Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
74
Calculation
Where:
A = weight of clean, dry porcelain crucible (g) B =
weight of porcelain crucible + wet sample (g)
C
=
weight of porcelain crucible + dry sample
(g)
Processing Procedures
Smoking Process: The fish were placed on a metal
net in the cylindrical mud oven. Firewood from varied
trees was used to generate the smoke used to smoke
and cook the fish. The fish were turned at intervals to
ensure uniform smoking and cooking of the fish. The
process took 2 days.
Proximate Analysis:
75
Calculation
(A+B) A=B
% ether extract = B/C 100
A= flask weight,
weight
Calculations
76
Calculation
(A+B) A = B
(A+C) A = C
%Ash = C/B 100
RESULTS
Effect of Traditional Processing Methods on the
Proximate Composition of Red Fish Before
Storage: The proximate composition of raw and
traditionally smoked, fried and salted red fish before
storage are presented in Table 1. Table 1,
fundamentally gives the effect that traditional
processing methods have on the proximate
composition of raw fresh red fish. Each value is the
mean
standard
deviation
of
triplicate
determinations.
Table 1: Proximate composition of fresh fish and traditionally smoked, fried and salted red fish.
Fish Sample
% Moisture
% Ash
%Fat
%Protein
% Fibre
% NFE
Fresh
10.0 (80.0)a
6.00 a
9.99 a
72.49 a
1.01 a
0.51 a
Smoked
4.00 (50.0) b
6.07 a
10.00 a
73.94 b
1.52 b
4.47 b
Salted
5.90 (48.0) c
30.00 b
9.67 b
52.77 c
1.32 b
0.34 c
Fried
3.99 (31.0) b
6.00 a
20.02 c
66.52d
1.34 b
2.11 d
Lsd 5%
0.0965
0.1041
0.2722
0.1239
0.2354
0.1148
CV%
0.86
0.46
1.16
0.10
9.64
3.28
77
Table 2 Proximate composition of traditionally processed red fish after 14 days storage under ambient room
conditions.
Processing Method
% Moisture
% Ash
%Crude Fat
%Crude Protein
%Crude Fibre
%NFE
Frying
32.0
21.07
63.35
0.63
0.95
Smoking
54.0
6.67
77.28
2.03
0.96
Salting
50.0
32
53.47
2.05
0.48
Table 3 Effect of traditional processing methods on the ash content of red fish stored for 14 days under ambient
room temperature.
Processing Methods
Storage (S) (Ambient room temperature)
(P)
Means
Pre-Storage
Post-Storage
Frying
Smoking
Salting and drying
Means
Lsd. (5%)
6.003e
6.073e
30.003d
14.027b
S=0.2500
8.000c
6.673d
32.000a
15.558a
P=0.3062
7.002a
6.373b
31.002c
S*P=0.4331
CV%= 1.61
78
Table 4 Effect of traditional processing methods on the crude fat content of red fish stored for 14 days under
ambient temperature.
Processing Methods
Storage (S) (Ambient temperature)
(P)
Means
Pre-Storage
Post-Storage
Frying
Smoking
Salting and drying
Means
Lsd. (5%)
CV%= 1.02
20.023 b
10.000 c
9.667 d
13.230 a
S=0.1260
21.073 a
5.000 e
5.000 e
10.358 b
P=0.1543
20.548 a
7.500 b
7.333 c
S*P=5.000
Table 5 Effect of traditional fish processing methods on the crude fibre content of red fish after 14 days storage
under ambient room conditions
. Processing Methods
Storage(S) (Ambient temperature)
(P)
Means
Pre-Storage
Post-Storage
Frying
1.3367 b
0.6267 c
0.9817 b
Smoking
Salting and drying
Means
1.3467 b
1.3167 b
1.3333 b
2.0267 a
2.0533 a
1.5689 a
1.6867 a
1.6850 a
Lsd. (5%)
S=0.1740
P=0.2131
S*P=0.3013
CV%= 11.41
Table 6: Effect of traditional fish processing methods on moisture content (%) of red fish after 14 days storage
under ambient room conditions.
Processing Methods
Storage (S) (Ambient temperature)
(P)
Means
Pre-Storage
Post-Storage
Frying
4.0033 b
6.0033 ab
5.0017 b
Smoking
6.0033 ab
8.0000 a
7.0017 a
5.9033 ab
8.0000 a
6.9517 a
Means
5.3033 b
7.3333 a
Lsd. (5%)
S=1.4927
P=1.8282
S*P=2.5854
CV%= 22.49
79
Table 7 Effect of traditional fish processing methods on nitrogen-free extract content (%) of red fish after 14 days
storage under ambient room conditions
Processing Methods
Storage(S) (Ambient temperature)
(P)
Means
Pre-Storage
Post-Storage
Frying
2.11 ab
0.95 bc
1.53ab
Smoking
3.13 a
1.02bc
2.08a
Salting and drying
0.34c
0.48bc
0.41b
Means
1.86a
0.82b
Lsd. (5%)
S=0.9671
P=1.1844
S*P=1.6850
CV%= 68.77
Table 8 Effect of traditional fish processing methods on crude protein (%) of red fish after 14 days storage under
ambient room conditions.
Processing Methods
Storage(S) (Ambient temperature)
(P)
Means
Pre-Storage
Post-Storage
Frying
66.520 c
63.350 d
64.935 a
Smoking
73.450 b
77.277 a
75.363 b
52.770 e
52.467 e
52.618 c
Means
64.247 a
64.364 a
Lsd. (5%)
S=0.4127
P=0.5054
S*P=0.7147
CV%= 0.61
DISCUSSION
The effect of traditional fish processing methods on
proximate composition of red fish before storage:
Moisture content: Fresh red fish recorded the highest
moisture content of 80% this was in the range given by
Davies and Davies (2009) who peg fish to be made up
of 70-84 percent water. Fresh fish also recorded the
lowest ash and crude fibre content. This is in agreement
with DSouza and Musaiger, (2008) and KumoluJohnson, (2010).
80
The smoked fish also accounted for the high nitrogenfree extract (energy) content. This is because according
to Aberoumad and Pourshafi (2010), the lower the
percentage of water, the greater the lipids and protein
content and the higher the energy density of the fish.
Thus given that the smoked fish had the highest protein
content, it nitrogen free extract content was high; it is
bound to have a high energy level.
But then, the fried fish which had the lowest moisture
content was not having the highest level. DSouza and
Musaiger, (2008) reported a study on the effects of
heating on the digestibility of the protein in hake, a type
of fish and found that, fish meat heated for 10 minutes at
130C (266F), showed a 1.5% decrease in protein
digestibility. Similarly, heating of hake meat in the
presence of potato starch, soy oil, and salt caused a 6%
decrease in amino acid content. Thus given that frying
was done in cooking oil and under an uncontrolled high
and intense heat, could have caused the reduction in the
crude protein level.
CONCLUSION
Proximate quality changes of raw and traditionally
smoked, fried and salted red fish were studied right after
81
REFERENCES
Abdulrahman, M. O. and Reshma DSouza, (2008). The effects
of different methods of cooking on proximate,mineral and
heavy metal composition of fish and shrimps consumed in
the Arabian Gulf. Archivos Latinoamericanos De Nutricion
Organo Oficial de la Sociedad Latinoamericana de
Nutricin 58 (1), 103-109
82