FORM 2
THE PATENTS ACT; 1970
(39 of 1970)
PROVISIONAL / COMPLETE SPECIFICATION
(See section 10; rule 13)
I. Title of the invention : " Formulation of Antioxidant and Nutritient Rich
Soyabased Food Products to Combat Malnutrition and Dreaded Diseases"
4 Applicant
a. Name: Dr. Ghatge Nalini Sahebrao
b. Nationality: Indian
c. Address: Women's College of Home Science and BCA, Loni Kd,
Tal. : Rahata Dist.: Ahmednagar Pin:-413713
a. Name: Dr. Pattan Shashikant Rudrappa
b. Nationality: Indian
c. Address: Pravara Rural College of Pharmacy,
Pravaranagar. A/P : Ldni-413736,Tal'.-Rahata,Dist. -Ahmednagar
The following specification describes the invention (in case the specification is provisional)
The following specification particularly describes the invention and the manner in which it is to be performed (in case the specification is complete)
The present study has brought light to some important facts on the whole it can be concluded majority of the preschool children were having factors which directly responsible for malnutrition in future, This malnutrition effects on poor food intake, nutrient intake, anthropometric, clinical and biochemical parameters in preschool children.
Preschool children are the backbone of the future population. Therefore a proper supplementation feeding should to conduced to over come the health related problems at an early stage. The supplementary feeding product must be formulated by taking into account their acceptability, local availability, nutritional quality , storage stability and cost affordability. By taking into account of these factors soya products found a better supplementary food.
The organoleptic qualities like taste, texture, flavour and over all acceptability of the soyaladoo was highly scored by the panel.
It also noted that, very less aminutrlional factors like phytate phosphorous, tannin tryspin inhibitor activityacid detergent fiber, cclluloseand lignin.
The inviro digestibility of protein and per cent bioavailability of iron shown higher in soya product.
Highly significant improvements in nutrients intake, anthropometric measurements, clinical and biochemical assessments were measured in li grade malnourished preschool after the supplementation of soya products. It is recommended as all soya products could be supplementary food for combating malnutrition among preschool children. Claim: I. Antioxidant
2. Nutritional supplements
3. Anthropometric Parameter 4.Food Supplements

PROPOSAL FOR PATENT
FORMULATION OF ANTIOXIDANT AND NUTRITIENT RICH SOYABASED FOOD
PRODUCTS TO COMBAT MALNUTRITION AND DREADED DISEASES"APPLICANTS:
1. Dr. N.S. Ghatge Principal
Women's College of Home Science and BCA,
Loni 413736
Dist. Ahmednagar (MS)
Email- nalinihemangi26@rediffrna1 .com Mobile-02422-272065,09422060052/07588558427
2. Dr. S.R.Pattan Principal
Pravara Rural College of Pharmacy Loni 413736 Dist. Ahmednagar (MS) Email- shashipattan@yahoo.com No. 02422-273528, 9423787413

ABSRACT:
Malnutrition among the preschool children is global health disease. Malnutrition is the greatest thread to global public health. It has estimated that 178 millions children are malnourished around the World. Whereas 40 per cent children are found under nourished among them 6.4 per cent are estimated severely malnourished in India. The rate of malnutrition in India is twice to as high as it in all of Sub Sarharian Africa and five times higher than China. In fact the number of starving children in Indian is increasing by 2.5 per cent in the population.
To combat malnutrition and dreaded disease the innovation in the formulation of traditional based soyaproducts are essential . As soyabean is a nutritional gift and wonder bean which is rich in antioxidant, has nutraceutical properties and content all most all nutrients. The amminoacid pattern of the soya bean is similar to cow milk. It is an alkaline in nature. It is cheap in cost amongst in all legume. Hence the formulation of Soyaproducts are done. These products are Soyaladoo, Soyaflakes Chiwada and Soyachakali. The keeping quality of these products were good . There were no significant change in nutrient content observed after storage. It does not content antinutritional factors. These products have high protein digestibility as well as iron availability.
These products significantly helps in treating malnutrition among the preschool children. These products have positive impact on- Food Intake Pattern, Nutrient Intake, Anthropometric Measurement, Clinical Examination and Biochemical Analysis of preschool malnourished children.

CLAIM:
FORMULATION OF ANTIOXIDANT AND NUTRITIENT RICH SOYABASED FOOD PRODUCTS TO COMBAT MALNUTRITION AND DREADED DISEASES.
The above mentioned formulation is claimed for-
1. Antioxidant
2. Dietary supplements
3. Nutritional supplements
4. Anthropometric changes
5. Biochemical and clinical changes

TITLE INVENTION:
FORMULATION OF ANTIOXIDANT AND NUTRITIENT RICH SOY ABASED FOOD PRODUCTS TO COMBAT MALNUTRITION AND DREADED DISEASES.
FIELD OF INVESTIGATION:
1.0 Formulation And Preparation Of Soybased Food Products And Evaluation With Their Supplementation On Nutritional Profile Of Malnourished Preschool Children.The studies of different parameters i.e. Analysis of soyaproducts nutritional and antinutritional factor.
1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE INVESTIGATION:
Estimated that 175 million children are malnourished around the world,
undernourished children were 40 percent and among them 6.4 percent were severely
malnourished in India.
OBJECTIVES OF RESEARCH :
1.2 To formulate soyabased food products
1.3 To evaluate soybased food produced in terms of their contents of Organoleptic evaluation
Major Nutrients i.e. protein, fat, carbohydrate, energy. Micro "Nutrients i.e. minerals like calcium, zinc and iron. Antinutritional factors i.e. vitamins like Bl, B2 Nicotinic acid, phytate
phosphorus, fiber, tryspin inhibitor, acid detergent, fiber, cellulose and
lignin.
In-vitro protein digestibility and iron bioavailability keeping quality
1.4 Assess the nutritional and health status of the preschool children through-
Food intake pattern
Nutrient Intake
Anthropometric measurement
Clinical examination
Biochemical Analysis
1.5 To study the impact of supplementation of soyaby products in the
Food intake pattern
Nutrient Intake
Anthropometric measurement
Clinical examination
Biochemical assessment

2.0 BRIEF REVIEW LITERATURE:
2.1 Factors affecting on malnutrition and its effect on health and nutritional status of preschool children.
Early childhood malnutrition can have been tasting effects on growth and functional states. The inadequate energy and protein intake leads to malnutrition in the form of muscle wasting, stunting growth and underweight. More than 1/4 of all children in younger age in developing countries were under weight. Major sign of malnutrition was susceptibility to this diseases Poor nutrition contributes more than half of the deaths of pre school children in younger age than 5-6 million worldwide (Das Gupta et.al. 2005). The prevalence of protein energy malnutrition (PEM) in Asia is highest in the world. The surveillance of large population of the region implies that more than half of all malnourished children in the world are found in this region (Kiran et. al.2009). India ranks 66th on the 2008 global hunger index of 88 countries (Hughes and Petals, 2009). There was widespread hunger and malnutrition in all parts of India. Madhya Pradesh had the most severe level of hunger in India. It was mainly due to relatively high levels of child malnutrition and under nourishment resulting from protein calorie deficient diets.
2.2 Efforts made to overcome malnutrition
Provision of vitamin A supplements every 4 to 6 months was an expnessive. However, quick and effective way to improve Vitamin A status was mostly required to save the life of children highlighten by Ching and Birmingham (2000).
Spirullina is a microscopic blue green algae in a shape of spocral coil living both in sea and fresh water. Spirullina is a common name for human and animal food. It contains high amount of protein i.e. 55 to 77 per cent by dry weight methods. Vonshak (1997)
2.3 Soyabean by products and its significance for health benefits.
Shukla etal. (1987) observed that, soybean provided higher amount of protein, oil and β carotene. However, reducing sugar and carotene in fababean and carotene in soybean had inverse relationship with their seed size.
Deshpande (1999) the study observed that food grade soy flours can be successfully enhances protein quality and nutritive value of our staple cereal products when substituted at 20 per cent level without affecting the acceptability

Macfarlane et.al. (2004). Protein and iron absorption were found to be significantly improved in sillcan tofu, natto, miso tempeh, rice, miso barley after addition of equal amount of soyaflour.
Belloyue and CasteIIo(2005) worked on analysis of soy protein as a meat product. Found that, the use of soy protein as meat extenders has spread significantly due to the interesting nutritional and functional properties that were present in soy bean proteins. (Aguilera and Lusas (2005) soya supplementation not only enhance the protein quality but also to improve the glucose and lipid metabolism
Parmar etal.(2007) explained the effect of different milk coagulants on the chemical and organoleptic characteristic of tofu prepared from different soya sources i.e. soya dhal, soya flour and germinated soyabean.
Peter, (2007) examined the chemical, functional and baking properties of cookie used with soyabean. It found that, soyaflour could be used to replace upto 40 per cent maize flour in biscuits without adversely affecting the physical and sensory properties of the biscuits. Such soyaflour and maize flour blended biscuit had higher protein content than hundred per cent maize flour or wheat flour biscuit.
Prasad et.al.(2007) conducted the experiment on extruded product from sorghum and defatted soya flour. The snack prepared from sorghum with Soya flour i.e. 80:20 in ratio has significantly higher organoleptic quality than the product obtained from sorghum flour alone. The protein efficiency ratio (PER) of the extruded product was significantly high.
Ice cream prepared by substituting standardized milk with different proportion of soymilk by Singh (2009). It was examined for physico chemical properties and sensory evaluation. Lactose content and sensory scores decreased with increase in soymilk content. The substitution of standardize milk with soymilk upto 30 per cent resulted in soft serve ice-cream of acceptable flavour.
Kumar et.al.(2001) identified to possess relatively low level of trypsin inhibitor activity in the soyabean varieties. These two varieties were suitable for preparing various soyproducts like soy flour, soymilk and tofu.

Other than these antinutritional factors, soyabean is also content flatulence producing carbohydrate. By to use of microbial enzyme supplements in diets based on soy meal decreases antinutritional compounds such as phytate and flatulence producing carbohydrates stated by Christina et.al. (2008).
Kothari (1985) stated, the protein calories malnutrition as an important diseases of infancy
and early childhood. To overcome this disease various combination of food stuffs rich in protein
and calories are essential reported by several workers in their studies. Doras- wamy et.al (1986)
used fish, groundnut, bengal gram flour and skim milk powder as infant food. Sail et. al. (1986)
used high protein soya biscuits as supplements for preschool children. Desikaser Subrhmenyan
(1986) gave soyamilk to preschool children to improve nutritional status. Where as Glasser and
Johnstone(1985) used soyamilk as substitute for mammalian milk and in feeding children who
where allergic to animal milk.
Alsen (2004) reported that, daily intake of two-glass of soymilk prevents lumbar spine loss in postmenopausal women. Soybean consumption was helped to cure degenerative losses of bones.
Where as the consumption of one liter of soymilk per day for three months found more benefited for lowering LDL cholesterol. Similarly soyamilk plays an important role in weight loss revealed by AHday and Judith (2008).
Missina (1994) revealed that consumption of soya foods contributing to relatively low rates breast, colon and prostate cancer. Moyad (1994) also found that the soy product and their constituent's primarily isoflavones or phytoestrogen were partly responsible for the lower rates of chronic disease like cardiovascular diseases ho.
3.0 METHODS AND MATERIALS
3.1 Tools and Techniques:
3.2 24 hours dietary recall (M. Swaminathan (1996)
3.3 Anthropometric measurements:
Anthropometric measurements ( Swaminathan 1996)
3.4 Clinical Assessment
Clinical Assessment (Jelliffe 1966)

3.5 Biochemical Analysis ,
Biochemical Analysis (Raghuramulu et al 1983)
3.6 Formulation and preparation of soyabyproducts :
Soya products such as soyaladoo, soyachakali and soyaflakes chiwada in three difference combination were prepared by (Thanganoma Phillips 1971) Organoleptically high scored products were selected. The sensory qualities evaluated Amerine et al (1965).
3.7 Evaluation of Soya products :
Major nutrients and minor nutrient (AOAC 1975 and NIN 2003).
Antinutritional factors were estimated by using standards methods. Phytate
phosphorus (Haug and Lantzsch 1983). Tryspin in hibitor activity by (Kakad
etal 1974). Tannin by AOAC(1975), Acid detergent fiber by (Vansoet 1970) and
cellulose by determined values of acid detergent fiber and lignin.
In vitro protein digestibility by AOAC (1975) Non protein by Lees(1975)
method.
In vitro protein arsersed by (Akeson and Stachman 1964).
Iron availability of soyaproduct assessed by in vitro method of by (Narasingrao
Rao and Prabhawathi 1978).
Storage stability of soyaproduct.(N IN 2003)
Cost calculation : Classified as cost of raw material cost and processing cost.
Selection of preschool children is done on the basis of grade of malnutrition grade
II and grade III.
Selected feeding programme 25 malnourished children each group.
Soyaladoo group, soyachakali group, soyaflakes chiwada group and control
group.
Supplementary food i.e. Soyaladoo group, soyachakali group, soyaflakes chiwada
Where provided @ 50 gm/child/day for experimental Group I, 11,111 respectively
4.0 RESULT:
The result of this research study presented in following manners: 4.1 Formulation and evaluation of soya based food products 4.1.2Evaluation of soya product through
4.1.3 Organoleptic evaluation
4.1.4 Major and Micro Nutrients
4.1.5 Antinutritional factors
4.1.6 Nutritional composition of soya products after storage
4.1.7 In-vitro protein digestibility and iron bioavailability keeping quality
4.1.8 Cost calculation
4.1.9 Supplementation of supplementary food

4.t Food intake pattern
4.2.1 Nutrient Intake
4.2.2 Anthropometric measurement
4.2.3 Clinical examination
4.2.4 Biochemical Analysis
4.1.3 III FORMULATION AND EVALUATION OF SOYABASED FOOD PRODUCTS ORGANOLEPTICALLY HIGH SCORED SOYA BY PRODUCTS:

I Soyaladoo Soya flour : Bengal gram dhal flour:SemoIina Colour Flavour Taste Texture Over all acceptability

50 : 50 : 20 8.3 7.2 6.6 8.3 8.2
II Soyachakali Soya flour : Bengal gram dhal flour: Rice flour

40 : 60 : 10 6.7 7.3 6.9 6.9 7.1
III Soyaflakes chiwada Soya flakes : Rice flakes

40 : 60 7.5 7.4 7.8 7.9 7.6

Sr. Major nutrients(per lOOg) So> a byproducts
No.
Soyaladoo Mean ± S(a) SoyachakaliMean ± SD(b) Soyaflakes chiwada Mean*SD (c) '(' Test
1 Moisture (per cent) 11.6±2.2 11.7±1.2 11.8±1.7 a vs b (6.06) NS
bvsc(U0)NS c vs a (0.07) NS
2 Ash (per cent) 3.l±1.7 2.9±0.9 3.6±1.5 avsb(1.23)NS avsb(1.61)NS cvsa(0.91)NS
3 Carbohydrate (g) 95.4±1.9 93.1±0.7 86.7±3.1 avsb(1.77)NS
bvsc(2.65)*
cvsa(2.81)*
4 Energy (k.cal) I070.0±1.8 1065.0±1.4 826.0±3.6 avsb(1.22)NS b vs c (2.78) * cvs a (2.86)*
5 Total protein (g) 32.1±1.7 30.8±1.5 28.0±0.6 avsb(1.07)NS
bvsc(1.23)NS cvsa(2.61)*
6 Crude fat (g) 24.0±1.3 22.8±1.7 22.9±0.7 avsb(0.92)NS b vs c (0.03) NS cvsa(U3)NS
7 Thiamine (mg) 0.36±0.01 0.32±0.39 0.29±0.49 avsb(0.14)NS bvsc(0.11)NS
cvs a (2.85)*
8 Riboflavin (mg) 0.18±0.03 0.19±0.01 0.27±0.03 a vs b (0.05) NS b vs c (2.98)* c vs a (3.04)*
9 Niacin (mg) 3.35±0.15 5.27±0.98 7.11±2.22 a vs b(2.77)* a vs b(2.65)*
cvsa(2.8I)*
10 B Carotene (μg) 1186.6±4.49 968.5±3.11 1127.8±4,81 avsb{t.22)NS bvsc(2.78)NS c vs a (2.86) NS
11 Calcium (mg) 286.5±8.6 245.5±4.1 273.8±3.5 avsb(3.21)* bvsc(3.09)* cvsa(1.26)NS
12 Iron (mg) 6.3± 0.9 4.9±1.4 5.8±0.6 avsb(2.61)* bvsc(0.81)NS
c vs a 0.50)NS
13 Zinc (mg) 3.8±0.7 2.1±0.6 2.5±0.1 a vs b (2.70)*
avsb(0.74)NS
cvsa(1.21)NS


4.1.5 ANTINUTRITIONAL CONTENT IN DIFFERENT SOYA BY PRODUCTS

1. Phytate phosphorous(per l00g) Soya by products

Soyaladoo Mean ± SD Sovachakali Mean±SD) Soya flakes chiwada Mean ± SD V Test
a Raw ingredients 416.8±8.2 4163.8±8.2 320.0 ± 6.1 a vs b (3.2)* b vs c (5.3)** cvs a (6.1)**
b Final product 160.0 ±5.7 120.4 ±8,4 130.6 ±3.9 a vs b (4.5)** bvsc(3.4)** cvs a (5.2)**
'Z' Value 9(18.5)** (17.6)** (9.8)**
2 Trypsin inhibitor activity
(mg/lOOg)
a Raw ingredients 26.9±2.6 29.9.8±2.1 25.5 ± 1.4 avsb(l.22)NS bvsc(1.35)NS cvs a (0.94) NS
b Final product 5.5 ±1.9 3.5 ±.08 4.2 ± 0.9 avsb(1.30)»S bvsc(1.10)NS cvs a (0.88) NS
'Z' Value (4.11)"* (4.32)** (4.18)**
3 Tannin(perlOOg)
a Raw ingredients 0.49±0.03 0.49±0.02 0.56 ± 0.04 a vs b (0.0)NS bvsc(0.91)NS cvs a (0.91) NS
b Final product 0.34 ±0.01 0.29 ±0.01 0.31± 0.02 avsb(1.40)NS bvsc(1.21)NS c vs a (0.62) NS
'Z' Value (3.81)** (3.99)** (4.25)*
Acid detergent fiber(g/100g)
Raw ingredients 2.03±1.60 I.96±0.85 1.48 ±0.51 a vs b (0.75)NS b vs c(0.81)NS cvs a (2.68)*
Final product 1.31±0.91 1.08 ±0.60 1.22 ±0.44 avsb(2.19)* bvsc(2.02)* cvs a (0.81) NS
'Z' Value (2.92)** (2.11)* (0.96)NS
5 Lignin (g/I00g)
a Raw ingredients O.95±0.07 0.86±0.04 0.58 ±0.04 avsb(0.06)NS b vs c (0.09)NS cvsa(0.31)NS
b Final product 0.31± 0.02 0.29 ±0.02 0.38 ±0.03 avsb(0.05)NS bvsc(0.07)NS cvsa(0.10)NS
'Z' Value (3.51)** (3.45)** (2.66)*
6 Cellulose (g/IOOg)
a Raw ingredients 1.08± l.I0± 0.90 ± avsb(1.39)NS bvsc(1.22)NS cvsa(0.95)NS
b Final product 1.00± 0.79 ± 0.84 ± avsb(1.98)* bvsc(0.06)NS cvs a (0.43) NS

■ 'significant at 5 per cent level
■ ** significant at 1 per cent level
■ NS-Nonsignificant

4.1.6 NUTRITIONAI COMPOSITION OF SOYABYPRODUCTS AFTER ITS STORAGE

Sr Proximate
composition
(per l00) Soya by product
No.
Soya ladoo (a) (a) Soya chakali (a) (b) (b1) SoyaflalkesChiwida (a) (c1) 't' test (a1vs b1) (b1vc C1) (c1vsa1)
1 Moisture (per cent) 11.6 11.3 11.4 11.1 11.8 11.6 (0.26)NS (2.11)* (0.41)NS
2 Ash (per cent) 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.9 3.6 3.5 (0.05)NS (2.35)* (1.20)NS
3 Carbohydrate (g) 95.4 95.3 93.1 93.0 86.7 86.3 (1.40)NS (2.51)* (2.70)*
4 Total protein (g) 32.1 30.6 30.8 29.6 28.0 27.2 (0.04)NS (2.54)* (2.86)*
5 Crude fat (g) 24.0 23.8 22.8 22.6 22.9 22.6 (O.H)NS (0.0)NS (0.21)NS
6 Thiamine (mg) 0.36 0.31 0.32 0.31 0.29 0.26 (0.0)NS (2.41)* (2.41)*
7 Riboflavin(mg) 0.18 0.1 0.19 0.17 0.27 » 0.24 (0.06)NS (2.62)* (2.87)*
8 Niacin (mg) 3.35 3.19 5.27 5.04 7.11 6.61 (2.49)* (1.28)NS (2.63)*
9 β carotene (μg) 1186.6 1184.8 968.5 967.9 1127.8 1126.9 (3.44)** (3.19)** (2.60)*
10 Calcium (mg) 288.4 288.1 247.6 247.2 245.5 24.51 (3.26)** (1.10)NS (3.19)**
11 Iron (mg) 6.4 6,3 5.3 5.3 4.9 4.8 (0.82)NS (0.69)NS (0.71)NS
12 Zinc (mg) 4.1 4.0 2.3 2.3 2.1 2.10 (2.50)* (0.08)NS (2.48)*
a,b,c,- Average nutritional values of the soya by products before storage.
■ al, bl, cl - average nutritional values of the soya by products before storage for 2 months at room temperature.
■ ** significant at 1 per cent level
■ 'significant at 5 per cent level
■ NS -Non Significant

4.1.7 PROTEIN DIGESTIBILITY AND IRON BIOAVAILABILITY OF SOYABEAN AND SOYA PRODUCTS

Sr. No. Soyabean and soya by products Protein Digestibility (%) Iron Bioavailability (%)
1 Soyabean 59.2 3.91
2 Soyaflour 61.5 4.45
3 Soyaflakes 75.8 4.89
4 Soyaladoo 77.1 5.07
5 Soyachakali 74.4 4.59
6 Soyaflakes chiwada 73.8 4.63
S.E. 1.656 CD. at 5 percent level 4.98 S. E. 0,26 CD. at 5 percent level 1.50
4.1.8 COST CALCULATION OF SOYABYPRODUCTS

Sr.No. Cost Calculation (per kg) Soyaladoo Soyachakali Soyaflakes Chiwada
1 Material cost 68.0 100.0 62.5
2 Processing cost @ 20% of raw material 25.0 20.0 12.5
Total Cost 88.0 120.0 75.0
4.1.9 All soya products supplemented to experimental group @ of 50 gm/child /day.
4.2 FOOD INTAKE OF EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS OF MALNOURISHED PRESCHOOL CHILDREN.

Sr. No. Nutrients Group I Mean ±S.D. Group II Mean ±S.D. Group III Mean ± S.D. Group IV Mean ± S.D.
1 Cereals (g) 151.31 ±20.6 (86.5) 125.5±17.1 (71.7) 121.0±I6.3 (69.1) 95.32±13.0 (54.5)
2 Legume (g) 39.8±5.4 (88.4) 36.6±4.9 (81.3) 40.4±5.4 (89.8) 17.7±2.4 (39.2)
3 Green leafy vegetable (g) 32.2±4.4 (51.5) 14.0±1.9 (22.4) 9.8±1.3 (15.7) H.0±1.9 (22.4)
4 Other vegetable Roots and tuber (g) 29.4±4.0 (B.6) 31.9±4.4 (79.8) 22.2±3.0
(55.4) 18.5±2.6 (45.0)
5 Milk and milk product (ml) 192.6±26.3 (96.3) 63.3±8.6 (31.6) 75.0±10.2 (37.5) 61.7±8.4 (30.8)
6 Oil and fats (g) 16.1 ±2.2 (80.3) 14.3±2.0 (70.5) K8±2.0
(73.5) ll.9±1.6
(69.5)
7 Egg meat fish poultry (g) 28.5±3.9 (81-7) 22.9±3.I (65.4) 22.6±3.0 (64.6) 22.2±3.0 (63.3)
8 Sugar and jaggary (g) 28.8±3.9 (82.2) 17.1 ±2.3 (48.9) 24.0±3.3 (68.6) 17.0±2.3 (48.6)
9 Roasted Bengal gram dhal (g) - - 3.2±0.4 (16.3) -
10 Fruits (g) - - - -
Group I - experimental group with supplementation of soyaladoo.
Group II - Experimental group with supplementation of soyachakali.
Group II - Experimental group with supplementation of soyaflakes chiwada.
Group IV - No supplementation i.e. control group.
Figures in Paran theses indicate percentage.
* significant at 5 per cent level ** significant at 1 per cent level
NS Non Significant BS - Before supplementation AS - After supplemental

4.3 FOOD GROUP INTAKE OF EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS BEFORE AND AFTER SUPPLEMENTATION.

Sr.
No. Food group Group [ Mean ± S.D. Group II Mean±S.D. Group III Mean ±S.D. Group IV Mean ± S.D.
Cerea and legume BS AS 't' value BS AS value BS AS 't' value Before6 months After 6 months 't' value
1. Cereals (g) 101.0*13.8
(57.7) 15I.3±20.6 (86.5) 6.8** 98.9±I3.5 (56.5) 125.5±17.I (71.7) 8.8** 100±13.6 (57.1) 121.0±I6.5
(69.1) 3.2** 94.3±13.1 (54.0) 95.5±3.0 (54,5) 0.5NS
2. Legume (g) 17.842.4 (39.6) 39.8±5.4 (88.5) 3.7** 18.6±2.5 (41.3) 36.6±5.0 (81.3) 5.1** 15.4±2.1 (34.2) 40.4±5.5 (88.9) 5.8** 17.7±2.4
(392) 17.7±2.4 (39.2) 0.1
NS
3. Green leafy vegetable (g) 30.3±4.l (48.4) 32.2±4.4 (51.5) 1.4NS 14.1±1.3 (22.6) 15.3±2.1 (24.4) 1.6NS 10.1±l.4 (16.2) 9.8±1,5 (15.7) 1.0NS 14.0±1.3 (22.4) 15.0±2.0 (24.0) 0.4 NS
4. Other
vegetable Roots and
tuber (g) 29.4±4,0 (73.6) 29.0±3.9 (72.5) 0.5NS 31.0±4.9 (78.0) 3I.9±4.9 (79.6) 0.6NS 20.3±2.8 (50.7) 22.2±3.0 (54,4) I.3NS 17.0±2.3 (42.4) I8.5±2.5
(46.2) 0.8
NS
5. Milk and milk product
(ft) 190.0±25.9 (95.0) 192.6±26.3 (96.3) I.7NS 55.3±7.5 (27.6) 63.0±8.6 (31.5) 2.5NS 74.3±10.0 (37.2) 75.0±I0.2 (37.5) 1.3 NS 60.0±8.2
(30.0) 6I.7±8.4 (30.8) 1.2 NS
6. Egg meat fish-poultry (g) 28.0±3.8 (80.0) 28.6±3.9 (81,0) 0.8NS 21.3±2.9 (60.7) 22.9±3.1 (63.3) 1.4NS 2I,0±2.9 (59.8) 22.6±3.1 (64.5) 0.4NS 22.0±3.0 (62.9) 21.0±2,8 (60.0) 0.3
NS
7. Oils and fats (g) 5.9 ±0.8
(29.5) I6.l±2.2 (80.3) 3.4** 6.5±0.9 (32.5) 14.8±2.Q (73.8) 3.6** 5.17±
0.7
(28.9) 9.6± *1.3 (47.9) 2.8* 10.9±
1.5
(54.3) ll.9±
1.6
(59.3) 0.5 NS
8. Sugar and jaggery (g) 13.9
±1.9 (39.5) 28.9
±3.9 (82.3) 5.3** 16.9 ±2.3 (48.3) 17.2 ±2,3 (48.9) 0.7NS 23.0 ±3.1 (65.7) 24.0 ±3.2 (67.6) 0.2NS 17.0 ±2.3 (48.6) 20.6 ±2.3 (58.9) 2.9*
9. Roasted Bengal gram dhal (g) - - - - - - - 3.16 ±0.4 (15.8) - - - -
10. Fruits (g) - - - - - - - - - - - -
Group I - Experimental group with supplementation of soyaladoo.
Group II - Experimental group with supplementation of soyachakali.
Group II - Experimental group with supplementation of soyaflakes chiwada .
Group IV - No supplementation i.e. control group.
Figures in Paran theses indicate percentage.
* significant at 5 per cent level ** significant at 1 per cent level
NS Non Significant BS - Before supplementation AS - After supplementatio

4.2.1 NUTRIENTS INTAKE OF EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS

Sr.No. Nutrients Group IMean±S.D. Group II Mean ±S.D. Group III Mean ±S-D. Group IV Mean ±S.D.
1 Calories (K.cal) 1144 ±11.4(78.4) 1060.6± 6.2 (72.6) 924.3± 3.1 (63.3) 634.2± 5.3 (43.4)
2 Protein (g) 17.4±4.3(66.9) 16.9±4.2(65.1) 16.6±4,1 (64.0) 10.0±2.7 (38.5)
3 Fat(g) 21.1±4.3(84.5) 19.5 ±4.0 (77.8) I4.5±3.0(58.0) 10.3±2.1(41.3)
4 Vitamin B] (mg) 0.65±0.1(78.7) 0.60±0.1 (76.5) 0.54±O. 1(72.0) 0.31±O.I(4I.3)
5 Vitamin B2(mg) 0.63 ±0.1 (72.9) 0.61±0.l(71.8) 0.62±0.1 (72.9) 0.33±0.07 (38.8)
6 Vitamin B3 (mg) 0.62±0.1(65.3) 0.61±0.1 (63.0) 0.60±0.I(62.0) 0.40±0.9 (42.0)
7 Vitamin C(mg) 27.2±1.7(68.0) 27.2±1.5(68.0) 25.8±0.9 (62.5) 22.4±1.4(56.0)
8 β Carotene (ug) 1128± 14.1(70.5) 1176±8.5(73.5) 1080±7.3(67.5) 757.l±7.9(47.3)
9 Iron (mg) 7.6 ±1.2 (76.4) 6.8±2.7 (68.4) 6.7±2.6 (68.8) 5.6±2.2(56.1)
10 Calcium (mg) 262.8±7.6 (65.0) 192.9±6.6(48.0) 221.9±3.I(55.3) 168.6±5.5(42.0)
11 Zinc (mg) 4.6±0.7(46.1) 4.5±0.4 (45.0) 4.6±0.8 (46.0) 3.8±0.6 (38.0)
Group I - Experimental group with supplementation of soyaladoo. Group II - Experimental group with supplementation of soyachakali. Group II - Experimental group with supplementation of soyaflakes chiwada . Group IV - No supplementation i.e. controlgroup. Figures in paran theses indicate percentage.
4.2.2 NUTRIENTS MAJORINTAKE OF EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS WITH THEIR BEFORE AND AFTER SUPPLEMENTATION.

Sr.
No. Nutrients Group I Mean±S.D. Group II Mean ±S.D. Group HI Mean ±S.D. Group IV Mean ±S.D.
I nutri Major cuts BS AS 't' value BS AS 't' value BS AS 't'
value BS AS 't' value
I. Calories
(K.cal) 724±98.9 (49.4) 1144±U..6 (78.1) 14.1** 745±I0.7 (50.9) 1060±I0.2 (72.4) 10.6** 624±8.2 (42.6) 925±9.3 (63.1) 10.1** 634±8.6 (43.8) 635±8.5 (43.8) 0.!5 MS
2. Protein 00 8.4±U
(32.2) 17.4*2.37 (66.8) 8.0* 9.Oil .2 (34.3) 17.0±23 (65.1) 6.8** 7.6±1.0 (29.4) 16.6±2.2 (64.0) 3.2** lSfcI.3
(38.5) 152±1.3 (38.7) 0.70 NS
3. 1 Fat(g) 6.1±0.8 (24.5) 21.1±2.&
(84.5) 8.3** 5.S±0.7 (21.8) 19.5±2.6 (77.8) 6.9** 7.5±1.0 (29.9) 14.S±6.0 (57.9) 2.6* IG.OOil.
3 (40.0) 10.3±1.4 (41.3) 1.10
NS
1 4. Vitamin Bt (mg) 0.4±0.1 (58.7) 0.7i0.1 (78.0) 3.8** 0.4±0.1 (57.6) 0.7±0.1 (76.0) 3.2** 0.4±0.1 (58.7) 0.5±0.I (69.3) 2.7* 0.3±0.0 (41.3) 0.4±0.1 (58.7) 2.7*
5. Vitamin B2(mg) 0.6±0.t (64.7) 0.7±0.1 (74.0) 3.1** 0.5ifl.l (63.5) 0.6±0.1 (71.8) 2.8* 0.5±0.1
(60.0) 0.6±0.1 (73.9) 2.6* 0.3±0.1 (38.8) 0.3±0.1 (40.0) 1.3 NS
6. Vitamin B3(mg) 0.4±0.1 (44.2) 0.6±0.1 (65.3) 2.7* 0.4±0.1 (42.0) 0.6=K).I (64.2) 3.4** 0.4ifl.l (41.0) 0.6±0.I (63,1) 3.5** 0.4±0.I (42.1) 0.4±0.1 (42.1) 0.0 NS
7. Vitamin
C
(mg) 27.2±3.7 (68.1) 27.2±3.7 (68.1) 0.0NS 27.0±3.7 (67.5) 27.2±3.7 (68.0) 0.70 NS 24.3±3.3 (60.8) 25.8±3.5 (64.5) 0.12 NS 22.0±3.0 (55.0) 22.04±3.0 (55.1) 0.10
NS
8. P
Carotene
(MO 500±3.7 (31.3) H28±15.0 (78.5) 6.1** 576±6.7 (36.0) 1176±16.6 (73.5) 3.9** 326±14.5 (20.4) I080±14.5 (67.5) 4.2** 326±4.5 (20.4) 757.1±10.
4
(47.3) 2.8**
9. Calcium (mg) 82.Q±1.2 (20.5) 182.0±3.4 (66.3) 6.7** 102.0±3.9 (25.5) 193.±23 (48-2) 3,4** 121±1.6 (30.3) 222.0±3.3 (55.5) 3.3** 157.0±1.
4
(39.3) 168.0±2.9 (42.0) 0.7 NS
\0. Iron (mg) 5.1±0.7 (51.1) 7.6±l.O (76.4) 3.8** 5.1±0.6 (51.4) 6.8±0.9 (68.4) 2.7* 5.1±0.7 (51.3) 6.7±0.9 (66.8) 1.22 NS 5,6*0.5 (38.0) 5.6i0.5 (37.5) 0.2 NS
u. Zinc(mg) 1.3±0.2 (12.9) 4.6±0.6 (41.1) 4.!** 1.6±Q.2 (15.9) 4.5±f)6
(45.0) 2.7* 1.4±0.1 (13.9) 4.6±0.6 (46.0) 3.7* 3.8±3.S (38.0) 3.8±0.5 (37.5) 0.2 NS
Group I - Experimental group with supplementation ot soyaladoo.
Group II - Experimental group with supplementation of soyachakali.
Group II - Experimental group with supplementation of soyaflakes chiwada.
Group IV - No supplementation i.e. control group.
Figures in Paran theses indicate percentage.
* significant at 5 per cent level ** significant at 1 per cent level
NS Non Significant BS - Before supplementation AS - After supplementation

4.2.3 ANTHROPOMETRIC MEASUREMENT OF EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS

Sr. No. Anthropometric measurement Group I Mean ± S.D. Group II Mean ± S.D. Group III Menn±S.D. Group IV
Mean±S.D.
1 Height (cm) 96.6 ± 2.9(93.0) 93.9±2.9(89.4) 91.1 ±2.4 (86.7) 89.9 ±2.3 (85.6)
2 Body weight (kg) 13.5±1.84(78.1) 12.0 ±1.8(69.4) 12.0±1.7(69.4) 8.5±1.1(49.5)
3 Arm circumference (cm) 14,0 ±1.9 (93.9) 13.6±1.6(91.2) 13.8 ±1.9(916) 10.3 ±1.4(69,0)
4 Chest circumference (cm) 40.8±6.4 (79.8) 39.1 ±3.3(76.5) 38.5 ±4,1(75.3) 36,2 ±2.0(70.5)
5 Headcircumference (cm) 42.0±6.4 (87.0) 40.1 ±6.3(83.0) 41.7±4.3(86.3) 38.4±2.9(79.5)
6 Skinfold thickness (mm) 10.4±0.9(75.8) 9.3 ±1.3 (67.9) J0.2 ±1.4 (73.9) 8.6 ±1.2(62.6)
1 Wrist circumference (cm) 5.5 ±0,8(70.6) 5.0 ±0,7 (64.2) 4,8 ±0.7(61.6) 4,6 ±0.6 (59.0)
8 Mid Arm muscle circumference (cm) 12.6 ±1.7(84.6) 12,3 ±1.7(82.6) 12.2±1.7(81.0) 11.2 ±1.5(75.1)
9 Body mass index 14.4±2.0(93.3) 13.6±2.0(87.2) 12.8 ±2.0(82.1) 10.6±1.5(67.9)
Group I - Experimental group with supplementation of soyaladoo. Group II - Experimental group with supplementation of soyachakali. Group II - Experimental group with supplementation of soyaflakes chiwada . Group IV - No supplementation i.e. control group. Figures in paran theses indicate percentage.
4.2.2 HEIGHT AND BODY WEIGHT OF EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS BEFORE AND AFTER SUPPLEMENTATION.

Sr. No Anthropometri c measurement Group I Mean ± S.D, Group II Mean ± S.D. Group III
Mean ± S.D. Group IV Mean ± S.D.

BS AS 't' value BS AS Y value BS AS 't' value BS After 6 month 't'
value
1. Height (cm) 84.5±1.6 (80.4) 96.6 ±2.9 (93.0) 2.9* 83.0*1.3 (79.0) 93.9±19 (89.4) 2.8* 82.9*1,9 (78.9) 91,I±2.4
(86,7) 2.6* 85.1*1.6 (81.0) 89.9 ±1.7
(85.6) 2.4*
2. Body weight (kg) 8.6±1.2 (49.7) 13.5 ±1.8 (78.1) 3.2** 8.2*1.1 (47.4) 12.0*1.8
(69.4) 2.9* 7.9*1.1 (45,7) 12.0*1.7 (69.4) 3.I** 8.1*1.1
(47,3) 8.5±1.1 (49.5) 0.91 NS
3. Arm
circumference
(cm) 11.4 ±1.6
(76.5) 14.0 ±1.9 (93.9) 3.4* 10.9 ±1.5 (73.0) 13.611.6 (91.2) 3.1* 10.511.4 (70.5) 13.811.9 (92.6) 3.4** 9.1 ±1.4 (61.1) 10.3 11.4 (69.0) 1.8 NS
4. Chest
circumference
(cm) 35.613.2 (69.6) 40.8±6.4 (79.8) 3.1* 34.014.1
(66.5) 39.113.3
(76.5) r 33.61
4.0 (65.8) 38.514.1
(75.3) 2.9* 34.014.0 (66.5) 36.2
12.0 (70.5) 1.8 NS
5. Head
circumference
(cm) 38.6
±6.0 (79.9) 42.0 ±6.4 (87.0) 2.9* 35.016.1
(72.4) 40.U6.3 (83.0) 2.7* 37.0 ±3.1 (76.6) 41.7±4.3 (86.3) 2.9* 36.212.1 (74.9) 38.4 ±2.9 (79.5) 1.51
NS
6. Wrist
circumference
(cm) 3.9±0.7 (50.1) 5.5 ±0.6 (70.6) 3.0* 4.6 ±0.6
(59.0) 5.010.7 (64.2) 2.1* 4.6 ±0.6
(59.0) 4.8 ±0.7 (69.6) 2.7* 4.6 10.6
(59.0) 4.6 10.6
(59.0) 0.00 NS
7. Skinfold thickness (mm) 7.5 ±1.3 (54.3) 10.4±0.9 (75.8) 2.8* 8.6 ±1.2 (62.0) 9.3*1.3 (67.9) 2.7* 8.6 ±1.2 (62.8) 10.2 ±1.4 (73.9) 2.7* 8.5±1.2 (62.0) 8.711.2 (62.6) 0.4 NS
Mid Arm muscle circumference (cm) 9.5 ±1.6 (63.8) 12.611.7 (84.6) 3.3** 11.4±1.6 (76.5) 12.311.7 (82.6) 2.65* 11.111.5 (74.4) 12.211.7 (81.0) 2.7* 11.0 ±1.5 (73.8) 11.2 ±1.5 (75.1) 0.8N S
Body mass index 12.111.7 (82.0) 14.412.0 (93.3) 3.3** 12.011.7
(76.9) 13.6012.0 (87.2) 2.85* 11.611.6 (74.3) 12.8 12.0 (82.1) 2.8* 11.811.5 (75.5) 10.611.
5
(67.9) 2.71*
Group I - Experimental group with supplementation of soyaladoo.
Group 11 - Experimental group with supplementation of soyachakali.
Group II - Experimental group with supplementation of soyaflakes chiwada.
Group IV - No supplementation i.e. control group. Figures in paran theses indicate percentage.
* significant at 5 per cent level ** significant at 1 per cent level
NS Non Significant BS - Before supplementation AS - After supplementation

4.2.4 CLINICAL EXAMINATION OF EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS OF CHILDREN

Sr
No Clinical signs
and
Symptoms (N-25) Group I (N=25) Group II (N=25) Group II < (N=25) Sroup IV

BS 1 AS 't' test BS AS 't'test BS j AS 't' BS AS 't' test
1 Hair:
Normal luster 6 (24.0) 17 (68.0) 4.8** 3 (12.0) 20 (80.0) 5.1** 19 (76.0) 25 (100) 4.3** 13 (52.0) 8 (32.0) 3.8**
Discoloured 9 (36.0) 3 (12.0) 3.3* 40 (40.0) 3 (12.0) 3.9** 2 (8.0) 9 (36.0) 9 (36.0) -
Dry 4 (16.0) 2 (80) 2.9* 6
(24.0 1 (4.0) 2.8* 1 (4-0) - 1 (4.0) 4 (16.0) 2.8*
Pigmented 3 (12.0) 2 (8.0) 2.7* 6 (24.0) 1 (4.0) 2.8* 2 (8.0) - 1 (4.0) 3 (12.0) 2.6**
Spaice 3 (12.0) 1 (4.0) 3.2* . 1
(4.0) - 1(4.0) 1 (4.0)
Total 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100)
2 Face:
Normal 10 (40.0) 19 (180.0) 4.3** 3 (12.0) 20 (80.0) 5.1** 17 (68.0) 25 (100) 3.5** 15 (60.0) 9 (36.0) 3.6**
Odema 2 (8.0) - — 5 (20.0) - - 2 (8-0) - - 2 (8.0) 3 (12.0) 2.6*
Moon - - - - - - - - - - - -
White patches 13 (52.0) 5 (20.0) 3.8** 17 (68.0) 5 (20.) 4.9** 6 (24.0) - - 8 (32.0) 13
(52.0) 3.5**
Total 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100)
3 Lips:
Normal 13 (52.0) 22 (88.0) 3.9** 17 (68.0) 25 (100) 3.5** 16 (64.0) 25 (100) 3.7** 21 (84.0) 18 (72.0) 2.6*
Angular stomatitis 6
(24.0) 2 (8-0) 2.7* 3 (12.0) - 4 (16.0) 3 (12.0) 4 (16.0) 2.4*

Cheilosis 6 (24.0) 1 (4.0) 3.1* 5 (20.0) - 5 (20.0) * 1 (A.Q) 3 (12.0) 3.1*
Total 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100)

4 Gumes:
Normal 20 (80) 25 (100) 2.8* 20 (80) 25 (100) 2.8* 21 (82) 25 (100) 2.6* 25 (100) 25 (100) 0.0
NS
Bleeding 5 (20) - - 5 (20) - - 4 (16) - - - - -
Total 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100)
5 Tongue:
Normal 15 (60) 25 (100) 3.6** 19 (76) 25 (100) 3.1* 21
(82) 25 (100) 2.6* 21 (84) 18 (72) 2.5*
Pale 7 (28) - 6 (24) - - 2 (8) - 4 (16) 7 (28) 2.6*

Red 3 (12) - - - ■ 2 (8) ■ ■ ■ ■
Total 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100)
6 Lips:
Normal 17 (68) 23 (92) 3.4** 20 (80) 25 (100) 2.8* 22(88 ) 25 (100) 2.5* 20 (80) 20 (80) 0.0
NS
Mottled enamel - - - - - - - - - -
Discoloured 8 (32) 2 (8) 2.8* 5 (20) - - 3 (12) - 5 (20) 5 (20)
Total 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 0.0 NS
7 Eyes:
Normal 21 (84) 22 (88) 0.6N S 19 (76) 20 (80) 1.3 NS 23 (92) 25 (100) 1.6
NS 24 (96) 24 (96) -
Nightblindness 1 (4) 1 (4.0) - 1
(4) - - 2 (8) - - 1 (4) 1 (4) -
Bitot spot 3 (12) 2 (8) 1.1N
S - 5 (20) - - - - - - -
Conjectival xerosis - - 5 (20) - - - - - - - -
Total 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100)
8 Nose:
Normal 24 (96) 24 (96) - 25 (100) 25 (100 - 25 ~ (100) 25 (100) - 25 (100) 25 (100) -
Deviated 1
(4) 1 (4) - - - - - - - - - -
Total 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100)
9 Ears:
Normal 21 (84) 25 (100) - 21 (84) 25 (100) - 18 (72) 25 (100) - 19 (76) 19 (76) -
Waxy 2 (8) - • - - - 4 (16) - - 3 (12) 3 (12) -
Discharged 2 (8) - - 4
(16) - - 3 (12) - - 3 (12) 3 (12) -
Total 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 0.0 NS
10 Throat:
Normal 22 (88) 25 (100) - 21 (84) 22 (88) - 21 (84) 25 (100) - 21 (84) 21 (84) -
Enlarged - - - - - - - - - - - -
patches 2 (8) - - 1 (4) - - 4 (16) - - 4 (16) 4 (16) -
Tonsils I (4) - - 3 (12) 3 (12) -- - - - - - -
Total 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 0.0 NS


U Nail:

Normal n
(44) 24 (96) 6.4** 15 (60) 25 (100) 5.5** 17 (68) 25 (100) 4.7** 17 (68) 20 (80) 1.3NS
Unclean 06
(24) - - - - - - - - - -
Dirty 02 (8) - 6 (24) - - 3 (12) - - 3 (12) - -
Pale 6 (24) 1 (4) 0.7N S 4 (16) - - 5 (20) - - 5 (20) 5 (20) -
Total 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) -
J 2 Skin :
Normal 17 (68) 25 (100) 4.7** 15 (60) 25 (100) 5.5** 16
(64) 25 (100) 5.1** 15 (60) 20 (80) 2.5*
Scabis 5 (20) - - 5 (20) - - 5 (20) - - 6
(24) 4 (16) -
Excema 3 (12) - - 5 (20) - - 4 (16) - - 4 (16) I (4) -
Total 25 (100) 25 (100) - 25 (100) * 25 (100) - 25 (100) 25 (100) - 25 (100) 25 (100) " *
13 Bones and Joint s:
Normal 24 (96) 24 (96) - 25 (100) 25 (100) - 25 (100) 25 (100) - 25 (100) 25 (100) -
Deformities 1 (4) 1 (4) - - - - - - - - - -
Osteomycities - - - - - - - - - - - -
Knockness - - - - - - - - - - - -
Rickets - - - - - - - - - - - -
Rossary - - - - - - - - - -
Total 25 (100) 25 (100) - 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 0.0 NS
14 Abdomen:
Normal 17 (68) 25 (100) 4.7** 23 (92) 25 (100) 1.4 MS 21 (84) 25 (100) 2.6* 21 (84) 20 (80) 1.3 NS
Potbelly 8 (320) - - 2 (3) - - -4 (16) - - 4 (16) 5 (20) 1.3 NS
Enlarged liver - - - - - - - -
Total 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 25 (100) 07.0 NS
♦ Group 1 - Experimental group with supplementation of soyaladoo.
♦ Group II - Experimental group with supplementation of soyachakali.
♦ Group II - Experimental group with supplementation of soyaflakes chiwada .
♦ Group IV - No supplementation i.e. control group.
Figures in paran theses indicate percentage.
•significant at 5 per cent level ** significant at I pcrcentlevel
NS Non Significant BS - Before supplementation AS - After supplementation

4.2.5 BIOCHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS

Sr. No. Biochemical analysis Group I Mean ± S.D. Group II Mean ±S.D. Group III Mean ± S.D. Group IV Mean ± S.D.
1 Blood glucose (mg/dL) 72.1±2.7 (88.1) 65.7±2.9 (72.9) 68.7±3.3 (76.3) 66.0 ±9.0
(73.3)
2 Haemoglobin (g/dl) 10.2±1.0 (83.6) 8.6±1.1 (68.8) 9.8 ±1.3
(78.2) 7.6 ±1.02 (60.7)
3 Serum protein(g/dl) 6.28 ±0,9 (91.9) 5.8±0.8 (86.6) 6.0±0.8 (89.7) 4.3±0.7 (65.5)
4 Serum Vitamin A (IU/dl) 126.0±4.1 (87.0) 112.3±2.9 (74.7) 87.0 ±2.3 (58.0) 36.0±1.1
(24.0)
5 Serum Iron (ug/dl) 139.7±1.9 (82.2) 69.7±9.5 (66.4) 128.5±9.3 (65.2) 105.4±6.8 (48.2)
6 Serum Zinc
(ug/ml) 1.09±2.1 (77.9) 1-05±2.0 (75,0) 1.02±2.0 (72.9) 0.54±0.9 (24.0)
♦ Group I - Experimental group with supplementation of soyaladoo.
**• Group II - Experimental group with supplementation of soyachakali.
♦1* Group II - Experimental group with supplementation of soyaflakes chiwada.
♦ Group IV - No supplementation i.e. control group.
Figures in paran theses indicate percentage.
4.2.6 BLOOD GLUCOSE AND HAEMOGLOBIN LEVEL OF EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS BEFORE AND AFTER
SUPPLEMENTATION.

Sr. No Biochemical
analysis Group I Mean ±S.D. Grouf II Mean± S.D. Group III Mean ±S.D. Group IV Mean ± S.D.
I BS AS 't'
value BS AS 't' value BS AS 't' value BS AS 't' value
Blood glucose
(mg/dl) 66.5±2.7 (72.9) 72.1±29 (88.1) 3.7** 60.4±2.2 (60.4) 65.7±2,9 (72.9) 3.2* 63.7±2,7 (63.0) 68.7±23 (73.6) 3.1* 60.9±1.9 (65.9) 66.0±1.8 (72.4) 1.5NS
Hemoglobin(gMl) 7.7±1.1 (61-7) 10.2±1.4 (85.6) 3.8** 8. US. 1
(64.4) 8.6±1.2 (68.8) 1.4NS 6.6±0.9 (65.2) 10.0±1.3 (78.2) 2.1* 7.6±1.0
(60.0) 7.8±1.1 (613) -0.90
NS
Serum Iron (ug/dl) 50.7±6.9 (48.3) 79.6±0.9 (75-9) .40** 50.06±68 (47.7) 69.7±9.5 (66.3) 2.50* 50.8±6.9 (48,3) 68.5±9.3 (65,2) 2.74* 50.5±6.8 (48.2) 52.5±6.8 (50.2) 0.47 NS
Serum protein (gl/dl) 4.1±0.6 (61-1) 6.1 ±0.8 (91.0 4.41** 4.2 ±0.6 (62-7) 5.8±0.8 (86.5) 2.7* 4.5 ±0.6 (67.1) 6.0 ±0.8 (89.7) 3.41** 4.4 ±0.7 (67.7) 4.9±0.5 (69.7) 1.24 NS
Serum Vitamin A (ITJ/dl) 8.65±
1.2 (25.1) 30.0* 4.0 (87.0) 4,24** 8.28±1.1 (24.0) 28.4±3.9 (81.9) 3.71* 9.23±1.3 (26.8) 20,0 ±2.3 (58.7) 2.88* 8.21±1.1
(23.7) 8.4±1.4 (25.7) 0.71 NS
Serum Zinc (u.g/ml) 9.19±
1.3 (48.3) 15.5*
2.1 (81.7) 3.73** 11.65±1.6 (61.3) 14.8±2.0 (76.7) 3.18** 8.8± 1.2
(46.3) 14.8 ±2.0 (76-7) 3.06** 7.27*
1.0
(38.2) 7.8±
1.8
(40.2) 0.64
NS
♦ Group I - Experimental group with supplementation of soyaladoo.
♦ Group II - Experimental group with supplementation of soyachakali.
♦ Group II - Experimental group with supplementation of soyaflakes chiwada .
♦ Group IV - No supplementation i.e. control group.
♦ Figures in Paran theses indicate percentage.
* significant at 5 per cent level ** significant at 1 per cent level
NS Non Significant BS - Before supplementation AS - After supplementation

CONCLUSION:
I All the soybased food products highly accepted by preschool children there is no significance difference in the products such as soyachakali, soyaflakes chiwada and soya ladoo.
II No significant difference will be found invitro protein digestibility of all the formulated soyabased products. In vitro protein digestibility and per cent of iron bioavailability of all these formulated by soyaproducts.

III Health and nutritional status of children were increased with ideal level after the supplementary feeding programme.
IV More knowledge attitude and practices developed about acceptance of soyabased food products for consumption after the supplementary feeding programme.
The present study has brought light to some important facts on the whole it can be concluded majority of the preschool children were having factors which directly responsible for malnutrition in future. This malnutrition effects on poor food intake, nutrient intake, anthropometric, clinical and biochemical parameters in preschool children.
Preschool children are the backbone of the future population. Therefore a proper supplementation feeding should to conduced to over come the health related problems at an early stage. The supplementary feeding product must be formulated by taking into account their acceptability, local availability, nutritional quality , storage stability and cost affordability. By taking into account of these factors soya products found a better supplementary food.
The organoleptic qualities like taste, texture, flavour and over all acceptability of the soyaladoo was highly scored by the panel.
It also noted that, very less antinutrtional factors like phytate phosphorous, tannin tryspin inhibitor activityacid detergent fiber, celluloseand lignin.
The invitro digestibility of protein and per cent bioavailability of iron shown higher in soya product.
Highly significant improvements in nutrients intake, anthropometric measurements, clinical and biochemical assessments were measured in Ii grade malnourished preschool after the supplementation of soya products. It is recommended as all soya products could be supplementary food for combating malnutrition among preschool children.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Aguilera. and Lusas (2005); "Physical properties of isolated fibre." J. of Food Science Techno 33:1000-1005
2. Akeson, W. R. and Stachman, M. A., (1964);"Papsin pancreation digestihihily index of protein quality evaluation." J. Nutri. 83: 247.
3. Aliday (2008); "Soymilk as traditional alternative and has health benefits."; The Ind. J. Nutri and Dietet. 37-42.
4. Alsen (2004); "Effect of soyamilk on postmenopausal women's bone."; Europeon J. Nutri. 4 : 246-251.
5. Amerine, M. A., Pangborn, R.M. and Roessler, E.B., (1965); "Principles of Sensory Evaluation of Food."; Academic Press, New York.
6. AOAC (1984)., Approved methods of analysis 14th edn association of official analytical chemist Washington DC.
7. Belloyue and Castello, (2005); "Analysis of soya meat protein by microscopic electroformatic immunological and chromatographis method." The Ind. J. Nutri and Dietet. (42):170.
8. Ching, and Birmingham (2000); "Childhood Mortality impact and cost of integrating Vitamin A supplementation into immunization campaigns."; Am. J. Public Health, 90 (10): 1526- 1529.
9. Christina (2008); "Use of enzyme supplements in diet-fased based on soymeal." The Ind. J. Nurti and Dietet 24(3): 91-96.
10. Das Gupta (2005); "Improving Child Nutrition, the Integrated Child Development. "; The Ind. J. Nutri and Dietet. 134: 1420 - 1427.
11. Deshpande. (1999); "Studies on some engineering aspect for processing and utilization of soyabean. Ph.D. Dissertation submitted to the Dept. of Post harvest-Technology centre. Indian Institute of technology." Mumbai
12. Desikaser, Subrhmenyan (1986); "Use of isolated protein for treatment of malnutrition."; Am.J. Clini. Nutri. 11: 138-141
13. Doraswamy ,(1986); "Use of vegetable protein in the treatment of protein malnutrition."; Am.J. clini. Nutri. 11:127-133.
14. Glassev and Jhonstone, (1985);"Soyamitk as a substitute for mammalian milk."; J. Medi.333". 276-282.
15. Hauq, W., Lantzseh H.I., (1983); "Sensation method for determination of phytate cereal and cereal products."; J.Sri Food Agry 34:1423-1424.
16. Hughes, and Petals (2009); "Grinding Poverty In Resurgent India. "; J.Nutritional. 44:441-446
17. Jelliffe, D.B.,(1966); "The Assessment of Nutritional Status of Community."; Monograph Series, WHO, Geneva.
18. Kakade, M.L., Rachis, J.J., Ghee M. E., and Paskes, J.E. G.(1974); "Determination of trypsin inhibitor activity of soyproduct of colabaration analysis of improved producer creeals."; Chemistry 5(1): 376-382.
19. Khothari (1985); " Effect of feeding soyamilk to children suffering from protein calorie malnurtition."; The Ind. J. Nutri and Dietet. 33:115-119

20. Kiran (2009); "Assessment of nutritional status of one year old children blonging to farm families of Punjab."; The Ind. J. Nutri and Dietet. 46: 345 - 349
21. Kumar (2001); "Comparative activity of trypsin inhibitor among released soybean varieties strains of India." The Ind. J. Nutri and Dietet. 38:437-440.
22. Lees, R. (1975); "Food analysis analytical and quality control methods for the food manufacture and buyer."; Third Edition Leonard Hill Books 128.
23. Macfarlane (2004); " Effect of traditional oriental soyaproduct on iron obsorptions." J. Medicine and cancer; 225 - 230.
24. Messina (1994); "Soyfood their role in disease prevention and
25. Moyad (1994); "Use of Soya antioxident for prevention of prostate cancer and heart disease." ;J. of Medicine 17(2): 91-102.
26. Narasinga Rao, B. S. and Prabhavathi, T., (1978); "An in vitro method for predicting the bioavailability of iron from foods." Am J. Clini. Nutri .31
27. NIN, (2003); "A manual of laboratory technique."; National Institute of Nutrition, Hyderabad.
28. Parmar (2007); "Effect of sources and coagulants on physiochemical and organoleptic evaluation of soyatofu."; J. Dairying, foods and Home science, 26 (2): 69 -74.
29. Peter (2007); "Chemical functional and cookies baking properties of soyabean/maize flour blends."; J. Food Science Techno 44 (6): 619- 622.
30. Prasad.(2007); "Protein quality of sorghum - soy based extruded snack, food." Jr. of food Sci.
Technol,44(2):l65-167.
31. Rghunramula, N., Nair, K.M. and Kulyansundram, S., (1983); "Annual Laboratory techniques."; National Institute of Nutrition, Hydrabad.
32. Sail (1986); Use of isolated vegetable protein for treatment of malnutrition."; Am.J. Clini. Nutri. 11: 134-137.
33. Shukla (1987); "Chemical constituent of broad bean as compared to soyabean with special reference to their seed size." ;The Ind. J. Nutri and Dietet. (24): 853.
34. Singh (2009); "Quality of soft serve ice cream prepared from incorporation of soyamilk."; J. food science Techno .40(2): 172-173.
35. Swaminathan, N., (1996); "Food Groups and Balanced Diets" ; Essentials of food and Nutrition volume - II: 1-5 Malnutrition % in world
36. Thangamms, Phillips, (1971); "Handbook of Indian works ", Kalyani Bool, New Delhi Ed(l).
37. Vansoest, P.G.,(1970); " Determination of dietary fiber by using detergents."; Spillar and Amman Book of fiber in human nutrition, plenum press, New York, II edition.
38. Vonshak (1997); " Spirulina platensis (Arthrospira) Physiology, Cell Biology and Biotechnology Landon Taylor and Frances.