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.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