Soybean in Indonesia: Current Status, Challenges and Opportunities to Achieve Self-Sufficiency

*Arief Harsono, Didik Harnowo, Erliana Ginting and Dian Adi Anggraeni Elisabeth*

## **Abstract**

Soybean is the third important food crop in Indonesia after rice and maize, particularly as a good source of protein. The demand for soybean consumption tends to increase annually. In 2020, the figure was about 3.28 million tons, while the domestic production was 0.63 million tons, thus around 81% of the soybean needed was imported. Efforts to increase the domestic soybean production have been conducted since the last decade, which is concerned with increasing the current productivity (1.5 t/ha) through introducing the high-yielding improved varieties and extending the harvested area, particularly to outside of Java. The potential planting area is focused on the irrigated lowland after rice (optimal land) and suboptimal lands (dry, acid, tidal, and shaded lands). The series of the study showed that the yield potential of soybean grown in such lands varied from 1.8 t/ha to 3.0 t/ha. A number of soybeans improved varieties adapted to different land types or agro-ecological conditions also have been released and supported with advanced cultivation technology. The results, challenges, and opportunities to achieve soybean self-sufficiency are discussed in this paper.

**Keywords:** Indonesia, soybean, self-sufficiency

## **1. Introduction**

Soybean (*Glycine max* L. Merr.) is the third most important food crop in Indonesia after rice and maize. Soybean plays an important role as a vegetable protein source for most of the community in the country, which is predominantly consumed as tempe and tofu. In 2020, the average soybean consumption level was around 11–12 kg/capita/year. The need for this commodity tends to increase along with the population increase. During the period 2000 to 2019, domestic production contributed 30–35% to the total need, while the rest (65–70%) was imported. The latest report [1] showed that the domestic production of soybean in 2020 was approximately 0.63 million tons, whereas the total need was approaching 3.29 million tons, thus about 81% of soybean was imported.

This condition was related to the discouraged situation of soybean production during the last 10 years (2010–2020). The average productivity during this period was 1.50–1.54 t/ha and no significant increase was recorded [2]. Also, only a slight increase in the harvested area occurred. A number of problems were noted regarding such conditions, including (a) high competition of land use with other commodities, (b) low stability of the yield as soybeans are highly susceptible to pest and disease attacks, (c) efforts to extend the planting area has not been fully succeeded, (d) relatively low quality of seeds as the soybean seed industry has not been well developed, (e) less conducive of soybean trading system, (f) less intensive cultivation techniques, and (g) low profit of soybean farming relative to other crops.

Soybean was targeted to be self-sufficiency by the Government in 2014 through four main strategies as follows: (1) gradually increasing the productivity (2) improving the roles of public and private sectors as well as local government in soybean development, (3) improving the marketing and trading system to be more conducive to farmers, and (4) improving the source of farming capital and partnerships. As a follow-up of such strategies, action steps were undertaken to achieve soybean self-sufficiency, including (a) supporting the research activities, which concerned on the release of new improved varieties with high yield potential, resistance to biotic and abiotic stress, short maturity; assembling the advanced cultivation technologies; and implementing different methods of dissemination, (b) initiating the growth of seed industry in soybean producing areas, (c) subsidizing the fertilizer prices, and (d) improving the access for agricultural tools and machinery application. However, these efforts have not fully succeeded as the increased rate of soybean productivity at the farmer level was considerably low, the planting and harvested areas were stagnant and even tended to decline, resulting in a decreased domestic production. As a consequence, a large amount of soybean is imported annually, suggesting more efforts and proper strategies are needed to achieve soybean self-sufficiency in Indonesia.

This paper will discuss the soybean production matters in Indonesia, including the current status and predicted soybean production and demand, the national program for increasing production, land availability for soybean development and specific production technologies for the different agroecosystems as well as the essential socio-economic aspects to support the achievement of soybean selfsufficiency in Indonesia.

### **2. Soybean production and demand**

The development of the harvested area, productivity, production, and import of soybean in Indonesia during the period 2016–2020 and the prediction for the year 2024 are presented in **Table 1**. Until 2020, the harvested area and production highly fluctuated, whereas the productivity tended to increase. It is estimated that the soybean harvested area until 2024 will not significantly expand as soybean hardly competes with other commodities, particularly maize. There was a considerable increase in soybean production (49.07%) during 2019–2020 as a result of expanding the harvested area. However, for the next four years, it is predicted that soybean production will tend to decline by 3% per year [3]. This was due to the competition of land use with other profitable commodities, such as corn and chili, resulting in a decrease in the harvested area of about 5% per year. Even though the productivity increased by 2% per year, this value was set below the rate of declined harvested area, thus giving no significant increase in soybean production. As a result, a large amount of soybean needs to be imported with an average of 2.49 million tons per year.

*Soybean in Indonesia: Current Status, Challenges and Opportunities to Achieve Self… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101264*


*Note:*

*\* Agreement figures of Central Bureau of Statistics (BPS) and the Indonesian Ministry of Agriculture.*

*\*\*Forecast of the Indonesian Agricultural Data and Information Center.*

#### **Table 1.**

*The development and projected of harvested area, production, and import of soybean in Indonesia during the period 2016–2024 [3].*

The national demand ranged from 2.73 up to 3.29 million tons during the period 2020–2024, which is mostly for consumption purposes. The consumption level of soybeans during this period is predicted to fluctuate and tends to increase by 1.46% per year. In 2019, the figure was 10.17 kg and it slightly increased to 12.15 kg/capita/ year in 2020 [3]. It is assumed to be associated with the global pandemic of Covid-19, which led to a decline in people's purchasing power for animal protein sources and shifting to soybean as an affordable protein source, particularly as tempe and tofu. In addition, the increase in soybean consumption is also influenced by the healthy lifestyle of the middle and upper class who prefer a vegetarian diet. It seems that the consumption level will go back to 10.74 kg/capita/year in 2024. **Table 1** shows that the self-sufficiency in soybean within the next four years (2021–2024) can be achieved with an additional harvested area of 1.3–1.5 million hectares per year and productivity of 1.7–1.8 t/ha. Even though it seems hard to achieve such figures, the Government relentlessly encourages both the Ministry of Agriculture and farmers to increase the national soybean production.

#### **3. National soybean program**

Since 2000, the Government has been working hard to increase soybean production in order to achieve self-sufficiency through the program entitled "Gema Palagung", "Bangkit Kedelai", and "Farmer's School for Integrated Crop Management/FSICM for soybean". In 2018, a particular intercropping program between soybean with upland paddy or maize was launched, covering an area of 22 thousand hectares in 22 provinces [4]. Initially, the Government established the target for soybean self-sufficiently in 2014. However, as it unsucceded, the target was postponed to be 2017 and again postponed to be 2018, and then to 2020. In 2017–2018, the Ministry of Agriculture had a target of soybean planting area approaching 2 million hectares. Planting started from October to December 2017 with the first target of 500 thousand ha (approximately 25% of the total target). The remaining 1.5 million hectares expectedly can be fulfilled in the next planting season in 20

provinces, from Aceh in the west to East Nusa Tenggara in the eastern part of Indonesia. Meanwhile, another 500 hectares of land were available from the existing traditional farmers. It is estimated that in 2018, the soybean planting area will be becoming 2.5 million hectares [5] and would meet the domestic demand if the productivity was 1.5 t/ha.

Nevertheless, such a target was hard to be achieved as in fact, the total soybean production was only 650,000 tons in 2018 with a harvesting area of 493,546 hectares. In addition to climate and technical/cultivation factors, this failure was also related to economic aspects. It is obvious that soybean farming requires high input, possesses a high risk of crop failure, particularly due to pest and disease attacks, and inadequate income or less profitability. Planting of soybean starting from land preparation to harvesting and processing costs seven to nine million IRD per hectare and 60% of which is accounted for labor cost. The soybean production process in the field is also inefficient as most of the activities are done manually. In fact, the Government has established the selling price of soybean at the farm level that was about IDR 8,500 per kg in 2017 as Minister of Trade's Regulation no 27/2017. However, the price is normally following the market conditions and frequently is below the selling price determined by the Government, particularly during the harvesting season giving a low profit to soybean farming.

## **4. Land availability for soybean development**

Indonesia has a wide and diverse potential land for the development of soybean. **Table 2** shows that there are 3.8 million hectares of irrigated paddy fields and 3.6 million hectares of non-irrigated paddy fields available (optimal land). In irrigated paddy fields, soybean can be grown using a cropping system of paddy-paddysoybean, and a paddy-soybean cropping system in non-irrigated paddy fields. The main obstacle of soybean cultivation in optimal land is competition with other commodities that have higher economic value, especially maize. Therefore, soybean development in this optimal land should be selected to those lands that have less water available for growing maize. The need for water to grow soybean is only about half compared to growing maize.

There is also the potential of sub-optimal lands for the development of soybean in Indonesia, including dry acidic land, dryland with dry climate, and tidal land area, accounting for 4.5 million ha, 1.2 million ha, and 0.8 million ha, respectively (**Table 3**). The acidic land showed the least favorable for soybean production due to


**Table 2.**

*Irrigated and non-irrigated lowlands available for soybean development in Indonesia [6].*

*Soybean in Indonesia: Current Status, Challenges and Opportunities to Achieve Self… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101264*


*Note: AOU = Area of Other Uses, AFC = Area of Forest Conversion, AFP = Area of Forest Production, NT = Nusa Tenggara.*

#### **Table 3.**

*The suboptimal lands available for soybean development in Indonesia [7].*

lower fertility, potential toxicity from soluble forms of microelements such as Al, Mn, and Fe, and unfavorable physical properties [8–10]. Therefore, to obtain high soybean productivity in this type of land (soil), use of ameliorants and high doses of inorganic fertilizers are needed. On the dry land with a dry climate, the main constraint faced is the short wet month that is only around 3–4 months/year with a rainfall >200 mm/month. In this region, soybean needs to compete with other staple food crops, such as upland rice and maize. In tidal swampland, constraints like water-saturated root, high pyrite, the toxicity of Al, Fe, and Mn, as well as deficiencies of N, P, K, Ca, and Mg may limit soybean production [10, 11]. Therefore, specific cultivation technology is essential for such different types of land.

## **5. Cultivation technology for various agroecosystem**

#### **5.1 Lowland**

Soybean cultivation in the irrigated paddy lowland generally follows the cropping pattern of paddy-secondary food crop, while the pattern is paddysecondary food crop in the non-irrigated paddy land (rainfed land). It seems that soybeans yet have to compete with other commodities, especially maize or other food crops. Currently, the productivity of soybean using existing farmer's technology is about 1.5–1.8 t/ha. Using high-yielding improved varieties and good environmental management through the application of advanced cultivation technology makes it possible to achieve soybean productivity as high as 3.0 t/ha in the lowland.

A number of new improved soybean varieties have the yield potential of more than 3.0 t/ha, namely Dega1, Detap 1, Mutiara 1, Dering 2, Biosoy 1, and Demas 2 [12] as presented in **Table 5**. In additon to new improved varieties, plant spacing is also an important factor in achieving high yield through optimal plant populations. Planting Burangrang, Grobogan, and Anjasmoro varieties at a spacing of 20– 30 cm 40 cm, two plants per hole with optimal fertilization in Malang, East Java gave a grain yield of 3.96 t/ha, 3.93 t/ha, and 3.36 t/ha, respectively [13]. Thus, to achieve the soybean yield >3.0 t/ha, the population of >340 thousand plants/ha which is obtained using a plant spacing of 30 cm 15 cm needs to be applied as well


#### **Table 4.**

*The yield of soybean varieties in several plant spacing in irrigated paddy fields in Banyuwangi-East Java [14].*

as planting 2 plants/hole and optimal fertilizer application *i.e*.: 11.5 kg/ha N + 36 kg/ ha P2O5+ 30 kg/ha K2O at 10 days after planting, and 21.1 kg/ha N + 11.1 kg/ha S at 25 days after planting (**Table 4**).

A study in the rainfed Alfisol soil of Maros, South Sulawesi, which had a pH level of 6.2–6.7 and moderate soil fertility showed that soybean yield increased from 1.6 t/ha (existing technology) to 2.7 t/ha through the application of advanced cultivation technology [15]. This technology consisted of using good quality seed, sufficient fertilizer (30 kg/ha N + 48 kg/ha P2O4 + 30 kg/ha K2O), rhizobium inoculant 250 g/50 kg of seeds, and organic fertilizer (1.5 t/ha). The performance of soybean crops grown after paddy in the irrigated lowland is presented in **Figure 1**. Using such technology, the labor cost accounts for the largest portion of the total production costs, reaching about 65% and 72% for advanced and existing technology, respectively. Nevertheless, both the R/C and B/C ratio of applying the advanced technology is higher relative to those of the existing technology (**Table 5**).

**Figure 1.** *The performance of soybean crop grown after paddy in the irrigated low land.*

*Soybean in Indonesia: Current Status, Challenges and Opportunities to Achieve Self… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101264*


#### **Table 5.**

*Financial analysis of soybean farming for advanced and farmer's technologies in the rainfed land of South Sulawesi in the dry season (May to August) of 2017 [15].*

#### **5.2 Dryland**

The cropping patterns in the dryland are generally maize-maize, upland paddymaize, maize-peanuts, or maize-soybeans. Meanwhile, in a dryland with a dry climate, farmers normally only grow maize or upland paddy during the rainy season. The rainfall in the dryland with a dry climate is approximately <2000 mm per year with a dry period >7 months per year (<100 mm rainfall per month). This type of agroecology is mostly found in Bali and Nusa Tenggara, Sulawesi, and Java [11]. However, the insufficient and non-uniform distribution of rainfall in the dryland considerably results in drought stress during the growing period of soybean and may cause yield reduction and even harvesting failure [16]. In this particular land, soybean development can only be performed through intercropping with maize as it is one of the major staple foods as well as a source of cash income for farmers [17]. Maize productivity in the dryland is relatively low, which ranges from 2.5 to 5.0 t/ha [2]. This is caused by the erratic distribution of rainfall and less optimal maize cultivation by farmers. The introduction of soybean in the dryland through intercropping with maize is expectedly would increase the land productivity and farmer's income. Intercropping system has been adopted all over the world as it can increase land-use efficiency [18, 19].

The use of adapted cultivars and optimal plant spacing in soybean intercropping systems can increase land productivity, reduce the risk of crop failure, increase crop yields and farmers' income [19–21]. The cropping pattern of soybean monoculture in the dryland with a dry climate could produce dry seed about 1.4–2.4 t/ha depending on the variety used and distribution of rainfall. However, this cropping pattern is difficult to be developed in the dryland as such a pattern was less profitable relative to growing maize [9]. Therefore, the development of soybean in the dryland, particularly in the maize producing area should be done by intercropping. Soybean intercropping with a plant spacing of 30 cm 15 cm, planting two seeds per-hill and planting maize in a double row with a plant spacing of (40 20) cm 200 cm and one seed per hill (**Figure 2**) is able to produce high maize yield and increase the farming profit. Intercropping soybean variety of Dena 1 with maize in the dry land with dry climate (Tuban, East Java) showed higher benefit than using Argomulyo and Dega 1 varieties (**Table 6**). Dena 1 variety is particularly

#### **Figure 2.**

*The optimal crop layout for soybean intercropping with maize in the dryland (a) and the crop performances in the field (b) [9].*


*Notes: The population of maize crops 100% (plant spacing of 80 cm 20 cm, 2 seeds per-hill) was 62,500 crops/ha and soybean 333,333 crops/ha. The selling price of maize and soybean (dry seeds) were IDR 4,000/kg and IDR 6,500/kg, respectively.*

#### **Table 6.**

*Farming income of soybean intercropping with maize, Tuban District, East Java, Indonesia, planting season 2019 [9].*

released for intercropping purposes as it is tolerant to shading up to 50%. Other soybean varieties that are suitable for intercropping with other crops, including young plantation crops are Dena 2, Denasa 1, and Denasa 2 (**Table 5**). Also, there are soybean varieties tolerant to drought stress, namely Dering 1, Dering 2, and Dering 3 (**Table 7**).


*Soybean in Indonesia: Current Status, Challenges and Opportunities to Achieve Self… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101264*


#### **Table 7.**

*Physicochemical composition and specific characteristic of Indonesia soybean varieties [12, 22, 23].*

#### **5.3 Acidic soil**

As discussed previously, acidic soils are the least favorable condition for soybean cultivation, therefore the use of ameliorants and high doses of inorganic fertilizers is essential in terms of increasing productivity. The application of 23 kg/ ha N + 27 kg/ha P2O5+ 30 kg/ha K2O + 1,500 kg/ha organic fertilizers and

*Soybean in Indonesia: Current Status, Challenges and Opportunities to Achieve Self… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101264*

rhizobium biofertilizer 0.25 kg/50 g seeds in acidic soil with a pH of 5.30 and Al saturation of 30% exhibits a good growing performance of four soybean varieties, namely Anjasmoro, Panderman, Dega 1, and Demas 1 [24]. These varieties give a yield of 2.52 t, 2.29 t, 2.72 t, and 1.78 t per hectare, respectively. Demas 1, Demas 2, and Demas 3 varieties are tolerant to acid soil with a potential yield ranging from 2.5 t up to 3.3 t/ha (**Table 7**). Biofertilizers also have a significant role in increasing soybean yield through the natural processes of nitrogen fixation, solubilizing phosphorus, stimulating plant growth, improving soil texture, pH, and other soil properties [25, 26].

In the acidic soil of Banten with a pH of 5.5, the use of 200 g/ha of biofertilizer could substitute 50% of the recommended inorganic fertilizer [27]. Another study in acidic soil in Lampung reported that the use of Rhizobium biofertilizer tolerant to acidic soil about 1.5 t/ha and organic fertilizer enriched with P and Ca, could replace the use of 100% N and P, and 50% of K. The yield also increased more than 50% relative to control and gave higher yield compared to recommended NPK dosage [28]. The performance of soybean crops grown in acidic soil is presented in **Figure 3**.

### **5.4 Tidal swampland**

In tidal swampland, water-saturated roots, high pyrite, the toxicity of Al, Fe, and Mn, deficiencies of N, P, K, Ca, and Mg are the major constraints in soybean development [8, 10]. Among such limitations, low soil pH and high Al saturation are more concerned regarding soybean growth as they may cause a decrease in nitrogen fixation and nutrient uptake, particularly phosphorus which is important for cell growth and photosynthesis. It was reported that liming can improve the growth and yield of soybean in the tidal swampland of South Kalimantan [10]. The highest yield was obtained at a rate of liming equivalent to 10% of Al saturation, which was applied by mixing the lime with soil up to 20 cm depth. Another study in tidal swampland of South Kalimantan investigated that using dolomite to decrease the Al-dd saturation by 20% by using organic fertilizers (1.25 t/ha), application of bio-fertilizer (0.25 kg/50 kg seeds), and inorganic fertilizer (23 kg/ha N, 27 kg/ha P2O5 and 30 kg/ha K2O) gave the yield about 2.0 t/ha [24].

In addition, soil water management can be applied to reduce the pyrite content as the soil is in a reductive condition [29]. The response to water-saturated conditions varied among soybean varieties. Tanggamus and Anjasmoro, the yellow-

**Figure 3.** *The performance of soybean crop at 40 days after planting in the acidic soil in Lampung, Indonesia.*

seeded soybean are classified as adaptive varieties, while the black-seeded soybean varieties, such as Cikuray, Ceneng, and Lokal Malang are less adaptive when grown under the saturated condition in tidal swampland. However, using the technology called water-saturated soybean farming [30], which consisted of appropriate application of Ca (dolomit) and NPK fertilizers with optimal plant population, the yield of soybean cultivation in tidal swampland in South Sumatera could reach 3.2–3.5 t/ ha. There are some soybean varieties adapted to tidal swampland, namely Depas 1 and Depas 2 (**Table 7**).

A study on soybean cultivation in tidal swampland of South Kalimantan [22] also reported that the use of technological package (listed as an alternative technology in **Table 8**) consisting of the application of dolomite until soil Al saturation is reduced to 30%, NPK fertilizer with a dosage of 23 kg/ha N + 27 kg/ha P2O5 + 30 kg/ha K2O + 1,500 kg/ha organic fertilizers, and rhizobium inoculant of 0.25 kg/50 kg seed as well as the saturated soil culture (SSC) technology was able to increase the number of filled pods per plant and yield per hectare relative to farmer's existing technology. Using the SSC and alternative technology packages, the seed yield increased by 27% and 17%, respectively compared to that of farmers' existing technology (**Table 8**). The performance of soybean crops treated with an alternative technology is presented in **Figure 4**.

## **5.5 Shaded land**

In addition to several types of agroecosystem as described previously, growing soybean under shading is also potential for soybean development. Shaded land is available under young high state crop plantations, such as teak, palm oil, and


### **Table 8.**

*Number of filled pods, 100-seed weight, and soybean seed yield obtained from the application of different technological packages in tidal swampland. Wanaraya District, Barito Kuala Regency, South Kalimantan [24].*

#### **Figure 4.**

*An example of the performance of 40 days after planting of soybean crops in tidal swamps with soil Al saturation of 30% in South Kalimantan Province, Indonesia.*

### *Soybean in Indonesia: Current Status, Challenges and Opportunities to Achieve Self… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101264*

eucalyptus trees. The land associated with teak and eucalyptus trees is generally under the management of State Company, namely Perhutani where the lands/areas are managed by the local community (FACI/Forest Area Community Institution), while the land planted with palm oil crops belongs to the Government. However, there is no accurate data regarding the potential shaded land that can be used for soybean development. This includes the dry land agroecology with flat or hilly topography. Therefore, soybean planting in this agroecology can be only done in the beginning of the rainy season.

The yield of soybean grown under the shading of four to six-year-old of palm oil tree (50% shading) was relatively lower (0.54 t/ha) than that of without shading (2.6 t/ha). Burangrang, Anjasmoro, and Grobogan varieties show similar tolerance to such shading. The recommended N fertilizer application is 100–150 kg/ha [31]. In another study, the application of 34.5 kg/ha N + 36 kg/ha P2O5 + 60 kg/ha K2O + 20 t/ha manure and planting space of 20 cm 20 cm using three soybean varieties (Dena 1, Anjasmoro, and Grobogan) were able to produce seeds of about 1.8 t/ha at 25% shading level and about 1.4 t/ha at 50% shading level [32]. In particular, Dena 1, Dena 2, Denasa 1, and Denasa 2 varieties are released for shading cultivation of soybean (**Table 7**).


*Note:*

*1 Planting spacing was 40 cm 15 cm (technology of Iletri). <sup>2</sup>*

*Planting spacing was 20 cm 20 cm (existing technology).*

*\*Revenue = the average of yield multiplied by the selling price of soybean seeds i.e. IDR 7,000/kg. Figure in the bracket showed total income was minus or soybean farming lost.*

#### **Table 9.**

*Farming income of soybean farming under teak shade, Blora Regency, Central Java, 2018 [33].*

#### **Figure 5.**

*Soybean grown under the teak stands (left) and eucalyptus trees (right) in Blora, Central Java.*

In terms of soybean grown under the two-year-old teak tree in Blora, Central Java, using the technological package of NPK fertilization (30 kg/ha N+ 66 kg/ha P2O5 + 30 kg K2O), biofertilizer (20 g/10 kg of seed), "legowo" planting space (30 cm–50 cm 15 cm) or regular planting space (40 cm 15 cm), gave a yield about 1.5 t/ha. Meanwhile, using the existing technology (farmer's method), only 0.75 t/ha of seeds was obtained (**Table 9**) [33]. Soybean grown under the young teak stands and eucalyptus trees is presented in **Figure 5**.

## **6. Challenges and opportunities to achieve soybean self-sufficiency**

#### **6.1 Challenges**

There are three primary challenges in terms of increasing the soybean production in Indonesia in order to achieve self-sufficiency, i.e. low fertility of the available land, less competition of existing soybean varieties in terms of the quality traits, and relatively low selling price of locally produced soybean.

Java Island is the most fertile and largest planted area of soybean in Indonesia. Shifting the soybean planting area to outside of Java has been started since the 1980s. The available land for crop cultivation in such areas, including soybean, is more than 40 million hectares, however, the major soil type is ultisol. This mostly exists in Sumatra, Bali, Kalimantan, Sulawesi, and Papua. Constraints, like acidity, low content of organic matter, and phosphorus (P) availability naturally occurred in ultisol soil, thus more inputs are needed to provide optimal conditions for producing soybean [34].

Quality traits of local or domestic soybean are also important to drive or push the production of soybean in Indonesia. However, there is a limited quality trait of local soybean to compete with imported soybean. Previously, the improved soybean varieties belonged to small and medium-seeded, which is not desired for tempeh ingredients. Large-seeded (> 14 g/100 seeds) is favored for tempeh preparation as it would give a good appearance and high volume development, while small to large seed sizes are suitable for tofu making [22]. Therefore, for the last two decades, a number of improved varieties with large seed sizes have been released (**Table 7**) to meet such preferences. However, the released varieties concerning health benefits, such as Devon 1 and Devon 2 with high isoflavone content (**Table 7**) that has antioxidant activity, have not been attractive for consumers and farmers based on this superiority or character as the market is not yet available. Therefore, lack of market quality traits is also an essential challenge for producing local soybean.

In the case of price, the imported soybean always has a lower price than the local soybean. It is calculated [35] that the profitable price for farmers is minimally IDR 9,000 per kg or US\$ 0.6/kg (US\$ 1 = IDR 14,000). With this selling price, farmers would be able to cover the expenses for soybean production activity and gain some profit. However, the price of local soybean at the farm level is frequently around IDR 6,500 per kg, causing less interest of farmers to grow soybean. Therefore, the current average soybean productivity at the farm level (1.5 t/ha) needs to be increased to at least 3.0 t/ha, thus soybean farming income can compete with those of other commodities, such as maize as presented in **Table 10**.

#### **6.2 Opportunities**

Indonesia has a good chance to increase soybean production and fulfills domestic needs. This opportunity can be seen from the market demand, land and improved varieties availability, and the Government's strong will. Soybean demand as food

*Soybean in Indonesia: Current Status, Challenges and Opportunities to Achieve Self… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101264*


**Table 10.**

*Income of maize farming compared to soybean farming using existing farmer technology and improved technology [9].*

and feed increases continuously and be expected to increase in the next years. The highest portion of demand comes from processed food mainly tempeh and tofu. Another high demand is coming from the cattle feed industry which is expected to increase continuously as part of increasing cattle production. Therefore, by increasing the national soybean production, the Government wants to fulfill these demands by using national production and reducing imports [36].

Other potential opportunities are the availability of source seeds, especially in the form of "Breeder Seeds" for the production of certified seed of "Foundation Seeds", "Stock Seeds", and "Extension Seeds" to fulfill the need for quality soybean seed for the area of production. The "Breeder Seeds" available are various soybean varieties with a various specific traits, including the variety tolerance to pod borer and pod sucking insect, shading, flooding, and drought. The readiness of soybean production technology for various agroecosystems can also be stated as an opportunity because those significantly contribute to the high productivity and also for the production of soybean in the country.

## **7. Conclusion**

Soybean in Indonesia is the third important staple food after rice and maize. The need for this commodity continuously increases every year due to the increase in population. The trend of domestic soybean production tended to decline and do not meet the demand leading to the increase of soybean import every year. There are three challenges that require drastic changes so that local soybean production is able to meet domestic needs. First, the current productivity at the farm level, which is around 1.5 t/ha must be increased to at least 2.0–3.0 t/ha. It will also help soybean farming income compete with those of other commodities. Second, the soybean harvested area which only reaches 0.3 million hectares in 2019 must be increased at least become 1.7 million hectares. The potential soybean planting areas in Indonesia are the optimal land including irrigated lowland and rainfed after paddy (rice), as well as suboptimal lands such as dryland, acidic land, tidal land, and shaded land under young plantation crops. Soybean productivity in those kinds of agroecosystems can reach 1.8–3.0 t/ha, depending on the type of land, the improved varieties used, and the applied of cultivation technological package. Third, it is necessary to develop agricultural machinery that can reduce the farming cost, so that soybean farming is more efficient and able to provide higher profit.

Some efforts should be made to increase national soybean production to achieve self-sufficiency, including improving the attractiveness point of soybean farming, launching the program(s) to increase soybean production starting from the central government to the regions, accelerating technology transfer dan adoption of the high yielding improved varieties, reducing soybean import gradually, improving the cooperation among stakeholders, and providing a good market guarantee for soybean farming.

## **Acknowledgements**

We would like to thank to the Indonesian Agency for Agricultural Research and Development (IAARD) through the Indonesian Legumes and Tuber Crops Research Institute (ILETRI) for the support of research results facilities to compile this manuscript.

## **Conflicts of interest**

We declare that we have no conflicts of interest on the entire manuscript.

## **Author details**

Arief Harsono\*, Didik Harnowo, Erliana Ginting and Dian Adi Anggraeni Elisabeth Indonesian Legumes and Tuber Crops Research Institute, Malang, Indonesia

\*Address all correspondence to: rifharsono@yahoo.co.id

© 2021 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

*Soybean in Indonesia: Current Status, Challenges and Opportunities to Achieve Self… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101264*

## **References**

[1] Indonesian Ministry of Agriculture. Results of the National Working Meeting of the Ministry of Agriculture, January 2021. Jakarta: Ministry of Agriculture; 2021

[2] CBS. Indonesian Statistics (in Indonesia). Jakarta: Central Bureau of Statistics; 2020. http://www.bps.go.id. [Accessed January 23, 2020]

[3] Center for Agricultural Data and Information Systems. Food Agricultural Commodity Outlook: Soybean. Jakarta: Secretariat General of teh Ministry of Agriculture; 2020. p. 47

[4] Director General of Food Crops. Instructions for Intercropping. Jakarta: Ministry of Agriculture; 2018. p. 24

[5] Harsono A. Soybean self-sufficiency has not been achieved: Problems and solutions. In: The Policy Brief was Presented at the Research Professor Communication Forum; 23–24 April 2019; Bogor: Ministry of Agriculture; 2019. p. 6

[6] Indonesian Agricultural Statistics. Center for Agricultural Data and Information System. Jakarta: Ministry of Agriculture Republic of Indonesia; 2019. pp. 105-128

[7] Mulyani A, Nursyamsi D, Harnowo D. The potential and challenges for the use of suboptimal land for the development of legume and tuber crops. In: Proceedings of the National Seminar on Legume and Tuber Crops 2016. Bogor: Indonesian Center for Food Crops Research and Development (IAARD); 2017. pp. 16-30

[8] Ruckstuhl KE, Johnson EA, Miyanishi K. Introduction. The boreal forest and global change. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences. 2008;**363**:2245-2249. DOI: 10.1098/ rstb.2007.2196

[9] Nikodem A, Kodešova R, Drabek O, Bubeničkova L, Borůvka L, Pavlů L, et al. A numerical study of the impact of precipitation redistribution in a beech forest canopy on water and aluminum transport in a podzol. Vadose Zone Journal. 2010;**9**:238-251. DOI: 10.2136/ vzj2009.0083

[10] Elisabeth DAA, Harsono A. Economic competitiveness of soybean and maize intercropping on dry land with dry climate. Jurnal Pengkajian dan Pengembangan Teknologi Pertanian. 2020;**4**(1):53-62. DOI: 10.21082/jpptp. v4n1.2020.p53-62

[11] Wijanarko A, Taufiq A. Effect of lime application on soil properties and soybean yield on tidal land. Agrivita. 2016;**38**(1):14-23. DOI: 10.17503/ agrivita.v38i1.683

[12] Balitkabi. Description of Various Improved Legume and Tuber Crops Variety. Malang: Indonesian Legumes and Tuber Crops Research Institute. The Indonesian Agency for Agricultural Research and Development; 2016. pp. 1-86

[13] Widyaningrum I, Nugroho A, Heddy YBS. *Pengaruh jarak tanam dan varietas terhadap pertumbuhan dan hasil tanaman kedelai* (*Glycine max* L.). Jurnal Produksi Tanaman. 2018;**6**(8):1796-1802

[14] Harsono A, Sucahyono D, Elisabeth DAA, Adhie M, Suyitno, Sugiono. *Uji paket teknologi kedelai dengan produktivitas 3,5 t/ha* (Evaluation of soybean technology package for productivity of 3.5/ha). Malang: Research Report of the Indonesian Legumes and Tuber Crops Research Institute; 2020. p. 11 (Unpublished)

[15] Elisabeth DAA, Mutmaidah S, Harsono A. Adoption determinants of biofertilizer technology for soybean in rainfed area. Earth and Environmental Science. 2019;**347**(2019):1-10. DOI: 10.1088/1755-1315/347/1/012114

[16] Yazar A, Ali A. Water harvesting in dry environments. In: Farooq M, Siddique K, editors. Innovations in Dryland Agriculture. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing AG; 2017. DOI: 10.1007/978- 3-319-47928-6\_3

[17] Prasanna BM. Maize in the developing world: Trends, challenges, and opportunities. In: Proceedings of International Maize Conference; 22–24 November 2012; Sulawesi, Indonesia. Jakarta: Indonesian Agency for Agricultural Research and Development (IAARD); 2013. pp. 26-38

[18] Mahallati MN, Koocheki A, Mondani F, Feizi H, Amirmoradi S. Determination of optimal strip width in strip intercropping of maize (*Zea mays* L.) and bean (*Phaseolus vulgaris* L.) in Northeast Iran. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2014;**106**(3):390-404. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.10.009

[19] Yang F, Wang XC, Liao DP, Lu FZ, Gao RC, Liu WG, et al. Yield response to different planting geometries in maizesoybean relay strip intercropping systems. Agronomy Journal. 2015;**107**(1): 296-304. DOI: 10.13057/biodiv/d210842

[20] Lithourgidis AS, Dordas CA, Damalas CA, Vlachostergios DN. Annual intercrops: An alternative pathway for sustainable agriculture. Australian Journal of Crop Science. 2011;**5**(4):396-410

[21] Flores-Sanchez D, Pastor A, Lantinga EA, Rossing WAH, Kropff MJ. Exploring maize-legume intercropping systems in Southwest Mexico. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems. 2013;**37**(7):739-761. DOI: 10.1080/21683565.2013.763888

[22] Ginting E, Antarlina SS, Widowati S. *Varietas unggul kedelai* *untuk bahan baku industri pangan*. Jurnal Litbang Pertanian. 2009;**28**(3): 79-87

[23] Balitkabi. *Deskripsi Varietas Baru*. Malang: Indonesian Legumes and Tuber Crops Research Institute; 2021. https:// balitkabi.litbang.pertanian.go.id/de skripsi-varietas-baru/

[24] Harsono A, Elisabeth DAA, Indiati SW, Rozi F, Harnowo D, Sundari T, et al. Soybean cultivation technology package on tidal swamp lands in Indonesia. Annual Research & Review in Biology. 2021;**6**(7):47-57

[25] Tiwari P, Singh JS. A plant growth promoting rhizospheric *Pseudomonas aeruginosa* strain inhibits seed germination in *Triticum aestivum* (L) and *Zea mays* (L). Microbiology Research. 2017;**8**(2):7233. DOI: 10.4081/ mr.2017.7233

[26] Vimal SR, Patel VK, Singh JS. Plant growth promoting *Curtobacterium albidum* strain SRV4: an agriculturally important microbe to alleviate salinity stress in paddy plants. Ecological Indicators. 2018;**105**:553-562. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoind.2018 05.014

[27] Purba R. The growth and production of soybean towards organic fertilization on dryland in Pandeglang, Banten. Jurnal Pengkajian dan Pengembangan Teknologi Pertanian. 2016;**19**(3):253-261

[28] Harsono A, Husein E, Sucahyono D, Muzaiyanah S. Biofertilizers to support soybean production on acid soil. Buletin Palawija. 2014;**28**:102-114

[29] Ghulamahdi M, Melati M, Sagala D. Production of soybean varieties under saturated culture on tidal swamps. Jurnal Agronomi Indonesia. 2009;**37**(3): 226-232. DOI: 10.24831/jai.v37i3.1301

[30] Ghulamahdi M, Chaerunisa SR, Lubisa I, Taylor P. Response of five

*Soybean in Indonesia: Current Status, Challenges and Opportunities to Achieve Self… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101264*

soybean varieties under saturated soil culture and temporary flooding on tidal swamp. Procedia Environmental Sciences. 2016;**33**(2016):87-93. DOI: 10.1016/j.proenv.2016.03.060

[31] Napitupulu A. 2016. The Analysis of Urea Dosage and Soybean Variety (*Glycine max* L.) Multicropping under Oilpalm Area (A Case Study in Medan Deli Serdang Subdistrict). Master Thesis. USU Medan. www.repository. usu.ac.id/bitsream/handle/123456789/ 2864/127001021.pdf?sequence=1& isAllowed=y. [Accessed April 16, 2021]

[32] Handriawan A, Respatie DW, Tohari. The effect of shade intensity to the growth and result of three soybean (*Glycine max* (L.) Merrill) cultivars at the land of Bugel Coastal Sand, Kulon Progo. Vegetalika. 2016;**5**(3):1-14. DOI: 10.22146/veg.25346

[33] Elisabeth DAA, Suhartina. Farmers' response on introduction of soybean cultivation technology under teak shade. In: AIP Conference Proceedings. Vol. 2120, No. 1. New York: AIP Publishing LLC; 2019. p. 040013

[34] Rochayati S, Dariah A. *Pengembangan lahan kering masam: peluang, tantangan, dan strategi, serta teknologi pengelolaan*. In: *Prospek Pertanian Lahan Kering dalam Mendukung Ketahanan Pangan*. The Indonesian Agency for Agricultural Research and Development (IAARD). Jakarta: LITBANG-PRESS; 2012. pp. 187-206

[35] Aldillah R. Projections for Indonesian soybean production and consumption. Journal of Application Quantitative Economic. 2015;**8**(1):9-23

[36] Hasbianto A, Hartati S, Weebadde CK. Opportunity, challenges, and strategies to increase soybean production in Indonesia. Jurnal Informasi Pertanian (JIP). 2020;**1**(1): 72-79

## **Chapter 12**

## Enzymatic Process for Pigeon Pea

*Mukesh Nathalal Dabhi*

## **Abstract**

Pigeon pea is generally used as a dhal i.e., in split form therefore, it is important to check its splitting i.e., hulling efficiency and maximum dhal recovery. Pretreatments are commonly given for loosening and removing of the seed coat with retaining its edible portion. Enzymes viz. xylanase, pectinase and cellulose were applied to evaluate the dehusking properties of pigeon pea grains. The effect of four enzymatic parameters, i.e., enzyme concentration (20–50 mg 100 g−1 dry matter), incubation time (4–12 h), incubation temperature (35–55°C) and tempering water pH (4.0–6.0) on dehusking efficiency were optimized with statistical package response surface methodology (RSM). In which the hulling efficiency with a high value for the coefficient of determination R<sup>2</sup> (0.92) described satisfactorily quadratic model. It predicted 76.54–82.80% hulling efficiency, 20.70–25.30% protein content and 12.42–15.10 min cooking time at optimized enzyme concentration of 27.64–31.34%, incubation time 7–9 h, incubation temperature 43–45°C and 5–6 pH value for different varieties of pigeon pea as compared to 66.00–78.30% hulling efficiency, 18.74–21.81% protein content and 13.23–18.00 min cooking time for traditional oil treatment. It shown that increased hulling efficiency and protein content and decreased cooking time for enzyme pretreated pigeon pea compared to the oil pretreated method.

**Keywords:** pigeon pea, enzyme, grains

### **1. Introduction**

Pulses are mostly consumed as a dhal, it is important to dehusk and then split into two parts. Pigeon pea is very hard to dehusk hence pre-treatment is essential before milling practice. Pre milling treatments are commonly carried out to loosen the seed coat to eliminate husk without dropping any fit for human consumption element and higher dhal recovery. Pigeon pea is commonly processed to mend their cooking and nutritional traits. Dehusking of pigeon pea also aids to get rid of antinutritional compounds which include polyphenols observed in the seed coat. Pretreatment for loosening of the seed coat from the grain is one of the essential stages in dehulling of pigeon pea. This process is usually completed by way of the use of mechanical means. Grain pretreatment is commonly intended to harden the hull and slacken the gummy bond between the hull and the cotyledon and to strengthen the cotyledon to lessen damage. Removal of the seed coat at some stage in dehusking is conventionally completed either through moist or dry methods [1]. Pretreatments may additionally include thermal treatment only or soaking in water, chemical solutions, etc. [2–5]. These treatments results shape deformation of split or poor cooking quality of splits. These treatments needs more labour and consume more time.

Several preceding research pronounced that the husk of grain adhered to the cotyledons due to the presence of calactomonus disaccharide, glucoronai acid and glycol protein [6]. Swamy et al. [7] reported that for adherence of husk to the cotyledons, arabinogalactan type polysaccharide is responsible, which possess the gummy and hygroscopic nature. Those complicated biological compound makes the removal of seed coat of pigeon pea a tough technique. Hence, making of dhal without pretreatment consequences in low dhal availability. Saxena [8] suggested that pre-treatments has an essential function in increasing dhal recuperation by means of slackening seed coat from cotyledons. Consequently Phirke and Bhole [3] advised specific pretreatments viz., water soaking, water spray with oil treatment, sodium bicarbonate treatment and enzyme treatment except sodium bicarbonate treatment induced widespread loss in protein content of cotyledons over untreated samples. Saxena [8] said that the outcomes of seed coat elimination by chemical treatment of pigeon pea grain through the usage of calcium hydroxide, sodium hydroxide and sodium bicarbonate aqueous solutions was observed and among them sodium bicarbonate solution turned into the very much result of dhal availability. Sharanagouda et al. [9] suggested the use of mustard oil treatment for Gulyal variety to get higher unhulled grains during milling (79.4%) and dhal (68.8%) in comparison of Maruti and Asha variety. Whereas Maruti (76.5%) and Asha (56.9%) variety resulted higher unhulled grains by acetic acid treatment. 'Sirka' may be utilized instead of oil for pigeon pea milling [10]. Dhal availability in this procedure became extra or less identical as in case of oil treatment.

It was reported that pigeon pea is tough-to remove seed coat because of the existence of mucilage and gum bring into being a sturdy bond among the seed coat and cotyledons. The mucilage and gums exist in between the husk and cotyledons show an essential function within the removal process of seed coat of pigeon pea due to its chemical nature [4]. Cosgrove [11] observed that mucilages and gums of pigeon pea grains are complex of cellulosic micro fibrils fixed in a medium of non-starch polysaccharides (NSP) and proteins. Through the enzymatic reactions, fractional hydrolysis of those NSP and/or proteins also enable the easy removal of seed coat of pulses [12, 13]. Sreerama et al. [14] mentioned enzyme treatment better than thermal treatment as xylanase intervened degradation of cell wall polysaccharides of horse gram bring about in enlargement of the grain with stepped forward nutritional and functional properties. Sreerama et al. [15] reported protease or sodium bicarbonate pre-treatments develop the physical and enlargement properties of pigeon pea and horse gram.

Reddy et al. [16] studied the protein deposition pattern in pigeon pea seed and reported that the outer layers of the cotyledons are richer in protein in evaluation to inner layers of seed. From vitamins point of view, that is a considerable that dehulling no longer reduces protein-rich germ but additionally the outer layers of the cotyledons wherein distinctly extra protein components are covered. Fortuitously, the protein high-quality in phrases of amino acids is not adversely laid low with removal of seed coat. Singh and Jambunathan [17] similarly pronounced that removal of seed coat process also reduces about 20% calcium and 30% iron. To maintain the beneficial value of pigeon pea seed and minimizing the nutrient losses for the process of dehulling it is essential that extra effective dehulling process is developed and transferred to rural areas wherein through and large milling continues to be executed with the aid of inefficient old-age strategies. In line with Kurien [1] in control situations the dhal recovery obtains the most efficiently up to 80–84% however at industrial the recovery stays round 70%. It was mentioned the reason of different variety (72–82%) for dhal yield. Consequently, it could be expected that for a mixture of a different variety and a competent pigeon pea process, there is possibility to reduce the nutrient losses.

Enzyme pre-treatment resulted 13.81% higher recovery of dhal compared to oil treatment for pigeon pea [18]. Murumkar et al. [19] reported the dhal recovery

#### *Enzymatic Process for Pigeon Pea DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.100853*

(76.60%) and milling efficiency (96.19%) with optimized enzymatic hydrolysis parameters. Enzymes makes the possibility of the fractional disruption/degradation of non-starch polysaccharides and/or proteins of mucilage that is found at interface between hulls and cotyledon. Green gram and black gram pretreated with protease resulted better yield of dehulled grain. In case of horse gram xylanase pre-treatment was very powerful in improving the dehulling process as compared to protease. Whereas for red grain, protease pre-treatment produced greater dehulled than xylanase. It is also evident that the enzyme dehulling pre-treatments no longer only expanded the dehulling performance, however additionally decreased the quantity of powder and fines [20]. Enzyme dispensed with object grains have been observed to make reduction of dehusking time as compared to water treated grains utilized in traditional milling. The enzyme treated grains were resulted to be brighter in contrast to untreated grains. Additionally, there have been adjustments found in the quantity of damaged grains and powder formation i.e., after processing of the grains, the powder formation and wide variety of broken grains decreased extensively which bolsters the overall purpose for application of enzymes for dehusking [21].

Pre milling treatments are commonly employed to loosen the seed coat to dispose of husk without losing any suitable for eating portion. There are many milling strategies like wet milling, dry milling, Central Food Technological Research Institute (CFTRI) technique, Pantnagar method, Central Institute of Agricultural Engineering (CIAE) method and Indian Institute of Pulse Research (IIPR) method advanced for pigeon pea milling. The above stated techniques are time ingesting, require almost four to seven days for the entire milling of pigeon pea. Also, the survey work of few pulse mills in Gujarat revealed that the dry milling treatments achieved at some stage in the milling for pigeon pea take longer processing time, approximately seven to eight days depending upon climate as sun drying is needed to get agreeable milling after pre-treatment [22]. But, these kinds of techniques do not allow easy elimination of seed coat in the course of the following processing operation of pigeon pea milling. Furthermore, those pre-treatments cause enhanced processing charge, longer processing time and labour consuming for pigeon pea milling. It was revealed that the exquisite potentiality of technology up gradation exists to get higher recovery of dhal in addition to lessening in processing time and energy required [22].

This necessitated the proper pre-treatment for pigeon pea milling which could shorten the processing time and improve the product value. The charge for the milled product is fixed on the idea of number of grains with intact husk (in part or entirely) in the pattern, chipping of edges of the cotyledons, volume of floor scouring of the grain, and the variety of the pigeon pea. Dhal with a lesser or no husk, natural luster, yellow in coloration and sharp edges of break up cotyledons, can be sold in the market at a better price.

It is far important to have unique pre-treatment to dissolve the glue that binds the cotyledons of pigeon pea grains to the seed coat. It is almost obvious that de-hulling quality is particularly depending on physical quality of grains and pretreatments. Selection of pre milling treatment also relies upon on the characteristics of the grain. In addition, pre-treatments given to pigeon pea grains earlier than de-hulling considerably influence the cooking time. The cooking quality of pigeon pea is essentially assessed with the aid of its cooking time [23].

The mechanism of enzymatic activity is governed by using four interacting parameters, i.e., grain moisture content material, enzyme concentration, reaction time and incubation temperature [24]. Foremost ranges of those parameters are necessary to get most recovery and higher quality of dhal. Facts on the effect of above parameters on de-hulled fractions and cooking high-quality seems to be missing. Several reviews are to be had for food grade activities of enzymes i.e., xylanase and cellulase as husk loosening agent in many grains. By way of this reaction of

enzymatic treatments lesser force will be required to result in the de-husking and thereby lower in processing time and cost.

Chemical composition and binding material at the interface of seed coat and cotyledon decides the choice of enzymes. Saxena and Srivastava [25] suggested that bio-bleaching agent for lignin isolation is the xylanase. Cellulose to betaglucose and pectin to pectic acid converted by cellulase and pectinase, respectively. Consequently, xylanase, cellulase, and pectinase are the important enzymes that ruin down the binding factors that lead to multiplied efficacy.

## **2. Material and methods**

Preliminary trials are essential to achieve standard proportions of enzymes, i.e., xylanase: pectinase: cellulase to get the most out of the husk removal. The outcome of selected enzyme combination on husk removal of pigeon pea grain is to be assessed keeping the enzyme concentration, incubation time, incubation

*Enzymatic Process for Pigeon Pea DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.100853*

temperature and tempering water pH constant based on the technical specifications of the products delivered by manufacturer.

Following equations are to be used to calculate husk removal and hulling efficiency [26].

$$\text{Hust} \,\text{removed} \,(\text{HR}) \%= \frac{\text{Hust} \,\text{Removed} \,\text{during} \,\text{deh} \,\text{s} \,\text{ling}}{\text{Total} \,\text{hust} \,\text{content}} \times 100 \tag{1}$$

$$\text{Coefficient of hulling (Ch)} = \text{1} - \frac{\text{Weight of unhumilled grain after milling}}{\text{Weight of unhumilled grain used for milling}} \tag{2}$$

$$\text{Coefficient of } u\\\text{ohuene of kernel (Cwk)} = \frac{W\_f}{W\_f + W\_b + W\_p} \tag{3}$$

where Wf = weight of finished product; Wb = weight of brokens; Wp = weight of powder.

$$\text{Hulling efficiency} = \text{Ch} \times \text{Cw}k \times \text{100} \tag{4}$$

#### **3. Enzymatic pre-treatment**

The enzyme solutions are to be made with the standardized percentage of all three decided enzymes. On this enzymatic pre-treatment method, the degumming is probably because of the reaction of different enzymes used for pre-treatment, i.e., xylanase, pectinase and cellulase. Because the enzyme activities relies upon on temperature, pH and incubation duration, crucial parameters at the side of the enzyme proportions, temperature, pH and incubation duration is to be taken into consideration.

#### **4. Dehulled sample separation**

The dissimilar fractions of the milled product which include whole dehulled grains, divided dehulled grains, in part dehulled and unhulled grains, broken, husk and powder are to be separated using suitable sieves (BS sieves no. 4, 6, 18). A grain is to be taken into consideration completely dehulled whilst there has been no husk adhering to it.

#### **5. Cooking time**

Pigeon pea dhal are to be cooked in a stainless steel pan having a ratio of dhal: distilled water as 1:10. For observation of cooking time, throughout boiling, the level of water is to be maintained by means of regular addition of boiled water. Boiling is to be persisted and grains to be drawn at 1 min interval to test the cooking time by way of pressing between the thumb and the forefinger till no hard core is left as described by way of [23]. Full cooking time is to be documented as the time while ninety percent of the dhal became gentle sufficient to masticate [27].

#### *Legumes Research - Volume 1*

In an experiment the observation of different enzyme pretreatment were recorded. The best combination of enzyme concentration, incubation temperature, incubation time and pH were selected with respect to hulling efficiency, cooking time and protein content.

The statistical analysis was carried out of experimental data and the significant effect of enzyme concentration, incubation temperature, incubation period and tempering water pH along with their interactions on hulling efficiency, cooking time and protein content were calculated.

## **6. Results and discussion**

## **6.1 Effect of enzyme pretreatment parameters on hulling efficiency**

The enzymatic pre-treatment for pigeon pea process resulted hulling efficiency in the range of 76.90–82.80% which was higher than dry milling method which was in the range of 66–78.30%. This is due the effects of incubation temperature on hulling efficiency (p < 0.001). This finding was confirmed by [18, 19]. Hulling efficiency was also significantly affected by tempering water pH. Sangani et al. [18] additionally mentioned effect of pH on hulling efficiency. Hulling efficiency was significantly affected by enzyme concentration [19–21] but [18] observed the non-significant effect of enzyme concentration on hulling efficiency. Outcomes of incubation time have been determined large effect on hulling efficiency (p < 0.01) [18, 19]. Opoku et al. [28] marked tempering is vital for reaching better dehulling results after soaking and drying or steaming and drying.

#### **6.2 Effect of enzyme pretreatment parameters on protein content**

The enzymatic treatment for pigeon pea process resulted protein content in the range of 20.70–25.30% which was higher than dry milling method which was in the range of 18.74–21.81%. Singh and Jambunathan [17] reported that dehulling process resulted scarification of outer layers of cotyledons and hence 12% yield loss as powder fraction. The outer surface of cotyledons is an affluent supply of protein, sugar, fiber, and ash but scanty in starch. Protein content of dhal by enzymatic pre-treatment was affected by enzyme concentration, incubation period and pH. However, outcomes of incubation temperature had significant effect on protein content (p < 0.01). Chandini et al. [21] also reported that crude protein in pigeon pea was affected by higher soaking time. This may because crude protein possess hydrophilic property which could have leached out while soaking in water. Murumkar et al. [19] reported enzyme pre-treatment to pigeon pea increased 2.96% protein content. Tiwari et al. [29] also reported increases of the protein content due to pre-treatment. The pectinase having high polygalacturonase activity was the most effective preparation in terms of protein release. Rommi et al. [30] reported enzymatic carbohydrate hydrolysis correlated with increased protein extractability at tempering water pH 6. Das et al. [31] reported increase in proteins by cellulase pre-treatment in milled rice.

#### **6.3 Effect of enzyme pretreatment parameters on cooking time**

The enzymatic treatment for pigeon pea process resulted cooking time in the range of 12.42–15.10% which was lower than dry milling method which was in the range of 13.23–18.00%. It was reported that effects of enzyme concentration, incubation time and tempering water pH had significant effect on cooking time (p < 0.001). However,

#### *Enzymatic Process for Pigeon Pea DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.100853*

results of incubation temperature changed into non-significant impact on cooking time. Sangani et al. [32] showed the significant effect (p < 0.05) of enzyme concentration and tempering water pH, and they observed highly significant effect (p < 0.01) of incubation time. He also determined non-significant effect of all the interplay on cooking time. Bhokre and Joshi [33] also pronounced that the cooking time reduces by soaking of cowpea. Tiwari et al. [29] also mentioned the effect of conditioning on cooking time. The effect of enzyme pre-treatment on cooking time was reported for pigeon pea, chick pea and other legumes. [19, 34]. Inversely Sreerama et al. [20] was observed no noteworthy change inside the cooking times of dehulled splits for control and enzyme (xylanase and protease) pre-treated with legumes.

Thus it could be concluded that the enzymatic pre-treatment for pigeon pea process resulted higher hulling efficiency, higher protein content and lower cooking time as compared to dry milling method of pigeon pea processing. This method not only giving better recovery and quality, but it reduces the time for processing from 5 days to 1 day.

## **7. Conclusions**

Important parameters for pigeon pea processing are hulling efficiency, protein content and cooking time requirement. It was found that traditional method of oil treatment for pigeon pea processing resulted in the range of 66.00–78.30% hulling efficiency, 18.74–21.81% protein content and 13.23–18.00 min cooking time; whereas enzymatic pretreated pigeon pea processing resulted 76.54–82.80% hulling efficiency, 20.70–25.30% protein content and 12.42–15.10 min cooking time at optimized enzyme concentration of 27.64–31.34%, incubation time 7–9 h, incubation temperature 43–45°C and 5–6 pH value. This process not only increased the hulling efficiency but it reduces the time requirement of process.

## **Conflict of interest**

I declare that it will not be published elsewhere in the same form, in English or in any other language, including electronically without the written consent of the copyright holder.

## **Author details**

Mukesh Nathalal Dabhi ICAR-AICRP on Post-Harvest Engineering and Technology, Junagadh Agricultural University, Junagadh, Gujarat, India

\*Address all correspondence to: mndabhi@jau.in

© 2021 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

## **References**

[1] Kurien PP. Advances in milling technology of pigeon pea. In Proceedings International Workshop Pigeon Peas; 15-19 December 1980; Vol. 1. Patancheru, AP, India: ICRISAT; 1981. 321-328

[2] Phirke PS, Pumbarka S, Tapre AB. Evaluation of chemical pretreatment of pigeon pea grains for milling. Indian Society of Agricultural Engineers. 1992;**2**:141-142

[3] Phirke PS, Bhole NG. Pre-treatments of pigeon pea grain for improvement of dehulling characteristics. International Journal of Food Science and Technology. 2000;**35**(3):305-313

[4] Ramkrishnaiah N, Kurien PP. Variabilities in the dehulling characteristics of pigeon pea cultivars. Journal of Food Science and Technology. 1983;**20**(6):287-291

[5] Srivastva V, Mishra DP, Chand L, Gupta RK, Singh BPN. Influence of soaking on various biochemical changes and dehusking efficiency in pigeon pea (*Cajanus cajan* L.) seeds. Journal of Food Science and Technology. 1988;**25**(5):267-271

[6] Kurien PP, Parpia HAB. Pulse milling in India I—Processing and milling of tur, arhar (*Cajanus cajan* L.). Journal of Food Science and Technology. 1968;**5**(4):203-207

[7] Swamy RN, Ramkrishnaiah N, Purien PP, Salimath PV. Studies on carbohydrates of red gram in relation to milling. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 1991;**57**(3):379-390

[8] Saxena RP. A Technical Report on Comparison of Different Premilling Treatments of Pigeon Pea Grain on a Laboratory Dhal Mill. Res. Bull no. 5/ PHT of Pulses/1999, Govind Ballabh. Pantnagar: Pant University of Agriculture and Technology; 1999

[9] Sharanagouda H, Sandeep TN, Nidoni U, Shreshta B, Meda V. Studies on dhal recovery from pre-treated pigeon pea (*Cajanus cajan* L.) cultivars. Journal of Food Science and Technology. 2014;**51**(5):922-928

[10] Krishnamurthy K, Girish GK, Ramasivan T, Bose SK, Singh K, Tomer RP. A new process for the removal of husk of red gram using sirka. Bulletin of Grain Technology. 1972; **10**(3):81

[11] Cosgrove DJ. Assembly and enlargement of the primary cell wall in plants. Annual Review of Cell and Developmental Biology. 1997;**13**: 171-201

[12] Arora G, Sehgal VK, Arora M. Optimization of process parameters for milling of enzymatically pretreated basmati rice. Journal of Food Engineering. 2007;**82**(2):153-159

[13] Verma P, Saxena RP, Sarkar BC, Omre PK. Enzymatic pretreatment of pigeon pea (*Cajanus tn* L.) grain and its interaction with milling. Journal of Food Science and Technology. 1993;**30**(5): 368-370

[14] Sreerama YN, Shashikala VB, Pratape VM. Nutritional implications and flour functionality of popped/ expanded horse gram. Food Chemistry. 2008;**108**(3):891-899

[15] Sreerama YN, Shashikala VB, Pratape VM. Expansion properties and ultrastructure of legumes: Effect of chemical and enzyme pre-treatments. LWT Food Science and Technology. 2009;**42**(1):44-49

[16] Reddy LJ, Green JM, Singh U, Bisen SS, Jambunathan R. Seed protein studies on *Cajanus cajan*. Atylosia spp. And some hybrid derivatives. In: Seed Protein Impr. Cereals and Grain

#### *Enzymatic Process for Pigeon Pea DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.100853*

Legumes. Vol. II. Vienna: Intl. Atomic Energy Agency; 1979. pp. 105-117

[17] Singh U, Jambunathan R. Pigeonpea: Post-harvest technology. In: Nene YL, Hall SD, Sheila VK, editors. The Pigeonpea. Wallingford, Oxon, UK: CAB International; 1990. pp. 435-455

[18] Sangani VP, Patel NC, Davara PR, Antala DK, Akbari PD. Optimization of enzymatic hydrolysis parameters of pigeon pea for better recovery of dhal. International Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology. 2014;**2**(4): 97-105

[19] Murumkar RP, Borkar PA, Munje SS, Rathod PK, Rajput MR, Dhoke SM. Effect of enzyme pre-treatments on milling of pigeon pea. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology. 2016;**5**(6):4029-4051

[20] Sreerama YN, Shashikala VB, Pratape VM. Effect of enzyme predehulling treatments on dehulling and cooking properties of legumes. Journal of Food Engineering. 2009;**92**(4): 389-395

[21] Chandini RC, Shankar A, Khatoon R, Benaka Prasad SB, Raghu AV. The enzymatic dehusking of grains. International Journal of Advance Research and Innovative Ideas in Education. 2016;**1**(5):181-186

[22] Patel NC, Chandegara VK, Dabhi MN. Pulse milling industry needs technology upgradation. Business Star International Monthly. 2016:5-8

[23] Singh U, Kherdekar MS, Sharma D, Saxena KB. Cooking quality and chemical composition of some early, medium and late maturing cultivars of pigeon pea (*Cajanus cajan* L.). Journal of Food Science and Technology. 1984;**21**(6):367-372

[24] Sarkar BC, Singh BPN, Agrawal YC, Gupta DK. Optimization of **enzyme**

treatment of rapeseed for enhanced oil recovery. Journal of Food Science and Technology. 1998;**35**:183-186

[25] Saxena RP, Srivastava S. Comparison of Different Premilling Treatments of Pigeon Pea (*Cajanas Cajan* L.) Grain on a Laboratory Mill, A Technical Report, Centre of Advanced Studies in Post-harvest Technology, Department of Post-Harvest Process and Food Engineering, College of Technology. Pantnagar: G.B. Pant University of Agril. & Technology; 1998

[26] Shanta R, Shremath G, Shivshankar C. Cooking characteristic of horse gram. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 1978;**48**(7): 399-401

[27] Williams PC, Singh U. Nutritional quality and the evaluation of quality in breeding programs. In: Saxena MC, Singh KB, editors. The Chickpea. Wallingford, UK: CAB International; 1987. pp. 329-356

[28] Opoku A, Tabil L, Sundaram J, Crerar WJ, Park SJ. Conditioning and dehulling of pigeon peas and mung beans. In: CSAE/SCGR Annual Conference, July 6-9, Montreal, Quebec. CSAE/SCGR Paper No 03-347. 2003

[29] Tiwari BK, Tiwari U, Jagan Mohan R, Alagusundaram K. Effect of various pre-treatments on functional, physiochemical, and cooking properties of pigeon pea (*Cajanus cajan L*.). Food Science and Technology International. 2008;**14**(6):487-495

[30] Rommi K, Hakala TK, Holopainen-Mantila U, Nordlund E, Poutanen K, Lantto R. Effect of enzyme-aided cell wall disintegration on protein extractability from intact and dehulled rapeseed (*Brassica rapa* L. and *Brassica napus* L.) press cakes. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2014;**62**(32):7989-7997

[31] Das M, Gupta S, Kapoor V, Banerjee R, Bal S. Enzymatic polishing of rice—A new processing technology. LWT Food Science and Technology. 2008;**41**(10):2079-2084

[32] Sangani VP, Patel NC, Bhatt VM, Davara PR, Antala DK. Optimization of enzymatic hydrolysis of pigeon pea for cooking quality of dhal. International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering. 2014;**7**(5):123-132

[33] Bhokre CK, Joshi AA. Effect of soaking on physical functional and cooking time of cowpea, horse gram and moth bean. Journal of Food Science Research. 2015;**6**(2):357-362

[34] Coskuner Y, Karababa E. Effect of location and soaking treatments on the cooking quality of some chickpea breeding lines. International Journal of Food Science and Technology. 2003;**38**(7):751-757

## **Chapter 13**
