Physicochemical Properties of Selected Varieties of Cowpea Seeds and Their Relation to The Infestation Potential by The Cowpea Bruchid, Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae)

M.O. Abokersh; E.M. Barakat

doi:10.59743/jmset.v1i2.127

Authors

M.O. Abokersh Department of Zoology, Faculty of Science, Alasmarya Islamic University, Zliten, Libya.
E.M. Barakat Department of Entomology, Faculty of Science, Ain Shams University, Abbasia, Egypt.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.59743/jmset.v1i2.127

Keywords:

Cowpea seeds, Physicochemical properties, Callosobruchus maculatus, Infestation potential

Abstract

Cowpea, Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp is the most popular legume cultivated in tropical and sub-tropical countries because of its high nutritional value. The physicochemical properties of four local varieties of cowpea seeds (Cream 7, Kaha 1, Dokki 331, and Kafr El-Sheikh 1) in Egypt were studied. Length, major and minor diameter of seeds were in the range of 6.70-12.90 mm, 3.33-5.58 mm, and 3.18-4.65 mm while the grain weight of the seeds varied between 8.40 to 34.90 g. The results showed that Cowpea seeds contain a high value of crude protein in the range of 25.79 to 29.25%. Moisture, dry matter, fat, ash, and crude fiber values were in the range of 8.57 to 10.07%, 89.93 to 91.44%, 0.79 to 3.18%, 2.72 to 3.73%, and 1.92 to 3.37% respectively. Carbohydrate content varied between 53.56 to 57.36%. When Callosobruchus maculatus, the most destructive pest of stored leguminous seeds, was provided with these varieties of cowpea, the percentage of adults emerging differed with variety.

References

AOAC (2000). Official methods of analysis. Association of official Analytical chemists. Washington DC., 16th Edition.

Avidov Z., Applebaum S.W., and Berlinger M.J. (1965). Physiological aspects of host specificity in the Bruchidae. II. Ovipositional preference and behaviour of Callosobruchus chinensis (L.). Entomologia experimentalis et applicata, 8: 96-106.

Bergmann C.J., Gualberto D.G., and Weber C.W. (1994). Development of a high temperature. Dried. Soft wheat pasta supplemented with cowpea Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp. Cooking. Quality, colour and sensory evaluation. Cereal Chem., 71: 523-527.

Booker R.H. (1967). Observations on three Bruchids associated with cowpeas in Northern Nigeria. Journal of Stored Products Research, 3: 1-15.

Bressani R., and Elias L.G. (1984). Legumes foods. In: Altschul, A.M. (Editor), New protein food New York/London: Academic press, IA: 230-297.

Caswell G.H. (1975). The storage of grain legumes. 9th Annual Conference of the Entomological Society of Nigeria, 9: 1-5.

Chavan P.D., Singh Y., and Singh S.P. (1997). Ovipositional preference of Callosobruchus chinensis for cowpea lines. Indian J. Ent., 59 (3): 29303.

Chinma C.E., Alemede I.C., and Emelife I.G. (2008). Physicochemical and Functional Properties of Some Nigerian Cowpea Varieties. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition, 7(1): 186-190.

Dela N.C., and Khush G.S. (2000). Rice grain quality evaluation procedure. In aromatic Rice (Ed). R.K.

El-Sawaf S.K. (1956). Some factors affecting the longevity, oviposition and rate of development in the southern cowpea weevil, Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Bulletin of the Society of Entomology, 40: 29-95.

Giga D.P., and Smith, R.H. (1981). Varietal resistance and intraspecufic competition in the cowpea weevils Callosobruchus maculatus and C. chinensis (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Journal of Applied Ecology, 18: 755-761

Gomez M.I., Obilana A.B., Martin D.F., Madzramuse M., and Monyo E.S. (1997). Manual of laboratory procedures for quality evaluation of sorghum and pearl millet. ICRESTAT (International crop research Institute for the semi-Arid tropics) Patancheru 502324, Andhra Pradesh, India.

Gutfinger T. (1981). Phenoles in olive oils. J. Am. Oil. Chem. Soc., 58: 966-968.

Khare B.P., and Johari R.K. (1984). Influence of phenotypic characters of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) cultivars on their susceptibility to Callosobruchus chinesis (L.). Legume Res., 7(1): 54-56.

Khattack S.U.K., Khatoon H.R., and Mohammad T. (1987). Relative susceptibility of different mungbean varieties to Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). J. Stored Prod. Res., 23(3): 139-142.

Mensah G.W.K. (1986). Infestation potential of Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) on cowpea cultivars stored under sub-tropical conditions. Insect Sci. Applications, 7(6): 78784.

Mueke J.M. (1986). Varietal susceptibility 0f cowpeas to Callosobruchus maculatus (F.). East African Agric. Forestrt. J., 52(2): 10105.

Nwanze K.F., and Horber E. (1976). Seed coats of cowpeas affect oviposition and larval development of Callosobruchus maculatus (F.). Environmen. Entomol., 5: 213-218.

Osuji F.N.C. (1976). A comparison of the susceptibility of cowpea varieties to infestation by Callosobruchus maculatus (F.). Ent. Exp. Appl., 20: 209-217.

Price M.I., Van Scoyoc S., and Butler L.G. (1978). A critical evaluation of the vanillin reagent as assay for tannins in sorghum grain. J. Agric. Food Chem., 26: 1214-1218.

Singh V.N., Pandey N.D., and Singh T.P. (1995). Relative resistance of gram varieties to Callosobruchus chinesis (L.) on the basis of biochemical parameters. Indian J. Ent., 57(2): 77-82.

Srivastava B.K., and Bhatia S.K. (1959). The effect of host species on the oviposition of Callosobruchus chinensis (L.). Annals of Zoology, 3: 37-42.

Swain T. (1977). Secondary compounds as protective agents. Ann Rev Plant Physiol., 28: 479–501.