Contents - Previous - Next

This is the old United Nations University website. Visit the new site at

Acceptability and Tolerance Responses

Table 4 shows the results of the organoleptic acceptability responses of children and mothers in the field study and also of the children's gastrointestinal tolerance responses, as perceived by the mothers. Table 5 lists the foods most frequently consumed by the children in addition to the assigned food blend. The reader is referred to the field test protocol section above for background concerned with obtaining an analysis of questionnaire responses.

The left-hand set of evaluation scores and statistical significance information of table 4 pertains to data from all clinics and all children testing the foods. The total number of 157 children included 42 who shared food having the same sample number and an additional 7 of the total who were age 6 or older.

TABLE 3. Chemical, Physico-Chemical, and Physical Tests on Field-Tested Food Blends

Category Test Blend CC Blend MCSM


Free fatty acid (as % oleic in total lipids) 2.54 0.36
Peroxide value (meq/kg lipids) 1.70 3.00
Available lysine (%) 0.85 1.09
as % of total lysine 94 93
Free gossypol (ppm) 92 -
Total gossypol (ppm) 250 -
Physico-chemical Consistency (Bostwick value) Range1 4.7 - 7.7 15.8 - 20.7
Mean1 6.4 17.9
% Material passing through
U.S. Stand. Sieve:
Sieve analysis No. 6 100 100
No. 30 82 88
No. 60 10 12
Hunter value:
Reflectance L 80.1 79.3
Colour a -0.6 1.6
b 20.4 21.9

1 Range and mean of five test runs.

There were no statistically significant differences found between blends CC and MCSM with respect to: (a) the children's eagerness to eat the food; (b) the mother's overall liking of the food; (c) the mother's opinion of appearance, flavour, or ease of preparation of the blends; or (d) the mother's perception of gastrointestinal effects (change in appetite, flatulence, vomiting, diarrhoea, and undigested stool contents) after the cooked gruels were eaten. The mothers had a significantly higher preference (p < 0.05) for the mouthfeel of the MCSM blend, which was thinner in consistency than the CC blend. Despite this statistically significant difference, the mean rating values for blend MCSM (1.013) and for blend CC (1.132) were close, and both were near the best rating scale of 1 = good. Although there were no statistically significant differences found between blends for the mothers' evaluation of appetite and flatulence changes, there were highly significant differences (p < 0.01) in rating values for these characteristics among clinics. The middle set of evaluation scores and statistical significance information of table 4 concerns the analysis of variance of responses for all children by clinic for appetite and flatulence. As observed, both of these factors were, for some reason, rated higher by mothers in clinic number 2 for both of the blends.

The table 4 mean value results of the left-hand set of evaluation scores for all clinics and all children show that both blends CC and MCSM were evaluated near or at the highest rating for the children's eargerness to eat the food, the mothers' overall liking of the food, and the mothers' evaluation of appearance, flavour, feel-in-the-mouth, and ease of preparation. The mean values also show that for both blends, appetite increased and the incidence of flatulence, vomiting, diarrhoea and amount of undigested stool contents reamained about the same during the field trial.

The right-hand set of evaluation scores and statistical significance information of table 4 concerns data from all clinics, with those for unqualified children removed. The responses for children sharing food having the same sample number and those age 6 and above were excluded. As shown, significant differences were not found between the two blends for any of the 11 questionnaire responses, including feel-in-the-mouth. Perhaps because of fewer observations, significant difference between blends was not found for this characteristic when unqualified children were excluded from the total. As in the case when all children's responses were included in the analysis, statistically highly significant (p < 0.01) differences in ratings among clinics were found for appetite and flatulence. In addition to this, there was a statistically significant (p < 0.05) difference in score among clinics (produced by responses in clinic number 1) for undigested stool contents. But again, there was no significant difference between blends for this characteristic.

TABLE 4. Blended Food Questionnaire Results

Response Factor Rating Scale All Clinics Combined—All Children1 By Clinic—All Children All Clinics—Unqualified Children Omitted2
Mean Score Statistical Sig. Clinic
Mean Score Stat. Sig. Mean Score Statistical Sig.
Blend Blend
Child's eagerness to eat the food 1= Like
2= O.K.
1.091 1.088 NS6 NS NS   1.059 1.088 NS NS NS
Mother's overall liking of the food 3= Dislike 1.195 1.100 NS NS NS 1.216 1.088 NS NS NS
Mother's opinion of food characteristics:  
Appearance 1= Good 1.000 1.000 NS NS NS   1.000 1.000 NS NS NS
Flavour 2= Fair 1.000 1.000 NS NS NS 1.000 1.000 NS NS NS
Feel-in-the-mouth 3= Poor 1.132 1.013 *7 NS NS 1.020 1.018 NS NS NS
Ease of preparation   1.013 1.013 NS NS NS 1.000 1.000 NS NS NS
Mother's observation of gastrointestinal effects:  
Appetite 1= Increase 1.273 1.269 NS **8 NS 1 1.121 1.314 NS 1.294 1.236 NS ** NS
2 1.722 1.667 NS
3 1.154 1.000 NS
Flatulence 2= Remains
the same
1.957 1.947 NS ** NS 1 2.000 2.000 NS 1.933 1.923 NS ** NS
2 1.833 1.800 NS
3 2.000 1.960 NS
Vomiting 3= Decrease 1 986 2.013 NS NS NS   2.000 2.019 NS NS NS
Diarrhoea 1.972 1.960 NS NS NS 1.935 1.923 NS NS NS
Undigested stool contents 1.942 1.880 NS NS NS 2.000 1.904 NS * NS

1 157 children; 77 used blend CC and 80, blend MCSM.
2 The data of 108 children were included. The data of 42 children were excluded from total of 157, because of sharing food having the same sample number. The data of 7 children, age 6 and older, were also excluded.
3 BT Blend type difference tested by analysis of variance (AOV).
4 CN Clinic number difference tested by AOV.
5 CN-BT The dependence between blends on clinic number was tested by AOV.
6 NS Statistical significance was tested for, but not found.
7 * Statistically significant, p <0,05,
8 ** Statistically highly significant, p <0.01.

TABLE 5. Principal Foods Claimed by Mothers to Have Been Consumed by Children in Addition to Blended Fond

Food Category Item % Total Children* Claimed to Have Consumed Food Item
Cereals Cornmeal 75.1
Corn 8.3
Cornstarch pudding 6.4
Rice 61.8
Millet 1 7.2
Wheat 7.0
"Bread" 8.9
Starchy staples Plantain 19.7
Sweet potatoes 10.8
Animal foods Milk 31.8
"Meat" 21.6
Fish 21.0
Vegetables "Vegetables" 65.6
Beans 25.7
Bean sauce 51.6
Peas 14.0
Horseradish 7.6
Green leaves 5.7
Fruits Lemonade 22.9
"Juices" 22.9
Orange juice 15 7
Avocados 1 4.0
Mangoes 12.1
Grapefruit juice 5.1
Miscellaneous Soup 18.5
Coffee 11.5

*157 children.

Not shown in table 4 are the results of an analysis of variance for all clinics, using only the first child in each family. In this case also, statistical significance between blends was not found for any of the 11 response characteristics.

Table 5 shows the percentage of children consuming a number of other foods in addition to the assigned blended product, which was intended as a supplement. The most popular cereal staple was corn, followed by rice. Beans or other type vegetables were also commonly eaten. In comparison to plant foods, animal protein foods such as milk, meat, and fish were consumed by a considerably lower percentage of the children.

No allergic responses were observed during the study.


This study has demonstrated the feasibility of producing a corn-based, PL 480-type food blend containing glandless cottonseed flour that is comparable in nutritional quality, maternal and child acceptability, and child gastrointestinal tolerance to the extensively used US Food-for-Peace Program food, corn-soy-milk.

The blend containing glandless cottonseed flour offers the economic advantage of not requiring an animal protein component. However, at the present time glandless cottonseed flour is not economically competitive with soy flour. With more extensive cultivation of glandless cottonseed, the prospect of using this commodity in nutritious food blends will be more favourable.


The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions to this study of Victor Chew, Mathematical Statistician, Southern Region, USDA, Gainesville, Florida, for statistical analysis of the data; Michael R. Gumbmann, Toxicology and Biological Evaluation Research Unit, Western Regional Research Center, USDA, Berkeley, California,for protein evaluations by animal assay; and to the following auxiliary nutritionists at the designated centres in Haiti for their assistance in field testing: Mrs. Samuel Domersant (Delmas), Ms. Rita Innocent (Pernier), Mrs. Wilfrid Osias (Christ-Roi), Captain C. Pierre (Salvation Army), and Mrs Berne Zephir (Carrefour Feuilles)


1. G.N. Bookwalter, "Corn-Based Foods Used in Food Aid Programs: Stability Characteristics -A Review." J. Food Sci. 42: 1421 (1977).

2. R.E. Hayes, J.J. Spadaro, J.l. Wadsworth, and D.W. Freeman, "An Experimental Study of Corn-Based Food Blends Formulated for Optimum Chemical Score." Agricultural Research service, us Department of Agriculture, in press.

3. R.E. Hayes, J.l. Wadsworth, and J.J. Spadaro, "Corn-and Wheat-Based Blended Food Formulations with Cottonseed or Peanut Flour." Cereal Foods Wrld. 23; 548 (1978).

4. J.l. Wadsworth, R.E. Haves, and J.J. Snadaro, "Optimum Protein Quality Food Blends." Cereal Foods Wrld. 24: 274 (1979).

5. Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. "Corn/ Soy Blend Announcement CSB-3 with Updating Through Amendment 1." US Department of Agriculture, Shawnee Mission, Kansas (1982).

6. Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. "Corn-Soya-Milk/Instant Corn-Soy a-MiIk Export Announcement CSSM-1 with Updating Through Amendment 5." US Department of Agriculture, Shawnee Mission, Kansas (1982).

7. B.B. Alford and K. Onley, "The Minimum Cottonseed Protein Required for Nitrogen Balance in Women." J. Nutr. 108:506 (1978).

8. M.R. Thomas, J. Ashby, S.M. Sneed, and L.M. O'Rear, "Minimum Nitrogen Requirement from Glandless Cotton seed Protein for Nitrogen Balance in College Women." J. Nutr. 109:397 (1979).

9. J. Johnson, B.B. Alford, and R.E. Pike, "Guidelines for Preliminary Food Formulations Using Cottonseed Products." Food Product Develop. 9: 40 (1975).

10. G.G. Graham, E. Morales, G. Acevedo, J.M. Baerti, and A. Cordano, "Dietary Protein Quality in Infants and Children. II. Metabolic Studies with Cottonseed Flour." Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 22: 577 (1969).

11. G.G. Graham, E. Morales, G. Acevedo, J.M. Baerti, and A. Cordano. "Dietary Protein Quality in Infants and children. III. Prolonged Feeding of Cottonseed Flour." Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 23: 165 (1970).

12. D. Rosenblum, "Glandless Cottonseed Opens a New Route for Developing Protein-Fortified Foods." Food Product Develop. 14: 34, 38, 40, 72 (1980).

13. Protein Advisory Group of the United Nations, PAG Guideline No. 7, "Human Testing of Supplementary Food Mixtures." FAO/WHO/UNICEF, New York (1970).

14. G.G. Berggren, "Home-Prepared Food Supplements, Mothercraft Centres. and Nutrition in Haiti." Food Nutr. Bull. 3 (4): 29 (1981),

15. G.G. Berggren, "Questions and Answers about Weaning." Food Nutr. Bull. 4 (1): 20 (1982).

16. World Health Organization Techn. Rep. Ser. No. 522, Energy and Protein Requirements. Report of a Joint FAO/ WHO Ad Hoc Expert Committee. Wld Hlth Org., Geneva, 1973.

17. Protein Advisory Group of the United Nations, PAG Guideline No. 8, "Protein-Rich Mixtures for Use as Weaning Foods." FAD/WHO/UNICEF, New York (1971).

18. F.R. Senti, "Formulated Cereal Foods in the US Food-for-Peace Program," in: Protein-Enriched Cereals for World Needs, M. Milner (Ed.) (American Association of Cereal Chemists, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1969, p. 246).

19. F.R. Senti, "Guidelines for the Nutrient Composition of Processed Foods." Cereal Sci. Today 17: 157 (1972).

20. G.F. Combs, "Development of a Supplementary Food Mixture (CSM) for Children." PAG Bull No. 7: 15 (1967).

21. L. Abrahamson, L. Hambraeus, and B. Valquist, "Swedish Emergency Food (SEF): An Ongoing Applied Nutrition Research Program." PAG Bull. LV (4): 26 (1974)

22. Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. "Sweetened, Instant Corn-Soya-Milk Announcement CSM-6 with Updating Through Amendment 7." US Department of Agriculture, Shawnee Mission, Kansas (1982).

23. Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC), Official Methods of Analysis, 12th ed. (AOAC, Washington, D.C., 1982).

24. American Oil Chemists' Society (AOCS), Official and Tentative Methods. 3rd ed. (with Updates) (AOCS, Champaign, Illinois, 1979).

25. M.G. Legendre, G.S. Fisher, W.H. Schuller, H.P. Dupuy, and E.T, Rayner, "Novel Technique for the Analysis of Volatiles in Aqueous end Nonaqueous Systems." J. Am. Oil. Chem. Soc. 56:552 (1979),

26. F.E. Kaiser, C.Z. Gehrke, R.W. Zumwalt, and K. Kuo, "Amino Acid Analysis. Hydrolysis, on-Exchangeon-Exchange Clean-up, Derivitization, and Quantitation by Gas-Liquid Chromatography." J. Chromatogr. 94: 113 (1974).

27. J. F-Amaya, C.T. Young, and Q.O. Chichester, "Automated Determination of Tryptophan in Legumes and Cereals." J. Agric. Food Chem. 25: 139 (1977).

28. J.R. Couch, "Collaborative Study of the Determination of Available Lysine in Protein and Feeds," J. Assoc. Off. Agric. Chem. 58: 599 (1975).

29. W.A. Pons and C.L. Hoffpauir, "Determination of Free and Total Gossypol in Mixed Free and Total Gossypol in Mixed Feeds Containing Cottonseed Meals." J. Assoc. Off. Agric Chem. 40: 1068 (1557).

30. G.R. Jansen, "Biological Evaluation of Protein Quality." Food Technol. 32: 52 (1978).

31. R.D. Stubblefield, "The Rapid Determination of Aflatoxin M1 in Dairy Products." J.Am. Oil. Chem. Soc. 56: 800 (1979).

32. American Society for Testing and Materials Committee E-29. Manual on Sieving Methods. (ASTM Special Technical Publication 447A, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1972).

33. G.W. Snedecor and W.G. Cochran, Statistical Methods, 7th ed. (Iowa State University Press, Ames, lows, 1980).

34. M. Milner, "Guideline for Edible Cottonseed Protein Flours and Related Products." Food Nutr. Bull. 2 (3): 51 (1980).

35. Protein Advisory Group of the United Nations, PAG Guideline No.4, "Preparation of Edible Cottonseed Protein Concentrate." FAO/WHO/UNICEF ,New York (1972).

36. Protein Advisory Group of the United Nations, PAG Guideline No. 11, "Sanitary Production and Use of Dry Protein Foods." FAD/WHO/UNICEF, New York (1972).

37. M. Milner, "Guideline for Production of Edible, Heat Processed Soy Grits and Flours." Food Nutr. Bull. 2 (1): 42 (1980).

38. M.L. Speck (Ed.), Compendium of Methods for the Microbiological Examination of Foods. (American Public Health Association, Washington, D.C., 1976).


Contents - Previous - Next