- Email: [email protected]
The Nutrient Content of Menhaden Fish Meal1
The Nutrient Content of Menhaden Fish Meal1 I. R. SIBBALD2 and M. S. WOLYNETZ3 Agriculture Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A 0C6 (Received for publication January 24, 1984)
1984 Poultry Science 63:1987-1993 INTRODUCTION
Ideally, each lot of each feed ingredient should be assayed for nutrient content prior to being considered in the formulation and preparation of diets. In practice, some quality control tests may be made on incoming ingredients, but most feed manufacturers rely on data banks for information descriptive of nutrient content. Data banks require frequent editing with obsolete data being replaced by current and more reliable data. Causes of obsolescence include: new cultivars, crop-year effects, changes in ingredient manufacture, and improved analytical procedures. The present report describes the nutrient content of menhaden fish meal, a feedingstuff widely used in poultry diets. MATERIALS AND METHODS Five United States manufacturers of menhaden fish meal each provided three 500-g samples of their products. No constraints were placed on sampling so that three samples may have been drawn from a single lot or from three different lots. Upon receipt, the samples were catalogued and then frozen to await analysis. Each time subsamples were drawn for analysis,
'Contribution numbers: 1219 Animal Research Centre and 1-568 Engineering and Statistical Research Institute. 2 Animal Research Centre. 3 Engineering and Statistical Research Institute.
dry matter content was measured in duplicate; consequently, all data could be reported on a dry matter basis. The meals were assayed for nitrogen (N), ether extract (EE), crude fiber, ash, calcium (Ca), and phosphorus (P) by methods of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC, 1980) and for gross energy (E) using an adiabatic oxygen bomb calorimeter. Bioassays were made for true metabolizable energy (TME), TME corrected to zero nitrogen balance (TME n ) (Sibbald, 1976; 1983), and for true available amino acids (TAAA) (Likuski and Dorrell, 1978; Sibbald, 1979). In the analyses of variance used to estimate the variance components and to test the significance of differences among manufacturers, the among-manufacturers term was treated as a random effect. Multiple regression analysis was used to explore the feasibility of predicting TME and TME n from physical and chemical data. In assessing whether the percentage bioavailabilities of the amino acids differed within samples, a split-plot model was used.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Analytical data, other than those relating to amino acids, are presented in Table 1. The data fall within expected ranges [National Academy of Science (NAS, 1971)], but the protein (N x 6.25) and EE values are greater than those in a widely used table [National Research Council (NRC, 1977)] when adjusted to equal dry matter concentrations. There is a shortage of
1987
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Columbia University Libraries on February 3, 2015
ABSTRACT Three samples of menhaden fish meal from each of five manufacturers were assayed for proximate composition, gross energy, true metabolizable energy (TME), TME corrected to zero nitrogen balance (TME n ), 17 amino acids, and 16 true available amino acids (TAAA). Differences among samples were generally small, although several significant differences among manufacturers were observed. The results suggest a remarkable level of uniformity among samples. Both TME and TME n could be predicted satisfactorily (R 2 = .926, .947) from gross energy and less well from ether extract (R 2 = .804, .782). Bioavailabilities of amino acids differed within samples with the pattern varying among manufacturers. (Key words: menhaden fish meal, true metabolizable energy, true available amino acids, amino acids)
O
68
C*>
>> 3 3
o o
3 3
-• £.
? 3 3" (a
3H n w >
o H o H
o o s]
b M
O H ON s i v i i-» to
H-
H-
O w MOO
o Os w
UU*M
M U J ON u> ON 0 \ \0 u M
o o o
o o
Ot-1 ©NO si si w i4*
h-* I-* si s) ON N> ^ Q h
>-* ON W -
n w>
i-1 O M \0 O 00
nco>
n ro >
O H O ^1 W M 00 ON 00
H
u O
O H b
NO © NO M Q\ ' O ON 4^ H
O O O H* O O O ON s i O NO O
W M Vi to
N) h» © N)
M \0 si »-»
n co >
H I-* hs i J-* h-» O ON ©
> H h - O W W NQ M 4w w
O O O O O O y\ ui ui ON ON W
)-i|-k|_i 0000NO 00 ON s i »\0 N!
O H N J NO H NJ OONON
O O ON tw
M
O O si O
O O ON NO
N) N>
O J O H 00 0 \ NO fO ON O
03
r
O O O O O O ON 00 NO M I » H
h-i N> NJ
O >-^ »* oo -1^ 00 1—i ^O 00 4^ 00 -^ M -^ <&
•5-
O w i-i H
O O O W W W H ON 00 w ON s i
© to w h-»
© O to to 4». w s i vi
O vi 00 00
O O vi vi cw NO ON - J
O 4* si y>
O O 4* 4* u> 00 O H
to NO oo NO V l t O
NO V l 0 0
O
©
O
O
vi vi vi oo oo w
©
O
ui ui ui
O Ici
O O O 171 4^-0 to si
O O t-' CO O
. 4*
C/j (/) 4* ON
1N» t o t o t o
p
t o Vi Vi Q0
Vi H CO ON 4^
• ^
o
©»-*>-*
Vi '© Vi 4*. w CO
Vi ON ON ON Vi NO tWtOH
UJ +• VI \J\ Vt
I-* o VO a o o o
)-*
o
c
3
© © o w w w - ^ © u» NO W O
I-»N>K>
NO p p
^o w ^ Vl >— s ]
4* V I V I NO v i 00 ©N 4*- s i
w UJ K) V ] UJ V ] • ^ -*>•
o
o © o o ©o w w w O NO © ON t o 4^-
to
to
to
p o p
t o 4 ^ H NO 00 0 0
Ui Vi Vi Vi ON - ^ 00 00 s i
u» u j U i ON vl •1^ S) ON • ^
w w w SJ t o ON s i © 4*-
to
to
to
p o p
y i u i ON ON0000
Vi Ui ON NOONH N) ON VJ
•f> UJ -1^ O NO (JJ NO VJ Ln
©o © H H
to
w w w u< U I © 4*>
to
H p
s
a_ a
^
1?
to
p
t o N) ON H Vt ©
ON V I ON 4^ tO © % ' ON s i ZT
w +• ON m O vl ON • ^
o
2 o
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Columbia University Libraries on February 3, 2015
4* 4* h-
ON
2 2b
VJ C/J I—i 4* vi O
S H i-. o O O NO H ON NJ
O O O si s i ON 4*
Z O O 00 © O
s . O O w H
O O to O tJ
13
A ©
22
tri tji
13
A
b
t-»
2 2 •f-
H S w
H S
886T
ZX3NA10M QNV Q l V a a i S
MENHADEN FISH MEAL
TME = - 8 . 7 8 + 1.20E (±1.93) (±.09) The residual sum of squares was not significantly reduced (P>.05) by adding more explanatory variables, or higher order terms such as the quadratic, to the model. For the TME n data, E accounted for 94.7% of the total sum of squares. Inclusion of N resulted in significant (P<.05) improvement to 96.3%. The equation had the form: TME n = - 6 . 3 7 + 1.08E - .166N (±1.75) (±.07) (+.074) There was a strong linear relationship between E and EE (r = .945 with 13 df). For this reason, and because many quality control laboratories can measure EE but not E, the regression analyses were repeated, omitting E as an explanatory variable. Ether extract accounted for 80.4% of the total sum of squares associated with TME. The regression equation had the form: TME = 12.84 + .256EE (±.42)(±.035)
The residual sum of squares was not significantly reduced (P>.05) by allowing additional explanatory variables or higher order terms in the equation. Similarly for TME n , EE accounted for 78.2% of the sums of squares, and no other variable or higher order term significantly reduced (P>.05) the residual sum of squares. The regression equation had the form: T M E n = 11.27 (±.40)
+
.233EE (±.034)
The regression relationships cannot be attributed to differences among manufacturers, because with the single exception of N, there were no significant (P>.05) differences among manufacturers for TME, TME n , E, and EE. The regression equations indicate that TME and TME n may be predicted satisfactorily from the E value and that the EE value provides only a general guide to the TME and TME n values. The concentrations of 17 amino acids in each sample are displayed in Table 2. The mean values for the individual amino acids are similar to those of the NRC (1977) and fall within the ranges reported but are somewhat lower than the means published by the NAS (1971). Despite the unknown sampling protocol for each manufacturer, the within-manufacturer variance was, in general, homogeneous. Analyses of variance detected significant differences among manufacturers for each of the amino acids. The amino acid content of sample 5A was generally, but not invariably, the lowest; consequently, the analyses were repeated omitting data describing this sample. The effect of omitting 5A was generally to strengthen the significance of the differences among manufacturers. As with the data of Table 1 the differences, in terms of biological importance, were small. The TAAA concentrations are presented in Table 3. There are no comparable data published. Analyses of variance again identified significant differences among manufacturers, whether or not the data from sample 5A were included. The TAAA data were expressed as percentages of the total amino acid concentrations (Table 4) to examine two hypotheses: 1) the bioavailabilities of the individual amino acids do not differ within samples; and 2) the among-manufacturer variation in the TAAA values is a reflection of the variation
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Columbia University Libraries on February 3, 2015
comparative TME and TME n data; however, two samples assayed in 1978 had somewhat smaller TME values (Sibbald, 1983). The data of Table 1 exhibit remarkable uniformity in contrast to data provided by Shutze and Benoff (1981). For many of the variables, the variation within samples from the fifth manufacturer tended to be larger (P>.05) than the variation within samples from the first four manufacturers. Significant differences among the five manufacturers were observed for N (P<.05), crude fiber (P<.01), ash (P<.01), Ca (P<.01), and P (P<.01); however, for crude fiber, ash, and P there were no significant differences among the first four manufacturers. There were no significant differences (P>.05) among manufacturers for EE, E, TME, or TME n . The significance of the differences may reflect the high analytical precision; such differences are of little practical importance for diet formulation because the level of fish meal inclusion is usually low. Stepwise, multiple-linear regression analysis showed that E accounted for 92.6% of the total sum of squares associated with TME. The equation had the form.-
1989
39.7 42.1 42.8
42.4 .53
40.4 43.0 43.7
42.2 .56
A B C
5
• *•
1.61
•• ••
** ••
.173
5.63 .136
•• ••
*• *•
1.39
48.3 .91
88.2 1.63 1.50
47.4 50.5 51.5
79.4 84.2 84.9
** **
*• ••
.98
17.9 .57
51.3 .92
48.0 .89
25.5 •67 .82
16.6 .81
63.5 1.04
5.11 5.50 5.55
** *•
15.7 16.2 16.5
46.7 49.6 50.3
44.5 46.7 47.5
22.5 24.2 24.8
19.1 20.1 20.4
57.9 62.1 62.8
5.88 5.65 6.08
.40
18.8 18.4 19.2
54.1 52.9 54.9
51.2 50.1 51.9
27.7 27.2 27.8
16.0 15.9 16.6
48.1 47.1 49.1
67.7 65.2 68.9
92.9 92.0 93.6
50.5 49.3 49.2
46.7 46.0 45.9
25.0 23.9 23.9
16.0 15.5 15.7
51.9 50.7 50.3
88.2 86.9 86.4
5.07 5.38 5.29
62.7 62.6 62.3
*• **
1.10
52.6 52.6 51.3
47.7 49.2 48.1
25.8 27.0 25.6
15.7 15.8 15.3
47.1 45.0 46.2
89.2 88.8 89.1
5.90 5.94 6.00
62.8 63.8 63.8
.. **
.43
16.6 17.0 17.0
19.3 19.2 18.1
18.3 19.0 18.6
52.5 51.5 51.8
49.0 47.6 47.3
26.9 25.4 25.2
16.1 15.8 15.7
45.1 48.1 47.1
90.0 89.4 88.3
65.0 62.4 62.7
5.67 5.86 5.60
Met
Lys
Leu
lie
His
Gly
Glu
Cys
Asp
Based on pooled within-manufacturer variance.
5
As for footnote 4, but the analysis was made omitting data denoted sample 5A.
* One-way analysis of variance showed differences among manufacturers ro be: NS, nonsignificant (P>.05); * significant (P<.05); *'significant (P<.01).
3
'Standard error of the mean incorporating both within- and among-manufacturer variation.
1 Ala = Alanine, Arg = argenine, Asp = aspartic acid, Cys = cystine, Glu = glutamic acid, Gly = glycine, His = histidine, lie = isoleucine, Leu = leucine, L Ser = serine, Thr = threonine, Tyr = tyrosine, Val = valine.
SE within manufacturer:s Among manufacturers 4 Among mlanufacturers 5
Mean SEM 1
.86
44.8 43.5 44.7
43.5 42.4 44.1
A B C
4
* ••
42.1 41.0 41.1
44.1 43.4 43.0
A B C
3
.99
42.5 42.8 42.9
41.2 40.5 40.6
A B C
2
3
41.8 42.4 42.2
40.4 42.0 40.8
A B C
1
Arg
Ala
Sample
Supplier
TABLE 2. The amino acid1 content of menhaden fish meal dry matter (g/kg)
m http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Columbia University Libraries on February 3, 2015
39.5 38.9 39.4
42.4 41.7 42.0
37.5 40.4 41.0
40.2
39.9 40.1 40.2
40.2 39.7 40.6
37.6 40.5 41.1
39.00
A B C
A B C
56.6 1.16
51.6 55.9 56.8
61.0 58.7 62.4
53.9 53.4 54.9
82.3 1.50
73.9 79.3 79.9
3.84 4.28 4.30
4.46 .169
86.7 86.3 87.4
80.3 80.8 81.2
83.6 82.7 83.2
83.6 82.6 83.4
Glu
4.70 4.55 4.63
3.78 4.17 4.05
5.01 4.89 4.87
4.32 4.74 4.71
57.2 55.3 56.7
56.5 57.3 57.4
Cys
Asp
.71
15.1
17.4 18.6 18.6
14.5 14.2 15.0
14.2 14.0 14.3
14.4 14.3 13.8
14.5 14.1 14.2
His
24.1
21.0 22.7 23.4
26.1 25.7 26.2
22.6 22.1,
23.5
24.6 25.6 24.4
25.4 24.1 24.0
lie
.79
45.4
41.7 44.0 44.9
48.4 47.6 49.0
43.8 43.4 43.6
45.5 46.8 45.8
46.2 45.0 45.1
Leu
.92
46.1
41.3 45.4 43.7
49.8 46.9 48.1
43.8 45.0 44.8
48.6 48.0 46.7
47.1 45.0 47.0
Lys
.62
16.3
14.0 14.6 14.8
17.2 16.9 17.3
14.9 15.3 15.4
18.0 17.7 16.5
17.2 17.9 17.2
Met
Based on pooled within-manufacturer variance.
Standard error of the mean incorporating both within- and among-manufaeturer variation.
5
As for footnote 4, but the analysis was made omitting data denoted sample 5A.
"One-way analysis of variance showed differences among manufacturers to be: NS, nonsignificant (P>.05); 'significant (P<.05); * 'significant (P<.01).
3
2
'Ala = Alanine, Arg = argenine, Asp = asp ar tic acid, Cys = cystine, Glu = glutamic acid, Gly - glycine, His = llistkline. He = isolcucine, Leu - leucine, L Ser = serine, Thr = threonine. Tyr = tyrosine, Val = valine.
.48
39.9 40.4 40.2
37.7 37.1 37.2
A B C
.61
39.4 39.8 40.2
36.9 38.3 37.9
B C
3
Arg
Ala
Sample
SF, within manufacturers Among manufacturers" Among manufacturers 5
Mean SF.M!
Supplier
TABLE 3. The true available amino aenl' content of menhaden fisi} meal thy matter (%/kg
m http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Columbia University Libraries on February 3, 2015
SIBBALD AND WOLYNETZ
1992
>
Tf
•+
O
+ -!•
rn
TJ- T)-
ON
m
O
rr,
m
-f
+
ON
CM NO
—( —
m
rt
m m "t
m
ON
1-
O
ON
NO m
(M
m
O
r-.
£ £ £ sss -C
m
" M O - t
+
Ift
- t
m
H
W
t
X
r- NO
NO
O
O
i-t
(N (N
£££
fsi
r f
ss
e
r-
*t
1^.
—1 H
*N
r-1
est ( S
M
1
O
N
M
O
(M
ON
[ N
O
Tt-
sss
s
T)-
ss
ON
X
•t o
*t
ON
NO NO - H
Tj-
-t-tm
ON
ON I H
rs]
NO
-i-
X
rsi
T*- - < f O
rn
ON
ON
^H
—i CM
O O —
X
X
ON
^
ON
ON
^,
ss
ON
-<
(N
<=•:
"r-i
ON
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Columbia University Libraries on February 3, 2015
IN
£
1 1 1
1
O
TJ-
m
X
O
N
ON
Ov OC
ON
X X
H
M
t
rn
m
y-f ON
X
ON
X
m O
ON
O fA
ON
CO
ON
ON
N
v O O -rt
TJ-
* + •*•
N
^
1
N
S
CO
—
(N
C
r- CN «t N
M
h-
ON
ON
O
"J"
X
«-,
in
£ 5 5: £ £ £
-
—
*
X NO - H
2 Z
-1-
X
" • •*•
m
M
^
X
O N O N V >
X
ON ON
O . O s ^
X
ON
X
' t
•*
O
NO
CN
m
NO
X
CM
T-<
•-•
m
S
O N C O v
X
1
5
1
I
m
r^
rO GO 0 0 ON ON
i -
"*
m
•*
C
o->
C \
O
r~»
NO ~ < ~ X ON ON
d
x X
ON
NO
t^ X
C 0 H \0 X CN X
X
«N
O
NO ON • +
X
m
m
£££
m
T(-
m
' t
rn
TJ-
- t
rH
•*
•*
s
ON
» »*
ON
X
-t
ON
X
X NO —
s "SS • gg
ON
1
s
*
J
Z
n ^ O M Tj- ^ m
O
NO
£££
O
TJ-
rj- , n
M
f^
NO —
-H
X X
O
—
O
ON
ON
ON
ON
ON
X
X
-H
O
-H
CO X
CO
Csl NO CN
•+ -+ -J"
M
ON
—t
•n
siss
ON
—
X
C
-H
CN —H
(N
5 . z
>
1 1 | --
•
|
5
TAB
3
m
m
O
CN
O
ON
00
ON
ON
TJ-
-f
rvi
fNi • * •
<
1
r-
—
-t
-t
-H
<^i
NO
§..
S
m *+ • *
S S
ON
- i
O
NO - H r f I-~ X X
m X
_,„,„
O
^. NJ
•*•
O
X X
X SO
ON
O
r-l
ON
r j
-f
rf>
m
m
CN
•+
©
(S
O r^ x
NO
m
r--
ON
—
r^ r^ r^
? N S£
O
_
NO
3;
•*•
m
I n NO
ON
CNI
Tj-
IN
ON
X
t^
-H
X
NO
1-, ->
! N
t^
r- r- r^
O
-H
O
NO
O
ON C N
O
O
X
X
NO ' O X X X X
O
ON
X
rs|
CO
o o x
NO
ON
T-I
m
.-H
X
in
•*•
<^ -+
•*
NO
m
ON
siss:
•1-
in
O
ON
O
X
ON
>o O CN
ON X
1^
; : NO (N
E it
CN
1 X +
<
!
f
ON
N
O
ON ON
<=»U
NO NO
O I N
X
SS5:
O
< a u
<
fN| f*N
CO U
(N
" 1 CM
ON
CN ON
"1
i -
H - t ON
<
o"
=
s J
z.t
CQ U
!ii SIf
< " ui is O <
1993
MENHADEN FISH MEAL
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank R. E. Martin of the National Fish Meal and Oil Association, Washington, DC, who arranged to have samples supplied by: Empire Menhaden Co., Inc., Petrou Fisheries, Inc., Seacoast Products, Inc.; Standard Products Co., Inc.; and Zapata-Haynie Corp. Technical support was provided by S. Tobin and R. Ciok. The proximate, mineral, and amino acid analyses were made by the
Chemical and Biological Research Institute, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa. REFERENCES Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 1980. Official Methods of Analysis. 11th ed. Assoc. Offic. Anal. Chem., Washington, DC. Likuski, H.J .A., and H. G. Dorrell, 1978. A bioassay for rapid determination of amino acid availability values. Poultry Sci. 57:1658-1660. National Academy of Sciences, 1971. Atlas of nutritional data on United States and Canadian feeds. Washington, DC. National Research Council, 1977. Nutrient Requirements of Domestic Animals. 1. Nutrient Requirements of Poultry. 7th ed. Natl. Acad. Sci., Washington, DC. Shutze, J. V., and F. H. Benoff, 1981. Statistical evaluation of feed ingredient variation and procedures for determining number of samples needed for laboratory analysis. Pages 134—146 in Proc. Georgia Nutr. Conf. Sibbald, I. R., 1976. A bioassay for true metabolizable energy in feedingstuffs. Poultry Sci. 55:SOSSOS. Sibbald, I. R., 1979. A bioassay for available amino acids and true metabolizable energy in feedingstuffs. Poultry Sci. 58:668-675. Sibbald, I. R., 1983. The TME system of feed evaluation. Contribution 1983-20E, Res. Branch, Agric. Can., Ottawa.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Columbia University Libraries on February 3, 2015
among the total amino acid values. Analysis of variance provided no evidence to support the first hypothesis; there were significant differences among amino acids (P<.01), and the differences varied among manufacturers. The second hypothesis was supported by the data inasmuch as most of the among-manufacturer differences shown in Table 3 became nonsignificant (P>.05) when data were expressed as percentage bioavailabilities (Table 4). The absence of a difference among manufacturers for the bioavailability of lysine strongly suggests uniform, good quality manufacturing procedures.
1984 Poultry Science 63:1987-1993 INTRODUCTION
Ideally, each lot of each feed ingredient should be assayed for nutrient content prior to being considered in the formulation and preparation of diets. In practice, some quality control tests may be made on incoming ingredients, but most feed manufacturers rely on data banks for information descriptive of nutrient content. Data banks require frequent editing with obsolete data being replaced by current and more reliable data. Causes of obsolescence include: new cultivars, crop-year effects, changes in ingredient manufacture, and improved analytical procedures. The present report describes the nutrient content of menhaden fish meal, a feedingstuff widely used in poultry diets. MATERIALS AND METHODS Five United States manufacturers of menhaden fish meal each provided three 500-g samples of their products. No constraints were placed on sampling so that three samples may have been drawn from a single lot or from three different lots. Upon receipt, the samples were catalogued and then frozen to await analysis. Each time subsamples were drawn for analysis,
'Contribution numbers: 1219 Animal Research Centre and 1-568 Engineering and Statistical Research Institute. 2 Animal Research Centre. 3 Engineering and Statistical Research Institute.
dry matter content was measured in duplicate; consequently, all data could be reported on a dry matter basis. The meals were assayed for nitrogen (N), ether extract (EE), crude fiber, ash, calcium (Ca), and phosphorus (P) by methods of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC, 1980) and for gross energy (E) using an adiabatic oxygen bomb calorimeter. Bioassays were made for true metabolizable energy (TME), TME corrected to zero nitrogen balance (TME n ) (Sibbald, 1976; 1983), and for true available amino acids (TAAA) (Likuski and Dorrell, 1978; Sibbald, 1979). In the analyses of variance used to estimate the variance components and to test the significance of differences among manufacturers, the among-manufacturers term was treated as a random effect. Multiple regression analysis was used to explore the feasibility of predicting TME and TME n from physical and chemical data. In assessing whether the percentage bioavailabilities of the amino acids differed within samples, a split-plot model was used.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Analytical data, other than those relating to amino acids, are presented in Table 1. The data fall within expected ranges [National Academy of Science (NAS, 1971)], but the protein (N x 6.25) and EE values are greater than those in a widely used table [National Research Council (NRC, 1977)] when adjusted to equal dry matter concentrations. There is a shortage of
1987
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Columbia University Libraries on February 3, 2015
ABSTRACT Three samples of menhaden fish meal from each of five manufacturers were assayed for proximate composition, gross energy, true metabolizable energy (TME), TME corrected to zero nitrogen balance (TME n ), 17 amino acids, and 16 true available amino acids (TAAA). Differences among samples were generally small, although several significant differences among manufacturers were observed. The results suggest a remarkable level of uniformity among samples. Both TME and TME n could be predicted satisfactorily (R 2 = .926, .947) from gross energy and less well from ether extract (R 2 = .804, .782). Bioavailabilities of amino acids differed within samples with the pattern varying among manufacturers. (Key words: menhaden fish meal, true metabolizable energy, true available amino acids, amino acids)
O
68
C*>
>> 3 3
o o
3 3
-• £.
? 3 3" (a
3H n w >
o H o H
o o s]
b M
O H ON s i v i i-» to
H-
H-
O w MOO
o Os w
UU*M
M U J ON u> ON 0 \ \0 u M
o o o
o o
Ot-1 ©NO si si w i4*
h-* I-* si s) ON N> ^ Q h
>-* ON W -
n w>
i-1 O M \0 O 00
nco>
n ro >
O H O ^1 W M 00 ON 00
H
u O
O H b
NO © NO M Q\ ' O ON 4^ H
O O O H* O O O ON s i O NO O
W M Vi to
N) h» © N)
M \0 si »-»
n co >
H I-* hs i J-* h-» O ON ©
> H h - O W W NQ M 4w w
O O O O O O y\ ui ui ON ON W
)-i|-k|_i 0000NO 00 ON s i »\0 N!
O H N J NO H NJ OONON
O O ON tw
M
O O si O
O O ON NO
N) N>
O J O H 00 0 \ NO fO ON O
03
r
O O O O O O ON 00 NO M I » H
h-i N> NJ
O >-^ »* oo -1^ 00 1—i ^O 00 4^ 00 -^ M -^ <&
•5-
O w i-i H
O O O W W W H ON 00 w ON s i
© to w h-»
© O to to 4». w s i vi
O vi 00 00
O O vi vi cw NO ON - J
O 4* si y>
O O 4* 4* u> 00 O H
to NO oo NO V l t O
NO V l 0 0
O
©
O
O
vi vi vi oo oo w
©
O
ui ui ui
O Ici
O O O 171 4^-0 to si
O O t-' CO O
.
C/j (/) 4* ON
1N» t o t o t o
p
t o Vi Vi Q0
Vi H CO ON 4^
• ^
o
©»-*>-*
Vi '© Vi 4*. w CO
Vi ON ON ON Vi NO tWtOH
UJ +• VI \J\ Vt
I-* o VO a o o o
)-*
o
c
3
© © o w w w - ^ © u» NO W O
I-»N>K>
NO p p
^o w ^ Vl >— s ]
4* V I V I NO v i 00 ©N 4*- s i
w UJ K) V ] UJ V ] • ^ -*>•
o
o © o o ©o w w w O NO © ON t o 4^-
to
to
to
p o p
t o 4 ^ H NO 00 0 0
Ui Vi Vi Vi ON - ^ 00 00 s i
u» u j U i ON vl •1^ S) ON • ^
w w w SJ t o ON s i © 4*-
to
to
to
p o p
y i u i ON ON0000
Vi Ui ON NOONH N) ON VJ
•f> UJ -1^ O NO (JJ NO VJ Ln
©o © H H
to
w w w u< U I © 4*>
to
H p
s
a_ a
^
1?
to
p
t o N) ON H Vt ©
ON V I ON 4^ tO © % ' ON s i ZT
w +• ON m O vl ON • ^
o
2 o
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Columbia University Libraries on February 3, 2015
4* 4* h-
ON
2 2b
VJ C/J I—i 4* vi O
S H i-. o O O NO H ON NJ
O O O si s i ON 4*
Z O O 00 © O
s . O O w H
O O to O tJ
13
A ©
22
tri tji
13
A
b
t-»
2 2 •f-
H S w
H S
886T
ZX3NA10M QNV Q l V a a i S
MENHADEN FISH MEAL
TME = - 8 . 7 8 + 1.20E (±1.93) (±.09) The residual sum of squares was not significantly reduced (P>.05) by adding more explanatory variables, or higher order terms such as the quadratic, to the model. For the TME n data, E accounted for 94.7% of the total sum of squares. Inclusion of N resulted in significant (P<.05) improvement to 96.3%. The equation had the form: TME n = - 6 . 3 7 + 1.08E - .166N (±1.75) (±.07) (+.074) There was a strong linear relationship between E and EE (r = .945 with 13 df). For this reason, and because many quality control laboratories can measure EE but not E, the regression analyses were repeated, omitting E as an explanatory variable. Ether extract accounted for 80.4% of the total sum of squares associated with TME. The regression equation had the form: TME = 12.84 + .256EE (±.42)(±.035)
The residual sum of squares was not significantly reduced (P>.05) by allowing additional explanatory variables or higher order terms in the equation. Similarly for TME n , EE accounted for 78.2% of the sums of squares, and no other variable or higher order term significantly reduced (P>.05) the residual sum of squares. The regression equation had the form: T M E n = 11.27 (±.40)
+
.233EE (±.034)
The regression relationships cannot be attributed to differences among manufacturers, because with the single exception of N, there were no significant (P>.05) differences among manufacturers for TME, TME n , E, and EE. The regression equations indicate that TME and TME n may be predicted satisfactorily from the E value and that the EE value provides only a general guide to the TME and TME n values. The concentrations of 17 amino acids in each sample are displayed in Table 2. The mean values for the individual amino acids are similar to those of the NRC (1977) and fall within the ranges reported but are somewhat lower than the means published by the NAS (1971). Despite the unknown sampling protocol for each manufacturer, the within-manufacturer variance was, in general, homogeneous. Analyses of variance detected significant differences among manufacturers for each of the amino acids. The amino acid content of sample 5A was generally, but not invariably, the lowest; consequently, the analyses were repeated omitting data describing this sample. The effect of omitting 5A was generally to strengthen the significance of the differences among manufacturers. As with the data of Table 1 the differences, in terms of biological importance, were small. The TAAA concentrations are presented in Table 3. There are no comparable data published. Analyses of variance again identified significant differences among manufacturers, whether or not the data from sample 5A were included. The TAAA data were expressed as percentages of the total amino acid concentrations (Table 4) to examine two hypotheses: 1) the bioavailabilities of the individual amino acids do not differ within samples; and 2) the among-manufacturer variation in the TAAA values is a reflection of the variation
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Columbia University Libraries on February 3, 2015
comparative TME and TME n data; however, two samples assayed in 1978 had somewhat smaller TME values (Sibbald, 1983). The data of Table 1 exhibit remarkable uniformity in contrast to data provided by Shutze and Benoff (1981). For many of the variables, the variation within samples from the fifth manufacturer tended to be larger (P>.05) than the variation within samples from the first four manufacturers. Significant differences among the five manufacturers were observed for N (P<.05), crude fiber (P<.01), ash (P<.01), Ca (P<.01), and P (P<.01); however, for crude fiber, ash, and P there were no significant differences among the first four manufacturers. There were no significant differences (P>.05) among manufacturers for EE, E, TME, or TME n . The significance of the differences may reflect the high analytical precision; such differences are of little practical importance for diet formulation because the level of fish meal inclusion is usually low. Stepwise, multiple-linear regression analysis showed that E accounted for 92.6% of the total sum of squares associated with TME. The equation had the form.-
1989
39.7 42.1 42.8
42.4 .53
40.4 43.0 43.7
42.2 .56
A B C
5
• *•
1.61
•• ••
** ••
.173
5.63 .136
•• ••
*• *•
1.39
48.3 .91
88.2 1.63 1.50
47.4 50.5 51.5
79.4 84.2 84.9
** **
*• ••
.98
17.9 .57
51.3 .92
48.0 .89
25.5 •67 .82
16.6 .81
63.5 1.04
5.11 5.50 5.55
** *•
15.7 16.2 16.5
46.7 49.6 50.3
44.5 46.7 47.5
22.5 24.2 24.8
19.1 20.1 20.4
57.9 62.1 62.8
5.88 5.65 6.08
.40
18.8 18.4 19.2
54.1 52.9 54.9
51.2 50.1 51.9
27.7 27.2 27.8
16.0 15.9 16.6
48.1 47.1 49.1
67.7 65.2 68.9
92.9 92.0 93.6
50.5 49.3 49.2
46.7 46.0 45.9
25.0 23.9 23.9
16.0 15.5 15.7
51.9 50.7 50.3
88.2 86.9 86.4
5.07 5.38 5.29
62.7 62.6 62.3
*• **
1.10
52.6 52.6 51.3
47.7 49.2 48.1
25.8 27.0 25.6
15.7 15.8 15.3
47.1 45.0 46.2
89.2 88.8 89.1
5.90 5.94 6.00
62.8 63.8 63.8
.. **
.43
16.6 17.0 17.0
19.3 19.2 18.1
18.3 19.0 18.6
52.5 51.5 51.8
49.0 47.6 47.3
26.9 25.4 25.2
16.1 15.8 15.7
45.1 48.1 47.1
90.0 89.4 88.3
65.0 62.4 62.7
5.67 5.86 5.60
Met
Lys
Leu
lie
His
Gly
Glu
Cys
Asp
Based on pooled within-manufacturer variance.
5
As for footnote 4, but the analysis was made omitting data denoted sample 5A.
* One-way analysis of variance showed differences among manufacturers ro be: NS, nonsignificant (P>.05); * significant (P<.05); *'significant (P<.01).
3
'Standard error of the mean incorporating both within- and among-manufacturer variation.
1 Ala = Alanine, Arg = argenine, Asp = aspartic acid, Cys = cystine, Glu = glutamic acid, Gly = glycine, His = histidine, lie = isoleucine, Leu = leucine, L Ser = serine, Thr = threonine, Tyr = tyrosine, Val = valine.
SE within manufacturer:s Among manufacturers 4 Among mlanufacturers 5
Mean SEM 1
.86
44.8 43.5 44.7
43.5 42.4 44.1
A B C
4
* ••
42.1 41.0 41.1
44.1 43.4 43.0
A B C
3
.99
42.5 42.8 42.9
41.2 40.5 40.6
A B C
2
3
41.8 42.4 42.2
40.4 42.0 40.8
A B C
1
Arg
Ala
Sample
Supplier
TABLE 2. The amino acid1 content of menhaden fish meal dry matter (g/kg)
m http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Columbia University Libraries on February 3, 2015
39.5 38.9 39.4
42.4 41.7 42.0
37.5 40.4 41.0
40.2
39.9 40.1 40.2
40.2 39.7 40.6
37.6 40.5 41.1
39.00
A B C
A B C
56.6 1.16
51.6 55.9 56.8
61.0 58.7 62.4
53.9 53.4 54.9
82.3 1.50
73.9 79.3 79.9
3.84 4.28 4.30
4.46 .169
86.7 86.3 87.4
80.3 80.8 81.2
83.6 82.7 83.2
83.6 82.6 83.4
Glu
4.70 4.55 4.63
3.78 4.17 4.05
5.01 4.89 4.87
4.32 4.74 4.71
57.2 55.3 56.7
56.5 57.3 57.4
Cys
Asp
.71
15.1
17.4 18.6 18.6
14.5 14.2 15.0
14.2 14.0 14.3
14.4 14.3 13.8
14.5 14.1 14.2
His
24.1
21.0 22.7 23.4
26.1 25.7 26.2
22.6 22.1,
23.5
24.6 25.6 24.4
25.4 24.1 24.0
lie
.79
45.4
41.7 44.0 44.9
48.4 47.6 49.0
43.8 43.4 43.6
45.5 46.8 45.8
46.2 45.0 45.1
Leu
.92
46.1
41.3 45.4 43.7
49.8 46.9 48.1
43.8 45.0 44.8
48.6 48.0 46.7
47.1 45.0 47.0
Lys
.62
16.3
14.0 14.6 14.8
17.2 16.9 17.3
14.9 15.3 15.4
18.0 17.7 16.5
17.2 17.9 17.2
Met
Based on pooled within-manufacturer variance.
Standard error of the mean incorporating both within- and among-manufaeturer variation.
5
As for footnote 4, but the analysis was made omitting data denoted sample 5A.
"One-way analysis of variance showed differences among manufacturers to be: NS, nonsignificant (P>.05); 'significant (P<.05); * 'significant (P<.01).
3
2
'Ala = Alanine, Arg = argenine, Asp = asp ar tic acid, Cys = cystine, Glu = glutamic acid, Gly - glycine, His = llistkline. He = isolcucine, Leu - leucine, L Ser = serine, Thr = threonine. Tyr = tyrosine, Val = valine.
.48
39.9 40.4 40.2
37.7 37.1 37.2
A B C
.61
39.4 39.8 40.2
36.9 38.3 37.9
B C
3
Arg
Ala
Sample
SF, within manufacturers Among manufacturers" Among manufacturers 5
Mean SF.M!
Supplier
TABLE 3. The true available amino aenl' content of menhaden fisi} meal thy matter (%/kg
m http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Columbia University Libraries on February 3, 2015
SIBBALD AND WOLYNETZ
1992
>
Tf
•+
O
+ -!•
rn
TJ- T)-
ON
m
O
rr,
m
-f
+
ON
CM NO
—( —
m
rt
m m "t
m
ON
1-
O
ON
NO m
(M
m
O
r-.
£ £ £ sss -C
m
" M O - t
+
Ift
- t
m
H
W
t
X
r- NO
NO
O
O
i-t
(N (N
£££
fsi
r f
ss
e
r-
*t
1^.
—1 H
*N
r-1
est ( S
M
1
O
N
M
O
(M
ON
[ N
O
Tt-
sss
s
T)-
ss
ON
X
•t o
*t
ON
NO NO - H
Tj-
-t-tm
ON
ON I H
rs]
NO
-i-
X
rsi
T*- - < f O
rn
ON
ON
^H
—i CM
O O —
X
X
ON
^
ON
ON
^,
ss
ON
-<
(N
<=•:
"r-i
ON
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Columbia University Libraries on February 3, 2015
IN
£
1 1 1
1
O
TJ-
m
X
O
N
ON
Ov OC
ON
X X
H
M
t
rn
m
y-f ON
X
ON
X
m O
ON
O fA
ON
CO
ON
ON
N
v O O -rt
TJ-
* + •*•
N
^
1
N
S
CO
—
(N
C
r- CN «t N
M
h-
ON
ON
O
"J"
X
«-,
in
£ 5 5: £ £ £
-
—
*
X NO - H
2 Z
-1-
X
" • •*•
m
M
^
X
O N O N V >
X
ON ON
O . O s ^
X
ON
X
' t
•*
O
NO
CN
m
NO
X
CM
T-<
•-•
m
S
O N C O v
X
1
5
1
I
m
r^
rO GO 0 0 ON ON
i -
"*
m
•*
C
o->
C \
O
r~»
NO ~ < ~ X ON ON
d
x X
ON
NO
t^ X
C 0 H \0 X CN X
X
«N
O
NO ON • +
X
m
m
£££
m
T(-
m
' t
rn
TJ-
- t
rH
•*
•*
s
ON
» »*
ON
X
-t
ON
X
X NO —
s "SS • gg
ON
1
s
*
J
Z
n ^ O M Tj- ^ m
O
NO
£££
O
TJ-
rj- , n
M
f^
NO —
-H
X X
O
—
O
ON
ON
ON
ON
ON
X
X
-H
O
-H
CO X
CO
Csl NO CN
•+ -+ -J"
M
ON
—t
•n
siss
ON
—
X
C
-H
CN —H
(N
5 . z
>
1 1 | --
•
|
5
TAB
3
m
m
O
CN
O
ON
00
ON
ON
TJ-
-f
rvi
fNi • * •
<
1
r-
—
-t
-t
-H
<^i
NO
§..
S
m *+ • *
S S
ON
- i
O
NO - H r f I-~ X X
m X
_,„,„
O
^. NJ
•*•
O
X X
X SO
ON
O
r-l
ON
r j
-f
rf>
m
m
CN
•+
©
(S
O r^ x
NO
m
r--
ON
—
r^ r^ r^
? N S£
O
_
NO
3;
•*•
m
I n NO
ON
CNI
Tj-
IN
ON
X
t^
-H
X
NO
1-, ->
! N
t^
r- r- r^
O
-H
O
NO
O
ON C N
O
O
X
X
NO ' O X X X X
O
ON
X
rs|
CO
o o x
NO
ON
T-I
m
.-H
X
in
•*•
<^ -+
•*
NO
m
ON
siss:
•1-
in
O
ON
O
X
ON
>o O CN
ON X
1^
; : NO (N
E it
CN
1 X +
<
!
f
ON
N
O
ON ON
<=»U
NO NO
O I N
X
SS5:
O
< a u
<
fN| f*N
CO U
(N
" 1 CM
ON
CN ON
"1
i -
H - t ON
<
o"
=
s J
z.t
CQ U
!ii SIf
< " ui is O <
1993
MENHADEN FISH MEAL
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank R. E. Martin of the National Fish Meal and Oil Association, Washington, DC, who arranged to have samples supplied by: Empire Menhaden Co., Inc., Petrou Fisheries, Inc., Seacoast Products, Inc.; Standard Products Co., Inc.; and Zapata-Haynie Corp. Technical support was provided by S. Tobin and R. Ciok. The proximate, mineral, and amino acid analyses were made by the
Chemical and Biological Research Institute, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa. REFERENCES Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 1980. Official Methods of Analysis. 11th ed. Assoc. Offic. Anal. Chem., Washington, DC. Likuski, H.J .A., and H. G. Dorrell, 1978. A bioassay for rapid determination of amino acid availability values. Poultry Sci. 57:1658-1660. National Academy of Sciences, 1971. Atlas of nutritional data on United States and Canadian feeds. Washington, DC. National Research Council, 1977. Nutrient Requirements of Domestic Animals. 1. Nutrient Requirements of Poultry. 7th ed. Natl. Acad. Sci., Washington, DC. Shutze, J. V., and F. H. Benoff, 1981. Statistical evaluation of feed ingredient variation and procedures for determining number of samples needed for laboratory analysis. Pages 134—146 in Proc. Georgia Nutr. Conf. Sibbald, I. R., 1976. A bioassay for true metabolizable energy in feedingstuffs. Poultry Sci. 55:SOSSOS. Sibbald, I. R., 1979. A bioassay for available amino acids and true metabolizable energy in feedingstuffs. Poultry Sci. 58:668-675. Sibbald, I. R., 1983. The TME system of feed evaluation. Contribution 1983-20E, Res. Branch, Agric. Can., Ottawa.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Columbia University Libraries on February 3, 2015
among the total amino acid values. Analysis of variance provided no evidence to support the first hypothesis; there were significant differences among amino acids (P<.01), and the differences varied among manufacturers. The second hypothesis was supported by the data inasmuch as most of the among-manufacturer differences shown in Table 3 became nonsignificant (P>.05) when data were expressed as percentage bioavailabilities (Table 4). The absence of a difference among manufacturers for the bioavailability of lysine strongly suggests uniform, good quality manufacturing procedures.