RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ON COWPEA BISCUITS | Oiet_facts
Oiet_facts

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ON COWPEA BISCUITS

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
In the present study two kinds of biscuits- refined wheat flour biscuit and cowpea biscuit were formulated to provide equal amount of calories i.e. 500 Kcal. The nutrient composition, sensory qualities and cost of refined wheat flour and cowpea biscuits were analyzed. An intervention trial was conducted to see the effect of cowpea biscuits on nutritional status of preschool children.The results obtained are presented and discussed under the following heads and subheads: 4.1 Formulation of biscuitsCowpea flour was prepared in flour mill from cowpea seeds wherein approximately 4.7 Kg flour was recovered from 5 Kg cowpea kernel/grains. Refined wheat flour and other ingredients viz. vegetable oil (Dalda), castor sugar, eggs, baking powder and vanilla essence were procured from local market of Pantnagar.It was found that 100g of each of cowpea biscuits prepared with 70 per cent cowpea flour incorporation and refined wheat flour biscuits provided 500 Kcal energy and therefore selected for the supplementation of pre-school children.4.2 Sensory quality evaluation of cowpea biscuits vs. refined wheat flour biscuits The results of sensory quality evaluation of cowpea biscuits was done against refined wheat flour biscuits for their acceptability are presented in Table 4.1. 4.2.1 Colour The data obtained in the sensory evaluation of the cowpea and refined wheat biscuits revealed that the mean score for the colour of the refined wheat flour biscuit was high i.e. 4.2 as compared to cowpea biscuits i.e. 3.47. The colour of biscuit changed from creamy to light brown on addition of cowpea flour in refined wheat flour with a decrease trend in mean score from 4.2 to 3.47. The darker colour of cowpea biscuit may be due to Maillard reaction between reducing sugar and protein. There was non-significant difference in the colour of both the biscuits. 4.2.2 AppearanceThe data obtained in the sensory evaluation of the biscuits revealed that the mean score for the appearance of the refined wheat flour biscuits was high i.e. 4 that of cowpea biscuit was 3.67. There was non-significant difference in the appearance of both the biscuits. The High mean value of refined wheat flour biscuits shows that on addition of cowpea flour it comes out with a slightly rough texture that of refined wheat flour biscuits.4.2.3 FlavourThe data obtained in the sensory evaluation of the biscuits revealed that the mean score for the flavour of the refined wheat flour biscuits was high i.e. 4.2 that of cowpea biscuit was 3.6. There was non- significant difference in the mean score of both the biscuits. Cowpea biscuit received less score which could be due to the beany flavour of cowpea.4.2.4 Taste Taste is the primary factor which determines the acceptability of any product, which has the highest impact as far as market success of product, is concerned. The data obtained in the sensory evaluation of the biscuits revealed that the mean score for the taste of the refined wheat flour biscuits was high i.e. 4.4 that of cowpea biscuit was 3.53. There was non-significant difference in the taste of both the biscuits.4.2.5 TextureThe texture of the crust was related to the external appearance of the biscuit top which implies smoothness or roughness of the crust. The data obtained in the sensory evaluation of the biscuits revealed that the mean score for the texture of the refined wheat flour biscuits was high i.e. 4.40 that of cowpea biscuit was 3.53. There was non-significant difference in the texture of both the biscuits.4.2.6 AftertasteThe data obtained in the sensory evaluation of the biscuits revealed that the mean score for the aftertaste of the refined wheat flour biscuits was high i.e. 4.47 that of cowpea biscuit was 3.13. There was non-significant difference in the aftertaste of both the biscuits.4.2.7 Overall acceptabilityOverall acceptability includes many implications, which is the important parameter in sensory evaluation. The data obtained in the sensory evaluation of the biscuits revealed that the mean score for the overall acceptability of the refined wheat flour biscuits was high i.e. 4.33 that of cowpea biscuit was 3.73. There was non-significant difference in the overall acceptability of both the biscuits.Table 4.1: Sensory attributes of cowpea and refined wheat flour biscuits (n=15)
Biscuits Colour Appearance Flavour Taste Texture Aftertaste Overall acceptability   Cowpea biscuit 3.47 3.67 3.60 3.53 3.53 3.13 3.73   Refined Wheat Flour biscuit 4.20 4.00 4.20 4.40 4.40 4.47 4.33   LSD 1.34ns ns 1.60ns 1.61ns 1.07ns 2.12ns 1.26ns  LSD= Least Significant Difference4.3 Nutrient analysis of cowpea and refined wheat flour biscuits
The cowpea biscuit selected for intervention trial along with refined wheat flour biscuits were subjected to chemical analysis for proximate principles and minerals namely iron and zinc. Results on chemical composition of both the biscuits have been presented in Table 4.2 (a) and (b) on as is basis as well as on dry weight basis, respectively.4.3.1 MoistureThe moisture content of any food stuff determines its nutrient density. Higher the moisture content lower will be the nutrient density and vice-versa. The significantly higher moisture content (4.5 per cent) was observed in refined wheat flour biscuit as compared to cowpea biscuit (3.2 per cent). Results show that cowpea biscuit are more nutrient dense as compared to refined wheat flour biscuit. 4.3.2 Total ashOn as is basis, cowpea biscuits (1.3 per cent) and refined wheat flour (0.6 per cent) differed significantly with respect to ash content.Similarly, on dry weight basis ash content of cowpea biscuit and refined wheat flour biscuit was found to be 1.3 and 0.7 per cent, respectively. Replacing refined wheat flour with cowpea flour results in increase in the mineral content of the product.4.3.3 Crude proteinOn as is basis, cowpea biscuits (15.2 per cent) and refined wheat flour (12.2 per cent) differed significantly with respect to crude protein content.Similarly, on dry weight basis protein content of cowpea and refined wheat flour biscuit was observed as 15.7 and 12.8 per cent, respectively. Replacing refined wheat flour with cowpea flour makes it a potentially useful protein supplement.4.3.4 Crude fat  The crude fat content of cowpea biscuit was found to be 24.4 per cent, whereas that of refined wheat flour biscuit was found to be 24.8 per cent on as is basis with non-significant difference. Similarly, the crude fat content of cowpea and refined wheat flour biscuit was obtained as 25.2 and 26 per cent on dry weight basis and it differed significantly with respect to crude fat content. 4.3.6 Crude fibre The crude fibre content of cowpea biscuit was found to be 4.4 per cent, whereas that of refined wheat flour biscuit was found to be 1.5 per cent on as is basis and it differed significantly with respect to crude fibre content. On dry weight basis, the crude fibre content of cowpea and refined wheat flour was obtained as 4.5 and 1.6 per cent. The higher content of fibre in cowpea biscuit may be due to the utilization of whole cowpea in formulation of biscuits.4.3.7 Carbohydrate by differenceOn as is basis, cowpea biscuit (66.8 per cent) and refined wheat flour biscuit (68.5 per cent) differed significantly with respect to carbohydrate content. Similarly, on dry weight basis the carbohydrate content of cowpea and refined wheat flour biscuit were 69 and 72 per cent respectively. 4.3.8 Physiological energyOn as is basis, the energy content of cowpea biscuit (547 per cent) and refined wheat flour biscuit (546 per cent) differed non-significantly. Similarly, on dry weight basis the energy content of cowpea and refined wheat flour biscuit was 565 and 572 Kcal per 100 g, respectively and differed significantly with respect to energy content.4.3.9 Iron The iron content of cowpea biscuit was observed as 4.3 mg per 100 g, whereas that of refined wheat flour biscuit was found to be 3.1 mg per 100 g on as is basis. Iron content differed non-significantly in both the biscuits. Similarly, the iron content of cowpea and refined wheat flour biscuits were 4.4 and 3.2 mg per 100g, respectively on dry weight basis. 4.3.10   Zinc The zinc content of cowpea biscuit was found to be 3.1 mg per 100 g, whereas that of refined wheat flour biscuit was found to be 0.1 mg per 100 g on as is basis with significant difference (p<0.05).Similarly, the zinc content of cowpea and refined wheat flour biscuits were 3.2 and 0.1 mg per 100g, respectively on dry weight basis. Results of nutritional composition analysis [Table 4.2 (b)] revealed that both the biscuits cowpea as well as refined wheat flour biscuits supply more than one third of the RDA of protein and energy for children in the age group of 3-5 years.Table 4.2(a): Proximate composition of cowpea and refined wheat flour biscuit on as is basis (n=3)
Components Cowpea Biscuit Refined Wheat Flour Biscuit ‘t’ value   Moisture (g%) 3.2±0.2 4.5±0.1 8.7*   Ash (g%) 1.3±0.0 0.6±0.1 24.6*   Crude protein (g%) 15.2±0.1 12.2±0.5 9.8*   Crude fat (g%) 24.4±0.2 24.8±0.3 2.7ns   Crude fibre (g%) 4.4±0.2 1.5±0.1 21*   Carbohydrate by difference (g%) 66.8±0.4 68.5±0.1 7.1*   Physiological Energy  (Kcal/100g) 547±2.7 546±3.8 0.2ns   Iron (mg/100g) 4.3 ±0.3 3.1±0.1 4.9ns   Zinc (mg/100g) 3.1 ±0.2 0.1±0.1 26.4*            *significant at 5%,   ns = non significant         Mean ± S.D.        The values are mean of triplicate estimations/observationsTable 4.2(b): Proximate composition of cowpea and refined wheat flour biscuit on dry weight basis (n=3)
Components Cowpea Biscuit Refined Wheat Flour Biscuit RDA ‘t’ value   Ash (g%) 1.3±0.0 0.7±0.1 – 24.7*   Crude protein (g%) 15.7±0.1(52.33-71.36) 12.8±0.5(42.67-58.18) 22- 30 9.7*   Crude fat (g%) 25.2±0.2(100+) 26±0.3(100+) #25 4.7*   Crude fibre (g%) 4.5±0.2 1.6±0.1 – 19.2*   Carbohydrate by difference (g%) 69±0.40 72±0.2 – 13.9*   Physiological Energy  (Kcal/100g) 565±2.8(33.43-45.56) 572±3.9(33.85-46.13) 1240-1690 3.4*   Iron (mg/100g) 4.4 ±0.3(24.44-36.67) 3.2±0.1(17.78-26.67) 12-18 4.6ns   Zinc (mg/100g) 3.2 ±0.2 0.1±0.1 – 27.3*  *significant at 5%,   ns = non significant# RDA for Visible fatMean ± S.D.The values are mean of triplicate estimationsValues in parentheses represent percentage of RDA for 3-5 years children (ICMR, 1990)
4.4 Cost of the formulated biscuits The cost of formulated biscuits is presented in table 4.3. The cost of biscuits includes cost of raw materials as well as cost of electricity, labour, water and packaging, which was Rs. 22.50/ kg of biscuits produced in our case. Cowpea biscuit was found to be costlier as compared to the refined wheat flour biscuit. However, cost of cowpea biscuit can be decreased if the scale of production is raised. Results of the cost of biscuits should be seen in the light of the fact that cost of food product inversely proportional to the scale of production.Table 4.3: Cost of the cowpea and refined wheat flour biscuits (per 100 g)
Biscuits Cost (Rs.) per 100 g   Cowpea biscuits 7.35   Refined wheat flour biscuits 5.74
4.5 Effect of supplementation of cowpea biscuits on preschool children in randomized control trial
4.5.1 Background information of the childrenOut of total 86 children falling in the age group of 3-5 years, 60 children (69.76 per cent) were found to be malnourished according to weight for age classification (Gomez classification- Appendix- II). Out of these 60 children selected as subjects for the study, 20 children were randomly selected to form each of experimental group, control- I and control- II groups, respectively. Dropout rate of 20 per cent was observed in each group, resulting in 16 children remaining in each group throughout the supplementation period. Experimental group were supplemented with cowpea biscuits, control- II supplemented with refined wheat flour biscuits and no supplementation was given to control- I group for the duration of three months period (Figure 4.1).

 

Random distribution

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4.1: Experimental Design4.5.1.1 Age distribution of childrenThe mean age of children ranged from 4.13 to 4.38 years with mean age of 4.13 years of control- I group whereas mean age of control- I and experimental group were similar i.e. 4.38 years.Results for age have been given in Table 4.4. In control- I group, 12.5 % subjects were of 3 years old and 62.5 % and 25 % were of 4 years and 5 years old respectively. In control- II group, 68.75 % and 31.25 % were of 4 years old and 5 years old respectively. In experimental group, there were 62.5 % and 37.5 % were of 4 years and 5 years old respectively. The age difference of children under the three groups was not significant. 4.5.1.2 Sex distribution of children The distribution of males and females in the three groups were same for control- I and control- II i.e. 37.5 per cent females and 62.5 per cent males. However, it was 56.25 per cent females and 43.75 per cent males in experimental group (Table 4.4), but the difference was not significant.4.5.1.3  Food habits of childrenAbout 81.25, 68.75 and 56.25 per cent children were non-vegetarian in control- I, control- II and experimental group, respectively. However, most of them consumed non-vegetarian items only occasionally because of economic constraints. Data presented in Table 4.4 revealed that non- vegetarian children had highest percentage in all the three groups as compared to vegetarian. However, the difference in context to food habits observed in three groups was not statistically significant.4.5.1.4  Birth order of childrenIn control- I group highest number of children fell in 3rd birth order (43.75 per cent) and lowest in 1st birth order (18.75 per cent). In control- II group highest number of children fell in 1st and 3rd birth order (37.5 per cent) and lowest in 2nd birth order (25 per cent).Similarly, in experimental group highest number of children classified in 1st birth order (50 per cent) and lowest in 2nd order (18.75 per cent). However, the difference with respect to birth order of children was not significant between the groups (Table 4.4).Table 4.4. Background information of subjects
S. No. Information Control- I group (n = 16) Control- II group (n = 16) Experimental group (n = 16) Chi square   1. Age distribution     3 yr 2 (12.50) – – 4.46ns     4 yr 10 (62.50) 11 (68.75) 10 (62.50 )     5 yr 4 (25.00) 5 (31.25) 6 (37.50)   2. Sex distribution     Females 6 (37.50) 6 (37.50) 9 (56.25)    1.52ns     Males 10 (62.50) 10 (62.50) 7 (43.75)   3. Food habits     Vegetarian 3 (18.75) 5 (31.25) 7 (43.75) 2.32ns     Non vegetarian 13 (81.25) 11 (68.75) 9 (56.25)   4. Birth order     I 3 (18.75) 6 (37.50) 8 (50.00) 3.64ns     II 6 (37.50) 4 (25.00) 3 (18.75)     III or above 7 (43.75) 6 (37.50) 5 (31.25)  Values in parentheses indicate percentage4.5.1.5  Dietary intake of subjectsUsual diet pattern of the families consisted of four meals per day. Before going to school in the morning, the meal generally included parantha/roti/ with pickle/tea/dry sabji; for lunch children had rice/roti, dal, sabji; later in the evening some children had tea with some snacks. After that in the late evening they had dinner mainly consisting of sabji/non-vegetarian curry with roti. Based on the diet intake of children as reported by mother the average nutrient intake of children was calculated using nutritive value of food stuffs and result are presented in Table 4.5. Average protein intake of children in different groups viz. control- I, control- II and experimental group differed significantly with control- II having highest protein intake of 24.9 and experimental group consuming 23 g protein per day. The protein intake of control- II and experimental group were 83 and 76.67 per cent of RDA.Control- I and control- II group were similar but differed significantly with experimental group with respect to protein, total fat, visible fat, carbohydrates and vitamin C intake of children. Rest of the nutrients viz. energy, crude fibre, iron, calcium and vitamin A differed non- significantly in all three groups.The average daily intakes of all the nutrients in all the three groups were comparatively less than the RDA of the respective age group (3- 5 years). Iron intake was very poor and subjects were getting only 33- 34 per cent of RDA of iron. 4.5.1.6 Consumption pattern of food stuffs falling in different groups
All the children consumed cereals, oils, vegetables and sugars daily. Consumption of pulses was highest in control- I and experimental group. Meat and poultry consumption was highest among control- I and control- II. Similarly, milk consumption was found highest in control- I and lowest in control- II. There was no remarkable difference in rest of the consumption of foods.Table 4.5: Average daily nutrient intake of children in control- I, II and experimental group

Nutrients 1Control- Igroup (n=16) 2Control- II group (n=16) 3Experimental group(n=16) #RDA CD at 5 % P value Result   Protein (g) 24.8a(82.67) 24.9a (83.00) 23.0b(76.67) 30 1.42 0.0215 *   Total fat (g) 24.3a 26.1a 29.4b – 2.39 0.0004 *   Visible fat (g) 11.8a (47.20) 10.9a (43.60) 15.8b(63.20) 25 1.62 3×10-7 *   Energy (Kcal) 946a (55.98) 944a (55.86) 889a (52.60) 1690 58.67 0.0988 Ns   Carbohydrate     (g) 156.9a 152.5a 133.2b – 13.18 0.0016 *   Crude fibre(g) 2.29a 2.37a 2.42a – 0.27 0.5871 Ns   Iron (mg) 5.97a (33.17) 6.24a (34.67) 6.03a (33.50) 18 0.56 0.5940 Ns   Calcium (mg) 332.52a (83.13) 375.06a (93.77) 374.83a (93.71) 400 45.17 0.1037 Ns   Vitamin A (µg) 355.61a (88.90) 299.16a (74.79) 344.32a (86.08) 400 117.21 0.5939 Ns   Vitamin C (µg) 20.17a(50.43) 22.66a(56.65) 26.74b(66.85) 40 3.76 0.0038 *  # Recommended Dietary Allowances for 4-5 year old children (ICMR, 1990)The means with dissimilar superscript represents significant difference.*significant at 5% & ns- non significantValues in parentheses indicate percentage of RDA 4.5.2 Background information of parentsBackground information of parents is presented in Table 4.6. 4.5.2.1  Income profileIncome has been a major determinant of dietary intake, especially among the low income group. Average monthly income of the families falling in control- I, control- II and experimental group were Rs. 7656, Rs. 4000 and Rs. 4894, respectively (Appendix- X). Income profile was found to be better in control- I followed by experimental group. A significant difference was found between the groups by income (chi square = 9.51).4.5.2.2 Type of familyIn the studied groups viz. control- I, control- II and experimental, 75 per cent families were nuclear type and rest were joint families. This finding is supported by Devdas et al. (1980) and Sadasivam et al. (1980), who reported that there has been a gradual shift from joint to nuclear families.4.5.2.3 Type of house About 62.5 per cent of the children lived in pukka houses in control- I followed by experimental group (56.25 per cent) and control- II (50 per cent). Kuccha houses were occupied by 37.5 per cent in control- II followed by control- I and experimental group (18.75 per cent). Semi pukka houses were occupied by 25 per cent in experimental group followed by 18.75 and 12.5 per cent in control- I and control- II group, respectively. There was non- significant difference in the association of type of house and the three groups.4.5.2.4 OccupationAll the fathers were occupied in either of the two occupations i.e. service or own business. Pattern of occupation was similar in case of both, control- I and control- II with 75 per cent fathers involved in service whereas in experimental group, 81.25 per cent fathers did service. Similarly, in Control- I and control- II 25 per cent fathers involved in business whereas in experimental group, 18.75 per cent did business.All the mothers were occupied in either of the two occupations i.e. service or housewife. Pattern of occupation was similar in case of both, control- I and experimental group with 6.25 per cent mothers involved in service whereas in control- II group, 12.5 per cent mothers did service. Similarly, in control- I and experimental group 93.75 per cent mothers was housewife whereas in control- II group, 87.50 per cent was housewife. 4.5.2.5  Educational status of parentsTable 4.6 shows the educational status of selected children. The educated parents had their education ranging from primary level to post- graduation. In control- I, control- II and experimental group 31.25, 12.5 and 6.25 per cent fathers was illiterate, respectively. The highest number of educated fathers was in experimental group (93.75 per cent) and lowest in control- I (68.75 per cent).Similarly, the highest number of illiterate mothers was in control- I and control- II (56.25 per cent) and least in experimental group (43.75 per cent). Pattern of educated mothers was similar in control- I and control- II with 43.75 per cent whereas in experimental group 56.25 per cent mothers were educated.However, results showed that all the three groups were independent of education of parents as there was a non- significant trend in father as well as in mother educational status.4.6 Anthropometric measurements of children in different groups over the period of supplementation
Anthropometric measurements viz. weight, height and MUAC of children were done and the results are presented in Table 4.7, 4.8 and 4.9, respectively. Two indicators namely weight/height ratio and BMI as calculated based on the data of anthropometric measurements weight and height are presented in the Appendix- XII. Table 4.6. Background information of parents
S. No. Information Control- I group (n = 16) Control- II group (n = 16) Experimental group (n = 16) Chi square   1. Income profile     Rs.1000-3000 4 (25.00) 6 (37.50) 3 (18.75) 9.51*     Rs. 3000-6000 5 (31.25) 9 (56.25) 11 (68.75)     Rs. >6000 7 (43.75) 1 (6.25) 2 (12.50)   2. Family type     Nuclear 12 (75.00) 12 (75.00) 12 (75.00) ns     Joint 4 (25.00) 4 (25.00) 4 (25.00)   3. Type of house    Pukka 10 (62.50) 8 (50.00) 9 (56.25) 2.39ns    Semi pukka 3 (18.75) 2 (12.50) 4 (25.00)    Kuccha 3 (18.75) 6 (37.50) 3 (18.75)   3. Occupation of father     Service 12 (75.00) 12 (75.00) 13 (81.25) 0.24ns     Business 4 (25.00) 4 (25.00) 3 (18.75)   4. Occupation of mother     Service 1 (6.25) 2 (12.50) 1 (6.25) 0.55ns     Housewife 15 (93.75) 14 (87.50) 15 (93.75)   5. Educational status of father     Illiterate 5 (31.25) 2 (12.50) 1 (6.25) 3.90ns     Educated 11 (68.75) 14 (87.50) 15 (93.75)   6. Educational status of mother     Illiterate 9 (56.25) 9 (56.25) 7 (43.75) 0.68ns     Educated 7 (43.75) 7 (43.75) 9 (56.25)  *significant at 5%Values in parentheses indicate percentage

Table 4.7: Mean values of anthropometric measurements from 0 to 90 days of control- I group
Control- I Group   Sex Age Total number Reading Mean weight *Std.Weight  (kg) Mean height *Std. Height  (cm) Mean MUAC #Std.MUAC(cm)

 

F 3 yrs 1 0 Day 12.5 ± 0 14.1 93.0 ± 0 93.9 15.0 ± 0

 

 

 

>13.5     30 Day 12.5 ± 0 93.0 ± 0 15.0 ± 0     60 Day 12.5 ± 0 94.4 ± 0 15.0 ± 0     90 Day 13.0 ± 0 94.6 ± 0 15.0 ± 0     4 yrs 5 0 Day 13.0 ± 1.4 16 97.3 ± 5.1 101.6 14.6 ± 0.8     30 Day 13.5 ± 0.6 98.2 ± 5.2 14.8 ± 0.8     60 Day 13.4 ± 0.7 98.4 ± 5.2 14.7 ± 0.6     90 Day 13.6 ± 0.7 98.5 ± 5.2 14.7 ± 0.6

 

M

 

 

3 yrs 1 0 Day 13.0 ± 0 14.6 101.0 ± 0 94.9 14.0 ± 0     30 Day 14.0 ± 0 102.4 ± 0 14.5 ± 0     60 Day 14.0 ± 0 102.7 ± 0 15.0 ± 0     90 Day 14.0 ± 0 102.9 ± 0 15.0 ± 0     4 yrs 5 0 Day 13.6 ± 0.7 16.7 98.4 ± 3.0 102.9 14.8 ± 0.6     30 Day 14.1 ± 0.7 99.0 ± 3.4 14.8 ± 0.4     60 Day 14.0 ± 0.9 99.4 ± 2.9 14.7 ± 0.8     90 Day 14.1 ± 0.8 99.6 ± 2.9 14.7 ± 0.8     5 yrs 4 0 Day 14.5 ± 1.1 18.7 101.0 ± 5.2 109.9 15.3 ± 1     30 Day 15.0 ± 1.3 101.4 ± 5.1 15.3 ± 1     60 Day 15.1 ± 1.7 101.7 ± 5.1 15.4 ± 1     90 Day 15.1 ± 1.7 101.8 ± 4.9 15.4 ± 1  Values are Mean±SD0 Day: Weight, height and MUAC of the subjects before supplementation30 Day: Weight, height and MUAC of the subjects after 1 month 60 Day: Weight, height and MUAC of the subjects after 2 month 90 Day: Weight, height and MUAC of the subjects after 3 month*NCHS Standards, 1987#Jellife, 1966Table 4.8: Mean values of anthropometric measurements from 0 to 90 days of control- II group
Control- II Group   Sex Age Total number Reading Mean weight *Std.Weight (kg)   Mean height *Std. Height (cm) Mean MUAC #Std.MUAC (cm)

 

F 4 yrs 4 0 Day 13.1 ± 0.9 16 98.2 ± 2.6 101.6 14.6 ± 1.3

 

 

 

>13.5     30 Day 13.3 ± 1.5 98.6 ± 2.9 14.6 ± 1.3     60 Day 13.3 ± 1.5 99.1 ± 2.9 14.5 ± 1.4     90 Day 13.5 ± 1.4 99.3 ± 3 14.6 ± 1.4     5 yrs 2 0 Day 14.8 ± 0.4 17.7 106.0 ± 3.6 108.4 14.0 ± 0     30 Day 15.0 ± 0.7 107.7 ± 3.8 14.3 ± 0.4     60 Day 15.3 ± 1.1 108.0 ± 4.2 14.3 ± 0.4     90 Day 15.3 ± 1.1 108.3 ± 4.4 14.3 ± 0.4

 

M 4 yrs 6 0 Day 13.8 ± 0.9 16.7 98.8 ± 3.8 102.9 15.3 ± 0.5     30 Day 13.9 ± 1 99.3 ± 4 15.4 ± 0.5     60 Day 13.8 ± 0.8 99.7 ± 4.1 15.3 ± 0.7     90 Day 13.8 ± 0.8 99.9 ± 4.1 15.3 ± 0.7     5 yrs 4 0 Day 14.9 ± 1.9 18.7 103.4 ± 7.6 109.9 14.9 ± 1     30 Day 15.4 ± 1.7 104.9 ± 6.9 15.1 ± 0.9     60 Day 15.3 ±1.6 105.3 ± 7.1 14.8 ± 0.6     90 Day 15.4 ± 1.7 105.5 ± 7.1 14.8 ± 0.6  Values are Mean±SD0 Day: Weight, height and MUAC of the subjects before supplementation30 Day: Weight, height and MUAC of the subjects after 1 month supplementation60 Day: Weight, height and MUAC of the subjects after 2 month supplementation90 Day: Weight, height and MUAC of the subjects after 3 month supplementation*NCHS Standards, 1987#Jellife, 1966Table 4.9: Mean values of anthropometric measurements from 0 to 90 days of experimental- I group
Experimental Group   Sex Age Total number Reading Mean weight *Std.weight (kg) Mean height *Std. height (cm) Mean MUAC #Std.MUAC

 

F 4 yrs 6 0 Day 12.9 ± 0.7 16 96.9 ± 4.2 101.6 14.8 ± 0.7

 

 

 

>13.5     30 Day 13.3 ± 1.2 97.4 ± 4.3 14.8 ± 0.7     60 Day 13.3 ± 1 97.9 ± 4.3 14.8 ± 0.4     90 Day 13.4 ± 0.9 98.0 ± 4.3 14.9 ± 0.5     5 yrs 3 0 Day 14.7 ± 0.6 17.7 102.7 ± 3.1 108.4 16.0 ± 1.3     30 Day 14.8 ± 0.3 103.3 ± 2.7 15.8 ± 1.5     60 Day 15.3 ± 0.3 103.4 ± 2.7 15.7 ± 0.8     90 Day 15.3 ± 0.3 103. 6 ± 2.6 16.0 ± 1

 

M 4 yrs 4 0 Day 13.6 ± 1.3 16.7 98.4 ± 4.2 102.9 14.8 ± 0.6     30 Day 14.0 ± 1.2 99.0 ± 3.9 14.6 ± 0.5     60 Day 14.1 ± 1.2 99.5 ± 4.3 14.5 ± 0.7     90 Day 14.4 ± 1.1 99.7 ± 4.3 14.9 ± 0.6     5 yrs 3 0 Day 12.8 ± 1.6 18.7 99.4 ± 1.7 109.9 14.5 ± 0.9     30 Day 13.5 ± 1.7 99.9 ± 2.4 14.5 ± 0.9     60 Day 14.0 ± 1.3 100.3 ± 2.4 14.5 ± 0.5     90 Day 14.3 ± 1.2 100.5 ± 2.6 14.7 ± 0.6  Values are Mean±SD0 Day: Weight, height and MUAC of the subjects before supplementation30 Day: Weight, height and MUAC of the subjects after 1 month supplementation60 Day: Weight, height and MUAC of the subjects after 2 month supplementation90 Day: Weight, height and MUAC of the subjects after 3 month supplementation*NCHS Standards, 1987#Jellife, 1966
4.7 Effect of supplementation of cowpea biscuit on anthropometric measurements
To study the effect of supplementation of cowpea, differences in anthropometric measurements was analyzed and results are presented in following text.4.7.1 Weight Table 4.10 gives details regarding mean increments in weight of the children in control- I, control- II and experimental group. Very miniscule increase in weight of children within the different study group was observed which was not statistical significant. The mean increment in weight of children between the groups (Table 4.13) did not differ significantly. Observations indicate mean increment in weight was independent of supplement of cowpea and refined wheat flour biscuits.4.7.2 HeightDetails of mean increment in height of the control- I, control- II and experimental group are given in Table 4.11. Very small increase in height of children within the different study group was observed which was not statistical significant. The mean increment in height of children between the groups (Table 4.13) did not differ significantly. Observations indicate mean increment in height was independent of supplement of cowpea and refined wheat flour biscuits.4.7.3 MUACDetails of mean increment in MUAC are given in table 4.12. Very miniscule increase in MUAC of children within the different study group was observed which was not statistical significant. The mean increment in MUAC of children between the groups (Table 4.13) did not differ significantly. Observations indicate mean increment in MUAC was independent of supplement of cowpea and refined wheat flour biscuits.After the period of three months feeding 100 g cowpea and refined wheat flour biscuits to the experimental and control- II group, the increase in weight was from baseline i.e. 13.4±1.1 Kg to 14.2±1.1 Kg in experimental group. However, the increase in weight was from 14±1.3 Kg to 14.3±1.4 kg in control- II and from 13.5±1.15 Kg to 14.1±1.1 Kg in control- I. The increase in height was from 98.8±4 cm to 100±4 cm in experimental group and from 100.7±5.2 cm to 102.2±5.6 cm in control- II group. However, the increase in height was from 98.5±4.4 cm to 99.7±4.3 cm in control- I.In MUAC, the increase was from 14.9±0.93 cm to 15.1±0.8 cm in experimental group and from 14.84±0.9 cm to 14.8±0.9 cm in control- II. However, the increase in MUAC was from 14.8±0.8 cm to 14.9±0.7 cm. It was found that there was general increment in the groups i.e. 0.2 cm in experimental and 0.1 cm in control- I group. However there was no increment in control- II group after three months period. There was no significant effect of the intervention for the anthropometric outcomes viz. height, weight and MUAC between the groups.Several factors probably contributed to the absence of a statistically significant effect on growth. First, significant number of children were in the category of mild and moderate malnutrition at baseline. Second, the intervention was of a relatively short duration, especially given the age of our participants and hence their slower growth rate relative to preschoolers (Eveleth and Tanner, 1990).The different group viz. control- I, control- II and experimental group differed significantly with protein intake and their family income profile. The frequency of pulse and meat and poultry consumption was reported more in control- I. All these could be the other reasons for no effect of supplementation.A study conducted by Chandrasekhar and Hilda in 2004 reported improvement in anthropometric measurements through supplementation with 62 g of soy protein isolate based food mix on 1-2 years old malnourished children for a period of 12 months.  A comparative study on supplementation of potato flour biscuits on the nutritional and cognitive profile of the selected children carried out by Peerkhan et al., 2009. They observed that weaning biscuits made with potato flour, maize and green gram can form a daily ingredient in their diets, it will bring out better all round development of the children 2- 3 years old for three months period.Table 4.10: Mean increment in weight during the supplementation period
Weight (kg)   Groups 0 day(A) 30 day(B) 60 day(C) 90 day(D) ‘t’ value   Control- I 13.5 ± 1.1 14.0 ± 1(0.5) 14.0 ± 1.2(0.5) 14.1 ± 1.1(0.6) A vs B = -3.04nsA vs C = -2.46nsA vs D = -3.58ns   Control- II 14.0 ± 1.3 14.3 ± 1.4(0.3) 14.2 ± 1.4(0.2) 14.3 ± 1.4(0.3) A vs B = -1.94nsA vs C = -1.31nsA vs D = -2.18ns   Experimental 13.4 ± 1.1 13.8 ± 1.2(0.4) 14.0 ± 1.1(0.6) 14.2 ± 1.1(0.8) A vs B = -3.22nsA vs C = -5.37nsA vs D = -6.06ns  Values are Mean±S.D.ns = non significantvalues in parentheses shows mean increment in weight
Table 4.11: Mean increment in height during the supplementation period
Height (cm)   Groups 0 day(A) 30 day(B) 60 day(C) 90 day(D) ‘t’ value   Control- I 98.5 ± 4.4 99.2 ± 4.5(0.7) 99.5 ± 4.3(1) 99.7 ± 4.3(1.2) A vs B = -4.63nsA vs C = -7.6nsA vs D = -8.57ns   Control- II 100.7 ± 5.2 101.6 ± 5.5(0.9) 102.0 ± 5.5(1.3) 102.2 ± 5.6(1.5) A vs B = -3.80nsA vs C = -5.90nsA vs D = -6.36ns   Experimental 98.8 ± 4 99.4 ± 4(0.6) 99.8 ± 4(1) 100.0 ± 4(1.2) A vs B = -3.70nsA vs C = -6.59nsA vs D = -7.42ns  Values are Mean±S.D.ns = non significantvalues in parentheses shows mean increment in height
Table 4.12: Mean increment in MUAC during the supplementation period
MUAC (cm)   Groups 0 day    (A) 30 day (B) 60 day (C) 90 day (D) ‘t’ value   Control- I 14.8 ± 0.8 14.9 ± 0.7(0.1) 14.9 ± 0.7(0.1) 14.9 ± 0.7(0.1) A vs B = -1.38nsA vs C = -0.82nsA vs D = -0.82ns   Control- II 14.8 ± 0.9 15.0 ± 0.9(0.2) 14.8 ± 0.9(0) 14.8 ± 0.9(0) A vs B = -2.61nsA vs C =  0nsA vs D =  0ns   Experimental 14.9 ± 0.9 14.9 ± 0.9(0) 14.8 ± 0.7(-0.1) 15.1 ± 0.8(0.2) A vs B =  0.7nsA vs C =  1.17nsA vs D = -146ns  Values are Mean±S.D.ns = non significantvalues in parentheses shows mean increment in MUAC
4.8 Effect of supplementation on shift in malnutrition grades in the study groups
Table 4.14 depicts the shift in malnutrition grades that has occurred over the study period. Initially 6.25 per cent subjects were in experimental group in grade III malnutrition. There were 12.5 per cent subjects in control- I, 6.25 per cent subjects in control- II and experimental group in grade II malnutrition. Whereas 87.5 per cent were in control- I and experimental group and 93.75 per cent subjects were in grade I malnutrition.At the end of the study period, 18.75 per cent of subjects in control- I and control- II moved from grade II and grade I to normal.Table 4.13: Mean increment in anthropometric measurements between control- I, control- II and experimental group after 90 days supplementation of biscuits

Groups Weight (kg) Height  (cm) MUAC (cm)     Initial Final Result Initial Final Result Initial Final Result   1Control- I 13.5 ± 1.1 14.1 ± 1.1(0.6) 1 Vs 2- ns1 Vs 3- ns2 Vs 3- ns 98.5 ± 4.4 99.7 ± 4.3(1.2) 1 Vs 2- ns1 Vs 3- ns2 Vs 3- ns 14.8 ± 0.8 14.9 ± 0.7(0.1) 1 Vs 2- ns1 Vs 3- ns2 Vs 3- ns   2Control- II 14.0 ± 1.3 14.3 ± 1.4(0.3) 100.7 ± 5.2 102.2 ± 5.6(1.5) 14.8 ± 0.9 14.8 ± 0.9(0)   3Experimental 13.4 ± 1.1 14.2 ± 1.1(0.8) 98.8 ± 4 100.0 ± 4(1.2) 14.9 ± 0.9 15.1 ± 0.8(0.2)  Values are Mean±S.D.ns = non- significant (p>0.05), Values in parentheses shows mean increment in anthropometric measurements1= Control- I, 2= Control- II and 3= Experimental group

Only 75 per cent and 6.25 per cent in control- I, were still in grade- I and grade- II respectively. In control- II, 68.75 per cent and 12.5 per cent were still in grade I and grade II. In experimental group, 12.5 per cent of subjects moved from grade II and grade I to normal and only 81.25 per cent and 6.25 per cent were in grade I and grade II respectively. However, results of shift in malnutrition grades showed non-significant difference within as well between the groups during supplementation period.Table 4.14: Shift in malnutrition grades
GROUPS 0 day 30 day 60 day 90 day Chi square
C-I (No biscuits) Grade I (mild) 87.5(14) 87.5 (14) 81.25 (13) 75 (12)

3.68ns     Grade II (moderate) 12.5 (2) 6.25 (1) 6.25 (1) 6.25 (1)     Grade III (severe) 0 0 0 0     Normal 0 6.25 (1) 12.5 (2) 18.75 (3)
C-II (Refined wheat flour biscuits) Grade I (mild) 93.75  (15) 75 (12) 81.25 (13) 68.75 (11)

4.12ns     Grade II (moderate) 6.25 (1) 18.75 (3) 12.5 (2) 12.5 (2)     Grade III (severe) 0 0 0 0     Normal 0 6.25 (1) 6.25 (1) 18.75 (3)
Experimental group (Cowpea biscuit) Grade I (mild) 87.5 (14) 81.25 (13) 81.25 (13) 81.25 (13)
2.13ns     Grade II (moderate) 6.25 (1) 12.5 (2) 12.5 (2) 6.25 (1)     Grade III (severe) 6.25 (1) 0 0 0     Normal 0 6.25 (1) 6.25 (1) 12.5 (2)   Chi square 0.06ns    Values in parentheses indicate number of preschool children

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *