Amino Acid and Proximate Compositions of Cultured and Wild

Oreochromis niloticus (Linnaeus 1758) from Makurdi-Nigeria

A.S. Nege

and E.T. Akange

Graduate Student; Fisheries and Marine Biotechnology, Universitas Airlangga, 60286, Surabaya Indonesia

Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, University of Agriculture, P.M.B 2373, Makurdi, Nigeria

Keywords: Amino acids, Cultured, Makurdi, Oreochromis niloticus, Proximate compositions, Wild.

Abstract: This study was aimed at identifying the fish habitat that harbors O. niloticus with higher nutrients and

availing these findings for nutritional guidance. Amino acid and proximate compositions of O. niloticus

from Lower Benue River and UAM fish farm were determined monthly for a 3month period, using methods

of Benitez (1989) and AOAC (2006) respectively. The mean of Glutamic acid (12.51±0.64 and 11.85±0.67)

and Alanine (5.40±0.23 and 4.50±0.41) varied significantly (p<0.05) between the wild and cultured while

other amino acids were not. In October, ash (4.62±0.02 and 3.69±0.02), fat (4.71±0.06 and 3.61±0.02),

protein (14.62±0.07 and 9.98±0.02) and moisture (75.67±0.07 and 79.65±0.15) varied significantly between

the wild and cultured O. niloticus. Crude protein (20.46±0.01 and 18.75±0.04) and moisture (69.32±0.02

and 73.35±0.20) significantly varied in November between the samples respectively. Only crude protein

(18.89±0.04 and 20.31±0.06) varied statistically in December between wild and cultured. The mean of

crude protein (17.99±1.22 and 16.34±1.86) and the mean moisture (72.53±1.16 and 74.94±1.52) differed

significantly between the wild and cultured. From these results. O. niloticus wild expressed superiority over

the cultured, however, both River Benue at Makurdi and the UAM fish farm harbor nutritious O. niloticus

which is good for human consumption based on our daily amino acid and protein needs.

1 INTRODUCTION

More recently, fish has become a favorite foodstuff

for many people due to several health reasons (Ali

and Kiumars, 2010). However, considering the

maximum utilization and the knowledge of fish

composition, conducting studies on fish flesh vital in

the fishery industry.

According to Silva and Chamul (2000), the

nutritional composition of fish varies greatly from

one species and individual to another depending on

numerous factors such as age, feed intake, sex, the

environment and season. Puwastien et al., (1999)

stated that fish proximate composition serves as a

good indicator of fish quality, and it varies with

parameters like genetic strain, diet, feed rate and

age.

In order to flourish and maintain bodily

functions, fish similarly to other animals require

different nutrients in sufficient quantities (Ashraf et

al., 2011). It also has the ability to synthesize some

but not all nutrients. Hence, some of these nutrients

must be obtained from outside sources. Apart from

the natural productivity of ponds, cultured fish is

provided with nutrient-rich feed, while captured fish

on the other hand, solely depends on natural food in

the aquatic environment for its survival and

sustenance. These variations have been reported to

directly related to the growth, health and body

composition of fish. Therefore, fish composition is a

good index of fish food availability and feeding

habits (Ashraf et al., 2011).

For the nature of the raw material in fish to be

known before chilling, freezing, smoking orcanning

can be correctly applied. Fish processors are directly

interested in the proximate composition of fish

(FAO, 2004).

Bakir et al., (1993) mentioned that Oreochromis

niloticus, Tilapia zilli, Sarotherodon galilaeus, as

well as Clarias gariepinus, Clarias angullaris and

Heterobranchus longifilis from the Cichlidae and

Clariidae families form part of the freshwater fish

species mostly cultured in the developing nations.

Hence, the need for using cultured and wild O.

niloticus for this study.

Nege, A. and Akange, E.

Amino Acid and Proximate Compositions of Cultured and Wild Oreochromis niloticus (Linnaeus 1758) from Makurdi-Nigeria.

DOI: 10.5220/0007547105670570

In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference Postgraduate School (ICPS 2018), pages 567-570

ISBN: 978-989-758-348-3

567

2 MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1 Sample Collection

Twelve (12) samples of O. niloticus were collected

for this study, comprising of six (6) samples each

from Lower Benue River at Wadata/Tse-Adee

landing site Makurdi (with average weight of

70.13g) and the University of Agriculture Makurdi

(U.A.M) fish farm (with average weight of 67.42g).

The samples were then taken to the Hydrobiology

and Fisheries Research laboratory, University of Jos,

Plateau State, Nigeria where the laboratory analyses

were conducted.

2.2 Study Duration

The duration for this study was three (3) months,

and the laboratory analysis of fish carcass was

carried out in a monthly basis from October to

December, 2014.

2.3 Amino Acid Profile Determination

The Amino acid profile in the known sample was

determined using methods described by Benitez

(1989) in Technicon sequential Multi-Sample

Amino Acid Analyzer (TSM).

2.4 Determination of Proximate

Composition

Proximate composition of moisture, crude protein,

fat, and ash was determined based on the method

described by the Association of Official Analytical

Chemists (AOAC, 2006). All values of proximate

parameters were converted and presented on wet

weight basis after each calculation.

2.5 Statistical analysis

Student t-test and descriptive statistics (mean and

standard error of the means) were used to analyze

the data obtained from this work.

3 RESULTS

A comparison between the amino acid profiles of O.

niloticus from Lower Benue River and that of

U.A.M fish farm indicated a significant difference

(p<0.05) between Glutamic acid (12.51±0.64 from

the river and 11.85±0.67 from the pond) and also,

Alanine (5.40±0.23 from the wild and 4.50±0.41

from the cultured) while the rest amino acids

remained insignificantly different (p<0.05) as shown

in Table 1.

Table 1: Amino acid profiles of O. niloticus from Lower

River Benue and U.A.M fish farm

Source

Amino Acid

( g/100g

rotein)

Lower

River

Benue

UAM

Farm

P-Value

Lysine 6.84±0.28 6.78±0.28 0.681

Histidine 2.07±0.13 2.03±0.08 0.267

Arginine 5.97±0.21 5.29±0.21 0.681

Aspartic aci

8.96±0.19 8.47±0.31 0.732

Threonine 2.52±0.22 2.31±0.15 0.851

Serine 4.08±0.15 3.52±0.25 0.623

Glutamic aci

12.51±0.64 11.85±0.67 0.047*

Proline 4.21±0.24 3.81±0.34 0.241

Glycine 6.59±0.22 5.47±0.37 0.369

Alanine 5.40±0.23 4.50±0.41 0.047*

Cystine 0.79±0.07 0.73±0.06 0.091

Valine 4.12±0.29 3.53±0.27 0.235

Methionine 2.26±0.09 2.19±0.06 0.414

Isoleucine 3.44±0.16 3.15±0.09 0.364

Leucine 6.87±0.15 6.51±0.22 0.259

Tyrosine 2.89±0.15 3.00±0.09 0.871

Phenylalanine 3.81±0.13 3.65±0.21 0.681

*indicates statistical difference

(p<0.05). Source: Laboratory work.

Table 2 shows the results of monthly proximate

compositions of O. niloticus from Lower Benue

River and that of U.A.M fish farm. It reveals that all

proximate parameters varied significantly (p<0.05)

during the month of October with fat (4.71±0.06

and 3.61±0.02), ash (4.62±0.02 and 3.69±0.02),

crude protein (14.62±0.07 and 9.98±0.02) and

moisture (75.67±0.07 and 79.65±0.15) for O.

niloticus from Lower Benue River and that of

U.A.M fish farm respectively.

During the month of November, fat and ash did

not vary significantly while crude protein and

moisture varied significantly at p<0.05 with the

following values; 20.46±0.01 and 18.75±0.04 crude

protein and moisture content of 69.32±0.02 and

73.35±0.25 of O. niloticus from the river and fish

farm respectively as shown in Table 2. In December,

the results showed that only crude protein

(18.89±0.04 and 20.31±0.06) varied significantly

between wild and cultured O. niloticus while the

other parameters were not statistically different

(p<0.05) as equally showed in Table 2.

Variations in all the proximate parameters for the

entire study period (Oct. to Dec.) shows that the

mean of crude protein (17.99±1.22 and 16.34±1.86)

and the mean of moisture (72.53±1.16 and

ICPS 2018 - 2nd International Conference Postgraduate School

568

74.94±1.52) differed significantly (p<0.05) while fat

and ash were not significantly different through the

period between O. niloticus from Lower Benue

River and U.A.M fish farm as shown in Figure 1.

Table 2: Monthly Variation of Proximate compositions of O. niloticus from Lower Benue River and U.A.M fish farm

Fraction

Month Source Fat Ash Protein Moisture

Octobe

Lower River Benue 4.71±0.06 4.62±0.02 14.62±0.07 75.67±0.07

UAM Farm 3.61±0.02 3.69±0.02 9.98±0.02 79.65±0.15

P-value 0.039* 0.035* 0.013* 0.039*

November Lower River Benue 2.88±0.02 1.62±0.02 20.46±0.01 69.32±0.02

UAM Farm 3.12±0.07 2.07±0.06 18.75±0.04 73.35±0.25

P-value 0.056 0.058 0.037* 0.030*

December Lower River Benue 2.89±0.08 4.65±0.04 18.89±0.04 72.59±0.25

UAM Farm 3.39±0.04 4.16±0.04 20.31±0.06 71.83±0.01

-value 0.068 0.079 0.041* 0.16

*indicates statistical difference (p<0.05).

Source: Laboratory work.

Figure 1: Mean proximate compositions of O. niloticus from Lower Benue River and U.A.M fish farm

4 DISCUSSION

The mean ash values for O. niloticus from Lower

Benue River (3.63±0.59) and U.A.M (3.31±0.48)

did not fall in same range with the results obtained

by Osibona et al., (2009) from Tilapia zilli

(1.2±0.2% ash). This difference may be due to

environmental factors and variation in the ages of

fish samples used. Crude protein result of O.

niloticus from Lower Benue River (17.99±1.22) was

higher than the crude protein value of O. niloticus

from the wild (14.328 Cp) studied by Ayeloja et al.,

(2013) but lower than that of wild Tilapia zilli

(19.0±1.9) obtained by Osibona et al., (2009). When

the crude protein of O. niloticus from Lower Benue

River (17.99±1.22) and U.A.M (16.34±1.86) are

compared, there was a variation of 1.65%. However,

all the values of mean crude protein from this study

lie within the range obtained from the findings of

Eyo (2001) which was between 15-20% crude

proteins in fresh fish tissues. This indicates that fish,

irrespective of their species and source of capture,

have a certain range for their crude protein content.

When the mean moisture value of O. niloticus

from Lower Benue River is compared with that of

U.A.M, it indicated a significant variation (p<0.05)

which clearly justifies the fact that fish from same

species obtained from different environments could

vary in term of their nutrient contents. The mean of

moisture contents of O. niloticus from Lower Benue

River and U.A.M were all notably less than the

moisture content of O. niloticus obtained by Eyo.

This could be due to difference in geographical

location. Oreochromis niloticus obtained from

Lower Benue River had moisture content of

72.53±1.16. When compared with the 78.325%

Amino Acid and Proximate Compositions of Cultured and Wild Oreochromis niloticus (Linnaeus 1758) from Makurdi-Nigeria

569

moisture obtained from wild O. niloticus by Ayeloja

et al., (2013), there was a difference of 5.80%. This

difference could probably be due to differences in

fish age, feed intake, location, and even sexes as

reported by Silva and Chamul (2000) and Eyo

(2001).

In terms of fat, the results of Ramlah et al. (2016)

from Indonesian wild and cultured O. niloticus (0.10

and 0.18 respectively) were far lower than fat

contents of this study (3.49±0.387 and 3.37±0.092

respectively).

The crude protein of wild O. niloticus

(18.46±1.22) from this study was higher compared

to that of wild

O. niloticus from Indonesia which was 12.94 as

reported by Ramlah et al (2016). However, the

cultured O. niloticus from this study which had

15.87±1.86 is 0.92% less than the 16.79 obtained

from cultured Indonesian O. niloticus by Ramlah et

al. (2016).

The variations in amino acid content and

proximate compositions in this study were possibly

due to differences in capture environments, months

of the year, the food availability, sexes, age and

sizes of the sample fishes used.

5 CONCLUSIONS

This research clearly reveals the superiority in

nutritional composition of wild O. niloticus obtained

from Lower Benue River at Makurdi against its

counterpart from the ponds of University of

Agriculture Makurdi fish farm. However, both the

wild and cultured O. niloticus from Makurdi are

good for human consumption since they are all high

in protein and amino acid contents, and their

nutritional values fall within ranges established by

other authors.

REFERENCES

Ali, A. and Kiumars, P. (2010); Chemical and proximate

composition properties of different fish species

obtained from Iran. World Journal of Fish and Marine

Science, 2:237 239.ISSN 20784589.

AOAC (Association of Official Analytical

Chemists), (2006); Official Method of Analysis of the

AOAC (W. Horwitz Editor, Eighteenth Edition,

Washington; D. C., AOAC). In AOAC International,

Suite 500, 481North Frederick Avenue, Gaithersburg,

Maryland 20877 2417, USA.

Ashraf, M., Abdul Rauf, Asma Zafar and Shahid Mehboob

(2011); Nutritional value of wild and cultivated Silver

(Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) and Grass carp

(Ctenopharyngodo idella). International

Journal of Agriculture and Biology, Vol.13, PP.210

214.

Ayeloja, A. A.; George, F. O. A.; Dauda, T. O.; Jimoh, W.

A. and Popoola M. A (2013); Nutritional comparison

of captured Clarias gariepinus and Oreochromis

niloticus. International Research Journal of Natural

Sciences.Vol.1, No.1, pp.9-13.

Ayyappan, S; Jena, JK; Gopalakrishnan, A. and Pandey,

Ak (2006); Handbook of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Indian Council of Agricultural Research New Delhi.

ISBN:81-7164-061-3.

Bakir, H. M., Melton, S.L. and Wilson, J.L. (1993); Fatty

acid composition, lipids and sensory characteristics of

white amur (Ctenopharyngodon idella) fed

different diets. J. Food Sci. 58(1):90-95.

Benitez, L. V. (1989); Amino Acid and fatty acid profiles

in aquaculture nutrition studies, p. 23- 35.In S.S. De

Silva (ed.) Fish Nutrition Research in Asia.

Proceedings of the Third Asian Fish Nutrition

Network Meeting. Asian fish Society Special

Publication.4, 166 p. Asian Fisheries Society, Manila,

Philippines.

Eyo, A. A (2001); Fish Processing Technology in the

Tropics. Published by National Institute

for Freshwater Fisheries Research (NIFFR),

P.M.B 6006, New Bussa, Nigeria.

Food and Agricultural Organization, (2004); The

composition of fish. Accessed from

http://www.fao.org/wairdoes/tx5916e/×5 16co1.htm.,

pp: 1-80.

Osibona, A. O.; Kusemiju, K. and AkandeG. R (2009);

Fatty acid composition and amino acid profile of two

freshwater species, African catfish (Clarias gariepinus)

and Tilapia (Tilapia zillii). African Journal of

Agriculture Food Nutrition and Development,Vol. 9

No. 1 pp. 608 621.

Puwastien, P.; Raroengwichit, M.; Sungpuag, P. and

Judprasong, K. (1999); “Thai Food Composition

Tables, 1st Edition”. Institute of Nutrition, Mahidol

University (INMU), Thailand Asean foods Regional

Database Centre of INFOODS.

Ramlah, Eddy Soekendarsi, Zohrah Hasyim and Munis

Said Hasan (2016); Comparison of Nutritional content

of Tilapia Oreochromis niloticus from Mawang’s Lake

Gowa and Hasanuddin University Lake Makassar city.

In: Jurnal Biologi Makassar (BIOMA), Vol.1, No.1.

Silva, J.J. and Chamul, R.. S (2000); Composition of

marine and fresh water finfish and shellfish species

and their products. In: Martin, R.E., E.P. Carter, E.J.

Flick and L.M. Davis (Eds.), Marine and fresh water

products handbook, Lancaster, Pennsylvania,

U.S.A: Technomic Publishing Company, pp: 31-46

ICPS 2018 - 2nd International Conference Postgraduate School

570