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.