Mahermcgregor5426

We prepared self-standing chemically cross-linked hydrogels from 1,3-α-d-glucan (Mw = 2.0 × 105) and 1,3-β-d-glucans (low-molecular-weight (LMW) Mw = 2.0 × 105, high-molecular-weight (HMW) Mw = 1.0 × 106), using ethylene glycol diglycidyl ether (EGDGE) as a cross-linker. Uniaxial compressive tests using cylindrical hydrogels of the cross-linked glucans were conducted. Both the 1,3-α-d-glucan and LMW-1,3-β-d-glucan hydrogels were highly deformable and shape-deformable; they could be compressed without breaking to 60% and 80% strain, respectively, and recovered 80% of their original height. The Young's moduli of the 1,3-α-d-glucan and LMW-1,3-β-d-glucan hydrogels indicated that the 1,3-α-d-glucan hydrogels were harder than the 1,3-β-d-glucan hydrogels. The HMW-1,3-β-d-glucan hydrogels were more deformable and had better shape recovery than the LMW-1,3-β-d-glucans; they could be compressed by up to 90% maximum strain, and recovered almost 100% of their original height from 80% strain. Cyclic compression tests were performed to study their network structure.The binding affinity and thermodynamics of family 4 carbohydrate-binding module (CBM4), belonging to type B CBM, on model surfaces of cellulose nanocrystals (CNC) and nanofibrils (CNF) were investigated by quartz crystal microbalance with dissipation monitoring (QCM-D) technology in real-time at different temperatures. The thermodynamic parameters associated with the interaction, such as Gibbs free energy, enthalpy change, entropy change and heat capacity were obtained using the van't Hoff analysis via a nonlinear parameter estimation. The results demonstrated CBM4 binds preferentially to both CNF and CNC, whereas the driving forces behind them were very different. The former was related to the hydrogen bonds formed in the CBM4 clefts, resulting in a favorable enthalpy but compensated by unfavorable entropy change; on the contrary, the latter was mainly driven by favorable entropy but compensated by unfavorable enthalpic change due to water rearrangement.The objective of this study was to evaluate different methods used for estimating cook loss in broiler breast fillets (pectoralis major). Two experiments were conducted. In the first experiment, intact fillets were weighed, cooked to 75°C, and then subjected to 1 of 3 postcook handling treatments cooling for 5 min at room temperature before reweighing (5-minute), cooling at room temperature until they reached room temperature before reweighing (RT), or cooling in ice water until they reached room temperature before reweighing (IW). In the second experiment, breast fillet portions were used to compare the effects of endpoint temperature (53°C, 57°C, 68°C, 75°C, or 90°C) on cook loss estimation by the 5-minute and RT methods. Breast fillets were collected from local chicken processing plants and trimmed to similar weight prior to cooking. Cook loss, cook loss retention, and total cook loss after 24 h in cooked fillets were measured for comparisons. Data showed that cook loss ( less then 17%) and total loss (19.3%) estimated with the IW method were lower (P less then 0.05) than those with the 5-minute and RT methods (19-21% for cook loss and 21.1-21.3% for total loss), which did not differ from each other. When the endpoint temperature was ≥75°C, no differences in cook loss estimates or moisture loss were noted between the 5 min and RT methods (after 3 h cooling). However, when the temperatures were 53°C to 75°C, cook loss estimations were significantly different (P less then 0.05) between the 5 min and RT methods (more than 4%). Reduced endpoint temperature resulted in increasing differences (from less than 5% to more than 9%) in cook loss estimates. These results demonstrate that endpoint cooking temperature and postcooking sample handling methods may affect cook loss estimates in broiler breast meat.Goose meat is characterized by good quality and a good fatty acid composition. Geese do not need many compounds in their feed to ensure suitable growth. The main source of protein in most feed is soybean meal (SBM). New cultivars of yellow lupin with fewer antinutrients could be a substitute for soybean. The study's aim was to compare the quality of the carcass and meat, as well as the fatty acid composition and the collagen and cholesterol content in the breast muscles from geese fed a diet based on yellow lupin as an replacement for soybean meal. In the study, geese were divided into 2 study groups. Opevesostat The first was a control group (Group 1), fed a feed based on SBM; the second one was an experimental group (Group 2), fed a feed based on yellow lupin "Mister", potato protein, and brewer's yeast. The rearing period was divided into 3 stages, and the last stage was oat fattening. Each group (105 birds in each group) was divided into 5 replications with 21 birds. After 16 wk of rearing, 10 geese from each group w yellow lupin-based feed had beneficial effects on the goose meat's traits, and it can be used as a high-protein compound in diets for geese. It is also possible to produce traditional geese fattened by oats.The aim of this study was to compare the dynamic changes of egg selenium (Se) deposition and deposition efficiency and to evaluate the efficacy of selenium-enriched yeast (SY) in laying hens over the 84 d feeding period after SY supplementation. A total of one thousand one hundred fifty-two 30-wk-old, Hy-Line Brown hens were randomly assigned to 1 of 6 groups (192 laying hens per group) with 6 replicates of 32 birds each, fed a basal diet (without Se supplementation), basal diet with 0.3 mg/kg of Se from sodium selenite (SS) or basal diets with 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, or 0.4 mg/kg of Se from SY, respectively. The results showed that the Se concentrations in the eggs and breasts from hens fed a SY-supplemented diet were significantly higher than those from hens fed a SS-supplemented diet or a basal diet (P less then 0.001). There was a positive linear and quadratic correlation between Se concentrations in the eggs from hens fed a SY-supplemented diet and dietary Se supplementation on days 28, 56, and 84 (r2 = 0.931, 0.