ARTICLE

Effects of Humic Acid and Blueberry Leaf Powder Supplementation in Feeds on the Productivity, Blood and Meat Quality of Finishing Pigs

Kwonjung Kim1https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7873-3747, inkyu Bae1https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6088-3624, Jinho Cho1https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7151-0778, Yangil Choi1https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3423-525X, Jungheun Ha2https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5282-531X, Jungseok Choi3,*https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8033-0410
Author Information & Copyright
1Department of Animal Science, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju 28644, Korea
2Department of Food Science and Nutrition, Dankook University, Cheonan 31116, Korea
3Department of Physiology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, 6229 ER, Netherlands
*Corresponding author : JungSeok Choi, Department of Physiology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, 6229 ER, Netherlands Tel: +31-43-3881200 Fax: +31-43-3884166 E-mail: j.choi@maastrichtuniversity.nl

© Korean Society for Food Science of Animal Resources. This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Received: Dec 21, 2018 ; Revised: Mar 25, 2019 ; Accepted: Mar 25, 2019

Published Online: Apr 30, 2019

Abstract

The objective of this study was to determine effects of humic acid (HA) and blueberry leaf powder (BLP) supplementation in pig feed on productivity, blood profiles, and meat quality characteristics of longissimus muscle. The experimental design included six treatments: 1) CON, no addition; 2) T1, BLP 0.1%; 3) T2, BLP 0.2%; 4) T3, humic acid 2%; 5) T4: humic acid 2%+BLP 0.1%; and 6) T5: humic acid 2%+BLP 0.2%. HA and BLP supplementation in pig feed significantly increased average daily feed intake (ADFI) values (p<0.05). HA supplementation in pig feed had beneficial effects in lipid profiles without altering feed efficiency rate (FER). HA and BLP co-supplementation in pig feed decreased pH in longissimus thoracis (p<0.05). In addition, sensory characteristics were enhanced when pig feed was supplemented with HA and BLP without causing adverse effects in meat quality. Taken together, addition of HA and BLP in pig feed may produce functional meat products.

Keywords: humic acid; blueberry leaf; organic acid; meat quality characteristics

Introduction

Meat consumption has increased recently in Korea due to increased national income and changes in eating habits. Meat consumption per capita in 2016 was 49.5 kg, of which pork (24.1 kg) accounted for 49% of total meat consumption (Key Statistics of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs, 2017). Pork is the mostly consumed meat in Korea, accounting for a considerable portion of the livestock industry. The social demands of functional food are elevated strikingly as consumers seeking well-being lives (Kim et al., 2011). Kwon et al. (2003) have reported that finishing pigs yield higher carcass grade when they are fed an organic material of plant mixtures. Research has been conducted on effects of mugwort, tangerine peel, activated carbon, Zizyphus vulgaris, olive oil by-product, grass coal, and rare earth supplementation on growth performance and carcass quality characteristics (Joven et al., 2014).

Both humic acid (HA) and blueberry leaf are functional materials. HA has been studied extensively due to its positive effects on meat quality and productivity in the past. The addition of HA to feed is known to promote germination by increasing nutrient intake (David et al., 1994). Griban et al. (1988) have also reported that HA is a stable organic substance to promote excellent water retention and water holding capacity. In addition, when HA is supplied to pig feed, HA has roles as antiflogistic, antitoxic, antibacterial, and antiviral agent. Thus, HA may be applied for therapy and prevention (Klocking, 1994).

Blueberry is known to have positive effects on human health and disease prevention because it contains anthocyanin with antioxidant activities (Brownmiller et al., 2008). Chemical content of blueberry is known to account for about 15% dry materials that has high contents of anthocyanin and flavonoid (Rywotycki, 2002; Skupien, 2006). In addition, blueberry contains sugar, acid, vitamin C, vitamin E, dietary fiber, arbutin, and trace elements such as potassium (K), Ferrum (Fe), zinc (Zn), and manganese (Mn) (Zhang et al., 2011). Among them, anthochthoic acid, a physiologically active substance, is an applicable feed additive and biocompatible biodegradable polysaccharide with excellent film forming ability, antibacterial function, and antioxidant activity (Yang et al., 2014).

However, there is a lack of research on effects of blueberry leaf and HA supplements on productivity, blood profiles, and meat quality as pig feed additives. Therefore, the objective of this study was to determine effects of blueberry leaf and HA supplements on productivity, blood, and meat quality as feed additives in pigs.

Materials and Methods

Animals and dietary treatments

All animal studies were approved by Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) of Chungbuk University. Landrace×Yorkshire×Duroc cross hybrid growing pigs (n=120) were examined. Their initial body weight was ~60 kg. Feeding study was conducted for 7 weeks. The experimental design consisted of six treatments: 1) CON (basic feed); 2) T1, basic feed+0.1% BLP; 3) T2, basic feed+0.2% BLP; 4) T3, basic feed+2% HA powder; 5) T4, basic feed+2% HA powder+0.1% BLP; and 6) T5, basic feed+2% HA powder+0.2% BLP. Each treatment was assigned with 20 pigs. Feeding experiments were carried out on Han-Don Union Test Farm in Chungbuk, Korea. Test feeds were prepared with HA and BLP based on requirements of NRC (2012). Water was adjusted to be freely eaten using an automatic water dispenser. Body weight was measured at initiation, 4 weeks, and at the end of the study period (7 weeks) for each treatment group. Weight gain (WG) was calculated at the start of the experiment and 7 weeks after treatment. Feed intake was calculated by subtracting the remaining amount from the feed provided during body weight measurement. Feeding efficiency was calculated by dividing body weight gain by feed intake. Food intake was calculated by subtracting the remaining amount from the feed amount during body weight measurement, and the feed efficiency was calculated by dividing the body weight gain by the feed intake. Hematological analysis was performed by collecting blood from the jugular vein at the end of the study period (7 weeks). The slaughter age is six months, the longissimus thoracis between the 6th and 12th rib on the left side of the carcass was resected 24 h after slaughter and analyzed. Procine longissimus thoracis were packed into polyethylene bags using vacuum and placed at 4°C for 14 days. The pH measured during storage 0, 7, and 14 days. The proximate composition, WHC, meat color, drip loss, cooking loss, sensory evaluation, and subjective evaluation were performed or measured for three replicates at 0 day.

Analysis items
Feeding efficiency rate (FER)

Body weight and food intake were measured daily, respectively. Feeding efficiency was calculated as follows: Daily weight gainDaily food intake.

Hematological parameters

White blood cell (WBC), red blood cell (RBC), glutathione, triglyceride, lymphocyte, and total cholesterol levels were analyzed using K3EDTA treated plasma (ADVIA 120, Bayer, USA).

Proximate analysis

Moisture, protein, lipid, and ash contents of longissimus thoracis were determined according to previously described AOAC method (2012).

pH

Longissimus thoracis (10 g) was homogenized in 100 mL deionized water for 30 seconds at 1,828×g with a blender (Bihon seiki, Ace, Japan) and pH was measured with a Mettler. Delta 340 pH meter (Mettler-tolede, Ltd., UK).

Meat color

Surface color of longissimus thoracis was measured with a Spectro colormeter (Model JX-777, Color Techno System Co., Japan) standardized with a white plate (L*, 94.04; a*, 0.13; b*, –0.51). a* and b* values of the Hunter Lab color system using a white fluorescent lamp (D65) (L*=lightness, a*=redness, b*=yellowness). The meat color was indicated with L*, a*, and b* value represented lightness of the Hunter lab color coordinates, redness, and yellowness, respectively.

Water holding capacity (WHC)

WHC was used as 0.5 g of crushed longissimus thoracis. WHC was calculated as altered weight of longissimus thoracis before and after centrifugation (Laakkonen et al., 1970).

Cooking loss

Cooking loss of longissimus thoracis was measured using a ~3 cm thick longissimus thoracis muscle slice (150±5 g). longissimus thoracis slice was vacuum-packed in a polypropylene bag and incubated in a water bath at 70°C for 40 min followed by cooling-down at room temperature for 30 min. Cooking loss was determined based on decreased weight expressed as weight percentage (%) of the initial weight.

Drip loss

After longissimus thoracis slices (2 cm thick) were shaped into a circular shape (weight 100±5 g), they were placed in a vacuumed polypropylene bag at 4°C for 24 hr. Drip loss was calculated as weight percentage (%) of the initial sample weight.

Subjective evaluation

Five well-trained in-house tasting panelists evaluated sensory attributes of marbling, texture, meat color, and pork characteristics, using on a 5-point scale for 3 independent trials: 1-extremely low, extremely tough, extremely bright, severe PSE (pale, soft, and exudative) muscle, 5-extremely high, extremely tender, extremely dark, severe DFD (dark, firm, and dry) muscle.

Sensory characteristics

Sensory characteristics of longissimus thoracis were determined with four distinctive sensory tests. Sensory scores were evaluated for four items: flavor, tenderness, juiciness, and total acceptability. Each item was scored in 5-point scale ranging from 1 point (very bad flavor, very tough, very dry, very good total acceptability) to 5 point (very good flavor, very soft, very succulent, very bad total acceptability).

Statistical analysis

Results were analyzed with SAS program (2012) using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Duncan’s multiple test. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05.

Results and Discussion

Effect of HA and BLP consumption on growth rate and feeding efficiency

Consumption of HA and BLP did not significantly alter body weight or average daily gain (ADG) during feeding period. Early phase (0–4 wk) of average daily feed intake (ADFI) was significantly higher in group with HA feeding while late phase (5–7 wk) ADFI was higher in group with BLP feeding (p<0.05). Overall ADFI value (0–7 wk) was higher in T1 (0.1% BLP) than that of the control. Early phase of feeding efficiency rate (FER) was higher in T2 (0.2% BLP only supplemented) than that in T5 (co-supplementation with 2% HA and 0.2% BLP). Late phase FE was significantly higher in HA supplement groups (T4 and T5) than that of the control (p<0.05). However, there was no significant difference in FER among groups during the overall study period. Organic substance of HA may induce protective coating on the mucosal epithelium of the gastrointestinal tract of pig and chicken (Wang et al., 2008). Organic materials of HA can also form an epithelial barrier to provide protection against infections and toxins in animal feed (Huck et al., 1991). In addition, ammonia material of HA as a pig feed additive can increase the efficiency of excretion by increasing digestion absorption rate (Pisarikova et al., 2010). In the present study, HA was also found to be effective in increasing the efficiency of feces excretion as a feed additive for pigs. Ji et al. (2006) have also reported that feed supplemented with HA can increase ADG and FE of pigs.

Effect of HA and BLP consumption on porcine hematological parameters

Consumption of T5 (2% HA with 0.2% BLP) showed a cholesterol lowering effect. Triglyceride levels did not differ among treatment groups. Pigs that consumed 0.2% BLP (T2 and T5) had higher high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL/C) levels than those in other groups. HA and BLP consumption did not alter low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL/C). HDL/C ratio in finishing pig was significantly elevated with 0.2% BLP consumption (p<0.05). WBC were reduced by T5 consumption. All treatments showed no significant difference in counts of RBCs or lymphocytes or glutathione level. Catechins in blueberry leaf have potency to improve lipid profiles in blood by reducing total cholesterol while increasing HDL/C (Muramatsu et al., 1986) (Tables 1 and 2). The peat moss component of HA is a dynamic cation exchanger. Therefore, HA might be able to improve the immune system (Wenk, 2003). Oh et al. (2018) have reported that consumption of HA does not alter WBC in pigs. In the present study, we found that BLP and HA had beneficial effects on blood lipid profiles and immune function, respectively.

Table 1. Changes growth performances of finishing pigs supplemented with humic acid and blueberry leaf powders
Treatments
Period (wk) CON T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
Weight (kg) 0 60.4 60.3 60.1 60.2 60.4 60.5
4 83.4 83.6 83.1 84.3 84.6 84.3
7 102.9 105.5 103.9 105.4 106.2 106.0
ADG (kg) 0–4 0.820 0.832 0.822 0.860 0.865 0.849
5–7 0.928 1.043 0.993 1.006 1.025 1.039
0–7 0.867 0.922 0.895 0.922 0.934 0.930
ADFI (kg) 0–4 2.610c 2.674c 2.477d 2.795b 2.807b 3.052a
5–7 3.232b 3.498a 3.658a 3.275ab 3.247ab 3.255ab
0–7 2.876b 3.012a 2.988ab 2.986ab 2.988ab 2.968ab
FER (kg) 0–4 0.341ab 0.314ab 0.336a 0.308ab 0.308ab 0.278b
5–7 0.288b 0.306ab 0.278b 0.307ab 0.315a 0.319a
0–7 0.301 0.307 0.303 0.309 0.312 0.313

a–d Means in the same row with different letters are significantly different (p<0.05).

CON, no addition; T1, blueberry leaf powder 0.1%; T2, blueberry leaf powder 0.2%; T3, humic acid 2%; T4, humic acid 2%+blueberry leaf powder 0.1%; T5, humic acid 2%+blueberry leaf powder 0.2%; ADG, average daily gain; ADFI, average daily feed intake; FER, feed efficiency rate.

Download Excel Table
Table 2. Changes blood profiles of finishing pigs supplemented with humic acid and blueberry leaf powders
Treatment
CON T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
Cholesterol (mg/dL) 86.6a 83.3ab 80.8ab 78.0ab 75.8ab 74.8b
Triglyceride (mg/dL) 38.5 35.9 37.7 38.7 38.1 34.3
HDL/C (mg/dL) 42.5c 43.4bc 48.7ab 42.6c 43.0c 50.3a
LDL/C (mg/dL) 44.2 39.9 39.1 40.7 40.8 38.4
WBC (103/μL) 19.2a 19.0a 18.9a 15.9ab 16.3ab 15.1b
RBC (106/μL) 6.5 6.6 6.5 6.8 7.0 6.7
Lymphocyte (%) 48.8 44.2 43.4 44.6 43.4 43.7
Glutathion (uM) 0.24 0.29 0.35 0.23 0.27 0.31

a–c Means in the same row with different letters are significantly different (p<0.05).

CON, no addition; T1, blueberry leaf powder 0.1%; T2, blueberry leaf powder 0.2%; T3, humic acid 2%; T4, humic acid 2%+blueberry leaf powder 0.1%; T5, humic acid 2%+blueberry leaf powder 0.2%; HDL/C, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; LDL/C, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; WBC, white blood cell; RBC, red blood cells.

Download Excel Table
Effect of HA and BLP consumption on proximate composition of porcine longissimus thoracis

Moisture content of longissimus thoracis ranged from 72.52% to 73.89% when pig feed was supplemented with HA and BLP. T4 treatment elevated moisture contents in porcine longissimus thoracis. HA and BLP consumption did not alter porcine protein content in longissimus thoracis (ranging from 19.87% to 20.83%). Moreover, HA and BLP consumption did not significantly change longissimus thoracis fat content (6.21% to 6.98%). Ash contents in porcine longissimus thoracis were higher in pigs that consumed 2% HA mixed with BLP (T4 and T5) than those in others. BLP treatment did not alter moisture content, consistent with report of Leusink et al. (2010). However, BLP with extra HA may increase water content in porcine longissimus thoracis. Castellini et al. (2002) have also suggested that HA consumption may increase moisture content since HA has potency to improve solubility. In similar setting of other studies, HA and/or BLP consumption is not a limiting factor of porcine fat or protein content (Ozturk et al., 2012) (Table 3).

Table 3. Proximate compositons of longissimus thoracis from finishing pigs supplemented with humic acid and blueberry leaf powders
Treatments
CON T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
Moisture (%) 72.29±2.02b 72.52±2.72ab 72.53±1.81ab 73.06±2.31ab 73.89±3.09a 72.85±2.51ab
Protein (%) 20.58±1.39 20.69±1.83 20.67±0.97 19.87±1.77 19.93±1.57 20.83±0.99
Fat (%) 6.72±1.23 6.57±2.24 6.43±1.36 6.94±1.21 6.21±0.95 6.98±0.57
Ash (%) 1.16±0.08b 1.12±0.13b 1.11±0.08b 1.18±0.13b 1.27±0.11a 1.32±0.13a

a,b Means in the same row with different letters are significantly different (p<0.05).

CON, no addition; T1, blueberry leaf powder 0.1%; T2, blueberry leaf powder 0.2%; T3, humic acid 2%; T4, humic acid 2%+blueberry leaf powder 0.1%; T5, humic acid 2%+blueberry leaf powder 0.2%.

Download Excel Table
Effect of HA and BLP consumption on meat quality of porcine longissimus thoracis

HA and BLP consumption markedly decreased pH of porcine longissimus thoracis during 14 d of storage. Moreover, HA consumption during the storage period showed lower tendency than treatment with BLP consumption. Lightness (L*) and redness (a*) values of T5 treatment were significantly lower than those of the control. b* values were significantly lower in T5 (2% HA+BLP) than those of the control (p<0.05). HA and BLP consumption did not alter WHC or drip loss value of longissimus thoracis. Cooking loss of longissimus thoracis in the group with 2% HA consumption (T3) was higher than that with 0.2% BLP consumption. In our study, HA and BLP reduced pH of meat. This might be due to formation of propionic acid and lactic acid (Wanapat et al., 2011)(Table 4). It has been reported that meat color is associated with pH, temperature, light, oxygen, ascorbic acid, enzymes, sugars, degradation products, and ions (Esenbuga et al., 2008). Anthocyanins in blueberry can decrease the a* and b* values when it is added to feed (Jimenez-Aguilar et al., 2011; Smith et al., 2000). However, in our study, there was no significant difference in L*, a*, or b* values. This might be due to different anthocyanin contents in blueberries. Consumption of vegetable and organic materials can increase water uptake (Chung et al., 2018). Water retention ability of dietary fiber added with BLP might be higher due to improvement of moisture binding ability of cellulose as component of dietary fiber. However, in our study, WHC was intact. This might be because we added lower amount of BLP into the feed.

Table 4. Meat quality characteristics of longissimus thoracis from finishing pigs supplemented with humic acid and blueberry leaf powders
Treatments
CON T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
pH 0 day 5.95±0.17a 5.75±0.14b 5.70±0.09b 5.61±0.11c 5.61±0.10c 5.59±0.12c
7 day 5.77±0.19a 5.63±0.13b 5.58±0.06bcd 5.56±0.04cd 5.61±0.05bc 5.52±0.11d
14 day 5.92±0.20a 5.78±0.05b 5.65±0.01c 5.55±0.06cd 5.60±0.02c 5.43±0.08d
Hunter color L 61.01±3.95a 61.54±4.22a 60.08±4.44ab 61.42±3.52a 61.85±4.61a 58.94±3.99b
a 5.89±1.83a 5.23±1.86a 5.16±1.48a 5.16±1.30a 5.27±1.57a 4.11±1.39b
b 9.86±1.12a 9.60±1.16a 9.41±1.04a 8.92±0.96bc 8.51±0.86cd 8.30±0.94d
Water holding capacity (%) 63.92±9.07 65.99±6.35 65.57±4.07 62.67±9.31 65.29±10.24 65.94±3.96
Drip loss (%) 2.19±0.65 2.26±0.92 2.61±0.84 2.98±0.77 2.43±0.7 3.52±1.36
Cooking loss (%) 22.53±2.51ab 21.44±3.33ab 20.36±7.51b 23.58±2.57a 23.01±3.16ab 22.22±2.65ab

a–d Means in the same row with different letters are significantly different (p<0.05).

CON, no addition; T1, blueberry leaf powder 0.1%; T2, blueberry leaf powder 0.2%; T3, humic acid 2%; T4, humic acid 2%+blueberry leaf powder 0.1%; T5, humic acid 2%+blueberry leaf powder 0.2%.

Download Excel Table
Effect of HA and BLP consumption on sensory characteristics and subjective evaluation of porcine longissimus thoracis

Either HA or BLP consumption increased tenderness of porcine longissimus thoracis significantly than the control (p<0.05). Feeding with extra HA alone resulted in more juiciness than T1 and T5 treatments. HA and BLP consumption increased flavor (2.74 to 3.42) than normal chow consumption (CON; 2.26). The group with consumption of 2% HA (T3) had highly acceptability than the control. Regarding subjective evaluation, HA and BLP consumption significantly decreased marbling values of porcine longissimus thoracis (p<0.05). HA supplementation significantly increased preference compared to the control (p<0.05). HA and BLP consumption did not significantly impair preference of meat texture or pork characteristics. Anthocyanin of blueberry and citric acid of HA are known to have high water solubility (Chung et al., 2018). In the present study, consumption of HA and BLP might have improved juiciness, flavor, and total acceptability due to increased water solubility. It is known that the L* value can be decreased by pH reduction characteristic of organic acid (Qiao et al., 2001). Therefore, subjective evaluation of HA and BLP consumption showed low color point and low marbling point (Table 5).

Table 5. Sensory characteristics and subjective evaluation of longissimus thoracis from finishing pigs supplemented with humic acid and blueberry leaf powders
Treatments
CON T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
Sensory characteristics Tenderness 2.50±1.04b 3.05±0.89a 3.06±0.68a 3.54±0.80a 3.20±0.83a 3.03±0.96a
Juiciness 3.09±0.88ab 2.94±1.10b 3.18±0.81ab 3.64±0.79a 3.05±1.09ab 2.80±1.13b
Flavor 2.26±0.75c 2.74±1.03bc 3.10±0.85ab 3.42±0.93a 3.03±0.97ab 3.23±1.19ab
Total acceptability 2.88±0.97b 3.09±0.94ab 3.14±0.75ab 3.57±0.85a 3.22±0.99ab 2.98±1.17ab
Subjective evaluation Mabling 2.88±0.68a 2.11±0.89b 1.97±0.65b 2.16±1.01b 2.05±0.88b 1.80±0.66b
Color 3.42±0.88a 3.00±0.87ab 2.97±0.61ab 2.90±0.70b 2.88±0.59b 2.91±0.83b
Texture 3.45±0.49 3.59±0.67 3.35±0.49 3.50±0.67 3.48±0.70 3.40±0.49
Pork characteristics 3.35±0.83 3.46±0.64 3.22±0.65 3.23±0.68 3.09±0.69 3.11±0.71

a–c Means in the same row with different letters are significantly different (p<0.05).

CON, no addition; T1, blueberry leaf powder 0.1%; T2, blueberry leaf powder 0.2%; T3, humic acid 2%; T4, humic acid 2%+blueberry leaf powder 0.1%; T5, humic acid 2%+blueberry leaf powder 0.2%.

Download Excel Table

Conclusion

The purpose of this study was to determine effects of HA and BLP supplementation in pig feed on productivity and meat quality characteristics. HA and BLP consumption did not significantly change FE in the overall study period but improved. HA and BLP consumption reduced cholesterol levels in hematological parameters. In addition, sensory characteristics in groups supplemented with HA and BLP were superior to those of the control. Therefore, HA and BLP might be useful for the development of healthy functional meat processing product (i.e., low-cholesterol meat) as excellent additives to improve productivity and meat quality of finishing pigs.

Notes

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by Green Cross Veterinary Products Co., Ltd.

Notes

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: Kim K, Choi J. Data curation: Kim K, Bae I, Cho J, Choi Y, Ha J, Choi J. Writing - original draft: Kim K, Bae I, Cho J, Choi Y, Ha J, Choi J. Writing - review & editing: Kim K, Bae I, Cho J, Choi Y, Ha J, Choi J.

Notes

Ethics Approval

The animal care and use committee of Chungbuk National University approved all the experimental protocols used in the current study.

References

1.

AOAC. 2012; Official methods of analysis of AOAC International. 19th edAOAC International. Gaithersburg, MD, USA: p. 931.

2.

Brownmiller C, Howard LR, Prior RL. 2008; Processing and storage effects on monomeric anthocyanins, percent polymeric color, and antioxidant capacity of processed blueberry products. J Food Sci. 73:H72-H79

3.

Castellini C, Mugnai C, Bosco AD. 2002; Effect of organic production system on broiler carcass and meat quality. Meat Sci. 60:219-225

4.

Chung YK, Choi JS, Yu SB, Choi YI. 2018; Physicochemical and storage characteristics of Hanwoo Tteokgalbi treated with onion skin powder and blackcurrant powder. Korean J Food Sci Anim Resour. 38:737-748.

5.

David PP, Nelson PV, Sanders DC. 1994; A humic acid improves growth of tomato seedling in solution culture. J Plant Nutr. 17:173-184

6.

Esenbuga N, Macit M, Karaoglu M, Aksu MI, Bilgin OC. 2008; Effects of dietary humate supplementation to broilers on performance, slaughter, carcass and meat colour. J Sci Food Agric. 88:1201-1207

7.

Griban VG, Stepchenko LM, Zhorina LV. 1988; The live weight gain and disease resistence of young cattle and poultry stock as influenced by physiologically active peat preparation. Proceedings 8th International Peat Congress. Leningrad, Russia: p. 45-50.

8.

Huck TA, Porter N, Bushell ME. 1991; Positive selection of antibiotic-producing soil isolates. J Gen Microbiol. 137:2321-2329

9.

Ji F, McGlone JJ, Kim SW. 2006; Effects of dietary humic substances on pig growth performance, carcass characteristics, and ammonia emission. J Anim Sci. 84:2482-2490

10.

Jimenez-Aguilar DM, Ortega-Regules AE, Lozada-Ramirez JD, Perez-Perez MCI, Vernon-Carter EJ, Welti-Chanes J. 2011; Color and chemical stability of spray-dried blueberry extract using mesquite gum as wall material. J Food Compost Anal. 24:889-894

11.

Joven M, Pintos E, Latorre MA, Suarez-Belloch J, Guada JA, Fondevila M. 2014; Effect of replacing barley by increasing levels of olive cake in the diet of finishing pigs: Growth performances, digestibility, carcass, meat and fat quality. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 197:185-193

12.

Kim IS, Jin SK, Mandal PK, Kang SN. 2011; Quality of low-fat pork sausages with tomato powder as colour and functional additive during refrigerated storage. J Food Sci Technol. 48:591-597

13.

Klocking R. 1994; Humic substances as potential therapeutics. In Humic substances in the global environment and implications on human health. In: Senesi N, Miano TM, editors.(ed)Elsevier. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: p. 1245-1257.

14.

Kwon OS, Kim IH, Kim JH, Hong JW, Min BJ, Min WB, Lee WB. 2003; The effects of dietary herbal plant mixture on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, serological changes and carcass characteristics in finishing pigs. J Korea Acad Ind Coop Soc. 4:334-340.

15.

Laakkonen E, Wellington GH, Sherbon JN. 1970; Low-temperature, long-time heating of bovine muscle I. Changes in tenderness, water-binding capacity, pH and amount of water-soluble components. J Food Sci. 35:175-177

16.

Leusink G, Rempel H, Skura B, Berkyto M, White W, Yang Y, Rhee JY, Xuan SY, Chiu S, Silversides F, Fitzpatrick S, Diarra MS. 2010; Growth performance, meat quality, and gut microflora of broiler chickens fed with cranberry extract. Poult Sci. 89:1514-1523

17.

Ministry of Agriculture Food, Rural Affairs. 2017; Key statistics of agriculture. Forestry and Livestock Food. Korea: p. 382.

18.

Muramatsu K, Fukuyo M, Hara Y. 1986; Effect of green tea catechins on plasma cholesterol level in cholesterol-fed rats. J Nutr Sci Vitaminol (Tokyo). 32:613-622

19.

National Research Council. 2012 Nutrient requirements of swine. National Academies Press. Washington, DC, USA: .

20.

Oh HJ, Kim IH, Song MH, Kwak WG, Yun W, Lee JH, Lee CH, Oh SY, Liu S, An JS, Kim HB, Cho JH. 2018; Effects of microencapsulated complex of organic acids and essential oils on growth performance, nutrient retention, blood profiles, fecal microflora, and lean meat percentage in weaning to finishing pigs. Can J Anim Sci. 99:41-49

21.

Ozturk E, Ocak N, Turan A, Erener G, Altop A, Cankaya S. 2012; Performance, carcass, gastrointestinal tract and meat quality traits, and selected blood parameters of broilers fed diets supplemented with humic substances. J Sci Food Agric. 92:59-65

22.

Pisarikova B, Zraly Z, Herzig I. 2010; The effect of dietary sodium humate supplementation on nutrient digestibility in growing pigs. Acta Vet Brno. 79:349-353

23.

Qiao M, Fletcher DL, Smith DP, Northcutt JK. 2001; The effect of broiler breast meat color on pH, moisture, water-holding capacity, and emulsification capacity. Poult Sci. 80:676-680

24.

Rywotycki R. 2002; The effect of selected functional additives and heat treatment on nitrosamine content in pasteurized pork ham. Meat Sci. 60:335-339

25.

SAS. 2012 SAS/STAT software for PC. Release 9.2. SAS Institute. Cary, NC, USA: .

26.

Skupien K. 2006; Chemical composition of selected cultivars of highbush blueberry fruit (Vaccinium corymbosum L.). Folta Hortic. 18:47-56.

27.

Smith MAL, Marley KA, Seigler D, Singletary KW, Meline B. 2000; Bioactive properties of wild blueberry fruits. J Food Sci. 65:352-356

28.

Wanapat M, Mapato C, Pilajun R, Toburan W. 2011; Effects of vegetable oil supplementation on feed intake, rumen fermentation, growth performance, and carcass characteristic of growing swamp buffaloes. Livest Sci. 135:32-37

29.

Wang Q, Chen YJ, Yoo JS, Kim HJ, Cho JH, Kim IH. 2008; Effects of supplemental humic substances on growth performance, blood characteristics and meat quality in finishing pigs. Livest Sci. 117:270-274

30.

Wenk C. 2003; Herbs and botanicals as feed additives in monogastric animals. Asian-Austalas J Anim Sci. 16:282-289

31.

Yang G, Yue J, Gong X, Qian B, Wang H, Deng Y, Zhao Y. 2014; Blueberry leaf extracts incorporated chitosan coatings for preserving postharvest quality of fresh blueberries. Postharvest Biol Technol. 92:46-53

32.

Zhang X, Yang Y, Zhao D. 2011; Effect of blueberry on spreadable processed cheese. J Northeast Agric Univ. 18:73-78

Journal Title Change

We announce that the title of our journal and related information were changed as below from January, 2019.

 

Before (~2018.12)

After (2019.01~)

Journal Title

Korean Journal for Food Science of Animal Resources

Food Science of Animal Resources

Journal Abbreviation

Korean J. Food Sci. An.

Food Sci. Anim. Resour.

eISSN

2234-246X

2636-0780

pISSN

1225-8563

2636-0772

Journal Homepage

http://www.kosfaj.org

Same

JCR Citation Indexing

SCIE

SCIE

I don't want to open this window for a day.