Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
19
A Critical Re-Examination of the Method of Bunch Analysis in Oil Palm
Breeding – An Update1
ISA ZA1, KUSHAIRI A
2, MOHD DIN A
2, SUBOH O
1, JUNAIDAH J3, NOH A
2, CHOO
KIEN W4 AND MUSA B
5.
1. EPA Management Sdn Bhd, Kulim Agrotech Centre, PO Box 141 81900 Kota Tinggi
Johor
2. Malaysian Palm Oil Board, No 6, Persiaran Institusi, Kajang Selangor
3. Johor State Farmers Organization, No 7 & 8, Jalan Lingkaran, Taman Sri Lambak, 86000,
Kluang, Johore
4. AAR Sdn Bhd, Paloh Sub-Station, Paloh Estate, P86609, Paloh Estate, Johor
5. United Plantations Bhd, Research Dept., Jenderata Estate, 36009 Teluk Intan, Perak
ABSTRACT
Bunch analysis is the method currently used by the oil palm breeders to estimate the fruits
bunch and oil components in the bunch. The basic method for oil palm fruit bunch analysis
was established at WAIFOR in the early sixties and has since been modified in different ways.
Recommended procedures were established with respect to ripeness standard, stalk length,
spikelet sampling, spikelet and fruit storage, pericarp drying, sieving for mesocarp samples,
oil extraction and nut drying. In this study, some improved procedures have been suggested
or given more emphasis in order to get precise results viz suitable nuts drying temperatures,
kernel content estimations, fruit sub-sampling method and handling of the mesocarp samples
during weighing. The NIFOR bunch analysis method by is robust and still reliable if all the
steps are strictly followed
1 Paper presented at the International Seminar on Breeding for Sustainability in Oil Palm, held on 18 November
2011 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Jointly organised by the International Society for Oil Palm Breeders (ISOPB)
and Malaysian Palm Oil Board (MPOB). P. 19 - 42
20
INTRODUCTION
The physical size of an oil palm breeding programme is limited by the speed and accuracy
with which data on fresh fruit bunch (FFB) and bunch or fruit quality can be collected and
analysed. While the FFB production can be recorded following the routine harvesting round,
it is not practically possible to analyse every bunch for fruit-to-bunch ratio, fruit composition
and some other bunch quality components. Hence, a bunch sampling procedure introduced
INEAC (Intitute national pour l’Etude Agronomique du Congo Belge) in Africa
(Vanderweyen et al 1947 as quoted by Blaak et al, 1963) has been very useful and has
generally been used by plant breeder until today. At WAIFOR (now NIFOR), Blaak
examined variation and provided confidence levels for certain components as well as setting
minimum numbers of analyses for progeny evaluation (Rao et al, 1983).
The method established at NIFOR is the basis for methods now in use in oil palm bunch
analysis throughout the world (Figure 1). However, the bunch analysis procedures adopted
by INEAC have been followed in more or less modified forms by other research centres.
Figure 1: Bunch quality analysis – method and schematic laboratory layout (Adopted
from G. Blaak et al, 1963)
Figure 2 shows major components of interest to plant breeders in characterising an individual
palm or progeny for selection purposes.
21
Figure 2: Oil palm fruit bunch components (Adapted from Rao et al, 1983).
The oil palm bunch analysis method was critically re-examined by Rao et al, in 1983. In
Malaysia, the majority of bunch analysis laboratories are still using NIFOR method in their
oil/bunch estimation with the exception of a few laboratories that practice a slight different
method of fruit sampling. Blaak’s fruit sampling method is based on full randomization while
another method involves fruits from various categories (inner, outer, normal and
parthenocarpic) in their fruit sampling. However, both methods use the same formulae in
their estimation of all the bunch and fruits components.
The objective of this paper is to update the paper written by Rao et al, 1983 with the main
focus on the kernel content, fruit sub-sampling method and handling of the 5g mesocarp
samples during weighing. This works were jointly carried by Malaysian oil palm bunch
analysis committee comprising MPOB and the industry oil palm breeders.
Generally, the purpose of the bunch analysis committee is to have a consensus on the
standard of bunch analysis procedures, which would be used at least in bunch analysis for
comparative DxP trials in order to assess the performance of Malaysian DxP materials in the
future.
Based on this study, bunch analysis procedure in MPOB and most of private bunch analysis
laboratories in Malaysia is shown in Figures 3 and 4 and Table 1.
1. OIL PALM KERNELS REMOVAL TROUGH NUTS DRYING
A. Materials and methods
The removal of kernels from fresh nuts is difficult and tedious due to strong adherence to the
shell. Rao et al, 1983 found that complete drying of tenera nuts is achieved by overnight
drying at 80° - 105°C while dura nuts are completely dried at 105°C. Other drying regimes
gave lower moisture losses, i.e. incomplete drying and generally more variable results.
spikelets
Fruit bunch
stalk
Non-oil solids
(fibre)
Mesocarp
(M/F)
Endocarp
(shell) (S/F)
Kernel (K/F)
Fertile fruit
Oil (O/M)
Empty spikelet
Parthenocarpic
fruit Moisture (m.c)
22
Figure 3: Flow chart of bunch analysis method (dura and tenera)
Do cut test to determine fruit form and harvest the bunch (minimum of 5 loose fruit before harvesting and minimum bunch weight of 5kg for normal bunches
Do cut test to reconfirm the fruit form (in laboratory)
Bunch + loose fruits (Record Analysis serial No., Date, Palm No., Fruit form and No. of loose fruits)
Take the bunch weight
Chopping
Stalk Spikelets
Take the weight Push into compartment boxes to separate spikelets into some fractions to make a representative random sample
*F/B Spikelets and loose fruits
*FC Spikelets and loose fruits
Take the weight Separate fruits from spikelets using knife
Keep in room temperature for two to three days
Pour fruit sub – sample evenly into dividing boxes take 30-40 fruits (about 300g) at random (count and weigh the fruits sub-sample)
Separate fruits from spikelets Scrape (separate nuts from mesocarp)
Fertile fruits (Weigh)
Empty spikelets (Weigh)
Parthenocarpic fruits (Weigh)
Fresh nuts (weigh)
Fresh mesocarp for fruit sub-sample (weigh)
Dry in oven at 90°C (D), 80°C (T) , 16 hours
Dry in oven at 105°C , 16 hour
Remove from oven, crack nuts and
weigh the kernels
Remove from oven, cool sample in a desiccator, then weigh dry
mesocarp (Tin + dry mesocarp)
Mince in a blender
Take 5 g sampel for oil extraction
Note: *F/B = fruit to bunch *FC = fruit components
23
Figure 4: Oil extraction process of 5 g mesocarp samples
Mince mesocarp
Prepare extraction thimble1
measuring 7.5 x 15 cm
Weigh 5 g mesocarp (analytical balance – readability : 4 decimal places)
Put mesocarp sample into extraction thimble1
, pack and staple
Put mesocarp sample (in extraction thimble) into oven (40° C ) for two hours
Weigh sample (mesocarp & extraction thimble)
Extract oil using soxhlet extractor2
with solvent (haxene)
Extract for 18 – 24 hours (until the solvent turns into its original colour)
Remove sample from soxhlet extractor
Dry it in oven (105°C) for two hours
Weigh fibre & extraction thimble
1
Filter paper Whatman No. 1
Soxhlet extraction set: Eletrothermal heating mantle (5 L capacity)
Round bottom flask: (5 L capacity)
Extractor: (2 L capacity)
Condenser
• • • •
24
F/B = Fruit/Bunch (%) = [FFWT + PFWT)/SWT] x [(BWT - STKWT)/BWT] x 100
FF/B = Fertile Fruit/Bunch (%) = [(FFWT/SWT) x ((BWT - STKWT)/BWT)] x 100
P/F = Parthenocarpic/Fruit (%) = [PFWT/(FFWT + PFWT)] x 100
M/F = Mesocarp/Fruit (%) = [(FSWT - FNWT)/FSWT] x 100
MC = Moisture Content (%) = 100 - [(DMWT/WMWT)/(WMWT)] x 100
O/DM = Oil/Dry Mesocarp (%) = [(DMWT - FWT)/(DMWT] x 100
O/WM = Oil/Wet Mesocarp (%) = [(DMWT)/(WMWT) x O/DM]/100
O/B = Oil/Bunch (%) = (F/B x M/F x O/WM)/10,000
O/F = Oil/Fibre (%) = [(DMWT - FWT)/(FWT)] x 100
K/F = Kernel/Fruit (%) = (KWT/FSWT) x 100
S/F = Shell/fruit (%) = [(FNWT – KWT)/FSWT] x 100
K/B = Kernel/Bunch (%) = (K/F x FF/B) /100
MNW = Mean Nut Weight (g) = FNWT/NOFNUT
MFW = Mean Fruit Weight (g) = FSWT/NOFNUT
P/B = Parthernocarpic/Bunch (%) = (P/F x F/B)/100
OY = Oil yield (kg/p/yr) = (FFB x O/B)/100
KY = Kernel yield (kg/p/yr) = (FFB x K/B)/100
TOT = Total Oil (kg/p/yr) = OY + (0.5 x KY)
TEP = Total economic product (kg/p/yr) = OY + (0.6 x KY)
Where:
BWT
SWT
PFWT
FSWT
NOFNUT
FFB
= Bunch Weight
= Spikelet Weight
= Oil-bearing Parthenocarpic Fruit Weight
= Fruit Sub Sample Weight
= No of Fresh Nut
= Fresh Fruit Bunch
STKWT
FFWT
ESPKWT
FNWT
KWT
= Stalk Weight
= Fertile Fruit Weight
= * Empty Spikelet Weight
= Fresh Nut Weight
= Kernel Weight
* ESPKWT = Empty Spikelet + infertile fruit (colourless and non-oil bearing)
Table 1: computation formulae for bunch analysis components (dura & tenera)
25
In order to find out the right combination of temperature and duration for nut drying which
would be giving the minimum moisture loss and nut injury, practical and the easiest to
remove kernel from shell, a testing of nut drying was conducted at seven (treatment
temperature and duration combinations) as shown in Table 1.
A total of 700 tenera nuts (100 nuts each from seven seed producers) were tested at seven
different drying regimes ranging from 70°C to 105°C and 4 to 24 hours. All the treatments
(20 nuts/duplication) were duplicated five times. Data on moisture losses and the degree of
nut cracking were recorded. The result was quantified based on wet weight (WWB) and dry
nut weight basis (DWB) (Tables 1 and 2).
In addition, a total of 5 duplications of dura nuts each from two seed producers were also
treated with the same seven drying regims as given to tenera nuts.
B. Results and discussion
Result showed significant difference of moisture losses among the treatment, ranging from
18.37% to 22.39% on WWB and 24.89% to 25.38% on DWB. The overall mean of the
percentage of nut moisture losses based on WWB and DWB were 19.34% and 24.17%,
respectively. The oven drying at 80°C for 16hours was the ideal treatment to facilitate nuts
removal where the shell was properly dried and in a good condition after nut cracking. The
coefficient of variation (CV) of this treatment, 6.68% was also comparatively low indicating
very uniform nuts drying. On the other hand, nuts were not properly dried under treatments
70°C,20hours and 80°C,04hours resulting in difficulty to remove kernels from nuts because
of their strong attachment to the shell. Other drying regimes overly dried the kernel. As a
result, the shell turned to be darker with oily kernel. The percentage of moisture loss for
treatment 80°C,16hours on WWB and DWB were 18.60% and 22.91%, respectively, using
the following formulae:
% of moisture lost on WWB = [(Fresh nut wt (g) - dry nut wt (g))/fresh nut weight
(g)]*100.
% of moisture lost on DWB = [(Fresh nut wt (g) - dry nut wt (g))/dry nut weight
(g)]*100.
Thus,
Estimation of unknown weight of fresh nut dried at 80°C for 16 hours = Dry nut weight
(g) x 1.2291
If oil to dry kernel can be quantified, fresh kernel oil = [(Dry kernel weight/fresh kernel
weight) x oil to dry kernel/100.
26
Treatment
105°C, 105°C, 105°C, 70°C, 80°C, 80°C, 90°C,
12 hours 16 hours 24 hours 20 hours 4 hours 16 hours 16 hours Moisture Moisture Moisture Moisture Moisture Moisture Moisture Agency
Agency Loss (%) # Loss (%) Loss (%) Loss (%) Loss (%) Loss (%) Loss (%) mean 1 22.10 a 22.79 a 23.52 a 18.18 ab 18.11 a 19.28 ab 20.67 a 20.66 2 19.09 b 22.26 a na 19.95 a 11.29 c 17.80 ab 21.79 a 18.70 3 16.55 c 21.07 a 21.52 b 18.45 ab na 18.50 ab 20.68 a 19.46 4 21.40 ab 22.19 a 22.47 b 18.72 ab na 19.76 a 19.43 ab 20.66 5 18.98 ab 19.05 b 19.84 c 17.31 ab 11.70 c 16.22 b 18.02 b 17.30 6 19.85 ab 22.50 a 23.93 a 16.13 b 15.85 ab 19.06 ab 20.16 ab 19.64 7 21.04 ab 21.33 a 23.03 b 19.86 a 14.87 abc 19.56 ab 20.73 a 20.06 Overall Mean 19.86 21.60 22.39 18.37 14.36 18.60 20.21 19.34 CV 9.44 5.93 6.73 7.38 20.02 6.68 5.93
ANOVA
Source of variation df MS MS MS MS MS MS MS
Between Groups 6 17.1 ** 8.1 ** 11.4 ** 8.7 * 41.3 ** 7.4 * 6.7 **
Within Groups 26 1.4 0.9 0.6 3.1 5.7 2.7 1.3
Table 1: Percentage of moisture loss in tenera oil palm nut during drying in various treatment (temperature & hour combination),
estimated on wet weight basis
Note:
Figures in bold in a column are the minimum and maximum values. #Means with the same letter in the same column are not
statistically significant by Tukey HSD. * = significant at 5%, ** = significant at 1% , CV = Coefficient of variation
Percentage of moisture lost on wet weight basis = [(Fresh nut wt (g) - dry nut wt (g))/fresh nut weight (g)]*100
27
Treatment
105°C, 105°C, 105°C, 70°C, 80°C, 80°C, 90°C, 12 hours 16 hours 24 hours 20 hours 4 hours 16 hours 16 hours Moisture Moisture Moisture Moisture Moisture Moisture Moisture Agency
Agency Loss (%) # Loss (%) Loss (%) Loss (%) Loss (%) Loss (%) Loss (%) mean 1 28.38 a 29.53 a 30.76 a 22.45 ab 22.32 a 24.01 b 26.10 ab 26.22 2 23.70 bc 28.67 a na 24.96 a 12.87 b 21.77 b 27.93 a 23.32 3 19.85 d 26.71 ab 27.44 b 22.63 ab na 22.71 b 26.09 ab 24.24 4 27.24 ab 28.54 a 28.99 ab 23.04 ab na 24.64 a 24.14 bc 26.10 5 23.42 cd 23.53 b 24.75 c 20.94 ab 13.25 b 19.36 b 21.99 c 21.04 6 24.77 abc 29.04 a 31.47 a 19.23 b 18.83 ab 23.55 b 25.26 abc 24.60 7 26.66 abc 27.12 a 29.93 ab 24.79 a 17.46 ab 24.33 b 26.16 ab 25.21 Overall Mean 24.86 27.59 28.89 22.58 16.95 22.91 25.38 24.17 CV 11.58 7.45 8.55 8.98 8.08 8.08 7.40
ANOVA Source of variation df MS MS MS MS MS MS MS
Between Groups 6 40.29 ** 20.97 ** 30.53 ** 19.54 * 78.79 ** 16.43 * 16.31 **
Within Groups 26 3.23 2.51 1.63 6.96 10.83 6.28 3.28
Table 2: Percentage of moisture loss in tenera oil palm nut during oven drying in various treatments (temperature & hour
combination), estimated on dry weight basis
Note:
Figures in bold in a column are the minimum and maximum values. Means with the same letter in the same column are not statistically significant
by Tukey HSD. * = significant at 5%, ** = significant at 1% , CV = Coefficient of variation
Percentage of moisture lost on dry weight basis = [(Fresh nut wt - dry nut wt)/dry nut weight]*100
Treatment of 80°C16hours is the most ideal and practical for oil palm nut drying
Estimation of quantity of moisture loss on dry weigh basis oven dried at 80°C for 16 hours = Dry nut weight (g) x 22.91%/100
Estimation of fresh unknown quantity of nut weight oven dried at 80°C for 16hours = Dry nut weight (g) x 1.2291
28
As for dura nuts, result showed a significant difference of moisture losses among the
treatment, ranging from 7.34% to 18.15% on WWB and 7.93% to 22.17% on DWB.
Treatment 90°C,16hours was the most ideal in terms of easiness of nut cracking with
comparatively low variability as a sign of very uniform nuts drying (CV = 16.21%)
(Table 3). On the other hand, nuts were not properly dried under treatments 70°C,20hours,
80°C,04hours and 80°C,16hours which caused difficulty to remove kernels from nuts because
of their strong adherence to the shell. Other treatments (105°C, 12 – 24 hours) overly dried
the kernel. As a result, the shells turned to be darker and some of them had oily kernels. The
percentage of moisture loss for treatment 90°C, 16hours on WWB and DWB were 16.21%
and 19.36%, respectively.
2. PROPERTIES OF FRUITLETS IN DIFFERENT REGIONS AND LAYERS IN A
BUNCH
A. Materials and methods
A study on six tenera bunches was carried out by the committee to determine the properties
of fruitlets in different regions and layers. Each region and layer of an individual bunch was
represented by two spikelets at random. Regions were divided into three i.e., apical, middle
and basal while layers were categorised as outer, middle and inner.
B. Results and discussion
This study revealed the different properties of fruitlets in different layer of spikelets
categorised as outer, middle and inner fruits. However, there was no significant difference for
all traits among different regions i.e., apical, middle or basal. (Tables 4 and 5). Table 6 shows
that the fruitlets at the apical region and outer layer contain the highest oil to fruit (O/F),
43.48%, followed by middle-outer (41.01%), while the lowest O/F was at the basal-inner
(23%). The high O/F at the apical-outer was largely attributed to the M/F (83.35%) and
O/WM (52.12%). However, the result may only be concluded for the samples studied as the
properties may differ from other populations. The highly significant results indicated that
proper and random fruit sub-sampling for oil extraction is mandatory to ensure the sub-
samples represent the whole fruit bunch.
3. FRUIT SUB-SAMPLING FOR OIL EXTRACTION
A. Materials and methods
Following random fruit separation from fresh spikelets, a sub-sample of fruit is taken for fruit
components and oil content determination. Three methods of obtaining a random fruit
subsample of 350g were tested. In the first method, all the fruits from the spikelets sample
were mixed in a tray and 350g fruits handpicked. In the second method, the mixed fruits were
linearly arranged along the perimeter of the tray and the required samples picked from one
end. The third method used a sampling box.
29
Treatment N % moisture loss CV % moisture loss CV (WWB) (DWB)
70°C, 20hours 10 13.07 c 22.10 15.15 c 26.06 80°C, 4hours 10 7.34 d 6.37 7.93 d 6.80 80°C, 16hours 10 13.07 c 7.37 15.05 c 8.09 90°C, 16hours 10 16.21 b 4.84 19.36 b 5.58
105°C, 12hours 10 16.20 b 6.40 19.34 b 7.64 105°C, 16hours 10 17.49 ab 4.60 21.21 ab 5.48 105°C, 24hours 10 18.15 a 4.02 22.17 a 4.88
Mean 14.50 2.59 22.17
CV 25.53 25.53 22.08
ANOVA
Source of Variation MS Sig. MS Sig. Between Groups 6 139.10 ** 241.29 **
Within Groups 63 1.78 3.28
Table 3: Percentage of moisture loss in oil palm nut during oven drying in various treatment (temperature & hour
combination), estimated on wet weight (WWB) and dry weight (DWB) basis
Percentage of moisture lost on wet weight basis = [(Fresh nut wt (g) - dry nut wt (g))/fresh nut weight (g)]*100
Percentage of moisture lost on dry weight basis = [(Fresh nut wt - dry nut wt)/dry nut weight]*100
** = significant at 1%
30
Region N M/F N/F %MM K/F S/F O/DM O/WM %NM MFW MNW O/F Apical 18 72.88 27.12 45.58 10.71 14.66 76.72 41.92 21.01 9.33 2.42 30.79 Middle 18 73.05 26.95 44.02 10.91 14.27 77.59 43.65 19.80 8.95 2.31 32.16 Basal 18 75.59 24.41 41.89 9.59 12.86 77.25 45.17 20.05 9.16 2.09 34.58 Mean 54 73.84 26.16 43.83 10.40 13.93 77.19 43.58 20.28 9.15 2.27 32.51
ANOVA Source of variation df MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS Between groups 2 41.48 41.48 61.82 9.23 16.06 3.44 47.34 7.36 0.66 0.51 66.03 Within groups 51 43.01 43.01 71.97 14.158 27.73 18.58 65.24 12.24 8.61 0.41 65.69
Significance
ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns
Note: M/F = mesocarp to fruit (%), N/F = nut to fruit (%), %MM = % of mesocarp moisture, K/F = kernel to fruit (%), S/F = shell to fruit (%),
O/DM = oil to dry mesocarp (%),O/WM = oil to wet mesocarp (%), %NM = % of nut moisture, MFW = mean fruit weight (g), mean nut
MNW = weight (g), O/F = oil to fruit (%).
Table 4: Property of oil palm fruitlets in different regions
31
Table 5: Property of oil palm fruitlets in different bunch layers
Layer N M/F N/F %MM KTF S/F O/DM O/WM %NM MFW MNW O/F Outer 18 81.29 a 18.71 c 36.97 c 6.85 c 10.64 b 80.30 a 50.61 a 21.05 a 11.98 a 2.24 a 41.15 a Middle 18 72.14 b 27.86 b 43.47 b 11.10 b 14.84 a 78.46 a 44.38 b 19.86 a 8.63 b 2.40 a 32.06 b Inner 18 68.09 c 31.91 a 51.05 a 13.26 a 16.31 a 72.80 b 35.75 c 19.95 a 6.83 c 2.18 a 24.33 c Mean 54 73.84 26.16 43.83 10.40 13.93 77.19 43.58 20.28 9.15 2.27 32.51
ANOVA Source of
variation df MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS Between groups 2 823.49 823.49 894.10 191.18 155.78 275.40 1002.55 7.85 122.76 0.22 1276.37 Within groups 51 12.34 ** 12.34 ** 39.33 ** 7.02 ** 22.25 ** 7.91 ** 27.78 ** 12.22 ns 3.82 ** 0.42 ns 18.23 **
Note: M/F = mesocarp to fruit (%), N/F = nut to fruit (%), %MM = % of mesocarp moisture, K/F = kernel to fruit (%), S/F = shell to fruit (%),
O/DM = oil to dry mesocarp (%), O/WM = oil to wet mesocarp (%), %NM = % of nut moisture, MFW = mean fruit weight (g), MNW = mean nut weight (g), O/F = oil to fruit (%).
32
Table 6: Property of oil palm fruitlets in different bunch regions and layers
S/No. Region Layer N M/F N/F %MM K/F S/F O/DM O/WM %NM MFW MNW O/F
1 Apical Outer 6 83.35 a 16.65 d 35.29 c 6.10 c 9.21 80.55 a 52.12 a 19.70 12.31 a 2.05 43.48 a
2 Apical Middle 6 74.31 bc 25.69 bc 41.49 abc 10.16 abc 13.72 79.42 a 46.48 ab 19.90 8.45 abc 2.14 34.65 bcd
3 Apical Inner 6 69.11 cd 30.89 ab 48.89 ab 12.50 a 15.65 71.77 d 36.89 cd 20.53 6.72 d 2.08 25.59 ef
4 Middle Outer 6 80.83 a 19.17 d 36.97 bc 7.20 bc 10.85 80.60 a 50.81 a 20.22 11.63 ab 2.24 41.01 ab
5 Middle Middle 6 70.84 cd 29.16 ab 43.97 abc 11.81 ab 15.43 78.32 ab 43.92 abc 19.66 8.32 bc 2.44 31.10 cde
6 Middle Inner 6 67.47 d 32.53 a 51.12 a 13.73 a 16.52 73.85 bcd 36.22 d 19.51 6.89 d 2.25 24.38 ef
7 Basal Outer 6 79.69 ab 20.31 cd 38.65 bc 7.26 bc 11.86 79.76 a 48.90 a 23.21 11.99 ab 2.43 38.95 abc
8 Basal Middle 6 71.27 cd 28.73 ab 44.95 abc 11.33 ab 15.38 77.63 abc 42.73 abc 20.02 9.12 abc 2.61 30.42 def
9 Basal Inner 6 67.69 d 32.31 a 53.15 a 13.56 a 16.75 72.78 cd 34.14 d 19.80 6.88 d 2.22 23.00 f
Mean 54 73.84 26.16 43.83 10.40 13.93 77.19 43.58 20.28 9.15 2.27 32.51
ANOVA
Source of variation df MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS
Between Groups 8 217.70 ** 217.70 ** 239.32 ** 50.18 ** 43.52 ns 72.02 ** 263.17 ** 7.79 ns 31.15 ** 0.21 ns 337.07 **
Within Groups 45 11.88 11.88 41.77 7.54 24.41 8.40 29.26 12.81 4.25 0.45 17.46
Note:
M/F = mesocarp to fruit (%), N/F = nut to fruit (%), %MM = % of mesocarp moisture, K/F = kernel to fruit (%), S/F = shell to fruit (%), O/DM = oil to dry
mesocarp (%), O/WM = oil to wet mesocarp (%), %NM = % of nut moisture, MFW = mean fruit weight (g), MNW = mean nut weight (g), O/F = oil to
fruit (%).
33
The mixed fruits were evenly poured at the top end with eight chutes randomly divided the
fruit. The number of the fractions to make up the required quantity of about 350g was then
taken. When required, the mixed fruits were linearly arranged along the perimeter of the tray
and the required samples picked from one end.
In all the three method, any cut or bruised fruit was not taken but substituted by fruit of about
equal dimensions and ripeness appearance obtained from other side of the perimeter. A total
of 51 dura and four tenera bunches analysed. The components of interest were mean fruit
weight (MFW), mean nut weight (MNW), mesocarp to fruit (M/F), nut to fruit (N/F), fruit to
bunch (F/B) and percentage of empty spikelets (%ESP).
Fruitlets from the whole bunch were used in estimating all the traits, obtaining from five
different parts of the fruit bunch viz:
(A) = Sample for F/B estimation, mesocarp was scrapped by depericarper
(B) = Sample for fruit components (FC) estimation, mesocarp was hand scrapped
(C) = Surplus fruits from FC, mesocarp was scrapped by depericarper
(D) = Remaining fruits after sub-sampling for F/B, mesocarp was scrapped by depericarper
(E) = Total fruit bunch: (A) + (B) + (C) + (D)
B. Results and discussion
Tables 7(a), 7 (b) and 7(c) generally show some variability in all the traits. The variability in
MNW, M/F and N/F, F/B and %ESP components are acceptable and still within the range of
normal percentage. However, the MFW in B (Sample for fruit components) that was
handpicked was different from the other four parts. The differences in B could be due to the
fact that the laboratory workers deliberately chose for a quick of 350g sample (large fruits
with small numbers) and for ease of manual fruit depericarping. As a consequence, the result
on the fruit size based on laboratory analysis may not be the same as in the field.
Tables 8(a) – 8(d) indicate that all the all the variability in MFW, MNW, M/F and N/F, F/B
and %ESP components are acceptable and within the range of normal percentage. It can be
concluded that if strictly followed, manual random sampling method and random sampling
using sampling box are reliable for oil palm fruit sub-sampling.
4. HANDLING OF DRIED MESOCARP FIBRE AFTER OVEN DRYING AND
BEFORE WEIGHING
A. Materials and methods
A total of 15 samples of completely dried mesocarp after oven drying were placed in each
three different environments for 60 minutes to study their capacity to absorb moisture that
would influence the accuracy of weighing:
34
Table 7(a): Data on dura fruit components based on sampling through hand picking (non-randomized sampling) at Agency A.
MFW MNW M/F N/F F/B %ESP ID ANALNO (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (B) (C) (D) (E) (B) (C) (D) (E) (B) (C) (D) (E) (A) (D) (E) (A) (D) (E) 1 15393 12.9 16.1 12.6 14.5 13.2 6.3 4.9 5.0 5.0 60.5 61.3 62.2 62.1 38.9 38.7 37.8 37.8 69.2 74.1 70.1 24.5 19.7 23.6 2 15394 16.3 15.9 15.8 17.2 16.8 8.7 6.4 4.5 5.1 83.4 59.8 71.5 70.5 54.9 40.2 28.5 30.3 68.6 69.1 68.4 25.2 16.2 18.9 3 15395 16.4 20.7 16.0 15.4 15.6 8.1 5.7 5.3 5.5 59.9 64.2 61.8 64.9 39.3 35.8 38.2 35.1 71.2 68.8 69.4 20.7 24.3 23.4 4 15396 9.4 12.4 9.2 8.4 8.9 3.8 2.6 2.4 2.5 68.1 72.0 69.1 71.8 31.0 28.0 30.9 28.2 70.6 72.6 71.6 22.5 21.3 21.8 5 15397 8.5 10.9 8.4 8.8 8.7 4.5 6.6 3.5 4.3 57.4 21.5 56.2 50.9 41.4 78.5 43.8 49.0 70.1 68.9 69.2 23.8 24.4 24.3 6 15398 7.5 8.8 7.4 8.0 7.6 3.3 2.4 2.4 2.4 61.9 67.8 67.1 67.8 37.5 32.2 32.9 32.2 68.2 69.9 68.4 22.3 21.5 22.2 7 15399 16.7 23.9 16.2 18.0 17.0 9.6 6.0 7.4 6.5 59.3 63.1 55.0 62.0 40.0 36.9 45.0 38.0 72.5 51.1 66.3 21.8 45.6 28.7 8 15400 9.9 11.2 9.7 na 9.9 4.5 3.4 na 3.5 59.6 65.3 na 64.6 39.8 34.7 na 35.1 66.2 na 66.2 25.8 na 27.4
Mean 12.2 15.0 11.9 12.9 12.2 6.1 4.7 4.3 4.3 63.8 59.4 63.3 64.3 40.3 40.6 36.7 35.7 69.6 67.8 68.7 23.3 24.7 23.8
MFW MNW M/F N/F F/B %ESP ID ANALNO (A) (B) (C) (D) (E ) (B) (C) (D) (E ) (B) (C) (D) (E ) (B) (C) (D) (E ) (A) (D) (E ) (A) (D) (E)
1 2135576 12.0 20.7 11.0 13.6 13.9 7.9 4.3 4.9 4.8 60.9 60.7 63.7 58.3 38.0 39.3 36.3 34.4 86.4 69.2 74.4 29.8 24.1 25.8 2 2135577 18.2 22.1 17.6 16.6 19.4 6.8 5.5 4.7 5.1 68.1 68.6 71.9 62.5 30.8 31.4 28.1 26.5 72.5 65.7 69.4 38.2 26.4 32.9 3 2135578 15.4 23.6 14.7 16.0 17.0 7.1 7.5 7.8 7.7 46.1 48.6 51.6 47.0 30.1 51.4 48.4 45.2 87.6 70.5 75.5 26.2 21.2 22.7 4 2135579 7.9 11.0 7.5 9.9 9.4 4.1 2.7 3.1 2.9 60.8 64.4 68.4 60.1 37.4 35.6 31.6 31.0 75.9 66.5 71.9 30.1 25.1 28.0 5 2135580 16.7 23.4 16.0 15.7 18.8 9.3 5.7 5.9 5.9 59.1 64.4 62.3 55.0 39.8 35.6 37.7 31.7 77.4 71.1 75.7 30.3 20.8 27.7 6 2135581 6.0 9.1 5.6 6.3 6.5 3.4 2.2 2.2 2.2 60.7 61.1 64.8 59.6 37.5 38.9 35.2 34.6 73.8 64.8 68.6 32.5 28.7 30.3 7 2135582 7.0 9.6 6.9 8.2 8.4 4.0 3.2 3.4 3.3 56.1 52.8 58.5 47.5 42.1 47.2 41.5 39.7 64.9 66.4 65.2 38.1 22.1 35.0 8 2135583 10.4 8.3 10.6 8.5 11.0 3.8 3.7 3.5 3.6 52.5 65.4 53.0 54.1 45.8 34.6 41.7 33.1 81.6 71.9 78.9 23.0 22.1 22.8
Mean 11.7 16.0 11.2 11.9 13.0 5.8 4.4 4.5 4.5 58.0 60.8 61.8 55.5 37.7 39.2 37.6 34.5 77.5 68.3 72.4 31.0 23.8 28.1
Table 7(b): Data on dura fruit components based on sampling through hand picking (non-randomized sampling) at Agency B.
35
Table 7(c): Data on dura fruit components based on sampling through hand picking (non-randomized sampling) at Agency C.
MFW MNW M/F N/F F/B %ESP
ID ANALNO (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (B) (C) (D) (E) (B) (C) (D) (E) (B) (C) (D) (E) (A) (D) (E) (A) (D) (E)
1 96794 11.1 14.3 10.9 10.3 10.5 5.9 4.7 4.4 4.5 57.1 57.0 56.7 56.8 41.1 43.0 43.3 43.1 70.4 76.6 74.6 23.4 17.3 19.3
2 96795 13.0 15.5 12.8 12.3 12.7 6.3 4.8 4.3 4.6 58.1 62.5 64.9 63.5 40.7 37.5 35.1 36.4 72.4 77.5 75.0 21.6 16.5 19.0
3 96796 12.6 16.3 12.3 9.8 10.6 6.8 4.3 4.2 4.3 56.5 64.8 56.9 59.4 41.6 35.2 43.1 40.6 72.0 72.0 72.0 19.6 20.0 19.8
4 96797 11.1 12.7 10.9 9.0 9.7 4.8 3.9 3.9 3.9 60.5 64.2 57.3 59.6 38.0 35.8 42.7 40.3 65.7 67.4 66.8 26.6 25.0 25.6
5 96798 12.1 16.1 11.7 8.8 10.1 5.5 4.3 4.0 4.2 64.2 63.6 54.5 58.7 34.4 36.4 45.5 41.2 65.6 60.5 62.7 26.7 32.8 30.1
Mean 12.0 15.0 11.7 10.1 10.7 5.9 4.4 4.2 4.3 59.3 62.4 58.1 59.6 39.1 37.6 41.9 40.3 69.2 70.8 70.2 23.6 22.3 22.8
Note: MFW = mean fruit wt (g), MNW = mean nut weight (g), M/F = mesocarp to fruit (%), N/F = nut to fruit (%), F/B = fruit to bunch (%),% of
%ESP = empty spikelet (%). (A) = sample for F/B estimation, (B) = sample for fruit components (FC (C) = surplus fruits from FC (D) = remaining fruits after sub-sampling for fruit to bunch components, (E) = total fruit bunch: (A) + (B) + (C) + (D).
36
Table 8(a): Data on dura fruit components based on manual random sampling at Agency A.
MFW MNW M/F N/F F/B %ESP
ID ANALNO (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (B) (C) (D) (E) (B) (C) (D) (E) (B) (C) (D) (E) (A) (D) (E) (A) (D) (E)
1 15401 10.0 9.5 10.0 10.1 10.1 3.0 3.0 2.9 3.0 68.9 69.4 71.2 70.5 31.1 30.6 28.8 29.5 73.3 73.9 73.3 19.6 19.2 19.4
2 15402 6.9 7.1 6.9 7.7 7.3 3.2 2.7 3.1 2.9 56.1 61.2 59.8 60.1 43.9 38.8 40.2 39.9 67.9 59.2 62.2 23.8 33.7 30.2
3 15403 9.0 9.5 9.0 10.2 9.8 3.6 3.4 3.7 3.6 63.2 62.2 63.8 63.3 36.8 37.8 36.2 36.7 71.5 74.1 73.4 21.6 18.5 19.4
4 15404 15.3 14.8 15.1 14.5 14.6 5.5 5.7 5.0 5.2 64.1 62.5 65.3 64.6 35.9 37.5 34.7 35.4 67.0 71.8 70.3 26.6 22.1 23.2
5 15405 8.4 8.4 8.3 8.5 8.4 3.8 3.6 3.7 3.6 55.9 56.4 57.0 56.8 44.1 43.6 43.0 43.2 67.0 67.0 66.8 26.5 27.2 27.1
6 15406 12.8 12.5 12.7 15.0 14.1 5.0 4.8 5.6 5.3 61.0 62.3 62.8 62.5 39.0 37.7 37.2 37.5 68.9 71.6 70.4 23.8 19.8 21.2
7 15407 6.2 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.2 2.7 2.6 2.7 2.7 57.4 57.6 56.2 56.9 42.6 42.4 43.8 43.1 65.9 62.7 63.8 26.7 28.7 27.7
8 15408 6.3 7.2 6.2 6.0 6.1 3.0 2.4 2.3 2.3 59.1 61.2 61.9 61.6 40.9 38.8 38.1 38.4 71.6 67.1 68.1 21.6 25.3 24.3
9 15409 6.3 6.2 6.3 5.2 5.6 3.0 2.7 2.3 2.5 52.2 57.5 55.4 56.0 47.8 42.5 44.6 44.0 65.7 62.3 63.7 27.0 29.7 28.6
10 15410 13.0 13.6 12.7 11.1 11.5 4.9 4.2 3.8 3.9 65.1 66.6 66.1 66.1 34.9 33.4 33.9 33.9 67.8 64.6 65.1 25.6 28.3 27.6
Mean 9.4 9.5 9.3 9.5 9.4 3.8 3.5 3.5 3.5 60.3 61.7 61.9 61.9 39.7 38.3 38.1 38.1 68.6 67.4 67.7 24.3 25.2 24.9
Table 8(b): Data on dura fruit components based on manual random sampling at Agency B.
MFW MNW M/F N/F F/B %ESP ID ANALNO (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (B) (C) (D) (E) (B) (C) (D) (E) (B) (C) (D) (E) (A) (D) (E) (A) (D) (E)
1 2135584 6.0 6.9 6.0 7.3 6.7 2.5 1.8 2.2 2.0 66.3 70.0 69.4 69.4 33.7 30.0 30.6 30.6 65.6 66.1 65.9 29.4 28.8 29.1 2 2135584 12.4 11.0 12.3 10.9 11.1 5.2 5.2 4.5 4.6 55.7 58.0 58.5 58.2 44.3 42.0 41.5 41.7 68.7 68.9 68.6 24.7 24.5 24.6 3 2135584 8.8 8.1 8.8 8.3 8.6 3.2 3.3 3.2 3.3 63.3 62.4 61.5 61.9 36.7 37.6 38.5 38.0 60.1 57.8 58.8 32.7 35.3 33.5 4 2135584 11.6 10.6 11.5 11.1 11.1 4.9 4.5 4.2 4.3 57.1 61.1 61.7 61.4 42.9 38.9 38.3 38.6 69.9 70.0 69.7 21.9 21.7 21.8 5 2135584 6.7 6.3 6.6 5.9 6.3 2.4 2.2 2.2 2.2 65.2 65.8 63.1 64.6 34.8 34.2 36.9 35.3 63.0 61.9 61.4 29.9 31.1 30.3 6 2135584 8.7 7.4 8.6 7.5 8.0 2.7 3.1 2.8 2.9 65.6 64.1 62.7 63.4 34.4 35.9 37.3 36.5 70.5 67.5 68.1 23.4 26.6 24.8 7 2135584 6.6 5.5 6.6 6.1 6.1 2.2 2.3 1.9 2.0 62.7 65.2 68.7 67.6 37.3 34.8 31.3 32.3 57.6 57.8 57.3 35.6 35.4 35.4 8 2135584 5.4 4.9 5.3 5.3 5.3 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.4 54.5 55.9 55.3 55.3 45.5 44.1 44.7 44.7 61.6 65.1 63.9 30.1 26.1 27.0 9 2135584 6.3 5.8 6.2 5.6 5.8 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.3 59.8 61.3 59.2 59.7 40.2 38.7 40.8 40.3 62.9 60.4 60.8 29.7 32.5 31.7
10 2135584 6.2 5.7 6.1 6.6 6.3 2.3 2.0 2.3 2.1 62.2 67.2 65.7 66.1 37.8 32.8 34.3 33.9 66.9 61.6 63.9 27.0 32.7 29.6 Mean 7.9 7.2 7.8 7.5 7.5 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.8 61.2 63.1 62.6 62.7 38.8 36.9 37.4 37.2 64.7 63.7 63.8 28.4 29.5 28.8
37
Table 8(c): Data on dura fruit components based on random sampling at Agency C using sampling box.
ID ANALNO MFW MNW M/F N/F F/B %ESP
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (B) (C) (D) (E) (B) (C) (D) (E) (B) (C) (D) (E) (A) (D) (E) (A) (D) (E)
1 96799 8.3 7.8 8.3 9.1 8.9 3.1 3.4 3.8 3.7 60.1 58.8 58.2 58.4 35.9 41.2 41.8 41.6 67.5 67.7 67.5 25.6 25.0 25.2
2 96800 7.5 9.3 7.3 8.2 7.9 3.3 2.2 2.8 2.6 64.7 69.6 66.2 67.4 31.8 30.4 33.8 32.6 69.9 68.3 69.0 24.4 25.7 25.1
3 96801 10.4 9.1 10.6 8.4 9.4 3.0 2.9 2.3 2.6 67.2 72.3 72.5 72.0 29.6 27.7 27.5 27.9 64.9 65.1 64.9 26.8 26.6 26.7
4 96802 6.8 7.1 6.8 7.3 7.2 2.9 2.7 2.9 2.9 58.9 60.7 59.9 60.0 37.0 39.3 40.1 40.0 66.2 66.1 66.1 25.4 25.7 25.6
5 96803 9.2 9.7 9.1 10.9 10.5 3.8 3.4 4.2 4.0 60.2 62.7 61.5 61.7 35.9 37.3 38.5 38.3 69.0 66.9 67.3 21.6 23.6 23.2
6 96804 5.3 5.5 5.3 4.7 4.8 2.7 2.3 2.1 2.2 50.7 56.3 55.2 55.3 44.4 43.8 44.8 44.6 61.2 61.6 61.5 27.9 26.8 27.1
7 96805 11.8 12.9 11.7 11.8 11.8 5.2 4.2 4.4 4.3 60.1 64.2 62.9 63.2 36.0 35.8 37.1 36.8 71.6 67.9 68.9 21.1 25.6 24.3
8 96806 5.6 7.5 5.4 6.9 6.2 3.0 1.9 2.6 2.3 60.4 65.8 61.5 63.1 35.7 34.2 38.5 36.9 64.2 57.5 60.3 26.1 33.6 30.5
Mean 8.1 8.6 8.1 8.4 8.3 3.4 2.9 3.1 3.1 60.3 63.8 62.2 62.6 35.8 36.2 37.8 37.3 66.8 65.1 65.7 24.9 26.6 26.0
Table 8(d): Data on fruit components of tenera based on random sampling at Agency C using sampling box.
MFW MNW M/F N/F F/B %ESP
ID ANALNO (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (B) (E) (B) (C) (D) (E) (B) (C) (D) (E) (A) (D) (E) (A) (D) (E)
1 96807 15.5 14.3 16.7 na 15.9 2.0 1.9 85.8 89.4 na 88.4 14.2 10.6 na 11.6 29.7 na 30.7 67 na 67.3
2 96808 4.4 5.4 4.2 7.4 4.7 0.6 0.5 88.4 88.5 87.8 88.4 11.6 11.5 12.2 11.6 68.1 50.4 64.2 22 45 26.7
3 96809 6.6 7.7 6.4 6.9 6.7 2.2 1.3 71.6 82.0 82.4 81.3 28.4 18.0 17.6 18.7 56.9 54.0 55.4 37 40 37.8
4 96810 7.7 8.1 7.7 6.0 6.4 1.5 1.4 81.3 77.9 77.5 77.7 18.7 22.1 22.5 22.3 71.5 68.3 69.1 24 27 26.5
Mean 8.5 8.9 8.7 6.8 8.4 1.6 1.3 81.8 84.5 82.6 83.9 18.2 15.5 17.4 16.1 56.6 57.6 54.8 37.4 37.3 39.6
Note: MFW = mean fruit wt (g), MNW = mean nut weight (g), M/F = mesocarp to fruit (%), N/F = nut to fruit (%), F/B = fruit to bunch (%), %ESP = % of empty spikelet (%). (A) = sample for F/B estimation, (B) = sample for fruit components (FC), (C) = surplus fruits from FC (D) = remaining fruits after sub-sampling for fruit to bunch components, (E) = total fruit bunch: (A) + (B) + (C) + (D).
38
Environment 1: Dried fibre left in ambient temperature
Environment 2: Dried fibre kept in desiccator filled with silica gel
Environment 3: Dried fibre placed one foot under infra-red lamp at 70°C - 90°C after oven
drying.
The mesocarp fibre weight was recorded every 10 minutes until one hour.
B. Results and discussion
As much anticipated, the dry fibre weight kept increasing since the first ten minutes recording
(Table 9(a)). The average percentage of the hygroscopic fibre weight increment for the first
ten minutes was 3.23% and gradually increased to 8.62% after 60 minutes indicating the need
to avoid keeping too long in ambient temperature.
Result in Table 9(a) shows that storing in desiccator while weighing the dry mesocarp fibre in
a row caused the increase in dry fibre weight from 3.23% at ten minutes of storage to 6.27%
at 60 minutes i.e. only 2.35% lower that the former.
In comparison to the earlier to environments, putting the dried mesocarp fibre at one foot
under infra-red lamp that gives out 70° - 90°C heat treatment proved to be the best condition
to maintain the fibre weight during weighing where the percentage of moisture absorption
was only from 0.30% at the first ten minutes to 0.80% at 60 hours.
39
Table 9(a): Weight (g) and percentage of weight increment of dried mesocarp fibre left in ambient temperature
No. Sample Dry fibre weight (g) Dried fibre left in ambient temperature without any treatment
No. after oven drying Fibre weight (g) after oven drying % of fibre weight increment after oven drying 10 min. 20 min. 30 min. 40 min. 50 min. 60 min. 10 min. 20 min. 30 min. 40 min. 50 min. 60 min.
1 161 1.7698 1.8090 1.8254 1.8334 1.8372 1.8481 1.8510 3.92 5.56 6.36 6.74 7.83 8.12 2 162 1.7902 1.8334 1.8574 1.8649 1.8668 1.8762 1.8793 4.32 6.72 7.47 7.66 8.60 8.91 3 163 1.8253 1.8513 1.8710 1.8813 1.8872 1.8967 1.9046 2.60 4.57 5.60 6.19 7.14 7.93 4 164 1.7798 1.8006 1.8291 1.8412 1.8458 1.8499 1.8628 2.08 4.93 6.14 6.60 7.01 8.30 5 165 2.1833 2.2205 2.2467 2.2585 2.2633 2.2746 2.2858 3.72 6.34 7.52 8.00 9.13 10.25 6 166 1.7787 1.8046 1.8334 1.8408 1.8440 1.8502 1.8590 2.59 5.47 6.21 6.53 7.15 8.03 7 167 2.2062 2.2408 2.2616 2.2731 2.2833 2.2981 2.3115 3.46 5.54 6.69 7.71 9.19 10.53 8 168 1.8745 1.9071 1.9248 1.9400 1.9470 1.9642 1.9727 3.26 5.03 6.55 7.25 8.97 9.82 9 169 1.7227 1.7596 1.7723 1.7847 1.7901 1.8007 1.8059 3.69 4.96 6.20 6.74 7.80 8.32
10 170 1.7675 1.8009 1.8209 1.8313 1.8353 1.8412 1.8471 3.34 5.34 6.38 6.78 7.37 7.96 11 171 1.8314 1.8694 1.8953 1.8996 1.9068 1.9126 1.9235 3.80 6.39 6.82 7.54 8.12 9.21 12 172 1.8156 1.8419 1.8609 1.8719 1.8783 1.8869 1.8936 2.63 4.53 5.63 6.27 7.13 7.80 13 173 1.9223 1.9539 1.9705 1.9818 1.9885 1.9975 2.0076 3.16 4.82 5.95 6.62 7.52 8.53 14 174 1.5926 1.6215 1.6358 1.6477 1.6497 1.6559 1.6654 2.89 4.32 5.51 5.71 6.33 7.28 15 175 1.6104 1.6407 1.6597 1.6745 1.6753 1.6825 1.6934 3.03 4.93 6.41 6.49 7.21 8.30
Mean 1.8314 1.8637 1.8843 1.8950 1.8999 1.9090 1.9175 3.23 5.30 6.36 6.86 7.77 8.62 CV 9.3150 9.2354 9.2159 9.1612 9.2260 9.2867 9.3112 18.77 13.56 9.43 9.39 11.15 10.94
40
Table 9(b): Weight (g) and percentage of weight increment (%) of dried mesocarp fibre kept in desiccator
No. Sample Dry fibre weight (g) Dried fibre kept in desiccator No. after oven drying Fibre weight (g) after oven drying % of fibre weight increment after oven drying 10 min. 20 min. 30 min. 40 min. 50 min. 60 min. 10 min. 20 min. 30 min. 40 min. 50 min. 60 min.
1 176 1.7620 1.7894 1.8021 1.8108 1.8156 1.8214 1.8263 2.74 4.01 4.88 5.36 5.94 6.43 2 177 1.8992 1.9132 1.9294 1.9360 1.9436 1.9477 1.9539 1.40 3.02 3.68 4.44 4.85 5.47 3 178 1.7137 1.7513 1.7605 1.7662 1.7732 1.7768 1.7814 3.76 4.68 5.25 5.95 6.31 6.77 4 179 2.5507 2.5716 2.5896 2.6050 2.6146 2.6228 2.6306 2.09 3.89 5.43 6.39 7.21 7.99 5 180 1.6345 1.6609 1.6679 1.6749 1.6809 1.6875 1.6919 2.64 3.34 4.04 4.64 5.30 5.74 6 181 1.7104 1.7360 1.7467 1.7537 1.7589 1.7634 1.7685 2.56 3.63 4.33 4.85 5.30 5.81 7 182 1.6969 1.7135 1.7267 1.7381 1.7431 1.7498 1.7526 1.66 2.98 4.12 4.62 5.29 5.57 8 183 1.8721 1.9054 1.9180 1.9231 1.9294 1.9346 1.9406 3.33 4.59 5.10 5.73 6.25 6.85 9 184 1.7783 1.8025 1.8119 1.8216 1.8266 1.8334 1.8361 2.42 3.36 4.33 4.83 5.51 5.78
10 185 2.1371 2.1655 2.1745 2.1870 2.1923 2.2016 2.2096 2.84 3.74 4.99 5.52 6.45 7.25 11 186 1.7718 1.7989 1.8135 1.8187 1.8279 1.8336 1.8387 2.71 4.17 4.69 5.61 6.18 6.69 12 187 1.7278 1.7562 1.7690 1.7787 1.7832 1.7865 1.7907 2.84 4.12 5.09 5.54 5.87 6.29 13 188 1.8862 1.9157 1.9296 1.9369 1.9441 1.9511 1.9552 2.95 4.34 5.07 5.79 6.49 6.90 14 189 1.6333 1.6515 1.6654 1.6717 1.6757 1.6812 1.6854 1.82 3.21 3.84 4.24 4.79 5.21 15 190 1.7319 1.7496 1.7634 1.7681 1.7733 1.7786 1.7852 1.77 3.15 3.62 4.14 4.67 5.33
Mean 1.8337 1.8587 1.8712 1.8794 1.8855 1.8913 1.8964 2.50 3.75 4.56 5.18 5.76 6.27 CV 12.84 12.65 12.64 12.70 12.71 12.72 12.75 25.99 15.01 13.24 13.21 12.74 12.77
41
Table 9(c): Weight (g) and percentage of weight increment (%) of dried mesocarp fibre exposed under infra-red lamp at 70°C - 90°C
after oven drying
No. Sample Dry fibre weight (g) Dried fibre placed one foot under infra-red lamp at 70°C - 90°C after oven drying No. after oven drying Fibre weight (g) after oven drying % of fibre weight increment after oven drying
10 min. 20 min. 30 min. 40 min. 50 min. 60 min. 10 min. 20 min. 30 min. 40 min. 50 min. 60 min. 1 191 1.7094 1.7095 1.7106 1.7190 1.7187 1.7118 1.7148 0.01 0.12 0.96 0.93 0.24 0.54 2 191 1.6287 1.6349 1.6440 1.6378 1.6421 1.6368 1.6440 0.62 1.53 0.91 1.34 0.81 1.53 3 191 1.8643 1.8756 1.8825 1.8747 1.8756 1.8690 1.8748 1.13 1.82 1.04 1.13 0.47 1.05 4 191 2.4790 2.4828 2.4861 2.4803 2.4847 2.4880 2.4902 0.38 0.71 0.13 0.57 0.90 1.12 5 191 2.0302 2.0399 2.0437 2.0386 2.0479 2.0437 2.0466 0.97 1.35 0.84 1.77 1.35 1.64 6 191 1.7826 1.7828 1.7828 1.7816 1.7818 1.7870 1.7860 0.02 0.02 -0.10 -0.08 0.44 0.34 7 191 1.6612 1.6623 1.6613 1.6676 1.6658 1.6646 1.6677 0.11 0.01 0.64 0.46 0.34 0.65 8 191 1.7681 1.7752 1.7750 1.7701 1.7687 1.7752 1.7683 0.71 0.69 0.20 0.06 0.71 0.02 9 191 2.6691 2.6692 2.6780 2.6771 2.6719 2.6703 2.6785 0.01 0.89 0.80 0.28 0.12 0.94
10 191 1.7225 1.7259 1.7342 1.7403 1.7284 1.7383 1.7320 0.34 1.17 1.78 0.59 1.58 0.95 11 191 2.0634 2.0639 2.0641 2.0705 2.0755 2.0785 2.0763 0.05 0.07 0.71 1.21 1.51 1.29 12 191 1.9499 1.9505 1.9463 1.9467 1.9459 1.9534 1.9540 0.06 -0.36 -0.32 -0.40 0.35 0.41 13 191 1.7538 1.7540 1.7549 1.7566 1.7580 1.7590 1.7551 0.02 0.11 0.28 0.42 0.52 0.13 14 191 1.9824 1.9830 1.9826 1.9848 1.9780 1.9889 1.9927 0.06 0.02 0.24 -0.44 0.65 1.03 15 191 1.7037 1.7044 1.7065 1.7155 1.7128 1.7060 1.7135 0.07 0.28 1.18 0.91 0.23 0.98
Mean 1.9179 1.9209 1.9235 1.9241 1.9237 1.9247 1.9263 0.30 0.56 0.62 0.58 0.68 0.84 CV 15.68 15.64 15.67 15.57 15.60 15.63 15.68
42
CONCLUSIONS
The bunch analysis method by NIFOR is still reliable and robust if all the steps are strictly
followed. The standard procedure highlighted in this paper is just a supplement to the earlier
paper by Rao et al, 1983. However, the proper nut drying, fruit sub-sampling and handling of
dry mesocarp and mesocarp fiber are among the most crucial matters for accurate results.
This standard would serve a check for all oil palm comparative trials which involve MPOB
and Malaysia seed producers in the future.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors wish to express their sincere appreciation to top managements of MPOB, Sime
Darby, Felda, The United Plantations Sdn. Bhd, IOI Corporation, AAR Sdn Bhd and Kulim
M Bhd for their permission to publish this paper.
REFERENCES
1. G. Blaak, L. D. Spaarnaaij and T. Menendez (1963). Breeding for inheritance in the oil
palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.) Part II Methods of bunch quality analysis. J. W. Afr. Inst.
Oil Palm Res., 4, 146.
2. V. Rao, A.C. Soh, R. H. V. Corley, C. H. Lee, N. Rajanaidu, Y. P. Tan, C. W. Chin, K.
C. Lim, S. T. Tan, T. P. Lee and M. Ngui (1983). A Critical Reexamination of the
Method of Bunch Quality Analysis in Oil Palm Breeding. PORIM Occasional Paper No.
9:1 - 28.