SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish Journal of Maritime and Marine Sciences / 2019 / Volume: 5 Issue: 2

Proximate Composition of Three Different Fish (Trout, Anchovy and Whiting) Waste During Catching Season

Üç Farklı Balık Türü (Alabalık, Hamsi ve Mezgit) Atıklarının Avlama Sezonu Boyunca Besin Komposizyonu Bileşimi

Koray Korkmaz(ORDU UNIVERSITY, FATSA FACULTY OF MARITIME SCIENCES)0000-0003-2940-6592
Bahar Tokur(ORDU UNIVERSITY, FATSA FACULTY OF MARITIME SCIENCES)0000-0002-7087-5801
Pages
—
Publication Date
2019-12-17
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Marked significant differences basis in wet and dry weight basis were observed among fish species waste for the mean moisture, lipid, and ash contents (p<0.05).

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study was to determine the proximate composition (lipid, crude protein, crude ash and moisture) of three different fish wastes [trout (Onchoryncus mykiss), anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus), and whiting fish (Merlangius merlangus)] during the catching season (November through April).
📊
Key Findings & Data:On wet weight basis, total lipids ranged between 16.4% (January) and 30.5% (November) (w/w) for trout, 5.8% (February) and 8.9% (December) for anchovy and 2.5% (March) and 9.6% (December) for whiting fish wastes.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Marked significant differences basis in wet and dry weight basis were observed among fish species waste for the mean moisture, lipid, and ash contents (p<0.05).
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:fish waste · proximate composition · catching season

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine the proximate composition (lipid, crude protein, crude ash and moisture) of three different fish wastes [trout (Onchoryncus mykiss), anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus), and whiting fish (Merlangius merlangus)] during the catching season (November through April). As a result of the proximate composition, it was varied among the species and months. On wet weight basis, total lipids ranged between 16.4% (January) and 30.5% (November) (w/w) for trout, 5.8% (February) and 8.9% (December) for anchovy and 2.5% (March) and 9.6% (December) for whiting fish wastes. The protein content for all species waste varied between 10.4%- 16.8% among the species studied on wet weight basis. The highest ash content estimated in trout, anchovy, and whiting fish wastes were 4.2% in January, 4.7% in April and 2.6% in December, respectively (p<0.05). Moisture content was found in the lowest trout waste (52.3%, November) and the highest whiting waste (81.4%, March). In dry weight basis, the highest lipid, crude protein and ash content in different months were found in trout waste (70.7%, November), whiting waste (65.6%, March) and whiting fish waste (20.7%, March), respectively (p<0.05). Marked significant differences basis in wet and dry weight basis were observed among fish species waste for the mean moisture, lipid, and ash contents (p<0.05).

Özet

Bu çalışmada, (alabalık ( Onchoryncus mykiss ), hamsi ( Engraulis encrasicolus ) ve mezgit ( Merlangius merlangus ) atıklarının avlanma mevsimi boyunca (Kasım ile Nisana arası) besin komposizyonunun belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Yapılan çalışma sonucunda, besin komposizyonu türler ve aylar arasında değişiklik göstermiştir. Yaş ağırlığa göre , toplam lipit alabalık atığında % 16.4 (Ocak) ile % 30.5 (Kasım) (a / a), hamsi atığında % 5.8 (Şubat) ve % 8.9 (Aralık), mezgit atığında % 2.5 - % 9.6 arasında değişmiştir. Tüm türlerin atıkları için protein içeriği, yaş ağırlık bazında %10.4- %16.8 arasında değişmiştir. Alabalık, hamsi ve mezgitte tahmin edilen en yüksek kül içeriği sırasıyla, Ocak ayında %4.2, Nisan ayında %4.7 ve Aralık ayında %2.6 olarak bulunmuştur. Nem içeriği en düşük alabalık atığında (% 52,3, Kasım) ve en yüksek mezgit atığında (% 81,4, Mart) tespit edilmiştir. Kuru ağırlık bazında en yüksek lipid, ham protein ve kül içeriği sırasıyla alabalık atığında (% 70.7, Kasım), mezgit atığında (% 65.6, Mart) ve mezgit atığında (% 20.7, Mart) bulunmuştur (p <0.05). Yaş ve kuru ağırlık olarak ortalama nem, lipit ve kül içeriği bakımından balık türleri atıkları arasında belirgin farklılıkların olduğu gözlenmiştir (p<0.05).

🔖

Cite This Article

Korkmaz, K., Tokur, B. (2019). Proximate Composition of Three Different Fish (Trout, Anchovy and Whiting) Waste During Catching Season. Turkish Journal of Maritime and Marine Sciences, Volume: 5 Issue: 2. https://ajindex.com/articles/1557281

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (22)

  1. AOAC, 1990. In Helrich K. (Ed.), Official methods of analysis. (15th ed.). Arlington, VA, USA.
  2. AOAC, 1998. Official Methods of Analysis, 16 th Ed., Chapter 39. (Chapter editor D.L., Soderberg) In: Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International (Edited by P. Cunniff).
  3. Benjakul, S., Morrissey, M. T. 1997. Protein hydrolysates from Pacific whiting solidwastes. Journal of Agricultural ve Food Chemistry, 45(9): 3423–3430.
  4. Bligh, E.G., Dyer, W.J. 1959. A rapid method of total lipid extraction and purification. Can. J. Biochem. Phy. 37: 911-917.
  5. Detkamhaeng, N., Warawattanamateekul, W., Hinsui, J. 2016. Production of Protein Hydrolysate from Yellowfin (Thunnus albacares) Skipjack Tuna (Katsuwonous pelamis) Viscera. Kasetsart Universty Fısheries Research Bulletin 40(2):52.
  6. Disney, J.G., Tatterson, I. N., Oley, J. 1977. Recent development in fish silage In: proceedings of the conference on the handling, processing and marketing of tropical fish. London: 273- 275.
  7. Esteban, M. B., Garcia, A. J., Ramos, P., Marquez, M. C. 2007. Evaluation of fruit– vegetable and fish wastes as alternative feedstuffs in pig diets. Waste Management, 27: 193–200.
  8. Ferraro, V., Cruz, I. B., Jorge, R. F., Malcata, F. X., Pintado, M. E., & Castro, P. M. (2010). Valorisation of natural extracts from marine source focused on marine by-products: A review. Food Research International, 43(9), 2221-2233.
  9. Gaithersburg, MD.Benjakul, S., Morrissey, M. T. 1997. Protein hydrolysates from Pacific whiting solidwastes. Journal of Agricultural ve Food Chemistry, 45(9): 3423–3430.
  10. Hayes M., McKeon K., 2014. Advances in the Processing of Marine Discard and By-products. In: Kim, S.-K., Ed. Seafood Processing By-Products-Trends and Applications. Springer Science+Business Media, New York. 126-139.
  11. Kim, S.K., Mendis, E. 2006. Bioactive Compounds from Marine Processing Byproducts-A Review. Food Research International, 39: 383-393.
  12. Koç, S. 2016. Investigation of Nutritive, Functional and Bioactive Properties of Protein Hydrolysates Obtained from Anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus) and Processing Wastes, PhD Thesis, Ç.O.M.Ü Institute of Science and Technology, Çanakkale.
  13. Kołakowska, A., Domiszewski, Z., Kozłowski, D., & Gajowniczek, M. (2006). Effects of rainbow trout freshness on n‐3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in fish offal. European Journal of Lipid Science and Technology, 108(9), 723-729.
  14. Kotzamanis, Y. P., Alexis, M. N., Andriopoulou, A., Castritsi‐Cathariou, I., & Fotis, G. (2001). Utilization of waste material resulting from trout processing in gilthead bream (Sparus aurata L.) diets. Aquaculture Research, 32, 288-295.
  15. Murray J, Burt JR (2001) The composition of fish. Ministry of Technology. Torry Research Station. Torry Advisory Note No. 38.
  16. Nguyen, H.T.M., Sylla, K.S.B., Randriamahatody, Z., Donnay-Moreno, C., Moreau, J., Tran, L.T., Bergé, J.P. 2011. Enzymatic hydrolysis of yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) by-products using Protamex protease. Food Technology and Biotechnology, 49 (1): 48–55.
  17. Raghavan, S., Kristinsson, H.G. 2008. Antioxidative efficacy of alkali-treated tilapia protein hydrolysates: A comparative study of five enzymes Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 56 (4): 1434-1441.
  18. Roslan, J., Yunos, K.F., Abdullah, N., Mazlina, S., Kamal, M. 2014. Characterization of Fish Protein Hydrolysate from Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) by-Product. Agriculture ve Agricultural Science Procedia, 2: 312-319.
  19. Rustad T., 2007. Physical and Chemical Properties of Protein Seafood By-Products. In: Shahidi F., Ed. Maximising the Value of Marine By-Products. A volume in Woodhead Publishing Series in Food Science, Technology and Nutrition, CRC Press. 22-46.
  20. Suvanich, V., Ghaedian, R., Chanamai, R., Decker, E.A.E.A., McClements, DJ. 2006. Prediction of proximate fish composition from ultrasonic properties: catfish, cod, flounder, mackerel and salmon. Journal of Food Science, 63: 966-968.
  21. Taheri, A., Anvar, S. A. A., Ahari, H., & Fogliano, V. (2013). Comparison the functional properties of protein hydrolysates from poultry by-products and rainbow trout (Onchorhynchus mykiss) viscera. Iranian journal of fisheries sciences, 12(1), 154-16
  22. Raghavan, S., Kristinsson, H.G. 2008. Antioxidative efficacy of alkali-treated tilapia protein hydrolysates: A comparative study of five enzymes Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 56 (4): 1434-1441.