Aniebo Advances

et al / Advances
in Foodinand
Food and Energy
Energy Security
Security 1 (2011)
1 (2011) 24-28 24-28

Available at woaj

Advances in Food and Energy Security

Journal homepage: www.woaj.org/AFE

Effect of Housefly Larvae (Musca domestica) Meal on the Carcass and Sensory
Qualities of the Mud Catfish, (Clarias gariepinus)

Aniebo, A. O1, Odukwe C.A1, Ebenebe, C. I2, Ajuogu P. K3, Owen O. J4 and Onu P. N5
1
Department of Animal Science, Anambra State University Igbariam. Awka, Nigeria. E mail
2
Department of Animal Science, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, Nigeria
3
Department of Animal Science and Fisheries, University of Port Harcourt, Port Harcourt, Nigeria.
4
Department of Animal Science, Rivers State University of Science and Technology, Port Harcourt, Nigeria
5
Department of Animal Science, Ebonyi State University, Abakaliki, Nigeria

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Article history: Exorbitant costs of protein concentrates especially fishmeal has led to the use
Received: of alternative sources such as housefly larvae (Musca domestica) meal, which
Available online: 4 October 2011 are non conventional in the formulation of aqua feeds in Nigeria. Because of
the consumers’ concern and perceived public health implications, as maggots
are associated with decomposing filthy organic matters, the safety and accept-
ability of fish produced with larvae (maggot) meal need to be ascertained.
Housefly maggot meal produced from a mixture of cattle blood and wheat
Keywords: bran was used to formulate three fish diets, in which it was used to replace
fishmeal at 0, 50 and 100% levels. The diets were fed to three groups of cat-
Body composition, fish (C. gariepinus) juveniles for 16 weeks, after which samples from each
catfish, treatment group was subjected to proximate analysis of their respective car-
fishmeal, casses and palatability test. Results showed that the proximate composition
maggot meal, and palatability characteristics of Clarias gariepinus were not affected by the
palatability characteristics replacement of fishmeal component of fish diet with maggot meal. Moisture
content remained within 74%, crude protein within 19% and fat within 2% for
all the dietary groups. Results also revealed that each treatment group scored
average of 3.5 points level of intensity in flavour, juiciness and texture/mouth
feel measured in the study. Therefore, the substitution of expensive fishmeal
with cheap maggot meal in fish diet had no negative effects on the quality and
acceptability of the final products.
© 2010 woaj Ltd. All rights reserved

1. Introduction culture industry in Nigeria. Fishmeal is the most expen-

The high dependence of aqua feeds on prohibitively
expensive fishmeal protein has taken its toll on the aqua-
* Corresponding author.
email address: okeyphasona@yahoo.com
2011 woaj Ltd. All rights reserved
sive component of fish feeds and several studies have
advocated its replacement with plant sources. Plant pro-
tein alternatives have their nutritional deficiencies (1,2)
and also their use by humans and other animals make it
imperative for a search for other alternatives. Recently,
there are several reports on the evaluation of unconven-
tional protein sources in fish feeds, but the use of mag-
got (housefly larvae) meal that has a comparable nutri-
tive value, especially amino acid profile, with fishmeal

24
 Aniebo et al / Advances in Food and Energy Security 1 (2011) 24-28
(3), holds a promise in fish nutrition. Maggot meal has
been found to be rich in protein and essential amino
acids (4, 5) and has successfully replaced fishmeal in
fish diets (6, 7, 8). These efforts are geared towards in-
creased production of animal protein, which will lead to
a balanced human and animal nutrition. However, public
acceptability of maggot meal as chicken and fish feed
ingredient may still be in doubt because of the consum-
ers’ concern and perceived public health implications (9,
10), thus the application of sensory method of fish qual-
ity analysis (11). There is the need to ascertain the
proximate composition and acceptability of fish pro-
duced with maggot meal based diet.
Fish is an excellent protein source and the flesh
contains all the ten essential amino acids in desirable
concentration for human beings (12, 13). It has a digesti-
bility > 95% and a very good source of vitamins D, A
and E (14). The proximate composition of Clarias
gariepinus from the wild has been reported (12) as well
as one cultured with conventional feeds (15). However
there is no information on the proximate composition
and on the palatability characteristics of Clarias garie-
pinus grown on diets compounded with maggot meal
from mixture of cattle blood and wheat bran. This study
was therefore, carried out to determine carcass and sen-
sory qualities of catfish fed maggot-meal substituted
diets.
2. Materials and Methods
Maggots were grown on a mixture of cattle blood
and wheat bran, harvested and processed into meal as
described by (16). Three fish diets in which the fishmeal
portions were replaced with maggot meal at 0, 50 and
100% levels were formulated, compounded (8) and fed
to the experimental fish. Three groups of C. gariepinus
juveniles (15 fingerlings each) were held in three sepa-
rate fish tanks (each measuring 1 x 0.5 x 1.2m.) and
used for the feeding trials for 16 weeks.
Table i. Evaluation criteria and score for the sensory quality of the catfish Clarias gariepinus specimens
A. Flavour B. Juiciness
Dislike =1 Not juicy
Like slightly =2 Partially juicy
Like =3 Juicy
Like very much =4 Very juicy
Proximate analysis
Two fish samples were collected from each treat-
ment group. The middle parts were cut out and dried in
a Gallenkamp air oven at 1050C to a constant weight in
a laboratory. Each sample was milled with Kenwood
grinder into homogenous powder and subjected to proxi-
mate analysis according to AOAC (17).The second fish
samples served as replicates. Data collected was used to
determine if the dietary treatments had any effects on
the fish chemical composition.
Sensory evaluation
A twenty member panel was randomly selected to
evaluate sensory qualities (palatability) of fish samples
from the three dietary treatments. The panelists deter-
mined if there were detectable differences among the
fish samples produced with the three test diets. Ten fish
samples were selected from each treatment group,
dressed, cut into small sizes and cured (oven dried).
Scoring difference/discriminately test was applied. Sam-
ples from each treatment were coded and presented to
each panelist. Thus, testing of each sample was repli-
cated 20 times. Panelists scored the intensity of the spe-
cific characteristics namely: flavour, juiciness and tex-
ture/mouth feel in each coded sample on an interval
scale of low intensity (1) to high or strong intensity (4)
(Table i). Samples were presented in identical containers
coded with 3 digit random numbers. Panelists were pre-
sented one sample at a time for comparison and were
instructed to evaluate independently. Each presented and
evaluated sample was removed before the next sample
was presented.
All the data collected were subjected to Analysis of
Variance, using the SAS general linear model (18), to
determine any differences in means among the dietary
treatments.
C. Texture/mouth feel
=1 Brittle =1
=2 Tender (soft) =2
=3 Slightly firm =3
=4 Firm =4
25
 Aniebo et al / Advances in Food and Energy Security 1 (2011) 24-28

3. Results and Discussion
The results from the analysis of carcass quality of
C. gariepinus sampled from the three dietary groups
(Table ii) showed that dietary treatments did not signifi-
cantly (P>0.05) influence their proximate composition.
Results from the sensory evaluation of fish samples
from the different treatments showed that the intensity
of the three characteristics namely flavour, juiciness and
texture/mouth feel were not significantly (P>0.05) al-
tered by the treatments (Table iii).
HFLM did not change the flavour, juiciness and mouth
feel/texture of cured fish produced from it. It implied
that HFLM did not impact any special or abnormal fla-
vour, juiciness or texture on the fish product since this
test expresses to a large extent the opinion of consumers
(24). This is consistent with the reports of (4) in their
comparison of HFLM with other protein raw materials.
It also agrees with the report of (25), that carcass quality
of birds fed maggot meal was similar to that of control
which contained no maggot meal. The implication is
that the diets had similar protein quality (20, 23).

The moisture contents of samples from all the treat-
ment groups are high and comparable with other catfish
species previously reported (12, 19, 20). Lipid contents
are similar to those reported by (21, 22), but lower than
(20) and higher than (12). However (19) noted that dif-
ferent factors affect lipid content in Siluriforms as in
other fish. High protein levels in all treatment groups are
consistent with other earlier reports (12, 20, 23).
The results of organoleptic tests showed that the
replacement of fish meal component of catfish diet with
The result of this study has further proved that
HFLM inclusion in fish diet needs not raise any doubt or
suspicion on the consumer acceptability of such fish
products, similar to broiler-chicken products (10). Also
food safety may not be an important issue in this pro-
duction system. Even though plant biomass and or ma-
nure and offal can be used in raising HFL (6, 26), the
choice of fresh blood and agro by-products which are
not as offensive as the natural manure usually associated
with housefly and its maggot (27), might yield a more
acceptable product. Therefore, fish produced with mag-

Table ii. Effects of experimental diets on the proximate composition of carcass of C. gariepinus (%)

Diets Moisture Crude protein Fat Ash

Initial 74.62±0.02 19.41±0.01 2.47±0.07 3.49±0.01
Diet 1 74.45±0.04 19.55±0.01 2.62±0.09 3.38±0.03
Diet 2 74.40±0.02 19.53±0.02 2.65±0,06 3.40±0.01
Diet 3 74.46±0.03 19.60±0.01 2.58±0.10 3.35±0.02

The values of the indices among the different treatments were not significantly different (p>0.05)

Table iii. Effects of experimental diets on the palatability characteristics of C. gariepinus

Treatments
Characteristics 1 2 3
Flavour 3.55±0.25 3.6±0.32 3.65±0.32
Juiciness 3.45±0.26 3.5±0.27 3.5±0.27
Texture/mouth feel 3.6±0.12 3.6±0.15 3.6±0.12

The values of the indices among the different treatments were not significantly different (p>0.05)

26
 Aniebo et al / Advances in Food and Energy Security 1 (2011) 24-28
got meal based diet could be a very good source of die-
tary nutrients and is expected to promote healthy living
of the consuming public.
4. References
1. Bhattacharyya A K (1986). Protein – Energy mal-
nutrition (Kwashiorkor – Marasmus syndron).
World Review of Nutritional Dietetics. 47: 80-133
2. Atteh J O and Olugbenla F D (1993) Replacement
of fishmeal with maggots in broiler diet: Effects on
performance and nutrient retention. Nigerian Jour-
nal of Animal Production, 20: 44-49
3. Aniebo A O, Erondu E S and Owen O J (2008b).
Proximate composition of housefly larvae (Musca
domestica) meal generated from mixture of cattle
blood and wheat bran. Livestock Research for Ru-
ral Development 20 (12) :1-5. Retrieved
12/10/2008, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd20/12/
anie20205.htm
4. Awoniyi T A M, Aletor V A and Aina J M (2003)
Performance of broiler chickens fed on maggot
meal in place of fishmeal. International Journal of
Poultry Science 2 (4): 271-274.
5. Idowu A B, Amusan A A S and Oyediran A G
(2003). The response of C. gariepinus (Burchell
1822) to the diet containing housefly maggot
(Musca domestica). Nigerian Journal of Animal
Production, 30 (1): 139-144.
6. Fasakin E A, Balogun A M and Ajayi O O (2003).
Nutrition implication of processed maggot meals;
hydrolyzed, defatted, full-fat, sun-dried and oven-
dried, in the diets of Clarias gariepinus fingerlings.
Aquaculture Research, 9(34): 733-738.
7. Ogunji, J, Slawski H, Schulz C, Werner C and
Wirth M (2006). Preliminary evaluation of house-
fly maggot meal as an alternative protein source in
diet of carp (Cyprinus carpio L.) World Aquacul-
ture Society Abstract Data. Aqua 2006. – Meeting,
Abstract 277.
8. Aniebo A.O, Erondu E.S and Owen O.J (2009).
Replacement of fish meal with maggot meal in
African catfish (Clarias gariepinus) diets. UDO
Agricola. 9 (3): 666-671. Revistica Cientifica de
la Escuela de Ingenieria Agronomica de la Univer-
sidad de Oriente, Venezuela
9. Atteh J O and Adedeyin D D (1993) Effects of
replacing dietary fishmeal with maggots on per-
formance and nutrient retention of laying hens.
Nigerian Journal of Animal Production, 20:50-55.
10. Awoniyi T A M, Adebayo I A and Aletor V A
(2004) A study of some erythrocyte indices and
bacteriological analysis of broiler – chickens
raised on maggot-meal based diets. International
Journal of Poultry Science 3 (6): 386-390.
11. Iwe M O (2002). Handbook of Sensory Methods
and Analysis, 1st Edition Rojoint Communication
Services Ltd Enugu, Nigeria
12. Ayinla O A (1993) Chemical composition of
Clarias gariepinus collected from the wild. African
Regional Aquaculture Center/National Institute for
Oceanography and Marine Research, Port Har-
court. Technical Paper 86:2-12.
13. Qyvind L, Einar L, Amund M, Leif R N and Kjar-
tans S (1994). Nutrient content in fish and shell
fish. Journal Fish Diveri Skrimer Ernearing 6
(5): 11-101
14. Bhuiyan A K M, Ratnayake W N M and Ackman
R G (1993). Nutritional composition of raw and
smoked Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus):
oil and water- soluble vitamins. Journal of Food
Composition Analysis 6: 172-184.
15. Degani G, Ben Zvi Y and Levanon D (1989). The
effect of different protein levels and temperatures
on feed utilization ,growth and body composition
of Clarias gariepinus (Burchell 1822). Aquacul-
ture, 76:293-301
16. Aniebo A.O, Wekhe S.N, Erondu E.S, Owen O.J,
Ngodigha E.N and Isirimah N.O. (2008a). Sus-
tainable commercial maggot production
(maggotry) for animal & aqua feeds in Rivers
State, South South Nigeria. International Journal
of Biotechnology and Biochemistry (IJBB) 4 (2):
197-205. Research Indian Publications. http://
www.ripublication.com/Volme/ijbbv4n2.htm
17. AOAC (1990) The Official Method of Analysis,
Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 15th
Edition,Washington D.C.
18. Statistical Analysis System (1999). Statistical
Analysis System (SAS). Institute Inc. Cary NC
USA.
19. Fauconneau B and Laroche M (1996). Characteris-
tics of the flesh and quality of products of cat-
fishes. Legendre M and Proteau J (eds.) Aquatic
Living Resource Vol 9. Horse Serie 165-179.
20. Otitologbon S A, Agbaji E B, Peters O A and
Oniye S J (1997). Proximate and mineral composi-
tion of three Nigerian freshwater fishes. Journal of
Science of Food and Agriculture 75: 312-314
21. Smith G, Hole M and Hanson S W (1990). Assess-
ment of lipid oxidation in Indonesian salted dried
marine catfish (Arius thalassinus) Journal of Sci-
ence of Food and Agriculture 51:193-205.
22. Hoffman I C, Casey N H and Prinsloo J F (1992).
Carcass yield and fillet chemical composition of
wild and farmed African sharptooth Clarias garie-
pinus, in Production Environment and Quality, ed.
by Barnabe G and Kestemont P. European Aqua-
culture Society Special Publication 18: 422-432.
23. Abdullahi S A (2003). Quantitative estimation of
proximate, amino acid, and mineral composition of
27
 Aniebo et al / Advances in Food and Energy Security 1 (2011) 24-28

some Nigerian fresh water fishes (Family: Mochoki-

dae). Nigerian Food Journal 21: 45-49
24. Eyo A A (2006). Fish Processing Technology in the
Tropics. 1st Edition, University of Ilorin Press,
Ilorin Nigeria.
25. Teguia A, Mpoame M and Okourou Mba J A
(2002). The production performance of broiler birds
as affected by the replacement of fish meal by mag-
got meal in the starter and finisher diets. Tropicul-
ture, 4: 187 – 192.
26. Teguia A and Beynen A C (2005). Alternative feed-
stuffs for broilers in Cameroon. Livestock Research
for Rural Development. 17 (3): 1-11 Retrieved Au-
gust 16 2005, http://www.cipav.org.co/lrrd/lrrd17/3/
tegu17034.htm
27. Cranshaw W S and Peairs F B (2004). Flies in the
homes. Colorado State University Co-operative Ex-
tension Bio-agricultural Science / Pest Manage-
ment.11/19(5.502) http://www.ext.colostate.edu/
pubs/insect/05502.html.

28