Nutritional composition and sensory quality of injera prepared from tef (Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter) complemented with lupine (Lupinus spp.)

Abstract There is currently an emerging problem of protein malnutrition in Ethiopia. This food formulation was done to increase the accessibility of nutrient-rich food products for the consumers. Lupine is a legume crop, which is an excellent source of protein. This study aimed to investigate the effect of tef, lupine varieties and blending ratio on the chemical composition of injera and sensory acceptability of Ethiopians staple food. The effect of blending ratio and lupine varieties (Australian sweet lupine and Dibettered lupine seed) were studied. The formulations were generated by using mixture design software. Lupine variety and blending proportion had significant (P < 0.05) effect on proximate, mineral, anti-nutritional compositions and sensory acceptability of blended injera. The nutritional compositions of formulated injera ranged from 60.37 to 66.97%, 1.76 to 2.05 %, 11.78 to 18.84 %, 2.53 to 4.01 %, 2.83 to 3.16%, 72.55 to 81.32% and 393.19 to 400.91 kcal/100 g for moisture content, total ash, crude protein, crude fat, crude fiber, utilizable carbohydrate and gross energy, respectively. The result showed that the crude protein content highly increased as the proportion of lupines increased. Crude protein and crude fat contents were higher for injera blended with dibettered lupine seed variety while crude fiber content was higher for those blended with Australian sweet lupine variety because of the raw material. Mineral content of composite injeras varied from 12.26 to 14.98 mg/100 g, 2.39 to 2.83 mg/100 g, and 145.31 to 163.96 mg/100 g for iron, zinc and calcium contents, respectively. All three mineral contents were higher in tef blended with dibettered lupine seed variety. The Tannin and phytic acid contents ranged from 9.59 to 11.95 mg/100 g and 98.91 to 120.64 mg/100 g, respectively. Therefore, this study showed significant increment in protein content of injera and provides insights for use of Lupine-tef flour mixture at home and industry level for enriched injera. As the sensory acceptability scores data indicated for both lupine varieties blended with tef for the production of injeras of up to 15% lupines almost all sensory attributes showed higher scores without significantly different among them but after 15% lupine addition there were observed drop of the sensory acceptability scores in a 7 point hedonic scale.


PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT
Tef is indigenous and nutritionally rich cereal crop mainly grown in Ethiopia and Lupine is the most protein-rich legume. Injera is fermented flat-leavened bread. Tef injera that is most preferred and consumed by Ethiopians and it's gluten-free. Considering underutilized and cost effective legumes like lupine as a substitute or blending is vital. However, there are limited numbers of researches on lupine-based injera in Ethiopia. This will therefore increase lupine utilization in Ethiopian for the production of injera in both house and industrial level and used to compact protein and energy malnutrition problem in Ethiopia.

Introduction
Injera is flat leavened bread made from fermented dough of different cereals such as tef, barley, rice, maize, sorghum, or combination of these cereals although tef is the major cereal ingredient for the preparation of injera. However, it is widely consumed by the economically well-off urban dwellers urban residents compared to-rural households Assefa et al. (2015).
In Ethiopia lupine is used as snacks, local soups and local alcohols like, ariki in North Western Amahara region Yeheyis et al. (2010) because of its high nutritional value. Even though white lupine has a good performance in baking industries in many countries where the crop is grown in Ethiopia its use is only limited to snack which is prepared by roasting and soaking for consumption during the rainy season and sweet lupine flour is used for food as shiro-wot making for food (Zerihun, 2012).
Different studies have shown that rural communities in Ethiopia are faced with food insecurity and are chronically malnourished in protein and energy (Habtie et al., 2009;Tefera, 2009). More than half of the Ethiopian population, majority of whom are women residing in rural area (more than 83% of the population according to 2007 census result), is food insecure in relation to the recommended daily intake of 2,100 kilocalories per person per day (UNDP, 2006). Protein and energy malnutrition is a widespread problem throughout the world and has both health and economic consequences. The present feature of population growth shows that protein gap may continue to increase in the future and planned studies are needed to solve the problem. It is difficult and expensive to provide adequate proteins of animal origin. This has led to suggestion that neglected and underutilized crops could be developed as alternatives to the current staple crops (Chivenge et al., 2015). The emerging driving force of promoting underutilized crops is mostly associated with their being an integral sub-set of agro-biodiversity, suitability to marginal production environments often with a high nutritional value attribute that can be used to promote food and nutrition security in marginal production areas (Mabhaudhi et al., 2016).
Various researchers have investigated the use of lupine in a substitution role in a variety of cereal-based products (Pollards et al., 2002;Sanchez et al., 2005). Lupine flour is widely considered an excellent raw material for supplementing different food products owing to its high protein content and high fibre content with a good sensory acceptability (Sironi et al., 2005).
In Ethiopia, injera is commonly prepared from tef mixed with different cereals like sorghum, barley, wheat, millet, maize, rice or wheat, all of which have protein contents ranging from 8 to 15% (Ashenafi, 2006), but, blending of tef with legumes is yet to be practiced in our country even though they have higher amount of proteins and minerals. The protein content of lupine ranges from 33 to 47% depending on different varieties and growing condition so, preparing injera by supplementing tef with lupine may enhance the protein content of injera which may be one of the ways of combating protein-malnutrition problem in the country.
Since, tef injera is consumed in Ethiopia as a major staple food; the incorporation of lupine with tef may enhance its protein content. There are limited investigations on the mixing of tef flour with lupine for injera making and characterization of tef-lupine composite injera up to date. Therefore, effort is needed to improve the nutrient content of tef injera by mixing it with locally available protein-rich ingredients like lupine. Therefore, this paper seeks to characterize tef-lupine injera by reporting its nutritional compositions.

Sample collection
The experimental materials included tef (Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter) grain and lupine (Lupinus spp.). Tef variety  collected from Deber Zeit Agricultural Research Centre, Ethiopia and two varieties of lupine (local white lupine and Australian sweet lupine) sourced from Holetta Agricultural Research Centre, Ethiopia. Samples were selected based on their high production and quality performance for tef and accessibility and high protein content of lupine varieties. Samples were hermetically stored in cool and dry place (21°C) using polyethylene bag.

Experimental design
Mixture design was used to determine the proportion of tef and lupine. Maximum and minimum levels of independent variables were first investigated by doing a preliminary analysis at different proportion of lupines and tef, it was found that a maximum proportion of tef from 80 to 100% and lupine from 0 to 20% were used. Each formulation had 13 runs and was done in triplicate.
In building the model, a regression equation was established to describe the relationship between the response Y and variable X. A predictive model was generated for the two mixture components as follows: Y = β 1 X 1 + β 2 X 2 + β 12 X 1 X 2 Where: Y is the predicted response, β 1 and β 2 are linear coefficients, β 12 is the interaction coefficient and X 1 and X 2 are independent variables.

Lupines and tef flour preparation
The debittering process for the white lupine seeds consisted of cleaning, boiling and debittering as Figure 1. Extraneous material and immature and damaged seeds were removed first. The cleaned seeds were boiled in water (1:3 seeds: water (w/w)) for 50 min to destroy thermolabile antinutritional factors and to soften the seeds hull. The boiled lupine seeds were debittered with water at room temperature (~25 °C). The lupine seeds, during the debittering process, were soaked fully with debittering water and these steps were renewed subsequently in 12 hrs intervals for 144 hrs. Afterwards, the whole seed was de-hulled manually and the kernel was dried at 105 °C for 3 hrs in oven (Mustaf, 2010). Prior to the chemical analyses, the seeds were dried and milled into a fine powder by using disk attrition mill. Then sieved with sieve size of 750 μm and packed in polyethylene bags and store at 4 °C until required for analysis (Getachew, 2009).
The Australian sweet lupine flour was prepared by soaking in boiled water for only 5 minutes and dried in oven 105 °C then the sample was undergone de-hulling process simply by using local mill and milled by disk attrition miller.
Tef grains were manually cleaned and milled by disk attrition mill to fineness (750 μm) level. The flour was kept in air tight sealed plastic bag at room temperature for the duration of the analysis.

Preparation of composite flour
The flour composite blends containing tef and lupine were prepared using a formulation generated by mixture design. The dry materials were individually uniformly blended to homogenize, packed in tightly closed clean plastic container and stored at room temperature (25 ± 2°C) until used.

Preparation of fermented dough and baking of injera
All ingredients (composite flour + water + ersho (starter culture -from previous batch)) were added accurately and the fermentation of the dough were conducted by following the traditional tef dough preparation procedure as reported by Yoseph (2019) as indicated in Figure 2. From 26 injera (including three control samples made of 100% tef for both varieties of lupines) formulations were baked.

Proximate composition of dried injera
The composite Injera were analysed for crude protein, crude fat, crude fiber, moisture, crude ash, utilizable carbohydrate and gross energy contents following AACC (2000) methods. Fresh baked injera was dried for 24 hrs at 65°C in an oven and ground using a mortar and a pestle to pass through a 750 μm sieve. This sample was kept in a sealed plastic bag at refrigeration temperature (5 °C) and used for further analysis (Tewodros & Geremew, 2013).

Determination of mineral content
The mineral contents (Ca, Zn and Fe) of blended injera were measured by atomic absorption spectrophotometer (AAS) according to the method of Lamesgen et al. (2019). Standard stock solutions of iron, zinc and calcium were prepared.

Anti-nutritional factor determination
Alkaloid content was determined by weighing 5 g of the lupine flour and dispersed into 50 mL of 10% acetic acid solution in ethanol. The weight of the alkaloid was determined by weight difference of the filter paper and expressed as a percentage of the sample weight analysed (Herbourne, 1989). The phytic acid content of the raw materials and processed injera were determined by the method described by (Wheeler & Ferrel, 1971) using spectrophotometer at 822 nm. was used for the determination of condensed tannins using spectrophotometer at 450 nm.

Consumer Acceptability of Tef-lupine Based Injera
A total of 50 members (30 females and 20 males) were selected from the staffs, which include laboratory technicians and researchers. Injera made from the blend was evaluated for the sensory attributes after 2 hrs of injera was baked. The sensory attributes; texture, taste, colour, eye size, eye distribution, rollability, appearance, (i.e. eyes of injera and injera underneath appearance) and over all acceptability, was evaluated using a seven-point hedonic scale. Potable water was provided to rinse the mouth between evaluations and covered cups was also provided when panelists would not wish to swallow the samples (Olaoye et al., 2007).

Statistical analysis
Statistical analyses of data were conducted using SAS statistical software package. Comparisons between the varieties were done using one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with a probability of P ≤ 0.05. Design-Expert ® , version 7.0, Stat-Ease, (SaMeep104 Inc., Minneapolis, MN USA) were used to generate experimental test trials and to perform regression equations.

Proximate composition of tef and two lupine varieties flours
Proximate composition of tef and two lupine varieties flours used in this study are presented in Table 1

Moisture content
Significant (P < 0.05) differences were observed in moisture content which may due to the interactions of lupine varieties and blending ratios. The highest (66.97%) moisture content was observed in injeras from tef blended with 20% DLSF and the least moisture content of injera observed in each of 2.5% ASLF and DLSF. Because relatively the fibre content of raw ASLF was greater than that of DLSF variety since fibres have tendency to absorb water. As the blending ratio of lupine increased, moisture content of injera also increases (Table 1).

Crude protein content
The variety and blending ratio resulted to significant (P < 0.05) difference in crude protein contents of blended injera ( Table 2). The protein content of blend injera ranged from 11.78% to 18.84%. The highest crude protein content was recorded for 20% of DLSF variety blended with tef followed by 20% of ASLF blended with 80% tef. The lowest crude protein content was observed in blends of 2.5% ASLF. The lowest crude protein content was observed in the control tef injera. Protein content of injera sample was increased with an increased proportion of lupine flour, which could be due to the high amount of protein in both raw lupine flours. Similar results were obtained from substituting germinated cowpea flour, chickpea and broad bean flour to wheat flour in breads and cookies production (Abdu et al., 2012). The combination of grain and legume proteins could provide better overall essential amino acid balance. According to Abraha et al. (2013), most cereals contain low amount of protein, which is one of the reasons for malnutrition in most African countries. Blending cereals with high protein, low cost legumes like lupine may be recommended. The share of total proteins, tells us little about the coefficient of digestibility of proteins.

Crude fat content
Significant differences (p < 0.05) were observed in crude fat content of injera products ( Table 2). The crude fat content of injera blend ranged from 2.53 to 4.01%. The highest crude fat content obtained by blending of 20% DLSF followed by 20% ASLF. As the proportion of lupine ingredient increased, the crude fat content of injera increased. These results are in agreement with that mentioned by Siddiq (1999), who observed that the crude fat content of bread containing debittered lupine seed flour was higher than that of 100% wheat flour. Crude fat content in the control injera was lower than that of the tef-lupine injera products due to higher crude fat content in lupine with respect to the addition of tef. Values are in Mean ± SD on dry weight basis. Means within a column with the different letter are significantly different at P < 0.05. T. ash = total ash, C. = crude, DLSF = debittered lupine seed flour, ASLF = Australian sweet lupine flour

Total ash
The ash content indicates an estimate of the total mineral content in a given quantity of food substance (Mezgebo et al., 2018). The mean total ash content of the blended injeras was in the range of 2.05 to 1.77% (Table 2). In general, injera made from composite flours with high tef ratio showed a tendency of high total ash content. The highest ash content observed in 2.5% ASLF and lowest ash content obtained 20% DLSF.

Crude fiber content
The blending ratio and varieties had a significant effect (p < 0.05) on crude fiber content of the composite injera ( Table 2). The highest fiber content was observed in injera of tef blended with 20% ASLF and the lowest were in 2.5% the DLSF. The crude fiber of the baked tef injera varied from 2.83% to 3.16% according to Ashenafi (2006) who also reported that the crude fiber of injera made from tef and maize were 1.00 mg/100 g and 0.8 mg/100 g, respectively. Crude fiber content of injera showed an increasing trend with a parallel increase in the proportion of lupine flour. It could be attributed to the fact that raw lupine flours composition contains more fiber than tef flours (Table 1).

Utilizable carbohydrate content
The utilizable carbohydrate content of the blend injera ranged from 72.52 to 81.32%. The highest value was obtained from the control injera sample. The highest value next to the control injera was obtained when 2.5% ASLF, while the lowest value in 20% DLSF. This might be due to the fact that the carbohydrate content of the raw lupine flour was very much lower than tef flour sample. The observed utilizable carbohydrate value was within the limit of needed amount (above 57%) given by (WHO/FAO, 2010)

Gross energy
Gross energy content of blended injera also showed the effect of the interactions of lupine varieties and blending ratio factors and ranged in between 393.19 and 400.91 kcal/100 g ( Table 2). The highest gross energy values obtained when 20% DLSF was blended with tef and the lowest value was observed in 2.5% ASLF. Thus, all the energy contents in the blend injera appeared greater than the energy content of the control injera sample.

Predictive models for proximate composition of injera
The positive (+) sign in the equations means that the response value increased with increase of the variables, while the negative (-) sign means that the response value decreased with increase of the variables. The models, which are listed in Table 3, were used to predict the proximate composition (ash, moisture, crude fat, crude fiber, crude protein and utilizable carbohydrate) and gross energy contents of composite injeras prepared from tef with two lupine varieties. From the component mixtures tef produced the highest increase in ash and carbohydrate contents, but, lupine produced the highest increase in other parameters like moisture, crude protein, crude fiber, crude fat and gross energy for both lupine varieties blended injeras.
From the predictive model, DLSF showed slightly greater influence on the protein, moisture, fat and energy of the blended injera than ASLF, whereas ASLF showed higher coefficients for crude fiber, total ash and utilizable carbohydrate contents of blended injeras than DLSF. The estimated coefficients of linear terms showed a significant effect on all parameters at different p values for all blended injeras. The predicted formula has the coefficients showing the effects, which are estimates of the parameter. By substituting the value of the proportion of tef and lupine to the predicted formula, all the predicted parameters would be estimated.

Calcium, iron and zinc content
The effect of lupine varieties and blending ratios had significant (P < 0.05) effect on the mineral content of the blend injera (   recorded in injeras containing 2.5-5% of both DLSF and ASLF, while the lowest values (145.31 to 145.64 mg/100 g) were recorded in injera having 17.5 to 20% ASLF. This is due to the lower calcium content of both raw lupine seeds with respect to tef grain. The calcium content of injera appeared to decrease with increase the percentage of lupine due to the lower calcium content of this legume crop.
The iron content of the composite injera was highest for both ASLF and DSLF at 2.5% blending ratio, whereas the lowest value 12.26 to 12.30 mg/100 g were for 20% ASLF blend (Table 4). The iron contents of all the composite injeras were lower than those of the control. As the blending ratio of lupine increased, the iron content of injera decreased because the iron contents of lupines were lower than that of tef.
The zinc contents of the injera were also affected by the interaction of both lupine varieties and blending ratios. The highest zinc content was recorded at 20% of DLSF. The rest of the injera prepared from ASLF had lowest zinc contents with no statistical difference (P > 0.05) with values ranging from 2.41 to 2.39 mg/100 g. The condition with zinc has a different picture. Those samples blended with DLSF resulted in greater zinc content with increasing trend at higher blending ratio. Those samples blended with ASLF resulted in no change in zinc content as compared to the control sample, all having lowest percentage with no statistical difference among themselves and the control samples, too. Values are in Mean ± SD on dry weight basis. Means within a column with the different letter are significantly different at P < 0.05.

Predictive Models for Mineral Content of Tef-lupine Injera
The models which are shown below in Table 5 were used to predict the mineral (iron, calcium and zinc) contents of composite injeras from tef with two lupine varieties. Analysis of data with Design Expert showed that the linear model was significant (P < 0.0002) in predicting the total iron content of the blended injeras produced. As observed from the predictive model tef shows the highest coefficient of values in total iron and calcium content of composite injera than lupines but not in zinc content, since the coefficients are estimates of the effects. When we compared the coefficients values of the two lupines effects on the mineral content of blended injeras DLSF scores the higher values than that of ASLF.
The formula is useful to predict the response fiber content by substituting the proportion of the components (tef and lupine). In this finding, the iron content of DLSF and ASLF blended injera, the result indicates that addition of more lupine (15%) and tef (85%) flour for both varieties were found to predict the value (13.59 mg/100 g) and (13.68 mg/100 g) which is near to the actual value (13.55 mg/100 g) and (13.65 mg/100 g), respectively.

Phytic acid and condensed tannin content
The anti-nutritional contents of tef-lupine-blended injeras made from two lupine varieties are summarized in Table 6. The condensed tannin was significantly (P < 0.05) affected by the interaction of two lupine varieties and blending ratios. The condensed tannin content of the control injera was 12.12 mg/100 g. This may also be due to the heat labile nature of tannin and its thermal degradation during baking. The use of the processing method such as baking is known to reduce some anti-nutritional factors (Bhandari & Kawabata, 2006). According to Woldemariam et al. (2019) processing of cereals depletes their tannin content.
The interaction of varieties and blending ratios had significant effect (P < 0.05) on phytic acid content of tef-lupine injeras Table 6. The highest value of phytic acid content in the composite injera was obtained from tef blend with 2.5% ASLF and DLSF. The lowest value observed in 20% ASLF blended with tef. The phytic acid content of the blends had lower values than the corresponding control. This is due to relatively very lower content of phytic acid in the lupine varieties with respect to tef. Studies on the spontaneous fermentation of tef dough showed different magnitudes of phytic acid degradation in the range of 42-80% (Abebe et al., 2007;Fischer et al., 2014). Fermentation process has capacity to reduce phytic acid in the preparation of tef injera (Fischer et al., 2014).

Predictive Models for Anti-nutritional Content of Tef-lupine Injera
The models which are listed in Table 7 were used to predict the anti-nutritional factors contents (tannin and phytic acid) of blended injeras of tef with lupines. Analysis of data with Design Expert showed that the linear model was significant (P < 0.0001) in predicting the tannin and phytic acid content of the injera produced for both lupine varieties with tef. From the equation, it was observed that tef produced the highest coefficient values in both condensed tannin and phytic acid content of blended injeras. The influences of lupines in the anti-nutrient content of blended injeras were very low as observed from the predictive model.
The predicted value was found by substituting the proportion of the parameters (tef and lupine). For instance, predicted tannin contents 10.85 mg/100 g and 10.84 mg/100 g were obtained by blending of 10% DLSF and ASLF, respectively, which were close related with the true value 10.84 mg/ 100 g and 10.82 mg/100 g, respectively. The result showed that the actual tannin content obtained from the experiment was approximately equal to the predicted value with a small residual value. This indicates that the data was good enough to describe the model.

Interaction effect of lupine variety and blending ratio on sensory acceptability of Tef-lupine blended injera
The interaction effect of varieties and blending ratios on sensory acceptability is represented by the data shown in Table 8. Colour was not significantly (P > 0.05) affected by interaction of lupine varieties and blending ratios. The scores of injeras of all combinations of the blending ratio and the two lupine varieties varied between 5.36 and 6.18 with no significant difference among them. The interaction effects of the two factors on sensory acceptability of texture of injeras showed that significant differences (P < 0.05) existed among the samples. Injeras of up to 10% lupine blends did not show significant difference irrespective of variety, and the majority of the scores were between 5.45 and 6.05 in 7 hedonic scale.
The same trend prevailed for sensory acceptability score for sensory attribute taste. Injeras of up to 10% lupine blends received scores between 5.59 and 6.14 with no significant difference among them. Injeras with more than 10% lupine received lower acceptability scores down to 4.41. As the percentage of lupine increased up to 20% the scores reduced progressively to the indicated level for both lupine varieties. The interaction effect of blending ratio and lupine varieties on the rollability of injeras showed that significant difference (P < 0.05) exists among the samples. The rollability sores of injeras blended up to 10% lupine score between 6.09 up to 5.64 with no significant difference among them for both varieties but DLSF variety blend extends its Values are in Mean ± SD on dry weight basis. Means within a column with the different letter are significantly different at P < 0.05. C. Tannins = condensed tannin acceptability score up to 17.5% with no significant difference with 10% of ASLF. So DLSF was a good rollability with greater blending ratio than ASLF.
The interaction effect of lupine varieties and blending ratios on eye size of injera showed that significant differences (P < 0.05) existed among the samples. The sensory acceptability for the attribute eye size of injera of up to 10% lupine blends received scores between 5.77 and 6.08 with no significant statistical difference among them. Injera with more than 10% lupine blend received lower acceptability scores decreased up to 3.23. As the percentage of lupine increasing, the scores for eye size of injera decreased in each lupine variety. The interaction effect of lupine varieties and blending proportions on eye distribution of injeras showed that significant differences (P < 0.05) existed among the samples. The sensory acceptability score for the eye distribution injera with up to 10% of DLSF between 5.59 and 6.14 with no significant difference, whereas for ASLF variety blends with up to 10% was ranged between 5.68 and 6.05 without statistical difference among them.
The interaction of the two factors on the number of injera eyes of injeras showed that significant differences (P < 0.05) existed among the samples. Injera of up to 10% lupine blends did not show significant difference irrespective of variety, and the majority of the scores were between 6.03 and 6.25 in 7 hedonic scales. Injeras of up to 17.5% of both lupines varieties had sensory acceptability of numbers of eyes with scores above 5 in 7 hedonic scales even if they were statically different. Regarding the acceptability of the top and bottom surface of injera scores were significantly (P < 0.05) affected by both lupine varieties and blending ratios. Injeras of up to 10% lupine blends did not show significant difference irrespective of variety, and the majority of the scores were between 5.59 and 6.17 in 7-point hedonic scale.
Finally, the overall acceptability of blended injeras was significantly (P < 0.05) affected by varieties and blending ratio interactions. The scores given to overall acceptability showed that injeras with up to 10% lupine received the scores of 5.81 and 6.17 for varieties of DLSF and ASLF, respectively. The lowest scores were 4.20 and 4.45 for 20% lupine mix with DLSF and ASLF variety, respectively. The result showed that increasing lupine proportion lowered the overall acceptability of the injeras. All the scores indicated that all tef injeras mixed with lupine up to 15% received above 5 (like slightly) scores level of acceptability in 7-point hedonic scale.  Values are in Mean ± SD on dry weight basis. Means within a column with the different letter are significantly different at p < 0.05OAA = overall acceptability, Eye distri = eye distribution and T and B = top and bottom surface

Conclusion
The current study showed that there was the possibility of blending of lupine with tef flour for the production of tef-lupine injera and it indicated that varieties and blending ratios had significant influence on proximate composition, minerals, anti-nutritional factors content and sensory acceptability of injera. Generally, this study demonstrated the potential of incorporating lupine flour into sour bread injera up to some proportion; with good nutritional quality especially the protein content of injera were improved. Iron and calcium were significantly decreased with an increasing proportion of tef for all varieties of lupine. The anti-nutritional factors (condensed tannin and phytic acids) were decreased as the proportion of both lupines increased. Tef injeras produced by mixing with up to 15% lupine were found acceptable by consumers having scores of greater than 5 in in a scale of 7 points. Generally above 15% lupine addition the overall acceptability of injera were decreased. This could have significant implications for improving consumption of nutritionally acceptable injera from underutilized legumes like lupine.