Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-20T10:50:43.214Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of pressure and temperature on the availability of lysine in meat and bone meal as determined by slope-ratio assays with growing pigs, rats and chicks and by chemical techniques

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

E. S. Batterham ,
R.E. Darnell ,
L. S. Herbert  and
E. J. Major
E. S. Batterham
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Centre, Wollongbar, New South Wales 2480, Australia
R.E. Darnell
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Centre, Wollongbar, New South Wales 2480, Australia
L. S. Herbert
Affiliation:
CSIRO Meat Research Laboratory, Cannon Hill, Queensland 4170, Australia
E. J. Major
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Station, Seven Hills, New South Wales 2147, Australia
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. The availability of lysine for pigs, rats and chicks was determined using samples of meat and bone meal (MBM) subjected to different pressure and temperature treatments during dry-rendering processing. The relation between slope-ratio estimates and three chemical tests for estimating ‘available’ lysine was assessed.

2. The availability of lysine (proportion of total) for pigs was 0.97 in the control. Pressure (275 kPa gauge, 141°, for 30 min) in the early stage of rendering reduced availability to 0.74 and, in the late stage, to 0.46. Maintaining the final temperature at 125° for 4 h had little effect (0.84) whereas a higher temperature of 150° for 4 h reduced availability to 0.38.

3. Availability estimates for rats were lower than those of the pig, ranging from 0.88 in the control to 0.21 for the high-temperature treatment (150° for 4 h). The effects for temperature were similar to those for the pig, whereas the effect of pressure was equally detrimental in both the early and late stages (0.45 and 0.43 respectively).

4. For chicks, availability estimates were similar to those for the pig for the control (0.93) and the two temperature treatments (0.86 and 0.31 for the 125° and 150° treatments respectively). The chick was less susceptible to the effect of pressure applied to the MBM (0.78 and 0.63 for the early-and late-stage treatments respectively).

5. Values for the indirect-and direct-1-fluoro-2, 4-dinitrobenzene-(FDNB)-‘available’-lysine assays decreased from 0.86 and 0.74 to 0.57 and 0.54 for the control and 150° for 4 h treatments respectively, indicating that approximately half the reduced availability involved reactions with the ε-amino group of lysine. There was little relation between the FDNB values and lysine availability for the treatments involving changes in pressure.

6. There was little or no relation between dye-binding capacity of the meals, as assessed by the Acid Orange-12 dye-binding procedure (Hurrell et al. 1979), and lysine availability for the three species.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 55 , Issue 2 , March 1986 , pp. 441 - 453
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1986

References

REFERENCES

Batterham, E. S. (1973). Estimation of the available amino acid contents of feeds for pigs with Tetrahymena pyriformis W. PhD Thesis, University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
Batterham, E. S., Lowe, R. F., Darnell, R. E. & Major, E. J. (1986). British Journal of Nutrition 55, 427–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batterham, E. S. & Murison, R. D. (1981). British Journal of Nutrition 46, 87–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batterham, E. S., Murison, R. D. & Andersen, L. M. (1984). British Journal of Nutrition 51, 85–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batterham, E. S., Murison, R. D. & Lewis, C. E. (1979). British Journal of Nutrition 41, 383–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batterham, E. S., Murison, R. D. & Lowe, R. F. (1981). British Journal of Nutrition 45, 401–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bremner, H. A. (1976). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 27, 307–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, K. J. (1960). Biochemical Journal 77, 604–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, K. J. (1973). Nutrition Abstracts & Reviews 43, 423–451.Google Scholar
Finney, D. J. (1964). Statistical Method in Biological Assay, 2nd ed. London: Griffin.Google Scholar
Herbert, L. S., Dillon, J. F., MacDonald, M. W. & Skurray, G. R. (1974). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 25, 1063–1070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurrell, R. F., Lerman, P. & Carpenter, K. J. (1979). Journal of Food Science 44, 1221–1231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. & Cole, D. J. A. (1976). Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 35, 87–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, J. F., Bowland, J. P. & Aherne, F. X. (1977). Canadian Journal of Animal Science 57, 131–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Major, E. J. & Batterham, E. S. (1981). British Journal of Nutrition 46, 513–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council (1971). Nutrient Requirements of Poultry. 6th ed. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
National Research Council (1972). Nutrient Requirements of Laboratory Animals, 2nd ed. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Roach, A. G., Sanderson, P. & Williams, D. R. (1967). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 18, 274–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vogtmann, H., Pfirter, H. P. & Prabucki, A. L. (1975). British Poultry Science 16, 531–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar