Figure 1: Uses of Canarium schweinfurthii in Fobur District of Jos East LGA of Plateau State

Figure 2: Attributes of Canariums chweinfurthii fruits

Figure 3: Collection of Canarium schweinfruthii fruit samples from different villages A&B. Rizek 1; Nubatong 2 (A&B); C. Kerker 3 (A&B)

Figure 4: Plate 8- Zone of inhibition of Canarium schweinfurthii leaf extracts from Kerker village and the control

Figure 5: Plate 7- Zone of inhibition of Canarium schwenfurthii leaf extracts from Rizek village and the control

Figure 6: Plate 9- Zone of inhibition of Canarium schweinfurthii leaf extracts from Nubatong village and the control

Characteristics

Frequency

Percent

Age group

 

 

15-24

3

20.0

25-34

3

20.0

35-44

5

33,3

45+

4

26.7

Education

 

 

Primary

5

33.3

Secondary

6

40.0

Tertiary

4

26.7

Occupation

 

 

Farming

9

60.0

Trading

2

13.3

Student

4

26.7

Tribe

 

 

Afizere

15

100

Common name

 

 

Atili

15

100

Special name

 

 

Refat

15

100

When a Particular variety is found

 

 

1 Dry season

13

86.7

2 Wet season

2

13.3

Uses of Canariumschweinfurthii

 

 

Food

12

80.0

Medicine

15

100.0

Forage

4

26.7

Timber

6

40.0

Oil

11

73.3

Part use

 

 

Leaf

7

46.7

Seed

1

6.7

Bark

14

93.3

Fruit

15

100.0

Harvesting

 

 

November

4

26.7

December

7

46.7

January

9

60.0

February

4

26.7

Pest that attack ripe fruit

 

 

Birds

7

46.7

Rodents

6

40.0

Others

6

40.0

Peak

 

 

Wet season

2

13.3

Dry season

13

86.7

Attribute

 

 

Sweet

9

60.0

Sour

6

40.0

Oily

12

80.0

Non oily

3

20.0

Soft

5

33.3

Hard

10

66.7

Table 1:Result of background characteristic of Respondents The ripening period of the varieties is between October to March Source: Field Survey, (2017)

Varieties

Weight (g)

Length
(cm)

Width
(cm)

Shape

Duration/Prewarming at 18 °C

Kerker

6.22

4.3

7.5

Ovate

8 minutes

Nubatong

34.5

4.3

6.3

Elipse

12 minutes

Rizeck

28.5

3.9

6.1

Ovate

11 minutes

Table 2:Average fruit weight, length, width, shapes and duration of pre-warming Source: Field Survey, 2017

Constituents

Location

 

Kal

Kbl

Nal

Nbl

Ral

Rbl

Alkaloids

-

-

-

-

-

-

Tannins

+++

+++

++

+++

++

++

Saponins

++

++

++

+

++

++

Flavonoids

++

+++

++

+++

++

+++

Carbohydrates

++

+++

+++

++

+++

++

Cardiac glycosides

-

-

-

-

-

-

Steriods

++

+++

++

+

++

+++

Anthraquinones

++

+

++

+

+++

++

Key
- = Absent
+ = Present
++ = Appreciably present
+++ = Abundantly present
Kal - Leaf variety 1 from Kerker village
Kbl - Leaf variety 2 from Kerker village
Nal - Leaf variety 1 from Nubatong village
Nbl - Leaf variety 2 from Nubatong village
Ral - Leaf variety 1 from Rizek village
Rbl - Leaf variety 2 from Rizek village

Table 3:Result showing the phytochemical screening of the ethanolic leaf extracts of Canarium schweinfurthii

Constituents

Location

 

Kaf

Kbf

Naf

Nbf

Raf

Rbf

Alkaloids

-

-

-

-

-

-

Tannins

-

-

-

-

+

-

Saponins

-

-

-

-

-

-

Flavonoids

+

+

+

+

+

+

Carbohydrates

++

+

+++

+++

+++

++

Cardiac glycosides

-

-

-

-

-

-

Steriods

++

+

++

++

+

+

Anthraquinones

-

-

-

-

-

-

Terpenoids

-

-

-

-

-

-

Key
- = Absent
+ = Present
++ = Appreciably present
+++ = Abundantly present
Kaf - Fruit variety 1 from Kerker village
Kbf - Fruit variety 2 from Kerker village
Naf - Fruit variety 1 from Nubatong village
Nbf - Fruit variety 2 from Nubatong village
Raf - Fruit variety 1 from Rizek village
Rbf - Fruit variety 2 from Rizek village

Table 4:: The result showing the phytochemical screening of the fruits extracts of Canarium schweinfurthii

Test Organism

Mean diameter of the zones of inhibition (mm) at different concentration (mg/ml) of extract

Control Ciprofloxacin

 

400

200

100

50

 

Pseudonomasaeruginosa

22

20

15

13

50

Staphylocccusaureus

20

23

14

10

32

Streptococcus mutans

-

-

-

-

50

Salmonella typhi

29

26

21

14

30

Bacillus subtilis

27

22

18

12

34

Escherichia coli

25

20

-

-

52

Table 5:Antibacterial activity of Ethanolic leaf extract of Canarium schweinfurthii on Kerker village variety on test organisms

Test Organism

Mean diameter of the zones of inhibition (mm) at different concentration (mg/ml) of extract

Control
Ciprofloxacin

 

400

200

100

90

 

Pseudonomasaeruginosa

-

-

-

-

51

Staphylocccusaureus

-

-

-

-

23

Streptococcus mutans

18

14

10

8

63

Salmonella typhi

-

-

-

-

35

Bacillus subtilis

12

10

7

5

24

Escherichia coli

28

24

20

15

37

Table 6:Antibacterial activity of Ethanolic leaf extract of Canarium schweinfurthii on Nubatong village variety on test organism

Test Organism

Mean diameter of the zones of inhibition (mm) at different concentration (mg/ml) of extract

Control Ciprofloxacin

 

400

200

100

90

 

Pseudonomasaeruginosa

-

-

-

-

-

Staphylocccusaureus

40

31

28

23

45

Streptococcus mutans

32

31

28

23

55

Salmonella typhi

28

27

25

15

30

Bacillus subtilis

20

15

-

-

35

Escherichia coli

15

10

9

7

38

Table 7:Antibacterial activity of Ethanolic leaf extract of Canarium schweinfurthii (Rizek variety) on test organism

Test Organism

Concentration on (mg/ml)

MIC

 

400

200

100

50

25

12.5

6.25

 

Pseudonomasaeruginosa

-

-

-

-

+

+

+

50

Staphylococcus aureus

-

-

-

-

-

+

+

25

Streptococcus mutans

-

_

_

_

_

-

+

12.5

Salmonella typhi

-

-

-

-

+

+

+

50

Bacillus subtilis

-

-

-

-

+

+

+

50

Escherichia coli

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

12.5

Key
+ = Growth (inhibition)
- = No Growth
Table 8:Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) of the ethanolic leaf extract of Canarium schweinfurthii on Kerker village variety

Test Organism

Concentration on (mg/ml)

MIC

 

400

200

100

50

25

12.5

6.25

 

Streptococcus mutans

-

_

_

_

_

+

+

2.5

Bacillus subtilis

-

-

-

-

+

+

+

50

Escherichia coli

-

-

-

-

-

-

+

12.5

Key
+ = Growth (inhibition)
- = No Growth
Table 9:Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) of the ethanolic leaf extract of Canarium schweinfurthii on Nubatong village variety

Test Organism

Concentration on (mg/ml)

MIC

 

400

200

100

50

25

12.5

6.25

 

Staphylocccusaureus

-

-

-

+

+

+

+

100

Streptococcus mutans

-

_

_

_

_

+

+

25

Salmonella typhi

-

-

-

-

-

-

+

12.5

Bacillus subtilis

-

-

-

-

-

+

+

25

Escherichia coli

-

-

-

-

+

+

+

50

Key
+ = Growth (inhibition)
- = No Growth
Table 10:Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) of the ethanolic leaf extract of Canarium schweinfurthii on Kerker variety

Test Organism

Concentration on (mg/ml)

MBC

 

400

200

100

50

25

12.5

6.25

 

Pseudonomasaeruginosa

-

-

-

-

-

+

+

25

Staphylocccusaureus

-

-

-

-

-

-

+

12.5

Salmonella typhi

-

-

-

-

-

+

+

25

Bacillus subtilis

-

-

-

-

-

+

+

25

Escherichia coli

-

-

-

-

-

-

+

12.5

+ = Growth (inhibition)
- =No Growth
Table 11:Minimum Bactericidal Concentration (MBC) of the ethanolic leaf extract of Canarium schweinfurthii on Kerker village variety Key

Test Organism

Concentration on (mg/ml)

MIC

 

400

200

100

50

25

12.5

6.25

 

Streptococcus mutans

-

_

_

_

_

-

+

12.5

Bacillus subtilis

-

-

-

-

-

+

+

25

Escherichia coli

-

-

-

-

-

-

+

12.5

+ = Growth (inhibition)
- = No Growth
Table 12:Minimum Bactericidal Concentration (MBC) of the leaf ethanolic extract of Canarium schweinfurthii on Nubatong village variety

Test Organism

Concentration on (mg/ml)

MIC

 

400

200

100

50

25

12.5

6.25

 

Pseudonomasaeruginosa

-

-

-

-

-

+

+

25

Staphylocccusaureus

-

-

-

-

-

-

+

12.5

Salmonella typhi

-

-

-

-

-

+

+

25

Bacillus subtilis

-

-

-

-

-

-

+

12.5

Escherichia coli

-

-

-

-

-

-

+

12.5

Key
+ = Growth (inhibition)
- = No Growth
Table 13:Minimum Bacteriocidal Concentration (MBC) of the leaf ethanolic extract of Canarium schweinfurthii on Rizek village variety