JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Nutritional Quality and Variation of Meat and Bone Meal
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
Nutritional Quality and Variation of Meat and Bone Meal
Hendriks, W.H.; Butts, C.A.; Thomas, D.V.; James, K.A.C.; Morel, P.C.A.; Verstegen, M.W.A.;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
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.
 Keywords
Meat and Bone Meal;Nutritional Quality;Ileal Digestibility;Gross Composition;Amino Acids;
 Language
English
 Cited by
 References
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. crossref(new window)

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. crossref(new window)

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. crossref(new window)

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. crossref(new window)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. crossref(new window)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. crossref(new window)

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. crossref(new window)

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.