INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOOD AND NUTRITION SCIENCE VOL2 NO1 AUGUST 2013

ISSN 2165-5308 (PRINT) ISSN 2165-5316 (ONLINE) http://www.researchpub.org/journal/ijfns/ijfns.html

Effect of Wrapping Materials on the Proximate

Composition and Organoleptic Properties of
Usu (Indigenous Meat Analogue) Produced
from Big Mushroom (Lentinus Tuber-Regium)
and Melon Seed (Colocynthis citrullus L)
*Kabuo, N.O., Udeozor, L.O., Onuegbu, N.C, Nwosu, J.N., and Eme, M.U.

Department of Food Science and Technology

Federal University of Technology, P.M.B. 1526, Owerri, Imo State Nigeria

ookabuo@yahoo.com

*Corresponding author

Abstract The effect of wrapping materials on the

proximate composition and organoleptic properties of
Usu (indigenous meat analogue) produced from melon
seed and big mushroom in the ratios of 80:20 and 70:30
was studied. The two ratios of melon seed and big
mushroom flours were mixed with Cameroon pepper
(5%), maggi sauce (3%) and salt (4%) and pounded
together with addition of warm water to produce thick
pastes. The pastes were divided into five portions (3.5g
each) for the different ratios and wrapped in Christmas
bush leaves (CBL), Asusu leave (AS), African boundary
leaves (ABL), Miraculous fruit leaves (MFL) and
Aluminum foil respectively and cooked using steam.
Proximate analysis and sensory evaluation were carried
out on the products. Statistical analysis was also carried
out on the sensory data at 5% confidence level (P >
0.05). Results showed that the proximate composition of
the Usu samples were not significantly (p<0.05) affected
by the wrapping materials; samples wrapped in
miraculous fruit leaves (MFL) for 70:30 (egusi:erousu)
ratio had the highest score (6.9) in all the parameters
evaluated followed by Christmas bush leaves (CBL) for
80:20 (egusi:erousu) in all the parameters except colour
and overall acceptability. With these results, the use of
miraculous fruit leaves as the best wrapping material
for Usu production is advocated.
Index Terms melon seed, mushroom, organoleptic
properties, wrapping materials, meat analogue
I. INTRODUCTION
M eat analogue, also called a meat substitute is
generally understood to mean a manufactured
food product that looks and tastes like meat, made
from non- meats, sometimes without dairy products
[1]. Meat analogues are food products that are made
to have similar texture, color, taste and form as meat
[2]. They can be considered to be meat substitutes or
meat alternatives because they provide a good source
of protein. Another less common protein used in meat
analogues is mycoprotein, which is made from a type
of fungus [3]. It can also be referred to as an
alternative to real meat having healthy and nutritional
values or facts of real meat [4].
In recent years, health concerns have been raised
about the consumption of meat increasing the risk of
cancer. In particular, red meat and processed meat
were found to be associated with higher risk of
cancers of the lungs, oesophagus, liver, and colon
among others, although also a reduced risk for some
minor type of cancers [5]. According to [6] meat

38
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOOD AND NUTRITION SCIENCE VOL2 NO1 AUGUST 2013
ISSN 2165-5308 (PRINT) ISSN 2165-5316 (ONLINE) http://www.researchpub.org/journal/ijfns/ijfns.html
analogue has the characteristic texture and nutritive
quality of meat and very low in fat content. This
product is considered definitely healthier because it
has less fatty acid which is more beneficial health
wise in controlling high level of cholesterol in the
blood and incidence of cardiovascular disease [7].The
market for meat analogue includes health conscious
non-vegetarians, lactose intolerant people, persons
with nutritional issues for vegetarians and vegans [8].
Usu is an indigenous meat analogue produced from
ground melon (Egusi) seed (Colocynthis citrullus L)
and ground big mushroom or erousu (Lentinus tuber
regium) mixed with other ingredients such as pepper,
salt and spices and wrapped in different traditional
packaging materials (leaves) depending on the
production location and then cooked (Isibor,2010).
The food is widely consumed by the Easterners and
some part of South Western states of Nigeria [7].
The nutritional value, consistency and texture of the
product, is similar to real meat and can be eaten as
snacks without adding it to soup, as it is a good
source of energy. For this particular purpose, it is
normally prepared to be a bit more peppery and
smoke dried properly [9]. Meat analogues are
generally a good source of high-quality protein,
providing some of all the essential amino acids.
Although the protein sources of meat analogues may
not have similar vitamin and mineral content as meat,
they are often fortified with the micronutrients that
they are lacking [10].Total amounts of protein will
vary from product to product and brand to brand.
Compared to meat they are also lower in fat and
therefore lower in calories as well [10].
Conversely, if not properly prepared and stored, it is
susceptible to spoilage (mould growth) within few
days of production. But with good manufacturing
practice, packaging and storage system, it can stay up
to one week or month without adverse effect. One
major role of packaging irrespective of whether it is
the traditional method or modern method is the
preservation of food. The early man has practiced the
preservation of food through various ways which
include the fermentation of food, drying of food over
a fire or with the aid of sunlight and salting which are
then packaged with various materials. Usu is
wrapped or packaged with different materials (leaves)
in different places. Some of these wrapping materials
adversely affect the organoleptic properties of the
product, while some impart or incorporate valuable
components into the product and hence stimulate the
local demand for the meat analogue or substitute.
39
Therefore, following health risk of meat and problem
of packaging encountered in production of Usu using
traditional packaging material; that is, the diverse
colours, flavour, and acceptability of Usu obtained
from different places due to the wrapping materials
(leaves), it has become expedient and imperative to
intensify efforts in the production of acceptable meat
Usu and adoption of acceptable wrapping materials.
The objectives of this work therefore are;
1. To evaluate the proximate composition of the
products wrapped in different wrapping materials.
2. To investigate the effect of different wrapping
materials on the organoleptic properties of Usu
(indigenous meat analogue); and
3. To identify the best wrapping materials which will
give the product the most acceptable organoleptic
characteristics.
It is hoped that the result will help to proffer solution
to the problem of wrappers (packaging materials)
encountered in Usu production which has delayed
its industrialization to a large extent.
II. MATERIALS AND METHODS
A. Material Procurement
The materials used in this study included: melon seed
(Colocynthis citrullus L.), big mushroom (Lentinus
tuber regium) and other ingredients such as
Cameroon pepper (Piper nigrum), salt and maggi
cube sauce were sourced locally from markets within
Owerri metropolis, Imo State, Nigeria. The work was
carried out in the Food Processing laboratory of
Federal University of Technology, Owerri. The
chemicals were of analytical grade and the equipment
used were obtained from the Department of Food
Science and Technology, Federal University of
Technology, Owerri, Nigeria.
B. Identification and Collection of the
Wrapping Material
The wrapping/packaging materials used in this study
were identified and collected from different locations
in Owerri. The Christmas bush leaves (Alchornea
cordifolia) were identified using the description
given in a handbook of West African weeds [11] and
collected in Mboke community in Ihiagwa, Owerri.
Miraculous fruit leaves (Thaumatococcus danielli)
popularly called Etere or Uma in Igbo and
Aluminium foil were bought from a local market in
Owerri, Imo State. The African border leaves
(Newbouldia laevis seem) called Ogirisi in Igbo
and Asusu leaves (Manniophyton fulvum) were also
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOOD AND NUTRITION SCIENCE VOL2 NO1 AUGUST 2013

ISSN 2165-5308 (PRINT) ISSN 2165-5316 (ONLINE) http://www.researchpub.org/journal/ijfns/ijfns.html

identified using a handbook of West African weeds
[11]. The leaves were found and collected within the
environment of Federal University of Technology,
Owerri.
C. Preliminary Preparation of the Wrapping
Materials
The wrapping materials such as miraculous fruit
leaves, Christmas bush leaves, Asusu leaves and
African border leaves were washed and drained.
D. Cleaning and preparation of the raw
Materials
The dehulled melon seeds were manually sorted to
remove the bad ones, stones and other impurities and
ground into flour using a manual grinder. The
mushroom was peeled to remove the back, washed,
dried, cut into small sizes and then milled into flour.
The Cameroon pepper was also ground using the
same mill.
E. Production of Usu (indigenous meat
analogue)
Two sets of samples were produced using the
following ratios of 70:30 for the first set and 80:20
for the second set and the other ingredients in the
formulation were 5% Cameroon pepper, 4% salt and
3% maggi sauce. The materials were weighed out
using weighing balance and were properly blended
together by pounding in mortar and pestle with warm
water added drop by drop until a well-blended
product of good texture and consistency was obtained.
The mixed product of the different ratios were
molded into small portions weighing 3.5g each and
wrapped into Aluminium foil and four different
leaves namely Christmas bush leaves (Alchornea
cordifolia), miraculous fruit leaves (Thaumatococcus
daniellii), Asusu leaves (Manniophyton fulvum) and
African border leaves (Newbouldia laevis seem) and
tied with palm frond ropes, cooked for 90 minutes
using steam and then cooled. The recipe used for
production of the two ratios of Usu samples is shown
in table I. While the Flow chart for the production of
indigenous meat analogue is shown in Fig. 1.

TABLE I
RECIPE FOR PRODUCTION OF THE USU SAMPLES

Ingredients First Sample (g) Second sample (g)

Ground Melon seed 70 80

Ground Big Mushroom 30 20

Cameroon Pepper 5 5

Maggi Sauce 3 3

Salt 4 4

40
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOOD AND NUTRITION SCIENCE VOL2 NO1 AUGUST 2013

ISSN 2165-5308 (PRINT) ISSN 2165-5316 (ONLINE) http://www.researchpub.org/journal/ijfns/ijfns.html

Ingredients (Ground melon seed + Ground big mushroom + Cameroun pepper + salt + maggi)

Mixing together in a mortar

Pounding (with addition of warm water drop)

Kneading

Molding (To small flat sizes)

Packaging/wrapping

Cooking (With steam for 90 minutes)

Cooling

Usu ( Indigenous Meat Analogue)

Figure 1: Flow Chart for Production of Usu (indigenous meat analogue)

F. Proximate Analysis of Product
The proximate compositions were determined
according to the standard methods of [12].
G. Sensory Evaluation
The organoleptic evaluation of the Usu samples
(indigenous meat analogue) was carried out for
consumer acceptance and preference by a 10-trained
panelist (students and staff of the Department of
Food Science and Technology, Federal University of
Technology, Owerri, Nigeria). The panelists
evaluated the sensory properties based on colour,
aroma, taste, texture and overall acceptability using a
nine-point Hedonic scale, where 1 represents
extremely dislike and 9 extremely like
respectively described by [13].
Meanwhile, necessary precautions were taken to
prevent carryover flavour during the tasting by
ensuring the panelists rinsed their mouth with water
after each stage of sensory evaluation.
H. Statistical Analysis
41
All the data obtained from the sensory evaluation and
proximate compositions were analyzed statistically
using the means and analysis of variance (ANOVA)
at P 0.05. The separation of means was carried out
using fishers Least significant difference (LSD) and
the significant difference and similarities of the
samples were determined based on the scores [13].
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A. Proximate Composition
Table 2 shows the effect of different wrapping
materials on the proximate composition of Usu
samples (indigenous meat analogue).
The table showed that the moisture contents of the
samples ranged from 10.49% to 17.93% mean values.
Different food materials have different capacity for
absorbing/retaining moisture which may exist as
occluded or absorbed water. Sample wrapped in
Aluminum foil (FIL) had the highest mean moisture
value of 17.925% while the sample wrapped in Asusu
leaves (AS) had the lowest mean moisture value of
10.49%. The variations in the moisture contents of
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOOD AND NUTRITION SCIENCE VOL2 NO1 AUGUST 2013

ISSN 2165-5308 (PRINT) ISSN 2165-5316 (ONLINE) http://www.researchpub.org/journal/ijfns/ijfns.html

these samples could be due to variation of wrapping
materials. Since the same sample was used, the FIL
may have retained more moisture than the other
samples during the cooking period, or the other
materials may have lost moisture during cooking.
The percentage mean values of the protein contents
of the Usu samples were 15.8, 15.37. 15.69. 15.79
and 14.07 for wrapping samples CBL, MFL, ABL,
MF and FIL respectively.

TABLE II
EFFECT OF WRAPPING MATERIALS ON PROXIMATE COMPOSITION OF USU AN INDIGENOUS
MEAT ANALOGUE.

Samples Moisture Protein Fat Crude Fibre Ash CHO

CBL 13.38a 15.8a 25.15a 3.78a 5.65a 36.28a

MFL 13.27a 15.37a 29.28a 4.92a 5.22a 31.96a
ABL 17.70a 15.69a 28.81a 5.00a 4.06a 28.76a
MF 10.49a 15.79a 28.99a 5.63a 5.79a 33.32a
FIL 17.93a 14.07a 28.70a 4.88a 5.65a 31.30a
LSD 9.47 2.09 10.32 4.27 2.79 8.00
Means in the same column with the same superscript are significantly similar (P < 0.05)

NOTE:
CBL = Christmas bush leaves (Alchornea cordifolia)
MFL =Miraculous fruit leaves (Thaumatococcus daniellii),
ABL = African border Leaves (Newbouldia laevis seem)
AS = Asusu Leaves (Manniophyton fulvum)
FIL = Aluminum Foil

The protein contents were not statistically different at
5% confidence interval, though the sample wrapped
with aluminum foil (FIL) had the lowest percentage
of protein content. Generally, the protein content of
all the samples were relatively high because, the big
mushroom and melon used in the production of Usu
samples are good sources of protein [14; 15; 16; 17].
The fat content of the Usu wrapped in different
wrapping materials were not significantly different (P
< 0.05), although there were differences in their
percentage mean values ranging from 25.70% to
29.28%. MFL samples had relatively high fat content
while FIL showed the lowest percentage of fat
content and this may be due to wrapping material
variations as the raw leaves material used may have
contributed to high fat content of samples [15; 16].
The ash content of the Usu sample ranged from
4.06% to 5.79% and they were significantly similar
despite slight variation in their percentage mean
value. The crude fibre content followed the same
pattern with percentage mean value ranging from
3.78 to 5.63. There is no significant difference at 5%
confidence interval. The carbohydrate percentage
mean values ranged from 28.76 to 36.28, having
variations in the value but significantly indifferent.
The proximate compositions of these samples were
so because they were from the same mixture, the
differences were from the wrapping materials.
Therefore, any difference in proximate values could
be from the wrapping materials effect.
B. Effect of Wrapping Materials on Proximate
Composition at Varying Ratios
Table 3 shows the percentage mean composite values
of Usu samples for 70:30 and 80:20 egusi: erousu
ratios, wrapped in different wrapping materials.
From the results of the statistical analysis, the varying
ratios of the Usu sample wrapped with different
wrapping materials showed no significant difference
in their percentage moisture mean value. Sample A
(70:30) had 14.87% while sample B (80:20) had
14.23% respectively. The percentage protein mean
values were 15.08% and 15.6% for samples A (70:30)
and B (80:20) respectively.

42
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOOD AND NUTRITION SCIENCE VOL2 NO1 AUGUST 2013
ISSN 2165-5308 (PRINT) ISSN 2165-5316 (ONLINE) http://www.researchpub.org/journal/ijfns/ijfns.html
TABLE III
EFFECT OF WRAPPING MATERIALS ON PROXIMATE COMPOSITION AT VARYING RATIO
Sample Moisture Protein Fat Crude Fibre Ash
A 14.23 2.31a 15.08 0.44a 27.15 1.89a 5.68 0.64a 5.04 0.65a
B 14.84 2.31a 16.6 0.44a 28.18 1.89a 4.00 0.64a 5.50 0.65a
LSD 6.41 1.23 5.25 1.77 1.80
Means in the same column with the same superscript are not significantly different (P < 0.05)
NOTE:
A = 70:30 ratio of Egusi: Erousu
B = 80:20 ratio of Egusi: Erousu
Generally, the melon and big mushroom used in the
production of Usu (indigenous meat analogue) are
good sources of protein [14; 15; 16; 17]. The
statistical analysis showed that there is no significant
difference in the proximate composition of the
varying ratios of Usu sample wrapped with different
wrapping materials. The percentage fat mean values
for the sample A (70:30) and sample B (80:20) are
27.15% and 28.18% and they are significantly similar
despite the slight variations which could be due to
high fat content of the melon seeds [15; 16]. The ash
content was found to be not significantly different in
their varying ratios of Usu samples, sample A had
5.04% while B had 5.50% respectively.
The percentage crude fibre for sample A and B are
4.00% and 5.68% respectively and according to [16]
melon has 4.7% crude fibre and it is in correlation
with the crude fibre content in the varying samples.
For the percentage carbohydrate mean value, the two
ratios of Usu samples showed no significant
differences in their percentage despite the slight
variation in carbohydrate percentage mean values.
43
CHO
32.83 1.95a
31.81 1.95a
5.42
This implies that from the statistical analysis at P >
0.05, the percentage mean values of proximate
composition of Usu samples in the ratio of 70:30 and
80:20 for egusi and big mushroom wrapped with
different wrapping materials showed no significant
difference at 5% confidence level.
C. Organoleptic characteristics of Usu samples
for 70:30 ratio wrapped in different
wrapping Materials
Table 4 shows the mean composite values of Usu
samples for 70:30 ratio wrapped in different
wrapping materials. The colour of the sample
wrapped in MFL had mean sensory score of 6.90 (i.e
slightly liked) and was significantly similar to CBL,
ABL and FIL.
The colour of sample wrapped in AS had the lowest
mean sensory score of 5.70 and was significantly
different from other samples. Generally, the colour of
all the samples were either slightly liked (score
approximately 6.0) or moderately liked (score
approximately 7.0) though they were significantly
similar as observed by the panelists (Table IV).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOOD AND NUTRITION SCIENCE VOL2 NO1 AUGUST 2013

ISSN 2165-5308 (PRINT) ISSN 2165-5316 (ONLINE) http://www.researchpub.org/journal/ijfns/ijfns.html

TABLE IV

MEAN SCORES OF ORGANOLEPTIC CHARACTERISTICS OF USU SAMPLES FOR 70:30 RATIO

WRAPPED IN DIFFERENT WRAPPING MATERIALS

Samples Colour Aroma Taste Texture Overall Acceptability

CBL 6.40 1.17a 5.80 1.48a 6.10 1.29a 6.20 1.03a 6.90 1.45ab
MFL 6.90 1.20a 6.30 1.57a 6.70 1.16a 6.90 0.74a 7.40 0.69a
ABL 6.00 1.15a 5.50 0.53a 6.60 1.07a 6.30 0.48a 6.60 0.84b
AS 5.70 0.95b 5.80 1.62a 6.20 1.62a 6.50 0.53a 6.30 0.48b
FIL 6.40 1.26a 5.70 1.77a 6.10 1.59a 6.30 0.79a 6.30 1.49b
LSD 1.04 1.06 0.85 0.79 0.82
Means in the same column with the same superscript are not significantly different (P < 0.05).
Means in the same column with different superscript are significantly different (P > 0.05)

NOTE:
CBL = Christmas bush leaves (Alchornea cordifolia)
MFL =Miraculous fruit leaves (Thaumatococcus daniellii),
ABL = African border Leaves (Newbouldia laevis seem)
AS = Asusu Leaves (Manniophyton fulvum)
FIL = Aluminum Foil

The aroma of all the Usu samples were significantly
similar and they were slightly liked (score
approximately 6.0). The aroma of sample wrapped
with MFL was however given the highest score 6.30,
which was followed by CBL and AS having the same
mean score of 5.80. The close rating of the sample on
aroma could be due to the fact that one mixture was
used in their production and the wrapping materials
did not impart flavour on the samples.
The acceptance sensory mean values for taste of Usu
sample wrapped in CBL, MFL, ABL, MF and FIL
were found to be 6.40, 6.70, 6.60, 6.20 and 6.10
respectively. The taste of all the samples were
significantly similar, though the samples wrapped in
MFL and ABL were moderately like (score
approximately 7.0) and sample wrapped in MFL was
rated the highest (score 6.70). This indicates that
even though the panelists seem to prefer MFL, they
found the taste of others to be quite good. Thus, there
is no significant difference in the taste despite slight
variation in the mean value. The texture of all the
samples were significantly similar and were either
moderately liked (score approximately 7.0) or
slightly liked (score approximately 6.0) as rated by
the panelists. The similarity in the texture could be as
a result of proper blending of the ingredients as well
as the fact that the samples were obtained from the
same mix and given the same cooking conditions.
The texture of the sample MFL was rated highest
with mean score of 6.9.
The overall acceptability of all the samples showed
that samples wrapped in MFL were moderately
accepted (score approximate 7.0) and was
significantly similar to CBL but significantly
different from ABL, FIL and AS which were slightly
acceptable (score approximately, 6.0). This implies
that the sample wrapped in MFL (miraculous fruit
leaves) is best accepted in all sensory parameters
tested (Table IV).
D. Organoleptic characteristics of Usu samples
for 80:20 ratios wrapped in different
wrapping Material
Table 5 shows the mean composite values of samples
for 80:20 ratio wrapped in different wrapping
materials. The colour of the sample wrapped in MFL
had mean sensory score of 7.10 (i.e moderately liked)
and was significantly similar to CBL and ABL.
These samples were significantly different from AS
and FIL (scores approximately 6.0). Generally, the
colour of all the samples were either slightly liked
(score approximately 6.0) or moderately liked
(score approximately 7.0).

44
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOOD AND NUTRITION SCIENCE VOL2 NO1 AUGUST 2013

ISSN 2165-5308 (PRINT) ISSN 2165-5316 (ONLINE) http://www.researchpub.org/journal/ijfns/ijfns.html

TABLE V

MEAN SCORES OF ORGANOLEPTIC CHARACTERISTICS OF USU SAMPLES FOR 80:20 RATIO

WRAPPED IN DIFFERENT WRAPPING MATERIALS

Samples Colour Aroma Taste Texture Overall Acceptability

CBL 7.00 0.82a 6.50 1.27a 7.10 0.99a 6.70 1.16a 6.80 1.55a
MFL 7.10 0.88a 6.30 1.25a 6.70 1.89a 6.40 1.71a 7.3 0.67a
ABL 6.60 0.96a 6.40 1.26a 6.50 1.51a 6.60 0.84a 6.6 1.07a
AS 6.30 0.95b 6.40 0.97a 6.50 0.97a 6.30 0.82a 6.0 1.25b
FIL 6.40 0.97b 5.80 1.55a 6.50 1.43a 6.40 0.84a 6.5 1.27b
LSD 0.68 0.64 0.94 0.87 0.89
Means in the same column with the same superscript are not significantly different (P < 0.05).
Means in the same column with different superscript are significantly different (P > 0.05)

NOTE:
CBL = Christmas bush leaves (Alchornea cordifolia)
MFL =Miraculous fruit leaves (Thaumatococcus daniellii),
ABL = African border Leaves (Newbouldia laevis seem)
AS = Asusu Leaves (Manniophyton fulvum)
FIL = Aluminum Foil

The slight variation in colour by the panelists for
80:20 ratio observed in Table V is in consonance
with panelists acceptance for colour in 70:30 ratio
observed in Table IV. The aroma of all the Usu
samples were significantly similar. The aroma of
sample wrapped with CBL was given the highest
score 6.50 (score approximately 7, i.e. moderately
liked) and the sample wrapped with FIL scored 5.80
(score approximately 6). The close rating of Usu
samples on aroma could be due to the one mixture
used in production and it is conversely different from
70:30 ratio samples for aroma. The sample wrapped
in CBL was rated highest in terms of aroma (score
approximately 7) which was moderately liked. The
taste of all the samples were moderately liked
(score approximately 7.0) and insignificantly
different despite the mean variation. The sample
wrapped with CBL was rated highest with mean
score of 7.10 (score approximately 7). The texture of
all the samples were significantly similar and were
either moderately liked (score approximately 7) or
slightly liked (score approximately 6) with Usu
sample wrapped with CBL been rated highest in
terms of texture. The overall acceptability of all the
samples showed that samples wrapped in MFL were
rated highest (scoreb 6.80, i.e approximately 7.0) and
was significantly similar to CBL and ABL but
significantly different from AS and FIL which were
slightly liked (score approximately 6.0).
Thus generally, Usu wrapped with CBL (Christmas
bush leaves) is best accepted in all sensory
parameters tested except in colour and overall
acceptability.
IV. CONCLUSION
The organoleptic characteristics of the Usu samples
showed that samples wrapped in miraculous fruit
leaves (MFL) were best in almost all parameters
tested including overall acceptability according to the
panelists. The proximate analysis indicates that
generally, the different wrapping materials and
variation in ratios did not affect the proximate
composition of Usu, as the slight variations were due
to differences in melon and big mushroom ratios used
in formulation. Ratio 80:20 formulation had higher
nutrient value.
V. RECOMMENDATION
The following are recommended: Miraculous fruit
leaves (MFL) are the best wrapping material for Usu
production. The leaves are also affordable and easy to
get.
The 80:20 ratio is the best for Usu formulation
because of the high nutritive and organoleptic
properties.

45
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOOD AND NUTRITION SCIENCE VOL2 NO1 AUGUST 2013

ISSN 2165-5308 (PRINT) ISSN 2165-5316 (ONLINE) http://www.researchpub.org/journal/ijfns/ijfns.html

Acknowledgement: Technical assistance of Dr.

Owuamanam, Clifford .I is hereby acknowledged.

West African weeds.2nd Edn. African

REFERENCES Bush Builders Ltd. INTEC Printers Ibadan,
[1] Wikipedia, (2012).Meat Analogue. The free Nigeria. Pp. 200-252.
Wikipedia encyclopedia. [12] AOAC. (1990). Official Methods of Analysis.
http://64.233.167.104/search. 16th edn. Association of official Analytical
wikipedia/meat analogue. Accessed May 14, Chemists.2:69-88.
2012. [13] Ihekoronye, A.I. and Ngoddy, P.O. (1985).Food
quality control. In: Integrated Food Science
[2] Soyfoods Association of North America. (2010).
Soy Meat Alternative. Retrieved April 15, Technology for the Tropics Macmillan, Pub.
2010. Ltd London. Pp. 343 344.
[14] Tripathi, D.P. (2005). Mushrooms. In:
http://www.soyfoods.org/products/soy-fact-
Mushroom cultivation. Oxford and IBH
sheets/soy-meat-alternative-fact-sheet
publishers. Co. PVT.Ltd. New Delhi. Pp 10-
[3] Center for Science in the Public Interest. 12
Chemical Cuisine, Learn About Food [15] Akubor, P.I. (1998). Physic-chemical and
Additives. Retrieved April 15, 2010. sensory characteristic of melon seed milk. J.
http://www.cspinet.org/reports/chemcuisine. Food Sci. Tech. 35 (1): 93 95.
htm [16] Akobundu, E.N.T, Chery, J.P. and Summons,
[4] Oluba, P.K. (2005).Production of Meat analogue J.G. (1982). Chemical, functional and
from non-meat product.J.Fd.Sci.10(4):311- nutritional properties of Egusi (colocynthis
313. crtrillus L.) seed protein products. J.Fd. Sci.
[5] Timothy .J.K, Liary, E.F; Margaret, T., Paul, N.A., 47: 829 835.
Valerie., Gilian. R.,Michae, L.B., Jenny, [17] Oyenuga, V.A. (1968). Nigerians food and
C.C., Raihir, F.B., Jan, W.K., Jim, M., and feeding stuff. Ibadan. University press. Pp.
Kilm, M. (1999). Mortality. In: vegetarians 109 120.
and nonvegetarians, detailed findings from a
collaborative analysis of five prospective
studies American J. Clinical nutrition. 70 (3):
5165-5245. Retrieved 30, October 2009.
[6] Patent, E.P.O. (2008). Meat Analogue.
http://www.freepatentonline.com/EPO26.Ac
cessed May15, 2012.
[7] Isibor, F.U. (2010), Effect of wrapping Materials
on the organoleptic properties of Usu
(indigenous meat analogue) Produced from
big mushroom and melon seed. B.Tech
Thesis. Federal University of Technology
Owerri.Nigeria. Pp1-12.
[8] Buddhist,C.(2008).Classification of Analogue is
Food in North America.(Hong
Kong).http://www.wiki/meat
analogue.org/1164.233.167.104. Accessed
May 14, 2008.
[9] Lawrie, R.A. (1985). Meat Science. 4th edn.
Pergamon press oxford. Pp. 36-38.
[10] Hurley, J., & Liebman, B. (2006). Dont Have a
Cow. Nutrition Action Health Letter, 33 (6),
13-15. Retrieved from Agricola, 2006, July-
Aug.
[11]Akobundu, I.O. and Agyakwa, C.W. (1982).
Christmas bush leaves. In : A handbook of

46