Literature DB >> 17609474

Protein quality of various raw and rendered by-product meals commonly incorporated into companion animal diets.

K R Cramer1, M W Greenwood, J S Moritz, R S Beyer, C M Parsons.   

Abstract

Several experiments were conducted to evaluate the protein quality of various raw and rendered animal by-product meals commonly used in companion animal diets. Six freeze-dried raw animal meals (beef lungs, pork lungs, sheep lungs, pork livers, oceanfish, chicken necks) and 3 rendered animal meals (lamb meal, regular ash poultry by-product meal, and low ash poultry by-product meal) were fed in chick assays to determine Lys and TSAA bioavailability, protein efficiency ratio (PER), and net protein ratio (NPR). Each experimental diet was offered to 4 replicates of 5 chicks per pen in all growth assays. Furthermore, each animal by-product meal was fed to mature White Leghorn roosters for determination of true AA digestibility. All freeze-dried, raw animal meals were offered to 5 replicate roosters, and all rendered animal meals were offered to 4 replicate roosters. Most raw animal meals exhibited moderate to high protein quality. Lysine bio-availabilities ranged from 86 to 107% and 70 to 99% for raw and rendered animal meals, respectively. Bio-availability of TSAA ranged from 64 to 99% and 61 to 78% for raw and rendered animal meals, respectively. The PER values ranged from 2.83 to 4.03 and 2.01 to 3.34 for raw and rendered animal meals, respectively. The NPR values ranged from 3.83 to 4.8 and 3.05 to 4.12 for raw and rendered animal meals, respectively. Despite a numeric increase in NPR vs. PER values, the overall ranking of animal meals remained similar. Lamb meal had the poorest PER and NPR values, and pork lungs had the greatest values. Total essential AA digestibility and total AA digestibility ranged from 93.6 to 96.7 and 90.3 to 95.5%, respectively, for raw animal meals and 84.0 to 87.7 and 79.2 to 84.8%, respectively, for rendered animal meals. Rendered animal meals generally had lower protein quality than raw animal meals, with lamb meal consistently having the poorest protein quality and pork livers having the greatest protein quality.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17609474     DOI: 10.2527/jas.2006-225

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Anim Sci        ISSN: 0021-8812            Impact factor:   3.159


  7 in total

1.  Chemical composition, true nutrient digestibility, and true metabolizable energy of chicken-based ingredients differing by processing method using the precision-fed cecectomized rooster assay1.

Authors:  Patrícia M Oba; Pamela L Utterback; Carl M Parsons; Maria R C de Godoy; Kelly S Swanson
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2019-03-01       Impact factor: 3.159

2.  Dietary supplementation with fiber, "biotics," and spray-dried plasma affects apparent total tract macronutrient digestibility and the fecal characteristics, fecal microbiota, and immune function of adult dogs.

Authors:  Anne H Lee; Ching-Yen Lin; Sungho Do; Patricia M Oba; Sara E Belchik; Andrew J Steelman; Amy Schauwecker; Kelly S Swanson
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2022-03-01       Impact factor: 3.159

3.  Characterization of the variations in the industrial processing and nutritional variables of poultry by-product meal.

Authors:  Josiane Aparecida Volpato; Leonir Bueno Ribeiro; Guilherme Baú Torezan; Ingrid Caroline da Silva; Isabela de Oliveira Martins; Jansller Luiz Genova; Newton Tavares Escocard de Oliveira; Silvana Teixeira Carvalho; Paulo Levi de Oliveira Carvalho; Ricardo Souza Vasconcellos
Journal:  Poult Sci       Date:  2022-04-22       Impact factor: 4.014

4.  The amino acid composition and protein quality of various egg, poultry meal by-products, and vegetable proteins used in the production of dog and cat diets.

Authors:  R A Donadelli; C G Aldrich; C K Jones; R S Beyer
Journal:  Poult Sci       Date:  2019-03-01       Impact factor: 3.352

5.  Prediction of crude protein digestibility of animal by-product meals for dogs by the protein solubility in pepsin method.

Authors:  Iris M Kawauchi; Nilva K Sakomura; Cristiana F F Pontieri; Aline Rebelato; Thaila C Putarov; Euclides B Malheiros; Márcia de O S Gomes; Carlos Castrillo; Aulus C Carciofi
Journal:  J Nutr Sci       Date:  2014-09-30

6.  Reactive lysine content in commercially available pet foods.

Authors:  Charlotte van Rooijen; Guido Bosch; Antonius F B van der Poel; Peter A Wierenga; Lucille Alexander; Wouter H Hendriks
Journal:  J Nutr Sci       Date:  2014-09-30

7.  Clinical health markers in dogs fed raw meat-based or commercial extruded kibble diets.

Authors:  Kristina Hiney; Lara Sypniewski; Pratyaydipta Rudra; Adel Pezeshki; Dianne McFarlane
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2021-06-01       Impact factor: 3.159

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.