Effect of feeding complementary diet blends formulated from | 16414
International Research Journals
Reach Us +44-7897-074717

African Journal of Food Science and Technology

All submissions of the EM system will be redirected to Online Manuscript Submission System. Authors are requested to submit articles directly to Online Manuscript Submission System of respective journal.

Effect of feeding complementary diet blends formulated from Zeamaysl. (maize),Vigna unguiculatal.Walp(cowpea),Voandzeiasubterranean (l.) verdc(bambaranut) and Arachishypogeal. (groundnut) on weaning rats


Bintu BP, Falmata AS, Maryam BK, Zainab MA and Modu S

Cereal / legume complementary weaning food blends were formulated from yellow maize, cowpea, bambaranut and groundnut to enhance their protein quality.Yellow maize was fermented to produce “Akamu”, cowpea, bambaranut and groundnut were roasted. The weaning food blends were formulated as follows: MCBG: 60 (g) yellow maize: 20(g) cowpea: 10(g) bambaranut: 10(g) groundnut, MCB; 60(g) yellow maize: 20(g) cowpea: 20(g) bambaranut, MCG: 60(g) yellow maize: 20(g) bambaranut: 20(g) groundnut and MBG: 60(g) yellow maize: 20(g) bambaranut : 20(g) groundnut. The yellow maize (Improved variety), cowpea, bambara nut and groundnut were obtained from Lake Chad Research Institute (LCRI) Maiduguri. Protein quality was evaluated by animal feeding experiment using 50 Weanling albino rats of approximately 21 days weighing 35 – 40kg, commercial weaning food Cerelac® was used as control. Data obtained were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Duncan’s multiple range test was used to separate the means. The lysine and methionine content of the MCBG met the RDA of infant 0–1 year,while that of MCB and MCG were close to the RDA of infants 0-1year and MBG was below the RDA. Food intake protein intake and weight gain of MCBG was almost close to the commercial weaning food Cerelac® and higher than that of MCB, MCG and MBG. The Protein Efficiency Ratio (PER)of MCBG (2.22±0.01),MCB (2.99±0.02), MCG(2.72±0.02) ,MBG (2.29± 0.28) and Cerelac® (2.37±0.02) did not show any significant (p>0.05) difference while the FE of MCBG (0.23±0.01) and cerelac® (0.26±0.01) did not show any significant difference. The FE of MCB (0.16±0.01), MCG (0.12±0.02) and MBG (0.08±0.01) were lower thanMCBG and not comparable to Cereal®. True protein digestibility (TPD) of MCBG (79.9±0.01) was lower compared to that of Cerelac® (92.18±0.02) and higher than MCB (67.70±0.06), MCG (59.60±0.01) and MBG (57.01±0.03). The Biological value (BV) of MCBG (75.50±0.02%) was significantly lower than Cerelac®(82.20±0.03%). The Biological BV of MCB (63.20±0.08), MCG (56.72±0.06) and MBG (54.10±0.02%) were significantly (p<0.05) lower than MCBG and not comparable to Cerelac®. The net protein utilization NPU of MCB (75.00±0.06%), MCG (71.80±0.03%) and MBG (69.50±0.19%) and MCBG (85.80±0.01%) were lower than that of Cerelac®. It can be concluded that MCBG has adequate protein quality and can be used infant food particularly for under privileged children.

Share this article