Table 2 Macronutrient composition of different lupin cultivars.

From: Comparative assessment of nutritional, thermal, rheological and functional properties of nine Australian lupin cultivars

Species

Cultivars

Dry Matter % (w/w)

Ash % (w/w)

Protein % (w/w)

Fat % (w/w)

Fiber % (w/w)

Soluble

Insoluble

Total

L. angustifolius

Barlock

93.2 ± 2.24

3 ± 0.1

41.5 ± 2.03b,d,g,h,i

4.6 ± 0.66f,g,h,i

2.09 ± 0.05b,c,f,g,h,i

39.55 ± 2.03c,d,g,h,i

41.64 ± 2.07h

Gunyidi

92.6 ± 3.9

4 ± 0.2

46.2 ± 2.39a,f

4.7 ± 0.95f,g,h,i

8.24 ± 0.21a,d,e,f,g

34.72 ± 0.46h

42.96 ± 0.25g,h,i

Jenabillup

93.1 ± 0.05

4 ± 0.2

44.6 ± 1.6h

4.4 ± 1.08e,f,g,h,i

7.65 ± 0.66a,d,e,f,g,h

31.4 ± 0.39a,e

39.14 ± 1.24h

Jindalee

93.3 ± 0.95

3 ± 0.6

45.7 ± 2.74a

4.7 ± 1.49f,g,h,i

3.72 ± 0.15b,c,i

33.78 ± 2.39a

37.5 ± 2.24

Jurien

92.9 ± 0.41

3 ± 0.05

44.5 ± 1.12

5.8 ± 0.42c,f,g,h,i

3.00 ± 0.95b,c,g,h

37.24 ± 0.12c,h,i

40.24 ± 0.83h

Mandelup

93.4 ± 1.24

2 ± 0.2

42.9 ± 0.13b,g,h,i

7.4 ± 0.46a,b,c,d,e,g,h,i

4.84 ± 0.41a,b,c,i

34.6 ± 2.30h

39.44 ± 1.90h

L. albus

Luxor

94.1 ± 0.66

4 ± 0.7

47.3 ± 2.3a,f,h

10.9 ± 0.7a,b,c,d,e,f

5.10 ± 0.59a,b,c,e

31.9 ± 0.48a

37.00 ± 0.12b

Rosetta

93.5 ± 0.41

3 ± 0.2

48.2 ± 3.9a,c,e,f

11.7 ± 0.05a,b,c,d,e,f

3.17 ± 0.13b,c,g,h,i

28.9 ± 0.64a,b,e,f

32.62 ± 0.78a,b,c,e,f

WK388

94.2 ± 0.05

4 ± 0.6

46.5 ± 0.95a,f

11.9 ± 0.2a,b,c,d,e,f

6.64 ± 0.39a,d,e

30 ± 1.60a,e

36.64 ± 1.21b

  1. Data are means of three replicates with standard deviations (SD). Data within the same column with different superscripts are significantly different, pair-wise comparison by Post Hoc Tukey test (aP < 0.05 vs. Barlock; bP < 0.05 vs. Gunyidi; cP < 0.05 vs Jenabillup; dP < 0.05 vs. Jindalee; eP < 0.05 vs Jurien; fP < 0.05 vs. Mandelup; gP < 0.05 vs Luxor; hP < 0.05 vs Rosetta; iP < 0.05 vs WK388).