- Email: [email protected]
The Influence of Storage on the Supplementary Protein Nutritive Value of Certain Fish Meals*
T h e Influence of Storage on the Supplementary Protein Nutritive Value of Certain Fish Meals* ROBERT JOHN EVANS AND J. S. CARVER Divisions of Chemistry and Poultry, Washington Agricultural Experiment Station, Pullman, Washington AND
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Technological Laboratory, Seattle, Washington (Received for publication April 5, 1944)
TT^ISH meals have been demonstrated to •*• be the most efficient protein concentrates for growing chicks (St. John, Carver, Johnson, Moore and Gerritz, 1933; St. John and Carver, 1936; Robertson, Carver and Cook, 1940). For that reason fish meals are very widely used in poultry feeding when available. Since the fishing industry is largely seasonal, most of the fish are caught and the fish meals prepared at one period during the year. Fish meals used during the remainder of the year must be stored until used. It appeared possible that some changes in the value of the fish meals as protein concentrates might take place during storage. Any changes in the nutritive value of fish meals during storage might be influenced by the type of fish meal, the method of preparation, the use of an antioxidant, or by the type of container in which the fish meal is stored. The experiment reported here was conducted to determine the effect of these various factors on the nutritive value of fish meals as
measured by a modification of the gross protein value method. EXPERIMENTAL
A sample of commercial pilchard meal was divided into six portions. To three portions was added five percent oat flour by weight as an antioxidant. A treated and a control portion were bagged in cotton, burlap, and multiwall paper bags. The samples of dogfish meal were prepared experimentally in the laboratory by either the wet or the dry process. The wet process as used consisted of grinding the fish, cooking them with live steam at atmospheric pressure, pressing to remove water and oil, and drying in a steam heated air drier. The dry process is similar to the commerical dry rendering operation. The fish are dried with continuous agitation in a jacketed vacuum chamber, which can be heated either with steam or hot water in the jacket. The dried product is then pressed in a hydraulic press to remove oil. Sample No. 721 was prepared by adding before cooking 0.5 percent of 40 percent * Published as Scientific Paper No. 598, College of Agriculture and Agricultural Experiment Stations, formaldehyde and 0.25 percent of concentrated sulfuric acid based on the State College of Washington, Pullman. 491
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Georgia on June 2, 2015
WM. S. HAMM
492
ROBERT JOHN EVANS, J. S. CARVER, ANDJWM. S. HAMM
weight of fish treated, and was then treated in the same manner as the other wet process samples. Sample No. 722 was prepared by the wet process and air dried at 140°F. Sample No. 723 was a part of No. 722 except that after drying S percent oat flour was added as an antioxidant. Sample No. 724 was also prepared by the wet process, but was dried at a temperature of 190°F.
15 chicks per group. The experimental diets contained 11.0 percent protein. Three percent of this was furnished by the fish meal under investigation, which replaced an equal weight of sugar. Each diet was fed to duplicate groups of chicks. Two groups were continued on the depletion diet as negative controls. Gain in weight and feed consumption records were kept. From the results, the increase
Sample no.
Type of fish meal
719 720 721 722 723 724 725 677
Pilchard Pilchard Dogfish Dogfish Dogfish Dogfish Dogfish Casein
Date of preparation
Oct. 1942 O c t 19421 i V Jan. 5, 194311 •ji Jan. 1, 1943 Jj 4 Dec. 31, 1943 Jan. 4, 1943 Dec. 31, 1943
Chemical Crude Ca rotein P quahTyindex* Percent 62.0 60.0 70.8 73.2 67.2 70.2 82.1 87.7
83.0 83.5 77.1 70.6 71.2 70.2 44.5 86.5
Fat
Ash
Moisture
Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent 7.21 4.04 2.8 21.7 8.3 3.86 2.7 20.8 8.9 6.83 2.30 1.62 17.9 9.1 3.7 2.52 1.73 17.4 9.9 4.5 2.36 1.68 16.7 9.4 6.5 2.38 1.69 20.8 9.7 3.4 2.15 1.74 10.5 11.0 7.5 0.18 0.95 — — —
* Determined by method of Almquist, Stokstad, and Halbrook (1935). See Evans, Carver, and Draper (1944)
Sample No. 725 was prepared by the dry process method at a temperature that never exceeded 140°F. Each of the dogfish meal samples was divided into two portions. One was sacked in a cotton bag and one in a paper bag. The chemical compositions of the fish meals are reported in Table 1. The feeding studies were carried out in January 1943, soon after the meals were prepared, and again in November 1943, after ten months' storage. The fish meals were stored in the feed room at the Washington State College Poultry Plant under common feed storage conditions. The supplementary nutritive values were determined by a modification of the gross value method of Heiman, Carver, and Cook (1938). Day-old chicks were fed for two weeks on a cereal and sugar depletion diet containing 8.0 percent protein. They were then divided into groups containing
in body weight of the experimental chicks over the negative controls and the gain in weight per gram of supplementary protein were calculated. Rather than using the gross value (obtained by comparison with casein), the gain in weight per unit of supplementary protein fed was used. RESULTS The results of this experiment are presented in Table 2. There were no significant changes in the gross protein value of the fish meals after ten months' storage no matter what the processing or treatment was or what type of container was used for storage. The pilchard meal had a higher supplementary nutritive value than the dogfish meals. Treating the dogfish with formaldehyde and acid had no harmful effect on the supplementary nutritive value of the dogfish meal prepared. There was no signifi-
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Georgia on June 2, 2015
TABLE 1.—Data on the chemical composition of the fishmeals
INFLUENCE OF STORAGE ON PROTEIN NUTRITIVE VALUE OF F I S H MEALS
cant difference between the • nutritive value of the dogfish meal prepared at a high temperature and of that prepared at a low temperature. The dogfish meal prepared at a low temperature by the dry process had a significantly lower gross TABLE 2.—Effect
493
fish meals had very high fat contents (Table 1). In agreement with the work reported by Rhian, Carver, Harrison, and Hamm (1942), formaldehyde and acid treatment of a wet process dogfish meal did not af-
of storage on the nutritive value offishmeals Gain per unit of supplemental protein
Type of fish meal
Process
719
Pilchard 1
720
Pilchard
721
Dogfish2
Wet Commercial Wet Commercial Wet
722 723 724 725 677
Dogfish Wet Dogfish Wet Dogfish Wet Dogfish Dry Casein 3 diff. Least sign.
Drying temp. °F.
Treatment
None 190 140 140 190 140
5% oatflour J formalin and acid None 5 % oatflour None None
After storage (Nov. 1943)6 (Jan. 1943) Initial 4 Paper Cotton Burlap bags bags bags 7.7-
7.9
8.1
7.9
7.8
7.7
8.0
8.2
6.8 7.1 7.1 .6.5 5.3 9.6 1.3
6.7 7.0 7.1 7.0 4.7
6.5 7.3 6.5 7.2 5.2 9.2
1.3
1 Pilchard meals were from a commercial source and initial feed test was on the meal three months after preparation. 2 All dogfish were prepared experimentally in the laboratory. 3 The least significant difference was calculated for the initial values and for the storage values separately by4 variance analysis (Snedecor, 1937). Each initial value is the average for six groups of chicks for the pilchard meals and four groups for the dogfish meals. 6 Average of two groups of chicks for each value.
protein value than the one prepared by the wet process at a similar temperature. DISCUSSION
Carver, Heiman, and St. John (1937) demonstrated a loss of vitamin D potency in Columbia River salmon fish meal when stored for one year. This loss was prevented when the fish meal was mixed in an all mash, chick ration and then stored for one year. Preliminary work had indicated that there might be some loss in the gross protein value of fish meals during storage. In the present study no losses in supplementary values were observed in the sixteen fish meal samples after ten months storage, although some of the
fect the nutritive value of the meal. Rhian, Carver, Harrison, and Hamm (1942) showed that wet-process dogfish meals have a higher nutritive value than dry-process dogfish meals. In an attempt to determine why the wet-process dogfish meals are better than the dry-process dogfish meals, the effect of temperature was studied. The supplementary nutritive value of wet-process dogfish meal was as good when dried at a high temperature as when dried at a low temperature. The nutritive value obtained with the dryprocess meal, dried at a low temperature, was not significantly different from that obtained by Rhian, Carver, Harrison, and Hamm (1942) with • an experimentally
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Georgia on June 2, 2015
Sample no.
494
ROBERT JOHN EVANS, J. S. CARVER, AND WM. S. HAMM
SUMMARY
Seven fish meals were fed in this study. Two pilchard fish meals were stored in paper, cotton, and burlap bags, while five dogfish meals were stored in paper and cotton bags. The gross protein values of the fish meals were determined before and after ten months' storage. No loss in sup-
Robertson, E. I., J. S. Carver and J. W. Cook, 1940. Gross value of protein supplements for poultry. Wash. Agr. Expt. Sta., Bull. 388:5-22. St. John, J. L., and J. S. Carver, 1936. Nutritive value of protein supplements. Proc. Sixth World's Poultry Congress at Berlin 1:46-52. St. John, J. L., J. S. Carver, 0 . Johnson, S. A. Moore and H. Gerritz, 1934. The biological value of rations containing fish meal. J. Nutrition 1:1326. Snedecor, G. W., 1937, Statistical methods. Collegiate Press, Inc., Ames, Iowa. 186-188.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Georgia on June 2, 2015
prepared dry-process dogfish meal dried plementary nutritive value was observed on storage. Neither treating with formalat a high temperature. The dry-process dogfish meal dried at a dehyde and acid nor drying at a high temlow temperature had a significantly lower perature decreased the nutritive value of a nutritive value than the wet-process dog- wet-process dogfish meal. The dry-process fish meal dried at a low temperature. dogfish meal had a lower nutritive value Differences in chemical characteristics of than the wet process dogfish meal. the protein in these two fish meals were REFERENCES pointed out previously (Evans, Carver, Almquist, H. J., E. L. R. Stokstad and E. R. Haland Draper, 1944). These differences brook, 1935. Supplementary values of animal might again be mentioned. Although the protein concentrates in chick rations. J. Nutrition dry-process meal contained 82.1 percent 10: 193-211. crude protein and the wet process one Carver, J. S., V Heiman and J. L. St. John, 1937. The effects of storage on the vitamin D value of 73.2 percent, the dry-process meal conColumbia River Salmon fish meal. Poultry Sci. tained but 41.3 percent protein precipi16:68-74. table by copper (true protein) while the Evans, R. J., J. S. Carver and C. I. Draper, 1944. A wet process one contained 56.9 percent. comparison of the Chemical Protein Quality Index with the Gross Protein Value of Fish ProThe dry-process meal also contained more tein Concentrates. Arch. -Biochem. 3:337-343. protein decomposition products and more hot water soluble proteins (which are of a Heiman, V., J. S. Carver and J. W. Cook, 1939. A method for determining the gross value of protein low nutritive value) than the wet-process concentrates. Poultry Sci. 18:464-474. meal. These differences appear to account Rhian, M., J. S. Carver, R. W. Harrison and W. S. Hamm, 1942. The value of dogfish meal as a profor the differences in supplementary nutein supplement. Wash. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bui. tritive value between the wet and dry416:5-24. process meals studied in this experiment.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Technological Laboratory, Seattle, Washington (Received for publication April 5, 1944)
TT^ISH meals have been demonstrated to •*• be the most efficient protein concentrates for growing chicks (St. John, Carver, Johnson, Moore and Gerritz, 1933; St. John and Carver, 1936; Robertson, Carver and Cook, 1940). For that reason fish meals are very widely used in poultry feeding when available. Since the fishing industry is largely seasonal, most of the fish are caught and the fish meals prepared at one period during the year. Fish meals used during the remainder of the year must be stored until used. It appeared possible that some changes in the value of the fish meals as protein concentrates might take place during storage. Any changes in the nutritive value of fish meals during storage might be influenced by the type of fish meal, the method of preparation, the use of an antioxidant, or by the type of container in which the fish meal is stored. The experiment reported here was conducted to determine the effect of these various factors on the nutritive value of fish meals as
measured by a modification of the gross protein value method. EXPERIMENTAL
A sample of commercial pilchard meal was divided into six portions. To three portions was added five percent oat flour by weight as an antioxidant. A treated and a control portion were bagged in cotton, burlap, and multiwall paper bags. The samples of dogfish meal were prepared experimentally in the laboratory by either the wet or the dry process. The wet process as used consisted of grinding the fish, cooking them with live steam at atmospheric pressure, pressing to remove water and oil, and drying in a steam heated air drier. The dry process is similar to the commerical dry rendering operation. The fish are dried with continuous agitation in a jacketed vacuum chamber, which can be heated either with steam or hot water in the jacket. The dried product is then pressed in a hydraulic press to remove oil. Sample No. 721 was prepared by adding before cooking 0.5 percent of 40 percent * Published as Scientific Paper No. 598, College of Agriculture and Agricultural Experiment Stations, formaldehyde and 0.25 percent of concentrated sulfuric acid based on the State College of Washington, Pullman. 491
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Georgia on June 2, 2015
WM. S. HAMM
492
ROBERT JOHN EVANS, J. S. CARVER, ANDJWM. S. HAMM
weight of fish treated, and was then treated in the same manner as the other wet process samples. Sample No. 722 was prepared by the wet process and air dried at 140°F. Sample No. 723 was a part of No. 722 except that after drying S percent oat flour was added as an antioxidant. Sample No. 724 was also prepared by the wet process, but was dried at a temperature of 190°F.
15 chicks per group. The experimental diets contained 11.0 percent protein. Three percent of this was furnished by the fish meal under investigation, which replaced an equal weight of sugar. Each diet was fed to duplicate groups of chicks. Two groups were continued on the depletion diet as negative controls. Gain in weight and feed consumption records were kept. From the results, the increase
Sample no.
Type of fish meal
719 720 721 722 723 724 725 677
Pilchard Pilchard Dogfish Dogfish Dogfish Dogfish Dogfish Casein
Date of preparation
Oct. 1942 O c t 19421 i V Jan. 5, 194311 •ji Jan. 1, 1943 Jj 4 Dec. 31, 1943 Jan. 4, 1943 Dec. 31, 1943
Chemical Crude Ca rotein P quahTyindex* Percent 62.0 60.0 70.8 73.2 67.2 70.2 82.1 87.7
83.0 83.5 77.1 70.6 71.2 70.2 44.5 86.5
Fat
Ash
Moisture
Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent 7.21 4.04 2.8 21.7 8.3 3.86 2.7 20.8 8.9 6.83 2.30 1.62 17.9 9.1 3.7 2.52 1.73 17.4 9.9 4.5 2.36 1.68 16.7 9.4 6.5 2.38 1.69 20.8 9.7 3.4 2.15 1.74 10.5 11.0 7.5 0.18 0.95 — — —
* Determined by method of Almquist, Stokstad, and Halbrook (1935). See Evans, Carver, and Draper (1944)
Sample No. 725 was prepared by the dry process method at a temperature that never exceeded 140°F. Each of the dogfish meal samples was divided into two portions. One was sacked in a cotton bag and one in a paper bag. The chemical compositions of the fish meals are reported in Table 1. The feeding studies were carried out in January 1943, soon after the meals were prepared, and again in November 1943, after ten months' storage. The fish meals were stored in the feed room at the Washington State College Poultry Plant under common feed storage conditions. The supplementary nutritive values were determined by a modification of the gross value method of Heiman, Carver, and Cook (1938). Day-old chicks were fed for two weeks on a cereal and sugar depletion diet containing 8.0 percent protein. They were then divided into groups containing
in body weight of the experimental chicks over the negative controls and the gain in weight per gram of supplementary protein were calculated. Rather than using the gross value (obtained by comparison with casein), the gain in weight per unit of supplementary protein fed was used. RESULTS The results of this experiment are presented in Table 2. There were no significant changes in the gross protein value of the fish meals after ten months' storage no matter what the processing or treatment was or what type of container was used for storage. The pilchard meal had a higher supplementary nutritive value than the dogfish meals. Treating the dogfish with formaldehyde and acid had no harmful effect on the supplementary nutritive value of the dogfish meal prepared. There was no signifi-
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Georgia on June 2, 2015
TABLE 1.—Data on the chemical composition of the fishmeals
INFLUENCE OF STORAGE ON PROTEIN NUTRITIVE VALUE OF F I S H MEALS
cant difference between the • nutritive value of the dogfish meal prepared at a high temperature and of that prepared at a low temperature. The dogfish meal prepared at a low temperature by the dry process had a significantly lower gross TABLE 2.—Effect
493
fish meals had very high fat contents (Table 1). In agreement with the work reported by Rhian, Carver, Harrison, and Hamm (1942), formaldehyde and acid treatment of a wet process dogfish meal did not af-
of storage on the nutritive value offishmeals Gain per unit of supplemental protein
Type of fish meal
Process
719
Pilchard 1
720
Pilchard
721
Dogfish2
Wet Commercial Wet Commercial Wet
722 723 724 725 677
Dogfish Wet Dogfish Wet Dogfish Wet Dogfish Dry Casein 3 diff. Least sign.
Drying temp. °F.
Treatment
None 190 140 140 190 140
5% oatflour J formalin and acid None 5 % oatflour None None
After storage (Nov. 1943)6 (Jan. 1943) Initial 4 Paper Cotton Burlap bags bags bags 7.7-
7.9
8.1
7.9
7.8
7.7
8.0
8.2
6.8 7.1 7.1 .6.5 5.3 9.6 1.3
6.7 7.0 7.1 7.0 4.7
6.5 7.3 6.5 7.2 5.2 9.2
1.3
1 Pilchard meals were from a commercial source and initial feed test was on the meal three months after preparation. 2 All dogfish were prepared experimentally in the laboratory. 3 The least significant difference was calculated for the initial values and for the storage values separately by4 variance analysis (Snedecor, 1937). Each initial value is the average for six groups of chicks for the pilchard meals and four groups for the dogfish meals. 6 Average of two groups of chicks for each value.
protein value than the one prepared by the wet process at a similar temperature. DISCUSSION
Carver, Heiman, and St. John (1937) demonstrated a loss of vitamin D potency in Columbia River salmon fish meal when stored for one year. This loss was prevented when the fish meal was mixed in an all mash, chick ration and then stored for one year. Preliminary work had indicated that there might be some loss in the gross protein value of fish meals during storage. In the present study no losses in supplementary values were observed in the sixteen fish meal samples after ten months storage, although some of the
fect the nutritive value of the meal. Rhian, Carver, Harrison, and Hamm (1942) showed that wet-process dogfish meals have a higher nutritive value than dry-process dogfish meals. In an attempt to determine why the wet-process dogfish meals are better than the dry-process dogfish meals, the effect of temperature was studied. The supplementary nutritive value of wet-process dogfish meal was as good when dried at a high temperature as when dried at a low temperature. The nutritive value obtained with the dryprocess meal, dried at a low temperature, was not significantly different from that obtained by Rhian, Carver, Harrison, and Hamm (1942) with • an experimentally
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Georgia on June 2, 2015
Sample no.
494
ROBERT JOHN EVANS, J. S. CARVER, AND WM. S. HAMM
SUMMARY
Seven fish meals were fed in this study. Two pilchard fish meals were stored in paper, cotton, and burlap bags, while five dogfish meals were stored in paper and cotton bags. The gross protein values of the fish meals were determined before and after ten months' storage. No loss in sup-
Robertson, E. I., J. S. Carver and J. W. Cook, 1940. Gross value of protein supplements for poultry. Wash. Agr. Expt. Sta., Bull. 388:5-22. St. John, J. L., and J. S. Carver, 1936. Nutritive value of protein supplements. Proc. Sixth World's Poultry Congress at Berlin 1:46-52. St. John, J. L., J. S. Carver, 0 . Johnson, S. A. Moore and H. Gerritz, 1934. The biological value of rations containing fish meal. J. Nutrition 1:1326. Snedecor, G. W., 1937, Statistical methods. Collegiate Press, Inc., Ames, Iowa. 186-188.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Georgia on June 2, 2015
prepared dry-process dogfish meal dried plementary nutritive value was observed on storage. Neither treating with formalat a high temperature. The dry-process dogfish meal dried at a dehyde and acid nor drying at a high temlow temperature had a significantly lower perature decreased the nutritive value of a nutritive value than the wet-process dog- wet-process dogfish meal. The dry-process fish meal dried at a low temperature. dogfish meal had a lower nutritive value Differences in chemical characteristics of than the wet process dogfish meal. the protein in these two fish meals were REFERENCES pointed out previously (Evans, Carver, Almquist, H. J., E. L. R. Stokstad and E. R. Haland Draper, 1944). These differences brook, 1935. Supplementary values of animal might again be mentioned. Although the protein concentrates in chick rations. J. Nutrition dry-process meal contained 82.1 percent 10: 193-211. crude protein and the wet process one Carver, J. S., V Heiman and J. L. St. John, 1937. The effects of storage on the vitamin D value of 73.2 percent, the dry-process meal conColumbia River Salmon fish meal. Poultry Sci. tained but 41.3 percent protein precipi16:68-74. table by copper (true protein) while the Evans, R. J., J. S. Carver and C. I. Draper, 1944. A wet process one contained 56.9 percent. comparison of the Chemical Protein Quality Index with the Gross Protein Value of Fish ProThe dry-process meal also contained more tein Concentrates. Arch. -Biochem. 3:337-343. protein decomposition products and more hot water soluble proteins (which are of a Heiman, V., J. S. Carver and J. W. Cook, 1939. A method for determining the gross value of protein low nutritive value) than the wet-process concentrates. Poultry Sci. 18:464-474. meal. These differences appear to account Rhian, M., J. S. Carver, R. W. Harrison and W. S. Hamm, 1942. The value of dogfish meal as a profor the differences in supplementary nutein supplement. Wash. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bui. tritive value between the wet and dry416:5-24. process meals studied in this experiment.