An assessment of the potential of family day care as a nutrition promotion setting in South Australia

Articles > Journals > Health journals > Nutrition & Dietetics: The Journal of the Dieticians Association of Australia articles > March 2003 Article: An assessment of the potential of Family Day Care as a nutrition promotion setting in South Australia. (Original Research). Article from:Nutrition & Dietetics: The Journal of the Dieticians Association of Australia Article date:March 1, 2003 Author:Daniels, Lynne A.; Franco, Bunny; McWhinnie, Julie-Anne CopyrightCOPYRIGHT 2006 Dietitians Association of Australia. This material is published under license from the publisher through the Gale Group, Farmington Hills, Michigan. All inquiries regarding rights or concerns about this content should be directed to customer service. (Hide copyright information) Related articles Ads by Google TAFE Child Care Courses Government accredited courses. Study anytime, anywhere. www.seeklearning.com.au Get Work in Child Care Certificate III Children's Services 4 Day Course + Take Home Assessment HBAconsult.com.au Abstract Objective: To assess the potential role of Family Day Care in nutrition promotion for preschool children. Design and setting: A questionnaire to examine nutrition-related issues and practices was mailed to care providers registered in the southern region of Adelaide, South Australia. Care providers also supplied a descriptive, qualitative recall of the food provided by parents or themselves to each child less than five years of age in their care on the day closest to completion of the questionnaire. Subjects: 255 care providers. The response rate was 63% and covered 643 preschool children, mean 4.6 (SD 2.8) children per carer. Results: There was clear agreement that nutrition promotion was a relevant issue for Family Day Care providers. Nutrition and food hygiene knowledge was good but only 54% of respondents felt confident to address food quality issues with parents. Sixty-five percent of respondents reported non-neutral approaches to food refusal and dawdling (reward, punishment, cajoling) that overrode the child's control of the amount eaten. The food recalls indicated that most children (> 75%) were offered fruit at least once. Depending on the hours in care, (0 to 4, 5 to 8, greater than 8 hours), 20%, 32% and 55%, respectively, of children were offered milk and 65%, 82% and 87%, respectively, of children were offered high fat and sugar foods. Conclusions: Questionnaire responses suggest that many care providers are committed to and proactive in a range of nutrition promotion activities. There is scope for strengthening skills in the management of common problems, such as food refusal and dawdling, consistent with the current evidence for approaches to early feeding management that promote the development of healthy food preferences and eating patterns. Legitimising and empowering care providers in their nutrition promotion role requires clear policies, guide lines, adequate pre- and in-service training, suitable parent materials, and monitoring.

Advanced Gen-1, 2 and 3 biofuels research in Australia - Fuelling advanced biofuels training for international scientists

Flinders University and Queensland University of Technology, biofuels research interests cover a broad range of activities. Both institutions are seeking to overcome the twin evils of "peak oil" (Hubbert 1949 & 1956) and "global warming" (IPPC 2007, Stern 2006, Alison 2010), through development of Generation 1, 2 and 3 (Gen-1, 2 & 3) biofuels (Clarke 2008, Clarke 2010). This includes development of parallel Chemical Biorefinery, value-added, co-product chemical technologies, which can underpin the commercial viability of the biofuel industry. Whilst there is a focused effort to develop Gen-2 & 3 biofuels, thus avoiding the socially unacceptable use of food based Gen-1 biofuels, it must also be recognized that as yet, no country in the world has produced sustainable Gen-2 & 3 biofuel on a commercial basis. For example, in 2008 the United States used 38 billion litres (3.5% of total fuel use) of Gen-1 biofuel; in 2009/2010 this will be 47.5 billion litres (4.5% of fuel use) and in 2018 this has been estimated to rise to 96 billion litres (9% of total US fuel use). Brazil in 2008 produced 24.5 billion litres of ethanol, representing 37.3% of the world’s ethanol use for fuel and Europe, in 2008, produced 11.7 billion litres of biofuel (primarily as biodiesel). Compare this to Australia’s miserly biofuel production in 2008/2009 of 180 million litres of ethanol and 75 million litres of biodiesel, which is 0.4% of our fuel consumption! (Clarke, Graiver and Habibie 2010) To assist in the development of better biofuels technologies in the Asian developing regions the Australian Government recently awarded the Materials & BioEnergy Group from Flinders University, in partnership with the Queensland University of Technology, an Australian Leadership Award (ALA) Biofuel Fellowship program to train scientists from Indonesia and India about all facets of advanced biofuel technology.