Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences

Asian Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies (아세아태평양축산학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Source of the Variation in Meat and Bone Meal Nutritional Quality

  • Hendriks, W.H. (Institute of Food, Nutrition and Human Health, Massey University) ;
  • Cottam, Y.H. (Institute of Food, Nutrition and Human Health, Massey University) ;
  • Morel, P.C.H. (Institute of Food, Nutrition and Human Health, Massey University) ;
  • Thomas, D.V. (Institute of Food, Nutrition and Human Health, Massey University)
  • Received : 2003.05.21
  • Accepted : 2003.09.16
  • Published : 2004.01.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The gross composition, gross amino acid content, apparent ileal amino acid digestibility and apparent ileal digestible amino acid content from 64 commercially produced meat and bone meals were statistically analysed. The samples were produced by 22 plants over a 2.5 year period with eight plants using batch dry rendering and 14 plants using low temperature rendering. A linear model with method and time of year (period) as fixed effects, plant within method as a random effect and sheep percent as a covariate was fitted to the composition data. The majority of the variation in the gross composition, amino acid digestibility and digestible amino acid content was explained by differences between plants using the same method. Neither rendering season nor origin of the raw materials contributed significantly to the observed variation in meat and bone meal protein quality. Rendering method (low temperature or batch rendering) had a significant effect on the variation observed in gross fat content, gross energy content, pepsin nitrogen digestibility, protein solubility and total lanthionine content. The digestibility of a number of amino acids and the apparent digestible content of arginine, cysteine, aspartic acid, proline and hydroxyproline were also significantly affected by rendering method. On average, batch dry and low temperature rendering systems produce meat and bone meals of similar nutritional quality. The variation between plant and within plant, however, is large, indicating that purchasing meat and bone meal from the same plant does not guarantee a consistent quality.

Keywords

References

  1. Batterham, E. S., R. E. Darnell, L. S. Herbert and E. J. Major. 1986. Effect of pressure and temperature on the availability of lysine in meat and bone meal as determined by slope-ratio assay with growing pigs, rats and chicks and by chemical techniques. Br. J. Nutr. 55:441-453.
  2. Bremner, H. A. 1976. Batch dry rendering: the influence of controlled processing conditions on the quality of meat meal prepared from sheep stomachs. J. Sci. Food Agric. 27:307-314. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.2740270403
  3. Casolari, A. 1998. Heat resistance of prions and food processing. Food Microbiol. 15:59-63.
  4. Dawson, C. O. and G. P. Savage. 1983. Biological value of some New Zealand processed meals. Proc. Nut. Soc. N.Z. 8:138-139.
  5. Donkoh, A., P. J. Moughan and W. C. Smith. 1994. 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.
  6. Haugen, E. W., J. E. Pettigrew, S. G. Cornelius and R. L. Moser. 1985. Effects of meat meal manufacturing variations on amino acid bioavailability in pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 61 (Suppl. 1):100 (Abstr.).
  7. Hendriks, W. H., C. A. Butts, D. V. Thomas, K. A. C. James, P. C. H. Morel and M. W. A. Verstegen. 2002. Nutritional quality and variation of meat and bone meal. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 15:1507-1516.
  8. Herbert, L. S., J. F. Dillon, M. W. MacDonald and G. R. Skurray. 1974. Batch dry rendering: influence of processing conditions on meat meal quality. J. Sci. Food Agric. 25:1063-1070.
  9. 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.
  10. Knabe, D. A., D. C. LaRue, E. J. Gregg, G. M. Martinez and T. D. Tanksley Jr. 1989. Apparent digestibility of nitrogen and amino acids in protein feedstuffs by growing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 67:441-458.
  11. Kondos, A. C. and G. L. McClymont. 1972. Nutritional evaluation of meat meals for poultry. VII Effects of processing temperature on total and biologically available amino acids. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 23:913-922.
  12. Ockerman, H. W. and C. L. Hansen. 2000. Animal By-Product Processing & Utilization. Technomic Publishing Co., Lancaster, USA.
  13. SAS Institute Inc. 1999. The SAS system for windows, release 6.12. SAS Institute Inc, Cary, North Carolina, USA.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. Somerville, R. A., R. C. Oberthur, U. Havekost, F. MacDonald, D. M. Taylor and A. G. Dickinson. 2002. Characterisation of thermodynamic diversity between transmissible spongiform encephalopathy agent strains and its theoretical implications. J. Biol. Chem. 13:11084-11089.
  18. Taylor, D. M., S. L. Woodgate and M. J. Atkinson. 1995. Inactivation of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy agent by rendering procedures. Vet. Rec. 137:605-610.

Cited by

  1. On-Site Quality Control of Processed Land Animal Proteins Using a Portable Micro-Electro-Mechanical-Systems near Infrared Spectrometer vol.24, pp.1, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1255/jnirs.1192
  2. Amino acid digestibility in six sources of meat and bone meal, blood meal, and soybean meal fed to growing pigs vol.98, pp.4, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1139/cjas-2017-0217
  3. Amino Acid Imbalance-Biochemical Mechanism and Nutritional Aspects vol.19, pp.9, 2004, https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2006.1361
  4. 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
  5. 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, 2004, https://doi.org/10.1111/asj.13413
  6. Protein and energy concentrations of meat meal and meat and bone meal fed to pigs based on in vitro assays vol.7, pp.1, 2004, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aninu.2020.07.007