Food Science and Nutrition Studies ISSN 2573-1661 (Print) ISSN 2573-167X (Online) Vol. 4, No. 1, 2020 www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fsns 1 Original Paper Acceptability and Satiety Evaluation of a Developed Nutritionally Balanced School Meal Manal Abdeen Ali1*, Ibtihag Awad Mahmoud1, Sawsan Ahmed Balla1, Rekha Lecomte2, Laura Dehondt2, Eman Ahmed Abdekareem3 & AbdelHalim Rahma Gubara1 1 Nutrition & Health Center for Training and Research, School of Health Sciences, Ahfad University for Women, Sudan 2 Tweed Research Center of Nutriset Group, France 3 Samil Industrial Co., Khartoum, Sudan * Manal Abdeen, Ahfad University for Women, Al Arda Street, Omdurman, Sudan Received: January 19, 2020 Accepted: January 30, 2020 Online Published: March 9, 2020 doi:10.22158/fsns.v4n1p1 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/fsns.v4n1p1 Abstract Five nutritionally designed school meals were developed in a form of pastes based on leguminous seeds (lentil, chick pea, and soya) mixed with dairy ingredients. All formulas contain groundnut, and few contained crushed nuts providing inclusions inside the prototypes to test acceptance. The products were fortified with essential minerals and vitamins following the DRI guideline for children. Developed meals were served as a breakfast meal to ~200 students (6-9 years juniors; 10-14 years seniors) of one of the Sudanese basic schools (Omdurman City) for 21 days to substitute a traditional breakfast meal boiled Pigeon pea colloquially called “Balila” served routinely to the students. This paper covers acceptability of favorable products behavioral responses of senior and junior students to four meal/subject interactions coverings temptation to finishing the whole meal, reason(s) for not finishing the whole meal, time needed to finish the meal, and degree of satiety the students feel during teaching hours. Almost 95% of the senior students interacted positively with pastes based on lentil or chick pea finish the product as evidenced by the short time (<10 min) to finishing or stop taking the meal in ≤ 10 minutes. All past products provide satiety; senior students judged that lentil based paste(s) as the meal that secures full satiety during school hours. Unlike seniors, more than 95% of junior students finished more of the soy-based meal, one third of them took more time to finish lentil-based meal indicate that the results reflected satisfaction by taking less quantities from all products offered. Degree of satiety feeling among junior students fluctuated where >90% of them confirmed satisfactory degree of satiety www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fsns Food Science and Nutrition Studies Vol. 4, No. 1, 2020 2 Published by SCHOLINK INC. compared to all products offered. Keywords acceptability, satiety, school meal, nutrition 1. Introduction Nutritional readers need no reminding of the consequences of the spread of malnutrition among population of most developing countries. Black et al. (2008) summarized such consequences; whereas FAO (2006) highlighted root causes of food insecurity leading to such consequences, and when it comes at the door of vulnerable groups such as children, FAO (2009) itself indicated kind of strategies that prevent or reduce under-nutrition and combat child mortality. Almost, a decade back, Sudan Ministry of General Education (SMGE, 2008) launched a school feeding program that reached about 1.2 million children throughout the country with the objective of increasing school attendance, particularly of girls, and relieving short-term hunger while transforming resources to vulnerable households. Lack of food in the households is reportedly one of the main reasons for school dropout, according to baseline survey carried out by SMGE (2008). The child performance in morning schooling is very much related to taking right nutritious food that is rich in energy, protein, carbohydrates and calorific sources, e.g., breakfast items, to help in focus and concentration, a pre-requisite behavior for better learning and hence more opportunities in life. The market for children’s foods is continuously growing, and children have an increasing influence on food purchase decisions. This has led to the use of children in product development programs by food manufacturers, to the development of twin target markets for adults and children in many food categories (Jean-Xavier, 2001), and to requirements for palatable, healthy and nutritious food for children amidst trends towards convenience foods and demands for responsible nutrition. The sensory properties of any food item are important determinants of its acceptance among consumers, and as a result, the need for sound methodology for sensory testing with children has increased (ASTM, 1992; Guinard, 2001; ASTM, 2003). The principal objective of this effort was to test the acceptability of nutritionally balanced school meals developed to substitute existing conventional breakfast meal served to needy students at most of the Sudanese primary (Basic) schools. The test also embraced satiety profile of meals to answer their level of stomach fulfillment during the school hours. 2. Methodology Based on an earlier preliminary study by Ahfad University for Women (AUW) team, (NHCTR, 2017) concerning acceptability and quality of several school meals, only five meals were then selected and developed by Samil Industrial Co., Onyx, and Tweed Research Center of Nutriset Group, based on plant foods (e.g., soybean, chickpea, lentil, peanuts, etc.), and dairy ingredients, in a form of pastes. The meals were additionally fortified with recommended gaps in Iron, Iodine, Zinc, Vitamins of A, B9, B12, and C. www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fsns Food Science and Nutrition Studies Vol. 4, No. 1, 2020 3 Published by SCHOLINK INC. A total of ~200 school children (6-9 year juniors; 10-14 year seniors) studying at one of Omdurman City (Sudan) primary schools were selected to assure minimum classes attendance of 180 children throughout the study. Recruited students were served ethically (DIUS, 2007) developed meals in a form of paste-in sachets (100 g each) for 15 school days plus 5 days given to the reference conventional school meal prepared traditionally from boiled salted or sweetened pigeon pea colloquially called “Balila” and served routinely to the children as a school meal. Using a concise questionnaire consisted of elements relevant to sensorial issues (Brace, 2004), the students with the help of the study group, were asked to judge on the five products (meals) guided by multi- descriptive sensory evaluation techniques (Gordin, 1987; ISO, 1988; Poste et al., 1991; Lawless & Heymann, 1998; Schutz & Cardello, 2001; Meilgaard et al., 2007), and facial drawing procedures to express level of satisfaction by one of three choices (Happy face that reflects acceptance of product; no- expression face that expresses neither/nor decision; and sad face that expresses rejection of the product) simplified to suit their level of perception (Goldstein, 2006). 3. Results and Discussion Table 1 shows distribution and number of school students served school meals by class and age group. The initial week started with serving the conventional school meal (Balila) for 5 days as a control, followed by the newly developed products (5 of them; A: Soy based product “Vitamamba”; B: Lentil based product; C: Lentil based product + inclusion product; D: Chick pea based product; E: Chick pea based product + inclusion product) served for consecutive 15 school study days giving 3 alternating days for each product. The number of students receiving breakfast meal daily for 5 days ranged between 38-54 for males and 39-55 for females from the junior class; 6-9 years (3rd grade) giving a total range of 81-109 students of this category. Similarly, the number of students from the senior class; 10-14 years (7th grade) receiving the same meal for the same period of time ranged between 35-55 for males, and 41-53 for females giving a total range of 79 to 105 students of this category. Table 1 itself shows a total of 1854 meals offered to students from the juniors and 1844 meals offered to students from the seniors by the end of the study. Table 1. Distribution and Number of Meals for School Students Served by Class and Age Group Junior students -Class 3 (age 6-9) Senior students -Class 7 (age 10-14) Total of meals/gendre Total M % F % Total M % F % Total M % F % Week 1 (Balila meal) Sunday 86 44 51.2 42 48.8 week 1 Balila meal Sunday 100 55 55 45 45 186 99 53.2 87 46.8 Monday 83 44 53.0 39 47.0 Monday 105 52 49.5 53 50.5 188 96 51.1 92 48.9 Tuesday 82 38 46.3 44 53.7 Tuesday 85 40 47.1 45 52.9 167 78 46.7 89 53.3 Wednesday 106 51 48.1 55 51.9 Wednesday 92 45 48.9 47 51.1 198 96 48.5 102 51.5 Thursday 109 54 49.5 55 50.5 Thursday 79 35 44.3 44 55.7 188 89 47.3 99 52.7 Week 2 Paste Products A 88 42 47.7 46 52.3 Week2 A 91 47 51.6 44 48.4 179 89 49.7 90 50.3 B 81 40 49.4 41 50.6 B 92 47 51.1 45 48.9 173 87 50.3 86 49.7 www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fsns Food Science and Nutrition Studies Vol. 4, No. 1, 2020 4 Published by SCHOLINK INC. C 92 49 53.3 43 46.7 C 95 47 49.5 48 50.5 187 96 51.3 91 48.7 D 88 43 48.9 45 51.1 D 93 44 47.3 49 52.7 181 87 48.1 94 51.9 E 94 45 47.9 49 52.1 E 94 45 47.9 49 52.1 188 90 47.9 98 52.1 Week 3 Paste Products A 90 45 50.0 45 50.0 Week3 A 90 42 46.7 48 53.3 180 87 48.3 93 51.7 B 95 45 47.4 50 52.6 B 89 45 50.6 44 49.4 184 90 48.9 94 51.1 C 98 49 50.0 49 50.0 C 89 48 53.9 41 46.1 187 97 51.9 90 48.1 D 97 49 50.5 48 49.5 D 92 45 48.9 47 51.1 189 94 49.7 95 50.3 E 98 50 51.0 48 49.0 E 99 51 51.5 48 48.5 197 101 51.3 96 48.7 Week 4 Paste Products A 88 49 55.7 39 44.3 Week4 A 93 44 47.3 49 52.7 181 93 51.4 88 48.6 B 91 47 51.6 44 48.4 B 92 48 52.2 44 47.8 183 95 51.9 88 48.1 C 92 45 48.9 47 51.1 C 88 45 51.1 43 48.9 180 90 50.0 90 50.0 D 97 49 50.5 48 49.5 D 89 44 49.4 45 50.6 186 93 50.0 93 50.0 E 99 50 50.5 49 49.5 E 97 47 48.5 50 51.5 196 97 49.5 99 50.5 Total intervention 1854 928 50.1 926 49.9 Total 1844 916 49.7 928 50.3 3698 1844 1854 Average per day (20 school days) 185 92 93 M: Male; F: Female. A: Soy based product Vitamamba; B: Lentil based product; C: Lentil based product + inclusion product; D: Chick pea base product; E: Chick pea based + inclusion product. Figures 1 and 2 (Tables 2a and 2b, respectively) show percent contribution by junior female and male students, and senior ones, respectively, receiving Balila in first week calculated from total. It was obvious that senior females were more punctual to attending school classes (Table 2b; Figure 2), the observation that concerned us for the following three weeks assigned for serving the newly developed meals. The negative fluctuation in percent number of junior female and male students (Table 3) receiving new meals was tolerable and seems normal with respect to students’ daily attendance. Surprisingly, unlike the junior students, the week following the initial Balila week witnessed positive fluctuation in number of senior participants (Table 4) which would suggest more or less consistency in number of juniors and seniors male and female students who participated to the four week testing program. www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fsns Food Science and Nutrition Studies Vol. 4, No. 1, 2020 5 Published by SCHOLINK INC. The increase or decrease in number of students taking the meals during the course of the study did not reflect improvement or decline in school attendance, since the latter phenomenon is associated with certain factors such as in-door or out-door school activities. The second week of serving newly developed products (Tables 3 and 4) started to partially reflect actual response of participant’s contribution to taking the new meals. The same second week of feeding the new meals witnessed highest number of meals served (478 meals) with a slight decrease in the final week (467 meals) mainly coming from female students due to certain domestic school reasons beyond acceptability factors. Table 3. Percent Contribution by Junior Male and Female Students to Taking New Products for 3 Weeks Serving week Product A Product B Product C Product D Product E Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female F % F % F % F % F % F % F % F % F % F % Week 1 42 47.7 46 52.3 40 49.4 41 50.6 49 53.3 43 46.7 43 48.9 45 51.1 45 47.9 49 52.1 Week 2 45 50 45 50 45 47.4 50 52.6 49 50 49 50 49 50.5 48 49.5 50 51.5 48 49 Week 3 49 55.7 39 44.3 47 51.6 44 48.4 45 48.9 47 51.1 49 50.5 48 49.5 50 50.5 49 49.5 F= frequency A: Soy based product Vitamamba; B: Lentil based product; C: Lentil based product + inclusion product; D: Chick pea base product; E: Chick pea based + inclusion product. Table 4. Percent Contribution by Senior Male and Female Students to Taking New Products for 3 Weeks Serving week Product A Product B Product C Product D Product E Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female F % F % F % F % F % F % F % F % F % F % Week 1 47 51.6 44 48.4 47 51.1 45 48.9 47 49.5 48 50.5 44 47.3 49 52.7 45 47.9 49 52.1 Week 2 42 46.7 48 53.3 45 50.6 44 49.4 48 53.9 41 46.1 45 48.9 47 51.1 51 51.5 48 48.5 Week 3 44 47.3 49 52.7 48 52.2 44 47.8 45 51.1 43 48.9 44 49.4 45 50.6 47 48.5 50 51.5 F= frequency A: Soy based product Vitamamba; B: Lentil based product; C: Lentil based product + inclusion product; D: Chick pea base product; E: Chick pea based + inclusion product. Tables 5 and 6 show response of senior and junior students, respectively; to finishing the whole new meal, in other words finishing the whole sachet content (100 g) of 5 products (A, B, C, D, and E) presented to the students for 3 successive weeks (15 school days). Balila meal was taken as in-memory www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fsns Food Science and Nutrition Studies Vol. 4, No. 1, 2020 6 Published by SCHOLINK INC. control against all products presented to the students. The number of the senior students (10-14 years) finishing the whole sachet content (Table 5) increased by serving days (weeks 2 and 3) with all products presented, although products B (lentil- based) and D (Chick pea- based) showed better consumption (> 95% of participants) compared to the rest of the products. Soya based product (A) seemed to be least acceptable to senior students by the end of the test. The response of junior students (6-9 years) to finishing the whole sachet content is shown in Table 6. Surprisingly, juniors seemed to have different opinion on the products by giving product A (Soy-based) the lead in finishing whole sachet content by the end of the feeding test period of time (> 95% of participants), followed by products C (Lentil/Inclusion-based), and B(Lentil-based) which registered 93.5% and 93.4% number of participants, respectively, finishing the whole sachet contents. With juniors, product E (Chick pea/Inclusion-based) was the least tempting to finish it all. Table 5. %Response of Senior Students to Finishing the Whole Meal Serving week Product A Product B Product C Product D Product E Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % week 1 Yes 67 73.6 72 78.3 67 70.5 79 84.9 70 74.5 No 24 26.4 20 21.7 28 29.5 14 15.1 24 25.5 Total 91 100 92 100 95 100 93 100 94 100 week 2 Yes 74 82.2 84 94.4 78 87.6 85 92.4 93 93.9 No 16 17.8 5 5.6 11 12.4 7 7.6 6 6.1 Total 90 100 89 100 89 100 92 100 99 100 week 3 Yes 84 90.3 88 95.7 81 92.0 85 95.5 90 92.8 No 9 9.7 4 4.3 7 8.0 4 4.5 7 7.2 Total 93 100 92 100 88 100 89 100 97 100 A: Soy based product Vitamamba; B: Lentil based product; C: Lentil based product + inclusion product; D: Chick pea base product; E: Chick pea based + inclusion product. Table 6. %Response of Junior Students to Finishing the Whole Meal Serving week Product A Product B Product C Product D Product E Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % week 1 Yes 68 77.3 69 85 79 86 74 84 79 84 No 20 22.7 12 15 13 14 14 16 15 16 Total 88 100 81 100 92 100 88 100 94 100 week 2 Yes 80 88.9 82 86 88 90 88 91 90 92 No 10 11.1 13 14 10 10 9 9 8 8 Total 90 100 95 100 98 100 97 100 98 100 www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fsns Food Science and Nutrition Studies Vol. 4, No. 1, 2020 7 Published by SCHOLINK INC. week 3 Yes 84 95.5 85 93 86 93 89 92 90 91 No 4 4.5 6 7 6 7 8 8 9 9 Total 88 100 91 100 92 100 97 100 99 100 A: Soy based product Vitamamba; B: Lentil based product; C: Lentil based product + inclusion product; D: Chick pea base product; E: Chick pea based + inclusion product. Tables 7 and 8 show responses of senior and junior students, respectively; to reasons for not finishing the whole contents of sachet (whole meal). None of the senior students (Table 7) expressed any dislike for finishing 3 products (C: Lentil+ Inclusion; D: Chick pea; & E: Chick pea+ Inclusion) during the entire 3 weeks testing. About fifth or even less (11-19%) of the senior students expressed dislike as a reason for not finishing Soy-based product (Product A). Palatability of any product decides most of the time length of tolerability and hence decision of continue taking any meal (Gregory & Kadri, 2015). The junior students’ behaviour in finishing the whole meal is shown in Table 8. It seems that the 100g material offered in sachet was too much for most of them since more than two third of them felt they had enough (stomach full) before finishing the sachet content. The latter feeling is slightly different from that full satisfaction feeling expected to reflect lingering satiety during the school hours. Product D (Chick pea based) seemed to be the favourite for juniors, followed by product B (Lentil based). Table 7. %Response of Senior Students to Reasons for not Finishing the Whole Meal Serving week Response Product A Product B Product C Product D Product E Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % week 1 Dislike 3 12.5 1 5.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Had enough 15 62.5 11 55.0 20 71.4 9 64.3 1 4.2 Fully satisfied 6 25.0 8 40.0 8 28.6 5 35.7 23 95.8 Total 24 100 20 100 28 100 14 100 24 100 week 2 Dislike 3 18.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Had enough 12 75.0 5 100.0 1 9.1 7 100.0 6 100.0 Fully satisfied 1 6.3 0 0.0 10 90.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 Total 16 100 5 100 11 100 7 100 6 100 week 3 Dislike 1 11.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Had enough 6 66.7 3 75.0 7 100.0 4 100.0 7 100.0 Fully satisfied 2 22.2 1 25.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Total 9 100 4 100 7 100 4 100 7 100 A: Soy based product Vitamamba; B: Lentil based product; C: Lentil based product + inclusion product; D: Chick pea base product; E: Chick pea based + inclusion product. www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fsns Food Science and Nutrition Studies Vol. 4, No. 1, 2020 8 Published by SCHOLINK INC. Table 8. %Response of Junior Students to Reasons for not Finishing the Whole Meal Serving week Response Product A Product B Product C Product D Product E Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % week 1 Dislike 2 10 1 8.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Had enough 18 90 9 75.0 12.0 92.3 14.0 100 14.0 93.3 Fully satisfied 0 0 2 16.7 1.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 1.0 6.7 Total 20 100 12 100 13.0 100 14.0 100 15.0 100 week 2 Dislike 1 10 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 Had enough 7 70 12 92.3 10.0 100.0 9.0 100 7.0 87.5 Fully satisfied 2 20 1 7.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 12.5 Total 10 100 13 100 10.0 100 9.0 100 8.0 100 week 3 Dislike 0 0 0 0.0 1.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Had enough 3 75 6 100 5.0 83.3 8.0 100 7.0 77.8 Fully satisfied 1 25 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 22.2 Total 4 100 6 100 6 100 8 100 9 100 A: Soy based product Vitamamba; B: Lentil based product; C: Lentil based product + inclusion product; D: Chick pea base product; E: Chick pea based + inclusion product. Tables 9 and 10 show time needed for senior and junior students to finish and/or stop taking more of the meal. It was obvious that more than 90% of the senior students (Table 9) did not take much time (≤ 10 minutes) in finishing or stop taking the sachet content of all the 5 products offered to them successively on daily basis. The positive side of this test outcome is that the sachet content (the paste), was easily chewable, non-sticky, easily swallowed, and palatable enough to hasten the eating process. The latter characteristic usually encourages eaters to continue taking more or finishing any stuff offered (Barbara & Sandra, 2010). Table 10 also shows the time taken by junior students to finish or stop taking the sachet content. Although more than two third (> 68%) of the junior participants needed 10 minutes only or even less to finish the meal, the other one third is of concern to us for reasons that made them took 15 minutes or more to finish lentil - based pastes (B&C). Lentil is a conventional legume to all Sudanese particularly to school meals planning and preparations (Federal Ministry of Health, 2006). www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fsns Food Science and Nutrition Studies Vol. 4, No. 1, 2020 9 Published by SCHOLINK INC. Table 9. Time Needed by Senior Students to Finish and/or Stop Taking more of the Meal Serving week Finishing time Product A Product B Product C Product D Product E Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Week 1 ≤10 minutes 82 90 86 93 92 97 91 98 90 96 ~15 minutes 7 8 6 7 3 3 2 2 4 4 ˃15 minutes 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 91 100 92 100 95 100 93 100 94 100 Week 2 ≤10 minutes 86 96 84 94 88 99 90 98 98 99 ~15 minutes 4 4 4 4 1 1 2 2 1 1 ˃15 minutes 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 90 100 89 100 89 100 92 100 99 100 Week 3 ≤10 minutes 89 96 90 98 88 100 85 96 93 96 ~15 minutes 4 4 2 2 0 0 4 4 4 4 ˃15 minutes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 93 100 92 100 88 100 89 100 97 100 A: Soy based product Vitamamba; B: Lentil based product; C: Lentil based product + inclusion product; D: Chick pea base product; E: Chick pea based + inclusion product. Table 10. Time Needed by Junior Students to Finish and/or Stop Taking more of the Meal Serving week Finishing time Product A Product B Product C Product D Product E Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Week 1 ≤10 minutes 71 80.7 56 93 67 97 60 98 77 96 ~15 minutes 16 18.2 17 7 19 3 23 2 15 4 ˃15 minutes 1 1.1 8 0 6 0 5 0 2 0 Total 88 100 81 100 92 100 88 100 94 100 Week 2 ≤10 minutes 86 95.6 77 81.1 84 85.7 79 81.4 75 76.5 ~15 minutes 4 4.4 16 16.8 14 14.3 16 16.5 15 15.3 ˃15 minutes 0 0.0 2 2.1 0 0.0 2 2.1 8 8.2 Total 90 100 95 100 98 100 97 100 98 100 Week 3 ≤10 minutes 65 73.9 65 71.4 67 72.8 82 84.5 86 86.9 ~15 minutes 22 25.0 25 27.5 25 27.2 15 15.5 13 13.1 ˃15 minutes 1 1.1 1 1.1 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 Total 88 100 91 100 92 100 97 100 99 100 A: Soy based product Vitamamba; B: Lentil based product; C: Lentil based product + inclusion product; D: Chick pea base product; E: Chick pea based + inclusion product. www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fsns Food Science and Nutrition Studies Vol. 4, No. 1, 2020 10 Published by SCHOLINK INC. Tables 11 and 12 show responses of senior and junior students, respectively; to degree of satiety feeling during class room hours following meal intake. Feeling full satiety by senior students (Table 11) during the school hours was improved towards the third week of testing the new products. By the end of the feeding test, product B (Lentil based) proved to fulfil that degree of satiety (100%) intended to quench hunger until the students finish their lessons and go back home. The other products were by no means less than B in giving that feeling (97.6-98.9% degree of satiety) of full satiety although sachet content of some of them were not fully consumed by seniors (Table 5) compared to B product. Table 12 shows fluctuation in degree of satiety feeling among junior students during the school hours following meal taking in the first and second weeks of the serving process, with more or less satisfactory degree of satiety offered by all the products by the end of the third week (94.1-98.9%). It then becomes hard to judge on poorness of any of them. Table 11. Response of Senior Students to Degree of Satiety during Class Room Hours following Meal Taking Serving week Satiety response Product A Product B Product C Product D Product E Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % week 1 No Satiety 1 1.5 1 1.4 0 0.0 1 1.3 0 0.0 Not Sure 11 16.4 7 9.7 9 13.4 11 13.9 5 7.1 Full Satiety 55 82.1 64 88.9 58 86.6 67 84.8 65 92.9 Total 67 100 72 100 67 100 79 100 70 100 week 2 No Satiety 0 0.0 1 1.2 2 2.6 1 1.2 0 0.0 Not Sure 1 1.4 4 4.8 7 9.0 4 4.7 3 3.2 Full Satiety 73 98.6 79 94.0 69 88.5 80 94.1 90 96.8 Total 74 100 84 100 78 100 85 100 93 100 week 3 No Satiety 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Not Sure 2 2.4 0 0.0 1 1.2 1 1.2 1 1.1 Full Satiety 82 97.6 88 100.0 80 98.8 84 98.8 89 98.9 Total 84 100 88 100 81 100 85 100 90 100 A: Soy based product Vitamamba; B: Lentil based product; C: Lentil based product + inclusion product; D: Chick pea base product; E: Chick pea based + inclusion product. www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fsns Food Science and Nutrition Studies Vol. 4, No. 1, 2020 11 Published by SCHOLINK INC. Table 12. Response of Senior Students to Degree of Satiety during Class Room Hours following Meal Taking Serving week Satiety response Product A Product B Product C Product D Product E Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % week 1 No Satiety 0 0 0 0.0 1 1.3 0 0.0 1 1.3 Not Sure 0 0 5 7.2 2 2.5 10 13.5 10 12.7 Full Satiety 68 100 64 92.8 76 96.2 64 86.5 68 86.1 Total 68 100 69 100 79 100 74 100 79 100 week 2 No Satiety 0 0.0 3 3.7 2 2.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 Not Sure 1 1.3 7 8.5 5 5.7 3 3.4 1 1.1 Full Satiety 79 98.8 72 87.8 81 92.0 85 96.6 89 98.9 Total 80 100 82 100 88 100 88 100 90 100 week 3 No Satiety 2 2.4 2 2.4 0 0.0 1 1.1 1 1.1 Not Sure 2 2.4 3 3.5 2 2.3 0 0.0 1 1.1 Full Satiety 80 95.2 80 94.1 84 97.7 88 98.9 88 97.8 Total 84 100 85 100 86 100 89 100 90 100 A: Soy based product Vitamamba; B: Lentil based product; C: Lentil based product + inclusion product; D: Chick pea base product; E: Chick pea based + inclusion product. In conclusion, senior students (10-14 years) seemed to have appreciated paste meal based on lentil or chick pea as reflected in finishing all the meals in less than 10 minutes and also showed full- satiety feeling during the daily school hours. One fifth of the seniors expressed dislike for soy based paste as a reason for not finishing the paste. With respect to junior students (6-9 years), they seemed to have different opinions by showing more appreciation to the soy-based paste and taking less time to finish the product, although they expressed full- satiety feeling with all the products during the daily school hours. References ASTM. (1992). American Society for Testing and Materials; Committee E-18.Manual on Descriptive Analysis for Sensory Evaluation (R. C. Hootman, Ed.). Philadelphia, PA, MNL. ASTM. (2003). American Society for Testing and Materials; E2299-03.Standard Guide for Sensory Evaluation of Products by Children. Philadelphia, PA. Barbara, B., & Sandro, D. (2010). Nutrition and Consumer Protection Division, FAO. Proceedings of the International Scientific Symposium Biodiversity and Sustainable Diets. United Against Hunger. FAO Headquarters, Rome. Black, R. E., Allen, H. L., & Bhutta, Z. A. (2008). Maternal and child under nutrition: Global and www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fsns Food Science and Nutrition Studies Vol. 4, No. 1, 2020 12 Published by SCHOLINK INC. regional exposures and health consequences. Lancet, 371, 243-260. Brace, I. (2004). Questionnaire Design: How to Plan, Structure and Write Survey Material for Effective Market Research. Kogan Page, Philadelphia, PA. Jean-Xavier G. (2001). Sensory and consumer testing with children, Trends in Food Science and Technology, 11 (8) 273-283 DIUS. (2007). Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills Rigour, respect and responsibility: A universal ethical code for scientists. FAO, (2009). Declaration of the World Summit on Food Security, WSFS 2009/2, 16 November 2009. FAO, (2006). Policy Brief, Issue 2: Food Security. Rome. Federal Ministry of Health. (2006). Policy - Nutrition Policy for Sudan and Strategy for Implementation Comprehensive national nutrition policy, strategy or plan. Goldstein, E. B. (2006). Sensation and Perception. Wadsworth Publishing, Florence, KY. Gordin, H. H. (1987). Intensity variation descriptive methodology: Development and application of a new sensory evaluation technique. Journal of Sensory Studies, 2, 187-198. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.1987.tb00416.x Gregory, C. A., & Kadri, K. (2015). Pet Food Palatability Evaluation: A Review of Standard Assay Techniques and Interpretation of Results with a Primary Focus on Limitations, Animals (Basel) (Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 43-55). Guinard, J. X. (2001).Sensory and Consumer Testing with Children. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 11, 273-283. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-2244(01)00015-2 ISO. (1988). International Organization of Standards. ISO 8587: Methods for sensory analysis of food. Lawless, H. T., & Heymann, H. (1998). Sensory Evaluation of Food: Principles and Practices. Springer, N.Y. Meilgaard, M., Civille, C. V., & Carr, B. T. (2007). Sensory Evaluation Techniques (4th ed.). CRC, Boca Raton, FL. NHCTR, Nutrition & Health Center for Training & Research. (2017). Technical Report on “The Acceptability of School Meals Developed Based on Plant Sources Test No. I”. NHCTR, AUW, Sudan. NHCTR, Nutrition & Health Center for Training & Research. (2018). Technical Report on “The Acceptability of School Meals Test No. II”. NHCTR, AUW, Sudan. Poste, L. M., MacKie, D. A., Butler, G., & Larmond, E. (1991). Laboratory Methods for Sensory Analysis of Food. Canadian Group; Publishing Centre, Ottowa, Canada. Schutz, H. G., & Cardello, A. V. (2001). A labeled affective magnitude (LAM) scale for assessing food liking / disliking. Journal of Sensory Studies, 16, 117-159. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2001.tb00293.x Sudan Ministry of General Education, (2008). Baseline Survey on Basic Education on the Northern States of Sudan. Directorate General of Educational Planning, Khartoum, Sudan. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4494336/