Production and Nutrient Composition of Fufu Made from a Mixture of Cassava and Cowpea Flours

Journal of Culinary Science & Technology

ISSN: 1542-8052 (Print) 1542-8044 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wcsc20

Production and Nutrient Composition of Fufu Made From a Mixture of Cassava and Cowpea Flours

C. A. Agbon , E. O. Ngozi & O. O. Onabanjo

To cite this article: C. A. Agbon , E. O. Ngozi & O. O. Onabanjo (2010) Production and Nutrient Composition of Fufu Made From a Mixture of Cassava and Cowpea Flours, Journal of Culinary Science & Technology, 8:2-3, 147-157, DOI: 10.1080/15428052.2010.511096 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15428052.2010.511096

Published online: 03 Dec 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 57

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wcsc20 Journal of Culinary Science & Technology, 8:147–157, 2010 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1542-8052 print/1542-8044 online DOI: 10.1080/15428052.2010.511096

Production and Nutrient Composition of Fufu Made From a Mixture of Cassava and Cowpea Flours

C. A. AGBON, E. O. NGOZI, and O. O. ONABANJO Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, Ogun State, Nigeria

High consumption of cassava products such as cassava fufu char- acterize the food habits of rural dwellers. Although cassava roots are rich in calories, they are grossly deficient in proteins, fats, and some minerals and vitamins. The nutritional hazard of cassava dependency includes chronic protein deficiency. Research toward the enrichment of cassava fufu is needed, especially for children under 5 years. This study aims to develop fufu from flours of fermented cassava and cowpea, evaluate the new cassava–cowpea fufu produced using sensory evaluation procedures, and determine their micronutrient content. Three cassava–cowpea flours BZC, FZC, and FIC were obtained. Cassava–cowpea fufu BZC was produced from cowpea seeds that were first boiled and then fermented for 2 days (48 hours). Cassava–cowpea fufu FZC was made from cowpea seeds that went through 2 days (48 hours) of fermentation, and cassava–cowpea fufu FIC was produced from cowpea seeds that were soaked for one day (24 hours). These cassava— cowpea fufus were evaluated using sensory methods and then sent to the laboratory for the determination of calcium, iron, and zinc using standard procedures. Data were analyzed using evaluation scores that were rated according to the level of acceptance or rejec- tion of the cassava–cowpea fufu. BZC cassava–cowpea fufu was the cassava–cowpea fufu of choice and it had a higher protein content of 4.92 g than control cassava fufu FFF (0.47 g). It also had higher calcium, iron, and zinc content (79.47, 1.09, and 0.82 mg,

This study was supported by Nestle Foundation for the study of nutritional problems in the world. Address correspondence to C. A. Agbon, Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, University of Agriculture, P.M.B. 2240, Abeokuta, Ogun State, Nigeria. E-mail: chinezeagbon@ yahoo.co.uk

147 148 C. A. Agbon et al.

respectively) compared to cassava fufu FFF, which had calcium, iron, and zinc values of 75.64, 0.39, and 0.19 mg, respectively. The cassava–cowpea fufu contained signiﬁcantly higher amounts of protein and micronutrients than the commonly consumed cassava fufu. The addition of cowpea to cassava fufu will improve nutrition derived from cassava consumption among young children in rural areas who depend on monotonous cassava meals. This study has shown that cassava fufu can be enriched with cowpea to increase its protein and micronutrients content.

KEYWORDS Cassava, cowpea, calcium, iron, zinc

INTRODUCTION

Cassava (Manihot esculenta, Crantz) is emerging as a dominant staple of pri- mary or secondary importance in many developing countries of the humid and sub-humid tropics in Africa and elsewhere (Okigbo, 1980). Cassava comprised about 25% of all food crops consumed in Nigeria in 1968 (Oke, 1968). In 2004 studies found that the most frequently consumed staple is maize, followed by cassava, rice, and sorghum (Maziya-Dixon et al., 2004). There are several cassava-based food preparations. For main meals, cassava can be made into gari or fufu (fermented wet cassava or cassava flour; Oyewole, 1991). Cassava flour is produced through the submerged fermentation of peeled cassava roots in water. After fermentation, the fermented cassava is subjected to sun drying and milled in order to have flour (Oyewole & Odunfa, 1988). Cassava is a starchy staple whose roots are very rich in carbohydrates, a major source of energy. In fact, the cassava plant is the highest producer of carbohydrates among crop plants, with perhaps the exception of sugarcane. Although cassava tubers are rich in calories, they are grossly deficient in proteins, fat, and some minerals and vitamins. Consequently, cassava is of lower nutritional value than cereals, legumes, and even some other root and tuber crops such as yams (Okigbo). Fermentation of the roots, however, results in protein enrichment by a factor of some 6 to 8 (Hendershot, 1972). The nutritional hazard of cassava dependency includes kwashiorkor among children following weaning because of an imbalance of protein rela- tive to calorie intake. A mere reduction of the amount of cassava consumed will only serve to aggravate the situation, because seasonal shortfalls in available food supplies often reduce intake to only 70 to 80% of the recommended calorie intake in parts of Nigeria and Ghana (Okigbo, 1980). Because there is heavy reliance on cheap, starchy staples as sources of energy, there is a need in the food system for increasing the amounts of protein-rich foods such as legumes and animal proteins (meat, fish, eggs, Cassava and Cowpea Flours 149 milk, etc.). The major problem with feeding protein-rich foods in rural areas is that the amount available depends on income, and even when incomes are high, nutritional ignorance and certain food habits make it difficult for adequate nutritional status to be attained (Okigbo). Thus, although meat in soups serves as an accompaniment to the cassava fufu and constitutes a protein enrichment measure in the diet, local customs that deny meat to children and certain family members may result in protein malnutrition. It must be recognized that there is a need for an effective intervention to improve the protein content of cassava. In Nigeria it has been found that the most frequently consumed legume is groundnut, followed by cowpea (Maziya-Dixon et al., 2004). Cowpea is prepared for consumption in grain, split, and ground forms in different parts of Africa. Grain is the commonly consumed form in Nigeria, which is then processed traditionally to prepare many dishes. Traditional milling and other processing practices are time and labor intensive, cumbersome, and expose the products to losses and adulteration. Innovative processing technologies include decortication (Henshaw, McWatters, Oguntunde, & Phillips, 1996) and fermentation (Phillips, Chinnan, Branch, Miller, & McWatters, 1988). Fermentation is widely applied in the processing of cereals for the preparation of a wide variety of dishes in developing countries. Cowpea fermentation has been used to improve the protein quality and quantity of fermented maize dough (Obiri-Danso, 1994). Cowpeas as a food source have not been utilized fully, especially in developing countries. Production of cowpea flour has been published (Phillips et al.). New cowpea-based products include weaning mixes, new food formulations, food items developed through blending, and fortification (Elin Halléna & Ainsworth, 2004; Griffith, Castell-Perez, & Griffith, 1998; Malleshi, Daodu, & Chandrasekhar, 1989; Uwaegbute & Nnanyelugo, 1987). Increasing levels of cowpea flour in the blends resulted in changed flour composition such as ash and protein contents (Ashaye, Fasoyiro, & Lawal, 2001). To the best of our knowledge this is the first trial at incorporating cowpea into fufu.

MATERIALS AND METHODS Production of the Fermented Cassava Flour Cassava fufu (FFF) was produced by buying cassava tubers and cleaning. The tubers were peeled with a knife and cut into cylindrical pieces. Tubers were washed with water to ferment for a period of 96 hours. The tubers were allowed to undergo natural fermentation under ambient conditions. As in traditional methods, no inoculum was introduced and the fermentation temperature was not controlled. At the end of fermentation, the resulting soft fermented tubers were hand pulverized and sieved in water to remove 150 C. A. Agbon et al. the coarse ﬁber materials. The resulting mash was allowed to settle and the top water was decanted; the sediment wet cassava mash was sun dried for two days and milled (Oyewole, 1991).

Production of the Fermented Cowpea Flour Cowpea was chosen because it is a frequently consumed legume among Nigerians (Maziya-Dixon et al., 2004). Cowpea will also retain the char- acteristic white color of cassava fufu. All cowpea flours were fermented to improve the nutritional quality and flavor of the flours. Cowpea seeds were bought and processed into three cowpea flours BZC, FCC, and FIC (see Figure 1). Cassava–cowpea fufu BZC was produced from the mixture of cassava flour and cowpea flour that was produced from cowpea seeds that were first boiled (to remove the beany flavor) and then fermented for two days (48 hours). Cassava–cowpea fufu FZC is a mixture of cassava fufu flour

Cow pea Cow pea Cow pea

Winnowing/sorting Winnowing/sorting Winnowing/sorting

Wet dehulling/washing Wet dehulling/washing Wet dehulling/washing

Boiling (5 mins)

Fermentation (48 hours) Fermentation (48 hours) Soaking (24 hours)

Sun drying Sun drying Sun drying

Milling Milling Milling

Sieving Sieving Sieving

Store cow pea flour FZC Store cow pea flour BZC Store cow pea flour FIC

FIGURE 1 Production of three types of cowpea flour. Cassava and Cowpea Flours 151 and cowpea flour made from two-day (48-hour) fermentation of cowpea. Cassava–cowpea fufu FIC is the mixture of cassava fufu flour and cowpea flour that was fermented for one day (24 hours).

How to Prepare Cassava–Cowpea Fufu The fermented cassava–cowpea fufu was cooked by measuring out cassava ﬂour and cowpea ﬂour in a ratio of 2:1 and mixing with tap water to form a paste. The paste was then poured into boiling water and stirred until it was cooked. The cooking time was 10 minutes.

Sensory Evaluation Sensory evaluation was carried out within 10 minutes of preparation. A 10- man trained sensory panel was selected from among the local consumers of cassava fufu. The panelists were familiarized with the scoring scale and the assessment method during the preliminary training session. The cassava– cowpea fufu was arranged randomly and presented to the judges in the same type of plates and each cassava–cowpea fufu was coded in such a way that the panelists could not be biased by the coding system because a set of three digits of random numbers were assigned to each cassava– cowpea fufu. A 4-point rating was used for the evaluation of the degree of preference of the appearance, taste, texture, and degree of liking or disliking for the cassava fufu and the cassava–cowpea fufu. A 0 indicated the least preference for the products and a 4 indicated the greatest preference. The means of their scores were used to determine the cassava–cowpea fufu that was most preferred.

Chemical Analysis of the Cassava–Cowpea Fufu Representative samples of each cooked product were collected in triplicate, placed in sealed food containers, and taken to the food analysis laboratory. Samples were homogenized using a Kenwood Chef (Thorn Emi Domestic Appliances, Ltd., Portsmouth, UK) electric blender, after which a portion was weighed out into a previously weighed, clean, dry Petri dish and dried to a constant weight in an electric oven at 105◦C. The dried samples were then allowed to cool in a dessicator and ground into powder. Each dried sample of the products was packed in a moisture-resistant polyethylene bag with a detailed description and kept frozen until further analysis. Standard procedures (Association of Official Analytical Chemists [AOAC], 1990) were used to determine the moisture content, crude protein (N × 6.25), and fat contents of the produced fufu. Total carbohydrate was estimated by differ- ence. Energy value was calculated using the Atwater’s conversion factors 152 C. A. Agbon et al. for protein, carbohydrate, (4 kcal/g) and fat (9 kcal/g). Two grams of each previously dried powdered food cassava product was transferred to acid- washed crucibles and dry-ashed in a muffle furnace at 600◦C initially for 6 hours and then to constant weight. The iron, zinc, and calcium contents of all cassava–cowpea fufu samples were determined on aliquots of the solutions of the ash by flame atomic spectrophotometry procedures (AOAC, 1990) using a Buck AAS (Model 200, Germany) atomic absorption spec- trophotometer. Replicates of cassava fufu products were analyzed to check on the accuracy and reproducibility of the method.

Methods Validation The accuracy of the concentrations determined in this study was checked by measurements of the reference materials SRM no. 2383 Baby Food Composite Standard for the Proximate Composition and reference materials SRM no. 1570 Spinach Leaves Standard for Trace Elements Composition, both from the National Institute of Standards and Technology of the Department of Commerce, United States. Accuracy of the methods was tested by analyzing two standard reference materials: Whole Meal Flour (BCR no. 189; Community Bureau of References, Brussels) and Total Diet (no. 1548; National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD).

RESULTS

Table 1 shows the sensory ratings of the panelists. The control cassava fufu FFF scored highest in all attributes. Among the developed cassava–cowpea fufus, FIC had better texture and was scored 75%. The taste of BZC was preferred (72.5%), followed by FIC (70%). BZC was also scored highest for flavor and color attributes (70 and 80% respectively). Table 2 shows that color and flavor of FZC had the lowest mean score of 2.5. The generally preferred cassava–cowpea fufu was BZC (70%). The other cassava–cowpea fufus FIC and FZC were given the same ratings of 67.5% each. Even though all the ratings were close, cassava fufu FFF was significantly different at p < .05 in all sensory attributes (Table 4). Sensory attributes of cassava–cowpea fufus BZC and FZC did not significantly differ from each other at p < .05 probably because both underwent 48 hours of fermentation. From the data it can be seen that cassava–cowpea fufu FFF was the highest rated and cassava–cowpea fufu FIC was the lowest rated cassava–cowpea fufu. Table 5 shows the nutrient content of the cassava fufu and the developed cassava– cowpea fufu. Cassava fufu FFF was found high in energy (388.97 kcal) and low in protein content (0.47 g). It had no fat content but was high in calcium (75.64 mg). The nutrient contents of all the developed cassava–cowpea fufu Cassava and Cowpea Flours 153

TABLE 1 Sensory Evaluation of Cassava Fufu Products

Cassava Panelist fufu Attributes products 123456789 10Total%

Texture BZC343243233 2 2972.5 FZC433234312 3 2870 FIC 343331333 4 3075 FFF 333233444 4 3382.5 Taste BZC423332334 2 2972.5 FZC333322122 3 2460 FIC 333332232 4 2870 FFF 422344443 4 3485 Flavor BZC423332323 3 2870 FZC333222133 3 2562.5 FIC 223332223 3 2562.5 FFF 322233433 4 2972.5 Color BZC434332343 3 3280 FZC232123243 3 2562.5 FIC 344322443 2 3177.5 FFF 434443244 4 3690

TABLE 2 Mean Score of Cassava Fufu Products

Attributes BZC FZC FIC FFF

Texture 2.9 2.8 3.0 3.3 Taste 2.9 2.4 2.8 3.4 Flavor 2.8 2.5 2.5 2.9 Color 3.2 2.5 3.1 3.6

TABLE 3 Degree of Preference of the Developed Cassava Fufu Products

Cassava– Panelist cowpea fufu 12345678910Total%

BZC 424333124 2 2870 FZC 243223332 3 2767.5 FIC 333332232 3 2767.5

TABLE 4 Statistical Differences in Sensory Attributes

Cassava fufu products BZC FIC FZC FFF

Mean 14.6a 12.9b 14.1a 16.7c

Note. Any two cassava fufu products with the same superscript are not signiﬁcantly different at p < .05. varied. Their crude protein contents were not statistically different from each other (p < .05) (Table 6). Cassava–cowpea fufu FIC had the highest protein content among the developed products (5.84 g) followed by FZC (5.72 g). 154 C. A. Agbon et al.

TABLE 5 Chemical Analyses of all the Cassava Fufu Products

Cassava % Crude Total fufu Moisture protein carbo Energy Calcium Iron Zinc products content Ash (g) (g) Fat (g) hydrate (g) (kcal) (mg) (mg) (mg)

FFF 71.13 0.31 0.47 ND 99.20 388.97 75.64 0.39 0.19 BZC 65.62 0.70 4.92 0.03 94.45 397.72 79.47 1.09 0.82 FZC 74.42 0.84 5.72 0.02 93.93 398.75 81.96 2.28 0.96 FIC 72.27 0.73 5.84 0.02 93.42 397.17 81.23 2.08 0.91

Note. All analyses were done in triplicate. ND = not detected.

TABLE 6 Mean Separation of the Proximate Constituents of the Cassava Fufu Products

Cassava fufu products

Nutrients FFF BZC FZC FIC

Moisture content (%) 71.13b ± 2.32 65.62c ± 4.08 74.42a ± 3.71 72.27a ± 2.88 Ash content (g) 0.31c ± 1.07 0.70b ± 1.51 0.84a ± 1.17 0.73b ± 2.12 Crude protein (g) 0.47b ± 2.98 4.92a ± 2.11 5.72a ± 4.33 5.84a ± 2.22 Total CHO (g) 99.20a ± 5.33 94.45b ± 4.12 93.93b ± 7.20 93.42b ± 5.11 Energy (Kcal) 388.97a ± 2.65 397.72a ± 3.88 398.75a ± 2.65 397.17a ± 3.76 Calcium (mg) 75.64a ± 3.22 79.47a ± 6.02 81.96a ± 3.12 81.23a ± 3.02 Iron (mg) 0.39c ± 3.28 1.09b ± 5.27 2.28a ± 5.38 2.08a ± 3.97 Zinc (mg) 0.19b ± 4.49 0.82a ± 3.37 0.96a ± 4.18 0.91a ± 2.09

Means with different superscripts along the same row are signiﬁcantly (p ≤ .05) different from each other.

Cassava–cowpea fufu BZC, which was preferred by the panelists, had the lowest protein content of 4.92 g and the highest fat content of 0.03 g. All the developed cassava–cowpea fufus had a significantly higher protein content than cassava fufu FFF. The high energy content of cassava fufu FFF was not statistically different (p < .05) from the energy content of all the developed cassava–cowpea fufus. Calcium contents of all the developed products and the control were similar and was not statistically different (p < .05). FZC and FIC had the highest calcium contents of 81.96 and 81.23 mg, whereas BZC and FFF had 79.47 and 75.64 mg. The iron content of cassava fufu FFF was lower than all the developed products and was statistically different (p < .05). FZC and FIC had similar higher iron values of 2.28 and 2.08 mg than BZC, which had a value of 1.09 mg. Zinc contents of the developed products were significantly higher than cassava fufu FFF (0.19 mg); BZC had 0.82 mg while FZC and FIC had higher values of 0.96 and 0.91 mg, respectively. Results here show that the developed product BZC had the lowest moisture content of 65.62%, which was significant to all the cassava products. FZC had a much higher moisture content of 74.42%; similarly FIC had a value of 72.27% but FFF was significantly different from the rest with a value of 71.13%. Ash content of FFF (0.31 g) was lowest and was significantly Cassava and Cowpea Flours 155 different from the others. Ash content of BZC was also significantly lower in value (0.70 g) than FZC (0.84 g) and FIC (0.73 g).

DISCUSSION

The nutrient content of cassava fufu showed slight differences from published data. These differences can be because, generally, food consumption patterns across Africa show wide sociological, geographical, and regional differences and these have long been known to influence both nutrient content of dishes and nutrient intake levels. Published nutrient content of cooked cowpea was also found similar to that of the developed cassava–cowpea fufu (Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO], 1968). The introduction of cowpea improved the nutrient content of cassava fufu significantly. The different treatments given to the three developed cassava–cowpea fufus BZC, FZC, and FIC resulted in significant nutrient differences between the developed cassava–cowpea fufu and (FFF) cassava fufu. The developed cassava–cowpea fufu retained the high energy and calcium contents of cassava fufu, which are the strengths of cassava. It also significantly improved its protein, zinc, iron, and fat contents. The nutrient increases recorded are important because these nutrients are problem nutrients that are scarce in meals for children in Nigeria (Agbon, Oguntona, & Mayaki, 2009; Agbon, Akinyemi, Onabanjo, & Okeke, 2009). Cassava–cowpea fufus BZC and FZC, which underwent 48 hours of fermentation, had better sensory ratings than cassava–cowpea fufu FIC, which was soaked. Fermenting cowpea is hereby recommended over soaking, which is the most frequent practice for the production of cowpea flour. The preference of BZC over the other cassava–cowpea fufus shows that fermenting the cowpea after boiling produced even better sensory properties than fermentation alone. Boiling has been recorded to drastically reduce foamability and thus increase specific gravity of whipped cowpea paste (Prinyawiwatkul, McWatters, Beuchat, & Phillips, 1997). Though cassava fufu had significantly (p < .05) different sensory evaluation from the three developed cassava–cowpea fufu, data from this study show that the resultant changes in sensory attributes were not disliked because sensory scores for the developed cassava–cowpea fufu were high. Other studies have also reported that increasing levels of cowpea flour in blends resulted in changed flour characteristics such as ash and protein contents, color, and baking properties of wheat flour (Elin Halléna & Ainsworth, 2004). They have also found that the differences in chemical and functional properties of cowpea did not significantly influence their acceptance in cowpea-fortified fermented corn porridge (Sefa-Dedeh, Sakyi-Dawson, & Afoakwa, 2001). The newly developed cassava–cowpea fufu provides viable alternatives for dwellers in various developing countries of Africa (including Nigeria) 156 C. A. Agbon et al. who consume fermented cassava fufu during the three meals of the day. Fufu made from cassava–cowpea mixtures contained higher amounts of protein and micronutrients than the commonly consumed cassava fufu. This study has shown that fermented cassava (fufu) can be enriched favorably with cowpea to increase its protein and micronutrients content.

REFERENCES

Agbon, C. A., Oguntona, C. R. B., & Mayaki, T. F. (2009). Micronutrient content of traditional complementary foods. The Forum for Family and Consumer Issues, 14(2). Agbon, C. A., Akiyemi, C. O., Onabanjo, O. O., & Okeke, E. C. (2010). Nutrient composition and phytate-zinc molar ratio of prepared foods consumed by rural preschool children. Nigerian Journal of Nutritional Sciences, 31(1), 58–63. Ashaye, O. A., Fasoyiro, S. B., & Lawal, R. O. (2001). Effect of fortification on the compositional and sensory attributes of cowpea-amala. Nutrition Food Science 31(2/3), 88–90. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. (1990). Official methods of analyses (15th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Elin Halléna, S., & Ainsworth, P. (2004). Effect of fermented/germinated cowpea flour addition on the rheological and baking properties of wheat flour. Journal of Food Engineering, 36(2), 177–184. Food and Agriculture Organization. (1968). Food composition table for use in Africa. Griffith, L. D., Castell-Perez, M. E., & Griffith, M. E. (1998). Effects of blend and processing method on the nutritional quality of weaning foods made from select cereals and legumes. Cereal Chemistry, 5(1), 105–112. Hendershot, C. H. (Ed.). (1972). A Literature Review and Research Recommendations on Cassava (Manihot esculenta, Crantz). Athens, GA: University of Georgia. Henshaw, F. O., McWatters, K. H., Oguntunde, A. O., & Phillips, R. D. (1996). Pasting properties of cowpea flour: Effects of soaking and decortication method. Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry, 44(7), 1870. Malleshi, N. G., Daodu, M. A., & Chandrasekhar, A. (1989). Development of weaning food formulations based on malting and roller drying of sorghum and cowpea. International Journal of Food Science Technology, 24(5), 511–519. Maziya-Dixon, B., Akinyele, I. O., Oguntona, E. B., Nokoe, S., Sanusi, R. A., & Harris, E. (2004). Nigerian Food Consumption and Nutrition Survey 2001–2003, Summary. Ibadan, Nigeria: International Institute of Tropical Agriculture. Obiri-Danso, K. (1994). Microbiological studies on corn dough fermentation. Cereal Chemistry, 71(2), 186–188. Oke, O. L. (1968). Cassava as food in Nigeria. World Review of Nutrition & Dietetics, 9, 227. Okigbo, B. N. (1980). Nutritional implications of projects giving high priority to the cassava-cowpea fufuion of staples of low nutritive quality: The case for cassava (Manihot esculenta, Crantz) in the humid tropics of West Africa. Food and Nutrition Bulletin, 2(4), 1–10. Cassava and Cowpea Flours 157

Oguntona, E. B. & Akinyele, I. O. (1995). Nutrient Composition of Commonly Eaten Foods in Nigeria-Raw Processed and Prepared. Food Basket Foundation, Ibadan, Nigeria, pp. 6–56. Oyewole, O. B. (1991). Fermentation of cassava for “lafun” and “fufu” production in Nigeria. Food Laboratory News, 7(2), 29–31. Oyewole, O. B., & Odunfa, S. A. (1988). Microbiological studies on cassava fermentation for “lafun” production. Food Microbiology, 5, 125–133. Phillips, R. D., Chinnan, M. S., Branch, A. L., Miller, J., & McWatters, K. H. (1988). Effects of pretreatment on functional and nutritional properties of cowpea meal. Journal of Food Science, 53(3), 805–809. Prinyawiwatkul, W., McWatters, K. H., Beuchat, L. R., & Phillips, R. D. (1997). Functional characteristics of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) ﬂour and starch as affected by soaking, boiling, and fungal fermentation before milling. Food Chemistry, 58(4), 361–372. Sefa-Dedeh, S. K., Sakyi-Dawson, E. O., & Afoakwa, E. O. (2001). Comparative evaluation of cowpea varieties and their performance in a fermented food cassava-cowpea fufu cultivars in this traditional food. Paper presented at the IFT Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA. June 23–27, 2001. Uwaegbute, A. C., & Nnanyelugo, D. O. (1987). Nutritive value and biological evaluation of processed cowpea diets compared with local weaning foods in Nigeria. Nutrition Report International, 36(1), 119–129.