
90:10 33.6 ± 0.26 68.3 ± 0.17 257.3 ± 1.96 310.0 ± 1.54
85:15 35.0 ± 0.33 68.1 ± 0.20 268.5 ± 1.24 296.8 ± 1.77
80:20 36.3 ± 0.24 67.8 ± 0.06 280.7 ± 1.78 284.1 ± 1.09
CD (P < 0.05) 1.01 0.50 5.50 5.77
W:GF
95:5 33.3 ± 0.42 69.6 ± 0.26 243.5 ± 1.13 320.8 ± 1.58
90:10 35.1 ± 0.33 69.5 ± 0.17 248.2 ± 1.21 307.6 ± 2.25
85:15 36.8 ± 0.24 69.4 ± 0.11 254.2 ± 2.05 293.9 ± 0.74
80:20 38.6 ± 0.33 69.3 ± 0.00 260.3 ± 1.24 280.6 ± 1.18
CD (P < 0.05) 1.09 NS 4.76 5.04

Note. Values are means ± SD of three independent determinations. W = wheat flour; RF = raw fenugreek; SF = Soaked
fenugreek; GF = Gersinated fenugreek; NS = Nonsignificant; CD = critical difference at 5% level of significance.
Difference of two means between treatments exceeding this value are significant.

manifested significantly lower contents of phytic acid. Ger-
minated fenugreek flour supplementation at 5, 10, 15, and
20% levels attributed lower contents of phytic acid which
ranged from 243.5 to 260.3 mg/100 g compared to raw fenu-
greek flour to wheat flour (253.3–303.5 mg/100 g), which
could be due to hydrolysis of phytic acid on germination
[33].
The amount of polyphenols decreased progressively with
increasing levels of fenugreek flour supplementation in
wheat flour. Control wheat flour had a polyphenol con-
tent 335.1 mg/100 g which decreased significantly on sup-
plementation with germinated fenugreek flour. It ranged
from 320.8 to 280.6 mg/100 g at 5, 10, 15, and 20% levels
(Table 4). This could be attributed to the loss of polyphenol
during germination by enzymic (polyphenol oxidase) hy-
drolysis. Leaching of polyphenols into water during soaking
may also partially account for the loss as they are present
on the periphery of the grain and their passing out in the
soaking medium through seed coat is possible [30].
Organoleptic Evaluation. Overall acceptability was the
mean score of all the organoleptic properties in this study.
The results showed that overall acceptability score of all
the supplemented products at par with controls. Fenugreek
flour in wheat flour was found acceptable upto the levels
of 10% in biscuits, 15% in breads, and 20% in noodles
and macaroni. Bread and biscuits exhibited poorest overall
acceptability score at 20% levels. Noodles and macaroni
were found organoleptically acceptable at all levels (i.e., 5,
10, 15, and 20%) of fenugreek in wheat flour.
Conclusion
From the results of this investigation, it can be concluded
that wheat and fenugreek blends can be used in developing
the products, viz., bread, biscuits, noodles, and macaroni at
15, 10, and 20% levels, respectively, without affecting their
overall sensory quality. On supplementation, significant in-
crease was also observed in total protein, lysine, minerals,
and dietary fibre contents of blends.
References
1. Yunus M, Madan S (1998) Stability of Indian wheats for bakery and
traditional products. In: Proceeding of recent trends in food process-
ing. Guru Jambheshwar University, Hisar, India. pp 138–143.
2. Rastogi A, Singh G (1989) Effect of addition full fat soy flour of
different varieties on quality characteristics and bread making quality
of white flour. Bull Grain Technol 27: 26–34.
3. Rathna K, Neelakantan S (1995) Effect of incorporation of puffed
bengal gram flour on the quality of bread. J Food Sci Technol 35:
438–441.
4. Knuckles BE, Hudson MM, Sayre RN (1997) Effect of β-glucan
barley fraction in high fibre bread and pasta. Cereal Fd World 42:
94–100.
154
5. Sharma HR, and Chauhan GS (2000) Physical, sensory and chemical
characteristics of wheat breads supplemented with fenugreek. J Food
Sci 37: 91–94.
6. Dhingra S, Jood S (2001) The organoleptic and nutritional evaluation
of wheat breads supplemented with soybean and barley flour. Food
Chem 77: 479–488.
7. Sharma RD (1986) An evaluation of hypocholesterolemic factors of
fenugreek seeds in rats. Nutr Rep Int 34: 669–671.
8. NIN Report (1987) Use of fenugreek seed powder in the manage-
ment of non insulin dependent diabetes mellitus. National Institute
of Nutrition, Hyderabad, India.
9. Neeraja A, Rajyalakshmi P (1996) Hypoglycemic effect of processed
fenugreek seeds in humans. J Fd Sci Technol 33: 427–430.
10. Khosla P, Gupta DD, Nagpal RK (1995) Effect of Trigonella foenum
graecum (fenugreek) on serum lipids in normal and diabetic rats. Ind
J Pharm 27: 89–93.
11. AOAC (1995) Official methods of analysis, Association of Official
Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC.
12. Miyahara S, Jikoo K (1967. Examination of the method of colori-
metric determination of lysine. J Jpn Soc Fd Sci Tech 14: 512–
513.
13. Cerning J, Guilbot J (1973) Changes in carbohydrate composition
during maturation of wheat and barley kernel. Cereal Chem 50: 220–
222.
14. Yemm EW, Willis AJ (1954) The estimation of carbohydrates in plant
extracts by anthrone. Biochem J 54: 508–509.
15. Somogyi M (1945) A new reagent for the determination of sugars. J
Biol Chem 160: 61–62.
16. Furda I (1981) Simultaneous analysis of soluble and insoluble dietary
fibre. The Analysis of Dietary Fibre in Food. WPT James and O.
Theander (Eds.). Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York. pp 163–172.
17. Kim H, Zemel MR (1986) In vitro estimation of the potential bioavail-
ability of calcium from sea mustard, milk and spinach under stimu-
lated, normal and reduced gastric acid conditions. J Fd Sci 51: 957–
963.
18. Lindsey WL, Norwell MA (1969) A new DPTA-TEA soil test for
zinc and iron. Agron Abstract 61: 84.
19. Singh U, Khedekar MS, Jambunathan R (1982) Studies on desi and
kabuli chickpea cultivars. The level of amylase inhibitors, levels of
oligosaccharides and In vitro starch digestibilities. J Fd Sci 47: 510.
20. Akeson WE, Stahmann MA (1964) A pepsin–pancreatin digestibility
index of protein quality evaluation J Nutr 83: 257–259.
21. Haug W, Lantzsch HJ (1983) Sensitive method for the rapid determi-
nation of phytate in cereals and cereal products. J Sci Fd Agric 34:
1423–1426.
22. Singh U, Jambunathan R (1981) Studies on desi and kabuli chickpea
(Cicer arietinum) cultivars. Level of protease inhibitors, levels of
polyphenolic compounds and In vitro protein digestibility. J Fd Sci
46: 1364–1367.
23. Swain J, Hills WE (1959) The phenolic constituents pramus domes-
tical. The qualitative analysis of phenolic constituents. J Sci Fd Agric
10: 63–68.
24. AACC (1984) Approved methods of analysis. The American Asso-
ciation of Cereal Chemists, St. Paul, Minnesota.
25. Irvine GN, McMullan ME (1960) The “Remix” baking test. Cereal
Chem 37: 603–613.
26. Austin A, Ram A (1971) Studies on chapati making quality of wheat.
Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi. Tech Bull 31:
96–101.
27. Panse VG, Sukhatme PV (1961) Statistical Methods of Agricultural
Workers. 2nd Edn. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New
Delhi. pp 12–87.
28. Rao PV, Sharma RD (1987) An evaluation of protein quality of fenu-
greek seeds (Trigonella foenum graecum) and their supplementary
effects. Food Chem 24: 1–9.
29. Jood S, Chauhan BM, Kapoor AC (1988) Contents and digestibility
of carbohydrates of chickpea and blackgram as affected by domestic
processing and cooking. Food Chem 34: 417–420.
30. Rani N, Hira CK (1993) Effect of various treatments on nutritional
quality of faba beans (Vicia faba). J Food Sci Technol 30: 413–416.
31. Jood S, Kapoor AC (1997) Improvement in chickpea and blackgram
through processing and cooking techniques. Int J Fd Sci Technol 48:
307–312.
32. Rao BSN, Prabhavathi T (1978) An In vitro method for predicting
the bioavailability of iron from foods. Am J Clin Nutr 31: 169.
33. Feng GH, Chen M, Kramer KJ, Reeck GR (1991) Alpha amylase in-
hibitors from rice: Fractionation and selectivity toward insect, mam-
malian and bacterial alpha amylases. Cereal Chem 68: 516–527.
34. Jood S, Chauhan BM, Kapoor AC (1989) Protein digestibility (In
vitro) of chickpea and blackgram as affected by domestic processing
and cooking. Plant Fd Hum Nutr 39: 149–154.
35. Finney FF, Morris VH, Yamazaki WT (1950) Micro versus macro
cookies baking procedures for evaluating the cookie quality of wheat
varieties. Cereal Chem 27: 42–46.