| Literature DB >> 33969114 |
Agbor Esther Etengeneng1,2, Lamye Glory Moh1,3, Suffo Kamela Arnaud Landry1.
Abstract
The effects of chemicals commonly used in Cameroon to eliminate slime from the flesh of the African giant land snail, Archachatina marginata, during processing on some nutritional and biochemical parameters were investigated. Groups of snails were processed with these chemicals at three different concentrations. Proximate analysis of all the treated snail groups was carried out, and groups with the highest concentration of each chemical were used to compose diets for experimental rats. Thirty weanling male Wistar albino rats (31.25 ± 3.09 g) aged 21days old were distributed into four groups and fed with 10% protein based diets of A. marginata named D1 (washed with only water), D2 (lime C-treated), D3 (alum C-treated), and D4 (salt C-treated). The crude protein contents of the treated groups reduced significantly when compared with the control (CW), with lime C-treated (LC) having the least here and in crude fiber, but higher (LC, LB, and LA) in dry matter. There was a significant reduction in the crude lipid of alum C-treated (AC) and salt A-treated (SA). In vivo studies showed a general decrease in food consumption, weight gained, efficiency of feed utilization (EFU), true protein digestibility (TD) (except D2), and hematological indices (RBCs (red blood cells), PCV (packed cell volume) of the treated groups (D2, D3, D4) when compared to the control (D1). On the other hand, an increase in the relative weight of the liver (RWL), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), and total cholesterol was observed with some of the treated diets; meanwhile, protein efficiency ratio (PER), net protein ratio (NPR), relative weight of the kidneys (RWK), HDL cholesterol, and triglycerides were not affected by these diets. These chemicals should only be used at low concentrations or not at all because of its toxicity at high concentrations.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33969114 PMCID: PMC8081625 DOI: 10.1155/2021/6691609
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Food Sci ISSN: 2314-5765
Composition of the experimental diets used in the biological assay (g/100 g complete diet).
| Ingredients (g/100 g) | Diets | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D0 | D1 | D2 | D3 | D4 | |
| Corn starch | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 |
| Corn oil | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Mineral complexb | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| Vitamin complexb | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Cellulose | 7.9 | 7.9 | 7.9 | 7.9 | 7.9 |
| Lime samplea | 0 | 0 | 15.3 | 0 | 0 |
| Alum samplea | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15.1 | 0 |
| Salt samplea | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15.1 |
| Control samplea | 0 | 14.7 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sucrose | 67.1 | 52.4 | 48.2 | 48 | 48 |
| Total | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
D0: protein-free diet; D1: control (processed without chemicals); D2: processed with lime-C; D3: processed with alum-C; D4: processed with salt-C. acooked and dehydrated samples, bsupplied by clab Laboratory, Bafoussam- Cameroon. The crude proteins obtained from proximate analysis were converted to grams by making use of DM after which the amount of protein present in 10 g was determined by simple proportion.
Proximate composition of the different samples of Archachatina marginata meat.
| Groups | DM (%) | Ash (% DM) | Crude protein (% DM) | Crude fibre (% DM) | Lipid (% DM) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control (CW) | 93.12 ± 0.93bc | 4.17 ± 0.50b | 73.26 ± 0.50e | 0.32 ± 0.02b | 5.04 ± 0.75b |
| Lime 13.2% (LC) | 95.02 ± 1.39de | 4.71 ± 0.40bc | 68.71 ± 0.50a | 0.11 ± 0.01a | 5.21 ± 0.69b |
| Alum 1% (AC) | 94.10 ± 0.51cd | 4.98 ± 0.34cd | 70.19 ± 0.40b | 0.42 ± 0.07bc | 3.66 ± 0.50a |
| Salt 4% (SC) | 92.62 ± 0.50bc | 7.09 ± 0.72e | 71.67 ± 0.47c | 0.32 ± 0.05b | 5.06 ± 0.70b |
| Lime 6.6% (LB) | 94.71 ± o.49d | 3.31 ± 0.10a | 69.05 ± 0.50a | 0.69 ± 0.20de | 5.18 ± 0.78b |
| Alum 0.5% (AB) | 93.75 ± 1.02bcd | 4.49 ± 0.33bc | 70.40 ± 0.51b | 0.22 ± 0.09ab | 5.22 ± 0.81b |
| Salt 2% (SB) | 90.94 ± 0.20a | 4.66 ± 0.38bc | 72.00 ± 0.30cd | 0.56 ± 0.18cd | 4.71 ± 0.28ab |
| Lime 3.3% (LA) | 96.50 ± 1.48e | 4.14 ± 0.20b | 70.02 ± 0.48b | 0.820 ± 0.20e | 4.76 ± 0.50ab |
| Alum 0.25 (AA) | 93.62 ± 1.10bcd | 4.86 ± 0.11cd | 71.74 ± 0.55c | 0.32 ± 0.03b | 6.59 ± 1.00c |
| Salt 1% (SA) | 92.46 ± 0.50b | 5.47 ± 0.52d | 72.50 ± 0.60d | 0.54 ± 0.18cd | 6.80 ± 0.92c |
Values are mean ± SD of 3 determinants, sample size (n) = 30. Along the columns, values with the same letter (a, b, c, d, e) are not significantly different (p > 0.05). D.M: dry matter; CW: control sample washed without chemicals; LC: lime-treated sample at 13.2%; AC: alum-treated sample at 1%; SC: salt-treated sample at 4%; LB: lime-treated sample at 6.6%; AB: alum-treated sample at 0.5%; SB: salt-treated sample at 2%; LA: lime-treated sample at 3.3%; AA: alum-treated sample at 0.25%; SA: salt-treated sample at 1%.
Effects of different treated diets on the performance of rats and protein quality.
| Parameters | Diets | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| D1 | D2 | D3 | D4 | |
| Food consumed (g) | 114.83 ± 1.86a | 78.40 ± 1.04b | 54.90 ± 1.61d | 69.20 ± 1.59c |
| Weight gained (g) | 31.31 ± 0.99a | 21.38 ± 1.08b | 13.60 ± 1.06d | 16.90 ± 1.29c |
| EFU (g/100 g) | 27.26 ± 1.03b | 27.27 ± 1.47b | 24.77 ± 1.16a | 24.42 ± 2.16a |
| PER | 2.60 ± 0.61a | 2.70 ± 0.19a | 2.40 ± 0.43a | 2.50 ± 0.31a |
| NPR (g) | 3.00 ± 0.58a | 3.23 ± 0.18a | 2.70 ± 0.58a | 2.80 ± 0.11a |
| TD (%) | 76.70 ± 2.76bc | 78.20 ± 2.71c | 70.00 ± 3.98a | 74.19 ± 0.22ab |
Values are mean ± SD of 6 determinants, sample size (n) = 30. Along the columns, values with the same letter (a, b, c, d) are not significantly different (p > 0.05). D1: control (washed without chemicals); D2: processed with lime-C; D3: processed with alum-C; D4: processed with salt-C; EFU: efficiency of feed utilization; PER: protein efficiency ratio; T.D: true protein digestibility; NPR: net protein ratio.
Effect of the different treated diets on the biological parameters and serum enzyme activities of rats.
| Parameters | Diets | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| D1 | D2 | D3 | D4 | |
| RWL (%) | 4.30 ± 0.34a | 4.80 ± 0.43b | 4.10 ± 0.21a | 5.10 ± 0.13b |
| RWK (%) | 1.06 ± 0.33a | 1.00 ± 0.21a | 1.00 ± 0.13a | 0.90 ± 0.13a |
| PCV (%) | 43.53 ± 1.54b | 38.20 ± 1.19a | 38.28 ± 0.98a | 36.70 ± 1.58a |
| RBC/mm3×106) | 7.17 ± 0.55a | 6.80 ± 0.79a | 6.90 ± 0.82a | 6.60 ± 0.83a |
| ALT (U/L) | 5.46 ± 0.83a | 8.44 ± 2.02b | 4.60 ± 0.84a | 4.79 ± 0.51a |
| AST (U/L) | 7.27 ± 0.50a | 8.14 ± 0.50ab | 9.16 ± 1.85b | 12.51 ± 1.32c |
Values are mean ± SD of 6 determinants, sample size (n) = 24. Along the columns, values with the same letter (a, b) are not significantly different (p > 0.05). D1: control (washed without chemicals); D2: processed with lime-C; D3: processed with alum-C; D4: processed with salt-C; RWL: relative weight of the liver; RWK: relative weight of the kidney; PCV: packed cell volume; RBC: red blood cell; ALT: alanine aminotransferase; AST: aspartate aminotransferase.
Effects of treated diets on lipid profile of rats.
| Parameters | Diets | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| D1 | D2 | D3 | D4 | |
| Total cholesterol (activity (mmol/L) | 4.67 ± 0.13a | 7.34 ± 1.41b | 4.79 ± 0.16a | 7.47 ± 0.28b |
| HDL cholesterol (activity (mmol/L) | 3.21 ± 0.30a | 3.15 ± 1.12a | 3.47 ± 1.18a | 3.29 ± 0.47a |
| Triglycerides (activity (mmol/L)) | 0.92 ± 0.43a | 0.74 ± 0.21a | 1.17 ± 0.51a | 0.81 ± 0.57a |
| LDL cholesterol (activity (mmol/L)) | 0.11 ± 0.02a | 0.69 ± 0.12b | 0.03 ± 0.00a | 0.67 ± 0.02b |
| VLDL+LDL cholesterol (activity (mmol/L) | 1.46 ± 0.11a | 4.19 ± 0.35b | 1.32 ± 0.30a | 4.18 ± 0.09b |
| Risk factor for CHD | 0.03 ± 0.00a | 0.22 ± 0.01b | 0.01 ± 0.00a | 0.20 ± 0.00b |
Values are mean ± SD of 6 determinants, sample size (n) = 24. Along the columns, values with the same letter (a, b) are not significantly different (p > 0.05). D1: control (washed without chemicals); D2: processed with lime-C; D3: processed with alum-C; D4: processed with salt-C; HDL: high-density lipoprotein; LDL: low-density lipoprotein; VLDL: very low-density lipoprotein; CHD: coronary heart diseases.