GA0034 S tudy on the Improvement of Pork Quality for Ex port
. 1998. 11. 30. : : : : : : : : : : : - 1 -
..,,,,.. 1..... 2.. 1),,,, - 2 -
2), TBA, VBN,, ph,,. 1),. 1) 90kg 110kg. NIR Spectra 1) 2). 1) 2) 3). 1.,,,, VBN, TBA,,,.,,,,, - 3 -
, 3, 6,,. 2. 3 - - (LYD), 2 - (LY), - (DH), LYD,,. 3. 110kg,,,,, 10kg 3. 1) 90-100kg, 100-110kg. 2) 3 100-110 kg 0.44% 2. 6 110-120kg 10%, 9. 3) aroma, flavor.. 90kg 110kg. - 4 -
4., Cryo-vac film TBA 0.02-0.06 (mg malonaldehyde/kg meat). 5. NIR Spectra,,. 6. 8% 3: 6: 9=1:2:1,, ( ). - 5 -
Summary 1. Title Study on the Improvement of Pork Quality for Export 2. Objective and Significance A. Objective 1) Improve quality of the pork for export Until now, Animal husbandry ln Korea has concentrated only on the productivity increase. But the improved national income has affected to the dietary level of the people to consider the health and over fat by consuming the high calorie food, so after all, favor for the animal food which has low cholesterol and low fat is increasing and also there is the tendency to pursue the good taste than to think it as only the protein and calories source in Japan and advanced western countries which are the biggest pork import market. Now, it is the time to improve the quality of the pork for export and also to adopt it to the domestic pork market not to be too late. 2) Evaluate the quality of the pork by countries Make the index for the domestic produced pork and set the direction for the improvement by comparing the quality of other countries pork such as America, Canada, Taiwan and Japan. 3) Quality comparison of the pork by breeds - 6 -
Make the base of the quality improvement by comparing and evaluating the meat quality of the domestic dominated pork breed. 4) Quality evaluation by sending out pork weight Domestic slaughtering weight of the pork is 90kg, which shows big difference from 110kg of the Japan. So we have to set the breeding skill guide by comparison and evaluating the change of the meat quality and taste difference through breeding until 110kg. 5) Evaluation of the sensory characteristics due to the storage and distribution Observe and measure the meat quality change during the storage and distribution period and develop the suitable packaging method. 6) Develop the indirect taste measure method for raw pork Develop the indirect taste measure for raw pork using the near-infrared(nir) spectrometry to give quick and good information of the meat taste to the customers. 7) Device the feed for good taste pork Make new feed formulation which can satisfy the functionality and taste. 3. contents and scope of research and development A. First year - 7 -
1) Survey data and collect information a) Survey data about pork import-export countries such as Japan, Taiwan, America, Canada and so on. 2) Quality comparison evaluation between domestic and foreign produced pork. a) Pork comparison test among the Korea produced, Taiwan, Japan, Canada, America produced. - General composition analysis, microorganism, TBA, VBN, meat color, ph, the rate of drip and sensory test 3) Quality compare test by pig breed a) Meat quality evaluation test between low-fat pork and high-fat pork General composition, meat color, ph, the rate of drip, sensory test 4) Pork quality evaluation by sending out weight a) Quality evaluation test between 90kg standard pork, 110kg export pork General composition, meat color, ph, the rate of drip, raw meat sensory test Sensory evaluation 5) Develop the indirect taste measure method using NIR Spectra a) Reveal the different taste composition factor between breed by sending out weight. b) Collect the NIR Spectra data for the taste evaluation by weight, breed, fatty acid rate. - 8 -
6) Effect of fat content rate of feed, fatty acid composition to the taste of meat a) Mix usage of Animal fat(tallow, fish oil) and plant oil(safflower, olive, perilla, flaxseed) b) Fat feed level 6%, 8% c) Fatty acid composition rate : omega 3, omega 6, omega 9 omega 3 : omega 6 : omega 9 = 1 : 1 : 1 omega 3 : omega 6 : omega 9 = 1 : 2 : 1 omega 3 : omega 6 : omega 9 = 1 : 3 : 1 B. Second year 1) Quality comparison evaluation between domestic and foreign produced pork a) General composition analysis, TBA, VBN, meat color, ph, meat drip rate, sensory test 2) Quality comparison test among the breeds a) Analysis of low-fat pork and high-fat pork and consider the mid-fat pork meat quality evaluation 3) Sensory characteristics evaluation by storage distribution a) By storage temperature(-1.5, 4, 10 ), by storage term( 3 days, 7 days, 10 days, 14 days), sensory test after cooking storage pork 4) Develop indirect taste measure method using NIR Spectra - 9 -
a) Survey the relationship between taste factor and sensory test b) Collect NIR Spectra data to evaluate the taste composition factor by weight, breed, fatty acid rate. 5) Effect of fat content of feed and fatty acid composition to the taste of meat a) Fatty acid feed level is fixed to 8% due to the first year result b) Fatty acid composition omega 3 : omega 6 : omega 9 = 1 : 1.5 : 2 omega 3 : omega 6 : omega 9 = 1 : 2 : 3 omega 3 : omega 6 : omega 9 = 1 : 1 : 1 omega 3 : omega 6 : omega 9 = 1 : 2 : 1 omega 3 : omega 6 : omega 9 = 1 : 3 : 1 C. Third year 1) International market data survey a) Survey the data : demand-supply, price, quarantine, customs of Japan, Taiwan, Denmark. 2) Sensory evaluation according to the storage distribution a) Sensory evaluation by storage-temperature, package material, storage term 3) Develop of indirect taste measure method using NIR Spectra a) Reveal the different taste composition by sending out weight, storage temperature, breed - 10 -
b) Survey the relationship between NIR Spectra and taste related factor c) Review the possibility of quick pork taste distinguish method 4) Optimize analysis to improve pork taste a) Establish the pork taste optimum condition through data statistic analysis Analysis data of domestic & foreign pork Comparison data by pork breed Comparison data by pork weight Storage distribution data Indirect taste measure method data using NIR Spectra Fatty acid content of feed and fatty acid composition rate data 4. Result of the research and application suggestion A. Quality comparison evaluation between domestic and foreign produced pork The loin and ham parts of domestic and foreign countries such as Canada, USA, Taiwan and Japan were collected and analyzed on the item of VBN, TBA, meat color, moisture, crude protein, crude fat, ash content, comparition of fatty acid, sensory evaluation and microorganisms. The results of these experiment was that the Canadian and Japanese pork were identified good in aroma, flavor, tenderness and juiciness respectively. B. Quality compare test by swine breeds The Landrace-Yorkshire-Duroc cross bred(lyd), Landrace-Yorkshire(LY) and Duroc-Hampshire(DH) cross bred were tested in the loin parts of the pork meat. The LYD cross bred were evaluated best among the breeds in all the items of - 11 -
palatability, tenderness, juiciness and taste. These results are to be applicated in the mass production of the pigs which suitable to export purpose and domestic demand. C. Pork quality evaluation by sending out weight 1) The pig weight of 110kg is ideal for the purpose of export. Fatty acid content is the lowest in the level of 90-100kg and highest in the level of 100-110kg live weight. 2) 3 fatty acid content was 0.44% in the level of 100-110kg body weight and became twice than other 2 levels. In the level of 110-120kg, the 6 fatty acid content was the lowest as below 10% and 9 fatty acid content was increased as the body weight increased. 3) Aroma factor by live weights were increased as the weight gained and flavor, tenderness and juiciness were high points as the weight were decreased. This result is to be expected to encourage the producers to raise the pigs to the weight of 110kg that is ideal weight to export to Japan and give the opportunity of more stable production and additive production effect to the packer at the same time. D. Sensory characteristics evaluation by storage and distribution Observed and measured the meat quality changes during the storage and distribution period and developed the suitable packaging method Cryo-vac film packaging was most stable as the TBA value was 0.02-0.06(mg malonaldegyde/kg meat) during the storages. E. Develop indirect taste measure method using NIR Spectra Collected NIR Spectra data to evaluate the taste composition factor by - 12 -
weight, breed and fatty acid rate. The method to evaluate the taste of pork indirectly and non-destructive way were studied and pursued the possibility of the method by the slicing the meat into small portions. F. Effect of fat content rate of feed, fatty acid composition to the taste of meat Fat content level is fixed 8% due to the first year result and fatty acid composition rate of 3: 6: 9=1:2:1 caused the target diet. It is possible to contribute to the pork industry by establishing the omega fatty acid rate which is the best factor to improve the taste of pork because single stomach animal like pig has tendency to just accumulate consumed fatty acid in the body. Using this research result, improve the pork quality of the traditional pork such as Jeju black pig to make export product. - 13 -
CONTENTS Chapter 1. Introduction. Introduction 1. Effect of grain source to meat taste 2. Effect of protein source to meat taste 3. Effect of dietary fat source to meat taste 4. Effect of trace mineral to meat taste Chapter 2. Materials and Methods. First year 1. Experimental breeds and fattening design 2. Arrangement of diets composition 3. Sampling method. Second year 1. Feed mixture design 2. Experimental breeds and fattening design. Sensory characteristics evaluation by storage distribution 1. Package and storage. Analysis 1. General composition 2. VBN 3. TBA 4. ph 5. Meat color 6. Meat extracts 7. microorganism 8. Sensory evaluation 9. Statistical analysis. NIR spectrometry - 14 -
1. Material 2. Method Chapter 3. Result and Discussion. Survey on the pork market by countries 1. Introduction 2. Japan 3. Taiwan 4. USA 5. Canada 6. Denmark 7. Chilled meat trade 8. Conclusion. Quality comparison evaluation between domestic and foreign produced pork 1. Domestic 2. Foreign. Quality comparison test among breeds 1. First year 2. Second year. Quality comparison test by marketable pork weight 1. General composition 2. Physical and chemical characteristics 3. Fatty acid 4. Microorganism 5. Sensory evaluation. Sensory characteristics evaluation by storage and distribution 1. Sensory evaluation by temperature 2. Sensory evaluation by package method. Develop indirect taste measure method using NIR Spectra 1. Introduction - 15 -
2. Results and discussion 3. Conclusion. Effect of fat content and fatty acid composition of diet to the taste of pork 1. First year 2. Second year. Summary Reference - 16 -
1. 1. 1. 2. 3. 4. 2. 1. 1 1. 2. 3. 2. 2 1. 2. 3. 1. 4. 1. 2. VBN 3. TBA 4. ph 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. - 17 -
5. NIR 1. 2. 3. 1. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 2. 1. 2. 3. 1. 1 2. 2 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 5. 1. 2. 6. NIR Spectra - 18 -
1. 2. 3. 7. 1. 1 2. 2 8. - 19 -
1 1. IMF,,.. 498,349 (1997 ). Table 1 97 498,349 9.4%, 29.1%, 27.4%, 10.8% 9.5% 95.. Table 1. ( ) (t) 262,355 129,672 93,722 30,918 12,556 19,791 549,014 95 (%) 47.8 23.6 17.1 5.6 2.3 3.6 100 (t) 266,696 118,710 141,519 39,211 34,663 52,358 653,157 96 (%) 40.8 18.2 21.7 6.0 5.3 8.0 100 (t) 47,080 144,919 136,830 53,641 47,402 90,455 498,349 97 (%) 9.4 29.1 27.4 10.8 9.5 18.2 100-20 -
80% WTO 90kg 110kg. 110kg 90kg.,. 110kg 110kg. 90kg 110kg.. 1..,,, 6: 3 1:1 3:1 ( 1990 ). 3 9 3 9 : 6 : 3.. - 21 -
NIR 3.. 19%, 38%, 35%, 14% (Table 2). Table 2. ( 90kg ) : (%) (92.9) (92.3) (90.0) (91.0) (89) 121 (100) 14 (119) 104 (86) 79 (65) 75 (62),. 70 kg 1,350 (C & F ) 25%, L/C,,,,,,,, 2,070 153%.., - 22 -
.. 1kg 4,667 800, 1,799.. ( ),.. Table 2,,. 23%..,, 12.3kg(25% ) 37kg(75%).,,,,,,. 3,..,. - 23 -
.,,. 90kg 110kg.,,,....,,.,.,,..,,,,.,., 1), 2), 3) - 24 -
, 4), 5). 11.2% 16.3%, 12, 16, 20%.,. 1. Table 3. Panel Type No. 1. : S 6-2. : T Inten 3. : T 6 Desir 4. : : : 6 Desir 5. 0, 20, 40, 60 Desir 80% triticale 6. 0, 50, 100% E 10 Inten 100% S = selected panel, T = trained panel, E = experienced panel Inten = flavor intensity, Desir = flavor desirability, - 25 -
,,,,.,. 2. Table 4. Panel Type No. 1. 6 Desir 2. - E 6 Inten 9% 0-22.5% 3. E 14 Inten 4. - E 6 Accep lentil 0-40% 20% 5. Accep 31%, 6. (0, 3, 6, 9%) C 7 Desir 7. E 11 Desir (3, 7% ) E = experienced panel and C = consumer panel. Desir = flavor desirability ; Iten = flavor intensity Accep = flavor acceptability. No significant difference...,,,,, - 26 -
. 9% 5%. 5%,, 2. 31%. 3..,,... 15.8% 33.3%, 26% 19.4%, 11.9% 9.4%, 42.8 35%. EPA(Eicosa- pentaenoic acid), DPA(Docosapentaenoic acid), DHA(Docosahexaenoic acid),..,,,. 10%( ), 20%( ), 30%( ). - 27 -
. 48.6 56.6%, 6.2% 18.3%, 8.6% 3.5%, 31.8 18.8%. 4. Cu 250ppm : 1.55 2.36, Cu. CuSO4.5H2O 0.05% 0.08%, - 100ppm. Table 5. (Organoleptic Properties) Sensory evaluation aroma flavor juiciness tenderness instron 6.57 6.17 6.53 8.12 43.03 A 5.61 6.95 6.30 6.75 34.27 B 6.47 7.50 8.83 8.55 42.63 C 6.32 6.07 8.83 6.70 40.03 D 4.57 6.70 7.48 9.38 42.87 * : (1991 ) WTO - 28 -
,.,. 10,,.,,. - 29 -
2 1. 1 1. - - 3. 5 7 35 50kg, 2 50:50 70kg 110kg. 10 20. 2. Basal Diet NRC Control Diet Formula Table 6, 7. Table 8 6% 3: 6: 9 1:1:1(A ), 1:2:1(B ), 1:3:1(C ) 8% 3: 6: 9 1:1:1(D ), 1:2:1(E ), 1:3:1(F ) Formula Table 9. - 30 -
Table 6. basal diet control diet Ingredients % Basal diet Control diet corn(usa),gr 41.77 51.39 soybean-dehull(k75) 21.77 10.16 wheat-aus, GR 20.00 10.00 W. M. R.(LOC) 10.00 - cane molasses-bp 3.00 3.40 sbom-46%, et all - 19.00 T.C.P. 1.23 1.48 limestone-#12 0.83 0.30 Y/G-LOC(AV15max) 0.50 3.40 salt-proc(fine) 0.30 0.24 L-lysine-HCl-98% 0.20 0.16 (94)Minemix-03 0.20 0.20 DL-methionine-50% 0.10 0.08 (94)Vitamix-05 0.05 0.06 choline-cl(60%) 0.05 0.05 virginiamycin-2% 0.05 0.05 pig crave-extra - 0.03 Table 7. basal diet control diet Composition, % Basal diet Control diet Moisture 12.66 0.33 12.56 0.24 Crude Protein 17.36 0.42 17.14 0.31 Crude Fat 3.08 0.05 6.40 0.04 Crude Fiber 3.13 0.03 3.50 0.06 Crude Ash 5.38 0.20 5.05 0.37 Selerium, mg/kg 0.35 0.00 0.30 0.01 Vitamin E, mg/kg 35.74 0.56 40.21 0.45 N. Energy, cal/g 2283.05 3.51 2511.43 3.95-31 -
Table 8. Fatty acids % Flaxseed Perilla Safflower oil Tallow Basal diet Control diet SFA1) 3.52 0.13 4.21 0.25 9.40 0.48 50.48 0.28 0.61 0.01 1.91 0.09 3-PUFA2)20.69 0.33 22.50 0.34 2.73 0.17 0.23 0.07 0.08 0.00 0.10 0.00 6-PUFA3) 5.31 0.07 4.65 0.10 75.00 1.00 4.65 0.15 1.31 0.02 2.11 0.11 9-MUFA4) 5.92 0.17 8.20 0.15 12.87 0.34 42.26 0.28 0.61 0.00 2.10 0.02 1) Saturated fatty acid 2) 4) 3, 6-Polyunsaturated fatty acid, 9-Monounsaturated fatty acid Table 9 A F Table 10, 11. Table 9. Ingredient% Experimental diet1) A B C D E F Basal diet 91.53 92.64 93.56 87.96 89.26 90.56 Flaxseed - 5.56 4.30-7.47 5.77 Perilla 7.12 - - 9.55 - - Safflower 0.12 1.32 2.14 0.75 2.34 3.44 Tallow 1.23 0.47-1.74 0.93 0.23 1) A; Fat content 6% 3: 6: 9-UFA = 1 : 1 : 1 B; Fat content 6% 3: 6: 9-UFA = 1 : 2 : 1 C; Fat content 6% 3: 6: 9-UFA = 1 : 3 : 1 D; Fat Content 8% 3: 6: 9-UFA = 1 : 1 : 1 E; Fat Content 8% 3: 6: 9-UFA = 1 : 2 : 1 F; Fat Content 8% 3: 6: 9-UFA = 1 : 3 : 1-32 -
Table 10. Experimental diet1) Crude fat content, % A 6.04 0.18 B 6.01 0.07 C 5.89 0.07 D 8.21 0.23 E 8.16 0.11 F 8.04 0.08 Control 6.40 0.14 1) The Same as Table 9 Table 11. Fatty Experimental diet7) acids % A B C D E F C12:0-1) - - - - - C14:0 0.90 0.05 0.60 0.04 0.35 0.03 0.93 0.06 0.66 0.02 0.42 0.01 C16:0 16.46 0.23 15.44 0.31 13.30 0.37 15.75 0.12 14.13 0.28 12.33 0.53 C16:1 9 0.54 0.01 0.32 0.04 0.27 0.01 0.54 0.04 0.46 0.01 0.26 0.02 C18:0 4.04 0.21 3.50 0.16 2.66 0.08 3.92 0.04 3.74 0.04 2.95 0.00 C18:1 9 24.54 0.08 20.74 0.10 18.46 0.51 24.11 0.23 20.41 0.05 18.69 0.16 C18:2 6 29.50 0.29 41.37 0.42 48.69 0.10 28.53 0.54 40.43 0.04 49.38 0.60 C18:3 3 24.02 0.75 18.04 0.14 16.27 0.14 26.23 0.28 20.17 0.31 15.96 0.05 Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 SFA2) 21.40 0.39 19.54 0.42 16.31 0.26 20.60 0.02 18.53 0.30 15.70 0.52 3-PUFA3)24.02 0.75 18.04 0.14 16.27 0.14 26.23 0.28 20.17 0.31 15.96 0.05 6-PUFA4)29.50 0.29 41.37 0.42 48.69 0.10 28.53 0.54 40.43 0.04 49.38 0.60 9-MUFA5)25.08 0.07 21.06 0.14 18.73 0.50 24.65 0.28 20.87 0.04 18.96 0.14 1) Trace(0.001% ) 2) Saturated fatty acid 3) 5) 3, 6-Polyunsaturated fatty acid, 9-Monounsaturated fatty acid 6) The Same as Table 9 3. - 33 -
110kg 4 chilling,. 2. 2 1. 8% (1997) 3 6, 3 polyunsaturated fatty acid(pufa) (8%) basal diet 5 (Flaxseed, Olive oil, Perilla, Safflower oil, Tallow) NRC basal diet Table 12. Basal diet, 4% 15%, ME 3400kcal 8% 3: 6: 9. Table 13. 8% 3: 6: 9 1:1.5:2(A ), 1:2:3(B ), 1:1:1(C ), 1:2:1(D ), 1:3:1(E ) Table 13 (liquid Folch (1957) ) Table 3. 3, 6 9 3 3 Miller (1967) Dean (1969) - 34 -
. Table 12. basal diets Ingredients (%) Corn 43.31 Wheat mill 25.00 SBM 17.13 Animal fat 1.16 Molasses 4.00 Corn carrier 3.00 Limstone 0.35 Defl, phos 31/19 1.39 Salt 0.30 Cho. chl 60% 0.01 V-M 0.20 L-Lysine 0.14 Lipid source 4.00 Total 100.00 ME 3400.00 C. Protein 15.00 Lys 0.73 Ca 0.76 P 0.56 Table 13. Fatty acids(%) Flaxseed Olive oil SFA Perilla Safflower oil Tallow Basal diet Control diet 9.1 0.1 14.7 0.6 8.7 0.1 10.3 0.2 50.6 0.4 30.7 0.8 39.3 1.0-3PUFA 58.0 0.3 0.90.1 57.5 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 2.6 0.1 1.5 0.1-6PUFA 15.9 0.1 7.3 0.1 12.3 0.1 75.6 0.3 1.9 0.1 41.7 0.6 22.5 1.3-9MUFA 17.0 0.2 77.2 0.5 21.5 0.1 14.0 0.1 47.5 0.5 25.0 0.4 36.8 0.4-35 -
Table 14 A F, Table 15, 16. 10 Vertical feed mixer. Table 14. Experimental Ingredient(%) diet1) Basal Diet Flaxseed Perilla Safflower Olive Tallow oil oil A 92.48 0 5.1 0 1.84 0.58 B 93.5 0 3.6 0 2.05 0.85 C 90.38 4.46 3.86 0 1.3 0 D 91.0 6.9 0 1.5 0.6 0 E 91.55 5.86 0 2.59 0 0 F 95.77 0 0 0 4.23 0 1) A ; Fat content 8% & 3: 6: 9-UFA= 1 : 1.5 : 2 B ; Fat content 8% & 3: 6: 9-UFA = 1 : 2 : 3 C ; Fat content 8% & 3: 6: 9-UFA = 1 : 1 : 1 D ; Fat content 8% & 3: 6: 9-UFA = 1 : 2 : 1 E ; Fat content 8% & 3: 6: 9-UFA = 1 : 3 : 1 F ; (Control) Fat content 8% Table 15. Experimental diet1) Crude fat content (%) A 7.71 0.37 B C D E F 1) The same as table 14 7.99 0.32 8.43 0.44 8.41 0.31 8.08 0.93 8.17 0.23-36 -
Table 16. Fatty Experimental diet5) acids (%) A B C D E F C12:0 3.59 0.30 3.32 0.25 3.50 0.37 3.63 0.29 2.94 0.30 3.23 0.09 C14:0 0.98 0.02 0.94 0.03 0.71 0.02 0.54 0.01 0.33 0.01 1.97 0.08 C15:0 0.16 0.01 0.16 0.01 0.12 0 0.09 0 0.06 0 0.32 0.02 C16:0 15.54 0.21 16.08 0.13 13.84 0.09 12.63 0.05 11.40 0.08 21.72 0.48 C16:1 9 0.92 0.01 0.93 0.02 0.66 0.01 0.54 0 0.39 0.01 1.63 0.06 C18:0 7.13 0.14 7.01 0.13 5.89 0.09 5.12 0.02 4.06 0.10 12.04 0.49 C18:1 9 31.68 0.23 33.45 0.11 25.08 0.09 21.91 0.16 19.88 0.06 35.18 0.30 C18:2 6 22.87 0.68 25.90 0.54 26.57 0.86 37.25 0.13 45.21 0.15 22.45 1.34 C18:3 3 17.12 0.38 12.21 0.28 23.63 0.61 18.30 0.20 15.74 0.08 1.46 0.01 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 SFA1) 27.40 0.21 27.52 0.47 24.06 0.44 22.00 0.23 18.78 0.25 39.28 0.97 3-PUFA2) 17.12 0.38 12.21 0.28 23.63 0.61 18.30 0.20 15.74 0.08 1.46 0.01 6-PUFA3) 22.87 0.68 25.90 0.54 26.57 0.86 37.25 0.13 45.21 0.15 22.45 1.34 9-MUFA4) 32.61 0.24 34.38 0.12 25.74 0.09 22.45 0.16 20.27 0.07 36.81 0.36 1) Saturated fatty acid. 2),3) 3, 6-Polyunsaturated fatty acid. 4) 9-Monounsaturated fatty acid. 5)The same as Table 14. 2. 71 4kg - - (Landrace Yorkshire Large White) 3 1997 3 22 5 7 46 pen 1 6 6 36 6 3/ 6/ 9 6. - 37 -
3. 1. (, ) 40 PE film Cryo-Vac film, Cryo-Vac film film 80 1. -1.5, 4, 10,. 4. 1. AOAC (1984) Micro Kjeldahl, ( ) Soxhlet, 105 oven, 560 8 muffle furnace. 2. VBN (1983) conway. 10g 70 blending 100 volumetric flask 100. 1 conway 0.01N boric acid 1 conway reagent 50 (0.066% methyl red : bromocresol green/etoh = 1:1). vacuum grease Potassium carbonate(k2co3 50g / D.W. 100ml) 1 37 120-38 -
0.01N sulfuric acid. VBN mg %(mg/100g sample)= (a-b) x f x 0.01 x 14.007/S x 100 x 100 S: sample wt. a: sample ml b: blank ml f: H2SO4factor 3. TBA 2g 3.86% perchloric acid 18ml BHT 50 homogenization 2ml TBA (TBA 2.883g in 1L D.W.) 2ml 15-17h. 531nm. TBA (mg of maloaldehyde / 100g of meat) = 9.01 x Abs. 4. ph 10g 100ml homogenizer ph. 5. (Color Difference Meter, Yasuda, 600IU, Japan) Hunter scale L, a, b, E {(89.2-L1)2+(0.921-a1)2+(0.783-b1)2}1/2 (L', a', b' ). 6. 25 24. - 39 -
(%) = A - ( B + C ) A - C 100 A : (g) B : (g) C : (g) 7. 1 CFU/cm2. 1g 9ml homogenization, Pouring method. plate count agar 37 incubator 48, plate count agar 25 incubator 48. anaerobic jar (Gaspak 150, Becton Dickinson Microbiology System, USA) 37 48. 8. Lamond(1977). 20 220 80 5. 1 1 1 1. (triangle test) (descriptive analysis with scaling test)... (triangle test) - 40 -
. 1 8 slight, moderate, much, extreme 1, 2, 3, 4 1... (descriptive analysis with scaling),,,, 9 point hedonic scale. 9. SAS program, Duncan' Range Test 5%. 5. NIR 1. NIR ice box. 2. NIR system(model 6500, NIR Systems, Inc, USA) Remote Reflectance - 41 -
module(400-2500nm) spectrum. software Near-infrared spectral analysis(nasa, NIR System co. USA). NIR spectrum 5. - 42 -
3 1. 1. 1997 8,900 18. 1997 240 6%.,,,. 1997 1 (29.1%), (27.4%), (10.8%), (9.5%), (9.4%) 1998 1 8,409 27.7%, 34.9% 1. 10,094 ( 33.2%). 98 4 HACCP(Hazard Analysis Critical Point : ).,,.,,. 69.7%, 33.4% 12.9%. ( ). - 43 -
., (risk factor;, ). (Hornstein, 1961; Thrall, 1971; Waldam, 1968). Ford (1975, 1976), Skelley (1975). Myer (1992) Shackelfold (1990) oleic acid( 9). Sim(1994) 3 6 1:4 3 6 1:8 9 3 (Lee, 1994). 3 6 1:10 (Sohn, 1997). Chait (1974) Vessby (1980) 3 3/ 6 (Abeywardena, 1987). 3: 6: 9. - 44 -
Table 18. (1997) ( : t) 1 4,166 11,383-2,687 4,504 2,608 511 1,383 212 1,460-4,762 9,393 24,739 34,132 2 4,884 3,907-782 4,769 518 554 1,359 283 1,221-1,432 10,491 9,218 19,709 3 3,281 10,646-105 5,525 226 625 583 316 1,150-766 9,748 13,475 23,223 4-5,636 11 12,189 8,565 3,478 1,219 3,476 984 1,904 37 4,483 10,815 31,164 41,979 5-31 9 7,730 10,328 3,857 2,074 3,395 959 2,145 115 3,648 13,486 20,802 34,287 6-164 10 2,633 6,557 1,910 1,329 1,186 757 907 20 2,513 8,673 9,313 17,986 7-2,842-53,780 8,018 10,587 1,477 9,047 1,094 12,462 94 23,437 10,683 112,156 122,839 8-32 - 28,084 8,275 7,831 1,264 5,227 1,310 3,866 102 13,695 10,952 58,735 69,687 9-108 10 16,306 7,798 3,939 1,709 4,412 1,256 3,509 100 8,461 10,873 36,735 47,608 10 - - 198 9,573 9,822 3,751 2,065 2,426 1,348 2,995 127 5,166 13,560 23,912 37,472 11 - - 12 6,025 7,047 5,156 1,448 2,973 1,010 3,252 102 5,200 9,617 22,607 32,224 12 - - 22 4,753 7,690 4,071 1,517 3,041 1,048 3,054 115 5,150 10,607 20,070 30,677 12,331 34,749 272 144,647 88,898 47,932 15,167 38,474 9,477 37,925 2,753 87,702 128,898 369,451 498,349 9.4% 29.1% 27.4% 10.8% 9.5% 18.2% 100% 2. 95.. 2000 409.9 /kg 4.3%. 4 3 119%. 95 11 1 ( 46%), (93%).. - 45 -
3. 75 81 16 2 42% 22%, 20%. 82 3 83 1,. 86 205,000 89,000 44% 97 3 98 1.. Table 19. (1995) ( : t) 1 4,849 11,607 20 8,925 3,447 1,127 183 2,086 193 647 5 1,236 8,695 25,629 34,324 2 5,595 11,706 36 9,881 4,025 1,228 261 2,024 204 578 2 1,213 10,104 26,628 36,732 3 7,581 14,792 29 7,261 5,843 1,363 368 1,281 268 686 5 1,579 14,093 26,962 41,055 4 7,433 15,878 52 11,323 6,286 2,243 363,, 2,333 244 987 4 1,601 14,385 34,366 48,751 5 7,221 18,488 19 11,437 6,211 2,194 393 2,395 247 986 7 1,779 14,099 37,209 51,389 6 7,320 14,075 13 8,304 6,085 1,703 420 2,060 243 789 17 1,253 14,098 28,183 42,280 7 8,364 15,654 17 18,315 6,208 2,848 342 2,997 254 705 19 2,745 15,203 43,264 58,467 8 8,412 14,924 16 12,764 8,785 2,104 562 2,281 271 781 2 2,257 18,048 35,110 53,158 9 7,287 14,243 13 7,632 7,341 3,557 429 2,373 274 877 5 2,346 15,349 31,029 46,378 10 8,018 16,395 45 11,359 4,966 2,087 392 2,076 203 681 5 963 13,629 33,561 47,191 11 5,747 17,239 52 14,403 5,301 3,009 393 2,374 232 1,107 8 1,404 11,734 39,546 51,280 12 7,830 11,697 79 7,697 4,224 1,622 323 2,158 200 899 7 1,356 12,662 25,428 38,090 85,657 176,698 371129,301 68,672 25,050 4,480 26,438 2,833 9,723 86 19,705 162,099 386,915 549,014 47.8% 23.6% 17.1% 5.6% 2.3% 3.6% 100% - 46 -
Table 20. (1996) ( : t) 1 3,482 8,749-468 4,490 1,017 272 1,,017 216 1,240 3 773 8,463 13,252 21,727 2 5,361 10,276-258 4,818 746 370 621 247 1,475 4 906 10,800 14,281 25,080 3 4,524 5,790-87 5,725 425 453 459 291 1,560 4 429 10,999 8,749 19,748 4 8,891 33,240-32,555 9,108 17,748 671 11,547 488 5,858 5 12,695 19,252 113,617 132,890 5 8,445 14,409 23 31,106 9,406 12,718 914 5,312 480 3,349 5 7,859 19,273 74,754 74,027 6 8,373 37,350 23 44,381 6,831 19,046 672 7,314 412 3,701-17,420 16,312 129,212 145,523 7 7,585 10,681 9 6,260 6,64 2,543 686 1,036 461 2,416 5 2,234 15,609 25,172 40,780 8 8,041 4,603-400 6,734 2,283 646 763 415 2,750-1,817 15,835 12,614 28,449 9 7,096 7,398-337 5,305 2,166 587 660 480 2,631-1576 13,467 14,737 28,234 10 7,285 16,903-426 6,950 3,103 782 1,096 389 2,499-2,322 15,406 26,350 41,756 11 5,208 12,874 9 409 5,634 1,072 645 1,347 343 1,771 23 2,064 11,863 19,537 31,400 12 5,392 24,181-1,959 5,366 1,691 534 807 3,121 1,079 2 2,230 11,605 31,948 43,553 80,242 186,454 64 118,646 76,961 64,558 7,232 31,979 4,334 30,329 51 52,307 168,884 484,273 653,157 40.8% 18.2% 21.7% 6.0% 5.3% 8.0% 100% 4. 94 8, 94 241, 95 356, 96 408, 97 6. 5.. - 47 -
1907. 120 30 (25%) 95 30,918, 96 39,211, 97 53,641. 6., 2 ( 96 ) 80%.,,,,,,, 95 129,672, 96 118,710, 97 144,919 10 97. 7. 94 3 17 97 7., 7-8, 95 97 340%, 330%, 97 62%. 95 3 700. 8. Table 1 9.5%, 20% 9,477,, HACCP 98 1 3, 6, - 48 -
9,... 2. 1.,,,. 4,.. 2.,,, Table 21. IJ 24.09%. SJ,.. - 49 -
Table 21. (%) (%) (%) (%) DD 74.09 0.23 22.97 0.01 4.41 0.01 1.05 0.01 74.77 0.10 21.94 0.13 4.17 0.17 1.11 0.01 SJ 72.17 0.40 22.92 0.36 6.12 0.03 1.07 0.02 74.15 0.23 21.99 0.07 5.12 0.03 1.15 0.04 DS 71.52 0.51 24.33 0.05 5.06 0.24 1.07 0.01 74.23 0.23 21.88 0.20 4.65 0.00 1.12 0.00 IJ 73.45 0.03 24.09 0.01 3.53 0.05 1.17 0.01 76.80 0.05 20.19 0.05 3.87 0.00 1.10 0.01. Table 22 VBN, TBA, IJ. ph IJ. Table 22. (0 ) VBN TBA ph (mg%) (mg/kg meat) ( E) DD 5.86 0.55 5.45 43.1 5.60 0.05 5.79 55.8 SJ 4.62 0.02 5.67 49.0 4.07 0.29 5.61 52.8 DS 4.65 0.04 5.51 42.4 4.12 0.05 5.39 54.4 IJ 4.74 0.04 5.37 54.2 4.45 0.08 6.37 54.1. Table 23-50 -
. DD 3 7-9. 9 SJ. Table 23 DD SJ DS IJ % % 3 6 9 38.18 7.09 15.61 39.12 36.86 9.26 19.06 34.83 43.43 1.00 3.93 51.63 36.90 0.55 18.09 44.46 39.98 1.21 16.39 42.42 33.90 0.92 22.17 43.01 36.64 0.56 23.98 38.82 37.29 0.51 20.84 41.36. 17,,,,. SJ DD, SJ, SJ SJ. Table 24. DD 921) 120 84 75 88 SJ 104 106 115 103 91 DS 95 108 82 78 78 IJ 100 73 91 86 83 1) 10 scale, panel(n=17) - 51 -
2.,,,,,... 70%.,, 75% drip.. Table 25. (%) (%) (%) (%) 69.21 0.01 23.97 0.08 5.16 0.06 1.04 0.02 70.85 0.02 24.24 0.08 3.72 0.01 1.17 0.03 69.34 0.06 23.72 0.09 6.14 0.03 1.03 0.02 70.65 0.02 24.10 0.01 4.15 0.06 1.02 0.03. VBN TBA. ph drip. - 52 -
Table 26. (0 ) VBN TBA drip ph (mg%) (mg/kg meat) ( E) (%) 5.58 0.25 0.17 0.01 5.55 0.02 35.13 0.37 3.39 0.04 4.52 0.05 0.50 0.01 5.38 0.01 45.03 1.07 4.93 0.15 4.41 0.17 0.49 0.00 5.46 0.04 38.20 0.82 4.29 0.12 4.34 0.13 0.14 0.01 5.40 0.00 37.23 1.06 3.12 0.20.. 3, 6. Table 27. % % 3 6 9 41.06 3.07 2.47 0.59 9.84 0.38 37.30 1.22 36.49 1.05 3.91 1.18 8.72 0.25 40.05 0.85 41.19 0.79 2.42 0.33 8.29 0.18 40.83 0.47 38.60 1.05 2.77 1.09 10.43 0.16 41.05 0.47. Table 28,,. 200 600. - 53 -
Table 28. (CFU/cm2) (CFU/cm2) (CFU/cm2) 1.2 103 5.2 104 2.6 102 1.5 103 2.5 103 7.7 104 3.9 102 3.9 103 1.4 102 8.5 104 6.0 102 2.8 102. Table 29.. Table 29. 5.14 1.51 5.07 2.00 6.02 1.40 5.01 2.14 5.10 1.71 5.57 1.24 5.93 1.25 5.02 1.53 6.72 1.09 6.01 1.75 4.54 1.48 5.59 1.10 6.80 0.77 5.97 1.89 4.99 1.45 5.91 1.17 3. 1. 1 - - 3, -, - 2. - 54 -
. Table 30. DH, LY, LYD LYD DH. LYD 2 38-49%.. Table 30. (%) (%) (%) (%) LY 72.38 0.35 22.41 0.19 3.82 0.20 1.10 0.02 LYD 71.32 0.30 20.84 0.50 6.19 0.34 1.20 0.03 DH 73.16 0.24 21.78 0.24 3.14 0.24 1.23 0.02. Table 31. VBN, ph TBA LY. LY LYD DH. Drip LYD DH LYD 20% Drip. Table 31. (0 ) LY LYD DH VBN TBA drip ph (mg%) (mg/kg meat) ( E) (%) 3.75 0.29 0.03 0.01 5.39 0.02 37.95 0.94 8.38 0.78 4.15 0.25 0.16 0.02 5.23 0.08 43.20 0.95 6.56 0.64 4.48 0.24 0.21 0.01 5.38 0.04 49.52 0.63 6.82 0.87. LYD, 6, - 55 -
. Table 32. % % 3 6 9 DH 36.65 1.34 0.96 0.17 15.94 1.82 38.82 0.42 LY 37.34 1.47 0.98 0.19 15.90 2.37 38.62 2.03 LYD 35.86 4.30 0.93 0.22 17.71 4.13 37.82 0.89. LYD 2 10 LY DH LYD 1/10. Table 33. (CFU/cm2) (CFU/cm2) (CFU/cm2) LY DH LYD 7.3 102 5.0 102 3.2 103 2.1 103 2.0 104 4.5 104 2.4 103 2.6 103 2.0 104. Table 34. 3 LYD 2 LY DH aroma,,. aroma LY DH LYD. - 56 -
Table 34. LY DH LYD 5.33 1.86 4.79 1.98 4.79 2.08 4.83 1.94 5.44 2.04 6.14 1.72 6.08 1.58 4.83 1.63 6.82 1.30 5.79 1.59 5.06 1.87 6.05 1.66 2. 2 - - 3 (LYD) - 1 (LY), - 1 (DH) 3 1.. Table 35. LYD 71.46%, LY 70.24%, (P>0.05). LY 23.41%, DH 22.57%. LY 5.21%, LYD 4.08%. (P>0.05)., LYD, LY DH. Table 35. LY LYD DH (%) 70.24 1.09 71.46 0.93 71.28 1.10 (%) 23.41 0.27 23.36 0.79 22.57 0.74 (%) 5.21 0.95 4.08 0.25 5.02 1.46 (%) 1.13 0.05 1.10 0.07 1.12 0.02-57 -
. Table 36. ph (P 0.05), LYD ph. (Drip) LYD,. TBA LY, (P 0.01). DH, LYD TBA DH, LYD ph LY. LYD, DH 3, LYD. LY. (P=0.051). Table 36. LY LYD DH ph* 5.43 0.03b 5.77 0.21a 5.70 0.06a Drip(%) 7.89 1.38 4.00 0.89 7.79 2.44 TBA** 0.22 0.01b 0.41 0.05a 0.44 0.09a L 53.07 1.10 55.29 0.37 53.52 1.56 Color a 16.61 0.28 15.83 0.24 17.43 0.51 b 6.53 0.33 8.10 0.89 8.76 2.35 *: P 0.05, **: P 0.01 a,b Means SD with the same row within no common superscripts differ significantly.. Table 37. 1 LY, DH, LY, DH. 3 LYD. - 58 -
. Table 37. (CFU/ ) (CFU/ ) (CFU/ ) LY LYD DH 2.17 0.15 102 2.10 0.96 102 1.03 0.95 102 2.03 0.60 102 2.37 1.07 102 1.47 1.17 102 4.53 0.57 102 3.97 0.75 102 6.03 2.46 102. Table 38. LY-DH, (Slight).., DH-LY, LY-LYD LYD, LYD-DH. Table 38. Combination Degree of Difference1) Acceptibility DH-LY 1.3 3:3 LY-LYD 0.9 1:4 LYD-DH 1.0 2:2 1) Slight = 1, Moderate = 2, Much = 3, Extreme = 4 Table 39. Table 39. 1) LY LYD DH 4.70 1.16 5.60 1.58 4.60 1.17 4.80 1.81 5.40 1.96 4.50 1.78 4.10 1.66 4.80 1.69 3.80 1.32 5.20 1.99 6.80 1.81 6.30 1.42 4.70 1.49 4.80 1.69 4.30 1.64 1) 0 = none, 5 = moderate, 10 = extreme - 59 -
LY LYD DH.,, 3 (LYD) 2 1,,,,, (P>0.05). LYD, LYD. 4. 1. 3 Table 40. 90-100kg 73.94% 100-110, 110-120kg 71%. 90-100kg 100-110kg.. Table 40. (%) (%) (%) (%) 90-100 73.94 0.84 21.44 0.07 3.53 0.13 0.95 0.05 100-110 71.07 1.76 21.63 2.00 6.12 1.81 0.97 0.15 110-120 71.97 1.61 22.56 0.71 4.86 1.77 0.99 0.04 2. Table 41. VBN. TBA, ph, drip 90-100kg 11.17% 45-78%. - 60 -
Table 41. (0 ) VBN TBA drip ph (mg%) (mg/kg meat) ( E) (%) 90-100 4.35 0.64 0.13 0.06 5.29 0.11 46.83 0.41 11.17 3.29 100-110 4.98 0.64 0.03 0.01 5.32 0.08 47.18 1.15 6.26 2.97 110-120 5.14 0.26 0.00 0.00 5.39 0.04 47.12 0.87 7.69 2.82 3. Table 42 90-100kg (46.6%). Table 42. % % 3 6 9 90-100 46.6 0.86 0.21 0.19 11.67 0.47 45.52 1.21 100-110 40.96 0.88 0.44 0.10 10.66 0.47 47.94 0.52 110-120 41.44 1.46 0.29 0.04 9.13 1.05 49.13 1.51 3 100-110kg 0.44% 2. 6 110-120kg 10%, 9. 4. Table 43.. - 61 -
Table 43. 90-100 100-110 110-120 (CFU/cm2) 1.7 102 1.0 102 1.3 102 (CFU/cm2) 3.6 102 1.0 103 7.2 102 (CFU/cm2) 4.6 102 1.3 103 9.8 102 5. Table 44. Triangle test 90-100, 110-120kg 90-100kg acceptability. 90-100 100-110 100-110 110-120kg. Table 44. ( Triangle test) Degree of difference Acceptability 90-100 : 100-110 N.S1) 90-100 : 110-120 2.42) 9 : 1 100-110 : 110-120 N.S 1) Not Significant 2) slight;1, moderate;2, much;3, extreme;4 Descriptive analysis Table 45. aroma flavor.. - 62 -
Table 45. (Descriptive analysis with scaling) 90-100 100-110 110-120 4.70 1.171) 5.11 0.45 5.28 0.34 5.77 0.82 5.73 0.27 5.57 0.28 6.26 0.85 5.96 0.14 5.73 0.85 6.34 1.13 5.77 0.25 4.64 0.61 1) 10 scale, panel(n=12) mean 5. (-1.5, 4, 10 ),. 1.. Table 46. VBN 14 VBN. TBA 4. ph ph. - 63 -
Table 46. VBN (mg%) TBA (mg/kg ph meat) L a b 1 10.65 0.28a 5.48dm 55.83 1.52abm 11.14 1.58bcl 5.37 2.54bc 3 6.35 0.16dm 5.83 0.01bl 48.20 6.94bcn 8.84 0.43d 2.72 1.64cb -1.5 7 8.22 0.43cn 1.06 0.02 6.14 0.01al 49.94 11.51abc 11.82 1.81ab 5.89 3.75abc 10 8.50 0.16cn 1.02 0.01 5.46en 57.78 1.65a 12.76 0.66al 8.85 0.72al 14 9.57 0.08bn 0.88 0.17 5.52 0.01cn 47.27 5.76cm 9.94 0.74c 3.38 2.64bc 1 9.90 0.43d 5.55 0.01dl 63.65 3.14a 11.51 1.84al 7.36 2.94 3 9.06 0.58elm 5.70cm 55.01 1.49bm 9.03 1.05b 4.78 2.44ab 4 7 12.33 0.28cm 1.09 0.03a 5.44 0.01em 52.73 4.86b 11.78 1.12a 6.02 2.28 10 16.43 0.58al 1.06 0.04a 5.74bl 53.25 3.74b 10.82 1.63abm 5.75 1.92m 14 14.10 0.32bm 0.92 0.03b 6.47 0.01al 47.32 5.30cm 9.97 1.53ab 4.21 2.71 1 11.21 2.22bc 5.39 0.02cn 64.46 1.32al 8.71 1.28m 7.16 2.04 3 10.74 2.51dl 5.47 0.01bn 63.75 3.93abl 9.18 2.61 6.71 2.28a 10 7 13.82 0.71bl 0.08 0.03 5.34 0.01dn 59.09 4.19abc 10.16 0.7 7.04 1.4 10 13.82 0.43bm 1.08 0.03 5.47 0.01bm 57.48 5.58bc 10.86 1.24m 7.07 2.26lm 14 19.14 0.43al 1.04 0.16 5.57 0.01am 59.38 8.46abcl 11.29 1.19 6.70 2.81 a,b,c,d,e, (P<0.05). l,m,n, (P<0.05).. Table 47. 4 10. -1.5. 10 7 10. - 64 -
Table 47. % % 3 38.51 0.47 61.49 0.47-1.5 7 38.17 0.06 61.83 0.06 10 39.70 0.09 60.31 0.09 14 38.58 0.08 61.43 0.08 3 35.73 0.28 64.27 0.28 4 7 34.91 0.04 65.09 0.04 10 36.97 0.30 63.03 0.30 14 37.47 0.09 62.54 0.09 3 35.30 0.10 64.70 0.10 10 7 34.56 0.06 65.45 0.06 10 38.00 0.08 62.00 0.08 14 39.01 0.21 60.99 0.21. Table 48. -1.5 4 10 ( ) 1 7 10 14 1 3 7 10 14 1 3 7 10 14 (CFU/cm2) 9.1 2.7 9.0 2.4 8.4 1.8 6.4 3.0 2.6 3.2 1.1 1.6 1.3 3.5 105 107 105 106 105 105 107 105 107 105 108 105 107 108 8.4 3.2 1.3 3.2 1.3 3.2 1.1 5.1 5.4 5.2 1.9 3.0 2.3 3.5 (CFU/cm2) 105 107 105 1050 105 105 107 105 105 105 108 105 107 108. Table 49. 1,, 10-65 -
. 3, 7-1.5 10 4. -1.5 4 10. Table 49. -1.5 3.7 1.7 4.1 1.3 5.0 1.8 4.3 1.9 3.8 1.6 4.3 1.4 5.4 1.6 4.9 1.7 4.7 1.4 1 4 4.0 1.1 4.0 1.6 5.2 1.6 3.9 1.5 4.5 1.2 3.7 1.0 5.6 1.1 5.1 1.6 4.7 1.4 10 4.3 1.8 5.9 1.6 4.5 1.4 4.3 1.8 4.9 1.6 5.5 1.6 4.6 1.5 5.3 1.8 4.9 1.6-1.5 2.9 1.3 3.5 1.5 5.1 0.8 5.0 1.8 4.1 1.8 3.9 1.7 4.4 1.4 4.5 1.6 3.8 1.5 3 4 7.0 1.2 7.2 1.0 4.5 1.2 3.9 1.5 5.3 1.9 5.4 1.7 5.3 1.4 5.6 1.7 5.5 2.0 10 6.3 1.8 4.1 1.7 4.7 1.4 5.0 1.8 4.5 1.9 4.3 1.9 4.7 1.1 4.7 1.5 4.5 1.6-1.5 7.3 1.0 5.5 1.8 5.5 1.5 5.8 1.8 4.4 2.1 4.9 1.4 4.7 1.4 4.0 1.4 4.0 1.9 7 4 4.5 1.5 5.7 1.3 4.9 1.5 4.2 1.3 5.3 1.9 6.1 1.5 5.5 1.6 5.6 1.6 5.8 1.7 10-1.5 3.6 1.2 3.1 1.1 4.9 1.7 4.5 1.6 4.0 1.2 3.8 1.7 4.7 1.5 5.1 1.3 4.3 1.5 2.. VBN Fig. 1 VBN. VBN. 10 > 4 > -1.5 VBN, 20 Cryo-Vac film PE film VBN 23 Cryo-Vac film VBN. VBN 5-10 mg%, -1.5 PE film 9 10.95mg% 10mg% Cryo-Vac - 66 -
film 16 10.67 mg%. 4 PE film 3, Cryo-Vac film 9 10.11mg% 10 6 10.67mg%(PE film) 10.39mg%(Cryo-Vac film) 10mg%. -1.5 Cryo-Vac film 16 10mg% 3-9 10mg%. Figure 1. VBN. TBA Fig. 2 TBA. PE TBA - 67 -
Cryo-Vac film TBA 0.02-0.06(mg malonaldehyde/kg meat). Cryo-Vac film TBA., PE film 10 TBA 4-1.5. TBA 0.2(mg malonaldehyde/kg meat) 20 4 0.31(mg malonaldehyde/kg meat), -1.5 0.21(mg malonaldehyde/kg meat) 0.2(mg malonaldehyde/kg meat). Figure 2. TBA. ph Table 50 ph - 68 -
. ph 5.20-5.40,, -1.5 PE film 1 5.63, Cryo-Vac film 9 5.43, 4 PE film 1 5.47, Cryo-Vac film 27 5.45. 10 PE film 9 5.38 Cryo-Vac film 6 5.22 16 5.40 ph. Table 50. ph -1.5 4 10 ( ) 0 1 3 6 9 13 16 20 23 27 PE 5.33 5.63 5.33 5.26 5.29 5.29 5.30 5.28 5.22 5.33 Cryo-Vac 5.33 5.29 5.29 5.27 5.43 5.31 5.33 5.26 5.32 5.35 PE 5.33 5.47 5.20 5.17 5.26 5.36 5.31 5.27 5.29 5.29 Cryo-Vac 5.33 5.32 5.25 5.21 5.29 5.31 5.28 5.35 5.31 5.45 PE 5.33 5.26 5.34 5.28 5.38 5.37 5.37 - - - Cryo-Vac 5.33 5.35 5.26 5.22 5.33 5.34 5.40 - - -. Table 51, 52, 53, 54 (L value), (a value), ( b value), Total color difference ( E). 4 10-1.5. -1.5 PE film, Total color difference( E)., -1.5 PE film 6,, Total color difference( E) 9 10.63, 7.99, 42.15. Cryo-Vac film 13-69 -
, 20. 23, Total color difference( E) 3. 4 PE film 9, 16. Total color difference( E). Cryo-Vac film 16, Total color difference( E). Table 51. L PE -1.5 Cryo-Vac 51.17 1.10 PE 4 PE 10 ( ) 0 1 3 6 9 13 16 20 23 27 51.17 1.10 51.17 1.10 Cryo-Vac 51.17 1.10 51.17 1.10 Cryo-Vac 51.17 1.10 55.38 2.81 53.12 1.53 56.24 1.17 52.02 1.15 57.08 0.97 56.88 0.81 54.81 0.95 50.78 1.10 56.07 2.40 56.74 2.19 56.27 1.83 56.07 1.78 58.11 3.15 55.38 1.44 56.57 0.66 56.66 1.35 57.36 1.30 58.42 0.89 48.87 2.28 54.94 2.67 59.24 1.79 57.12 1.44 57.64 1.21 58.06 1.61 53.54 2.84 58.42 1.00 57.94 1.46 55.54 1.02 57.36 2.40 60.20 1.71 57.07 1.27 57.51 1.15 58.02 1.57 58.72 1.60 57.70 1.29 59.90 1.26 54.56 0.49 54.68 0.95 56.65 1.47 55.63 1.39 56.49 1.26 58.94 1.44 56.48 1.52 57.50 2.10 56.65 0.69 54.04 1.22 59.07 1.96 55.42 1.72 - - - - - - 10 PE film 1 57.08 1 9.01 13. 1 4.03, Total color difference 1 33.32. Cryo-Vac film 3-70 -
8.81. Total color difference. Table 52. a PE -1.5 Cryo-Vac 6.96 0.58 PE 4 PE 10 ( ) 0 1 3 6 9 13 16 20 23 27 6.96 0.58 6.96 0.58 Cryo-Vac 6.96 0.58 6.96 0.58 Cryo-Vac 6.96 0.58 6.34 1.11 8.06 0.70 6.77 0.98 7.06 0.90 9.01 0.89 6.40 0.69 7.71 0.88 7.74 0.53 7.86 0.76 6.82 0.85 7.48 0.70 8.81 0.89 7.92 0.88 5.51 0.47 6.14 0.82 6.70 0.86 7.89 0.66 5.98 0.76 10.63 2.18 8.37 0.59 5.44 0.92 7.30 0.56 5.52 1.11 8.30 1.13 9.20 1.85 6.57 0.68 6.24 0.40 8.68 0.48 8.46 0.59 7.52 0.76 7.35 0.76 8.57 0.78 9.07 0.74 9.07 0.74 8.01 0.76 6.83 0.86 7.60 0.48 8.99 0.92 7.56 1.36 8.30 0.73 6.21 1.06 7.66 1.20 5.20 1.55 8.42 1.25 6.46 0.74 7.37 0.51 8.06 1.49 10.89 1.33 - - - - - - Table 53. b PE -1.5 Cryo-Vac 1.85 0.69 PE 4 PE 10 ( ) 0 1 3 6 9 13 16 20 23 27 1.85 0.69 1.85 0.69 Cryo-Vac 1.85 0.69 1.85 0.69 Cryo-Vac 1.85 0.69 3.17 0.76 2.56 0.47 2.75 1.23 2.10 0.62 4.03 1.49 2.88 0.46 3.21 0.91 2.72 0.61 3.95 1.35 3.45 1.30 2.51 0.88 3.67 1.28 4.91 1.27 2.90 0.84 3.75 0.99 4.08 0.70 4.76 1.11 4.06 0.64 7.99 1.52 4.25 1.55 3.82 1.54 3.68 0.61 3.37 1.20 4.93 1.05 7.85 0.78 4.24 0.78 3.93 0.51 4.94 1.24 4.58 1.53 4.81 1.08 6.35 1.04 4.76 0.72 5.41 0.85 5.41 0.85 4.24 1.07 4.67 0.74 6.32 0.39 5.51 0.82 4.74 1.73 4.85 0.71 6.34 0.87 5.80 1.23 4.07 1.58 5.59 1.60 6.77 0.77 4.37 0.81 5.76 1.19 5.65 1.52 - - - - - - Table 54. E - 71 -
-1.5 PE 38.53 1.04 Cryo-Vac 38.53 1.04 4 PE 38.53 1.04 Cryo-Vac 38.53 1.04 10 PE 38.53 1.04 Cryo-Vac 38.53 1.04 ( ) 0 1 3 6 9 13 16 20 23 27 34.36 2.85 36.83 1.50 33.57 1.01 37.72 1.23 33.32 0.76 32.86 1.82 35.15 1.05 39.08 1.08 34.04 2.11 33.14 1.94 33.64 1.73 34.20 1.84 32.17 3.05 34.21 1.33 33.19 0.76 33.23 1.31 32.86 1.21 31.38 1.01 42.15 2.67 35.28 2.44 30.50 1.63 32.84 1.43 32.04 1.01 32.30 1.69 37.32 3.07 31.50 1.00 31.87 1.46 34.82 0.79 32.99 2.16 30.03 1.74 33.27 1.12 32.86 1.11 32.57 1.67 31.90 1.61 32.50 1.21 30.16 1.37 35.72 0.44 35.79 0.79 33.50 1.63 34.63 1.36 33.63 1.08 31.44 1.48 33.22 1.63 32.99 1.98 33.57 0.58 35.94 1.15 31.41 2.01 35.60 1.81 - - - - - -. Table 55. Table 55. ( :%) ( ) 0 1 3 6 9 13 16 20 23 27-1.5 PE 3.34 0.74 7.58 4.45 13.31 15.50 4.05 1.88 2.45 1.73 Cryo-Vac 3.34 4.07 11.38 7.52 3.28 4.47 3.54 5.66 2.57 2.74 PE 3.34 1.92 6.33 4.77 4.47 2.42 1.23 0.82 1.19 1.45 4 Cryo-Vac 3.34 5.43 7.70 5.87 5.67 1.39 2.06 1.35 1.76 1.55 PE 3.34 5.10 7.13 3.50 2.46 1.12 1.00 - - - 10 Cryo-Vac 3.34 2.15 4.11 4.30 3.80 1.63 1.93 - - - PE film -1.5 9 13 13.31% 15.50% 16 4.05%. Cryo-Vac film -1.5 4 PE film, Cryo-Vac film, 10 PE film 3 11.38%, 6.33%, - 72 -
7.70%, 7.13%. Cryo-Vac film 10 6 4.30%.. 1) Fig. 3. Figure 3. -1.5 < 4 < 10, Cryo-Vac film - 73 -
PE film. 1 106(CFU/ ), 10 9 1 106(CFU/ ). 4 PE film 20, Cryo-Vac film 27 1 106(CFU/ ). -1.5 27 1 106(CFU/ ). 2) Fig. 4. Figure 4. -1.5 < 4 < 10, - 74 -
Cryo-Vac film PE film. 10 PE film 6 1 106(CFU/ ), Cryo-Vac film 9. 4 PE film 9, Cryo-Vac film 23 1 106(CFU/ ). -1.5.., Table 56, 57. 1,, (p<0.05), -1.5 4 Cryo-Vac film, -1.5 10 PE film., (p<0.01), PE film Cryo-Vac film 4 PE film. 3 (p=0.015), 10 Cryo-Vac film., -1.5 4 PE film 10 Cryo-Vac film. 6 (p<0.05), 10 PE film, -1.5 Cryo-Vac film. (p<0.01), -1.5 Cryo-Vac film. 9 (p<0.01). 4 Cryo-Vac film 10 PE film - 75 -
, 10 PE film.. Table 56. ( )1) -1.5 4 PE Cryo-Vac PE 10 Cryo-Vac PE Cryo-Vac ( ) 1 3 6 9 4.8 1.8ab 4.9 1.5 5.5 1.5 4.5 1.2bc 5.9 1.8a 4.2 1.9bc 5.7 1.4b 5.1 1.5b 5.4 1.4 4.9 1.8 5.2 1.7 4.7 1.8 5.2 2.1a 5.0 1.3 5.2 1.5a 5.1 2.0 5.4 1.5a 5.2 2.3 3.5 1.6 5.8 1.8abc 4.9 2.0a 3.3 1.9c 4.0 2.5c 4.5 1.7b 5.5 1.4 5.7 1.6 5.2 1.5 5.3 2.4 3.3 1.7b 5.1 1.6 3.5 1.0b 6.2 1.3 4.6 1.3ab 5.2 1.6 5.8 1.8 4.2 1.9c 6.1 1.6a 5.3 2.1ab 3.8 1.8c 5.7 1.7b 5.1 1.9 4.0 1.3 5.3 2.0 5.6 1.6 4.6 2.4ab 4.6 2.1 5.4 1.6a 5.6 2.4 5.0 2.4a 5.7 2.4 4.6 2.5 6.1 1.9ab 4.6 2.8a 4.0 2.4bc 3.8 1.8c 5.7 1.9b 5.1 1.6 4.6 2.1 4.5 1.9 5.4 1.2 5.4 1.6a 5.6 1.6 5.7 1.7a 5.8 1.9 5.8 2.0a 3.9 2.0 5.6 2.3 6.3 1.6a 2.7 1.5b 5.0 1.5abc 7.4 1.4a 7.3 1.6a 4.6 2.0 4.6 1.6 5.3 2.1 5.8 1.8 5.6 1.8a 5.5 2.5 5.5 2.0a 5.6 2.1 3.3 1.2b 5.0 2.1 4.4 1.9 4.6 2.0abc 5.6 2.0a 6.2 1.9a 6.7 1.0ab 5.6 1.5b 4.9 1.5 4.6 2.2 5.7 1.0 6.0 0.6 3.9 1.7ab 4.1 2.0 4.6 1.7ab 5.6 1.3 1) n=11, (p<0.05) - 76 -
Table 57. ( )1) -1.5 4 PE Cryo-Vac PE Cryo-Vac PE 10 Cryo-Vac ( ) 1 3 6 9 5.1 1.7 4.6 1.4 5.0 1.4 4.8 1.5 5.6 1.9a 4.6 2.2 5.4 1.8 5.5 1.4 5.4 1.5ab 4.8 1.9 5.2 1.7 5.0 0.9 4.5 2.0 5.0 1.3 4.4 1.0b 4.4 1.8 5.1 1.9ab 4.8 1.7 4.2 1.5 4.1 1.5 5.7 1.7 4.4 1.9 3.7 1.8 5.2 1.9 5.3 1.7a 3.6 1.4 4.6 2.5 4.8 1.8 5.8 1.1a 4.4 1.2 5.2 1.4 4.4 1.7 5.9 1.2 4.8 1.7 6.4 0.9a 3.5 1.5 5.7 1.4a 4.4 1.3 4.6 2.2 3.9 1.2 4.5 1.7 4.9 1.6 4.9 2.1 3.8 1.3 5.3 1.5a 5.3 2.2 4.3 2.1 5.1 1.5 3.9 1.7c 5.1 1.6 4.8 1.5 4.3 1.5 4.6 2.1 5.5 1.8 4.3 1.6b 4.1 2.0 4.2 1.3bc 5.1 1.7 4.6 1.9 3.8 1.5 4.4 2.3 4.6 2.2 4.6 2.1 4.6 1.8 4.3 2.5a 3.9 2.3 4.5 1.9 5.2 1.6 4.5 0.8bc 3.9 1.5 5.0 1.2 4.2 1.7 4.0 0.9 4.3 1.7 4.0 1.6b 3.6 1.4 4.4 1.8abc 3.4 1.9 3.8 2.1 3.8 1.4 4.7 1.9 4.2 1.9 4.6 1.4 5.0 2.0 2.7 1.4b 5.0 1.3 6.1 1.8 6.1 1.5 4.5 1.5bc 5.0 1.8 3.9 1.6 4.6 1.9 4.0 2.2 4.3 2.3 4.3 2.0b 4.1 1.9 3.1 1.6c 4.4 1.7 3.7 1.4 4.6 2.3 3.6 1.2 5.2 2.01 5.0 1.8 4.9 1.6 5.3 1.4a 6.0 2.2 6.0 1.2 5.9 1.4 5.6 1.2ab 5.0 2.1 5.2 1.8 4.6 1.1 4.9 1.5 5.5 1.8 5.3 2.1ab 4.6 1.6 4.2 1.3bc 5.5 2.3 5.0 2.0 4.8 1.5 1) n=11, (p<0.01) - 77 -
6. NIR spectra 1. 1960 Norris(1962, 1964),, NIR spectrophotometer (NIRS : ) Norris (Bengera Norris ; 1968a, 1968b, Butler Norris ; 1960). 1970 1970 (U.S.D.A.) Norris. NIR Europe,,, juice. North America.,,,, grains,,,,,,, fast food USSR, Asia.,,,,,,. New zealand, (Williams Norris, 1987) NIR.,. - 78 -
O-H, N-H, C-H ( Chemometrics ) (Combination band : 1.8 2.5 m) 1 (1st Overtone : 1.3 1.8 m) 2 (2nd Overtone : 0.6 1.3 m). (UV-VIS).,,. NIR region visible mid IR 750 2500nm 1100 2500nm. NIR C-H, O-H, N-H S-H. NIR. (C-H), (O-H) (N-H, S-H) (Robertson, 1989). Giese(1993) NIR on-line. NIR 0.78 3.0 m (electromagnetic),, Polesello Giangiacomo (1985) 1.94 m methanol. NIR reflectance 80% Anon.(1973). Norris (1976) NIR 2 equation Table.. Y = K0+K1{d2(log 1/R R.nm1)}/(d.nm12)+ - - - +K9{d2(log 1/R R.nm9)}/(d.nm92) Rxj= 1.4 2.4nm K0j- - - - K9j= coefficients. - 79 -
. NIR NIR system Hildrum (1994) NIR (NIR) 1100 2500nm (NIT) 850 1050nm. NIR hardness tenderness (multiple correlation coefficient ; R) 0.8 0.9 0.5 0.7. NIR. (1981) 0.87 1.1 m R 0.903 0.972, R 0.964 0.996. Kruggel (1981) Martens (1981) NIR,, R 0.91 0.94, 0.90 0.94 0.80 0.85, 0.83 0.85, 0.83 0.85 0.72 0.77 NIR. Beck (1991) NIR bull heifer (Intramuscular fat ; IMF) (L-value). R 0.99, (SEP) 0.28, R 0.90, (SEP) 0.9. minolta value R 0.93, 1.0, NIR, (marbling). Conway(1984). deuterium oxide dilution (r = 0.94), skinfold(r = 0.90), ultrasound(r = 0.89) NIR r = 0.91, band 930nm NIR - 80 -
. Stwatland Dattson(1984) optical 650nm ATP. Nagao (1985),, NIR 1208nm, 1230nm, 1726nm 1738nm, r = 0.990, (SEC) 0.88%, r = 0.994, SEC 1.10%, r = 0.976, SEC 1.78%. NIR cut-meat. Mitsumoto (1991) spectra 1100 2500nm fiber spectra 680 1235nm ph,,,, hydroxyproline,, NIR spectra 2 mode R = 0.795 0.826, R = 0.822 0.904, R = 0.895 0.961, R = 0.890 0.965 R = 0.899 0.961 spectra R = 0.946, fiber R = 0.893. Lanza(1983),, NIR R 0.987 0.885 paste. Ben-Gera Norris(1986) NIR (1500 1850nm) mode. Anderson (1993) NIR, MQM(Meat Quality Marbling) pistol, R 0.80, 0.2%. 800 1600nm, R 0.93, 0.97 0.91.. NIR NIR. (1990) - 81 -
capsaicin capsanthin, capsaicin capsanthin SEP 1.99 1.60. NIR 1.76%, 0.43% (, 1991). NIR (1994) NIR (1994) NIR. Ryu (1994) flour extrudate NIR R 0.99 0.98. SEP 0.84% 0.307% extrudate,. (1994) NIR. 2.. NIR. Fig. 5 NIR 400-2500nm. 1100nm visible NIR. Fig. 6 80 2. 970nm, 1100nm, 1200nm, 1400nm, 1740nm 1910nm peak O-H band. - 82 -
Figure 5. Raw spectra of pork using reflectance mode by NIR at 400nm - 2500nm(n=80) - 83 -
Figure 6. Second derivative spectra of pork using reflectance mode by NIR at 400nm - 2500nm(n=80) Table 58. Wavelengths selected and statistical summary of fat content of pork using reflectance mode by NIR Wavelengths(nm) R SEC(%)1) 1212 -.8236.791 1212/2160.8756.678 1212/2160/1876.8937.634 1212/2160/1876/2304.9045.607 1) SEC ; Standard error of the calibration(n=80) 2-84 -
NIR calibration Table 58. 1212nm, 2160nm, 1876nm 2304nm 4 (R) 0.9045 (SEC) 0.607%. Fat content = -0.865-102.294X1-119.68X2-72.60X3-28.614X4 (X1-X4: 1212nm, 2160nm, 1876nm 2304nm ). 2 calibration scatter diagram Fig. 7. Calibration 1.0% - 10.0%. Figure 7. Scatter diagram for estimation of fat content of pork using reflectance mode by NIR at 400nm - 2500nm(n=80) - 85 -
Table 59 calibration equation NIR 1.721%. 5.5% 0.5% 78%. Table 59-1. Comparison of fat content between chemical with NIR analysis of pork samples for calibration equation Sample name C. A. % NIR % Difference 1-3 3.600 3.949 0.349 2-3 3.480 3.788 0.308 3-3 3.500 4.191 0.691 4-3 5.220 5.433 0.213 5-3 4.130 3.715-0.415 6-3 9.340 7.619-1.721 7-3 5.130 4.670-0.460 8-3 3.190 3.979 0.789 9-3 2.770 3.096 0.326 S-3 3.150 3.434 0.284 S1-3 3.920 3.929 0.009 S2-3 4.410 4.089-0.321 LYD1-3 4.870 4.613-0.257 LYD2-3 6.590 5.796-0.794 LYD3-2 7.180 6.671-0.509 DH1-3 3.730 3.703-0.027 DH2-3 2.280 2.632 0.352 DH3-2 3.430 3.964 0.534 3-1-3 1.330 1.148-0.182 3-2-3 2.960 2.926-0.034 3-3-3 2.250 2.101-0.149 3-4-3 2.980 2.779-0.201 3-5-3 2.400 2.502 0.102 5-1-3 2.620 2.733 0.113 5-3-3 2.660 2.194-0.466 5-4-3 1.950 1.481-0.469 2-1-3 2.130 2.235 0.105 2-2-3 1.930 1.824-0.106 2-3-3 1.410 1.354-0.056 2-4-3 1.520 1.475-0.045 2-5-3 2.020 1.935-0.085 C-1-3 1.500 1.097-0.403 C-2-3 2.370 2.477 0.107 1-1-3 1.250 2.483 1.233-86 -
Table 59-2. (Continue) Sample name C. A. % NIR % Difference 1-2-3 2.210 2.160-0.050 1-3-3 1.990 2.854 0.864 1-4-3 1.270 1.467 0.197 1-5-3 1.980 2.254 0.274 4-1-3 1.490 1.603 0.113 4-2-3 1.590 1.470-0.120 4-3-3 1.950 1.717-0.233 4-4-3 3.150 3.161 0.011 4-5-3 1.620 1.744 0.124 C-3-3 2.600 2.875 0.275 C-4-3 1.510 1.248-0.262 6-1-3 1.480 1.423-0.057 6-2-3 1.490 0.962-0.528 6-3-3 1.460 1.202-0.258 6-4-3 1.330 1.358 0.028 6-5-3 1.370 1.460 0.090 C-5-3 1.770 1.869 0.099 1-3 2.720 2.937 0.217 2-3 2.100 1.786-0.314 3-3 3.170 3.210 0.040 4-3 2.400 1.895-0.505 589-3 2.920 2.497-0.423 590-3 2.110 4.178 2.068 591-3 3.350 2.781-0.569 592-3 2.640 2.437-0.203 593-3 2.720 2.016-0.704 594-3 2.500 2.935 0.435 595-3 2.870 2.607-0.263 596-3 2.510 2.482-0.028 597-3 1.100 2.792 1.692 598-3 3.060 2.764-0.296 599-3 2.630 2.044-0.586 600-3 3.200 2.705-0.495 601-3 3.120 2.599-0.521 602-3 2.310 2.837 0.527 603-3 2.870 2.793-0.077 604-3 2.850 2.815-0.035 605-3 2.310 3.166 0.856 606-3 2.880 4.020 1.140 607-3 4.440 2.545-1.895 608-3 2.490 3.097 0.607 5-2-2 2.670 2.623-0.047 Average 2.782 2.782 0.00004-87 -
Table 60 NIR 2096nm, 596nm, 952nm 2184nm 4 (R) 0.7359 (SEC) 0.737%. Table 60. Wavelengths selected and statistical summary of protein content of pork using reflectance mode by NIR Wavelengths(nm) R SEC(%)1) 2096 -.5848.865 2096/596.6601.807 2096/596/952.7200.750 2096/596/952/2184.7359.737 1) SEC ; Standard error of the calibration(n=80) Protein content = 17.214-91.890X1+ 45.840X2-132.958X3-43.783X4 (X1-X4: 2096nm, 596nm, 952nm 2184nm ). NIR calibration equation (R) 0.7359 0,9045 NIR. Fig. 8 calibration scatter diagram. Table 61 calibration equation NIR 2.407%. 90% 1% 10% 1%. - 88 -
Figure 8. Scatter diagram for estimation of protein content of pork using reflectance mode by NIR at 400nm - 2500nm(n=80) - 89 -
Table 60-1. Comparison of protein content between chemical with NIR analysis of pork samples for calibration equation Sample name C. A. % NIR % Difference 1-3 20.540 22.025 1.485 2-3 20.910 22.064 1.154 3-3 22.370 21.965-0.405 4-3 21.480 21.506 0.026 5-3 22.490 21.685-0.805 6-3 20.550 21.500 0.950 7-3 21.650 21.101-0.549 8-3 21.930 21.315-0.615 9-3 21.910 21.938 0.028 S-3 22.960 22.780-0.180 S1-3 21.300 22.098 0.798 S2-3 22.950 22.148-0.802 LYD1-3 21.740 21.464-0.276 LYD2-3 21.450 21.591 1.141 LYD3-2 20.230 20.843 0.613 DH1-3 22.580 22.567-0.013 DH2-3 21.980 22.148 0.168 DH3-2 20.780 21.175 0.395 3-1-3 23.190 23.128-0.062 3-2-3 22.730 22.705-0.025 3-3-3 22.820 22.839 0.019 3-4-3 23.060 22.465-0.595 3-5-3 22.810 22.747-0.063 5-1-3 23.030 22.163-0.867 5-3-3 22.740 22.918 0.178 5-4-3 22.900 23.026 0.126 2-1-3 23.270 22.771-0.499 2-2-3 22.350 22.718 0.368 2-3-3 23.300 22.891-0.409 2-4-3 23.020 23.290 0.270 2-5-3 23.360 23.056-0.304 C-1-3 23.550 23.060-0.490 C-2-3 23.530 22.862-0.668 1-1-3 23.940 23.035-0.905 1-2-3 23.080 23.014-0.066 1-3-3 22.810 23.086 0.276 1-4-3 22.950 23.034 0.084 1-5-3 23.120 23.403 0.283-90 -
Table 61-2. (Continue) Sample name C. A. % NIR % Difference 4-1-3 22.940 22.919-0.021 4-2-3 23.150 23.165 0.015 4-3-3 23.580 22.944-0.636 4-4-3 22.790 23.161 0.371 4-5-3 23.320 23.153-0.167 C-3-3 23.110 23.544 0.434 C-4-3 23.540 23.699 0.159 6-1-3 23.770 22.811-0.959 6-2-3 24.500 23.211-1.289 6-3-3 23.610 23.316-0.294 6-4-3 20.830 23.237 2.407 6-5-3 24.370 23.548-0.822 C-5-3 22.830 23.542 0.712 1-3 23.220 23.755 0.535 2-3 24.070 24.836 0.766 3-3 23.610 23.653 0.043 4-3 24.870 24.340-0.530 589-3 23.350 23.357 0.007 590-3 24.860 23.242-1.618 591-3 22.330 23.168 0.838 592-3 22.720 23.465 0.745 593-3 23.400 23.253-0.147 594-3 23.480 23.159-0.321 595-3 23.320 23.374 0.054 596-3 23.370 22.964-0.406 597-3 22.840 23.520 0.680 598-3 25.220 23.396-1.824 599-3 23.860 23.738-0.122 600-3 24.250 23.358-0.892 601-3 21.470 23.503 2.033 602-3 23.070 23.363 0.293 603-3 23.880 23.748-0.132 604-3 22.580 23.394 0.814 605-3 24.690 24.198-0.492 606-3 23.220 23.282 0.062 607-3 23.480 23.826 0.346 608-3 23.150 23.214 0.064 5-2-2 22.890 22.417-0.473 Average 22.907 22.893-0.0004-91 -