Article citationsMore >>

Dixit, A.K., J.I.K. Antony, K. Navin, N.K. Sharma, K. Rakesh, and R.K. Tiwari (2011). Soybean Constituents and their Functional Benefits. In Opportunity, Challenge, and Scope of Natural Products in Medicinal Chemistry, ed. V. Tiwari and B. Mishra. Kerala, India: Research Signpost.

has been cited by the following article:

Article

Nutritional Evaluation and Consumer Preference of Legume Fortified Maize-meal Porridge

1International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, PMB 5320, Oyo Road, Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria


Journal of Food and Nutrition Research. 2016, Vol. 4 No. 10, 664-670
DOI: 10.12691/jfnr-4-10-6
Copyright © 2016 Science and Education Publishing

Cite this paper:
Alamu Emmanuel Oladeji, Maziya-Dixon Bussie, Popoola Ibironke, Gondwe Therese, Chikoye David. Nutritional Evaluation and Consumer Preference of Legume Fortified Maize-meal Porridge. Journal of Food and Nutrition Research. 2016; 4(10):664-670. doi: 10.12691/jfnr-4-10-6.

Correspondence to: Maziya-Dixon  Bussie, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, PMB 5320, Oyo Road, Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria. Email: b.dixon@cgiar.org

Abstract

Maize-meal porridge is commonly consumed meal for the adults as breakfast food and for the children as complementary food. Food-to-food fortification was employed in order to improve the protein content of maize-meal porridge using soy flour and local groundnut paste. The study was aimed at evaluating the nutritional properties and consumer preference of the attributes of the unfortified porridge, legume-fortified porridge, and powdered milk-fortified porridge. The influence of consumers’ knowledge of the type of fortificant added to the porridge was also investigated. Soy-fortified porridges provide comparable ash, crude fibre and fat contents to powdered milk- fortified porridge but with higher protein than powdered milk-fortified porridge. Soy flour raised the protein and ash content of the porridge by 90% and 63% respectively, the groundnut paste raised the protein and ash content by 88% and 41% and the powdered milk by 87% and 65% respectively. The unfortified porridge was the least preferred while the milk-fortified porridge was the most preferred. There was no significant difference between preference for some of the attributes of the groundnut paste fortified-porridge and the soy flour-fortified. There was no significant difference between consumption intent for the soy flour and groundnut paste -fortified porridge. Soy-fortified porridges provide comparable ash, crude fibre and fat contents to powdered milk- fortified porridge but with higher protein than powdered milk-fortified porridge. Soy-flour has shown to be a good substitute for powdered milk as a protein-fortificant for porridge and soy-fortified porridge could be a possible means of alleviating Protein-energy malnutrition among low income populations.

Keywords