\documentclass[english,german]{scrartcl}
\usepackage[latin1]{inputenc}
\usepackage{geometry}
\geometry{verbose,a4paper,tmargin=1.75cm,bmargin=2cm,lmargin=2cm,rmargin=2cm,headheight=0.8cm,headsep=0.5cm,footskip=0.5cm}
\usepackage{babel}
\usepackage{url}
\urlstyle{same}
\newcommand\email{\begingroup \urlstyle{same}\Url}\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{units}
\usepackage{tabularx}
\usepackage{wasysym} % enable use of \permil instead of \textperthousand
\usepackage{marvosym}
\usepackage{arabtex}
\usepackage{hyphenat}
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{mdwlist}
\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\relax}
\usepackage{index}
\newindex{key}{kdx}{knd}{Keywords}
\newindex{author}{idx}{ind}{Authors}
\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\pagestyle{fancy}
\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}
\fancyfoot{}
\usepackage{ifpdf}
\ifpdf
%\usepackage[activate]{pdfcprot}
%\usepackage[owner=Tapioka, print=true, copy=true, edit=false, annotate=false,set]{pdfcrypt}
%encryption: not supported any more (since pdftex 1.10)
\usepackage[pdftex]{thumbpdf}
\usepackage[pdftex]{hyperref}
\hypersetup{pdftitle={Nutritive Characteristics, Functional Properties and \textit{in vitro} Protein Digestibility of some Unconventional Protein Concentrates},pdfauthor={Valentine Aletor, Oluwatoyin Aletor, Smith Evivie},pdfsubject={Tropentag 2010: Abstract},pdfkeywords={Functional properties, in vitro protein digestibility, nutrient composition, unconventional protein concentrates},pdfpagemode=None,colorlinks=true}
\else
\usepackage{ae}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\fi
\begin{document}
\ifpdf
\parbox[b]{2.5cm}{\resizebox*{2.5cm}{!}{\includegraphics{dtt2010.jpg}}}
\else
\parbox[b]{2.5cm}{\resizebox*{2.5cm}{!}{\includegraphics{dtt2010.eps}}}
\fi
\hfill
\parbox[b]{13.4cm}{\centering \large{\textbf{Tropentag, September 14-16, 2010, Zurich}}\\[1ex] \Large{``World Food System  ---\\A Contribution from Europe''\\[2ex]}}
\hspace{0.1cm}
\begin{center}
\Large{\textbf{Nutritive Characteristics, Functional Properties and \textit{in vitro} Protein Digestibility of some Unconventional Protein Concentrates\footnote{\textbf{Contact Address:} Valentine Aletor, The Federal University of Technology, Department of Animal Production \& Health, Mini Campus Futa, Akure, Nigeria, \mbox{e-mail}: \email{valet2002@hotmail.com}}\\[0.8ex]}}
\normalsize{\textsc{Valentine Aletor$^{1}$, Oluwatoyin Aletor$^{2}$, Smith Evivie$^{3}$}}
\end{center}
\begin{itemize*}
\item[]{\small{\textit{$^{1}$The Federal University of Technology, Department of Animal Production \& Health, Nigeria}}}
\item[]{\small{\textit{$^{2}$The Federal University of Technology, Department of Chemistry, Nigeria}}}
\item[]{\small{\textit{$^{3}$University of Benin, Department of Animal Science, Nigeria}}}
\end{itemize*}
\index[author]{Aletor, Valentine}
\index[author]{Aletor, Oluwatoyin}
\index[author]{Evivie, Smith}
\begin{center}
\vspace{1.1cm}
\textbf{Abstract}
\begin{abstract}
\normalsize{
Five different protein concentrates were analysed and compared with respect to their proximate compositions, mineral constituents, gross energy, functional properties and \textit{in~vitro} multi"=enzyme protein digestibilities. SIMULATING A BROILER; RUMINANT OR WHAT? They include maggot meal, frog meal, shrimp waste meal, Cassava leaf protein concentrate (CLPC) and fishmeal (which was used as a reference/standard).  Proximate analysis showed that frog meal and maggot meal  (57.4$\pm$0.8g/100g DM and 43.8$\pm$0.3g/100g DM) respectively, compared favourably with fish meal (65.7$\pm$0.4g/100g DM) in terms of crude protein content. Maggot meal also had the highest ether extract of 26.2 $\pm$ 0.9g/100g DM while shrimp waste meal had the least (7.8 $\pm$ \unitfrac[0.4]{g}{DM}). Frog meal had the highest ash content of 23.1 $\pm$ 1.6g/100g DM while CLPC had the least (5.2 $\pm$ 0.2g/100 DM). Gross energy ranged from 522.2Kcal/100g in Maggot meal to 415.4Kcal/100g in shrimp waste meal. The trace and major mineral constituents of frog meal were similar to those of fish meal. CLPC had the lowest oil absorption capacity (19.3 $\pm$ \mbox{2.3\,\%}) and frog meal had the highest water absorption capacity EXPLAIN BRIEFLY WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT? (240.0 $\pm$ \mbox{16.5\,\%}). CLPC had the highest emulsion capacity and emulsion stability WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT? of 56.9 $\pm$ \mbox{0.9\,\%} and 55.4 $\pm$ \mbox{1.2\,\%}, respectively. There was no observed foaming for maggot meal but it had the lowest least gelation value along with fish meal of \mbox{4.0\,\%}. All concentrates of animal origin had highest protein solubility at pH of 2 while that of CLPC was at pH 12. CLPC had the highest \textit{in~vitro} protein digestibility (\mbox{86.3\,\%}) followed by fishmeal and frog meal (\mbox{76.0\,\%}), maggot meal (\mbox{74.0\,\%}) and shrimp waste meal (\mbox{71.0\,\%}). Apart from the potentials for use in food systems, it was concluded that these alternative and relatively inexpensive protein concentrates hold the key to more a economic livestock production particularly among the resource"=poor farmers in the least developed countries(LDCs).



}

\vspace{0.5cm}
\end{abstract}
\end{center}
\noindent \textbf{Keywords:} Functional properties, \textit{in~vitro} protein digestibility, nutrient composition, unconventional protein concentrates
\index[key]{Functional properties}
\index[key]{\textit{In~vitro} protein digestibility}
\index[key]{Nutrient!composition}
\index[key]{Unconventional protein concentrates}
\end{document}