Effects of Fermented Food Waste Feeds on Pork Carcass and Meat Quality Properties
6
0
0
전체 글
(2) Îf rb BÎÒò / îG~ ®î. j rjV *~ >¯~& .. Table 1. The composition of experimental diet for growing and finishing pigs1). Òò 5 O». Ingredients. Control2). FFWF3). Grower. Finisher. Grower. Finisher. 60.37 29.54 1.41 3.00 4.00 0.59 0.56 0.30 0.02 0.01 0.10 0.10 100.00. 66.87 22.01 2.44 3.00 4.00 0.59 0.56 0.30 0.02 0.01 0.10 0.10 100.00. 26.83 2.08 70.00 0.78 0.21 0.10 100.00. 29.40 69.11 1.00 0.29 0.10 0.10 100.00. Chemical composition ME (kcal/kg) 3,250 Crude protein (%) 18.00. 3,250 16.00. 3,250 18.00. 3,250 16.00. ÿb 5 þJê Ò·þf ïÚ7 40 kg Ú 3övÇ«(DurocÜ LandraceÜYorkshire) "æ¢ z, > '' 54vO C 108v ¢ ÒÏ~&b, r > f ^¢ Î ©j ÒG~& . Òò/ ¾Òº Îf rbj Î&~æ p ¢>VÒ òòj / &(control)f Îf rb 70% + "^Òò 30%¢ b BÎB B ÛBÎÒò¢ / BÎÒò (FFWF) 2¾Ò¢ vîb, zþæ, ^î Îv ' ¾ Ò 3>, > 9vO C 108v¢ j*ª~ V~~& . BÎÏ b** *` Yang (11)~ O»ö V¢ 40% &Ò^" b~ −70oC ïÿö &B FÖ(Pediococcus acidilactici(Vç®^ KFCC11097))" : Ê "(Bacillus subtillis)¢, FÖf MRS broth, : ʺ Nutrient broth 250 mLö 7«~ 37oC, 150 rpm~ ³ê &>V öVö ~º FÖ 18*, : Ê 7* V· ê 50ÒV V·Vö 7«~ FÖf 24*, : ʺ 12* V·Î r, BR¢Þ 10 kg, ; 20 kg, îæ; 10 kg 5 îC 10 kg" b r ³ V. . r ö £ FÖ~ Wj Fæ~V * Nê º 45oC ~ FæV . f ? BB FÖ" :. ʺ 1 g 1.0Ü107 ç~ î¢ ;W~& .. 39. Corn Soybean meal Food wastes Wheat bran Yellow grease Molasses Limestone TCP Salt L-lysine HCL DL-methionine Vitamin premix4) Mineral premix5) Total. 1). Grower=40-75 kg; Finisher=75-110 kg. Commercial diet. 3) Fermented food waste feeds. 4) Provided per kg of diet: Vit A, 8,000IU; Vit D3, 2,000IU; Vit E, 421IU; Vit K, 5 mg; Riboflavin, 2,400 mg; Vit B2, 9.6 mg; Vit B6, 2.45 mg; Vit B12, 40 µg; Niacin, 49 mg; Pantothenic acid, 27 mg, Biotin, 0.05 mg. 5) Provided per kg of diet: Fe, 145 mg; Cu, 140 mg; Zn, 179 mg; Mn, 12.5 mg; I, 0.5 mg; Co, 0.25 mg; Se, 0.4 mg. 2). Îf rb BÎÒò(Fermented food waste feeds; FFWF) *` >÷B Îf rbf Òò~ Fêf «~ö V¢ F~ ·î~ Îf rbòj Òòz ;b Ú, öªÒ ¢ Ï î>;j Û >ª" "ª 5 ¾Ò¢ Òò ïj 6²V . r bî Fê êöB æîB rb¾ ., B f bî" þ jz ~&b ¾ ^æ¢ Òò Ï~& . ÃV&j Ï~ Òò~ N ê¢ 96oC 5ª* &N~ F b~ Ú" ®²¢ B r £ 60oC ï'Vb, Îf rb" êê "^ Òò¢ 7 : 3 7ïj b~&º, r "^Òò 7 £ 1/4 j b& b~ >ªj .~, BÎÏ bBB 7 :. Êj Òò 7ïö &~ 0.05% R«~& . R« ê £ 20ª *Ïb £ 3-5ª* v>ÊB 12* ç BÎ Vb, BÎÎ bÒòö ¾^æ "^Òò 3/4¢ b Ê bBB 7 FÖj Òò7ïö &~ 0.05%¢ Î &~ 12* z BÎV . -² BB Òò¢ Ò ÿÊB ;K V²* &»ö² /~& . "^ Òòº jG *êV ª~ W~&b, jG*V(Ú7 40-75 kg)º K>> : &v; : ¢ : jæ"B¢ 89.43 : 6.93 : 2.6 : 1.0 7ï %, jGêV(Ú7 75-110 kg)º K>> : ^& : & : ¢ : jæ"B¢ 63.1 : 32.4 : 3.3 : 0.9 : 0.3 7ï % W~& . & ¢> VÒòf ¾Ò FFWF~ V j 5 '·² ïf Table 1ö B~& .. pH: pHº ¦* ò 5 gj ~ Ã~> 20 mLf b ~ Ultra Turrax(Janken & Kunkel, Model No. T25, Germany)¢ ÒÏ~ 8,000 rpmöB 1ª* î ê FÒ* pH meter¢ Ï~ G;~& .. `Ò;î 5 þO» öBº êÚï&¢ *~ Ú7 £ 110Û10 kgö ê~&j r ê» þîj &çb êÚï&¢ ~. >K: Grauf Hamm(12)~ filter paper press»j wÏ~ ß> B·B plexiglass plate~ 7¦ö "æ(Whatman No. 2)¢ ¹ ò 300 mgj ~ *ö ¹f r plexiglass. & . ªC Ïf Ú 5 êÚ¦Òö ®ÚB Ú7, êÚ 7, æO vþ, ;Gï 5 ;GNj G;~&, ê» 24* ê~ ¦*¢ ò ~ "ê æO" j B ê 2Û1oC ïË ö &Ë~B Gîï&¢ ~&b Ï~ G;O»f r" ? . Ú¦Ò: ³ËöB Â~ç*ö Ú7j G;~&b, î z¦ö _b «[ ®^¢ ~ ê» êöê BÚ¢ 2 k > ®ê ~& . êÚ¦Ò: »~ êÚW'j jv~V *~ ãVê B Òz 1N &ËöB êÚ7" æOvþ¢ G;~&b, ;G;îf , n, âß, *æ, êæ, Ï, .j 5 .. VÚ Îv 8B ¦ªG Z²¢ BÚê ª~ ;GZ² ¢ G;~&b ¢ Ï~ êÚ7ö & ;GNj êÖ ~& ..
(3) ®"²æ B 37 ² B 1 ^ (2005). 40. plate 1B¢ *ö B ¹f ê ¢; {Kb 2ª* { OV . ê "æ¢ âÚÚ V GÞ aÚ ®º ¦* ~ '" >ª <Ú ®~ ¦*~ C'j planimeter(Type KP-21, Japan)¢ ÒÏ~ G;~& . >K(%) =. Gç aÚ®º ' Ü100 >ª <Ú®º C'. ã6ï: ò¢ ¢; ηb ;; ê polyethylene Ëæö I 2oC ïËöB 48* &~B B>º ã6ïj G;~ .V ò~ Z²ö & % ¾æÚî . &6ï: ò¢ ö;~ ¢; ηb .~ polyethylene Ëæö IÚ 75oC water bathöB 30ª* &~ ç NöB 30ª* OïÎ ê 6ïj G;~& . *K: ò¢ ¢; vþ .~ 75oC water bathö B 30ª* &~ NöB 30ª* Oï Î ê "RF O Ë" ï¯~² òjV ~ Texture analyzer(TA-XT2i, Stable micro systems, England)ö Warner-Bratzler blade¢ ËO ~ *Kj G;~& . Gï: ò j colorimeter(Chroma meter, CR 210, Minolta, Japan)¢ ÒÏ~ «ê(Lightness)¢ ¾æÚº L*-8, 'ïê(redness)¢ ¾æÚº a*-8" ïê(yellowness)¢ ¾æ Úº b*-8j G;~& . r~ &ïf L*-8f 97.83, a*8 −0.43, b*-8 +1.98 Wï &6j ÒÏ~& . NPPC îGî 6;: National pork producers council(NPPC, 1991) pork quality standardsö ~~ ~ Gï" î :çj ï&~&b, r Gï~ ãÖº 1(pale pinkish gray) ~5(dark purplish red) ª~& î:ç ïf 1(devoid to practically devoid, <2% fat) -5(moderately abundant or more, 6-8% fat) ª~ ï&~& .. ÛêªC þöB áÚê Ö"º SAS(statistical analysis system) package(13)~ General Linear Model(GLM) procedure¢ Ï~ ªÖªCj ~&b, ¾Ò ï*~ F~W ¦;f Duncan’s multiple range test p < 0.05öB ~& .. Ö" 5 V êÚï& Ú7, êÚ7 êÚN: Table 2º Îf rb BÎÒò /ö V jGî~ Ú7, ¢ ÃÚï, êÚ7, êÚN, æOvþ 5 êÚ/j ¾æÞ © . Ú7" êÚ7f V Òò /(&)f BÎÒò /(FFWF)*ö F~ ' N& ìîb, ÿ¢ ¾ÒÚ Wêö V Nö ® ÚBº ^î zþæö j~ Ú7" êÚ7 ² ¸ ² ¾æÒb¾ FFWF Ú êÚ7j B~º Wêö V F~' Nº ìî . ¢ ÃÚïf FFWF& ² Ôf ãËj ¾æÚîb¾ ¾Ò* F~N& ;>æ p~ . ê ÚNf && FFWFö j~ ² ¸² ¾æÒb¾ F ~' Nº ìîb, Wê*~ Nö ®ÚBº zþæö j~ ^î ² ¸² ¾æÒb¾ F~' Nº ìî. . ¢>'b êÚ7 ZÞ> æO vþ& vâÞ> çG B Ã& ~ ® (14). þö B æO vþº &~ ^î 31.57 mm &Ë vâ , FFWF~ zþæ& 27.50 mm &Ë f ©b ¾æÒ. . v ¾Ò Îv ^î zþæö j~ ² vâÚ æO vþ¢ ¾æîb¾ F~' Nº ìî . *Ú'b º FFWF& 28.70 mm &(31.17 mm)ö j~ æO f ©b ¾æÒ (p < 0.05). Myer (15)f Îf rbj 40 _f 80% Î& ÆA ;~ Îf rb Òò ¢ jGîö / þöB Îf rb~ Î&>& Ã& ~B æO vþ& 6²~& ~& . Wêö V æ O vþ~ Nö ®ÚB Chung (16)f ^î zþæö. Table 2. Effect of feeding fermented food waste feed (FFWF) on the carcass traits of pork Treatment Item. Control Gilt. Live weight (kg) Average daily gain (g) Carcass weight (kg) Dressing percentage (%)1) Backfat thickness (mm) Carcass grade2) 1). FFWF Barrow. 106.2Û6.54ab 103.9Û5.34b,3) (105.0Û6.05)4) 787Û74 826Û66 (806Û68) 78.56Û5.47b 80.74Û1.20ab (79.63Û6.45) 75.63Û3.86 75.96Û4.05 (75.79Û3.94) 30.79Û3.86a 31.57Û4.79a (31.17Û4.35)a 1.68Û0.68 1.70Û0.86 (1.69 0.77). Carcass weight/live weightÜ100. 1=A grade, 2=B grade. 3) MeanÛS.D. 4) MeanÛS.D. of control or fermented food waste feed treatment. a-b Values with different superscripts in the same row are significantly different (p<0.05). 2). Gilt. Barrow. 106.3Û5.97ab 108.9Û6.22a (107.1Û6.19) 748Û68 753Û56 (750Û61) 78.81Û6.31b 82.00Û5.66a (80.52Û6.13) 74.14Û4.29 75.40Û4.87 (74.81Û4.61) 27.50Û3.17b 29.73Û4.31ab (28.70Û3.95)b 1.63Û0.63 1.77Û0.73 (1.71 0.68).
(4) Îf rb BÎÒò / îG~ ®î. 41. Table 3. Effect of feeding fermented food waste feed (FFWF) on the cut meat, a total of 8 primal cuts and meat percentage of pork Treatment Item. Control. FFWF. Gilt Picnic shoulder (kg). Barrow b2). 7.40Û0.64. Gilt ab. 7.69Û0.93 b3). Ham (kg) Loin (kg) Tenderloin (kg) Boston butt (kg) Belly (kg) Spareribs (kg) Diaphragm (kg) Total of 8 primal cuts (kg) Meat percentage (%)1). (7.54Û0.80) 14.90Û1.06 14.70Û1.79 (14.80Û1.47) 5.18Û0.57bc 5.14Û0.61c b (5.16Û0.59) 0.79Û0.09b 0.81Û0.09b b (0.80Û0.09) 3.96Û0.36 4.08Û0.41 (4.01 0.39) 9.26Û1.25b 9.92Û1.20a b (9.58Û1.27) 3.45Û0.32 3.59Û0.40 (3.52Û0.37) 0.21Û0.03 0.21Û0.03 (0.21Û0.03) 45.16Û3.29c 46.12Û3.64bc (45.63Û3.49)b b 57.51Û2.22 57.27Û3.38b b (57.39Û2.84). Barrow ab. 7.91Û0.78a. 7.75Û1.14. a. (7.84Û0.96) 15.03Û1.45 15.18Û1.36 (15.19Û1.39) 5.39Û0.43ab 5.44Û0.37a a (5.42Û0.39) 0.86Û0.07a 0.85Û0.09a a (0.85Û0.08) 4.16Û0.51 4.09Û0.55 (4.12 0.53) 10.07Û1.22a 10.39Û0.94a a (10.24Û1.08) 3.57Û0.43 3.63Û0.46 (3.61Û0.44) 0.22Û0.03 0.23Û0.04 (0.22Û0.03) 47.06Û3.34ab 47.71Û2.17a a (47.41Û2.77) 59.85Û3.63a 58.38Û3.82b (59.06Û3.77)a. 1). Meat percentage: (8 primal cuts/carcass weight)Ü100. MeanÛS.D. 3) MeanÛS.D. of control or fermented food waste feed treatment. a-c Values with different superscripts in the same row are significantly different (p<0.05). 2). j~ æO vþ& ² vâÚ ãËj &b¾ F~' Nº ìî : ® . êÚ/ö ®ÚBº & f FFWF*ö F~' N& ìîb, Wê*öê N & ìº ©b ¾æÒ (p > 0.05). ¦ªGï # ;GN: Îf rb BÎÒò /ö V " æ~ "B &¦* *æ, êæ, , n, Ï, âßÚ, . j 5 . VÚ~ ïj '' G;~&b, ~ Z²¢ êÚ7 ;GN Ö"º Table 3" ? . FFWFº & ö j~ *æ, , n 5 âßÚ~ ï ² ¸ ² ¾æÒb, êæ, Ï, .j 5 . VÚf v ¾Ò Ò ö F~' N& ìî . 8B¦*~ CZ²º && 45.63 kgb FFWF~ 47.41 kg. ² 'îb, êÚ7ö & ;GNf FFWF& 59.06% &(57.39%). ² ¸² ¾æÒ . Ö"º FFWF& &ö j~ æO vþ& ~~ ©ö V~º ©b 6B . Wêö V Nö ®ÚBº ÿ¢ ¾ÒÚöBº ^î" zþæ *ö ' ¦ªG~ Z² 5 C ¦ªG Z²º N& ìîb¾, êÚNf ^î zþæö j Ôf ãËj ¾æîb, Ö"º Chung (16)~ Ö"f ¢~~& . îG®î pH, >K, &Ë6ï, &6ï # *K: ¢>VÒòf Îf rb BÎÒò¢ /~ jGÎ îG ¦*~ pH, >K, &Ë6ï, &6ï 5 *Kf Table 4f ? . G~ pHº >K 5 ê ~ ®î æzf &7 &ê&. ®Ú G~ ®îj 6;~º V B . þöB pHº Îv ;çG~ « pH º*¢ ¾æîb, FFWF~ zþæ & 5.40b &Ë Ôf pH¢ ¾æî, &~ ^î pH 5.54 &Ë ¸² ¾æÒb¾(p < 0.05), *Ú'b VÒò / & Îf rb BÎÒò /ö j~ ² ¸f © b ¾æÒ (p < 0.05). G~ >Wf Wî~ *6ö &rÞ> Ôf 8j ¾æÚº ©b rJ^ ® (17). þöB îG ~ >K(WHC)f *Ú'b pH& Ôf FFWF& &ö j ~ ² Ô² ¾æÒb¾ F~' N& ìîb, ÿ¢ ¾ÒÚöBê Wêö V >K~ Nº ìº ©b ¾ æÒ (p > 0.05). 2oC ïË öB 2¢* &Ë~º ÿn G;B &Ë6ïf *Ú'b FFWF& &ö j~ ² 6ï ôf ©b ¾æÒb¾ F~' Nº ìîb, ÿ¢ ¾ÒÚöB Wê*ö F~' N& ìî (p > 0.05). Îf rb BÎÒò¢ /~&j r &6ïf & f F~' N& ìîb, ÿ¢ ¾Ò ÚöBê zþæf ^î Òö N& ìî (p > 0.05). &6ïf Wî æ Wb ¾æ¾º &Nêf &* 7º º > , &6ïf >K" pHf &ê& pf ©b rJ^ ®. (18). þöBº pHf >K 5 &6ï Îv Îf r b BÎÒò /ö V 'Ëj Aæ pº ©b ¾æÒ . êº ²j¶ G 5 GB®j S~ ï& r & Ë 7º ¿ê& >º ©b þöB &º ï 3.73 kg~ *K&¢ ¾æîb, FFWFº ï 3.75 kg~ * K&¢ ¾æÚÚ /Òò*ö F~' N& ìî, z.
(5) ®"²æ B 37 ² B 1 ^ (2005). 42. Table 4. Effect of feeding fermented food waste feed (FFWF)) on meat quality characteristics of pork loin Treatment Item. Control. FFWF. Gilt pH. Barrow ab,2). Gilt a. 5.54Û0.25. 5.51Û0.21. a,3). (5.52Û0.23) 40.20Û8.92 39.28Û7.57 (39.73Û8.19) 4.41Û1.78 4.25Û1.94 (4.33Û1.85) 32.65Û2.49 31.43Û1.48 (32.03Û2.41) 3.72Û1.11 3.74Û1.03 (3.73Û1.06). WHC (%)1) Drip loss (%) Cooking loss (%) Shear force (kg). Barrow c. 5.42Û0.07bc. 5.40Û0.07. b. (5.41Û0.07) 39.57Û4.30 39.05Û4.63 (39.29Û4.44) 4.68Û2.01 4.61Û1.72 (4.64Û1.84) 32.79Û1.62 32.40Û1.48 (32.58Û1.54) 3.78Û1.39 3.72Û1.60 (3.75Û1.49). 1). Water holding capacity. MeanÛS.D. 3) MeanÛS.D. of control or fermented food waste feed treatment. a-c Values with different superscripts in the same row are significantly different (p<0.05). 2). Table 5. Effect of feeding fermented food waste feed (FFWF) on CIE L*, a* and b*-values of pork loin Treatment Item. Control. FFWF. Gilt L (lightness). Barrow c,1). 54.50Û2.29. Gilt bc. 55.06Û2.27. Barrow ab. a (redness) b (yellowness). (54.78Û2.27) 13.94Û1.23a 13.83Û0.91a a (13.89Û1.07) 3.41Û0.83b 3.80Û0.93ab (3.61Û0.89). 56.84Û3.30a. 55.96Û2.03. b,2). a. (56.43Û2.21) 13.22Û0.74b. 13.17Û1.24b b. (13.19Û1.03) 3.52Û0.66b. 4.06Û0.80a (3.81Û0.78). 1). MeanÛS.D. 2) MeanÛS.D. of control or fermented food waste feed treatment. a-b Values with different superscripts in the same row are significantly different (p<0.05).. þæf ^î Òöê N& ìî . V¢B Îf rb BÎÒò /º êö 'Ëj ~æ pº ©b 6B . Gï: Îf rb BÎÒò¢ / îG ~ Gïf Table 5ö ¾æÚî . «ê¢ ¾æÚº L*-8~ ãÖ &~ zþæ& 54.50b &Ë Ô² ¾æÒb, FFWF~ ^î 56.84 &Ë ¸² ¾æÒ (p < 0.05). ÿ¢ ¾Ò ÚöBº z þæ& ^îö j~ Ôf L*-8j ¾æîb¾ F~' N & ìîb(p > 0.05), *Ú'b FFWF& &ö j~ F~'b ¸f L*-8j ¾æî (p < 0.05). 'ïê¢ ¾æ Úº a*-8f zþæf ^î Îv FFWF& &ö j~ F~'b Ôf 8j ¾æîb, ÿ¢ ¾Ò ÚöBº W êö V F~' N& ìî . *Ú ïö ®ÚBº FFWF & &ö j~ F~'b Ôf a*-8j ¾æî (p < 0.05). ïê¢ ¾æÚº b*-8f zþæf ^î Îv FFWF& &ö j~ ² ¸² ¾æÒb¾ F~' Nº ìî b, ÿ¢¾Ò ÚöB Wêö V F~' Nê ìî. (p > 0.05). Gïf Gï²f Ö²~ >w;êf βÿö &Ë 'Ëj A² > />º Òòö 'Ëj A² B (19). . þ Ö" Îf rb BÎÒò /º Gïö ®ÚB L*-8 " a*-8ö ² 'Ëj ~º ©b ¾æÒ .. NPPC Gîï&: NPPC(20)~ 6;ö ~~ & 5 FFWF îG ~ Gï" "ÚæOê¢ '' 5ê ¾* Ú "&'b ï& Ö"º Table 6" ? . Gï~ ãÖ FFWF& &ö j~ ² Gï ÎÚæº ©b ï& >îb¾ F~' Nº ìîb(p > 0.05), ï&º Vê'b G; GïöB FFWF& &ö j~ L*8 ¸ a*-8 Ô~~ Ö"f ¢~~º ©b ï&>î. . $ Wê*~ jvö ®ÚBº zþæ~ Gï ^îö j~ ² ±f ©b ï&>îb¾ F~' Nº ìî. (p > 0.05). "ÚæOê~ ãÖº Wêö V Nö ®ÚB ^î zþæö j~ ² Ö> ©b ï&>îb¾ F~' Nº ;>æ p~b, *Ú'b &f FFWF *öº N& ìº ©b ¾æÒ (p > 0.05).. º. £. þf îG~ êÚW'" Gîj jvb Îf r b BÎÒò /Î"¢ ÚÚ¶ ~& . êÚW'b Ú7, êÚ7, êÚN, æOvþ, êÚ/, ¦ªGï 5 ;GNj G;~&b, Gîï& pH, >K, &Ë6ï, & 6ï, *K, Gï 5 NPPC Gï 5 "ÚæOê¢ G;~.
(6) Îf rb BÎÒò / îG~ ®î. 43. Table 6. Effect of feeding fermented food waste feed (FFWF) on NPPC pork quality evaluation of pork loin Treatment 1). Item. Control Gilt. 2). 4). 2.72Û0.46. Color. FFWF Barrow. Gilt. 2.69Û0.47. 2.65Û0.49. (2.71Û0.46)5) Marbling3). 2.88Û0.60. Barrow 2.50Û0.51 (2.57Û0.50). 3.00Û0.75 (2.94Û0.68). 2.81Û0.75. 3.05Û0.70 (2.94Û0.73). 1). Measured by NPPC pork quality standard. 1=pale pingkish gray, 2=grayish pink, 3=reddish pink, 4=purplish red 5=dark purplish red. 3) 1=devoid to practically devoid, 2=traces to slight, 3=small to modest, 4=moderate to slightly abundant, 5=moderately abundant or more. 4) MeanÛS.D. 5) MeanÛS.D. of control or fermented food waste feed treatment. a-b Values with different superscripts in the same row are significantly different (p<0.05). 2). & . êÚßWö ®ÚB æOvþ¢ B~ êÚ7, æG N 5 «/f &f FFWF*ö F~' N& ì îb, ¦ªG Öï" ;GNö ®ÚBº FFWF& & ö j~ ² ¸² ¾æÒ . GîßWö ®ÚBº pHº FFWF& &ö j~ ² Ô² ¾æÒb¾, >K, ã6ï, &6ï, *K f &f FFWF*ö F~' N& ìî . Gïö ®ÚBº FFWF& &ö j~ L*-8 ¸ a*-8 ² Ô² ¾æÒb, "&' O »b G;B NPPC Gï" "ÚæOêº ¾Ò*ö N& ìî . V¢B ~ Ö" " r Îf rb BÎÒò ~ /& ¢>VÒò /f jv~ êÚ 5 Gî ßW ö ®ÚB ² ÎÚææ pº ©b 6>î .. 6Ò~ & º ³â¦ ³âVFBBÒë~ æöö ~ Ö "~ ¢¦B j æöö 6Òãî .. ^. ò. 1. Ministry of Environment. Economic value of food waste. Available from: http://www.foodwaste.or.kr. Accessed Dec. 20, 2004. 2. Lee EK, Chung JC. Composting of food waste with some bulking agents. J. KSEE 16: 953-962 (1994) 3. Back YM, Chung JC. Study of some process parameters in food waste composting. J. Korean Soc. Waste Manag. 11: 29-40 (1994) 4. Song JS, Choi HK, Kim KY. A basic study on composting of organic household waste using small vessels. J. KOWREC 1: 227-235 (1993) 5. Kwak WS. Recycling technology of livestock waste as feedstuff. J. KOWREC 2: 177-183 (1994) 6. Kim PK, Park SC, Sohn CB, Kim MH, Oh TK. Changes of microbiological distribution in food waste for animal feed. Korean J. Vet Clin. Med. 15: 156-161 (1998) 7. Nam BS, Chung IB, Kim YH, Moon HK, Kim DH, Hur SM, Bae IH, Yang CJ. Effect of recycled food waste on the growth. performance and carcass characteristics in growing-finishing pigs. Korean J. Anim. Sci. Technol. 42: 279-288 (2000) 8. Pond WG, Maner JH. Swine production and nutrition. AVI Publishing Co., Westport, CT, USA. pp. 336-368 (1984) 9. Ferris DA, Flores RA, Shanklin CW, Whitworth MK. Proximate analysis of food service wastes. Appl. Engr. Agric. 11: 567-572 (1995) 10. Westendorf ML, Zirkel EW, Gordon RA. Feeding food or table waste to livestock. Prof. Anim. Sci. 12: 129-137 (1996) 11. Yang, SY, Park HY, Park GG, Jung YC. Novel lactic acid bacterium, pediococcus acidilactici and use thereof. Korean Patent 102001-0000443 (2001). 12. Grau R, Hamm R. A simple method for determination of water binding in muscles [Eine einfache methode zur bestimmung der wasserbindung im muskel]. Naturwissenschaften 40:29-30 [in German] (1953) 13. SAS. Institute, Inc., User's Guide: Statistics. 6th ed. Statistical Analysis System Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA (1995) 14. Park HK, Lee MJ, Oh DH. Effect of the amount of deposited fat on the pork quality -. Effect of the deposited fat on an occurrence of PSE porcine muscle. Korean J. Anim. Sci. 27: 785-790 (1985) 15. Myer RO, Brendemuhl JH, Johnson DD. Evaluation of dehydrated restaurant food waste products as feedstuffs for finishing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 77:685-692 (1999) 16. Chung CS, Lee JJ, Jung YC, Kang CS, Park HY, Kim CJ. Effect of high oil corn on carcass traits, meat quality, and fatty acid composition and cholesterol contents of pork in growing-finishing pigs. Korean J. Anim. Sci. 40:373-380 (1998) 17. Pearson MD, Collins-Thompson DL, Ordal ZL. Microbiological sensory and pigment changes of aerobically and anaerobically packaged beef. Food Technol. 24:1171-1179 (1970) 18. Winger RT, Fennema O. Tenderness and water holding properties of beef muscle as influenced by freezing and subsequent storage at -3 or 15 . J. Food Sci. 41: 1433-1439 (1976) 19. Dugan MER, Aalhus JL, Jeremiah LE, Kramer JKG, Schaefer AA. The effect of feeding conjugated linoleic acid on subsequent pork quality. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 79:45-51 (1999) 20. National Pork Producers Council NPPC. Procedures to Evaluate Market Hogs, 3rd ed. National Pork Producers Council, Des Moines, IA, USA (1991) (2004j 10ú 4¢ 7>; 2004j 12ú 20¢ j).
(7)
관련 문서
• Useful for investigating the shear forces and bending moments throughout the entire length of a beam. • Helpful when constructing shear-force and
This study researched the possibility of using natural products for hair growth agents and hair loss prevention materials based on the test for the antioxidant and
For laminar flow, head loss varies with the first power of the velocity.(Fig.. Equating the Darcy-Weisbach equation for head
congestion avoidance: additive increase loss: decrease window by factor of 2 congestion avoidance: additive increase loss: decrease window by factor of
9.4 Deflections by integration of the shear-force and load equations 9.5 Method of superposition.
11.4(b) does not occur very often in practice; we usually must consider force control in the context of partially constrained tasks, in which some degrees of freedom of the
-Cost of carriers and immobilization -Changes in properties(selectivity) -Mass transfer limitations.. -Activity
– Useful for investigating the shear forces and bending moments throughout the entire length of a beam. – Helpful when constructing shear-force and
