Submitted:
10 November 2023
Posted:
13 November 2023
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Planting materials and experimental design
2.1. Determination of fresh tuber weight
2.3. Tuber sampling for sensory evaluation of pounded yam.
2.4. Moisture content of tuber and yam flour preparation
2.5. Functional and pasting properties of yam flour
2.5.1. Water binding capacity
2.5.2. Swelling power and solubility index
2.5.3. Pasting properties
2.6. Sensory evaluation of pounded yam
2.6.1. Pounded yam preparation
2.6.2. Panellist selection and training
2.6.3. Sensory evaluation
2.7. Statistical analysis
3. Results
3.1. Effect of fertiliser application on fresh and dry weights and moisture content of yam tubers
3.2. Effect of fertiliser application on the functional properties of yam flour
3.3. Effect of fertiliser application on yam flour pasting properties
3.4. Sensory evaluation of pounded yams grown with or without fertilisation
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgements
Conflicts of Interest
Ethical Compliance
References
- Darkwa, K.; Olasanmi, B.; Asiedu, R.; Asfaw, A. Review of empirical and emerging breeding methods and tools for yam (Dioscorea spp.) improvement: Status and prospects. Plant Breed. 2020, 139, 474–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Asiedu, R.; Sartie, A. Crops that feed the world 1. Yams. Yams for income and food security. Food Secur. 2010, 2, 305–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FAOSTAT. Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home (accessed on 5 Sep, 2023), 2022.
- Lebot, V. Tropical root and tuber crops: Cassava, sweet potato, yams and aroids. Crop Production Science In Horticulture Series, 17. Wallingford CT CABI. [CrossRef]
- Sangakkara, U.R.; Frossard, E. Home gardens and Dioscorea species: A case study of the climatic zones of Sri Lanka. J. Agric. Rural Dev. Trop. 2014, 115, 55–65. [Google Scholar]
- Otegbayo, B.O.; Madu, T.; Oroniran, O.; Chijioke, U.; Fawehinmi, O.; Okoye, B.; Tanimola, A.; Adebola, P.; Obidiegwu, J. End-user preferences for pounded yams and implications for food product profile development. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 56, 1458–1472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Otegbayo, B.; Aina, J.; Asiedu, R.; Bokanga, M. Pasting characteristics of fresh yams (Dioscorea spp.) as indicators of textural quality in a major food product- ‘pounded yam’. Food Chem. 2006, 99, 663–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tortoe, C.; Dowuonac, S.; Akonor, P.T.; Dziedzoave, N.T.; Yildiz, F. Examining the physicochemical, functional and rheological properties in flours of farmers’ 7 key yam (Dioscorea spp.) varieties in Ghana to enhance yam production. Cogent Food Agric. 2017, 3, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wireko-Manu, F.D.; Ellis, W.O.; Oduro, I.; Asiedu, R.; Maziya-Dixon, B. Physicochemical and pasting characteristics of water yam (D. alata) in comparison with Pona (D. rotundata) from Ghana. Europ J. Food Res. Rev. 2011, 1, 149–158. [Google Scholar]
- Baah, F.; Maziya-Dixon, B.; Asiedu, R.; Oduro, I.; Ellis, W. Physicochemical and pasting characterization of water yam (Dioscorea spp.) and relationship with eating quality of pounded yam. J. Food Agric. Environ. 2009, 7, 107–112. [Google Scholar]
- Ufondu, H.E.; Maziya-Dixon, B.; Okoyeuzu, C.F.; Okonkwo, T.M.; Okpala, C.O.R. Effects of yam varieties on flour physicochemical characteristics and resultant instant fufu pasting and sensory attributes. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 20276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
- Carsky, R.J.; Asiedu, R.; Cornet, D. Review of soil fertility management for yam-based systems in West Africa. Afr. J. Root Tuber. Crops 2010, 8, 1–17. [Google Scholar]
- Ouédraogo, E. Soil Quality Improvement for Crop Production in Semi-arid. Tropical Resource Management Papers, vol. 51 [Ph.D. Thesis]. West: Africa; Wageningen University: Wageningen, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Kaizzi, K.C.; Mohammed, M.B.; Nouri, M. Fertilizer use optimization: Principles and approach. In Fertilizer Use Optimization in Sub-Saharan Africa; Wortmann, C.S., Sones, K., Eds.; CABI Publishing: Nairobi, Kenya, 2017; pp. 9–19. [Google Scholar]
- Lugo, W.I.H.M.; Gonzalez, A.; Rafols, N.; Almodovar, C. Tillage and fertilizer rate effects on yam yields (Dioscorea alata L.). J. Agric. Univ. PR 1993, 77, 153–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diby, L.; Hgaza, V.K.; Tié, T.B.; Assac, A.; Carskyd, R.; Girardin, O.; Frossard, E. Productivity of yams (Dioscorea spp.) as affected by soil fertility. J. Anim. Plant Sci. 2009; 5, 494–506. [Google Scholar]
- Diby, L.N.; Tie, B.T.; Girardin, O.; Sangakkara, R.; Frossard, E. Growth and nutrient use efficiencies of yams (Dioscorea spp.) grown in two contrasting soils of West Africa. Int. J. Agron. 2011; 175958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vernier, P.; Dossou, R.A.; Letourmy, P. Influence de la Fertilisation, Chimique sur les Qualités de 1’Igname Cahiers Agricultures 2000, 9, 131–134.
- Ebúrneo, J.M.; Garcia, E.L.; dos Santos, T.P.R.; de Souza, E.D.F.C.; Soratto, R.P.; Fernandes, A.M.; Leonel, M. Influence of nitrogen fertilization on the characteristics of potato starch. Aust. J. Crop Sci. 2018, 12, 365–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Biratu, G.K.; Elias, E.; Ntawuruhunga, P. Does the application of mineral and organic fertilizer affect cassava tuber quality? An evidence from Zambia. J. Agric. Food Res. 2022, 9, 100339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frossard, E.; Aighewi, B.A.; Aké, S.; Barjolle, D.; Baumann, P.; Bernet, T.; Dao, D.; Diby, L.N.; Floquet, A.; Hgaza, V.K.; et al. The challenge of improving soil fertility in yam cropping systems of West Africa. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 1953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chude, V.O.; Olayiwola, S.O. Osho A.O., and Daudu C.K. In Nigeria Federal Fertilizer Department. Fertilizer Use and Management Practices for Crops; Federal Ministry of Agricultural and Rural Development: Abuja, 2012; Vol. 215.
- Afoakwa, E.O.; Budu, A.; Asiedu, S.; Chiwona-Karltun, C.; Nyirenda, D.B. Viscoelastic properties and physic functional characterization of six high yielding cassava mosaic disease-resistant cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) genotypes. J. Nutr. Food Sci. 2012, 2, 129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perten instrument RVA Method 01.05 general pasting method. Available online. Available online: https://www.perten.com/Global/Application%20notes/RVA/General%20Pasting%20Method%20-%20RVA%2001.05.pdf (accessed on 12 Jun 2023).
- Otegbayo, B.; Aina, J.; Sakyi-Dawson, E.; Bokanga, M.; Asiedu, R. Sensory texture profiling and development of standard rating scales for pounded yam. J. Texture Stud. 2005, 36, 478–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matsumoto, R.; Ishikawa, H.; Korie, S.; De Koeyer, D. Varietal difference in tuber yield and fertilizer response in a F1 mapping population of water yam (Dioscorea alata L.). Tropentag 2018: International Research on Food Security, Natural Resource Management and Rural Development, Ghent, Belgium. Available online: https://www.tropentag.de/2018/proceedings/proceedings.pdf; Vol. P286, 2018.
- Matsumoto, R.; Ishikawa, H.; Asfaw, A.; Asiedu, R. Low soil nutrient tolerance and mineral fertilizer response in White Guinea yam (Dioscorea rotundata) genotypes. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 629762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Matsumoto, R.; Asfaw, A.; Ishikawa, H.; Takada, K.; Shiwachi, H.; Asiedu, R. Biomass production and nutrient use efficiency in white Guinea yam (Dioscorea rotundata Poir.) genotypes grown under contrasting soil mineral nutrient availability. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 973388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gunaratne, A.; Sirisena, N.; Ratnayaka, U.K.; Ratnayaka, J.; Kong, X.; Vidhana Arachchi, L.P.; Corke, H. Effect of fertiliser on functional properties of flour from four rice varieties grown in Sri Lanka. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2011, 91, 1271–1276, Erratum in: J. Sci. Food Agric. 2011, 91, 1271–1276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chinma, C.E.; Ariahu, C.C.; Abu, J.O. Chemical composition, functional and pasting properties of cassava starch and soy protein concentrate blends. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2013, 50, 1179–1185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ocheme, O.B.; Adedeji, O.E.; Chinma, C.E.; Yakubu, C.M.; Ajibo, U.H. Proximate composition, functional, and pasting properties of wheat and groundnut protein concentrate flour blends. Food Sci. Nutr. 2018, 6, 1173–1178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Otegbayo, B.O.; Samuel, F.O.; Kehinde, A.L.; Sangoyomi, T.E.; Okonkwo, C.C. Perception of food quality in yam by some Nigerian farmers. Afr. J. Food Sci. 2010, 4, 541–549. [Google Scholar]
- Nindjin, C.; Otokoré, D.; Hauser, S.; Tschannen, A.; Farah, Z.; Girardin, O. Determination of relevant sensory properties of pounded yams (Dioscorea spp.) using a locally based descriptive analysis methodology. Food Qual. Preference 2006, 18, 450–e459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dumont, R.; Letourmy, P.; Num, K.A. Influence de la fertilisation chimique sur l’aptitude à la conservation des ignames en Côte d’Ivoire. Cah. Agric. 1997, 6, 107–114. [Google Scholar]
| Genotype | Local/another name | Description | Source |
| D. rotundata | |||
| Danacha | Danacha | Langrace | Zakibiam, Niger state |
| Hembakwase | Hembakwase | Langrace | Agyaragu, Nasarawa state |
| Ojuiyawo | Ojuiyawo | Langrace | Igboho, Oyo State |
| TDr9518544 | Breedling line | IITA | |
| D. alata | |||
| TDa0000194 | Breedling line | IITA | |
| TDa0200012 | Breedling line | IITA | |
| TDa291 | Florido | Introduction from Puerto Rico | IITA |
| TDa9801176 | Breedling line | IITA |
| Attributes | Intensity scale | Descriptors |
| Stretchability | Very stretchable | Lafun |
| Slightly stretchable | Amala | |
| Stretchable | Eba | |
| Stickiness | Very sticky | Margarine |
| (adhesiveness) | Sticky | Moimoi |
| Slightly sticky | Semovita | |
| Non sticky | Fufu | |
| Mouldability | Easy to mould | Fufu |
| (cohesiveness) | Difficult to mould | Very soft Eba |
| Impossible to mould | Margarine | |
| Smoothness | Smooth | Egg yolk |
| Small lumps | Oat meal | |
| Big lumps | Yam porridge | |
| Hardness | Very hard | Boiled unripe plantain |
| Hard | Boiled semi-ripe plantain | |
| Soft | Boiled ripe plantain | |
| Very soft | Boiled irish potato | |
| Attributes were modified from Otegbayo et al. (2005). | ||
|
Fresh tuber weight (g plant-1) |
Moisture content (%) |
Dry tuber weight (g plant-1) |
|||||||
| Non-F | +F | Non-F | +F | Non-F | +F | ||||
| Danacha | 1478.5 | 2099.4 | *** | 63.2 | 67.5 | * | 549.1 | 683.9 | * |
| Hembakwase | 1933.1 | 1904.1 | 65.0 | 69.6 | ** | 682.2 | 574.4 | * | |
| Ojuiyawo | 1724.9 | 2364.1 | *** | 68.2 | 69.5 | 555.7 | 725.2 | ** | |
| TDr9518544 | 2276.9 | 2635.7 | 63.2 | 67.2 | 842.9 | 880.2 | |||
| TDa0000194 | 2329.3 | 2892.3 | ** | 70.2 | 71.4 | 703.0 | 831.0 | * | |
| TDa0200012 | 1856.8 | 2589.1 | *** | 72.7 | 73.1 | 514.7 | 685.1 | *** | |
| TDa291 | 1518.7 | 1728.3 | 69.6 | 69.2 | 474.3 | 527.6 | |||
| TDa9801176 | 2321.7 | 2485.4 | 73.5 | 73.2 | 620.4 | 661.4 | |||
| Non-F, non-fertilised; +F, NPK fertilised. ***P < 0.001, ** P< 0.01, *P< 0.05, analysed by Student’s t-test between Non-F and +F conditions. | |||||||||
|
Water binding capacity (g/100g) |
Swelling power (g/g) |
Solubility index (%) |
|||||||
| Non-F | +F | Non-F | +F | Non-F | +F | ||||
| Danacha | 132.8 | 140.0 | 4.4 | 4.5 | 8.1 | 8.0 | |||
| Hembakwase | 137.8 | 156.4 | *** | 4.4 | 4.4 | 8.1 | 6.8 | ||
| Ojuiyawo | 140.6 | 144.0 | 4.5 | 4.9 | 9.3 | 9.0 | |||
| TDr9518544 | 143.0 | 158.5 | ** | 4.6 | 4.9 | 7.0 | 7.8 | ||
| TDa0000194 | 146.5 | 157.4 | ** | 3.9 | 3.1 | 11.0 | 10.4 | ||
| TDa0200012 | 147.6 | 151.3 | 3.2 | 3.1 | 11.1 | 11.2 | |||
| TDa291 | 136.1 | 143.6 | 3.4 | 3.3 | 11.2 | 11.7 | |||
| TDa9801176 | 144.9 | 155.0 | 3.0 | 3.3 | 11.6 | 11.3 | |||
| Non-F, non-fertilised; +F, NPK fertilised. *** P<0.001, **P<0.01, analysed by Student’s t-test between Non-F and +F conditions. | |||||||||
| Peak Viscosity (RVU) |
Trough Viscosity (RVU) |
Breakdown viscosity (RVU) |
Final Viscosity (RVU) |
Setback viscosity (RVU) |
Peak Time (min) |
Pasting Temp. (°C) |
||||||||||||||||
| Non-F | +F | Non-F | +F | Non-F | +F | Non-F | +F | Non-F | +F | Non-F | +F | Non-F | +F | |||||||||
| Danacha | 246.4 | 239.6 | 199.4 | 204.0 | 47.0 | 35.6 | 342.2 | 273.4 | 142.8 | 69.4 | * | 5.3 | 5.9 | 82.8 | 82.6 | |||||||
| Hembakwase | 237.0 | 219.4 | 204.5 | 162.4 | * | 32.5 | 57.0 | 279.3 | 229.2 | 74.7 | 66.8 | 5.7 | 5.7 | 83.2 | 82.3 | |||||||
| Ojuiyawo | 256.9 | 241.7 | 205.7 | 175.3 | 51.2 | 66.4 | 309.2 | 251.5 | 103.5 | 76.2 | 5.5 | 5.3 | 82.4 | 81.6 | ||||||||
| TDr9518544 | 243.7 | 228.8 | 198.9 | 149.0 | * | 44.8 | 79.8 | 281.9 | 230.3 | 83.0 | 81.3 | 5.6 | 5.2 | 82.0 | 81.2 | |||||||
| TDa0000194 | 323.9 | 278.2 | 300.5 | 265.4 | 23.4 | 12.8 | 373.8 | 308.7 | 73.4 | 43.3 | 5.9 | 6.4 | 85.3 | 84.7 | ||||||||
| TDa0200012 | 263.8 | 230.6 | 251.1 | 225.1 | 12.6 | 5.5 | 303.4 | 254.8 | 52.3 | 29.7 | 6.2 | 7.0 | * | 84.8 | 84.8 | |||||||
| TDa291 | 329.7 | 265.2 | 283.4 | 233.8 | * | 46.4 | 31.3 | 385.4 | 289.6 | 102.0 | 55.7 | 5.2 | 5.9 | 82.8 | 83.6 | |||||||
| TDa9801176 | 259.8 | 234.3 | 249.3 | 208.4 | 10.5 | 25.9 | 302.2 | 246.4 | 52.9 | 38.0 | 6.2 | 6.0 | 85.5 | 84.6 | ||||||||
| Non-F, non-fertilised; +F, NPK fertilised; RVU, rapid viscosity unit. *P< 0.05, analysed by Student’s t-test between Non-F and +F conditions. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Stretchability | Stickiness | Mouldability | Hardness | Smoothness |
General Acceptability |
|||||||||||||
| Non-F | +F | Non-F | +F | Non-F | +F | Non-F | +F | Non-F | +F | Non-F | +F | |||||||
| Danacha | 2.38 | 2.68 | *** | 2.89 | 2.77 | 1.04 | 1.09 | 2.46 | 2.22 | *** | 1.01 | 1.00 | 4.36 | 4.23 | ||||
| Hembakwase | 2.38 | 2.62 | *** | 2.62 | 2.27 | *** | 1.05 | 1.39 | *** | 2.39 | 1.80 | *** | 1.03 | 1.42 | *** | 4.30 | 3.66 | *** |
| Ojuiyawo | 2.36 | 2.45 | 2.41 | 2.20 | * | 1.31 | 1.45 | ** | 2.19 | 1.70 | *** | 1.14 | 1.26 | * | 4.03 | 3.72 | *** | |
| TDr9518544 | 2.76 | 2.77 | 2.61 | 2.68 | 1.09 | 1.05 | 2.73 | 2.49 | *** | 1.10 | 1.20 | * | 4.08 | 3.97 | ||||
| TDa0000194 | 3.23 | 3.39 | * | 2.68 | 2.75 | 1.65 | 1.34 | *** | 2.46 | 2.32 | * | 1.13 | 1.16 | 3.63 | 3.92 | ** | ||
| TDa0200012 | 3.49 | 3.41 | 2.72 | 3.00 | *** | 1.73 | 1.65 | 2.09 | 2.15 | 1.35 | 1.36 | 3.43 | 3.49 | |||||
| TDa291 | 3.07 | 3.20 | 2.78 | 2.67 | 1.28 | 1.40 | * | 2.58 | 2.34 | *** | 1.13 | 1.22 | 4.13 | 3.89 | ** | |||
| TDa9801176 | 3.66 | 3.48 | *** | 2.72 | 2.52 | * | 1.80 | 1.68 | 2.36 | 2.07 | *** | 1.41 | 1.42 | 3.11 | 3.39 | ** | ||
| Non-F, non-fertilised; +F, NPK fertilised Stretchability: 1 = very stretchable; 2 = stretchable, 3 = slightly stretchable, 4 = not stretchable; Stickiness: 1 = very sticky, 2 = sticky, 3 = slightly sticky; 4 = non-sticky Mouldability: 1 = easy to mould, 2 = difficult to mould, 3 = impossible to mould Hardness: 1 = very soft, 2 = soft, 3=hard, 4=very hard Smoothness: 1 = smooth, 2 = small lumps, 3 = big lumps General acceptability: 1 = dislike extremely; 2 = dislike slightly; 3 = neither like nor dislike; 4 = like moderately; 5 = like extremely *** P< 0.001, ** P< 0.01, *P< 0.05, analysed by Student’s t-test between Non-F and +F conditions | ||||||||||||||||||
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
