PAPER TITLE :A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE NUTRITIVE CHARACTERISTICS, FUNCTIONAL PROPERTIES AND IN VITRO PROTEIN DIG

JOURNAL Of SUSTAINABLE TECHNOLOGY | VOLUME 1 NUMBER 1 2010

Paper Details

  • Author(s) : ALETOR, O; EVIVIE, S.E and ALETOR, V.A.
  • Abstract:

Five different protein concentrates were analyzed and compared with respect to their proximate compositions, mineral constituents, gross energy, functional properties and in vitro multi-enzyme protein digestibility. They include maggot meal, frog meal, shrimp waste meal, Cassava leaf protein concentrate (CLPC) and fishmeal (which was used as a reference/standard). Proximate analysis showed that frog meal and maggot meal (57.4±0.8g/100g DM and 43.8±1.3g/100g DM) respectively, compared fairly with fish meal (65.7±0.8g/100g DM) in terms of crude protein content. Maggot meal also had the highest ether extract of 26.2 ± 0.9g/100g DM while shrimp waste meal had the least (7.8 ± 1.8g/ DM). Frog meal had the highest ash content of 23.1 ± 1.6g/100g DM while CLPC had the least (5.2 ± 0.2g/100 DM). Gross energy ranged from 522.2Kcal/100g in Maggot meal to 415.4Kcal/100g in shrimp waste meal. The trace and major mineral constituents of fish meal were substantially higher than other concentrates. CLPC had the lowest oil absorption capacity (19.3 ± 2.3%) and frog meal had the highest water absorption capacity (240.0 ± 6.3%). CLPC had the highest emulsion capacity and emulsion stability of 56.9 ± 0.7% and 55.4 ± 1.2%, respectively. There was no observed foaming for maggot meal but it had the lowest least gelation value along with fish meal of 4.0%. All concentrates of animal origin had highest protein solubility at pH of 2 while that of CLPC was at pH 8 and 10. The highest in vitro protein digestibility (86.3%) was in CLPC while the least was in shrimp waste meal (71.0%). Apart from the potentials for use in food systems, it was concluded that these alternative and relatively inexpensive protein concentrates hold the key to a more economic livestock production particularly among the resource-poor farmers in the least developed countries (LDCs)