| Literature DB >> 35243103 |
Daniel A Kitessa1,2, Ketema Bacha3, Yetenayet B Tola2, Mary Murimi4, Ernest Smith5, Soressa Gershe6.
Abstract
In developing countries, fermentation is one of the traditional food processing methods for production of relatively safe and nutritious foods. Among many fermented foods in Ethiopia, "Shameta" is one of the locally produced and consumed cereal-based fermented porridge mainly used to support strength and recovery of lactating women after birth. However, even though the product is consumed for years, so far, the nutritional composition and bioactive compounds of the porridge not yet scientifically determined. This study aimed to determine the physicochemical properties, nutritional composition and bioactive compounds of "Shameta" commonly produced and consumed in Western part of the country. A total of 27 "Shameta" samples were collected from houses of lactating mothers residing in different districts of East Wollega zone. Results showed that, "Shameta" sample prepared from blend of maize and barely supplemented with faba bean results in crude protein content of 11.2 g/100g as compared with samples without faba bean, 6.8 g/100g. Samples supplemented with more proportion of rapeseed as oil source resulted in relatively higher crude fat content (12.2 g/100 g) as compared to other samples. From energy point of view, "Shameta" could provide about 85% of the extra energy needs of lactating mothers as compared to staple foods consumed in sample collection areas. It is also confirmed that, the product is a good source of iron and zinc, with the highest scores of 8.1 and 8.6 mg/100g in some samples, respectively, as compared to other mineral elements whose scores were much less than the daily recommended allowances. The average phytate and tannin contents were 0.79 and 0.18 mg/100g, respectively. Even though the Ca, Fe and Zn contents were below the recommended daily allowance, their bioavailability could not be hindered by phytate and tannin. Results also showed that samples have good antioxidant potential to minimize oxidative stresses. It could be deduced that as a sole food for the mothers, the product could not provide sufficient protein and some minerals to meet recommended daily allowance. However, to enhance the importance of the product, it is necessary to optimize the ingredient compositions and processing conditions to meet the nutrient demand of lactating mothers.Entities:
Keywords: Fermented porridge; Lactating mothers; Nutrition; “Shameta”
Year: 2022 PMID: 35243103 PMCID: PMC8866073 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e08990
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heliyon ISSN: 2405-8440
Figure 1Study area showing regional state, selected zonal administration and districts for the study.
Sample collection sites and ingredient compositions of “Shameta” sample. Each sample collected in triplicate and bulked to similar category based upon ingredients composition and fermentation time differences).
| Sample sources (districts) | Major ingredients | Approximate premix added | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Types of spices and herbs added | Rapeseed oil (%) | |||
| Sibu Sire | BMWS | Barley (86%) + Maize (5%) + wheat (5%) | F + BCU + Gr + R (0.5%) | 3.5 |
| BMS | Barley (89%) + Maize (5%) | BC + BC2+R (1.5%) | 4.5 | |
| MS | Maize (95%) | F + WC + Gr + R (0.5%) | 4.5 | |
| Guto Gida | MFG | Maize (86.5%) + Faba bean (5%) | F + BC + BCU + Gr + B (1%) | 7.5 |
| MG | Maize (91%) | G + BC + Gr + B (1%) | 8 | |
| MBFG | Maize (81%) + Barley (5%) + Faba bean (5%) | BC + WC + Gr + R (1.5%) | 7.5 | |
| Jimma Arjo | BMJ | Barley (87%) + Maize (5%) | F + Gr (0.5%) | 7.5 |
| BJ | Barley (96%) | F + Gr (0.5%) | 3.5 | |
| Wayu Tuka | MW | Maize (91%) | BCU + R (1.5%) | 7.5 |
BMWS = Barley (86%) + Maize (5%) + wheat (5%) from Sibu Sire, BMS = Barley (89%) + Maize (5%) from Sibu Sire, MS = Maize (95%) from Sibu Sire, MFG = Maize (86.5%) + Faba bean (5%) from Guto Gida, MG = Maize (91%) from Guto Gida, MBFG = Maize (81%) + Barley (5%) + Faba bean (5%) from Guto Gida, BMJ = Barley (87%) + Maize (5%) from Jimma Arjo, BJ = Barley (96%) from Jimma Arjo, MW = Maize (91%) from Wayu Tuka, F=Fenugreek, BCU = Black cumin, Gr = Garlic bulb, R = Rue leaf, BC = Black cardamom, Gn = Ginger, WC = White cumin, B=Basil leaf (n = 27).
Figure 2Follow diagram showing traditional preparation steps of Shameta.
Physicochemical properties of “Shameta” samples collected from four different districts but grouped into nine categories according to their ingredient composition and fermentation time.
| Coded samples | Viscosity (cP) | pH | Titratable acidity (%) | Electrical conductivity (mS/cm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BMWS | 1,150.2 ± 3.4e | 4.1 ± 0.1d | 0.78 ± 0.01c | 0.96 ± 0.02e |
| BMS | 777.8 ± 2.8f | 4.4 ± 0.01a | 0.57 ± 0.01f | 0.66 ± 0.01f |
| MS | 1,210.0 ± 2.7d | 4.1 ± 0.01d | 0.74 ± 0.02d | 0.77 ± 0.02f |
| MFG | 1,259.6 ± 2.6c | 3.9 ± 0.00e | 0.82 ± 0.01b | 1.4 ± 0.01b |
| MG | 3,222.0 ± 1.7a | 3.6 ± 0.02f | 1.1 ± 0.03a | 1.4 ± 0.1b |
| MBFG | 1,264.1 ± 0.75c | 3.9 ± 0.02e | 0.82 ± 0.00b | 1.3 ± 0.1cd |
| BMJ | 1,274.5 ± 1.3b | 4.2 ± 0.01b | 0.61 ± 0.00e | 0.78 ± 0.01f |
| BJ | 1,151.0 ± 5.9e | 3.9 ± 0.00e | 0.81 ± 0.01b | 1.3 ± 0.1cd |
| MW | 655.7 ± 6.3g | 4.2 ± 0.01c | 0.76 ± 0.01cd | 2.4 ± 0.1a |
| CV | 0.17 | 0.56 | 1.14 | 3.88 |
| MSD | 10.1 | 0.1 | 0.03 | 0.14 |
BMWS = Barley (86%) + Maize (5%) + wheat (5%) from Sibu Sire, BMS = Barley (89%) + Maize (5%) from Sibu Sire, MS = Maize (95%) from Sibu Sire, MFG = Maize (86.5%) + Faba bean (5%) from Guto Gida, MG = Maize (91%) from Guto Gida, MBFG = Maize (81%) + Barley (5%) + Faba bean (5%) from Guto Gida, BMJ = Barley (87%) + Maize (5%) from Jimma Arjo, BJ = Barley (96%) from Jimma Arjo, MW = Maize (91%) from Wayu Tuka, CV = Coefficient of variation, MSD = Minimum significant different. (Each sample collected in triplicate and bulked to similar category based upon ingredients composition and fermentation time differences, n = 27).
Proximate compositions (g/100g sample, db) of “Shameta” samples collected from four different districts but grouped into nine categories according to their ingredient composition and fermentation time.
| Samples coded | Moisture | Crude protein | Crude fat | Ash content | Fiber content | Carbohydrate content | Gross Energy (kcal/100g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BMWS | 63.6 ± 0.2e | 7.7 ± 0.2e | 4.8 ± 0.1i | 2.3 ± 0.0c | 1.6 ± 0.1c | 83.6 ± 0.2b | 408.1 ± 0.9h |
| BMS | 60.9 ± 0.4g | 7.3 ± 0.1f | 6.8 ± 0.1g | 1.7 ± 0.0g | 2.5 ± 0.0a | 81.8 ± 0.1c | 417.3 ± 0.6f |
| MS | 64.8 ± 0.2d | 10.0 ± 0.1c | 8.7 ± 0.1e | 1.8 ± 0.0f | 2.6 ± 0.1a | 76.9 ± 0.2f | 425.7 ± 0.2d |
| MFG | 65.9 ± 0.4c | 10.4 ± 0.1b | 10.1 ± 0.0b | 2.6 ± 0.0b | 2.1 ± 0.0b | 74.8 ± 0.1h | 431.8 ± 0.2b |
| MG | 63.5 ± 0.1e | 9.7 ± 0.0d | 12.2 ± 0.2a | 1.9 ± 0.0e | 1.9 ± 0.1b | 74.2 ± 0.3i | 445.7 ± 0.6a |
| MBFG | 65.9 ± 0.4c | 11.2 ± 0.1a | 9.0 ± 0.0d | 2.1 ± 0.1d | 2.0 ± 0.1b | 75.7 ± 0.1g | 428.8 ± 0.5c |
| BMJ | 68.7 ± 0.1b | 7.2 ± 0.2f | 9.4±+0.1c | 1.7 ± 0.0g | 1.9 ± 0.1b | 79.8 ± 0.0e | 432.2 ± 0.3b |
| BJ | 71.3 ± 0.1a | 6.8 ± 0.1g | 5.4 ± 0.1h | 1.7 ± 0.0g | 2.1 ± 0.0b | 83.9 ± 0.1a | 411.9 ± 0.7g |
| MW | 62.7 ± 0.2f | 7.2 ± 0.0f | 8.1 ± 0.0f | 2.8 ± 0.0a | 1.3 ± 0.0d | 80.6 ± 0.0d | 423.8 ± 0.2e |
| CV | 0.39 | 2.24 | 1.18 | 1.07 | 3.66 | 0.15 | 0.12 |
| MSD | 0.7 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 1.4 |
BMWS = Barley (86%) + Maize (5%) + wheat (5%) from Sibu Sire, BMS = Barley (89%) + Maize (5%) from Sibu Sire, MS = Maize (95%) from Sibu Sire, MFG = Maize (86.5%) + Faba bean (5%) from Guto Gida, MG = Maize (91%) from Guto Gida, MBFG = Maize (81%) + Barley (5%) + Faba bean (5%) from Guto Gida, BMJ = Barley (87%) + Maize (5%) from Jimma Arjo, BJ = Barley (96%) from Jimma Arjo, MW = Maize (91%) from Wayu Tuka, CV = Coefficient of variation, MSD = Minimum significant different. (Each sample collected in triplicate and bulked to similar category based upon ingredients composition and fermentation time differences, n = 27).
Mineral contents of “Shameta” (mg/100g, db) samples collected from four different districts but grouped into nine categories according to their ingredient composition and fermentation time.
| Samples coded | Na | Ca | Mg | P | Fe | Zn |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BMWS | 6.5 ± 0.2f | 14.8 ± 0.2e | 31.1 ± 0.2d | 400.6 ± 1.2b | 4.5 ± 0.07h | 3.1 ± 0.0f |
| BMS | 25.6 ± 0.3b | 17.0 ± 0.1c | 29.8 ± 0.3e | 83.1 ± 0.2g | 2.5 ± 0.01i | 2.1 ± 0.0g |
| MS | 4.4 ± 0.1g | 11.8 ± 0.1f | 31.1 ± 0.1d | 232.5 ± 0.1f | 5.5 ± 0.02f | 2.0 ± 0.0g |
| MFG | 24.3 ± 0.3c | 15.5 ± 0.2d | 29.1 ± 0.4f | 316.3 ± 0.3c | 7.2 ± 0.03b | 8.6 ± 0.1a |
| MG | 4.0 ± 0.1g | 15.5 ± 0.3d | 30.7 ± 0.3d | 234.0 ± 0.3e | 6.7 ± 0.03d | 1.8 ± 0.0h |
| MBFG | 14.8 ± 0.2e | 18.0 ± 0.1b | 33.6 ± 0.3b | 313.9 ± 0.2d | 7.0 ± 0.02c | 6.7 ± 0.0b |
| BMJ | 27.2 ± 0.3a | 10.0 ± 0.0g | 31.9 ± 0.1c | 233.2 ± 0.2ef | 5.0 ± 0.02g | 4.1 ± 0.0c |
| BJ | 27.0 ± 0.1a | 9.7 ± 0.1g | 29.7 ± 0.3e | 231.9 ± 0.2f | 6.1 ± 0.06e | 3.3 ± 0.0e |
| MW | 17.8 ± 0.2d | 31.6 ± 0.5a | 35.1 ± 0.1a | 483.3 ± 0.1a | 8.1 ± 0.10a | 3.9 ± 0.0d |
| DRA (mg/day)† | 1,500 | 1000 | 270 | 1000 | 9 | 12 |
| CV | 1.35 | 1.36 | 0.79 | 0.6 | 0.16 | 1.24 |
| MSD | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 5.3 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
BMWS = Barley (86%) + Maize (5%) + wheat (5%) from Sibu Sire, BMS = Barley (89%) + Maize (5%) from Sibu Sire, MS = Maize (95%) from Sibu Sire, MFG = Maize (86.5%) + Faba bean (5%) from Guto Gida, MG = Maize (91%) from Guto Gida, MBFG = Maize (81%) + Barley (5%) + Faba bean (5%) from Guto Gida, BMJ = Barley (87%) + Maize (5%) from Jimma Arjo, BJ = Barley (96%) from Jimma Arjo, MW = Maize (91%) from Wayu Tuka, db = dry base, DRA = Daily Recommended Allowance, CV = Coefficient of variation, MSD = Minimum significant different. (Each sample collected in triplicate and bulked to similar category based upon ingredients composition and fermentation time differences, n = 27).
Anti-nutritional factors of “Shameta” samples (mg/100g, db) collected from four different districts but grouped into nine categories according to their ingredient composition and fermentation time.
| Samples coded | Phytate content | Tannin |
|---|---|---|
| BMWS | 0.78 ± 0.0c | 0.18 ± 0.0abc |
| BMS | 1.2 ± 0.0b | 0.22 ± 0.0ab |
| MS | 1.4 ± 0.1a | 0.13 ± 0.0c |
| MFG | 1.4 ± 0.1a | 0.15 ± 0.1c |
| MG | 0.1 ± 0.0d | 0.23 ± 0.0a |
| MBFG | 0.1 ± 0.0d | 0.16 ± 0.0bc |
| BMJ | 1.4 ± 0.1a | 0.18 ± 0.0abc |
| BJ | 0.01 ± 0.0d | 0.17 ± 0.0abc |
| MW | 0.7 ± 0.1c | 0.22 ± 0.0ab |
| CV | 7.3 | 12.4 |
| MSD | 0.2 | 0.1 |
BMWS = Barley (86%) + Maize (5%) + wheat (5%) from Sibu Sire, BMS = Barley (89%) + Maize (5%) from Sibu Sire, MS = Maize (95%) from Sibu Sire, MFG = Maize (86.5%) + Faba bean (5%) from Guto Gida, MG = Maize (91%) from Guto Gida, MBFG = Maize (81%) + Barley (5%) + Faba bean (5%) from Guto Gida, BMJ = Barley (87%) + Maize (5%) from Jimma Arjo, BJ = Barley (96%) from Jimma Arjo, MW = Maize (91%) from Wayu Tuka, CV = Coefficient of variation, MSD = Minimum significant different. (Each sample collected in triplicate and bulked to similar category based upon ingredients composition and fermentation time differences, n = 27).
Estimated mineral bioavailability of different “Shameta” samples collected from four different districts but grouped into nine categories according to their ingredient composition and fermentation time.
| Samples coded | Phytate:Ca | Phytate:Fe | Phytate:Zn |
|---|---|---|---|
| BMWS | 3.2 × 10−3±2 × 10−4e | 1.5 × 10−2±8 × 10−4d | 2.5 × 10−2±1 × 10−3d |
| BMS | 4.3 × 10−3±1 × 10−4d | 4.1 × 10−2±9 × 10−4a | 5.6 × 10−2 ± 1.2 × 10−3b |
| MS | 7.3 × 10−3±6 × 10−4b | 2.2 × 10−2 ± 1.8 × 10−3c | 7.0 × 10−2±6 × 10−3a |
| MFG | 5.4 × 10−3±3 × 10−4c | 1.6 × 10−2±9 × 10−4d | 1.6 × 10−2±1 × 10−3e |
| MG | 3.0 × 10−4±2 × 10−5g | 9.0 × 10−4±7 × 10−5f | 4.0 × 10−3±3 × 10−4f |
| MBFG | 2.0 × 10−4±3 × 10−5g | 7.0 × 10−4±1 × 10−4f | 9.0 × 10−4±1 × 10−4f |
| BMJ | 8.8 × 10−3±4 × 10−4a | 2.4 × 10−2±9 × 10−4b | 3.4 × 10−2±1 × 10−3c |
| BJ | 1.0 × 10−4±3 × 10−5g | 2.0 × 10−4±8 × 10−5f | 4.0 × 10−4±1 × 10−4f |
| MW | 1.4 × 10−3±1 × 10−4f | 7.8 × 10−3±7 × 10−4e | 1.9 × 10−2±2 × 10−3e |
| CODEX† | <0.17 | <1 (preferable <0.4) | <15 |
| CV | 7.44 | 6.12 | 8.77 |
| MSD | 7 × 10−4 | 2.5 × 10−3 | 6.3 × 10−3 |
BMWS = Barley (86%) + Maize (5%) + wheat (5%) from Sibu Sire, BMS = Barley (89%) + Maize (5%) from Sibu Sire, MS = Maize (95%) from Sibu Sire, MFG = Maize (86.5%) + Faba bean (5%) from Guto Gida, MG = Maize (91%) from Guto Gida, MBFG = Maize (81%) + Barley (5%) + Faba bean (5%) from Guto Gida, BMJ = Barley (87%) + Maize (5%) from Jimma Arjo, BJ = Barley (96%) from Jimma Arjo, MW = Maize (91%) from Wayu Tuka, CV = Coefficient of variation, MSD = Minimum significant different. (Each sample collected in triplicate and bulked to similar category based upon ingredients composition and fermentation time differences, n = 27).
Total phenol, total flavonoid and total antioxidant activities of “Shameta” samples collected from four different districts but grouped into nine categories according to their ingredient composition and fermentation time.
| Samples coded | Total phenol contents (mg GAE/g wb) | Total flavonoid content (mg CE/g wb) | Total antioxidant activity (IC50) (mgAAE/g wb) |
|---|---|---|---|
| BMWS | 0.67 ± 0.02e | 0.43 ± 0.04b | 2.9 ± 0.2d |
| BMS | 9.9 ± 0.34b | 0.10 ± 0.01e | 0.68 ± 0.02f |
| MS | 0.59 ± 0.08e | 0.61 ± 0.06a | 6.2 ± 0.1c |
| MFG | 2.0 ± 0.16d | 0.19 ± 0.01d | 2.1 ± 0.1e |
| MG | 2.8 ± 0.08d | 0.10 ± 0.01e | 0.81 ± 0.02f |
| MBFG | 6.0 ± 0.56c | 0.32 ± 0.03c | 0.71 ± 0.02f |
| BMJ | 0.39 ± 0.09e | 0.15 ± 0.01de | 11.9 ± 0.5a |
| BJ | 0.58 ± 0.01e | 0.41 ± 0.02b | 10.0 ± 0.03b |
| MW | 11.9 ± 0.93a | 0.03 ± 0.01f | 0.52 ± 0.01f |
| CV | 9.9 | 9.81 | 4.3 |
| MSD | 1.1 | 0.1 | 0.5 |
BMWS = Barley (86%) + Maize (5%) + wheat (5%) from Sibu Sire, BMS = Barley (89%) + Maize (5%) from Sibu Sire, MS = Maize (95%) from Sibu Sire, MFG = Maize (86.5%) + Faba bean (5%) from Guto Gida, MG = Maize (91%) from Guto Gida, MBFG = Maize (81%) + Barley (5%) + Faba bean (5%) from Guto Gida, BMJ = Barley (87%) + Maize (5%) from Jimma Arjo, BJ = Barley (96%) from Jimma Arjo, MW = Maize (91%) from Wayu Tuka, CV = Coefficient of variation, MSD = Minimum significant different. (Each sample collected in triplicate and bulked to similar category based upon ingredients composition and fermentation time differences, n = 27).