This is one of the rare contexts where satipatthana, which is normally a method of samatha meditation to attain jhana, is applied in the context of understanding causality, i.e. vipassanā. This results in some unusual usages.
- Āhāra as the origin of the body is just ordinary food, it does not refer to the four nutriments.
- Contact as the cause of feeling is the same as dependent origination.
- Name and form as the origin of citta mirrors the relation between viññāṇa and name and form in dependent origination. Here, citta and viññāṇa are synonyms. The difference is that viññāṇa is usually used in contexts relating to the first noble truth and passages that analyze the nature of suffering, whereas citta falls under the fourth noble truth and is “to be developed”, primarily through samatha meditation. The somewhat blurry lines between these terms result in this unique usage.
- Manasikāra as the origination of dhammas only makes sense when it is understood that here dhamma refers only to the hindrances and awakening factors, and maybe the four noble truths. This is, in fact, specified in the commentary to this passage. Translating dhammas here as “phenomena” (in the general sense) or “mind objects” is incorrect. It could be rendered as “principles”.
As to the four nutriments and dependent origination, you’ll need to be more specific.