| Literature DB >> 29564093 |
Deborah L Narh Mensah1, Peter Addo1, Matilda Dzomeku1, Mary Obodai1.
Abstract
Pineapple rind is a by-product of the pineapple processing industry and contains nutrients and other compounds which must be utilized as a bioresource for socio-economic benefits while preventing the potential problems of improper agroindustrial biomass disposal methods. Pleurotus ostreatus is an edible oyster mushroom with medicinal properties and can be cultivated on various agroindustrial biomass, including sawdust containing supplements. Pineapple rind was powdered and used as a supplement of composted sawdust at 2%, 5%, 10%, 12%, 15%, and 20% (w/w) on dry weight basis. A control treatment consisted of composted sawdust supplemented with rice bran at 12% (the most utilized composition in Ghana). P. ostreatus strain EM-1 was cultivated on these treatments. Factors investigated included the spawn run period, yield, fruiting body weight and size, biological efficiency, and nutritional composition (proximate composition and Copper, Zinc and Lead content) of fruiting bodies harvested from selected high-yielding treatments and the control treatment. Full colonization of all treatments occurred by the 34th day of incubation. Enhanced yield, fruiting body weight and size, and biological efficiency were generally recorded with supplementation at lower concentrations (2% and 5%) compared to treatments supplemented at higher concentrations. There was also a supplement concentration-dependent alteration of the nutritional composition of the mushroom. Powdered pineapple rind can be utilized as an organic supplement at relatively low concentrations in composted sawdust for P. ostreatus strain EM-1 cultivation. The use of lower concentrations of powdered pineapple rind in composted sawdust is advantageous as relatively less input will be required to produce higher P. ostreatus strain EM-1 yields. Utilization of pineapple rind for mushroom cultivation will extend the pineapple plant value chain, intensify mushroom production in a sustainable way, and minimize agricultural losses.Entities:
Keywords: biological efficiency; fruiting body; nutritional composition; yield
Year: 2017 PMID: 29564093 PMCID: PMC5849906 DOI: 10.1002/fsn3.551
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Food Sci Nutr ISSN: 2048-7177 Impact factor: 2.863
Figure 1Radial mycelia extension per treatment. Total length of mycelia refers to length of mycelia by the end of the third week of incubation. Error bars are standard errors. n = 5
Days till total colonization, total yield, total number of fruiting bodies per bag, mushroom size, and biological efficiency of P. ostreatus on treatments within the cropping period
| Treatment | Days till total colonization (days) | Total yield per bag (g) | Total number of fruiting bodies per bag | Mushroom size (g/fruiting body) | BE (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2% PPR | 31 ± 1a | 236.5 ± 37.00bc | 25 ± 3b | 9.42 ± 0.61b | 78.83 ± 12.33bc |
| 5% PPR | 33 ± 1a | 223.5 ± 14.95c | 23 ± 2b | 10.00 ± 0.66b | 74.50 ± 4.98c |
| 10% PPR | 33 ± 1a | 163.4 ± 14.74a | 17 ± 2a | 5.32 ± 0.79a | 54.47 ± 4.91a |
| 12% PPR | 32 ± 1a | 186.7 ± 23.97ab | 20 ± 2ab | 5.59 ± 1.31a | 62.23 ± 7.99abc |
| 15% PPR | 32 ± 1a | 195.7 ± 16.99ab | 24 ± 4b | 9.72 ± 1.28b | 65.23 ± 5.66b |
| 20% PPR | 33 ± 1a | 193.36 ± 32.42abc | 23 ± 3b | 8.20 ± 0.72b | 64.45 ± 10.81ab |
| 12% RB (Control) | 33 ± 1a | 195.7 ± 10.21b | 21 ± 1b | 9.60 ± 0.72b | 65.23 ± 3.40b |
Values presented are means ± standard error. n = 5. Values in each column followed by different letters (“a” to “b” or “c”, “a” being the lowest value) mean statistically significant differences between samples (p < .05).
Figure 2Fruiting body yield per flush per bag. Error bars are standard errors. n = 5
Fruiting body weight and size parameters of first flush
| Treatment | Fruiting body weight (g) | Cap weight (g) | Stipe weight (g) | Cap diameter (cm) | Stipe circumference (cm) | Cap to stipe weight ratio | Cap to stipe dimensional ratio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2% PPR | 13.0 ± 1.01b | 9.7 ± 0.71b | 3.1 ± 0.30c | 7.0 ± 0.22b | 3.0 ± 0.19ab | 3.1:1 | 2.3:1 |
| 5% PPR | 12.3 ± 1.43b | 7.8 ± 1.84ab | 6.0 ± 3.12c | 6.6 ± 0.21ab | 2.8 ± 0.07a | 1.3:1 | 2.3:1 |
| 10% PPR | 11.2 ± 2.19b | 8.4 ± 1.58ab | 2.8 ± 0.64c | 5.9 ± 1.22ab | 2.4 ± 0.50a | 3.0:1 | 2.4:1 |
| 12% PPR | 11.9 ± 2.36b | 9.5 ± 1.92ab | 2.3 ± 0.49bc | 6.7 ± 0.79ab | 3.0 ± 0.22ab | 4.1:1 | 2.3:1 |
| 15% PPR | 7.7 ± 1.78ab | 6.6 ± 1.57a | 1.1 ± 0.21a | 6.2 ± 0.59a | 3.2 ± 0.42ab | 5.9:1 | 2.0:1 |
| 20% PPR | 6.9 ± 1.90a | 5.9 ± 1.64a | 1.0 ± 0.25a | 5.3 ± 0.81a | 2.7 ± 0.56ab | 5.8:1 | 2.0:1 |
| 12% RB (Control) | 12.0 ± 0.85b | 10.0 ± 0.83b | 1.8 ± 0.21b | 6.8 ± 0.33b | 3.0 ± 0.17b | 5.7:1 | 2.3:1 |
Values presented are mean±standard error. n = 5. Values in each column followed by different letters (“a” to “b” or “c”, “a” being the lowest value) are significantly different (p < .05).
Proximate composition, microelements, and heavy metal content of fruiting bodies from highest yielding treatments and control treatment
| Component | 2% PPR | 5% PPR | 12% RB (control) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proximate composition | |||
| Moisture | 10.69 ± 0.02b | 10.84 ± 0.04c | 10.56 ± 0.12a |
| Ash | 8.38 ± 0.13a | 8.40 ± 0.09a | 8.34 ± 0.05a |
| Fat | 1.45 ± 0.06b | 1.29 ± 0.06a | 1.98 ± 0.18c |
| Protein | 21.65 ± 0.05c | 20.41 ± 0.01a | 21.04 ± 0.04b |
| Carbohydrates | 57.85 ± 0.16a | 59.08 ± 0.02c | 58.10 ± 0.05b |
| Energy | 331.01 ± 0.34b | 329.51 ± 0.54a | 334.34 ± 1.60c |
| Microelements | |||
| Copper | 0.19 ± 0.01a | 0.43 ± 0.01b | 0.40 ± 0.04b |
| Zinc | 0.63 ± 0.35a | 1.29 ± 0.23b | 1.15 ± 0.04b |
| Heavy metal | |||
| Lead | 1.20 ± 0.33a | 1.89 ± 0.15b | 1.89 ± 0.13b |
Values presented are mean ± standard deviation. n = 2. In each row, different letters (“a” to “b” or “c”, “a” being the lowest value) mean statistically significant differences between samples (p < .05). With the exception of energetic value reported in Kcal/100 g.dw, the nutritional values are reported in g/100 g.dw. Microelements and heavy metal are reported in mg/100 g.dw.