Effect of Wrapping Materials on the Proximate Composition and ...

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOOD AND NUTRITION SCIENCE VOL2 NO1 AUGUST 2013ISSN 2165-5308 (PRINT) ISSN 2165-5316 (ONLINE) http://www.researchpub.org/journal/ijfns/ijfns.html<strong>Effect</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Wrapping</strong> <strong>Materials</strong> on the ProximateComposition and Organoleptic Properties <strong>of</strong>Usu (Indigenous Meat Analogue) Producedfrom Big Mushroom (Lentinus Tuber-Regium)and Melon Seed (Colocynthis citrullus L)*Kabuo, N.O., Udeozor, L.O., Onuegbu, N.C, Nwosu, J.N., and Eme, M.U.Department <strong>of</strong> Food Science and TechnologyFederal University <strong>of</strong> Technology, P.M.B. 1526, Owerri, Imo State Nigeriaookabuo@yahoo.com*Corresponding authorAbstract— The effect <strong>of</strong> wrapping materials on theproximate composition and organoleptic properties <strong>of</strong>Usu (indigenous meat analogue) produced from melonseed and big mushroom in the ratios <strong>of</strong> 80:20 and 70:30was studied. The two ratios <strong>of</strong> melon seed and bigmushroom flours were mixed with Cameroon pepper(5%), maggi sauce (3%) and salt (4%) and poundedtogether with addition <strong>of</strong> warm water to produce thickpastes. The pastes were divided into five portions (3.5geach) for the different ratios and wrapped in Christmasbush leaves (CBL), Asusu leave (AS), African boundaryleaves (ABL), Miraculous fruit leaves (MFL) andAluminum foil respectively and cooked using steam.Proximate analysis and sensory evaluation were carriedout on the products. Statistical analysis was also carriedout on the sensory data at 5% confidence level (P >0.05). Results showed that the proximate composition <strong>of</strong>the Usu samples were not significantly (p

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOOD AND NUTRITION SCIENCE VOL2 NO1 AUGUST 2013ISSN 2165-5308 (PRINT) ISSN 2165-5316 (ONLINE) http://www.researchpub.org/journal/ijfns/ijfns.htmlidentified using a handbook <strong>of</strong> West African weeds[11]. The leaves were found and collected within theenvironment <strong>of</strong> Federal University <strong>of</strong> Technology,Owerri.C. Preliminary Preparation <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Wrapping</strong><strong>Materials</strong>The wrapping materials such as miraculous fruitleaves, Christmas bush leaves, Asusu leaves andAfrican border leaves were washed and drained.D. Cleaning and preparation <strong>of</strong> the raw<strong>Materials</strong>The dehulled melon seeds were manually sorted toremove the bad ones, stones and other impurities andground into flour using a manual grinder. Themushroom was peeled to remove the back, washed,dried, cut into small sizes and then milled into flour.The Cameroon pepper was also ground using thesame mill.E. Production <strong>of</strong> Usu (indigenous meatanalogue)Two sets <strong>of</strong> samples were produced using thefollowing ratios <strong>of</strong> 70:30 for the first set and 80:20for the second set and the other ingredients in theformulation were 5% Cameroon pepper, 4% salt and3% maggi sauce. The materials were weighed outusing weighing balance and were properly blendedtogether by pounding in mortar and pestle with warmwater added drop by drop until a well-blendedproduct <strong>of</strong> good texture and consistency was obtained.The mixed product <strong>of</strong> the different ratios weremolded into small portions weighing 3.5g each andwrapped into Aluminium foil and four differentleaves namely Christmas bush leaves (Alchorneacordifolia), miraculous fruit leaves (Thaumatococcusdaniellii), Asusu leaves (Manniophyton fulvum) andAfrican border leaves (Newbouldia laevis seem) andtied with palm frond ropes, cooked for 90 minutesusing steam and then cooled. The recipe used forproduction <strong>of</strong> the two ratios <strong>of</strong> Usu samples is shownin table I. While the Flow chart for the production <strong>of</strong>indigenous meat analogue is shown in Fig. 1.TABLE IRECIPE FOR PRODUCTION OF THE USU SAMPLESIngredients First Sample (g) Second sample (g)Ground Melon seed 70 80Ground Big Mushroom 30 20Cameroon Pepper 5 5Maggi Sauce 3 3Salt 4 440

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOOD AND NUTRITION SCIENCE VOL2 NO1 AUGUST 2013ISSN 2165-5308 (PRINT) ISSN 2165-5316 (ONLINE) http://www.researchpub.org/journal/ijfns/ijfns.htmlIngredients (Ground melon seed + Ground big mushroom + Cameroun pepper + salt + maggi)Mixing together in a mortarPounding (with addition <strong>of</strong> warm water drop)KneadingMolding (To small flat sizes)Packaging/wrappingCooking (With steam for 90 minutes)CoolingUsu ( Indigenous Meat Analogue)Figure 1: Flow Chart for Production <strong>of</strong> Usu (indigenous meat analogue)F. Proximate Analysis <strong>of</strong> ProductThe proximate compositions were determinedaccording to the standard methods <strong>of</strong> [12].G. Sensory EvaluationThe organoleptic evaluation <strong>of</strong> the Usu samples(indigenous meat analogue) was carried out forconsumer acceptance and preference by a 10-trainedpanelist (students and staff <strong>of</strong> the Department <strong>of</strong>Food Science and Technology, Federal University <strong>of</strong>Technology, Owerri, Nigeria). The panelistsevaluated the sensory properties based on colour,aroma, taste, texture and overall acceptability using anine-point Hedonic scale, where 1 represents“extremely dislike” and 9 “extremely like”respectively described by [13].Meanwhile, necessary precautions were taken toprevent carryover flavour during the tasting byensuring the panelists rinsed their mouth with waterafter each stage <strong>of</strong> sensory evaluation.H. Statistical Analysis41All the data obtained from the sensory evaluation andproximate compositions were analyzed statisticallyusing the means and analysis <strong>of</strong> variance (ANOVA)at P ≤ 0.05. The separation <strong>of</strong> means was carried outusing fisher’s Least significant difference (LSD) andthe significant difference and similarities <strong>of</strong> thesamples were determined based on the scores [13].III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONA. Proximate CompositionTable 2 shows the effect <strong>of</strong> different wrappingmaterials on the proximate composition <strong>of</strong> Ususamples (indigenous meat analogue).The table showed that the moisture contents <strong>of</strong> thesamples ranged from 10.49% to 17.93% mean values.Different food materials have different capacity forabsorbing/retaining moisture which may exist asoccluded or absorbed water. Sample wrapped inAluminum foil (FIL) had the highest mean moisturevalue <strong>of</strong> 17.925% while the sample wrapped in Asusuleaves (AS) had the lowest mean moisture value <strong>of</strong>10.49%. The variations in the moisture contents <strong>of</strong>

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOOD AND NUTRITION SCIENCE VOL2 NO1 AUGUST 2013ISSN 2165-5308 (PRINT) ISSN 2165-5316 (ONLINE) http://www.researchpub.org/journal/ijfns/ijfns.htmlthese samples could be due to variation <strong>of</strong> wrappingmaterials. Since the same sample was used, the FILmay have retained more moisture than the othersamples during the cooking period, or the othermaterials may have lost moisture during cooking.The percentage mean values <strong>of</strong> the protein contents<strong>of</strong> the Usu samples were 15.8, 15.37. 15.69. 15.79and 14.07 for wrapping samples CBL, MFL, ABL,MF and FIL respectively.TABLE IIEFFECT OF WRAPPING MATERIALS ON PROXIMATE COMPOSITION OF “USU” AN INDIGENOUSMEAT ANALOGUE.Samples Moisture Protein Fat Crude Fibre Ash CHOCBL 13.38 a 15.8 a 25.15 a 3.78 a 5.65 a 36.28 aMFL 13.27 a 15.37 a 29.28 a 4.92 a 5.22 a 31.96 aABL 17.70 a 15.69 a 28.81 a 5.00 a 4.06 a 28.76 aMF 10.49 a 15.79 a 28.99 a 5.63 a 5.79 a 33.32 aFIL 17.93 a 14.07 a 28.70 a 4.88 a 5.65 a 31.30 aLSD 9.47 2.09 10.32 4.27 2.79 8.00Means in the same column with the same superscript are significantly similar (P < 0.05)NOTE:CBL = Christmas bush leaves (Alchornea cordifolia)MFL =Miraculous fruit leaves (Thaumatococcus daniellii),ABL = African border Leaves (Newbouldia laevis seem)AS = Asusu Leaves (Manniophyton fulvum)FIL = Aluminum FoilThe protein contents were not statistically different at5% confidence interval, though the sample wrappedwith aluminum foil (FIL) had the lowest percentage<strong>of</strong> protein content. Generally, the protein content <strong>of</strong>all the samples were relatively high because, the bigmushroom and melon used in the production <strong>of</strong> Ususamples are good sources <strong>of</strong> protein [14; 15; 16; 17].The fat content <strong>of</strong> the Usu wrapped in differentwrapping materials were not significantly different (P< 0.05), although there were differences in theirpercentage mean values ranging from 25.70% to29.28%. MFL samples had relatively high fat contentwhile FIL showed the lowest percentage <strong>of</strong> fatcontent and this may be due to wrapping materialvariations as the raw leaves material used may havecontributed to high fat content <strong>of</strong> samples [15; 16].The ash content <strong>of</strong> the Usu sample ranged from4.06% to 5.79% and they were significantly similardespite slight variation in their percentage meanvalue. The crude fibre content followed the samepattern with percentage mean value ranging from3.78 to 5.63. There is no significant difference at 5%confidence interval. The carbohydrate percentagemean values ranged from 28.76 to 36.28, havingvariations in the value but significantly indifferent.The proximate compositions <strong>of</strong> these samples wereso because they were from the same mixture, thedifferences were from the wrapping materials.Therefore, any difference in proximate values couldbe from the wrapping materials effect.B. <strong>Effect</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Wrapping</strong> <strong>Materials</strong> on ProximateComposition at Varying RatiosTable 3 shows the percentage mean composite values<strong>of</strong> Usu samples for 70:30 and 80:20 egusi: erousuratios, wrapped in different wrapping materials.From the results <strong>of</strong> the statistical analysis, the varyingratios <strong>of</strong> the Usu sample wrapped with differentwrapping materials showed no significant differencein their percentage moisture mean value. Sample A(70:30) had 14.87% while sample B (80:20) had14.23% respectively. The percentage protein meanvalues were 15.08% and 15.6% for samples A (70:30)and B (80:20) respectively.42

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOOD AND NUTRITION SCIENCE VOL2 NO1 AUGUST 2013ISSN 2165-5308 (PRINT) ISSN 2165-5316 (ONLINE) http://www.researchpub.org/journal/ijfns/ijfns.htmlTABLE IVMEAN SCORES OF ORGANOLEPTIC CHARACTERISTICS OF USU SAMPLES FOR 70:30 RATIOWRAPPED IN DIFFERENT WRAPPING MATERIALSSamples Colour Aroma Taste Texture Overall AcceptabilityCBL 6.40 ±1.17 a 5.80 ± 1.48 a 6.10 ± 1.29 a 6.20 ± 1.03 a 6.90 ± 1.45 abMFL 6.90 ± 1.20 a 6.30 ±1.57 a 6.70 ± 1.16 a 6.90 ± 0.74 a 7.40 ± 0.69 aABL 6.00 ± 1.15 a 5.50 ± 0.53 a 6.60 ± 1.07 a 6.30 ± 0.48 a 6.60 ±0.84 bAS 5.70 ± 0.95 b 5.80 ± 1.62 a 6.20 ±1.62 a 6.50 ± 0.53 a 6.30 ± 0.48 bFIL 6.40 ± 1.26 a 5.70 ± 1.77 a 6.10 ± 1.59 a 6.30 ± 0.79 a 6.30 ± 1.49 bLSD 1.04 1.06 0.85 0.79 0.82Means in the same column with the same superscript are not significantly different (P < 0.05).Means in the same column with different superscript are significantly different (P > 0.05)NOTE:CBL = Christmas bush leaves (Alchornea cordifolia)MFL =Miraculous fruit leaves (Thaumatococcus daniellii),ABL = African border Leaves (Newbouldia laevis seem)AS = Asusu Leaves (Manniophyton fulvum)FIL = Aluminum FoilThe aroma <strong>of</strong> all the Usu samples were significantlysimilar and they were “slightly liked” (scoreapproximately 6.0). The aroma <strong>of</strong> sample wrappedwith MFL was however given the highest score 6.30,which was followed by CBL and AS having the samemean score <strong>of</strong> 5.80. The close rating <strong>of</strong> the sample onaroma could be due to the fact that one mixture wasused in their production and the wrapping materialsdid not impart flavour on the samples.The acceptance sensory mean values for taste <strong>of</strong> Ususample wrapped in CBL, MFL, ABL, MF and FILwere found to be 6.40, 6.70, 6.60, 6.20 and 6.10respectively. The taste <strong>of</strong> all the samples weresignificantly similar, though the samples wrapped inMFL and ABL were “moderately like” (scoreapproximately 7.0) and sample wrapped in MFL wasrated the highest (score 6.70). This indicates thateven though the panelists seem to prefer MFL, theyfound the taste <strong>of</strong> others to be quite good. Thus, thereis no significant difference in the taste despite slightvariation in the mean value. The texture <strong>of</strong> all thesamples were significantly similar and were either“moderately liked” (score approximately 7.0) or“slightly liked” (score approximately 6.0) as rated bythe panelists. The similarity in the texture could be asa result <strong>of</strong> proper blending <strong>of</strong> the ingredients as wellas the fact that the samples were obtained from thesame mix and given the same cooking conditions.The texture <strong>of</strong> the sample MFL was rated highestwith mean score <strong>of</strong> 6.9.The overall acceptability <strong>of</strong> all the samples showedthat samples wrapped in MFL were moderatelyaccepted (score approximate 7.0) and wassignificantly similar to CBL but significantlydifferent from ABL, FIL and AS which were slightlyacceptable (score approximately, 6.0). This impliesthat the sample wrapped in MFL (miraculous fruitleaves) is best accepted in all sensory parameterstested (Table IV).D. Organoleptic characteristics <strong>of</strong> Usu samplesfor 80:20 ratios wrapped in differentwrapping MaterialTable 5 shows the mean composite values <strong>of</strong> samplesfor 80:20 ratio wrapped in different wrappingmaterials. The colour <strong>of</strong> the sample wrapped in MFLhad mean sensory score <strong>of</strong> 7.10 (i.e moderately liked)and was significantly similar to CBL and ABL.These samples were significantly different from ASand FIL (scores approximately 6.0). Generally, thecolour <strong>of</strong> all the samples were either “slightly liked”(score approximately 6.0) or “moderately liked”(score approximately 7.0).44

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOOD AND NUTRITION SCIENCE VOL2 NO1 AUGUST 2013ISSN 2165-5308 (PRINT) ISSN 2165-5316 (ONLINE) http://www.researchpub.org/journal/ijfns/ijfns.htmlTABLE VMEAN SCORES OF ORGANOLEPTIC CHARACTERISTICS OF USU SAMPLES FOR 80:20 RATIOWRAPPED IN DIFFERENT WRAPPING MATERIALSSamples Colour Aroma Taste Texture Overall AcceptabilityCBL 7.00 ± 0.82 a 6.50 ± 1.27 a 7.10 ± 0.99 a 6.70 ± 1.16 a 6.80 ± 1.55 aMFL 7.10 ± 0.88 a 6.30 ± 1.25 a 6.70 ± 1.89 a 6.40 ± 1.71 a 7.3 ± 0.67 aABL 6.60 ± 0.96 a 6.40 ± 1.26 a 6.50 ±1.51 a 6.60 ± 0.84 a 6.6 ± 1.07 aAS 6.30 ± 0.95 b 6.40 ± 0.97 a 6.50 ± 0.97 a 6.30 ± 0.82 a 6.0 ± 1.25 bFIL 6.40 ± 0.97 b 5.80 ± 1.55 a 6.50 ± 1.43 a 6.40 ± 0.84 a 6.5 ± 1.27 bLSD 0.68 0.64 0.94 0.87 0.89Means in the same column with the same superscript are not significantly different (P < 0.05).Means in the same column with different superscript are significantly different (P > 0.05)NOTE:CBL = Christmas bush leaves (Alchornea cordifolia)MFL =Miraculous fruit leaves (Thaumatococcus daniellii),ABL = African border Leaves (Newbouldia laevis seem)AS = Asusu Leaves (Manniophyton fulvum)FIL = Aluminum FoilThe slight variation in colour by the panelists for80:20 ratio observed in Table V is in consonancewith panelists acceptance for colour in 70:30 ratioobserved in Table IV. The aroma <strong>of</strong> all the Ususamples were significantly similar. The aroma <strong>of</strong>sample wrapped with CBL was given the highestscore 6.50 (score approximately 7, i.e. “moderatelyliked”) and the sample wrapped with FIL scored 5.80(score approximately 6). The close rating <strong>of</strong> Ususamples on aroma could be due to the one mixtureused in production and it is conversely different from70:30 ratio samples for aroma. The sample wrappedin CBL was rated highest in terms <strong>of</strong> aroma (scoreapproximately 7) which was “moderately liked”. Thetaste <strong>of</strong> all the samples were “moderately liked”(score approximately 7.0) and insignificantlydifferent despite the mean variation. The samplewrapped with CBL was rated highest with meanscore <strong>of</strong> 7.10 (score approximately 7). The texture <strong>of</strong>all the samples were significantly similar and wereeither “moderately liked” (score approximately 7) or“slightly liked” (score approximately 6) with Ususample wrapped with CBL been rated highest interms <strong>of</strong> texture. The overall acceptability <strong>of</strong> all thesamples showed that samples wrapped in MFL wererated highest (scoreb 6.80, i.e approximately 7.0) andwas significantly similar to CBL and ABL butsignificantly different from AS and FIL which were“slightly liked” (score approximately 6.0).Thus generally, Usu wrapped with CBL (Christmasbush leaves) is best accepted in all sensoryparameters tested except in colour and overallacceptability.IV. CONCLUSIONThe organoleptic characteristics <strong>of</strong> the Usu samplesshowed that samples wrapped in miraculous fruitleaves (MFL) were best in almost all parameterstested including overall acceptability according to thepanelists. The proximate analysis indicates thatgenerally, the different wrapping materials andvariation in ratios did not affect the proximatecomposition <strong>of</strong> Usu, as the slight variations were dueto differences in melon and big mushroom ratios usedin formulation. Ratio 80:20 formulation had highernutrient value.V. RECOMMENDATIONThe following are recommended: Miraculous fruitleaves (MFL) are the best wrapping material for Usuproduction. The leaves are also affordable and easy toget.The 80:20 ratio is the best for Usu formulationbecause <strong>of</strong> the high nutritive and organolepticproperties.45

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOOD AND NUTRITION SCIENCE VOL2 NO1 AUGUST 2013ISSN 2165-5308 (PRINT) ISSN 2165-5316 (ONLINE) http://www.researchpub.org/journal/ijfns/ijfns.htmlAcknowledgement: Technical assistance <strong>of</strong> Dr.Owuamanam, Clifford .I is hereby acknowledged.REFERENCES[1] Wikipedia, (2012).Meat Analogue. The freeWikipediaencyclopedia.http://64.233.167.104/search.wikipedia/meat analogue. Accessed May 14,2012.[2] Soyfoods Association <strong>of</strong> North America. (2010).Soy Meat Alternative. Retrieved April 15,2010.http://www.soyfoods.org/products/soy-factsheets/soy-meat-alternative-fact-sheet[3] Center for Science in the Public Interest.Chemical Cuisine, Learn About FoodAdditives. Retrieved April 15, 2010.http://www.cspinet.org/reports/chemcuisine.htm[4] Oluba, P.K. (2005).Production <strong>of</strong> Meat analoguefrom non-meat product.J.Fd.Sci.10(4):311-313.[5] Timothy .J.K, Liary, E.F; Margaret, T., Paul, N.A.,Valerie., Gilian. R.,Michae, L.B., Jenny,C.C., Raihir, F.B., Jan, W.K., Jim, M., andKilm, M. (1999). Mortality. In: vegetariansand nonvegetarians, detailed findings from acollaborative analysis <strong>of</strong> five prospectivestudies American J. Clinical nutrition. 70 (3):5165-5245. Retrieved 30, October 2009.[6] Patent, E.P.O. (2008). Meat Analogue.http://www.freepatentonline.com/EPO26.Accessed May15, 2012.[7] Isibor, F.U. (2010), <strong>Effect</strong> <strong>of</strong> wrapping <strong>Materials</strong>on the organoleptic properties <strong>of</strong> Usu(indigenous meat analogue) Produced frombig mushroom and melon seed. B.TechThesis. Federal University <strong>of</strong> TechnologyOwerri.Nigeria. Pp1-12.[8] Buddhist,C.(2008).Classification <strong>of</strong> Analogue isFood in North America.(HongKong).http://www.wiki/meatanalogue.org/1164.233.167.104. AccessedMay 14, 2008.[9] Lawrie, R.A. (1985). Meat Science. 4th edn.Pergamon press oxford. Pp. 36-38.[10] Hurley, J., & Liebman, B. (2006). Don’t Have aCow. Nutrition Action Health Letter, 33 (6),13-15. Retrieved from Agricola, 2006, July-Aug.[11]Akobundu, I.O. and Agyakwa, C.W. (1982).Christmas bush leaves. In : A handbook <strong>of</strong>West – African weeds.2nd Edn. AfricanBush Builders Ltd. INTEC Printers Ibadan,Nigeria. Pp. 200-252.[12] AOAC. (1990). Official Methods <strong>of</strong> Analysis.16th edn. Association <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficial AnalyticalChemists.2:69-88.[13] Ihekoronye, A.I. and Ngoddy, P.O. (1985).Foodquality control. In: Integrated Food ScienceTechnology for the Tropics Macmillan, Pub.Ltd London. Pp. 343 – 344.[14] Tripathi, D.P. (2005). Mushrooms. In:Mushroom cultivation. Oxford and IBHpublishers. Co. PVT.Ltd. New Delhi. Pp 10-12[15] Akubor, P.I. (1998). Physic-chemical andsensory characteristic <strong>of</strong> melon seed milk. J.Food Sci. Tech. 35 (1): 93 – 95.[16] Akobundu, E.N.T, Chery, J.P. and Summons,J.G. (1982). Chemical, functional andnutritional properties <strong>of</strong> Egusi (colocynthiscrtrillus L.) seed protein products. J.Fd. Sci.47: 829 – 835.[17] Oyenuga, V.A. (1968). Nigerians food andfeeding stuff. Ibadan. University press. Pp.109 –120.46