Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 1995 Jan;47(1):21-8.
doi: 10.1007/BF01088163.

Nutrient content of young cassava leaves and assessment of their acceptance as a green vegetable in Nigeria

Affiliations

Nutrient content of young cassava leaves and assessment of their acceptance as a green vegetable in Nigeria

A F Awoyinka et al. Plant Foods Hum Nutr. 1995 Jan.

Abstract

Cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) leaves contained a high level of crude protein (29.3-32.4% dry weight) compared to a conventional vegetable, Amaranthus (19.6%). Ash was 4.6-6.4% in cassava leaf samples but 13.1% dry weight in Amaranthus. Dietary fibre was very high in all samples (26.9-39% dry weight) while HCN-potential was low (5.1-12.6 mg/100 g dry weight). Tannin was the highest in IITA red cassava leaves (29.7 mg/g) and the lowest in Amaranthus vegetable. In vitro digestibility was very low in oven dried samples (15.6-22.7%). Blanching increased protein content (except Amaranthus) and in vitro protein digestibility but decreased ash, minerals, dietary fibre and tannin, while HCN-potential was unchanged. Grinding reduced both HCN-potential and tannin by 84 and 71% respectively while oven drying only reduced the HCN content marginally. Preference studies showed that the highest percentage of respondents (25.3%) preferred Amaranthus vegetable, followed by Celosia (17.5%), Talinum (12.4%), garden egg (11.5%), with cassava leaves as the least (0.5%). Organoleptic evaluation rated cassava leaf soup inferior to Amaranthus in terms of appearance, colour and texture but equal in terms of taste and flavour and overall acceptability.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. J Agric Food Chem. 1980 Jul-Aug;28(4):824-9 - PubMed
    1. World Rev Nutr Diet. 1975;23:259-95 - PubMed
    1. Can J Physiol Pharmacol. 1985 Sep;63(9):1084-7 - PubMed
    1. Biochem Pharmacol. 1980 Feb;29(3):301-4 - PubMed
    1. Analyst. 1966 Apr;91(81):282-4 - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources