Glandless cottonseed flour percentage

Figure 2. Foam properties and content of soluble constituents related to pH and percentage of glandless cottonseed flour in aqueous suspensions...

Figure 6. Experimentally observed and mathematically simulated regression lines of foam capacity of different percentages of glandless cottonseed flour in suspensions at various pH values. Experimental 4%, 10%, and 16% suspensions were run at pH 3.5, 6.5, and 9.5 to test the reliability of the multiple linear regression analysis. Quantitative data used in this analysis are in Figures 2 and 4.

Figure 7. Experimentally observed and mathematically simulated regression lines of foam stability at different percentages of glandless cottonseed flour in suspensions at various pH values. See Figure 6 for further explanation of the data.

The same shipment of raw, cooked and roasted glandless whole kernel cottonseed flours used in the FDA study was used to determine the protein efficiency ratio (PER) of each flour (8). The adjusted PER (Table II) of cooked (2.10) cottonseed was significantly higher than roasted (1.77) cottonseed. Protein retention efficiency (PRE) for roasted cottonseed (58.08) was lower than values for raw (60.54) and cooked (62.95) cottonseed. Relative protein values (RPV) indicated a utilization of 91, 91 and 96% of the protein in raw, roasted and cooked cottonseed, respectively. The multiplication of the (RPV) percentage utilization and the protein content of the cottonseed (Table I) results in the relative utilizable protein values (Table II). 

---