4.2 Article

Determination of Ash in Animal Feed: AOAC Official Method 942.05 Revisited

期刊

JOURNAL OF AOAC INTERNATIONAL
卷 95, 期 5, 页码 1392-1397

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.5740/jaoacint.12-129

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AOAC Official Method(SM) 942.05, Ash in Animal Feed, has been applied in feed laboratories since its publication in the Official Methods of Analysis in 1942. It is a routine test with renewed interest due to the incorporation of ash values into modern equations for the estimation of energy content of dairy feed, beef feed, and pet food. As with other empirical methods, results obtained are a function of the test conditions. For this method, the critical conditions are the ignition time, ignition temperature, and any other furnace or weighing conditions. Complete ignition can be observed by the absence of black color (due to residual carbonaceous material) in the ash residue. To investigate performance of AOAC 942.05, 15 samples were chosen to be representative of a wide range of feed materials. These materials were tested at the conditions of AOAC 942.05 (ignition at 600 degrees C for 2 h) and similar or more rigorous conditions. The additional conditions investigated included: 600 degrees C for 4 h; 600 degrees C for 2 h, cool, and ignite 2 additional h; 600 degrees C for 2 h, cool, wet, dry, and ignite 2 additional h; 550 degrees C for 6 h; 550 degrees C for 3 h, cool, and ignite 3 additional h; and 550 degrees C for 3 h, cool, wet, dry, ignite 3 additional h. Results for all other conditions investigated were found to be significantly different from the current AOAC Method 942.05. All ignition conditions were significantly different from each other except two: 550 degrees C for 3 h, cool, ignite 3 additional h; and 550 degrees C for 3 h, cool, wet, dry, and ignite 3 additional h. Recommendations for modification to AOAC Official Method 942.05 are suggested based on statistical analysis of the data and a review of the literature.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据