Proximate Composition of Sorghum, Soya Bean and Cashew Nuts Complementary Food Blends

Hamsatu Mohammed Malut1, Falmata Abba Sanda2, Bintu Bukar Petrol2, Fateema Umar Mustapha1 and Maryam Ado Mahmud3

1Department of Biochemistry, Faculty of Science, Borno State University
2Department of Biochemistry, faculty of Life Sciences, University of Maiduguri
3Department of Biochemistry, Faculty of Science, Yobe State University

*Corresponding author’s Email: hamsatumalut@gmail.com, doi.org/10.55639/607.02010023


ABSTRACT

Malnutrition is a serious health condition that affects millions of people worldwide. Commercially available complementary foods are too expensive for low-income families or average families. Consequently, nursing mothers often depend on traditional, complementary foods, which are inadequate in energy density, proteins and micronutrients. Many indigenous and unexploited legumes and nuts, such as soya beans and cashew nuts, significantly improve the protein quality of complementary foods. This study was conducted to determine the proximate composition of sorghum, soya beans and cashew nuts blends. The complementary food blends from sorghum, soya beans and cashew nut were compared with checkers’ Custard. Sorghum was subjected to sprouting and fermentation techniques while soya beans and cashew nuts were roasted. Using the Pearson square method, the complementary food blends were blended in different ratios to give six formulations. They include RSVM: 65 parts raw sorghum: 35 parts vitamin and mineral supplements, PSVM: 65 parts processed sorghum: 35 parts vitamin and mineral supplement, PSC: 85 parts processed sorghum: 15 parts cashew nuts, PSSB: 52 parts processed sorghum: 48 parts soya beans, PSSBC: 45 parts processed sorghum: 45 parts soya beans: 10 parts cashew nuts and PSCSBVM: 45 parts processed sorghum: 10 parts cashew nuts: 30 parts soya beans: 15 parts mineral and vitamin supplements. Data obtained were subjected to Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), and Duncan’s multiple range test was used to compare the means. The results of the moisture content of the complementary food blends showed a significant (P<0.05) decrease. RSVM (4.17±0.02), PSVM (4.57±0.01), PSC (4.57±0.01), PSSB (5.03±0.04), PSSBC (5.04±0.04) and PSCSBVM (4.47±0.01). Protein content of RSVM (17.2±0.01), PSVM (18.2±0.01), PSC (16.8±0.01), PSSB (21.3±0.01), PSSBC (23.1±0.01) and PSCSBVM(25.8±0.03) met the RDA for infants 6-12 months while the commercial complementary food blends (6.63±0.02) was inferior to the complementary food blends and the RDA. The fat content of PSCSBVM (6.20±0.06) was close to the RDA (10.25) for infants (6-12 months). Checkers’ Custard (0.50±0.02) was below the RDA. The fat content of RSVM (4.03±0.04), PSVM (3.50±0.01), PSC (3.93±0.02), PSSB (2.06±0.07) and PSSBC (2.35±0.03) was below the RDA and not comparable to PSCSBVM. The calculated energy content of the complementary food blends PSCSBVM (364.92±0.62) was comparable to PSSBC (365.32±0.20kcal/100g) and was close to the RDA (400kcal/100g) for infants 6-12 months.

Keywords:

Proximate Complementary food,
Sorghum,
Cashew nut