Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Tropical Life Sciences Research logoLink to Tropical Life Sciences Research
. 2021 Mar 31;32(1):163–174. doi: 10.21315/tlsr2021.32.1.10

Fillet Yield and Length-Weight Relationship of Five Fish Species From Lower Benue River, Makurdi, Nigeria

Okomoda Victor Tosin 1,2,*, Solomon Shola Gabriel 1, Songbe S Wukatda 1, Ikape Simon I 1,3, Ikhwanuddin Mhd 2, Abol-Munafi Ambok Bolong 2,5,*
PMCID: PMC8054667  PMID: 33936557

Abstract

The body characteristics and yield indices of Clarias gariepinus, Bagrus bajad, Synodontis nigrita, Labeo senegalensis and Mormyrus rume from lower Benue River in Nigeria were determined in this study using 60 samples each for the fish species. Length, weight and fillet correlations were also determined during the study. Results obtained showed that M. rume, L. senegalensis and C. gariepinus had the highest percentage of edible parts (≥ 55%) compared to the other species (≤ 39%). Concerning correlations of the fillet with the morphological variables, results obtained suggest that fillet yield is independent of fish size (except for C. gariepinus which was positively correlated). Also, only samples of L. senegalensis showed isometric growth pattern; the other fish species had either positive (C. gariepinus and B. bajad) or negative (S. nigrita and M. rume) allometric growth. While the difference in fillet yield and body characteristics was attributed to the structural anatomy and other biological dynamics of the fishes, this study could not establish a connection between fillet yield and the length-weight relationship. It was concluded that M. rume, L. senegalensis and C. gariepinus would be better export products because of their higher fillet yields.

Keywords: Benue River, Carcass Yield, Frame Weight, Length-Weight Relationship

Highlights.

  • Fillet percentage was higher in Mormyrus rume Labeo senegalensis and Clarias gariepinus (≥ 55%).

  • Fillet characters was not significantly correlated with morphological variables for most species studied.

  • Isometric growth was observed only in L. senegalensis.

INTRODUCTION

The fisheries industry is dynamic and the changes experienced are geared towards meeting consumer’s diverse needs and preferences. The changing consumers’ taste and advances in technology have made value addition imperative for increased profit (Morris 2013). The high consumption of processed and frozen food is predicated on consumer’s preference for foods requiring less time to prepare, giving them more convenience (Yasemi et al. 2011; Costa et al. 2014). Hence, the economic importance of marketing fish as packaged fillets has grown exponentially (Saldanha et al. 2008). Fillet and carcass yields are very important variables for both the fish processing industry and fish farmers as they can be used to assess the economic value of different fish species (Macedo-Viegas & Souza 2004). Fillet yield is the edible portion of the fish body and therefore excludes the frame, fins, viscera organs and scales (Solomon & Akogu 2005). This, therefore, reduces the bulky transportation of fresh fish products from point of production to the retail shop and saves the consumers the drudgery of cleaning/processing the raw fish before cooking. Sales of fish fillet may not be common in Africa and many developing countries of the world due to infrastructure decadence; however, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2014) had stated that it is a viable means of introducing tropical fish products into the international markets. Consequently, fish farmers in Sub-Saharan African need to be aware, enlightened and encouraged to produce commercially viable fish fillets to maximise profit.

Many of the fish families in the Benue River (Nigeria) are not commercially relevance. However, despite the high exploitation of family Clarridae, Bagridae, Mochokidae, Cyprinidae and Mormyridae, there is little or no information about their processing traits (fillet yield). Generally, freshwater fish species in Nigeria have been poorly reported with only a few studies carried out in the last few decades (Eyo 1991; Solomon & Akogu 2005; Adeyemo 2013; Ikape & Solomon 2018). Many of these studies, did not report information on the correlation of the different fillet variables with body characteristics. Such studies may be useful for developing models to predict carcass fillet yield of live fish without necessarily killing the fish. This has been demonstrated in earlier studies where fish body characteristics were used as predictors of fillet yield (Rutten et al. 2004; Kause et al. 2007; Nguyen et al. 2010; Thodesen et al. 2012). Data collected from fillet yield studies, can also predict the non-edible part and used for the calculation of length-weight relationships (Ikape & Solomon 2018). While the former provides an index to predict the profitability of fish produced, the latter dictates the well-being of the fish during rearing. This study is therefore designed to determine the body characteristics, fillet yield indices (including non-edible parts), the correlation between these variables, and the length-weight relations for some selected freshwater fish species from lower Benue River.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was carried out in the lower Benue River at Makurdi, the capital of Benue State, Nigeria (located at longitude 7°44'43.10''N and latitude 8°30'44.99''E). Benue River is the major tributary of the Niger River and it is approximately 1,400 km long and is almost entirely navigable during the summer months. The fish samples for this study were collected from fishermen operating along the lower Benue River close to the public market place (Fig. 1). Sixty fish samples of Clarias gariepinus (Clarridae), Bagrus bajad (Bagridae), Synodontis nigrita (Mochokidae), Labeo senegalensis (Cyprinidae) and Mormyrus rume (Mormyridae) were collected (for each species) over six months. The selection of the fish species for each family was based on the commonality and abundance of catches (Solomon et al. 2012), market value (high price), and consumer’s preference for these fishes around the Makurdi environ. The collected samples were washed with tap water (to remove any adhering material) and then placed on ice in insulated boxes for preservation. The samples were thereafter transferred to the nutrition laboratory of the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Federal University of Agriculture, Makurdi.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Map of Benue State showing the study area.

(Source: https://www.google.com.ng/maps)

At the laboratory, the biometric variables were recorded. The total length was obtained using a measuring rule (cm) while body weights of the fishes were gotten using an electronic weighing balance (grams). Filleting was done by four skilled fish processors. The procedure for filleting was according to the report of Yenmak et al. (2018) following the few modifications made by Okomoda et al. (2020). In brief, the scales (i.e., for the L. senegalensis with scales) and fins were removed manually from the fish using a sharp knife. The fish were then cut from the top of the head, down the side behind the pectoral fins and along the side of the dorsal fins. The fillet was then removed by cutting along the vertebrae from head to tail. The viscera organs, heads and skeletons (frames) were then separated from fillet left on the cut fish. The various parts were then weighed separately using a sensitive weighing balance and recorded. The percentages of each dressed part (i.e., fillets, head, gut and frame) relative to the weight of whole fish were calculated as follows:

% dressed part=(Weight of dressed partTotal weight)×100

Data from each fish species were analysed using Minitab 14. Firstly, descriptive statistics (i.e., means and standard errors) were done for the different variables (fillets, heads, gut and frame) across the species studied. Thereafter, they were subjected to one-way ANOVA. Where significant differences occurred, the means of the fillets, heads, gut and frame were separate across the species using Fisher’s LSD (P ≤ 0.05). Pearson’s correlations of the length/weight of the fish and filleting variables were done using the Minitab software. The length-weight relationship of the different fish species was calculated using the equation given by Le Cren (1951) and Ricker (1973) as follows:

LogW=a+b log L

where L = total length in centimetres, W = weight in grams, a = intercept and b = slope.

The hypothesis tested in this study was that the weight of fillets, heads, gut and frame differed among the different species of fish studied.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The findings of this study show differences in fillet weight (53 g–233 g) and percentages (34%–65%) for the species studied (Tables 1 and 2). Neto et al. (2012) had earlier reported 32% fillet for Pacu (Colossoma bidens) and Tambaqui (Colossoma macropomum). Fillet yield of farmed and wild Nile Tilapia was also ascertained to be between 32% and 37% as reported by Sulieman and James (2011). While in the case of Thailand tilapia (Oreochromis spp.) average filleting yield was 31%, ranging between 28.9% and 33.6% (Pinheiro et al. 2006). Similarly, different strains of Nile tilapia showed between 31%–38% fillet percentages in the study reported by Rutten et al. (2004) and Peterman and Phelps (2012). The fillet yield percentages in our study are also larger than those reported for palmetto bass (33.2%), Jundiá Rhamdia quelen (29.5%) and sunshine bass (33.6%–34.9%) by Swann et al. (1994), Carneiro et al. (2004), and Rudacille and Kohler (2000), respectively. Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus has been reported to have average fillet yields of 30.9% (Clement & Lovell 1994), carp with 53% fillet (FAO 1985), and Coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch 58% (Neira et al. 2004). In other species, fillet percentages varied from 35% in Asian catfish Pangasianodon hypophthalmus (Sang et al. 2009) and Gilthead Seabream Sparus auratus (Navarro et al. 2009) to 41% in Common Carp (Kocour et al. 2007; Bauer & Schlott 2009) and Channel Catfish (Argue et al. 2003). Fillet yields were higher in the studies by Kause et al. (2002) for Rainbow trout O. mykiss (64%), Powell et al. (2008) for Atlantic salmon Salmo salar (69%), FAO (1985) for trout (70%) and Oksuz (2010) for cultured Bluefin tuna, Thunnus thynnus (73%).

Table 1.

Mean dressed part of five fish species from lower Benue River.

Species Whole body weight (g) Total length (cm) Gut weight (g) Head weight (g) Frame weight (bone) (g) Edible fillet weight (g)
C. gariepinus 424.00 ± 62.2a 37.86 ± 1.95a 24.22 ± 4.76a 124.00 ± 16.2a 32.7 ± 4.47a 233.0 ± 28.9a
B. bajad 235.00 ± 57.1b 29.73 ± 0.91b 6.92 ± 0.78d 52.52 ± 4.70b 8.26 ± 0.62b 91.83 ± 8.95c
S. nigrita 152.00 ± 14.1c 23.28 ± 0.58c 16.42 ± 3.58b 46.45 ± 3.29c 8.27 ± 0.76b 53.17 ± 4.70c
L. senegalensis 160.30 ± 18.9c 25.35 ± 0.82c 10.66 ± 1.76c 23.01 ± 2.43d 11.49 ± 1.43b 101.0 ± 12.1b
M. rume 83.26 ± 9.34d 24.80 ± 0.81c 3.44 ± 0.41e 20.26 ± 1.88d 6.60 ± 0.74b 77.96 ± 25.0c
Open in a new tab

Notes: Mean in the same column with different superscript differ significantly (P < 0.05). The numbers in each cell are means ± standard error.

Table 2.

Percentage fillet composition of five fish species from lower Benue River.

Species % gut weight % head weight % frame weight (bone) % edible fillet weight % non-edible fillet
C. gariepinus 5.71 ± 0.05bc 29.18 ± 0.21a 7.72 ± 0.15a 55.01 ± 1.05b 44.95 ± 0.13c
B. bajad 2.95 ± 0.02d 22.36 ± 0.11b 3.52 ± 0.05c 39.09 ± 0.15c 60.90 ± 0.40b
S. nigrita 10.80 ± 0.10a 30.54 ± 0.25a 5.44 ± 0.09b 34.96 ± 0.23d 65.05 ± 0.12a
L. senegalensis 6.65 ± 0.03b 14.34 ± 0.95c 7.17 ± 0.03a 63.20 ± 0.41a 36.65 ± 0.49d
M. rume 4.13 ± 0.01c 20.33 ± 0.10b 7.93 ± 0.11a 65.03 ± 1.02a 34.99 ± 0.21d
Open in a new tab

Notes: Mean in the same column with different superscript differ significantly (P < 0.05). The numbers in each cell are means ± standard error.

By implication, it would require approximately 15 tonnes of the M. rume or L. senegalensis to produce 10 tonnes of fillets for consumption/sales, while twice that amount (about 30 tonnes) would have to be caught/produced for S. nigrita or B. bajad to obtain the same 10 tonnes of the fillet. This, therefore, suggests that M. rume, L. senegalensis and C. gariepinus may be a better export product in terms of fillet yield compared to S. nigrita or B. bajad. Generally, the edible portion of fish depends on several factors such as species, sex and size, the structural anatomy of the fish and farming conditions (Alinezhad 2004; González et al. 2017). Of all the factors mentioned above, differences in species as it relates to structural anatomy are most likely the culprit of the observable differences reported in the current study. This is because; the highest filleting yields were recorded in flatfishes (i.e., M. rume and L. senegalensis) as compared to the deep-bodied fishes. In the same light, the lower frame waste of sunshine bass compared to palmetto bass had been explained using the differences in the fish body shape or conformational differences (Mcentire et al. 2015). Similarly, Bosworth et al. (1998) had earlier justify the significant differences in fillet weight of Asian sea bass and hybrid striped bass using the shape of the anadromous Perciformes species which is slightly compressed and streamlined. Eyo (1991), Ali et al. (1992) and Galvão et al. (2010) had earlier opined that species with large heads and skeleton relative to their musculature gave lower filleting yield than those with smaller heads and skeletons. However, Yenmak et al. (2018) suggested that the relationship between fish size and fillet yield is positive, meaning, larger fishes provided higher fillet yield percentages than smaller fish size. From the findings of this study, it is clear that this assumption does not hold when different species are considered.

Among the fish examined, B. bajad and S. nigrita had the highest percentages of inedible parts (≥ 60%, as seen in Tables 1 and 2), followed by C. gariepinus and the least observed for M. rume and L. senegalensis (≤ 37%). In many countries, these inedible parts are either discarded or used to feed carnivorous fishes (especially the visceral organs) or as by-products used as a prime matter for tanning and preparation of animal feeds (Ikape & Solomon 2018). Thus, the commercialisation of these inedible parts can serve as an alternative income source for fisheries industries (Souza et al. 2015). It is also noteworthy to mention that discarded inedible fillets are sometimes used as diet by low-in-come people (Eyo 2001). This is because of the significant mass of flesh attached to the bones of discarded frames which could augment the nutrition needed by the poor (Eyo 2001).

Concerning phenotypic correlations, only in C. gariepinus were the fillet characteristics having a high positive and significant correlation with the biometric variables (Table 3). Although high positive correlations exist in some of the other species studied, many of the correlations were insignificant. This simply means catching or growing fish to a larger size is not an efficient way to increase fillet weight in these other fishes. This finding is in line with the reports of Bauer and Schlott (2009) and Yasemi et al. (2011) who indicated that fillet yield is independent of fish size. Bosworth et al. (1998) and Cibert et al. (1999) had also concluded that correlation between body weight and fillet weight is generally high, but on the contrary, such correlation between body weight and fillet yield is generally low. Similarly, Rutten et al. (2004) experimented on Nile tilapia and observed weak/insignificant relationships between body measurements and fillet yield. This is in contrast to many studies reported by Bosworth et al. (1998) and Cibert et al. (1999).

Table 3.

Correlation of some fillet and body variables of five fish species from lower Benue River.

Fish species TBW/HW TBW/FW TBW/BFW TBW/GW TBW/TBL TBL/HL TBL/GW
C. gariepinus 0.968** 0.964** 0.951** 0.835** 0.912** 0.927** 0.766**
B. bajad 0.382 0.389 0.479* 0.201 0.572** 0.937** 0.697**
S. nigrita 0.576** 0.343 0.319 0.416* 0.608** 0.45* 0.229
L. senegalensis 0.335 0.243 0.471* 0.182 0.943** 0.583** 0.223
M. rume 0.821** 0.115 0.746** 0.277 0.805** 0.693** 0.484*
Open in a new tab

Notes: TBW=Total body weight; TBL = Total body length; HW = Head weight; FW = Fillet weight; BFW = Body frame weight; GW = Gut weight; HL = Head length.

**

Correlation is significant at 0.001;

*

Correlation is significant at 0.01.

The numbers in each cell are means ± standard error.

Length-weight relationships are indications of the fatness and general well-being of fishes in the different ecosystems (Ikape & Solomon 2018; Okomoda et al. 2018). It is well established that length-weight relationships vary even within fishes of the same species as it is affected by sexes, seasons, growth phases, stomach contents, gonadal development, health, etc. (Leunda et al. 2006; Gaspar et al. 2012). As a result, the reported variation in the current study was not surprising. The findings of this study showed that only L. senegalensis had an isometric growth pattern (Table 4). Hence, this implies that its weight increases proportionate to its length (Olufeagba et al. 2016). According to Venu and Kurup (2003), this is the “ideal fish” situation, i.e., maintenance of dimensional equality. C. gariepinus and B. bajad, on the other hand, had positive allometric growth, while negative allometric was observed in S. nigrita and M. rume. According to Riedel et al. (2007), a negative allometric growth implies that the fish is becoming tinnier as it disproportionately increases in length to its weight; hence, the fishes become slender. The values of intercepts “a” and slope “b” recorded for the five fish species in this study were within the range previously reported in other studies (Pervin & Mortuza 2008; Okomoda et al. 2018). It is important to state that the differences in the observed length-weight relationship parameter as dictated by the morphological differences of the fish may not necessarily mean that some species are better than the others are. Also, there seems to be no definite trend to portray the connection between the fillet yield and the length-weight relationship parameters. This is because M. rume which is one of the fish species with the highest fillet yield in this study had a negative isometric growth pattern similar to S. nigrita with the least fillet yield. A detailed study of this observation in a larger number of fish families/species may help justify or debunk this hypothesis.

Table 4.

Length-weight relationship of five fish species from lower Benue River.

Parameter a b r2
C. gariepinus −2.601 3.239 0.601
B. bajad −3.786 4.096 0.609
S. nigrita −1.283 2.511 0.593
L. senegalensis −2.071 3.024 0.906
M. rume −1.014 2.071 0.832
Open in a new tab

Note: a = Intersect; b = Slope; r2 = Regression coefficient probability. The numbers in each cell are values of linear regression analysis.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the differences in fillet yield and body characteristics of the fishes in this study are simply a reflection of structural anatomic differences of the fishes. This has implications for commercial sales of the fishes studied. Judging from the study, we recommend the use of M. rume, L. senegalensis and C. gariepinus if the exportation of the fish was considered. This is because they can favourably compete with other popular exported fish in terms of fillet yield compared to S. nigrita or B. bajad. However, this will also be predicated upon the nutritional content of the fish and consumer’s preference, hence the need for more research.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are indebted to the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Federal University of Agriculture Makurdi (FUAM) in whose facility this research was conducted. The authors hereby declare that there was no funding for the current study hence, there is no conflict of interest whatsoever to declare for the study. This study is part of the third author’s Postgraduate Diploma (PGD) research at FUAM.

REFERENCES

  1. Adeyemo AO. Estimation of fillet yield for four tropical freshwater fish species. Merit Research Journal of Environmental Science and Toxicology. 2013;1(2):12–15. [Google Scholar]
  2. Ali MT, Babikar RB, Tibin MI. Body weight characteristics, yield indices and proximate chemical composition of commercial fish species of Lake Nubia. Journal of Food Science. 1992;46:58–61. [Google Scholar]
  3. Alinezhad S. Determination of quantity fillet obtain from Dolphin fish (Coryphaena hippurus) in coastal area of Oman sea water. Pajouhesh and Sazandegi. 2004;62:76–81. (In Persian) [Google Scholar]
  4. Argue AB, Liu Z, Dunham RA. Dress-out and fillet yields of channel catfish, Ictalurus punctatus, blue catfish, Ictalurus furcatus, and their F1, F2 and backcross hybrids. Journal of Aquaculture. 2003;228:81–90. doi: 10.1016/S0044-8486(03)00245-X. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bauer C, Schlott G. Fillet yield and fat content in common carp (Cyprinus carpio) produced in three Austrian carp farms with different culture methodologies. Journal of Applied Ichthyology. 2009;25:591–594. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0426.2009.01282.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bosworth BG, Libely GS, Notter DR. Relationships among body weight, body shape, visceral components and fillet traits in palmetto bass p (striped bass female Moron saxatilis × white bass male M. chrysops) and paradise bass (stripped female M. saxatilis × yellow bass male M. pmississippiensis) Journal of World Aquaculture Society. 1998;29:40–50. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-7345.1998.tb00298.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Carneiro PCF, Mikos JD, Bendhack F, Ignácio SA. Processamento do jundiá Rhamdia quelen: rendimento de carcaça. Revista Acadêmica: Ciências agrárias e ambientais. 2004;2(3):11–17. doi: 10.7213/cienciaanimal.v2i3.15082. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Cibert C, Fermon Y, Vallod D, Meunier FJ. Morphological screening of carp Cyprinus carpio: Relationship between morphology and fillet yield. Aquatic Living Resources. 1999;12:1–10. doi: 10.1016/S0990-7440(99)80009-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Clement S, Lovell RT. Comparison of processing yield and nutrient composition of cultured Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) and channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) Aquaculture. 1994;119:299–310. doi: 10.1016/0044-8486(94)90184-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Costa TV, Machado NJB, Brasil RJM, Fragata NP. Caracterização físico-química e rendimento do filé e resíduos de diferentes espécies de jaraqui (Semaprochilodus spp.) Boletim do Instituto de Pesca. 2014;40(1):35–47. [Google Scholar]
  11. Eyo AA. Carcass composition and filleting yield of ten fish species from Kainji Lake. FAO Fisheries Report FIIU/R467 Suppl; Accra, Ghana. 22–25 Oct.1991. [Google Scholar]
  12. Eyo AA. Fish processing technology in the tropics. New Bussa, Nigeria: National Institute for Freshwater Fisheries Research (NIFFR); 2001. [Google Scholar]
  13. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Aquaculture statistical data. ADCP, Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization; 1985. [Google Scholar]
  14. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) The state of world fisheries and aquaculture: Opportunities and challenges. Rome: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department.; 2014. [Google Scholar]
  15. Galvão JA, Margeirsson S, Garate C, Viðarsson JR, Oetterer M. Traceability system in cod fishing. Food Control. 2010;21(10):1360–1366. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2010.03.010. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Gaspar S, Tobes I, Miranda R, Leunda PM, Peláez M. Length–weight relationships of sixteen freshwater fishes from the Hacha River and its tributaries (Amazon Basin, Caquetá, Colombia) Journal of Applied Ichthyology. 2012;28(4):667–670. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0426.2011.01928.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. González MA, Angón E, Rodríguez J, Moya A, García A, Peña F. Yield, flesh parameters, and proximate and fatty acid composition in muscle tissue of wild and cultured Vieja Colorada (Cichlasoma festae) in tropical Ecuadorian river. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research. 2017;15(3):e0604. doi: 10.5424/sjar/2017153-10271. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Ikape SI, Solomon SG. Filleting yield, body characteristics and length weight relationship of four fish species from lower River Benue Makurdi Nigeria. Aquatic Research. 2018;1(3):115–126. doi: 10.3153/AR18013. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Kause A, Paananen T, Ritola O, Koskinen H. Direct and indirect selection of visceral lipid weight, fillet weight, and fillet percentage in a rainbow trout breeding program. Journal of Animal Sciences. 2007;85:3218–3227. doi: 10.2527/jas.2007-0332. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Kause A, Ritola O, Paananen T, Mantysaari E, Eskelinen U. Coupling body weight and its composition: a quantitative genetic analysis in rainbow trout. Aquaculture. 2002;211:65–79. doi: 10.1016/S0044-8486(01)00884-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Kocour M, Mauger S, Rodina M, Gela D, Linhart O, Vandeputte M. Heritability estimates for processing and quality traits in common carp (Cyprinus carpio L.) using a molecular pedigree. Aquaculture. 2007;270:43–50. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2007.03.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Le Cren ED. The length weight relationship and seasonal cycle in gonad weight and condition in the perch (Perca fluviatilis) Journal of Animal Ecology. 1951;20:201–219. doi: 10.2307/1540. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Leunda PM, Oscoz J, Miranda R. Length–weight relationships of fishes from tributaries of the Ebro River, Spain. Journal of Applied Ichthyology. 2006;22:299–300. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0426.2006.00737.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Macedo-Viegas EM, Souza MLR. Pré-processamento e conservação do pescado produzido em piscicultura. In: Cyrino JEP, Urbinati EC, Fracalossi DM, Castagnolli N, editors. Tópicos Especiais em Piscicultura de Água Doce Tropical Intensiva. São Paulo: TecArt; 2004. pp. 405–480. [Google Scholar]
  25. Mcentire M, Snyder S, Freeman D. Comparison of Growth Between Morone Hybrids (Palmetto and Sunshine) in Earthen Ponds. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society. 2015;46:557–563. doi: 10.1111/jwas.12213. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Morris JE. Niche marketing your aquaculture products. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University; 2013. p. 13. http://www.extension.iastate.edu. [Google Scholar]
  27. Navarro A, Zamorano MJ, Hildebrandt S, Gines R, Aguilera C, Afonso JM. Estimates of heritabilities and genetic correlations for growth and carcass traits in gilthead seabream (Sparus auratus L.), under industrial conditions. Aquaculture. 2009;289:225–230. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2008.12.024. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Neira R, Lhorente JP, Araneda C, Diaz N, Bustos E, Alert A. Studies on carcass quality traits in two populations of Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch): phenotypic and genetic parameters. Aquaculture. 2004;24:117–131. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2004.08.009. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Neto RVR, Serafini MA, Fonseca de Freitas RT, Allaman IB, Mourad NMN, Lago A. Performance and carcass traits in the diallel crossing of pacu and tambaqui. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia. 2012;41:2390–2395. doi: 10.1590/S1516-35982012001200002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Nguyen NH, Ponzoni RW, Abu-Bakar KR, Hamzah A, Khaw HL, Yee HY. Correlated response in fillet weight and yield to selection for increased harvest weight in genetically improved farmed tilapia (GIFT strain), Oreochromis niloticus. Aquaculture. 2010;305:1–5. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2010.04.007. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Okomoda VT, Koh ICC, Hassan A, Amornsakun T, Shahreza SM. Length-weight relationship and condition factor of the progenies of pure and reciprocal crosses of Pangasianodon hypophthalmus and Clarias gariepinus. AACL Bioflux. 2018;11(4):980–987. [Google Scholar]
  32. Okomoda VT, Tiamiyu LO, Ricketts AO, Oladimeji SA, Agbara A, Ikhwanuddin M, Alabi KI, Abol-Munafi AB. Hydrothermal processing of Clarias gariepinus (Burchell, 1822) filets: Insights on the nutritive value and organoleptic parameters. Journal of Veterinary Science. 2020;7:133. doi: 10.3390/vetsci7030133. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Oksuz A. Determination of fillet yield in cultured Bluefin tuna (thunnuspthynnus, Linnaeus 1758) in Turkey. Collective Volume of Scientific Papers ICCAT. 2010;65:962–967. [Google Scholar]
  34. Olufeagba SO, Okomoda VT, Shaibu G. Embryogenesis and early growth of pure strains and hybrids between Clarias gariepinus (Burchell, 1822) and Heterobranchus longifilis Valenciennes, 1840. North American Journal of Aquaculture. 2016;78(4):346–355. doi: 10.1080/15222055.2016.1194926. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Pervin MR, Mortuza MG. Length-weight relationship and condition factor of fresh water fish, L. boga (Hamilton) (Cypriniformes: Cyprinidae) Vol. 27. University Journal of Zoology (Rajshahi University); 2008. pp. 97–98. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Peterman MA, Phelps RP. Fillet yields from four strains of Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) and a Red variety. Journal of Applied Aquaculture. 2012;24:342–348. doi: 10.1080/10454438.2012.731480. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Pinheiro LMS, Martins RT, Pinheiro LAS, Pinheiro LEL. Industrial file fish processing yield of Thailand tilapia (Oreochromis spp.) Arquivo Brasileiro de Medicina Veterinaria e Zootecnia. 2006;58(2):257–262. doi: 10.1590/S0102-09352006000200015. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Powell J, White I, Guy D, Brotherstone S. Genetic parameters of production traits in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) Aquaculture. 2008;274(2–4):225–231. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2007.11.036. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Ricker WE. Linear regressions in fishery research. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada. 1973;30(3):409–434. doi: 10.1139/f73-072. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Riedel R, Caskey LM, Hurlbert SH. Length weight relations and growth rates of dominant fishes of the Salton Sea: implications for predation by fish-eating birds. Lake and Reservoir Management. 2007;23:528–535. doi: 10.1080/07438140709354036. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Rudacille JB, Kohler CC. Aquaculture performance comparison of sunshine bass, palmetto bass, and white bass. North American Journal of Aquaculture. 2000;62:114–124. doi: 10.1577/1548-8454(2000)062<0114:APCOSB>2.0.CO;2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Rutten M, Bovenhuisb H, Komenan H. Modeling fillet traits based on body measurements in three Nile tilapia strains (Oreochromis niloticus L.) Aquaculture. 2004;231(1–4):113–122. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2003.11.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Saldanha T, Benassi MT, Bragagnolo N. Fatty acid contents evolution and cholesterol oxides formation in Brazilian sardine (Sardinella brasiliensis) as a result of frozen storage followed by grilling. Food Science and Technology. 2008;41:1301–1309. doi: 10.1016/j.lwt.2007.08.023. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Sang NV, Thomassen M, Klemetsdal G, Gjøen HM. Prediction of fillet weight, fillet yield and fillet fat for live river catfish (Pangasianodon hypophthalmus) Aquaculture. 2009;288:166–171. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2008.11.030. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Solomon SG, Akogu CC. Filleting yields, carcass and nutritional composition of ten freshwater fish species from River Benue, Nigeria. Journal of Agric Science and Technology. 2005;15:41–45. [Google Scholar]
  46. Solomon SG, Okomoda VT, Aladi SL. Fish fauna in lower River Niger at Idah in Kogi State. Journal of Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences. 2012;4:34–37. [Google Scholar]
  47. Souza MLR, Macedo-Viegas EM, Zuanon JAS, de Carvalho MRB, dos Reis Goes ES. Processing yield and chemical composition of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) with regard to body weight. Acta Scientiarum Animal Sciences Maringá. 2015;37(2):103–108. doi: 10.4025/actascianimsci.v37i2.24165. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Sulieman HA, James GK. A comparative study on the chemical and physical attributes of wild farmed Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) Online Journal of Animal and Feed Research. 2011;1:407–411. [Google Scholar]
  49. Swann DL, Riepe JR, Stanley JD, Griffin ME, Brown PB. Cage culture of hybrid striped bass in Indiana and evaluation of diets containing three levels of dietary protein. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society. 1994;25:281–288. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-7345.1994.tb00192.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Thodesen J, Rye M, Wang YX, Bentsen HB, Gjedrem T. Genetic improvement of tilapias in China: genetic parameters and selection responses in fillet traits of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) after six generations of multi-trait selection for growth and fillet yield. Aquaculture. 2012;(366–367):67–75. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2012.08.028. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Venu TJ, Kurup BM. Length-weight relationship of some deep sea fish inhabiting the continental slope beyond 250 depths along the West Coast of India. Naga. Conference proceedings, International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management; 2003. pp. 17–21. [Google Scholar]
  52. Yasemi M, Motalebi AA, Mohammadzadeh B, Monfared N. Fillet yield, proximate composition and mineral contents in Indian spiny halibut Psettodes erumei caught from the coastal waters of Bushehr (Persian Gulf) Iranian Journal of Fisheries Sciences. 2011;10(3):519–528. [Google Scholar]
  53. Yenmak S, Joerakate W, Poompuang S. Prediction of fillet yield in hatchery populations of Asian sea bass, Lates calcarifer (Bloch, 1790) using body weight and measurements. International Aquatic Research. 2018;10:253–261. doi: 10.1007/s40071-018-0202-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Tropical Life Sciences Research are provided here courtesy of Universiti Sains Malaysia Press

RESOURCES