Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Food Science & Nutrition logoLink to Food Science & Nutrition
. 2017 May 17;5(5):981–988. doi: 10.1002/fsn3.483

Chemical and nutritional properties of channel and hybrid catfish byproducts

Peter J Bechtel 1,✉, John M Bland 1, Karen L Bett‐Garber 1, Casey C Grimm 1, Suzanne S Brashear 1, Steven W Lloyd 1, Michael A Watson 1, Jeanne M Lea 1
PMCID: PMC5608980  PMID: 28948015

Abstract

The objective of this study was to chemically characterize both channel and hybrid catfish parts including heads, frames, viscera, skin, and fillet trimming mince. Triplicate samples of channel and hybrid catfish byproduct parts were obtained from a large commercial catfish processor and analyzed for percent moisture, lipid, protein, ash, and amino acid and fatty acid profiles were determined. The content of the off‐flavor compounds, 2‐methylisoborneol (MIB) and geosmin were also determined. The lipid content of samples were 13.6% and 10.0% for channel and hybrid skins, 17.7% and 21.4% for channel and hybrid viscera, 20.0% and 19.1% for channel and hybrid frames, and 9.7% and 9.3% for channel and hybrid heads. The protein content of samples ranged from a high of 22.8% for channel catfish skins, to a low of 13.4% for channel frames. Low levels of geosmin, <1 ppb, were detected in the byproduct samples, while no MIB was detected. Palmitic, oleic, and linoleic acid comprised approximately 80% of the fatty acids in the byproduct tissues. The amino acid profiles indicated that the catfish mince had high levels of lysine and methionine and other essential amino acids. Results from this study will be used in the development of new value‐added products from catfish byproducts.

Keywords: Catfish byproducts, channel catfish, fish byproducts, hybrid catfish

1. Introduction

Processing of catfish results in the production of a large amount of fish waste. In 2014, 136,975 metric tons of catfish was processed in the US (Hanson, 2015). Depending on what product is being produced, the waste (or byproduct) can account for greater than 60% (82,000 metric tons in 2015) of the harvested weight of the fish. Fish processing byproducts consist primarily of heads, viscera, frames, skin, and lesser amounts of blood and fins (Crapo & Bechtel, 2003). Currently catfish byproduct from commercial processing operations is combined and sold to rendering plants where the byproduct is made into protein meals and oils used primarily as feed ingredients. However, some smaller operations may choose to dispose off the waste, make fertilizers, or use it directly as a feed ingredient. In addition to conventional rendering of catfish waste there are two catfish byproduct processing plants, one of which uses a new drying technology to make a catfish meal and oil (Gresham, 2012) and the other a fertilizer by hydrolyzing catfish byproducts. Due to the large increases in prices for fish meal and fish oil during the last decade, raw fish byproduct has a significant if unrealized value (Bechtel & Smiley, 2010). There are few US catfish processors that manufacture other products from their catfish waste. Little use has been made of individual parts such as skin, or viscera components such as stomachs and livers, to make value‐added products.

Other major aquaculture industries and wild fish processors are devising ways of getting more profit from their fish byproduct (Bechtel, 2003a; Bechtel & Smiley, 2010; Shahidi, 2007). Some progress has been made in evaluating catfish byproduct components such as using fish skin for making gelatin (Jiang, Shaoyang, Du, & Wang, 2010; Yang et al., 2007; Yin, Pu, Wan, Bechtel, & Sathivel, 2010), Vietnamese catfish meals (Nguyen, Lindberg, & Ogle, 2007), catfish oil (Sathivel, Prinyawiwatkul, Grimm, King, & Lloyd, 2002), catfish oil extraction (Sathivel, Yin, Prinyawiwatkul, & King, 2009b), catfish protein and hydrolysates (Davenport & Kristinsson, 2011; Theodore, Raghavan, & Kristinsson, 2008; Yin, Wan, Pu, Bechtel, & Sathivel, 2011), mince from frames (Hoke, Jahncke, Silva, Hernsberber, & Suriyaphan, 2000), minced belly flap meat (Wiles, Green, & Bryant, 2004), and catfish roe (Sathivel, Yin, Bechtel, & King, 2009a).

To increase the value of byproduct, it is imperative to know the composition of the raw material produced using modern automated processing equipment such as has been reported for other species (Bechtel, 2003a; Bechtel et al., 2009; Gunasekera, Turoczy, De Silva, & Gooley, 2002; Kotzamanis, Alexis, Andriopoulou, Castritsi‐Cathariou, & Fotis, 2001; Oliveira, Bechtel, Lapis, Ellingson, & Brenner, 2011; Oliveira, Bechtel, Morey, Lapis, & Brenner, 2014). The reference by Bryan, Freeman, and Graci (1979) provides limited information on selected channel catfish byproducts. However, there is little literature that characterizes both channel and hybrid catfish byproducts obtained from mechanized commercial catfish processing. Byproducts that are produced during mechanical processing of many species of fish include heads, frames, skin, viscera, and mince (fillet trim). These byproduct parts reflect the common unit operations that include heading, removal of viscera, cutting of the fillets from the back bone, removal of skin from fillets, and fillet trimming. The US catfish industry is evolving with greater production of hybrid catfish. Hybrid catfish differ from channel catfish in having a higher fillet yield, smaller heads, less viscera and a greater percent of visceral fat (Bosworth, Wolters, Silva, Chamul, & Park, 2004). There is a lack of data on the composition of hybrid catfish byproducts.

The objective of this research was to determine the chemical composition of channel and hybrid heads, frames, skin, viscera, and mince. This research is part of an effort to increase the value of fish processing byproducts by enhancing the knowledge of the chemical composition of fish byproducts that show potential as raw materials for the production of specialty food and feed ingredients.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Samples

Live catfish estimated to weigh between 0.45 kg and 0.9 kg were delivered on the mornings of December 6 (channel catfish) and December 11, 2012 (hybrid catfish) to a large commercial catfish processor in Mississippi. The processing line was totally automated with mechanical headers, extraction of viscera, separation of the fillets from the backbone, and removal of the skin from the fillet. Fillet mince was obtained from manually trimming of fillets prior to freezing or packaging. Three separate samples, 3–4 kg, of each catfish byproduct, including heads, frames, skin, viscera, and fillet mince were collected from the operating processing lines in plastic bags, which were placed in coolers and ice maintained in the coolers during transportation to the USDA/ARS Southern Regional Research Center in New Orleans, LA. Samples were then immediately frozen and held at −20°C until ground and analyzed. Samples were thawed and comminuted using a Hobart meat grinder (Model 548SS; Marblehead, OH) fitted with a plate with 6.4 mm holes. Half of each sample was stored at −70°C as raw sample and the other half was freeze dried (Virtis ES 35 Freeze Dryer) and then pulverized in a 1 L blender and the powder stored at −70°C. Frames and heads contain substantial amounts of skeletal muscle such as the collar area and cheek muscle tissue in heads, and some muscle tissue remains attached to the frame after the mechanical filleting operation. Catfish heads contained the heart and some of the liver. Frames also had some fins and some ribs attached. Viscera consisted of the stomach, intestine, internal fat pad, some liver and testes and egg when present. Skin contained small amounts of meat attached. Mince was predominantly pieces of muscle with some ribs and membrane components. Three replicate samples of the five body parts for both channel and hybrid catfish resulted in thirty samples.

2.2. Proximate analysis

Moisture and ash contents were determined using AOAC methods #952.08 and #938.08, respectively (AOAC, 1990). Nitrogen content was accessed by pyrolysis with a LECO FP‐2000 nitrogen analyzer (LECO Co., St. Joseph, MO). Protein content was calculated as 6.25 times % N. Total lipid content was determined gravimetrically by the method of Folch, Lees, and Sloane‐Stanley (1957) after extraction with an ASE (Dionex ASE 200) using methylene chloride. Solvent was removed under a N2 gas stream at 40°C using a TurboVap LV (Caliper Life Sciences) in preweighed vials. The remaining traces of solvent were removed under vacuum until constant weight was achieved, and percent lipids were determined gravimetrically. Oils were stored at −70°C until further analysis.

2.3. Preparation of fatty acid methyl esters and gas chromatography‐mass spectral analysis

Fatty acid methyl esters (FAME) were prepared using methanolic sodium methoxide in diethyl ether with methyl acetate for 15 min at ambient temperature, as described by Christie (1982). After quenching with saturated oxalic acid in ether, and centrifugation, the supernatant was evaporated to dryness in vacuo and FAMEs were dissolved in hexane for immediate analysis. Analysis was carried out on a GC model 6,890 with MS model 5973 (Agilent Technologies) fitted with an HP‐88 (30 m × 0.18 mm id., 0.18 μm film) limited thermal mass (LTM) capillary column (Agilent Technologies). The LTM column heating was controlled by integrated Gerstel Maestro software, beginning with a 1 min hold at 50°C, followed by a 25°C/min gradient to 140°C, a 3°C/min gradient to 215°C, and a 5°C/min gradient to 227°C. A helium flow rate of 1 ml/min was maintained by a programmed pressure gradient in the Chemstation software. An autosampler performed the GC injections of standards and sample, and injection volume was 1 μl. Data were collected and analyzed using the MSD ChemStation program (Rev.D.03.00.552; Agilent Technologies 1989‐2006). Identification of peaks was performed using a Supelco® (Bellefonte, PA) 37 component FAME mix standard, using base peak mass quantification curves to calculate amounts and percent FAME.

2.4. Amino acid analysis

Amino acid profiles were determined by the AAA Service Laboratory Inc. (Boring, OR). Samples were hydrolyzed with 6 mol/L HCl and 2% phenol at 110°C for 22 hr. Amino acids were quantified using the Beckman 6300 amino acid analyzer (Beckman Coulter, Brea, CA) with postcolumn ninhydrin derivatization. To minimize methionine losses, oxygen was removed by evacuation of the hydrolysis tubes that contained samples and acid for 10 min prior to putting them in the hydrolysis oven. Cysteine and tryptophan were not determined as separate hydrolysis procedures are required, which increases analysis cost. Two samples of each type of tissue were analyzed for amino acid composition.

2.5. Geosmin and 2‐Methylisoborneol analysis

Catfish were analyzed following the procedure described in Grimm, Lloyd, Batista, and Zimba (2000) with modifications made due to different equipment. Tissue was chopped into small pieces and the 20.0 ± 0.05 g chopped tissue was placed in a modified vacuum trap (Widgett Scientific, Baton Rouge, LA, USA) and 5 μl of a 10 ppm aqueous solution of decahydro‐1‐naphthol (DHN) were added as an internal standard. The trap was placed in a modified 1,000 W microwave oven (Kenmore, Hoffman Estates, IL, USA). Two holes were cut in the oven and protected with aluminum foil cylinders. A microwave detector was used to assure that no significant microwave energy escaped the oven. Nitrogen flowed in through the top hole and steam and N2 flowed out the side hole into a 50 ml glass cylinder located in a cold bath (Lauda, model RM6, Konegshofen, Germany) held at 0.0°C. The oven was operated at 20% power for 6 min while the N2 flowed at 40 ml/min. After heating, deionized water was used to make the total volume 14 ml. Seven milliliter was pipetted into each of two vials containing 2.9 g sodium chloride and then sealed with Teflon‐lined screw caps (Sigma‐Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA).

Vials were placed in an autosampler (model MPS‐2, Gerstel, Baltimore, MD, USA) maintained at room temperature until analyzed. Each sample was heated to 65°C and agitation at 750 rpm for 5 min. Samples in vials were then exposed to the 1‐cm‐long divinylbenzene–carboxen–polydimethylsiloxane SPME fiber (Supelco, Bellefonte, PA) for a 15‐min adsorption period while being agitated at 250 rpm. The fiber was withdrawn from the vial and desorbed at 270°C for 1 min in the injection port of a HP6890 GC equipped with a 5,973 mass‐selective detector (Hewlett‐Packard, Palo Alto, CA). The injection port was operated in pulsed‐splitless mode and fitted with a 0.75‐mm‐i.d. injection liner. The head pressure was set to 50 psi of helium for the first minute and then to a constant velocity of 40 cm/s for the remainder of the GC run. The quadrupole MS was operated in electron ionization mode. Selected Ion Monitoring (SIM) was employed for quantification of the target and qualifier ions for MIB, geosmin, and DHN.

2.6. Statistical analysis

The weighted means were derived from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the mean comparison test, Tukey‐Kramer adjustment to Least Squares Means, were performed in Proc Mixed using Enterprise Guide, version 5.1, (SAS, Inc., Cary, NC). Significance was reported at p < .05 for all data.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Proximate analysis

The moisture, protein, lipid, and ash contents of the five byproduct parts for both channel and hybrid catfish are listed in Table 1. Comparisons of common parts between channel and hybrid catfish indicate that there are significant differences between the composition of frames and skin for percent moisture, protein, and fat, although the numerical differences were small.

Table 1.

Proximate composition of channel and hybrid catfish byproducts

Channel Hybrid
Frame Head Skin Mince Viscera Frame Head Skin Mince Viscera
% Moisture 59.50bZ 68.29a 65.65aZ 64.68a 67.80a 61.62cY 68.23ab 70.40aY 63.01bc 66.17abc
SD 0.69 0.29 0.96 3.98 2.37 0.39 0.57 1.18 3.27 3.68
% Ash 5.09bY 6.70a 0.59d 2.25c 1.04dY 4.58bZ 6.99a 0.57d 1.93c 0.76dZ
SD 0.1 0.32 0.31 0.58 0.03 0.19 0.29 0.24 0.23 0.05
% Lipid 20.03aY 9.74c 13.62bY 19.22a 17.65a 19.13aZ 9.33b 10.00bZ 21.58a 21.40a
SD 0.45 0.86 0.6 2.33 2.04 0.3 0.48 1.15 2.56 3.72
% Protein 16.35bY 15.80b 22.82aY 15.41b 13.35c 15.72bZ 15.99b 19.89aZ 14.45c 13.77c
SD 0.42 0.48 0.65 1.69 0.71 0.77 0.68 0.49 1.56 1.11
Open in a new tab

Values are means from three replicate samples and standard deviation.

a, b, c, d within a row and within species (channel or Hybrid) represent significant differences (p < .05) based on Tukey‐Kramer adjustment to least square means test.

Y, Z within a row but between common byproduct parts (channel frames vs. hybrid frames) represent significant differences (p < .05) based on Tukey‐Kramer adjustment to least square means test.

The moisture content ranged from a high of 70.4% for hybrid skin to a low of 59.5% of channel frames. As expected there were significant differences between the ash % of different byproduct parts. Ash contents of 6.7 and 7.0% were found in the heads of channel and hybrid catfish, respectively. These values are similar to the value reported for channel catfish heads of 8% by Bryan et al. (1979) but higher than the values of 4.6, 4.2, and 3.6% for Alaska pollock, pacific cod, and pink salmon (Bechtel, 2003b). The high percentage of ash in catfish heads is of interest as the head as a percent of the body weight was reported to be 24% for channel and 21.2% for hybrid catfish (Bosworth et al., 2004). The ash content of catfish frames was 5.1 and 4.6 percent for channel and hybrid frames, respectively. These values are higher than reported for several marine species (Bechtel, 2003b). Ash values of the skin, guts, and mince were lower than those determined for heads and frames, reflecting the lack of bone in these parts. The mince had an average ash content of 2.1%, which could be attributed in part to the rib bones trimmed from the fillets.

The protein content of all parts ranged from a low of 13.4% for channel viscera to a high of 22.8% for channel skin. Similar high protein values of 25% and 24.5% were reported for Alaska pollock and pacific cod skin samples (Bechtel, 2003b); however, these values were higher than the 17% value reported for catfish skin by Bryan et al. (1979). The protein values for the catfish byproduct parts were similar to values reported for parts from other marine species (Bechtel, 2003b).

The lipid content in all the parts of catfish byproducts was >9.0% and values ranged from an average low value of 9.5% for heads to an average high value of 19.6% for frames. Bryan et al. (1979) reported % fat values of 3% for catfish skin, 8% for heads, and 15–33% for viscera depending on the time of the year samples were collected. One possibility for the higher fat % found in the heads of this study could be due to the pieces of liver that remained attached to the head after the beheading operation. In this study, the samples were collected in late fall and the viscera fat content was 21.4% for the hybrid and 17.7% for the channel. Bosworth et al. (2004) reported that the viscera for channel and hybrid catfish contributed 12.3% and 11.7% of the weight of channel and hybrid catfish. The average lipid content of the catfish skin in this study was 11.8%, which was much higher than the 3% value reported for catfish skins by Bryan et al. (1979) and values of 0.4 and 0.3% reported for Alaska pollock and pacific cod (Bechtel, 2003b). The high values found in this study could possibly reflect the skinning process where more of the subcutaneous fat layer was retained on the skin after the skinning operation.

There were significant differences in the fat content of the different byproduct parts with the heads and skin having lower lipid contents than frames, viscera, and mince (Table 1). However, the percent lipid found in all the byproducts was high when compared to the lipid levels found in ocean‐harvested marine byproducts. Catfish byproducts are a good source of fish oil and protein, which make these products good candidates for the production of food and feed oil and protein ingredients.

3.2. Fatty acid profiles

Oils were extracted from all channel and hybrid catfish byproducts and the fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) profiles are shown in Table 2. Quantities of FAME (above 1%) are reported in the table. The most abundant FAME in all catfish tissues evaluated was oleic acid, where values ranged from a high of 45.6% in hybrid mince to a low of 40.6% in hybrid heads. The second most abundant fatty acid was linoleic ranged from 21.6% to a low of 17.6%. The third most abundant fatty acid was palmitic acid, which ranged from a high of 20.7% to a low of 17.4%. These three fatty acids constituted approximately 80% of the fatty acids found in all byproduct parts analyzed. Another fatty acid found in relatively high abundance in catfish parts was stearic acid, which ranged from 3.1% in hybrid skin to 4.6% in channel heads. The fatty acid compositions of channel and hybrid parts were similar.

Table 2.

FAME profile (g/100 g oil) of channel and hybrid catfish byproducts

Fatty acids Channel Hybrid
Frame Head Skin Mince Viscera Frame Head Skin Mince Viscera
C14 1.03 0.97Z 1.09 1.10 1.15 1.10 1.23Y 1.12 1.10 1.13
SD 0.10 0.04 0.11 0.04 0.17 0.13 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.02
C16 18.17ab 19.16a 17.57abZ 17.70ab 17.42bZ 18.33ab 20.69a 18.46abY 17.68ab 18.60abY
SD 0.48 1.32 0.31 0.08 0.20 0.55 2.04 0.10 0.15 0.09
C18 4.01 4.55 3.67 3.71 4.04 3.51ab 4.49a 3.07b 3.67ab 4.02ab
SD 0.66 1.06 0.47 0.14 0.66 0.38 0.55 0.07 0.44 0.46
Σ S FA 23.21 24.69 22.33 22.51 22.61Z 22.94b 26.41a 22.65b 22.45b 23.75abZ
SD 0.27 2.42 0.49 0.04 0.52 0.71 2.63 0.18 0.27 0.54
16:1ω7 2.37 1.88Z 2.60 2.51 2.86 2.54 2.41Y 2.70 2.50 2.53
SD 0.39 0.14 0.31 0.06 0.71 0.35 0.20 0.11 0.02 0.03
18:1ω9 43.25bc 42.60c 44.67abcY 45.48a 44.93abY 42.99b 40.63c 43.22bZ 45.58a 41.07cZ
SD 0.38 1.36 0.80 0.53 0.82 1.01 0.33 0.49 0.20 0.64
20:1ω9 1.28bc 1.36aZ 1.30ab 1.20cZ 1.26bc 1.29b 1.58aY 1.41ab 1.36bY 1.31b
SD 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.12 0.03 0.07 0.04 0.05
Σ M FA 46.90ab 45.84b 48.57ab 49.20a 49.05aY 46.81b 44.61c 47.33b 49.44a 44.91cZ
SD 0.05 1.45 1.08 0.58 1.54 0.56 0.45 0.61 0.21 0.67
18:2ω6 20.88 19.68 19.44 19.37 17.62 20.87ab 19.03b 20.71ab 19.43ab 21.58a
SD 0.23 1.23 1.55 0.73 2.98 0.43 1.83 0.40 0.33 0.12
18:3ω3 1.46 1.24 1.73 1.57 1.80 1.56 1.49 1.62 1.53 1.83
SD 0.21 0.08 0.26 0.12 0.40 0.19 0.24 0.05 0.07 0.02
20:2ω6 1.04 1.05 1.02Z 1.00 1.01Z 1.08b 1.13ab 1.11abY 1.06b 1.18aY
SD 0.11 0.08 0.03 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.01
20:3ω6 1.17 1.37 1.11 1.11 1.24Y 1.22 1.26 1.28 1.12 1.08Z
SD 0.07 0.13 0.18 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.16 0.06 0.08 0.05
22:6ω3 1.16
SD 0.54
Σ P FA 24.55 23.34 23.30 23.05 22.82 24.73ab 22.91b 24.72ab 23.14ab 25.67a
SD 0.17 1.52 1.49 0.63 2.12 0.31 2.19 0.49 0.26 0.18
Σ All FA 94.65ab 93.88b 94.20ab 94.75a 94.49ab 94.48ab 93.94b 94.70a 95.03a 94.32ab
SD 0.09 0.33 0.5 0.07 0.43 0.56 0.01 0.01 0.21 0.31
Σ ω3 1.46b 1.24b 1.73b 1.57b 2.96a 1.56 1.49 1.62 1.53 1.83
SD 0.21 0.08 0.26 0.12 0.94 0.19 0.24 0.05 0.07 0.02
Σ ω6 23.10 22.10 21.56 21.48 19.87 23.17 21.42 23.10 21.61 23.84
SD 0.17 1.44 1.74 0.74 3.06 0.49 1.96 0.47 0.24 0.18
Open in a new tab

If a given FA value was less than 1 g/100 g oil for all samples, the FA was not included in the table.

Values are means from three replicate samples and standard deviation.

S is saturated, M is monounsaturated, P is polyunsaturated, FA is fatty acid.

a, b, c, d within a row and within species (channel or Hybrid) represent significant differences (p < .05) based on Tukey‐Kramer adjustment to least square means test.

Y, Z within a row but between common byproduct parts (channel frames vs. hybrid frames) represent significant differences (p < .05) based on Tukey‐Kramer adjustment to least square means test.

Hybrid viscera had the highest levels of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) at 25.7%. The most abundant polyunsaturated fatty acid was linoleic. Values for arachidonic acid (20:4ω6) were below 1% in the byproducts and were not reported. The total omega‐3 values for catfish byproducts are lower than comparable values reported by Oliveira and Bechtel (2005) for pollock (25.4–35.3%) and salmon (27.8–35.2%) byproducts. The percent of the long chain omega 3 eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) values were all less than 1% in all channel and hybrid byproducts. The only long chain omega‐3 fatty acid with a content of EPA or DHA over 1% was 22:6ω3 in channel viscera. Levels of monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA) in catfish byproducts ranged from 49.4% for hybrid mince to 44.6% hybrid heads, which were higher than comparable values from pollock (34.0–47.1%) and salmon (34.2–42.7%) byproducts (Oliveira & Bechtel, 2005). The saturated fatty acids values for channel and hybrid byproduct parts are listed in Table 2. Percent saturated fatty acids were similar for comparable parts and ranged from 26.4% for hybrid heads to 22.3% for channel skin.

The P/S ratios ranged from 1.1 for hybrid viscera to 0.9 for hybrid head. The total omega‐3 content of fatty acids ranged from 3.0 to 1.2%, while the omega‐6 content ranged from 23.8% to 19.9%. Others have reported the omega‐3/omega‐6 ratio in fish byproducts (Gunasekera et al., 2002; Kotzamanis et al., 2001; Oliveira & Bechtel, 2005).

3.3. Amino acids profile

Table 3 lists the amino acid composition of channel and hybrid catfish parts including heads, frames, skin, viscera, and fillet mince. Few differences were detected between comparable channel and hybrid parts. Differences were determined between byproducts both for essential and for nonessential amino acids. Value for three potentially limiting amino acids ranged from 1.7 to 2.9% for methionine, 4.2 to 8.2% for lysine, and 3.1 to 5.0% for threonine. Methionine, lysine, and threonine were lower in skin than the other byproducts, reflecting the high collagen content in skin. Overall, the ranges for these three amino acids matched closely with results reported by Bechtel and Johnson (2004) for the amino acid composition of similar byproduct parts from pink salmon, Alaska pollock, and Pacific cod. In this study, values for cysteine and tryptophan were not determined due to increased analysis costs.

Table 3.

Amino Acid Profiles of Channel and Hybrid Byproducts (% wt/wt)

Channel Hybrid
Frame Head Skin Mince Viscera Frame Head Skin Mince Viscera
ALA 7.17b 7.88b 9.08a 6.85b 6.81b 7.47b 7.39b 8.83a 6.77c 6.51c
SD 0.19 0.13 0.11 0.44 0.48 0.01 0.16 0.02 0.09 0.11
ARG 6.87b 7.15b 8.03a 6.88b 6.83b 7.09b 6.98bc 8.10a 6.69d 6.79 cd
SD 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.19 0.29 0.11 0.09 0.05 0.01 0.04
ASP 9.37ab 8.22bc 6.75c 10.32a 9.28ab 8.83bc 8.54c 6.59d 9.76a 9.50ab
SD 0.48 0.02 0.12 0.63 0.35 0.04 0.24 0.05 0.17 0.37
GLU 13.06ab 11.30bc 10.05cY 14.25a 12.33abc 12.05b 11.85b 9.66cZ 12.97a 11.61b
SD 0.69 0.31 0.13 1.14 0.29 0.25 0.18 0.01 0.04 0.37
GLY 11.24bc 15.30ab 20.19a 8.71c 9.26c 13.11b 13.47b 19.65a 9.64c 10.35c
SD 0.77 0.51 0.49 2.71 0.43 0.10 0.80 0.14 0.58 0.27
HIS* 1.84b 1.75b 1.17c 1.96ab 2.27a 1.89c 1.93c 1.30d 2.06b 2.24a
SD 0.05 0.08 0.06 0.19 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.06
Hlys 0.35bcZ 0.47abZ 0.64aZ 0.18cZ 0.27bcZ 0.85Y 0.99Y 1.35Y 0.91Y 1.12Y
SD 0.04 0.08 0.02 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.38
HYP 3.30bc 5.00ab 7.39a 2.13c 2.21c 3.99b 4.16b 7.00a 2.52c 2.60c
SD 0.50 0.30 0.24 1.24 0.44 0.09 0.39 0.01 0.32 0.08
ILE* 3.77ab 3.12ab 2.21b 4.35a 4.14a 3.43b 3.29b 2.20c 4.09a 4.12a
SD 0.23 0.07 0.09 0.55 0.72 0.04 0.17 0.02 0.15 0.01
LEU* 6.63ab 5.50bc 3.80c 7.63a 7.95a 6.06b 6.01b 3.76c 7.04a 7.27a
SD 0.39 0.19 0.17 0.92 0.19 0.03 0.31 0.01 0.22 0.25
LYS* 8.02aY 5.75bZ 4.20c 7.61a 6.84ab 6.71bZ 6.50bY 4.39c 8.23a 6.32b
SD 0.41 0.02 0.19 0.46 0.26 0.11 0.21 0.04 0.19 0.69
MET* 2.55ab 2.05bc 1.74c 2.89a 2.26abc 2.40b 2.14c 1.73d 2.72a 2.37b
SD 0.13 0.05 0.04 0.32 0.13 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.01
PHE* 3.73ab 3.32b 2.50c 4.13a 4.36a 3.50b 3.58b 2.48c 4.04a 4.26a
SD 0.14 0.10 0.08 0.36 0.23 0.02 0.14 0.01 0.08 0.09
PRO 5.69b 8.03ab 10.02aZ 4.28b 5.96b 7.11b 7.66b 10.97aY 5.72c 6.29c
SD 1.46 0.81 0.20 1.35 0.60 0.05 0.32 0.11 0.28 0.09
SER 4.58b 4.48b 4.34b 4.60b 5.19a 4.47b 4.54b 4.14c 4.46b 5.07a
SD 0.14 0.12 0.01 0.13 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.05
THR* 4.38a 3.98ab 3.13b 4.79a 4.98a 4.14b 4.06b 3.09c 4.52a 4.83a
SD 0.09 0.08 0.06 0.37 0.43 0.03 0.16 0.00 0.08 0.07
TYR 2.92ab 2.42bc 1.37c 3.34ab 3.73a 2.67c 2.71c 1.42d 3.22b 3.88a
SD 0.15 0.06 0.10 0.48 0.40 0.01 0.16 0.03 0.11 0.05
VAL* 4.55abY 4.29bc 3.38c 5.09ab 5.34a 4.25bZ 4.21b 3.25c 4.66a 4.85a
SD 0.05 0.17 0.08 0.46 0.20 0.04 0.14 0.00 0.12 0.08
EAA 35.46ab 29.76b 22.13c 38.45a 38.13a 32.37b 31.71b 22.21c 37.35a 36.28a
SD 1.50 0.62 0.74 3.65 1.82 0.09 1.13 0.04 0.92 0.15
NEAA 64.54bc 70.24b 77.87a 61.55c 61.87c 67.63b 68.29b 77.79a 62.65c 63.72c
SD 1.50 0.62 0.74 3.65 1.82 0.09 1.13 0.04 0.92 0.15
Open in a new tab

Values are means from two replicate samples and standard deviation.

EAA is essential amino acids (*), NEAA is nonessential amino acids.

a, b, c, d within a row and within species (channel or Hybrid) represent significant differences (p < .05) based on Tukey‐Kramer adjustment to least square means test.

Y, Z within a row but between common byproduct parts (channel frames vs. hybrid frames) represent significant differences (p < .05) based on Tukey‐Kramer adjustment to least square means test.

Amino acid analysis of skins indicated substantially higher levels of glycine and proline than other byproducts and, in addition, skin contained lower amounts of the sulfur‐containing amino acids methionine. Nagai and Suzuki (2000) have reported the distinctive amino acid profile of collagen. The hydroxyproline content found in channel and hybrid heads was 5.00% and 4.16%, respectively. Low levels of hydroxylysine were detected in all tissues and the content was greater in hybrid byproducts than comparable channel catfish byproducts parts. Arginine content of byproducts ranged from 6.7 to 8.1%.

3.4. Geosmin and MIB determinations

Table 4 lists the concentrations of geosmin and MIB that were determined in the channel and hybrid byproduct parts. MIB was not detected in any of the byproduct samples analyzed. The MIB assay detection limit was greater than 0.01 ppb. Geosmin was detected in all channel and hybrid byproducts; however, the concentrations were all below 1 ppb. The highest concentration was in hybrid fillet mince (0.9 ppb), which had a lipid content of 21.6% and the lowest concentration of geosmin was in hybrid skin (0.24 ppb), which had a low fat content of 10% (Table 1). There is little indication of MIB or geosmin being sequestered in any of the byproduct tissues examined. The sensory threshold for detection of geosmin in farm‐raised barramundi has been reported to be 0.74 ppb (Jones, Fuller, & Carton, 2013), and 0.9 ppb in farm‐raised trout (Robertson, Jauncey, Beveridge, & Lawton, 2005).

Table 4.

Concentration (ppb) of geosmin and MIB in channel and hybrid catfish byproducts

Channel Hybrid
Frame Head Skin Mince Viscera Frame Head Skin Mince Viscera
MIB N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D
GSM 0.31bZ 0.28b 0.45ab 0.77a 0.41ab 0.54bY 0.31bc 0.24c 0.90a 0.31bc
SD 0.12 0.06 0.24 0.12 0.23 0.04 0.11 0.02 0.11 0.16
Open in a new tab

Values are means from three replicate samples and standard deviation.

MIB is 2‐methylisoborneol.

a, b, c, d within a row and within species (channel or Hybrid) represent significant differences (p < .05) based on Tukey‐Kramer adjustment to least square means test.

Y, Z within a row but between common byproduct parts (channel frames vs. hybrid frames) represent significant differences (p < .05) based on Tukey‐Kramer adjustment to least square means test.

N/D = not detected (<0.01 ppb).

4. Conclusion

Comparable channel and hybrid byproducts are similar in composition including % moisture, lipid, ash, protein, and fatty acid and amino acid profiles. There were major differences in the composition of different byproduct parts with the skin being the most different with a lower lipid content and a distinctive amino acid profile. All channel and hybrid byproducts had high % lipid values between 9.3% and 21.6%. The catfish off‐flavor compound, geosmin, was present in all byproduct samples at concentrations below 1 ppb. Results from this study will be used in the development of new value‐added products from catfish byproducts.

Conflict of Interest

None declared.

Bechtel PJ, Bland JM, Bett‐Garber KL, et al. Chemical and nutritional properties of channel and hybrid catfish byproducts. Food Sci Nutr. 2017;5:981–988. https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.483

References

  1. AOAC . (1990). Official methods of analysis (15th Ed.). Arlington, VA: Association of Official Analytical Chemists. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bechtel P. J. (Ed.) (2003a). Advances in seafood byproducts: 2002 conference proceedings. University of Alaska Fairbanks: Alaska Sea Grant. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bechtel, P. J. (2003b). Properties of different fish processing by‐products from pollock, cod and salmon. Food Processing Perseveration, 27, 101–116. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bechtel, P. J. , & Johnson, R. (2004). Nutritional properties of pollock, cod and salmon processing byproducts. Journal of Aquatic Food Product Technology, 13, 125–142. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bechtel, P. J. , Morey, A. , Oliveira, A. C. M. , Wu, T. H. , Plant, S. , & Bower, C. K. (2009). Chemical and nutritional properties of Pacific Ocean perch (Sebastes alutus) whole fish and by‐products. Journal of Food Processing Preservation, 34, 55–72. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bechtel P. J., & Smiley S. (Eds.) (2010). A sustainable future: fish processing byproducts. University of Alaska Fairbanks: Alaska Sea Grant. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bosworth, B. G. , Wolters, W. R. , Silva, J. L. , Chamul, R. S. , & Park, S. (2004). Comparison of production, meat yield, and meat quality traits of NWAC103 line channel catfish, Norris line channel catfish, and female channel catfish X male blue catfish F1 hybrids. North American Journal of Aquaculture, 66, 177–183. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bryan, W. L. , Freeman, D. W. , & Graci, A. V . (1979). Potential by‐products from catfish processing waste. Proceedings Eighth Annual Catfish Processors Workshop; 1979 Nov.14; Mississippi State University.
  9. Christie, W. W. (1982). A simple procedure for rapid transmethylation of glycerolipids and cholesteryl esters. Journal of Lipid Research, 23, 1072–1075. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Crapo, C. , & Bechtel, P. J. (2003). Utilization of Alaska's seafood processing byproducts In Bechtel P. J. (Ed.), Advances in Seafood Byproducts: 2002 Conference Proceedings (pp. 105–119). University of Alaska Fairbanks: Alaska Sea Grant. [Google Scholar]
  11. Davenport, M. P. , & Kristinsson, H. G. (2011). Channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) muscle protein isolate performance processed under different acid and alkali pH values. Journal of Food Science, 76, E240–E247. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Folch, J. , Lees, M. , & Sloane‐Stanley, G. H. (1957). A simple method for the isolation and purification of total lipids from animal tissues. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 226, 497–509. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Gresham, J. (2012). Two new byproduct plants in Alabama near start up. The Catfish Journal, 2012, 14–15. [Google Scholar]
  14. Grimm, C. C. , Lloyd, S. W. , Batista, R. , & Zimba, P. V. (2000). Using microwave distillation‐solid‐phase microextraction‐gas chromatography‐mass spectrometry for analyzing fish tissue. Journal of Chromatographic Science, 38, 289–296. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Gunasekera, R. M. , Turoczy, N. J. , De Silva, S. S. , & Gooley, G. J. (2002). An evaluation of the suitability of selected waste products in feeds for three fish species. Journal of Aquatic Food Product Technology, 11, 57–78. [Google Scholar]
  16. Hanson, T. (2015). Catfish Processing and Feed Report. The Catfish Journal, 2015, 18–20. [Google Scholar]
  17. Hoke, M. E. , Jahncke, M. L. , Silva, J. L. , Hernsberber, R. S. , & Suriyaphan, O. (2000). Stability of washed frozen mince from channel catfish frames. Journal of Food Science, 65, 1083–1086. [Google Scholar]
  18. Jiang, M. , Shaoyang, L. , Du, X. , & Wang, Y. (2010). Physical properties and internal microstructures of films from catfish skin gelatin and triacetin mixtures. Journal of Food Hydrocolloids, 24, 105–110. [Google Scholar]
  19. Jones, B. , Fuller, S. , & Carton, A. G. (2013). Earthy‐muddy tainting of cultured barramundi linked to geosmin in tropical northern Australia. Aquaculture Environment Interacteraction, 3, 117–124. [Google Scholar]
  20. Kotzamanis, Y. P. , Alexis, M. N. , Andriopoulou, A. , Castritsi‐Cathariou, I. , & Fotis, G. (2001). Utilization of waste material resulting from trout processing in gilthead bream (Sparus aurata L.) diets. Aquaculture Research, 32, 288–295. [Google Scholar]
  21. Nagai, T. , & Suzuki, N. (2000). Isolation of collagen from waste material‐skin, bone and fins. Food Chemistry, 68, 277–281. [Google Scholar]
  22. Nguyen, T. T. , Lindberg, J. E. , & Ogle, B. (2007). Survey of the production, processing and nutritive value of catfish by‐product meals in the Mekong Delta of Vietnam. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 19, http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd19/9/thuy19124.htm. article #124. [Google Scholar]
  23. Oliveira, A. C. M. , & Bechtel, P. J. (2005). Lipid composition of Alaskan pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) and Alaska Walleye Pollock (Theragra chalcogramma) by‐products. Journal of Aquatic Food Product Technology, 14, 73–91. [Google Scholar]
  24. Oliveira, A. C. M. , Bechtel, P. J. , Lapis, T. J. , Ellingson, R. , & Brenner, K. A. (2011). Chemical composition of black rockfish (Sebastes melanops) fillets and byproducts. J. Food Proc. Preserv., ISSN 0145‐8892; doi:10.1111/j.1745‐4549.2010.00489.x [Google Scholar]
  25. Oliveira, A. C. M. , Bechtel, P. J. , Morey, A. , Lapis, T. J. , & Brenner, K. (2014). Chemical composition of spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) harvested in Alaska. J. Food. Proc. Preserv., 38, 600–606 [Google Scholar]
  26. Robertson, R. F. , Jauncey, K. , Beveridge, M. C. M. , & Lawton, L. A. (2005). Depuration rates and the sensory threshold concentration of geosmin responsible for earthy‐musty taint in rainbow trout, Onchorhynchus mykiss . Aquaculture, 245, 89–99. [Google Scholar]
  27. Sathivel, S. , Prinyawiwatkul, W. , Grimm, C. C. , King, J. M. , & Lloyd, S. W. (2002). Fatty acid composition of crude oil recovered from catfish viscera. Journal of the American Oil Chemists Society, 79, 989–992. [Google Scholar]
  28. Sathivel, S. , Yin, H. , Bechtel, P. J. , & King, J. M. (2009a). Physical and nutritional properties of spray dried protein powders from catfish roe and its application in an emulsion system. Journal of Food Engineering, 95, 76–81. [Google Scholar]
  29. Sathivel, S. , Yin, H. , Prinyawiwatkul, W. , & King, J. M. (2009b). Comparison of chemical and physical properties of catfish oils prepared from different extracting processes. Journal of Food Science, 74, E70–E76. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Shahidi F. (ed.). (2007). Maximising the value of marine by‐products Pp. (435–449). CRC Press, AbingtonCambridge, UK: Woodhead Publishing Limited Abington Hall. [Google Scholar]
  31. Theodore, A. E. , Raghavan, S. , & Kristinsson, H. G. (2008). Antioxidative activity of protein hydrolysates prepared from alkaline‐aided channel catfish protein Isolates. Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry, 56, 7459–7466. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Wiles, J. L. , Green, B. W. , & Bryant, R. (2004). Texture profile analysis of a minced catfish product. Journal of Texture Studies, 35, 325–337. [Google Scholar]
  33. Yang, H. , Wang, Y. , Jiang, M. , Oh, J. , Herring, J. , & Zhou, P. (2007). 2‐Step optimization of the extraction and subsequent physical properties of channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) skin gelatin. Journal of Food Science, 72, C188–C195. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Yin, H. , Pu, J. , Wan, Y. , Bechtel, P. J. , & Sathivel, S. (2010). Rheological and functional properties of catfish skin hydrolysate. Journal of Food Science, 75, E11–E17. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Yin, H. , Wan, Y. , Pu, J. , Bechtel, P. J. , & Sathivel, S. (2011). Functional and rheological properties of protein fractions of channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) and their effects in an emulsion system. Journal of Food Science, 76, E283–E290. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Food Science & Nutrition are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES