4.5 Article

Properties of bone from Catfish heads and frames

Journal

FOOD SCIENCE & NUTRITION
Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 1396-1405

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/fsn3.974

Keywords

analysis; bone composition; catfish by-products; fish bone

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The objective of this paper was to evaluate methods of producing purified Catfish bone fractions from Catfish frames and heads and determine the composition of the purified bone fraction. Fresh samples of Catfish frames and heads were obtained from a large commercial Catfish processor. Triplicate samples were processed for all treatments. Two methods were developed to remove nonbone tissue from the frames: (a) use of a proteolytic enzyme to digest the nonbone tissues and (b) after boiling the frames, removal of the nonbone tissues with high-pressure water. The ash, protein, and lipid contents of unprocessed dried frames were 17%, 33%, and 41%, respectively. After the enzymatic or high-pressure water treatment processes, the frame bone compositions for the two processes were 62% and 54% ash, 35% and 33% protein, and 9% and 2% lipid, respectively. Bone from both processing treatments had a calcium content of 21%-25%, phosphorus content of 10%-11%, and contents of magnesium, manganese, zinc, and nickel were increased. Hydroxyproline content increased from 4% of the amino acids in the untreated bone to 7%-8% for the processed treatments. Tissues were removed from Catfish heads by digestion with a proteolytic enzyme and collection of the bone with a sieve. After the longest digestion period, dried head bone was 51% ash, 38% protein, and 7% lipid. The amino acid profiles showed high levels of hydroxyproline and lower levels of many essential amino acids. With increased enzymatic hydrolysis time, percent calcium and phosphorus increased. Results from this study will be used in the development of new value-added food and feed ingredients from Catfish bone.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available