• Preventive Nutrition and Food Science
• /
• v.8 no.2
• /
• pp.162-165
• /
• 2003

The enzyme activity and the micronutrient content of powdered raw meal (PRM) and powdered processed meal (PPM) were compared. PRM was made of freeze-dried cereals, fruits, and vegetables. PPM was made of the same materials as PRM, but with heat processing such as steaming, roasting and hot air drying. The activity of $\alpha$-amylase of PRM was higher than that of PPM. However there were no differences of the concentration of proximate components between PRM and PPM. The concentrations of vitamin A, C, folic acid, biotin, calcium, potassium, sodium and iron in PRM were higher than in PPM, but there were no differences in vitamins E, B$_1$, B$_2$, phosphorus and zinc. This research demonstrated that PRM retains greater nutritional value because there is higher enzyme activity and less loss of micronutrients during processing in PRM than in PPM.

• Korean Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
• /
• v.10 no.2
• /
• pp.115-124
• /
• 1977

From August 1976 to May 1977, a series of rearing experiments of eels weighing over 5 grams were carried out utilizing indoor recirculating aquariums and the results are summarized as following: 1. The eels were instantly acclimatized in the aquarium when alive Tubifex was fed as food, resulting in the food coefficient of around 5, and the daily growth rate of $2\%$ or so (Table 2). 2. When mackerel flesh was used in combination with flour dough or commercial powdered feed, the food coefficients were 4 to 5 and daily growth rates were between 1 and $2\%$ (Tables 3 and 4). 3. The eels of 12.4-14.7g in average weight which had not shown any growth when fed processed feed, grew normally when they were fed alternately with alive Tubifex and processed feed with the results of 4.3-6.0 in food coefficient and $1.4-2.3\%$ in daily growth rate (Table 5). 4. Experimental processed feed containing North Pacific which fish meal as the main ingredient showed the food coefficient of 1.31-1. 83 as dry material and this means that there is not any significant difference between this experimental feed and the control commercial eel feed, imported front Japan which showed food coefficient of 1.34 and 1.328 (Tables 6 and 7). 5. The feed cost may be reduced by about $45\%$ (based on tile domestic prices in the spring 1977) if this experimental processed feed is used instead of imported commercial feed. 6. Uneven growth is markedly significant in eels, and those which showed retarded growth gave very poor food efficiency as well as poor growth rate until they reach the size of about 30 grams. Thereafter they recovered both the normal food coefficient and growth rate. 7. Individuals which have been showing significant retarded growth may have some inherent physiological factors but this poor growth might also be, more or less, results of some external factors which are considered necessary to be investigated.