Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences

  • 제15권10호
  • /
  • Pages.1507-1516
  • /
  • 2002
  • /
  • 1011-2367(pISSN)
  • /
  • 1976-5517(eISSN)
아세아태평양축산학회 (Asian Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Nutritional Quality and Variation of Meat and Bone Meal

  • Hendriks, W.H. (Institute of Food, Nutrition and Human Health, Massey University) ;
  • Butts, C.A. (Crop & Food Research) ;
  • Thomas, D.V. (Institute of Food, Nutrition and Human Health, Massey University) ;
  • James, K.A.C. (Crop & Food Research) ;
  • Morel, P.C.A. (Institute of Food, Nutrition and Human Health, Massey University) ;
  • Verstegen, M.W.A. (Department of Animal Science, Wageningen University)
  • 투고 : 2002.01.14
  • 심사 : 2002.04.24
  • 발행 : 2002.10.01
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Meat and bone meal is a valuable protein and mineral source in diets of production animals and contributes to the protein, energy and mineral component of diets. The aim of the present study was to more accurately characterise the apparent ileal amino acid digestibility of meat and bone meals produced in New Zealand and evaluate routine in vitro assays used in practise to measure meat and bone meal quality. A total of 94 commercial meat and bone meals from 25 New Zealand rendering plants over a two and a half year period were analysed for proximates, gross energy, gross amino acid content (incl. hydroxyproline, hydroxylysine and lanthionine), apparent ileal amino acid digestibility, pepsin nitrogen digestibility, protein solubility and bone content. The mean crude protein content of the 94 meat and bone meal samples was 56.8% with a range of >35% units and a coefficient of variation of 9.8%. The mean crude fat and ash content were 10.0 and 28.4% respectively. These latter components showed a large range (16 and 43%, respectively) with coefficients of variation above 22%. Amino acid digestibility between samples was highly variable with lysine and sulphur amino acids digestibility ranging between 45.8-89.0 and 38.2-85.5%, respectively. Pearson correlation coefficients are presented between crude protein content and individual gross amino acids, crude protein content and individual digestible amino acid content, and pepsin N digestibility and individual digestible amino acid content. There was a significant relationship between the digestible amino acid nitrogen content and the crude protein content while pepsin nitrogen digestibility was not correlated to ileal amino acid nitrogen digestibility (r=-0.06). Meat meals with a high protein content had relatively low hydroxyproline and hydroxylysine levels something that was attributed to the levels of collagen from bone. The data indicated that lanthionine (formed upon heat treatment of cysteine with a hydroprotein) is not a good indicator of the heat treatment employed to meat and bone meals. Step-wise multiple regression equations to predict the apparent digestible content of amino acids from rapid in vitro assays are presented. The most selected variables included ash and crude fat content. In general the equations derived for the essential amino acids had a higher degrees of fit (R2) compared to the non-essential amino acids. The R2 for the essential amino acids ranged from 0.43 for histidine and 0.68 for leucine. These equations provide a means of more rapidly estimating the apparent ileal digestible amino acid content (protein quality) of meat and bone meal using standard analyses.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. AOAC. 1984. Official Methods of Analysis. 14th edn. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC.
  2. Ashgar, A. and R. L. Henrickson. 1982. Chemical, biochemical, functional, and nutritional characteristics of collagen in food systems. Adv. Food Res. 28:231-272.
  3. Ashley, N. V. 1983. Utilization of food wastes as raw material in the pet-food industry. In: Upgrading Waste for Feeds and Foods (Ed. D. A. Ledward, A. J. Talor and R. A. Lawrie). Butterworths, London.
  4. Costigan, P. and K. J. Ellis. 1987. Analysis of faecal chromium derived from controlled release marker devices. N. Z. J. Technol. 3:89-92.
  5. Dale, N. 1997. Advances in defining the nutritive quality of feed ingredients. Proc. Aus. Poult. Sci. Symp. 9:66-73.
  6. Donkoh, A., P. J. Moughan and W. C. Smith. 1994a. True ileal digestibility of amino acids in meat and bone meal for the growing pig-application of a routine rat digestibility assay. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 49:73-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-8401(94)90082-5
  7. Donkoh, A., P. J. Moughan and W. C. Smith. 1994b. The laboratory rat as a model animal for determining ileal amino acid digestibility in meat and bone meal for the growing pig. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 49:57-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-8401(94)90081-7
  8. Folch, J., M. Lees and G. H. Sloane Stanley. 1957. A simple method for the isolation and purification of total lipides from animal tissues. J. Biol. Chem. 226:497-509.
  9. Friedman, M. 1999. Chemistry, biochemistry and microbiology of lysinoalanine, lanthionine, and histidinoalanine in food and other proteins. J. Agric Food Chem. 47:1295-1319. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf981000+
  10. Furuya, S. and Y. Kaji. 1989. Estimation of the true ileal digestibility of amino acids and nitrogen from the apparent values for growing pigs. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 26:271-285. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-8401(89)90040-0
  11. Jobling, A. and C. A. Jobling. 1983. Conversion of bone to edible products. In: Upgrading Waste for Feeds and Foods (Ed. D. A. Ledward, A. J. Talor and R. A. Lawrie). Butterworths, London. pp. 183-193.
  12. Johnson, M. L. and C. M. Parsons. 1997. Effects of raw material source, ash content, and assay length on protein efficiency ratio and net protein values for animal protein meals. Poult. Sci. 76:1722-1727. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/76.12.1722
  13. Johnston, J. and C. N. Coon. 1979. A comparison of six protein quality assays using commercially available protein meals. Poult. Sci. 58:919-927. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0580919
  14. Kirby, S. R., G. M. Pesti and J. H. Dorfman. 1993. An investigation of the distribution of the protein content of samples of corn, meat and bone meal, and soybean meal. Poult. Sci. 72:2294-2298. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0722294
  15. Knabe, D. A., D. C. LaRue, E. J. Gregg, G. M. Martinez and T. D. Tanksley 1989. Apparent digestibility of nitrogen and amino acids in protein feedstuffs by growing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 67:441-458. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1989.672441x
  16. Morel, P. C. H., J. Pluske, G. Pearson and P. J. Moughan. 1999. A Standard Nutrient Matrix for New Zealand Feedstuffs. Institute of Food, Nutrition and Human Health, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.
  17. Moughan, P. J., W. C. Smith and K. A. C. James. 1984. Preliminary observations on the use of the rat as a model for the pig in the determination of apparent digestibility of dietary proteins. N. Z. J. Agric. Res. 27:509-512. https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1984.10418012
  18. Moughan, P. J., W. C. Smith, A. K. Kies and K. A. C. James. 1987. Comparison of the ileal digestibility of amino acids in ground barley for the growing rat and pig. N. Z. J. Agric. Res. 30:59-66. https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1987.10430478
  19. National Research Council. 1995. Nutrient Requirements of Laboratory Animals. 4th rev. ed. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
  20. Parsons, C. M., K. Hashimoto, K. J. Wedekind and D. H. Baker. 1991. Soybean protein solubility in potassium hydroxide: an in vitro test of in vivo protein quality. J. Anim. Sci. 69:2918-2924. https://doi.org/10.2527/1991.6972918x
  21. Parsons, C. M., F. Castanon and Y. Han. 1997. Protein and amino acid quality of meat and bone meal. Poult. Sci. 76:361-368. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/76.2.361
  22. Pearson, G., P. J. Moughan, G. Z. Dong and P. C. H. Morel. 1999. Protein quality in blood meal. I. The rat as a model animal for determining apparent leal amino acid digestibility in the growing pig. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 79:301-307. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-8401(99)00027-9
  23. Picard, M., S. Bertand, M. Duron and R. Maillard. 1984. Comparative digestibility of amino acids using 5 animal models: intact cockerel, caeceectomised cockerels, rat deprived of large intestine, piglet with an ileo-caecal cannulation, piglet with an ileo-rectal shunt. In: Proc. Fourthth European Symposium on Poultry Nutrition (Ed. M. Larbier). Tours, France. World's Poultry Science Association, Tours, France p. 165.
  24. Ravindran, V., L. I. Hew and W. L. Bryden. 1998. Digestible Amino Acids in Poultry Feedstuffs. RIRDC Publication No.98/99, Project No. US-67CM, RIRDC, Barton, Australia.
  25. Rutherfurd, S. M. and P. J. Moughan. 1998. The digestible amino acid composition of several milk proteins: application of a new bioassay. J. Dairy Sci. 81:909-917. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(98)75650-4
  26. SAS 1999. SAS Institute Inc, Version 8.00, Gary, NC.
  27. Sauer, W. C., R. Cichon and R. Misir. 1982. Amino acid availability and protein quality of canola and rapeseed meal for pigs and rats. J. Anim. Sci. 54:292-301. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1982.542292x
  28. Shirley, R. B. and C. M. Parsons. 2000. Effect of pressure processing on amino acid digestibility of meat and bone meal for poultry. Poult. Sci. 79:1775-1781. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/79.12.1775
  29. Shirley, R. B. and C. M. Parsons. 2001. Effect of ash content on protein quality of meat and bone meal. Poult. Sci. 80:626-632. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/80.5.626
  30. Skilton, G. A., W. C. Smith and P. J. Moughan. 1991. The ileal digestibility of nitrogen and amino acids in meat and bone meals determined using a rat assay. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 34:111-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-8401(94)90195-3
  31. Skurray, G. R. and L. S. Herbert. 1974. Batch dry rendering. Influence of raw materials and processing conditions on meat meal quality. J. Sci. Food Agric. 25:1071-1079. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.2740250903
  32. Wang, X. and C. M. Parsons. 1998. Effect of raw material source, processing system, and processing temperature on amino acid digestibility of meat and bone meals. Poult. Sci. 77:834-841.

피인용 문헌

  1. Apparent ileal digestibility of amino acids in dietary ingredients for broiler chickens vol.81, pp.01, 2005, https://doi.org/10.1079/ASC42240085
  2. Meat and bone meal as nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer to cereals and rye grass vol.76, pp.2-3, 2007, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-005-5170-y
  3. Addition of oat hulls to an extruded rice-based diet for weaner pigs ameliorates the incidence of diarrhoea and reduces indices of protein fermentation in the gastrointestinal tract vol.99, pp.06, 2008, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114507868462
  4. ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Effect of rendering on protein and fat quality of animal by-products vol.94, pp.5, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0396.2010.00998.x
  5. Digestibility for dogs and cats of meat and bone meal processed at two different temperature and pressure levels* vol.96, pp.6, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0396.2011.01232.x
  6. L. vol.45, pp.6, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1111/jwas.12155
  7. Effect of defatting on quality of meat and bone meal vol.86, pp.3, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1111/asj.12286
  8. The Impact of Processing on Amino Acid Racemization and Protein Quality in Processed Animal Proteins of Poultry Origin vol.14, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.4081/ijas.2015.3770
  9. Protein Source and Nutrient Density in the Diets of Male Broilers from 8 to 21 Days of Age: Effects on Tibia Dimension, Breaking Strength, and Mineral Density vol.52, pp.3, 2015, https://doi.org/10.2141/jpsa.0140152
  10. The consequences of introducing stochasticity in nutrient utilisation models: the case of phosphorus utilisation by pigs vol.115, pp.03, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114515004523
  11. in Feedstuffs Available in Costa Rica: Prevalence, Serotyping and Tetracycline Resistance of Isolates Obtained from 2009 to 2014 vol.13, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1089/fpd.2015.2050
  12. Availability of minerals in rendered meat and bone meal for Nile tilapia: Preliminary observations pp.13535773, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1111/anu.12635
  13. Protein quality of various raw and rendered by-product meals commonly incorporated into companion animal diets1 vol.85, pp.12, 2007, https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2006-225
  14. The effect of storage on the nutritional quality of meat and bone meal vol.127, pp.1, 2006, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2005.08.012
  15. Lysine reactivity and starch gelatinization in extruded and pelleted canine diets vol.138, pp.2, 2002, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2007.06.021
  16. The effect of extrusion on the nutritional value of canine diets as assessed by in vitro indicators vol.138, pp.3, 2002, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2006.11.015
  17. Potential nitrogen and phosphorus leaching from soils fertilized with meat and bone meal vol.59, pp.3, 2002, https://doi.org/10.1080/09064710802024164
  18. Improved prediction of meat and bone meal metabolizable energy content for ducks through in vitro methods vol.91, pp.8, 2012, https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2011-01876
  19. Chemical Compositions and in vitro Methane Production Potentials of Some Agro-industrial By-products and Crop Residues vol.19, pp.8, 2002, https://doi.org/10.3923/jas.2019.763.770
  20. Variation in lysine, threonine, and tryptophan availability in meat and bone meal as estimated by the slope‐ratio growth assay technique in growing rats vol.91, pp.1, 2002, https://doi.org/10.1111/asj.13413
  21. Modulation of Maillard reaction and protein aggregation in bovine meat following exposure to microwave heating and possible impact on digestive processes: An FTIR spectroscopy study vol.39, pp.2, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1080/15368378.2020.1737805
  22. Protein and energy concentrations of meat meal and meat and bone meal fed to pigs based on in vitro assays vol.7, pp.1, 2002, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aninu.2020.07.007