This study was concerned with the level of acceptability and perceptions of three types of commercially produced roller-milled white maize meal namely: sifted unfortified, sifted fortified and super fortified versus hammer-mill produced white and yellow maize meal (with and without fibre) among Shangaan consumers in Giyani in the Limpopo Province, South Africa (SA). The local households produce maize grain on a small scale or buy it from small scale farmers and take it to the local small scale millers for milling for a fee. The 48 participants for this project were female consumers (eighteen years old or older). The study was divided into two phases. The aim of the first phase was to determine the difference if any in acceptability of the sensory attributes of the various maize meal types. It employed a sensory evaluation technique which is a quantitative scientific method in which numerical data was collected and analysed in order to determine and compare consumer acceptability. The aim of the second phase was to discuss the perceptions of these consumers in relation to the products and employed focus-group interviews. During phase one maize meal porridge was prepared by local community volunteers under careful supervision in a standardized manner. The porridge was served warm: two samples at a time, marked with 3-digit random codes. None of the participants had any prior information pertaining to the samples they were tasting at any time. The identity of the samples were only revealed during the focus-group interviews (phase two). Consumers preferred (liked) white sifted fortified maize meal porridge on a double blind basis more than the white sifted unfortified maize meal porridge. Hammer-mill white and hammer-mill yellow maize porridge with fibre were equally disliked by participants. There was no significant difference in the acceptability of hammer-mill white compared to yellow maize meal without fibre. No significant difference was found in preference for aroma, colour, consistency and taste between white sifted unfortified and super fortified maize meal compared to white hammer-mill maize meal without fibre. The difference in taste preference can only be attributed to the fortificant that is added commercially to the maize meal. This is quite a significant finding and different to that measured prior to the implementation of the SA National Fortification Scheme, where no impact on taste was measured. Furthermore, consumers’ preference for fortified maize meal on a double blind bias is in contrast to previous findings of research indicating a degree of dislike among consumers regarding fortified maize meal, according to maize millers’ opinion. During phase two focus-group interviews were conducted immediately following phase one. The participants sat in a cluster for these interviews. The qualitative data was transcribed verbatim into text for analysis and discussion of results. At least 40 out of 48 consumers stated that they liked the hammer-mill yellow maize meal porridge in terms of aroma, colour, texture, taste and for its nutritional value. Those in Homu 14 village stated that if the price of roller-mill maize meal was similar to that of yellow maize meal they would buy both maize types as they liked them equally but those in Mahlathi would buy yellow maize meal for nutritional reasons. / Dissertation (MConsSci (General))--University of Pretoria, 2008. / Consumer Science / unrestricted

This study is aimed at investigating specific preferences for various types of maize meal in two rural communities of Mthatha. Consumption data shows that in very poor households, maize was the only and most consumed foodstuff. The acceptability and opinions of different maize meal types were investigated by this study, as well as awareness of technologies, food fortification and genetic modification. The first phase of the study employed a qualitative approach in which numerical data was collected using sensory evaluations and second phase being a qualitative approach in the form of focus group interviews. In determining consumer acceptability, sensory evaluations were done amongst villagers from Ngqeleni and Mqanduli of selected age groups and gender. The sensory evaluation findings of the study indicate that fortified (special) maize meal is preferred over all other maize meal types, based on a higher liking of the aroma and colour. This was followed by unfortified (special) maize meal, although it was not significantly different to sifted white maize meal, sifted yellow maize meal, white sifted non-genetically modified maize meal, white genetically modified maize meal, in descending order. Younger adults (18-25years) had a stronger preference for white fortified maize meal, with older adults (>40years) all maize meal types similarly with the exception of yellow sifted maize meal. Males and females revealed equal liking behaviour. The Ngqeleni villagers preferred white fortified maize meal. Mqanduli participants preferred sifted maize meal, probable due to the fact that this is the staple food produced in the village. Focus groups were used to capture understanding and/or opinions of food fortification and genetic modification. Ngqeleni and Mqanduli are two villages approximately 30km east of Mthatha and south east of Mthatha, respectively. Findings from the two villages differed. Somewhat the Mqanduli community was more subsistence farming based, therefore aware of farming practices and their technical benefits but not the facts behind the technology. In Ngqeleni, the community was more aware of the concepts even though they were not exposed to them. This deduced a low illiteracy rate in Mqanduli compared to Ngqeleni and it was confirmed during discussions and through a mini survey. Poverty was also evident in Mqanduli as most of the community was unemployed. This encouraged the community to use locally grown maize meal more than the commercial fortified maize meal. The issue of yellow and white maize brought good discussions, which led to conclusions that the choice of yellow maize depends on individual preferences. Most of the respondents in these communities consumed yellow maize in one state or another, with a few who did not prefer it at all as maize meal. Most men preferred yellow maize and yellow maize meal, as they believed that it had higher satiety level than white maize and white maize meal. In conclusion, the study revealed very interesting differences in preference of different maize meal types. This could form part of understanding the dynamics related to staple foods in a rural context. / Dissertation (MConsSci)--University of Pretoria, 2009. / Consumer Science / unrestricted