CRC Handbook of Proximate Analysis Tables of Higher Plants Authors James A. Duke Botanist Germplasm Introduction and Evaluation Laboratory United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service Beltsville, Maryland Alan A. Atchley Research Botanist Germplasm Resources Laboratory United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service Beltsville, Maryland Boca Raton London New York CRC Press, Inc. C TaRyClo Pr r&es sF riasB nacnois ci mGarp orRuinpta, otafon t nhine,f oFrmloa rbiudsianess First published 1986 by CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group 6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300 Boca Raton, FL 33487-2742 Reissued 2018 by CRC Press © 1986 by CRC Press, Inc. CRC Press is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business No claim to original U.S. Government works Tis book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reasonable eforts have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the author and publisher cannot assume responsibility for the validity of all materials or the consequences of their use. Te authors and publishers have attempted to trace the copyright holders of all material reproduced in this publication and apologize to copyright holders if permission to publish in this form has not been obtained. If any copyright material has not been acknowledged please write and let us know so we may rectify in any future reprint. Except as permitted under U.S. Copyright Law, no part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced, transmitted, or utilized in any form by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafer invented, including photocopying, microflming, and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without written permission from the publishers. For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from this work, please access www.copyright.com (http://www.copyright. com/) or contact the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400. CCC is a not-for-proft organization that provides licenses and registration for a variety of users. For organizations that have been granted a photocopy license by the CCC, a separate system of payment has been arranged. Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identifcation and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Duke, James, A., 1929— CRC handbook of proximate analysis tables of higher plants. Bibliography: p. 1. Plants, Edible--Composition--Tables. 2. Food crops--Composition--Tables. 3. Nutrition--Tables. I. Atchley, Alan A. II. Title. III. Title: Handbook of proximate analysis tables of higher plants. TX557.D85 1986 641.3’3 86-4251 ISBN 0-8493-3634-1 A Library of Congress record exists under LC control number: 86004251 Publisher’s Note Te publisher has gone to great lengths to ensure the quality of this reprint but points out that some imperfections in the original copies may be apparent. Disclaimer Te publisher has made every efort to trace copyright holders and welcomes correspondence from those they have been unable to contact. ISBN 13: 978-1-315-89396-9 (hbk) ISBN 13: 978-1-351-07306-6 (ebk) Visit the Taylor & Francis Web site at http://www.taylorandfrancis.com and the CRC Press Web site at http://www.crcpress.com INTRODUCTION When CRC Press asked about the possibility of publishing a nutritional table we were pleased, believing that our Germplasm Introduction and Evaluation Laboratory has one of the largest computerized collections of proximate analyses, at least as far as numbers of species are concerned. That was in 1983, when the data base contained most plant species 1 2 3 analyzed in Food Composition Tables for Africa, East Asia, and Latin America, to 4 5 complement data from Agriculture Handbook No. 8, the Wealth of India and Forage Plant 6 Analyses. With the CRC stimulus, we were encouraged to incorporate selected entries from other 717 18 sources, especially Gobi's 1981 compendium devoted largely to tropical forages. Sensing renewed interest in exotic oilseeds as potential energy and feed sources, we further decided 19 2i to enter many of the analyses provided by a very significant seed screening program launched years ago by Q. Jones, F. R. Earle, and A. S. Barclay. Although we have thousands of entries, covering hundreds of species, our data are still very incomplete; for example, as far as we can determine there was no complete proximate analysis of the groundnut (Apios americana L.) — the roots which helped our forefather Pilgrims survive their first American winters, thanks to the teachings of the American Indians. We have only recently gathered enough groundnuts to satisfy requirements for that proximate analysis. Many of our native American Food species, some considered endangered or threat- ened, have never been subjected to a proximate nutritional analysis. 14 Similar data gaps prompted Duke to get a proximate analysis of the leaves of coca. These leaves proved to be extremely rich in iron and calcium, more so than any other plant in the Food Composition Table for Latin America, on an "as purchased" basis (APB). If you find our Nutrition Tables as useful as we have for information on esoteric economic plants, we hope you will send us references or reprints on species not included in our tables. Since our data base is on computer tape, we can augment and edit it. We plan an annual update. With certain rather stringent specifications, we can make copies of the computer tape available to responsible agencies where mutual benefits would accrue. Readers should be advised that the inclusion of a species in a nutritional table does not necessarily imply that it is edible. As a matter of fact, some of the species are quite poisonous, e.g., Abrus precatorius. However, in some developing countries the seeds are consumed after elaborate processing. In spite of painstaking and tedious work, we fear that some errors will have escaped editorial eyes. Via the computer, corrections are easily made. Users are urged to report any errors they uncover. We will not travel these trails (and trials) again very often. Since one of the major functions of this publication is to compare nutritional chemistry of as many plant species as possible, the reader is referred to Table 1. In Table 1, rather 4 conventional food species from Watt and Merrill's Composition of Foods are grouped into ten arbitrary categories, ranging from the wettest, lowest-calorie category to the driest, highest-calorie category. Five or ten elements from each category are presented so that the reader can compare less conventional foods with these conventional foods. These are av- eraged, based on the APB moisture content. To enable other comparisons, the ZMB (Zero- Moisture Basis) has been calculated as well, by multiplying each column except water by 100/100-X where X is the percentage of water. This reduces all the entries to the common denominator ZMB (with some distortion since fiber is included twice). Clearly there is gradation from the APB to ZMB. A fresh grape contains ca. 81.5% moisture but only 4 ppm Fe, whereas a dried grape or raisin contains (by analysis) less than 20% water and closer to 35 ppm iron. We hear the raisin described as iron-rich, but on a ZMB, our aerial "vegetables" contain 79 ppm iron, our leafy vegetables 253 ppm, our shoots 109, wild greens 222, other fruits 40 ppm (about on par with raisins), underground "vegetables" 55, "roots" 49, cereals 38, pulses 72, and nuts 43. Are raisins then really rich in iron? While we have prepared Table 1 manually, and converted our averages to ZMB, our computerized data can be mass converted to ZMB. Table 2 represents the direct transcription of data from one of each species from the source indicated. Sometimes these represent fresh weight analyses on an APB. APB data are most useful for converting conventional yields (kg/ha) to, e.g., protein yield. One shortcoming in this "as purchased" table is that it is difficult to compare protein contents of greens, hay, and seeds, for example, when their moisture contents may vary from 95% to 5% more or less. Yet many prefer to compare on an APB; others prefer the ZMB. To prepare Table 3, a ZMB table, we instructed the computer to select credible entries [those in which water, plus protein, plus, oil, plus total carbohydrate (-fiber), plus fiber, plus ash equals 100 ± 1]. Then we instructed the computer to multiply all entries (except water) in such analyses by 100/100-X where X is the percentage of water. Incomplete entries that already had zero in the water column were retained as is for the ZMB table. Data within the same column here are probably more closely comparable than in the APB table. ZMB tables, if computerized, allow us to calculate readily how many calories will accompany the RDA of a nutritional element in a given food. The format for Tables 2 and 3 is as follows: PLNA (species name); Part (plant part); Calories (per lOOg); Water (%); Protein (%); Fat (%); Total carbohydrate (%); Fiber (%); Ash (%); Calcium (mg/100 g); Phosphorus (mg/100 g); Iron (mg/100 g); Sodium (mg/100 g); Potassium (mg/100 g); Carotene (|jLg/100g — Vitamin A units multiplied by 2 to convert to beta-carotene equivalent); Thiamine (mg/100 g); Riboflavin (mg/100 g); Niacin (mg/100 g); Ascorbic acid (mg/100 g). Ref Co = Reference Code (see references). Note that plant parts are coded as follows: A = aril; BU = bulb; C = twig; CA = callus; D = pod; E = epidermis, bark; F = fruit, mature fruit; G = green fruit, green pulp; H = hay, dry; HE = heart; I = inflorescence, flower; IS = immature seed, green seed; J = juice; K = dry fruit; L - leaf, fresh; N = dry leaf; O = oil; P = pulp of fruit, mature pulp; Q = green root; R = root; S = seed, mature seed; SH = shoot with fresh leaves, bud; T = tuber; U = cooked seed; V = dry seed; W = wet hay; X = seedling; Y = stem; YC = Corm; Z = leaf stalk. THE AUTHORS James A. Duke was born in Birmingham, Alabama, in 1929. He is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of the University of North Carolina, where he took his AB (1952) and BS (1955) in Botany. Following a 2V2 year tour of military duty, which included a mycological assignment at Fort Dietrick, Maryland, he took his PhD in Botany, in 1961, at the University of North Carolina, moving on to postdoctoral activities at Washington University and the Missouri Botanical Garden, in St. Louis, Missouri, where he assumed professorial and curatorial duties, respectively. At the Missouri Botanical Garden, Duke began intensive studies of neotropical ethnobotany, which is his overriding interest to this day. From 1963 to 1965, Duke served with the U.S. Department of Agriculture at Beltsville, Maryland, devoting much of his time to neotropical ecology, especially seedling ecology. In 1965, he joined Battelle Columbus Laboratories, for ecological and ethnological studies in Panama and Colombia, returning to the USDA in 1971 for crop diversification and medicinal plant studies in developing countries. As a collaborator with the Smithsonian Institution, he has lectured and taught there, with emphasis on neotropical ethnobotany and folk medicine. Considered a key figure in the "Herbal Renaissance", Duke received the Cutty Sark Science Award in 1981. In 1985, he received the Maharishi University Award and was awarded Honorary Membership in the Oriental Healing Arts Institute. Currently he is an economic botanist with the Germplasm Introduction and Evaluation Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, Maryland. Dr. Duke is an active member in the American Herb Association (Life), American Society of Pharmacognosy, Association for Tropical Biology, Herb Research Foundation, Interna- tional Association of Plant Taxonomists (Life), International Society for Tropical Ecology, International Weed Science Society (Life), National Association for Professional Bureau- crats, Organization for Tropical Studies (Life), Society for Economic Botany (Life), Southern Appalachian Botanical Club (Life), Tri-State Bluegrass Association (Life), and Weed Science Society of America. Widely travelled in his ethnobotanical studies, Dr. Duke has more than 100 scientific publications to his credit. His books include Isthmian Ethnobotanical Dictionary, Harrod and Company, Baltimore, 1972 (being reissued with illustrations by Scientific Publishers, Jodphur, India); A Handbook of Legumes of World Economic Importance, Plenum Press, New York, 1981; Medicinal Plants of the Bible, Trado-Medic Books, Buffalo, New York, 1983; with E. S. Ayensu, Medicinal Plants of China, 2 volumes, Reference Publications, Algonac, Michigan, 1985; A Culinary Herbal, Trado-Medic Books, Buffalo, New York, 1985; and the CRC Handbook of Medicinal Herbs, 1985, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. Also in press for 1986: CRC Handbook of Agricultural Energy Potential of Developing Countries, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida; Gilding of the Ginseng, Reference Publications, Algonac, Michigan; and Handbook of Northeastern Indian Medicinal Plants, Quarterman Publications, Lawrence, Massachusetts. In early 1986, Dr. Duke's first LP album was produced, entitled "Herbalbum" with herbal country music. Alan A. Atchley was born in 1946 in Akron, Ohio, but grew up mostly elsewhere in the Midwest, the South, Appalachia, and southern Arizona. He believes this background may have "pre-adapted" him to the study of ecogeography, which tries to discover why plant and animal species occupy only certain areas. The availability of plant food, for example, can have crucial bearing on the habitability of an area. Dr. Atchley received his bachelor's degree cum laude from Harvard College in 1967 and his doctorate from the University of Maryland in 1976. Since then he has worked for the United States Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service in a variety of roles. From 1976 to 1980 he participated in ecological field work in and climatological research on various Central American, Caribbean, and Middle Eastern countries. Since 1980 he has been in charge of the Agricultural, Ecological, and Geographic Information System (AEGIS), now part of the Germplasm Introduction and Evaluation Laboratory. AEGIS aims, in part, to evaluate potential new and replacement crops on the basis of ecological suitability and nutritional value. Dr. Atchley has built upon this facility to investigate a new range of germplasm and crop replacement questions using Artificial Intelligence. TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE 1 Proximate Analyses of Conventional Plant Foods 1 TABLE 2 Data Directly Transcribed from Original Sources. 7 TABLE 3 Data Converted to a Zero-Moisture Basis 175 References 389 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It was with great relief that we entrusted Michael Woodbridge with transcribing recent handwritten notes and new material to the computer. Kazue Wain transcribed our manual 1 3 4 entries from the Food Composition Tables, " Agriculture Handbook No. 8, and The Wealth 5 of India. Concetta Pirrone proofed the latter entries while Michael proofed his own entries. Thanks to all who have helped. It has been tough and trying. We hope the utility of the tables will be a monument to the monumental efforts of our skilled technicians. Table 1 a PROXIMATE ANALYSES OF CONVENTIONAL PLANT FOODS (PER 100 g) ^VEGETABLE" (aerial) TotaJ Vit H20 Prot Fat carb Fiber Ash Ca P Fe Na K p-Car Thia Rib Nia C Food item (g) Cal (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (mg) (mg) (mg) (mg) (mg) (»xg) (mg) (mg) (mg) (mg) Eggplant 92.4 25 1.2 .2 5.6 .9 .6 12 26 .7 2 214 6 .05 .05 .6 5 Okra 88.9 36 2.4 .3 7.6 1.0 .8 92 51 .6 3 249 312 .17 .21 1.0 31 Pepper 93.4 22 1.2 .2 4.8 1.4 .4 9 22 .7 13 213 252 .08 .08 .5 128 Squash 94.0 19 1.1 .1 4.2 .6 .6 28 29 .4 1 202 246 .05 .09 1.0 22 Tomato 93.5 22 1.1 .2 4.7 .5 .5 13 27 .5 3 244 540 .06 .04 .7 23 Average (APB 92.44 25 1.4 .2 5.4 .9 .6 31 31 .6 4 224 271 .08 .09 .8 42 (ZMB) 0 331 18.5 2.6 71.4 11.9 7.9 410 410 7.9 53 2,963 3,585 1.06 1.19 10.6 556 LEAFY VEGETABLE (cultivated) Beet greens 90.9 24 2.2 .3 4.6 1.3 2.0 119 40 3.3 130 570 3,660 .10 .22 .4 30 Cabbage 92.4 24 1.3 .2 5.4 .8 .7 49 29 .4 20 233 78 .05 .05 .3 47 Chard 91.1 25 2.4 .3 4.6 .8 1.6 88 39 3.2 147 550 3,900 .06 .17 .5 32 Kale 87.5 38 4.2 .8 6.0 1.3 1.5 179 73 2.2 75 378 5,340 — — — 125 Spinach 90.7 26 3.2 .3 4.3 .6 1.5 93 51 3.1 71 470 4,860 .10 .20 .6 51 Average (APB) 90.5 27.4 2.7 .38 5.0 .96 1.46 106 46 2.4 89 440 3,568 .08 .16 .45 57 (ZMB) 289 28.4 4.0 54.7 10.5 15.8 1,116 484 25.3 937 4,633 37,571 .84 1.68 4.74 600