scholarly journals Meat and bone meal still used in animal feed

Nature ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 414 (6860) ◽  
pp. 147-147
Author(s):  
Stephen Rossides
Keyword(s):  
Animal Feed ◽  
Meat And Bone Meal ◽  
Bone Meal

Validation of a PCR-Based Method for the Detection of Various Rendered Materials in Feedstuffs Using a Forensic DNA Extraction Kit

2006 ◽  
Vol 69 (1) ◽  
pp. 205-210 ◽  
Author(s):  
MICHAEL J. MYERS ◽  
HAILE F. YANCY ◽  
MICHAEL ARANETA ◽  
JENNIFER ARMOUR ◽  
JANICE DERR ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
False Positive ◽  
Animal Feed ◽  
Limit Of Detection ◽  
False Positive Rate ◽  
Meat And Bone Meal ◽  
Bone Meal ◽  
Average Accuracy ◽  
Positive Rate ◽  
Feed Samples ◽  
Pcr Primer

A method trial was initiated to validate the use of a commercial DNA forensic kit to extract DNA from animal feed as part of a PCR-based method. Four different PCR primer pairs (one bovine pair, one porcine pair, one ovine primer pair, and one multispecies pair) were also evaluated. Each laboratory was required to analyze a total of 120 dairy feed samples either not fortified (control, true negative) or fortified with bovine meat and bone meal, porcine meat and bone meal (PMBM), or lamb meal. Feeds were fortified with the animal meals at a concentration of 0.1% (wt/wt). Ten laboratories participated in this trial, and each laboratory was required to evaluate two different primer pairs, i.e., each PCR primer pair was evaluated by five different laboratories. The method was considered to be validated for a given animal source when three or more laboratories achieved at least 97% accuracy (29 correct of 30 samples for 96.7% accuracy, rounded up to 97%) in detecting the fortified samples for that source. Using this criterion, the method was validated for the bovine primer because three laboratories met the criterion, with an average accuracy of 98.9%. The average false-positive rate was 3.0% in these laboratories. A fourth laboratory was 80% accurate in identifying the samples fortified with bovine meat and bone meal. A fifth laboratory was not able to consistently extract the DNA from the feed samples and did not achieve the criterion for accuracy for either the bovine or multispecies PCR primers. For the porcine primers, the method was validated, with four laboratories meeting the criterion for accuracy with an average accuracy of 99.2%. The fifth laboratory had a 93.3% accuracy outcome for the porcine primer. Collectively, these five laboratories had a 1.3% false-positive rate for the porcine primer. No laboratory was able to meet the criterion for accuracy with the ovine primers, most likely because of problems with the synthesis of the primer pair; none of the positive control DNA samples could be detected with the ovine primers. The multispecies primer pair was validated in three laboratories for use with bovine meat and bone meal and lamb meal but not with PMBM. The three laboratories had an average accuracy of 98.9% for bovine meat and bone meal, 97.8% for lamb meal, and 63.3% for PMBM. When examined on an individual laboratory basis, one of these four laboratories could not identify a single feed sample containing PMBM by using the multispecies primer, whereas the other laboratory identified only one PMBM-fortified sample, suggesting that the limit of detection for PMBM with this primer pair is around 0.1% (wt/wt). The results of this study demonstrated that the DNA forensic kit can be used to extract DNA from animal feed, which can then be used for PCR analysis to detect animal-derived protein present in the feed sample.

Detection of Rendered Meat and Bone Meals by PCR Is Dependent on Animal Species of Origin and DNA Extraction Method

2010 ◽  
Vol 73 (6) ◽  
pp. 1090-1096 ◽  
Author(s):  
MICHAEL J. MYERS ◽  
DOROTHY E. FARRELL ◽  
CHRISTINE M. DEAVER ◽  
JACQULINE MASON ◽  
HEIDI L. SWAIM ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Real Time ◽  
Dna Extraction ◽  
Real Time Pcr ◽  
Animal Species ◽  
Animal Feed ◽  
Functional Assay ◽  
Threshold Values ◽  
Meat And Bone Meal ◽  
Bone Meal ◽  
Pcr Method

The capability of eight commercially available DNA extraction kits to extract bovine DNA originating in meat and bone meal from fortified feed was evaluated. Four different batches of bovine meat and bone meal (BMBM) were used for DNA extraction with the eight commercial DNA extraction kits. Within each kit, there were minimal differences in the batch-to-batch amounts of extracted DNA. There were differences between the kits in the amounts of DNA that could be extracted from the same amount of starting BMBM. These differences did not translate into differences in the amount of amplifiable DNA from BMBM-fortified dairy feed. Using a validated real-time PCR method, the kit yielding the highest amount extractable DNA was completely unable to yield a positive PCR result; one other kit was also unable to produce a positive PCR result from DNA extracted from BMBM-fortified feed. There was a complete lack of a correlation between the amount of bovine DNA isolated from BMBM by a given extraction kit compared with the relative amounts of DNA isolated from fortified animal feed as evidenced by the cycle threshold values generated using the real-time PCR method. These results demonstrate that extraction of DNA from processed animal protein is different for pure ingredients and fortified animal feeds. These results indicate that a method specifically developed using just animal-derived meat and bone meal may not yield a functional assay when used to detect animal tissues in complete animal feed.

Production of Monoclonal Antibody for the Detection of Meat and Bone Meal in Animal Feed

2004 ◽  
Vol 52 (25) ◽  
pp. 7580-7585 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shin-Hee Kim ◽  
Tung-Shi Huang ◽  
Thomas A. Seymour ◽  
Cheng-i Wei ◽  
Stephen C. Kempf ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Monoclonal Antibody ◽  
Animal Feed ◽  
Meat And Bone Meal ◽  
Bone Meal

Development of Immunoassay for Detection of Meat and Bone Meal in Animal Feed

2005 ◽  
Vol 68 (9) ◽  
pp. 1860-1865 ◽  
Author(s):  
SHIN-HEE KIM ◽  
TUNG-SHI HUANG ◽  
THOMAS A. SEYMOUR ◽  
CHENG-I WEI ◽  
STEPHEN C. KEMPF ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Smooth Muscle ◽  
Monoclonal Antibodies ◽  
Animal Feed ◽  
Superior Performance ◽  
Hybridoma Cells ◽  
Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay ◽  
Meat And Bone Meal ◽  
Bone Meal ◽  
Efficient Detection ◽  
Heat Treated

An immunoassay system was developed for efficient detection of prohibited meat and bone meal (MBM) in animal feed. Monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) were raised against bovine smooth muscle autoclaved at 130°C for 20 min. Among the 1,500 supernatants of hybridoma cells screened, MAbs 3E1, 1G3, and 3E10 were selected and characterized in this study. The first set of MAbs produced, 3E1 and 1G3, had stronger reactivity against MBM than against smooth muscle that was heat treated at 90°C for 10 min. However, reactivity gradually increased against smooth muscle that was autoclaved at 130°C for up to 1 h. The enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for detection of MBM in animal feed was optimized with the MAb 3E10 because of its superior performance. MAb 3E10 diluted to 100-fold was used to differentiate bovine MBM from that of other species in ingredients used for commercial animal feeds and could detect down to 0.05% MBM mixed in animal feed.

The concentration of strontium and other minerals in animal feed ingredients

2013 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
Author(s):  
L.C. Browning ◽  
A.J. Cowieson
Keyword(s):  
Inductively Coupled Plasma ◽  
Animal Feed ◽  
Optical Emission ◽  
Grain Legume ◽  
Meat And Bone Meal ◽  
Bone Meal ◽  
High Concentration ◽  
Mineral Concentration ◽  
Feed Ingredients ◽  
Cereal Grain

SummaryVariance in macro- and micro-mineral concentration in feed ingredients for farmed livestock contributes to sub-optimal performance and may compromise health and welfare. Although routine quality assurance and quality control procedures in feed mills or integrated poultry or swine businesses may track variance in the concentration of minerals of immediate nutritional importance, such as phosphorus (P), calcium (Ca) and sodium (Na), micro-minerals such as strontium (Sr) attract less attention. In order to create a framework for further study, the mineral concentration in more than 130 animal feed ingredients commonly used in Australia were analysed by inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectroscopy (ICP-OES). Due to a dearth of information, the principal focus of the survey was Sr, but the concentration of Ca, P, magnesium (Mg), manganese (Mn), potassium (K), iron (Fe), copper (Cu), zinc (Zn), sulphur (S) and Na were analysed concurrently. Generally the minerals present at the highest concentrations in the various feed ingredients examined were Ca, P and Mg. As anticipated, the ingredients with the highest concentrations of Ca and P were inorganic phosphates, limestone and meat and bone meal. The average Ca concentration in limestone was 393 g/kg but a range of 376–415 g/kg was observed which may be nutritionally important. Furthermore, the Mg concentration in limestone ranged from 7–535 mg/kg suggesting some contamination by dolomite lime sources. A total of 24 meat and bone meal samples were included in the analysis and mean Ca and P concentrations were 109 and 54 g/kg respectively. However, the range of Ca and P in meat and bone meal was considerable with Ca concentrations from 51–148 g/kg and P concentrations from 26–66 g/kg. A total of 81 cereal, grain legume and cereal by-product samples were included as part of the survey and these vegetable feed ingredients contained relatively low concentrations of most minerals with Ca, P, Mg and K dominating. The K concentration of soybean meal was found to be around 23 g/kg and ranged from approximately 22–27 g/kg. In comparison, the Sr concentration in the feed ingredients was low relative to other minerals, with limestone having the highest level of strontium at 329 mg/kg. Overall those feed ingredients from a mineral origin had the highest level of Sr. In addition, meat and bone meal had a relatively high concentration of Sr (around 159 mg/kg).

Recycling of Meat and Bone Meal Animal Feed by Vacuum Pyrolysis

2003 ◽  
Vol 37 (19) ◽  
pp. 4517-4522 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Chaala ◽  
C. Roy
Keyword(s):  
Animal Feed ◽  
Meat And Bone Meal ◽  
Bone Meal ◽  
Vacuum Pyrolysis

Evaluation of a Rapid PCR-Based Method for the Detection of Animal Material

2005 ◽  
Vol 68 (12) ◽  
pp. 2651-2655 ◽  
Author(s):  
HAILE F. YANCY ◽  
ANUJA MOHLA ◽  
DOROTHY E. FARRELL ◽  
MICHAEL J. MYERS
Keyword(s):  
Dna Extraction ◽  
Animal Feed ◽  
Extraction Time ◽  
Meat And Bone Meal ◽  
Bone Meal ◽  
Assay Sensitivity ◽  
Rapid Pcr ◽  
Cleanup Procedure ◽  
Assay Time ◽  
Animal Material

A rapid PCR-based analytical method for detection of animal-derived materials in complete feed was developed. Using a commercially available DNA forensic kit for the extraction of DNA from animal feed, a sensitive method was developed that was capable of detecting as little as 0.03% bovine meat and bone meal in complete feed in under 8 h of total assay time. The reduction in assay time was accomplished by reducing the DNA extraction time to 2 h and using the simpler cleanup procedure of the kit. Assay sensitivity can be increased to 0.006% by increasing the DNA extraction time to an overnight incubation of approximately 16 h. Examination of dairy feed samples containing either bovine meat and bone meal, porcine meat and bone meal, or lamb meal at a level of 0.1% (wt/wt basis) suggested that this method may be suitable for regulatory uses. The adoption of this commercially available kit for use with animal feeds yields an assay that is quicker and simpler to perform than a previously validated assay for the detection of animal proteins in animal feed.

Development of Primers for Detection of Heat-Treated Cetacean Materials in Porcine Meat and Bone Meal

2009 ◽  
Vol 72 (7) ◽  
pp. 1496-1499 ◽  
Author(s):  
NAOKI SHINODA ◽  
TOMOTARO YOSHIDA ◽  
TOYOKO KUSAMA ◽  
MASAMI TAKAGI ◽  
TAKASHI ONODERA ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Animal Feed ◽  
Pcr Primers ◽  
Spongiform Encephalopathy ◽  
Meat And Bone Meal ◽  
Bone Meal ◽  
Cetacean Species ◽  
First Case ◽  
Meat Meal ◽  
Computer Based ◽  
Primer Sets

The feed ban introduced after the detection of the first case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in 2001 in Japan has been modified to allow some of the previously prohibited animal materials to be used in animal feed. Recently, porcine materials were allowed to be used in feed for pigs, poultry, and fish. Materials from other mammals, including whales, remain prohibited. In the absence of a method to detect the prohibited whale materials in porcine materials, there is a possibility that the whale materials are being used for feed for pigs, poultry, and fish. To detect illegal use of whale materials mixed with porcine materials, we have developed PCR primers specific to a group of most cetacean species, using a computer-based method we developed previously. The primer sets were capable of detecting whale meat meal that had been autoclaved at 133°C for up to 20 min. The detection limit of whale material in porcine meat and bone meal was 0.1%.

Evaluating Chemical Mitigation of Salmonella Typhimurium ATCC 14028 in Animal Feed Ingredients

2016 ◽  
Vol 79 (4) ◽  
pp. 672-676 ◽  
Author(s):  
ROGER A. COCHRANE ◽  
ANNE R. HUSS ◽  
GREGORY C. ALDRICH ◽  
CHARLES R. STARK ◽  
CASSANDRA K. JONES
Keyword(s):  
Fatty Acid ◽  
Salmonella Typhimurium ◽  
Chemical Treatment ◽  
Animal Feed ◽  
Chain Fatty Acid ◽  
Meat And Bone Meal ◽  
Feather Meal ◽  
Bone Meal ◽  
Medium Chain ◽  
Chemical Treatments

ABSTRACT Salmonella Typhimurium is a potential feed safety hazard in animal feed ingredients. Thermal mitigation of Salmonella spp. during rendering is effective but does not eliminate the potential for cross-contamination. Therefore, the objective of this experiment was to evaluate the effectiveness of chemicals to mitigate postrendering Salmonella Typhimurium ATCC 14028 contamination in rendered proteins over time. Treatments were arranged in a 6 ×4 factorial with six chemical treatments and four rendered protein meals. The chemical treatments included (i) control without chemical treatment, (ii) 0.3% commercial formaldehyde product, (iii) 2% essential oil blend, (iv) 2% medium chain fatty acid blend, (v) 3% organic acid blend, and (vi) 1% sodium bisulfate. The four rendered protein meals included (i) feather meal, (ii) blood meal, (iii) meat and bone meal, and (iv) poultry by-product meal. After matrices were chemically treated, they were inoculated with Salmonella Typhimurium ATCC 14028, stored at room temperature, and enumerated via plate counts on days 0, 1, 3, 7, 14, 21, and 42 postinoculation. The Salmonella concentration in ingredients treated with medium chain fatty acid and commercial formaldehyde were similar to one another (P =0.23) but were 2 log lower than the control (P < 0.05). Ingredients treated with organic acids and essential oils also had lower Salmonella concentrations than the control (P < 0.05). Time also played a significant role in Salmonella mitigation, because all days except days 14 and 21 (P = 0.92) differed from one another. Rendered protein matrix also affected Salmonella stability, because concentrations in meat and bone meal and blood meal were similar to one another (P =0.36) but were greater than levels in feather meal and poultry by-product meal (P < 0.05). In summary, chemical treatment and time both mitigated Salmonella Typhimurium ATCC 14028, but their effectiveness was matrix dependent. Time and chemical treatment with medium chain fatty acids or a commercial formaldehyde product were most effective at mitigating Salmonella Typhimurium ATCC 14028 in rendered protein meals.

Evaluation of Two Commercial Lateral-Flow Test Kits for Detection of Animal Proteins in Animal Feed

2005 ◽  
Vol 68 (12) ◽  
pp. 2656-2664 ◽  
Author(s):  
MICHAEL J. MYERS ◽  
HAILE F. YANCY ◽  
DOROTHY E. FARRELL ◽  
JEWELL D. WASHINGTON ◽  
RUSSELL A. FROBISH
Keyword(s):  
Animal Feed ◽  
Lateral Flow ◽  
Trace Minerals ◽  
Meat And Bone Meal ◽  
Bone Meal ◽  
Acceptance Criteria ◽  
Sensitivity Assessment ◽  
Flow Test ◽  
Lateral Flow Test ◽  
Feed Samples

Performance characteristics were evaluated for two lateral-flow test kits, Reveal for Ruminant in Feed (Neogen Corporation) and FeedChek (Strategic Diagnostics Inc.), designed to detect ruminant or terrestrial animal proteins in feeds. The stringent acceptance criteria used were developed by the Center for Veterinary Medicine Office of Research to identify test kits with comparable selectivity and sensitivity to microscopy and PCR assay, the analytical methods used by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Guidelines were developed for evaluating the selectivity, sensitivity, ruggedness, and spec-ificity of these kits. These guidelines further stated that ruggedness and specificity testing would be performed only after a test passed both the selectivity and sensitivity assessments. Acceptance criteria for determining success were developed using a statistical approach requiring 90% probability of achieving the correct response, within a 95% confidence interval. A minimum detection level of 0.1% bovine meat and bone meal, consistent with the sensitivity of the methods used by the FDA, was required. Selectivity was assessed by testing 60 dairy feed samples that contained no added animal proteins; sensitivity was determined by evaluating 60 samples (per level of fortification) of the same feed that contained 0.025, 0.05, 0.1, 0.25, 0.5, 1, or 2% bovine meat and bone meal. The Reveal test passed the selectivity assessment but failed the sensitivity assessment, detecting only samples fortified at the 2% level and then only 17 to 33% of those samples, when read according to the label directions. The FeedChek test passed the sensitivity assessment but failed the selectivity assessment, with rates for false-positive results ranging from 34 to 38%, depending on the user. The sensitivity of the Reveal test was affected by the concentration of trace minerals present in the feed; concentrations toward the high end of the normal range prevented the detection of true positive feed samples containing bovine meat and bone meal. Better sensitivity assessments were obtained when lamb meal was used either alone or in combination with bovine meat and bone meal. The FeedChek test was not affected by the concentration of trace minerals or by the type of animal meal used. These results indicate that neither of the two tests is adequate for routine regulatory use.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document