Plant Foods for Human Nutrition

, Volume 41, Issue 2, pp 107–116 | Cite as

Development, acceptability and nutritional value of weaning mixtures

  • Charu Gupta
  • Salil Sehgal


Low cost weaning mixtures were prepared by mixing (i) malted pearl millet (Penicitum typhidium L), roasted amaranth (Amaranthus sp.); roasted green gram (Vigna radiata); jaggery and (ii) malted barley (Dehusked barley); roasted amaranth grain; roasted green gram; jaggery in proportion 60∶20∶40∶45 wt/wt and were nutritionally evaluated. Both the blends had a nutrient composition within the range prescribed by the Indian Standard Institute (ISI) for processed weaning foods. The processing of grains resulted in lower levels of phytic acid, polyphenols and saponins and higher in vitro protein digestibility than those of the raw grains used for preparing mixtures. Both the mixtures were acceptable to trained panelists and children.

Key words

Pearl millet barley green gram amaranth grain soaking malting roasting antinutrients protein digestibility acceptability 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bhandari B, Mandowara SL, Agarwal HR, Jogdu DK (1988) High infant mortality in rural areas of Rajasthan: an analysis based on prospective study. Ind Pediat 25: 510–514Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gopaldas T, Inamdar F, Patel J (1982) Malted versus roasted young child mixes: viscosity storage and acceptability trials. Int J Nutr Dietet 19: 327–334Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chandrasekhar U, Bhooma N, Reddy S (1988) Evaluation of a malted weaning food based on low cost locally available foods. Ind J Nutr Dietet 25: 37–43Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Marero LM, Payume EM, Aqunaldo AR, Homono S (1988) Technology of weaning food formulation prepared from germinated cereals and legumes. J Food Sci 23: 1391–1395, 1455Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Salunkhe DK (1982) Legumes in human nutrition. Cur Sci 51: 374–387Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ologhobo AD, Fetuga BL (1984) Distribution of phosphorus and phytate in some Nigerian varieties of legumes and some effects of processing. J Food Sci 49: 199–201Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Khokhar S, Chauhan BM (1986a) Nutrient composition, protein fraction and antinutritional factors of moth bean (Vigna aconitifolia). Bull Grain Technol 24(1): 3Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kataria A, Chauhan BM, Punia D (1989) Antinutrients and protein digestibility (in vitro) of mungbean as affected by domestic processing and cooking. Fd Chem 32(1): 9–19Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sathe SK, Salunkhe DK (1987) Studies on trypsin and chymotrypsin inhibitory activities, haemogglutinating activity and sugars in the Great Northern beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). J Food Sci 46: 626Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Deshpande SS, Cheryan M (1983) Changes in phytic acid, tannins and trypsin inhibitory activity on soaking of dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Nutr Rep Int 27: 371Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jood S, Chauhan BM, Kapoor AC (1987) Polyphenols of chickpea and black gram as affected by domestic processing and cooking methods. J Sci Fd Agric 39: 145–149Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jood S, Chauhan BM, Kapoor AC (1986) Saponin content of chickpea and blackgram: Varietal differences and effects of processing and cooking method J Sci Food Agric 37: 1121–1124Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    AOAC (1980) Official Methods of Analysis, 13th edn. Washington DC: Association of Official Analytical Chemists, pp 125–139, 746Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Davies NT, Reid H (1979) An evaluation of phytate, zinc, copper, iron and manganese content of and availability from soya-based textured vegetable protein meat substitute or meat extrudes, Br J Nutr 41: 579–589Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gestetner B, Berk Y, Bondi A, Tencer Y (1966) Method for the determination of sapogenin and saponin contents in soyabeans. Phytochem 5: 803–806Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Singh V, Jambunathan R (1987) Studies on Desi and kabuli chickpea (Cicer arietinum) cultivars: levels of protease inhibitor, level of polyphenolic compounds and in vitro protein digestibility, J Food Sci 46: 1364–1367Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Swain J, Hills WE (1959) The phenolic constituents pramus domestical. The qualitative analysis of phenolic constituents. J Sci Food Agric 10: 63–68Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Akeson WP, Stahman MA (1964) Pepsin pancreatin digest complex of protein quality evaluation. J Nutr 83: 257–259Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Snedecor GW, Cochran WG (1967) Statistical Methods. Ames Iowa State University, PressGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shulk IA, Arshad M, Aslam M, Adit R, Jatil F (1986) Preparation and nutritional evaluation of weaning food based on wheat, rice and soybean (soylac). Pak J Sci Indus Res 29(2): 151–154Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Devadas RP, Chandrasekhar U, Bhooma N (1984) Nutritional outcomes of a rural diet supplemented with low cost locally available foods IV Impact on children studied from birth to pre-school age. Ind J Nutr Dietet 21: 115–122Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Duhan A, Chauhan BM, Punia D, Kapoor AC (1989) Phytic acid content of chickpea (Cicer arietinum) and black gram (Vigna mungo). Varietal differences and effect of domestic processing and cooking methods. J Sci Food Agric 49(4): 449–456Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Abdullah A, Baldwin RE, Minor H (1984) Germination effect on flatus causing factors and antinutrients of mungbeans and two strains of small seeded soybeans. J Food Prot 47: 441–444Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Borade VP, Kadam SS, Salunkhe DK (1984) Changes in phytate phosphorus and minerals during germination and cooking of horse gram and moth, bean (Qual Plant) Plant Foods Hum Nutr 34: 151Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mandal NC, Burman S, Biswas BM (1972) Isolation purification and characterisation of phytase from germinating mungbeans. Phytochemistry 11; 495–502Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rao PU, Deosthale YG (1982) Tannin content of pulses, varietal differences and effects of germination and cooking. J Sci Food Agric 33: 7013–7016Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Deepender Kaur, Kapoor AC (1989) Some antinutritional factors in rice bean (Vigna umbellata): effect of domestic processing and cooking methods. Food Chemistry (in press)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tan N, Wong K, de Lumen BO (1984) Relationship of tannin levels and trypsin activity with in vitro protein digestibility of raw and heat, treated winged bean. J Agric Food Chem 32(9): 819–821Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Singh V (1984) The inhibition of digestive enzymes by polyphenols of chickpea and pigeonpea, Nutr Rep Int 29(3): 745–753Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Knuckles BE, Kumicky DD, Betschart (1985) Effect of phytate and partially hydrolysed phytate on in vitro protein digestibility. J Fd Sci 50(4): 1080–1082Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Khokhar S, Chauhan BM (1986b) Effect of domestic processing and cooking on in vitro protein digestibility of moth bean. J Fd Sci 51: 1083–1084Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Boralkar M, Reddy SN (1985) Effect of roasting, germination and fermentation on the digestibility of starch and protein present in soybean. Nutr Rep Int 31(4): 833–835Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    El Faki HA, Bhavanishangar TN, Tharanthan RN, Desikachar HSR (1984) Flatus effect of chickpea (Cicer arietinum), cowpea (Vigna sinensis) and horse gram (Dolichos beflorus) and their isolated carbohydrate fractions. Nutr Rep Int 27: 921Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Subhalakshmi KG, Venkataraman LV (1976) Effect of germination on the carbohydrates, proteins, trypsin inhibitors and haemagglutinin in horse gram and moth, bean. Nutr Rep Int 13: 19–51Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Satwadhar PM, Kadam SS, Salunkhe DK (1981) (Qual Plant) Plant Foods Hum Nutr 31: 71Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charu Gupta
    • 1
  • Salil Sehgal
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Foods and NutritionHaryana Agricultural UniversityHisarIndia

Personalised recommendations