Subscribe Now Subscribe Today
Research Article
 

Biological Evaluation of Thaumatococcus danielli Waste Protein



B.O. Elemo, O.B. Adu, O.O. Ogunrinola, T.O. Efuwape, K.O. Olaleye and A.A. Kareem
 
Facebook Twitter Digg Reddit Linkedin StumbleUpon E-mail
ABSTRACT

Potential application of T. danielli waste as a raw material in livestock feed formulation had been suggested in earlier reports. In this study, the nutritional quality of protein in Thaumatococcus danielli seed and pericarp was evaluated using 16 male waster rats (20-25 g). The animals were randomly assigned to 4 groups and were maintained on four isocaloric diets, namely: casein, seed, pericarp and nitrogen-free diets, for 10 days. Daily weight gain and feed intake over the last 7 days were measured. Feacal, carcass, and feed nitrogen contents were also determined at the end of the feeding trial. Protein Efficiency Ratio (PER), Net Protein Retention (NPR), Biological Value (BV), Net Protein Utilization (NPU) and True Digestibility (TD), were thereafter calculated. Mean weight gain was significantly lower (p>0.05) in the rats fed the T. danielli pericarp feed (-2.60±0.80 g) than those placed on the seed (5.46±0.71 g). PER (-2.11±0.09); TD (59.37±1.72%); BV (16.96±1.61%); NPU (76.13±1.01%); and NPR (2.53±0.22) values were also significantly lower (p<0.01) in the pericarp than in the seed (2.19±0.23, 82.02±1.25%, 58.04±11.54%, 90.86±1.25% and 4.54±0.43 respectively). The quality of T. danielli seed protein compared favourably with that of the casein based diet. There was no significant difference (p>0.05) in the BV, PER, and NPU values between the casein based and the T. danielli based diets. The NPR value of the seed was significantly higher (p<0.05) compared to the casein diet.

Services
Related Articles in ASCI
Similar Articles in this Journal
Search in Google Scholar
View Citation
Report Citation

 
  How to cite this article:

B.O. Elemo, O.B. Adu, O.O. Ogunrinola, T.O. Efuwape, K.O. Olaleye and A.A. Kareem, 2011. Biological Evaluation of Thaumatococcus danielli Waste Protein. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition, 10: 1048-1052.

DOI: 10.3923/pjn.2011.1048.1052

URL: https://scialert.net/abstract/?doi=pjn.2011.1048.1052

REFERENCES
1:  AOAC., 1990. Official Methods of Analysis: Association of Analytical Chemistry. 5th Edn., Arlington, VA: The Association, Indiana, Virginia, ISBN: 9780935584424 pp: 84-85.

2:  Bhagya, B., K.R. Sridhar and S. Seena, 2006. Biochemical and protein quality evaluation of tender pods of wild legume Canavalia cathartica of coastal sand dunes. Livestock Res. Rural Dev., Vol. 18.,

3:  Boutrif, E., 1991. Recent developments in protein quality evaluation. Food Nutr. Agric., 1: 30-40.

4:  Campbell, J.A., 1963. Method for Determination of PER and NPR. In: Evaluation of Protein Quality, NAS, FNB and CPM (Eds.). National Academy of Sciences, Washington DC.

5:  Eggum, B.O., 1973. Study of Certain Factors Influencing Protein Utilization in Rats and Pigs. I kommission hos landhusholdningsselskabets forlag, Copenhagen Denmark, pages: 173.

6:  Elemo, B.O., O.B. Adu and A.M. Alabi, 2011. Isolation and partial purification of carbohydrate component of Thaumatococcus danielli (Benth.). Nig. J. Biochem. Mol. Biol., 16: 87-90.

7:  Elemo, B.O., O.B. Adu and M.A. Ikiabekhe, 1999. Studies on the mineral composition of Thaumatococcus danielli waste. Nig. Food J., 17: 52-54.

8:  Elemo, B.O., O.B. Adu and K.I. Ismaila, 1998. Isolation, partial purification and characterization of trypsin inhibitors from Thaumatococcus danielli. Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference, August 24-28, 1998, Nigerian Institute of Food Science and Technology,Abeokuta, pp: 70-71.

9:  FAO., WHO. and UNU., 1985. Energy and protein requirements: Report of a joint FAO/WHO/UNU expert consultation. WHO Technical Report Series No. 724, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

10:  Flannery, T.F., 1994. The Future Eaters: An Ecological History ofthe Australasian Lands and People. Reed Books, Chatswood.

11:  Higginbotham, J.D., 1979. Protein sweeteners. In: Developments in Sweeteners, Hough C.A.M. and K.J. Vlitos (Eds.). Applied Science Publishers, London pp: 85-123.

12:  McMichael, A.J., 2005. Integrating nutrition with ecology: Balancing the health of humans and biosphere. Public Health Nutr., 83: 706-715.
PubMed  |  Direct Link  |  

13:  Pellet, P.L. and V.R. Young, 1980. Nutritional Evaluation of Protein Feeds. United Nations University, Tokyo, Japan, Pages: 154.

14:  Popkin, B.M., 2003. The nutrition transition in the developing world. Dev. Policy Rev., 21: 581-597.

15:  Pugalenthi, M., V. Vadivel and P. Janaki, 2007. Comparative evaluation of protein quality of raw and differentially processed seeds of an under-utilized food legume, Abrus precatorius L. Livestock Res. Rural Dev., Vol.19.,

16:  Sarwar, G. and F.E. McDonough, 1990. Evaluation of protein digestibility-corrected amino acid score method for assessing protein quality of foods. J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem., 73: 347-356.
PubMed  |  

17:  Satterlee, L.D., H.F. Marshall and J.M. Tennyson, 1979. Measuring protein quality. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc., 56: 103-109.
CrossRef  |  

18:  Schaafsma, G., 1997. The Western Diet with a Special Focus on Dairy Products. Institut Danone, Bruxelles, Pages: 124.

19:  Vijayakumari, K., M. Pugalenthi and V. Vadivel, 2007. Effect of soaking and hydrothermal processing methods on the levels of antinutrients and in vitro protein digestibility of Bauhinia purpurea L. seeds. Food Chem., 103: 968-975.
CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  

©  2020 Science Alert. All Rights Reserved