QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Morales, E. Articles by Graham, G. G. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Morales, E. Articles by Graham, G. G.

Nutritional Value for Young Children of Grain Amaranth and Maize-Amaranth Mixtures: Effect of Processing¹

Instituto de Investigacion Nutricional, Lima-18, Peru

Amaranthus caudatus L. toasted flour, popped grain and flakes were each fed to nine young children as the source of all diet protein and fat and 50% of diet energy, preceded and followed by casein control diets. All provided 6.4–6.7% of energy as protein and 9.3–10.1% as fat. Balances were carried out during the last 6 d of the three 9-d amaranth periods and during the four control periods. Fecal wet and dry weights during amaranth diets were 129–157% of those during casein control diets; fecal energy, fat and carbohydrate from the toasted flour periods were 193, 268 and 256%; from the popped grain 253, 586 and 195%; and from the flakes 225, 356 and 255% of those during casein diets. Apparent N absorptions were 84.1–84.6% of the casein values (P < 0.001); apparent retentions from toasted, popped and flaked amaranth were 70.9, 65.9 and 59.0% of casein (P < 0.001). The last of these was significantly lower than the first (P < 0.05). Fecal fat was much higher (P < 0.001) from the popped than from the flaked grain and the toasted flour. Toasted flour was then added to maize meal so that amaranth provided 20 or 30% of the protein. Seven young children received diets in which 6.4% of total energy came from one of the above mixes, or from casein, as protein. Soya-cottonseed oils completed 25% lipid energy in all three diets; balance of energy was from sucrose in the experimental diets and from sucrose, corn syrup solids and comstarch in the casein diet. During 9-d periods daily fecal wet weight was 123.4 ± 24.2 g, dry weight 26.6 ± 3.8 g and energy 108. ± 12.3 kcal from the 20% amaranth diet; 113.0 ± 18.2, 25.4 ± 1.9 and 105.8 ± 10.7 from the 30% diet; and 73.6 ± 29.6, 11.9 ± 3.0 and 48.8 ± 12.2 (all P < 0.01) from the casein diet. Fecal fat was very low during all diets; calculated fecal CHO was 16.3 ± 2.6 and 16.3 ± 1.6 g/d for the two maize-amaranth diets, 4.7 ± 2.0 (P < 0.01) for the casein control. Apparent N absorptions (% of intake) were 70.4 ± 4.1, 72.1 ± 5.3 and 83.8 ± 1.9 (P < 0.01) from the three diets; apparent N retentions (% of intake) were 28.0 ± 5.2, 29.0 ± 2.8 and 36.6 ± 3.1 (P < 0.01). With as little as 12.7% by weight (20% of protein) of added amaranth flour, maize meal should be able to satisfy protein and lipid needs of young children if it provides 90% of diet energy.

KEY WORDS: • maize • amaranth • digestibility • utilization • complementarity • children

¹ These studies were supported by a grant (AMA-PE-3-84-19) from the Board on Science and Technology for International Development (BOSTID) of the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, and by a grant (HD 10111) from the National Institutes of Health, U.S. Public Health Service, Bethesda, MD. They were approved by the Ethics Committee of the Instituto de Investigacion Nutricional.

Manuscript received 5 December 1986. Revision accepted 24 September 1987.