Objective: 1) To analyse and compare the nutrient values of three tube-feeding formulas (blenderized pork, blenderized chicken, and soybean formula I prepared by Nutrition Services with those calculated from a food exchange list and our previous report, and 2) to analyse and compare the nutrient values of soybean formula I and soybean formula II.
Materials and Methods: Three tube-feeding formulas prepared by Nutrition Services were sampled randomly, and analysed by standard methods for protein, fat, carbohydrate, energy and some minerals. The nutrient values of the three formulas were compared, and reported as a percentage of those calculated from a food exchange list. The nutrient values of soybean formulas I and II were also compared.
Results: The nutrient values of all formulas were lower than those calculated from a food exchange list. The protein contents of the blenderized pork and chicken formulas were lower than in our previous report, but the carbohydrate contents were higher. The major nutrient values in the soybean formula I were also lower than in our previous report, but the energy distribution was still within acceptable limits. Mineral analysis further revealed that the soybean formula I was the highest in mineral content at the lowest price. Total energy in the soybean formula I was signigficantly higher than in soybean formula II (P < 0.05).
Conclusion: Compared with the blenderized pork and chicken formulas, the soybean formula I had the most suitable energy ratio, high mineral content, and was best value for cost.