In ternationa l Scholars Journa ls African Journal of Food Science Research ISSN 2375-0723 Vol. 6 (7), pp. 331-337, July, 2018. Available online at www.internationalscholarsjournals.org © International Scholars Journals Author(s) retain the copyright of this article. Full Length Research Paper Evaluation of fufu flour and dough from 43 CMD resistant varieties Etudaiye, H.A. 1 , Nwabueze, T.U. 2 and Sanni, L.O. 3 1 National Root Crops Research Institute (NRCRI), Umudike, P. M. B 7006, Umuahia, Abia State, Nigeria. 2 Michael Okpara University of Agriculture, Umudike, P. M. B 7267, Umuahia, Abia State, Nigeria. 3 International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, P. M. B 5320, Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria. Accepted 19 March, 2018 Cassava fufu flours were produced from 43 Cassava Mosaic Disease resistant varieties. The cassava roots were washed, peeled and steeped in water in a 1:2 (v/v) for 48 h to ferment. The fermented pulp was sieved and mechanically milled into flour of 3.0 mm particle size. Proximate composition, functional properties and pasting characteristics of the ‘fufu’ flours were assessed. Moisture content ranged from 5.52 to 12.25%, protein 0.35 to 2.80% and dry matter 87.75 to 94.48%. Water absorption capacity ranged from 0.70 to 2.20 g/ml. The CMD varieties 92B/00068 and M98/0068 had the highest water absorption capacity values. Bulk density ranged from 0.61 in the variety 98/2226 to 0.70 g/ml in varieties 98/0505, 98/0510, 95/0379 and 95/0289 while final viscosity of the fufu flours ranged from 76.00 in 96/1569 to 295.00 RVU in the 99/6012 and pasting temperature from 77.55 to 81.60 o C. Given the economic and nutritional importance of cassava, the development and subsequently processing the CMD resistant varieties into fufu flour will help to improve food security and diversity not only in Nigeria but also beyond. Key words: Cassava mosaic disease (CMD), fufu, functional properties, pasting, characteristics. INTRODUCTION Cassava (Manihot esculenta) is an important staple food crop for millions of people in the tropical areas of African, Asia and Latin America. It is estimated (IITA,1990) that the crop provides about 40% of all the calories consumed in Africa and ranks second only to cereal grains as chief source of energy in Nigerian diet (Ngoddy, 1989). Cassa- va roots contain mainly carbohydrates, of which 80% is starch and >1% fat (Goomez, 1979). By this, cassava plays important role in alleviating African Food Crisis though poor in protein (1.20%) and rich in cyanide (> 10 mg/100 g fresh weight) in some varieties such as TMS 50395 (IITA,1990). The NR8082 cassava variety with low -cyanide high- yielding quality developed by the National Root Crops Research Institute, Nigeria, has commonly been distributed to Nigerian farmers (Nwabueze and Odunsi, 2007) . However, Nigeria’s cassava output is now threatened by a virulent form of the Cassava Mosaic Dis-ease (CMD) advancing rapidly from East Africa (IITA, 2005). This is what initiated the pre-emptive management *Corresponding author: Email: etudaiyehuss@yahoo.com of CMD project by the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) primarily to develop Cassava Mosaic Disease resistant varieties. Consequently, about 45 new CMD resistant varieties have been developed (Nwabueze and Anoruoh, 2008). In Nigeria, rapid urban growth and development place a dynamic challenge to cassava products and market deve- lopment for cassava foods will continue to increase. Alth- ough cassava roots are processed by several traditional methods, which vary widely from region to region into products such as gari, lafun, landang, fufu, flour, chips, starch akara, okpokpo garri, meal, ighu, syrups, dextrins, and alcohol (Nwabueze and Odunsi, 2007), high quality cassava flour that can replace wheat and other imported flours in tropical countries (Wheatley and Best, 1991) has been reported. Production of fufu of acceptable standard from the CMD resistant varieties has not been adequately reported in literature. The objective of this research was to produce and evaluate fufu flour and dough from 43 CMD resistant varieties, in terms of their proximate com- position, functional and pasting properties. It is expected that the result obtained from the study will contribute in providing information on these CMD resistant varieties Etudaiye et. al. 332 Table 1. Forty three 10-12 months old CMD resistant varieties harvested from the field trial of NRCRI, Umudike. CMD CMD CMD S/n Varieties S/n Varieties S/n Varieties 1. 97/4769 16. TME 419 30. 92/0057 2. 99/6012 17. 96/0603 31. 91/0166 3. 94/0561 18. 98/2226 32. 96/1089A 4. 97/0162 19. 82/005 33. 96/1314 5. 94/0026 20. 97/0211 34. 97/3200 6. 96/1642 21. 95/0289 35. 98/0040 7. 98/0510 22. 92/0326 36. TMS 30572 8. 98/0505 23. 4(2)1452 37. 99/2123 9. 99/3037 24. 98/0002 38. 92/0067 10. 98/2101 25. 97/4779 39. 97/0039 11. 97/4763 26. 96/1632 40. 95/0379 12. 97/2205 27. 96/0523 41. 92B/0061 13. 98/1565 28. M98/0068 42. 98/0581 15. 92B/0068 29. M98/0028 43. 96/1569 NRCRI = National Root Crops Research Institute and CMD = Cassava Mosaic Disease resistant varieties. and also serve as a guide for future research and impro- vement of these new cassava varieties. MATERIALS AND METHODS Source of raw materials Forty three Cassava Mosaic Disease resistant (CMD) varieties were harvested at 10 - 12 months old from the field trial of National Root Crops Research Institute (NRCRI), Umudike, Abia State, Nigeria (Table 1). Production of fufu flours Cassava fufu flours were produced from each of the CMD resistant varieties using the processing methods described by Okpokiri et al. (1984). The cassava roots were washed, peeled and re-washed with clean borehole water. They were steeped in water in a 1:2 (v/v) for 48 h. At the end of the steeping period the cassava samples were re-washed and grated into pulp using the IITA MK powered grater (3.5HP petrol engine, Lambourn, LTD, Corydon, CR93EE, United Kingdom). Each cassava pulp sample was re- steeped in water for another 24 h to ferment. The fermented pulp was sieved with Endescotts laboratory test sieve with an aperture size of 2.0 mm (Endescotts laboratory Test sieve London, United Kingdom). Recovered sam- ples were packed in bags and de-watered using a John Willy and Sons hydraulic press (7.5HP, John Willy and Sons LTD, United Kingdom) . The resulting cassava cake was pulverized by hand and sun-dried on a wide opaque water-proof spread (Jiffy bags macro packaging Co., United Kingdom). The sun-dried sample was mechanically milled into flour of 3.0 mm particle size using a disc attrition mill (2A premier mill, Hunt and Co., United Kingdom). Further sieving was done manually with a muslin cloth to obtain fine fufu flour. The fufu flours obtained from the 43 batches of CMD resistant varieties were properly packaged and sealed in grip-seal polyethylene bags (Gl-model, 2.25” X 2.25”, Jiffy bags macro packaging Co., United Kingdom). Packaged sam- ples were stored at room temperature (28 ± 2 o C) until ready for analysis. Proximate composition of fufu flours Proximate composition of the 43 CMD fufu flours were determined in triplicates for moisture, crude protein (Kjeldhal method), fat (Sox- hlet method), and ash according to AOAC (1990). Total carbohy- drate was determined by difference. The dry matter content of the flours were calculated and reported as mean values in Table 2 whi- le the proximate values reported on wet matter basis is shown in Table 3. Functional properties Water absorption capacity (WAC) of the fufu flour samples was det- ermined by the method described by Okaka and Porter (1979) while the bulk density was determined using the method described by Okezie and Bello (1988). Pasting properties Pasting properties of the fufu flours were determined with the aid of a Rapid Visco Analyzer (RVA 3D+, Network Scientific Unit, SNW 2102, Australia). Parameters determined were final viscosity, set back viscosity, pasting time and pasting temperature. Statistical analysis Data obtained from the analyses of the fufu flour samples were sub- jected to statistical analysis using Statistical Analytical System (SAS, 1999) software package. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was done and means separation using Fischer LSD to determine signi- ficant differences at 5 % probability was done. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Proximate composition Table 2 shows the moisture, dry matter and energy con- tent of fufu flours produced from 43 CMD resistant varie- ties in Umudike. Moisture content ranged from 5.52% in fufu flour made from the CMD 97/4769 variety to 12.25% in the 96/1569 variety. The reverse was the case for their dry matter contents being 94.48 and 87.75% respectively. The generally low moisture content of the fufu flours is an indication of a good stable shelf life if packaged and sto- red. This is because with this moisture range, the quality of the final product will not be adversely affected. Further- more, high moisture products require further costly drying operations to allow easy handling and storage (Sefa – Dedeh and Saalia, 1997). Values of moisture contents were within the recommended standard of 13 % (m/m) for edible cassava flour (Sanni et al., 2005). The high dry matter is an indication of desirable quality attributes in the CMD resistant varieties. Such attributes like good yields, diseases and pest tolerance, high root 333 Afr. J. Food Sci. Res. Table 2. Moisture and dry matter content of fufu flours produced from 43 CMD resistant varieties in Umudike Cassava cultivar Moisture content (%) Dry mattercontent (%) Energy (kcal/g) 97/4769 5.52 ± 0.02 94.48 ± 0.02 375.08± 0.03 99/6012 6.17 ± 0.01 93.83 ± 0.01 375.40± 0.04 94/0561 6.51 ± 0.01 93.49 ± 0.01 374.95± 0.03 97/0162 6.97 ± 0.02 93.03 ± 0.02 373.74± 0.02 94/0026 6.99 ± 0.04 93.01 ± 0.04 373.48± 0.04 96/1642 7.02 ± 0.02 92.98 ± 0.02 376.20± 0.12 98/0510 7.26 ± 0.04 92.74 ± 0.04 371.83± 0.04 98/0505 7.29 ± 0.02 92.71 ± 0.02 371.40± 0.02 99/3037 7.45 ± 0.02 92.55 ± 0.02 362.82± 0.03 98/2101 7.46 ± 0.02 92.54 ± 0.02 361.94± 0.06 97/4763 7.48 ± 0.01 92.52 ± 0.01 369.55± 0.04 97/2205 8.19 ± 0.03 91.81 ± 0.03 367.68± 0.12 98/1565 8.19 ± 0.01 91.81 ± 0.01 365.06± 0.02 92/0325 8.22 ± 0.01 91.78 ± 0.01 367.28± 0.06 92B/0068 8.32 ± 0.02 91.68 ± 0.02 365.54± 0.04 TME 419 8.32 ± 0.56 91.68 ± 0.56 366.79± 0.03 96/0603 8.37 ± 0.02 91.63 ± 0.02 377.27± 0.06 98/2226 8.62 ± 0.02 91.38 ± 0.02 365.30± 0.03 82/0058 8.70 ± 0.02 91.3 ± 0.02 370.50± 0.12 97/0211 8.70 ± 0.20 91.3 ± 0.20 361.00± 0.04 95/0289 9.09 ± 0.03 90.91 ± 0.03 364.78± 0.02 92/0326 9.13 ± 0.02 90.87 ± 0.02 364.60± 0.04 4(2)1452 9.14 ± 0.03 90.86 ± 0.03 361.44± 0.03 98/0002 9.32 ± 0.01 90.68 ± 0.01 362.85± 0.12 97/4779 9.35 ± 0.02 90.65 ± 0.02 360.66± 0.03 96/1632 9.35 ± 0.12 90.65 ± 0.12 363.44± 0.02 96/0523 9.43 ± 0.03 90.57 ± 0.03 365.21± 0.03 M98/0068 9.53 ± 0.01 90.47 ± 0.01 361.77± 0.12 M98/0028 9.55 ± 0.01 90.45 ± 0.01 362.40± 0.04 96/1089A 9.57 ± 0.02 90.43 ± 0.02 359.91± 0.03 91/0166 9.63 ± 0.02 90.37 ± 0.02 357.60± 0.02 92/0057 9.66 ± 0.06 90.34 ± 0.06 361.19± 0.03 96/1314 9.78 ± 0.01 90.22 ± 0.01 358.33± 0.03 97/3200 9.78 ± 0.05 90.22 ± 0.05 361.72± 0.02 98/0040 9.96 ± 0.03 90.0 ± 0.03 359.94± 0.04 TMS 30572 10.13± 0.05 89.87 ± 0.05 359.25± 0.03 99/2123 10.26 ± 0.03 89.74 ± 0.03 359.61± 0.06 92/0067 10.38 ± 0.02 89.62 ± 0.02 358.36± 0.04 97/0039 10.39 ± 0.01 89.60 ± 0.01 357.22± 0.03 95/0379 10.45 ± 0.02 89.55 ± 0.02 358.31± 0.12 92B/0061 10.65 ± 0.01 89.35 ± 0.01 316.80± 0.04 98/0581 11.26 ± 0.04 88.74 ± 0.04 312.78± 0.03 96/1569 12.25 ± 0.02 87.75 ± 0.02 350.25± 0.12 yields (fresh and dry) meet end-users characteristics (IITA, 2005). Dry matter is a practical approach to improv- ing the shelf life and marketability of fufu flour (Akingbala et al., 1991). The energy content ranged from 357.22 in the 97/0039 CMD variety to 377.27 cal/kg in the 96/0603 variety. The- se varieties have 10.39 and 8.37% moisture and 89.60 and 91.63% dry matter contents respectively. Protein, ash and fat contents were generally low while carbohydrate contents were high (Table 3). The composi- Etudaiye et. al. 334 Table 3. Proximate composition of fufu flours processed from CMD resistant varieties in Umudike. Cassava variety Protein (%) Ash (%) Fat (%) Fibre (%) Carbohydrate (%) 97/4769 2.45 ±0.04 0.64 ± 0.01 0.41± 0.06 0.07 ± 0.03 90.91 ± 0.04 99/6012 1.93 ±0.03 0.64 ± 0.03 0.24± 0.03 0.06 ± 0.01 91.38 ± 0.02 94/0561 1.4 ±0.02 0.22 ± 0.01 0.51± 0.02 0.07 ± 0.02 91.19 ± 0.01 97/0162 2.07 ±0.06 0.32 ± 0.03 0.58± 0.03 0.05 ± 0.02 90.06 ± 0.04 94/0026 1.40 ± 0.02 0.24 ± 0.02 0.56± 0.01 0.04 ± 0.01 90.71 ± 0.01 96/1642 2.55 ± 0.05 0.39 ± 0.01 0.40± 0.02 0.04 ± 0.02 90.60 ± 0.02 98/0510 1.82 ± 0.03 0.07 ± 0.02 0.27± 0.03 0.05 ± 0.01 90.53 ± 0.02 98/0505 2.45 ± 0.02 0.05 ± 0.03 0.20± 0.02 0.06 ± 0.01 89.95 ± 0.03 99/3037 2.15 ± 0.01 0.59 ± 0.01 0.42± 0.01 0.01 ± 0.01 87.61 ± 0.03 98/2101 1.93 ± 0.05 2.52 ± 0.02 0.42± 0.01 0.06 ± 0.05 87.37 ± 0.03 97/4763 2.41 ± 0.13 0.37 ± 0.04 0.23± 0.03 0.05 ± 0.02 89.46 ± 0.02 97/2205 1.40 ± 0.02 0.34 ± 0.01 0.40± 0.01 0.05 ± 0.01 89.62 ± 0.02 98/1565 0.70 ± 0.02 0.51 ± 0.04 0.34± 0.01 0.07 ± 0.01 89.80 ± 0.03 92/0325 1.75 ± 0.02 0.10 ± 0.01 0.12± 0.02 0.01 ± 0.01 89.80 ± 0.30 92B/0068 1.23 ± 0.01 0.20 ± 0.02 0.66± 0.01 0.03 ± 0.03 88.67 ± 0.02 TME 419 0.70 ± 0.04 0.41 ± 0.01 0.39± 0.02 0.06 ± 0.01 90.12 ± 0.03 96/0603 0.98 ± 0.02 0.22 ± 0.02 0.39± 0.01 0.08 ± 0.01 89.96 ± 0.01 98/2226 2.80 ± 0.02 0.45 ± 0.03 0.34± 0.04 0.03 ± 0.02 87.76 ± 0.03 82/0058 1.78 ± 0.01 1.58 ± 0.08 0.34± 0.01 0.02 ± 0.01 87.58 ± 0.03 97/0211 2.80 ± 0.20 1.53 ± 0.31 0.56± 0.01 0.03 ± 0.03 86.19 ± 0.01 95/0289 1.78 ± 0.01 0.22 ± 0.03 0.42± 0.01 0.02 ± 0.01 88.47 ± 0.02 92/0326 2.80 ± 0.02 0.34 ± 0.04 0.56± 0.01 0.08 ± 0.06 87.09 ± 0.02 4 (2) 1452 1.40 ± 0.02 1.28 ± 0.01 0.64± 0.01 0.02 ± 0.01 87.52 ± 0.02 98/0002 1.78 ± 0.01 0.43 ± 0.01 0.41± 0.02 0.04 ± 0.03 88.01 ± 0.01 97/4779 2.10 ± 0.01 0.97 ± 0.02 0.42± 0.01 0.04 ± 0.02 87.12 ± 0.01 96/1632 2.80 ± 1.58 0.48 ± 0.07 0.56± 0.01 0.01 ± 0.01 86.80 ± 0.02 96/0523 1.21 ± 0.06 0.44 ± 0.02 0.17± 0.01 0.04 ± 0.02 89.71 ± 0.01 M98/0068 1.05 ± 0.04 0.20 ± 0.02 0.17± 0.01 0.04 ± 0.02 89.01 ± 0.01 M98/0028 0.35 ± 0.03 0.37 ± 0.02 0.44± 0.03 0.03 ± 0.01 89.26 ± 0.02 96/1089A 2.80 ± 0.02 0.94 ± 0.02 0.43± 0.01 0.06 ± 0.01 86.2l ± 0.02 91/0166 2.55 ± 0.05 2.31 ± 3.45 0.30± 0.02 0.03 ± 0.02 86.18 ± 0.04 92/0057 1.05 ± 0.01 0.57 ± 0.02 0.43± 0.01 0.01 ± 0.01 88.28 ± 0.03 96/1314 2.00 ± 0.01 3.34 ± 4.30 0.29± 0.02 0.08 ± 0.01 86.93 ± 0.03 97/3200 1.40 ± 0.04 0.17 ± 0.06 0.36± 0.02 0.07 ± 0.06 88.22 ± 0.02 98/0040 1.05 ± 0.04 0.53 ± 0.01 0.42± 0.06 0.05 ± 0.03 87.99 ± 0.04 TMS 30572 1.75 ± 0.02 0.77 ± 0.06 0.33± 0.02 0.03 ± 0.02 87.32 ± 0.56 99/2123 2.80 ± 0.10 0.42 ± 0.02 0.53± 0.02 0.08 ± 0.01 85.91 ± 0.01 92/0067 1.08 ± 0.02 0.77 ± 0.05 0.60± 0.02 0.04 ± 0.01 87.16 ± 0.01 97/0039 2.10 ± 0.01 0.52 ± 0.03 0.50± 0.03 0.06 ± 0.04 86.08 ± 0.03 95/0379 1.23 ± 0.03 0.47 ± 0.02 0.43± 0.02 0.04 ± 0.03 87.38 ± 0.03 92B/0061 1.23 ± 0.03 0.08 ± 0.01 0.48± 0.06 0.08 ± 0.03 76.89 ± 0.04 98/0581 1.26 ± 0.02 0.53 ± 0.03 0.02± 0.01 0.04 ± 0.01 76.89 ± 0.03 96/1569 2.10 ± 0.01 0.52 ± 0.01 0.29± 0.01 0.03 ± 0.02 84.81 ± 0.01 Means and standard deviation of triplicate determinations of moisture and dry matter content. tion showed varied significant differences with the mean values of ash and crude fibre being less than the maxi- mum Codex standard for edible cassava flour (3.0 and 2.0% respectively) (FAO, 1995). The protein content ran- ged from 0.35% (M98/0028) to 2.88% in some varieties. The low protein of fufu flours is not a serious issue as fufu is usually consumed accompanied with different protein sources both of animal and vegetable origin. 335 Afr. J. Food Sci. Res. Table 4. Functional Properties of fufu flours processed from 43 CMD resistant varieties in Umudike Cassava variety WAC (g/ml) BD (g/ml) 96/1569 1.20 ± 0.03 0.72 ± 0.01 TMS 30572 1.10 ± 0.03 0.67 ± 0.02 M98/0068 2.20 ± 0.10 0.72 ± 0.01 82/0058 1.10 ± 0.10 0.72 ± 0.04 98/0002 0.70 ± 0.20 0.63 ± 0.02 96/1632 0.70 ± 0.10 0.66 ± 0.01 97/0211 0.94 ± 0.15 0.66 ± 0.02 82/0058 1.00 ± 0.10 0.67 ± 0.04 4(2)1452 0.90 ± 0.02 0.71 ± 0.05 97/0162 1.10 ± 0.10 0.70 ± 0.02 99/3037 0.90 ± 0.30 0.67 ± 0.01 92B/00061 1.40 ± 0.30 0.72 ± 0.02 98/2226 1.00 ± 0.20 0.61 ± 0.01 92B/00068 2.20 ± 0.02 0.72 ± 0.02 91/0166 1.00 ± 0.10 0.67 ± 0.02 96/1642 1.07 ± 0.15 0.65 ± 0.01 98/0581 1.30 ± 0.10 0.67 ± 0.01 98/0505 1.20 ± 0.10 0.77 ± 0.01 97/2205 1.50 ± 0.02 0.63 ± 0.03 97/0039 1.30 ± 0.10 0.66 ± 0.04 96/0603 1.30 ± 0.20 0.66 ± 0.01 97/3200 1.20 ± 0.10 0.67 ± 0.01 96/1314 1.10 ± 0.10 0.63 ± 0.02 TME 419 1.20 ± 0.10 0.72 ± 0.01 99/3037 0.90 ± 0.30 0.67 ± 0.01 98/0510 0.90 ± 0.40 0.77 ± 0.03 92/0067 1.13 ± 0.06 0.63 ± 0.02 98/1565 1.07 ± 0.25 0.68 ± 0.02 97/4763 1.30 ± 0.01 0.66 ± 0.01 92B/00061 1.40 ± 0.30 0.72 ± 0.02 92/0057 0.90 ± 0.20 0.72 ± 0.01 95/0379 1.20 ± 0.10 0.77 ± 0.02 97/4769 1.10 ± 0.10 0.67 ± 0.02 95/0289 1.30 ± 0.03 0.77 ± 0.02 M98/0028 1.30 ± 0.20 0.62 ± 0.02 94/0561 1.30 ± 0.10 0.67 ± 0.02 92/0325 1.10 ± 0.10 0.67 ± 0.03 98/2101 1.20 ± 0.01 0.67 ± 0.01 98/0040 1.40 ± 0.10 0.67 ± 0.01 94/0026 1.30 ± 0.02 0.67 ± 0.02 92/0326 1.30 ± 0.20 0.72 ± 0.02 99/6012 1.50 ± 0.10 0.67 ± 0.02 Means and standard deviation of triplicate analysis. Noting the minimum fat requirement of 6% in comple- mentary formulation (Obatolu, 2002), none of the varie- ties in their flour form could meet this requirement. However, they met the Codex standard of FAO (1995) for cassava products. Generally variations in proximate com- position could be attributed to processing and varietal differences. From the proximate values it is easy to single out variety 96/1632 as having the best nutritional value. This confirms the carbohydrate as the main nutritional component of cassava roots with about 80% as starch (Purseglove, 1991). African countries are faced not only with problems of food security but also with nutritional insecurity which are contributing towards dietary micro- nutrient deficiencies. Fortunately cassava has been rec- ognized as a suitable crop for micronutrient intervention in Africa (Oyewole and Asagbara, 2003). Functional properties The functional properties of the 43 CMD resistant varie- ties are reported in Table 4. Water absorption capacities (WAC) ranged from 0.70 to 2.20 g/ml. The CMD varieties 92B/00068 and M98/0068 had the highest WAC values. Water absorption capacity is a useful indication of whe- ther protein can be incorporated with aqueous food for- mulations, especially those involving dough handling. Dough handling is an important processing operation in processed cheese, sausages and confectioneries. The interaction of proteins with water is important to proper- ties such as hydration, swelling, solubility and gelation. It is a function of ionic strength, pH, temperature, size and shape of the protein molecules. Gelatinization of carbohydrates and swelling of crude fib- er may also occur during heating, leading to increased water absorption. Other processing factors that increase water absorption of flours include fermentation and ger- mination. During fermentation, proteolytic activity takes place which causes increase in the number of polar gro- ups. This development would increase hydrophilicity of the seed or flour proteins. Bulk density (BD) ranged from 0.61 in the variety 98 / 2226 to 0.70 g/ml in varieties 98/0505, 98/0510, 95/0379 and 95/0289. Bulk density is the ratio of the mass per unit volume of a substance. It is an indication of the porosity of a product which influences package design. The bulk densities of the fufu flours will help us in determining sui- table packaging requirements of the flours as it relates to the load the sample could carry if allowed to rest directly on one another. Bulk density also relates to mouth feel and flavor of the food to which the flour is incorporated. Bulk density is affected by moisture and reflects particle size distribution of the flour. Unlike the WAC, fermentation and germination are pos- sible processing factors that cause decrease in bulk den- sity. These factors which were employed as process met- hods in this work might have contributed greatly to the low BD values obtained. Pasting properties Table 5 shows the final viscosity, set back, peak time and Etudaiye et. al. 336 Table 5. Pasting properties of fufu flours processed from CMD resistant varieties in Umudike. Cassava variety Final-Viscosity (RVU) Set-back(RVU) Peak-time (min) Pasting-Temp ( o C) 96/1569 76.00 28.17 4.07 79.10 TMS 30572 104.75 29.75 4.07 79.15 M98/0068 102.83 34.75 4.07 77.55 82/0068 103.25 28.67 4.13 80.05 98/0002 133.25 37.00 4.20 79.15 96/1632 143.75 40.42 4.13 79.25 97/0211 154.25 41.5f 4.33 79.20 82/0058 154.83 37.83 4.27 78.40 4(2)1452 17125 48.25 4.33 79.15 97/0162 169.58 41.08 4.27 79.20 99/3037 183.92 54.33 4.27 79.20 92B/00061 187.08 55.92 4.13 79.15 98/2226 189.67 59.17 4.07 77.55 92B/00068 190.50 47.58 4.47 79.25 91/0166 191.50 43.83 4.40 79.15 96/1642 193.33 42.67 4.47 78.55 98/0581 193.33 47.75 4.47 80.85 98/0505 202.58 47.67 4.47 79.20 97/2205 202.67 54.25 4.40 78.50 97/0039 202.75 57.00 4.33 78.30 96/0603 204.58 50.50 4.47 79.15 97/3200 208.08 58.08 4.33 80.05 96/1314 210.25 58.33 4.27 78.45 TME 419 212.42 53.00 4.40 79.15 99/3037 220.25 51.33 4.47 79.20 98/0510 212.42 53.00 4.40 79.15 92/0067 221.00 56.67 4.67 80.10 98/1565 223.58 61.08 4.33 77.60 97/4763 226.67 55.92 4.33 77.75 92B/00061 228.00 61.42 4.40 79.95 92/0057 232.33 58.50 4.67 81.60 95/0379 233.83 59.00 4.87 80.05 97/4769 235.50 64.17 4.47 80.05 95/0289 239.42 61.92 4.67 78.45 M98/0028 245.17 61.00 4.73 79.9b 94/0561 245.50 53.00 4.53 78.35 97/0325 246.42 63.58 4.73 80.85 98/2101 249.50 61.25 4.80 79.15 98/0040 283.92 70.42 5.07 79.25 94/0026 286.58 64.42 4.93 78.45 92/0326 293.58 64.25 5.00 80.90 99/6012 295.00 62.08 5.33 80.05 Means of triplicate analysis. pasting temperatures of the flours of 43 CMD varieties. It is known that fufu flour is cooked into paste before con- sumption; hence, the pasting properties of fufu flour are an important quality index in predicting the behavior of fufu paste during and after cooking. Final viscosity is the most commonly used parameter to determine a particular starch-based sample quality. It gives an idea of the ability of a material to gel after cooking. Final viscosity of the fufu flours processed from 43 CMD resistant varieties ranged from 76.00 in 96/1569 to 295.00 RVU in the 99 / 6012 variety. Fufu flours with high viscosities showed that the associative forces between the starch molecules are 337 Afr. J. Food Sci. Res. relatively weak. The molecules are able to penetrate their starch granules much easier, and the granular swell enor- mously leading to weakening of associated forces which in turn makes them susceptible to breakdown. Break- down is responsible for long cohesive nature of the cas- sava paste. Set back viscosities showed variations in the fufu pas- tes ranging from 28.17 in the paste made from 96/1569 variety to 70.42 RVU in the 98/0040 variety. Setback value is the difference between final viscosity and hot paste viscosity or trough. It is a measure of the stability of the paste after cooking. It is the cooling phase of the mix- ture during pasting in which a re-association between the starch molecules occurs to a greater or lesser degree. It therefore affects retrogression or re-ordering of the starch molecules. Set back pasting property has been reported to correlate with texture of fufu flours. It is also associated with synergism and weeping (Sanni et al., 2006). Low set back of fufu paste indicates high stability. Hence, fufu paste obtained from CMD resistant varieties 96/1569 with set back value of 28.17 RVU will be most stable after cooking. Peak time is the time at which the viscosity peaks. It measures the time it takes for the fufu pastes to gel dur- ing cooking. Peak time of the fufu paste obtained from CMD- resistant varieties ranged from 4.00 to 5.33 min, which was obtained at a temperature range of 77.55 to 81.60 O C. Conclusion The proximate composition of fufu flours processed from CMD resistant varieties in Umudike showed low moisture, high carbohydrate and high dry matter contents. These are indications of stable shelf life, cheap and available source of calories to the consumers most especially in the rural areas. It showed ease of reconstitution during preparation into fufu dough. Water absorption capacity of the fufu flours enables us to know the extent to which water is added during dough preparation and to improve handling characteristics and maintain freshness in the dough. Bulk densities of the fufu flours from the CMD resistant cultivars will guide the processors to determine the packaging requirement of the flours as it relates to the load the sample could carry if allowed to rest directly on one another. Pasting properties will help the consumers to know the cassava varieties with ease of reconstitution and consis- tency of dough. Therefore, this work will help the farmers, consumers and industrialists to have idea on the CMD resistant varieties with desirable qualities for fufu produc- tion in Umudike location. Therefore, processing of cass- ava in various food forms like fufu flour has the potential to help Nigeria improve its food security, diversify its ma- nufacturing base, generate more income, raise employ- ment and achieve trade balance. REFERENCES Akingbala JO, Oguntimehin B, Abas AB (1991). Effects of processing methods on the quality and acceptability of fufu from low cyanide Cassava. J. Sci Food Agric. 5A (1): 151-154. AOAC. (1990). Official Methods of Analysis 15 th Ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists , Washington D .C US A . FAO (1995). Codex Standards for edible cassava Flour. Codex 176 – 1989 (Rev. 1 – 1995), Codex Legal Alimentarius 133 - 36, Canadian Legal Info. Institute. Vol. 7. IITA (1990). Cassava in Tropical Agric: A Reference Manual. IITA, Ibadan, Nigeria, pp. 87-120 (1990). IITA (2005). Cassava illustration guide book, growing cassava com- mercially in Nigeria. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria. pp. 21-22 Ngoddy PO (1989). Processing and storage of cassava. Proc. of a course held at University of Nigeria Nsukka, 10–23 April. 1988. Dotam Publications Ltd. pp.51-57. Nwabueze TU, Odunsi FO(2007).Optimization of process conditions for cassava (Manihot esculenta) lafun production. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 6 (5) 603-611. Nwabueze TU, Anoruoh GA (2008). Evaluation of Flour and Extruded Noodles from Eight Cassava Mosaic Disease (CMD) Resistant Varieties. http://fabt.edmgr.com/ Obatolu VA (2002). Nutrient and sensory qualities of extruded malted or unmalted millet / soybean mixture. Food Chem. 76:129-133 Okaka JC, Potter NN (1979). Tropical plant perishables: handling, storage and processing. Silicon Valley Publishers, Enugu. Okezie BO, Bello AB (1988). Physico – chemical and functional properties of winged bean flour and isolate, compared with soy isolate. J. Food Sci. 53: 450-454. Okpokiri AO, Ijeoma BC, Alozie SO, Ejiofor M.AN(1984). Production of improved Cassava fufu. Niger. Food J. 2:145-148. Oyewole OB, Asagbara Y (2003). Improving traditional Cassava processing for nutritional enhancement. Food Nutr. Agric 32: 17-21. Purseglove JW (1991). Tropical crops: Dicotyledons: Longman Scientific and Technical. Co-published in the United States with John Wiley and Sons. NewYork. Sanni LO, MaziyaDixon B, Akanya CI, Alaya Y, Egwuonwu CV, Okechukwu RU, Ezedinma C, Akoroda M, Lemchi J, Ogbe F, Okoro E, Tarawali G, Mkumbira J, Patino M, Semakula G, Dixon A (2005). Standard for cassava products and guidelines for export. IITA, Ibadan, Nigeria, pp. 11-39. Sanni LO, Adebowale AA, Filani TA, Oyewole OB, Westby A (2006). Quality of flash and rotary dried fufu flour. J. Food Agric. Environ. 4 (3& 4), July – October, 2006. SAS (1999). Statistical Analytical System. Copyright version. SAS Institute Inc., Cary NC, USA. Sefa-Dedeh S, Saalia FK (1997). Extrusion of maize – cowpea blends in a modified oil expeller. J. Sci. Food Agric 73: 160 -168. Wheatley CC, Best R (1991). How can traditional forms of nutrition be maintained in urban centres: the case of cassava. Entwicklung Landlicher Raum. 25(1):13-16.