Wissenschaftliche Kurzberichte/Short Communications

[3] HAQUE, M., and C. H. CHAKARABRTI, Recent Advances in Nu-

[4] HIGUCHI, M., S. OSHIMA and s. SuzuKI, Jpn. J. Nutr. 36

[5] SUZUKI, S., and S. OSHIMA, Mushroom Sci. 9 (1976) 463. [6] FOLCH, J., M. LEES and G . H. SLOANE-STANLEY, J. Biol. Chem.

[7] ABELL, L. L., B. B. LEVY, B. B. BRODIE and F. M. KENDAL, J.

[S] HERMAN, S., A. D. SEDIAOETAMA, D. KARYADI and A. C. BEY-

Correspondence to: A. H. M. TERPSTRA, Ph. D., Department of Laboratory Animal Science, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, P. 0. Box 80166, NL-8512 TD Utrecht, The Netherlands

Received 25 June 1996

triology 2 (1990) 143.

(1978) 119.

226 (1957) 497.

Biol. Chem. 195 (1952) 357.

NEN, J. Nutr. 121 (1991) 622,

Development , acce p ta bi I i ty and n u t r i t iona I eva I uat i on of home made supplements for school children

S. Chahal and S. Sehgal

Introduction

The nutritional needs of school children are unique and demand special attention. Malnutrition during the critical period of early growth leads not only to stunting of physical growth but also to suboptimal intellectual development [ 11. Proper use of available indigenous nutrient rich food resources is an important step in combating malnutrition. Nutritional recipes based on inexpensive local foods, involving minimal processing have been developed by various workers [2]. Groundnut has been recognised as a rich source of protein and energy at low cost for development of such recipes [3].

Keeping these facts in view, three supplements using locally available food ingredients were developed. They were evaluated for their nutritional characteristics and acceptability.

Materials and methods

All the ingredients (Table 1) were procured from the local mar- ket in a single lot and cleaned as required.

The supplementary foods (each with three different levels of groundnut incorporation) were developed in the laboratory follow- ing simple home scale processing methods.

Preparation method

Nutties. Prepare bengal gram flour batter. Add roasted and coarsely grinded nuts and spices. Mix thoroughly and pour into hot ghee through a sieve. Remove when golden brown.

Acceptability test

All the developed supplements were subjected to sensory eva- luation by a ten member trained panel by using hedonic scale rat- ing of 9 = like extremely to I = dislike extremely.

Chemical analysis

For each of the three recipes that level of groundnut incorpora- tion was selected, which was organoleptically ranked as best and was analysed for moisture, total nitrogen, fat, ash, minerals (cal- cium, iron, zinc, copper and phosphorus) and antinutrients (poly- phenols, saponin and phytic acid) employing the standard methods [4-lo]. A factor of 6.25 was applied to convert nitrogen into crude protein.

Statistical analysis

The data were processed for the analysis of variance according to the standard methods of statistical analysis [l 11.

Gmundnut Chikki and Ti1 groundnut Chikki. Roast groundnut ker- nels. Remov skin and crush them into big pieces. Prepare jaggery syrup of thick consistency. Add a pinch of baking powder and remove from fire. Add nuts and mix well. Pour into a greased plate and spread evenly. On cooling cut it into pieces. In case of Ti1 groundnut Chikki, roasted Ti1 (Sesamum indicum) were also added along with groundnuts.

D e P m e n t of Foods and Nutrition, ccs HWana Agricultural University, Hisar, India

Results and discussion

Organoleptic evaluation

In groundnut Chikki, proportion I and I1 were significantly (p < 0.05) more acceptable than proportion 111 (Table 2). On the whole, overall acceptability score ranged from ‘like moderately’ to ‘like extremely’. Proportion I was selected for further analysis. All

Nahrung 40 (1996) Nr. 6, S. 345-347 345

Wissenschaftliche Kurzberichte/Short Communications

Table 1. Ingredients of the developed supplements

Supplement Ingredients [g]

Groundnut kernels Sesame seeds Bengal gram flour Jaggery Fat

Groundnut Chikki I Groundnut Chikki I1 Groundnut Chikki 111

Nutties I Nutties I1 Nutties 111

100 - 80 - 60 -

100 - 80 60 -

-

Ti1 Groundnut Chikki I 50 50 TiE Groundnut Chikki I1 40 40 Ti1 Groundnut Chikki 111 30 30

Table 2. Organoleptic acceptability of developed groundnut supplements

100 100 100

100 100 100

100 100 100

5 5 5

85 90 90

5 5 5

Recipe Colour Appearance Flavour Texture Taste Overall acceptability

Groundnut Chikki I* 8.3 f 0.10 8.3 f 0.12 8.4 f 0.12 8.3 f 0.12 8.3 f 0.12 8.3 f 0.15 I1 8.3 f 0.12 8.4 f 0.12 8.4 f 0.12 8.2 f 0.13 8.4 f 0.13 8.2 f 0.13 111 7.6 f 0.12 7.8 f 0.09 7.8 f 0.07 7.8 f 0.09 7.7 f 0.12 7.8 f 0.13

Nutties I 6.7 f 0.09 6.7 f 0.67 6.8 f 0.10 6.8 f 0.11 6.8 f 0.1 1 6.7 f 0.14 I1 7.0 f 0.09 6.9 f 0.05 6.9 f 0.07 6.8 f 0.1 1 6.9 f 0.10 6.8 f 0.13 m* 6.8 f 0.05 6.8 f 0.07 6.8 f 0.08 6.9 f 0.07 6.9 f 0.07 6.9 f 0.07

Ti1 Groundnut Chikki I* 7.8 f 0.06 7.8 f 0.06 7.8 f 0.06 8.0 f 0.08 8.0 f 0.06 7.7 f 0.04 I1 7.8 f 0.06 7.8 f 0.05 7.8 f 0.05 7.6 f 0.07 7.2 f 0.06 7.1 f 0.05 111 7.5 f 0.06 7.5 f 0.06 7.4 f 0.06 6.2 f 0.05 6.0 f 0.07 5.8 f 0.06

S. E. M. 0.11 0.11 0.1 1 0.1 1 0.12 0.13 C. D. (p < 0.05) 0.30 0.3 1 0.30 0.32 0.33 0.36

Values are means fS .E . of 10 panelists * Indicates organoleptically best level of incorporation of groundnut

Table 3. Chemical composition of developed supplements (on dry matter basis)

Supplement Moisture Fat Ash Protein Energy * ["/.I [%I [%I [%I [kJ/lOO g]

Groundnut Chikki I 4.05 f 0.05 24.0 f 0.02 3.76 f 0.01 15.3 f 0.01 2319 Nutties III 2.24 f 0.01 52.8 f 0.02 3.00 f 0.01 18.6 f 0.01 2968 Ti1 groundnut Chikki I 7.39 f 0.02 28.6 f 0.01 4.60 f 0.01 13.3 f 0.02 2252

S.E.M. 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.001 C.D. (P < 0.05) 0.003 0.006 0.002 0.004

Values are mean fS .E . of six independent determinations * Values calculated from Food composition Table (GOPALAN et al. [13])

Table 4. Mineral and antinutritional content of developed supplements ([mg, 100 g] on dry matter basis)

Supplement Calcium Zinc Copper Iron Phosphorus Polyphenol Phytic acid Saponin

Groundnut Chikki 62.1 f 0.44 2.10 & 0.00 0.47 f 0.02 4.33 f 0.06 322 f 5.2 1210 f 4.2 547 f 3.3 2250 f 7.2 Nutties 38.7 f 0.33 1.88 f 0.02 0.95 f 0.00 4.43 f 0.06 404 f 2.6 974 f 2.6 350 f 5.8 2373 f 0.8 Ti1 groundnut Chikki 293.1 f 0.60 2.90 f 0.03 0.93 f 0.02 6.13 f 0.07 407 f 3.3 1161 f 3.9 337 f 3.3 2241 f 4.5

S.E.M. 0.49 0.02 0.01 0.05 3 .OO 4.42 4.7 I 10.7 C.D. (P < 0.05) 1.43 0.06 0.04 0.15 8.84 13.0 13.9 31.5

Values are mean fS.E. of six independent determinations

346 Nahrung 40 (1996) Nr. 6, S. 345-347

Wissenschaftliche Kurzberichte/Short Communications

three proportions of Nutties were similarly acceptable. Proportion LII was selected for further analysis as this proportion provided adequate protein and energy at cost lower than other two propor- tions. Significant differences were observed in some of the organo- leptic characteristics of all the three proportions of Ti1 groundnut Chikki. Proportion I was selected for further analysis because of its higher scores for texture, taste and overall acceptability.

Nutritional evaluation

The moisture, fat, ash and protein content of three supplements varied from 2.2 to 7.4g, 24.0 to 52.8g, 3.0 to 4.6g and 13.3 to 18.6 g per 100 g, respectively (Table 3). Nutties provided maxi- mum protein and energy while Ti2 groundnut Chikki provided the minimum of both nutrients.

The calcium, zinc, copper, iron and phosphorus content ranged from 38.7-293 mg, 1.9-2.9 mg, O.S-l.Omg, 4.3-6.1 mg and 322-407 mg per 100 g (Table 4). Ti1 groundnut Chikki had a high- er content of most of minerals which may be due to presence of Ti1 which is a good source of minerals. Polyphenol content of the supplements ranged from 0.97-1.21 g, phytic acid ranged from 0.35-0.55 g and saponin from 2.24-2.37 g per 100 g.

LINA and REDDY [12] developed mixtures of food, the daily supplement of which provided 6-7 g protein and 1260-1360 kJ of energy.

Conclusion

The developed supplements were found to be acceptable to ex- perts. It is suggested that two servings daily of 100-120 g of any of the supplements may be fed to school children to meet their nutritional requirements. These supplements can be prepared easily at home and feeding of such indigenously developed supplements if adopted, could be instrumental in raising the nutritional status of children of the developing nations.

References

UPADHYAY, S. K, K. N. AGARWAL and D. K. AGARWAL, In- dian J. Med. Res. 90 (1989) 320-327. KAUR, M., and U. MEHTA, J. Food Sci. Technol. 30 (1993) 454-456. BHAT, N., and K. PADMA, Indian J. Nutr. Dietet. 23 (1986) 200. AOAC, Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Association of Official Agricul- tural Chemists. Washington, DC, 1990. LINDSEY, W. L., and M. A. NORWELL, Agron. Abst. 61 (1969) 84. CHEN, P. S., T. TOSIBARA and H. WARNER, Anal. Chem. 28

SINGH, V., and R. JAMBUNATHAN, J. Food Sci. 46 (1987)

SWAIN, J., and W. E. HILLS, J. Sci. Food Agric. 10 (1959)

GESTETNER, B., Y. BERK, A. BOND] and Y. TWCER, Phyto- chem. 5 (1966) 803-806. HAUG, W., and H. J. LANTZSCH, J. Sci. Food Agric. 34 (1983)

SNEDECOR, G. W., and W. G. COCHRAN, Statistical Methods. Oxford and IBH Publishing Co., New Delhi 1973. LINA, S., and P. R. REDDY, Indian J. Nutr. Dietet. 21 (1984)

GOPALAN, C., B. V. RAMA SASTRI and S. C. BALSUBRAMA- NIAN, Nutritive Value of Indian Foods, National Institute of Nutrition, Hyderabad, India, 199 1.

(1956) 1756- 1759.

1364- 1367.

63-68.

1423-1426.

241 -25 1.

Correspondence to : Dr. S. SEHGAL, Assoc. Prof. and Head, Department of Foods and Nutrition, IC College of Home Science, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar-125 004, India

Received 5 June 1996 Revised manuscript received 16 August 1996

Nahrung 40 (1996) Nr. 6, S. 345-347 347