scholarly journals Determination of Moisture and Fat in Meats by Microwave and Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Analysis: Collaborative Study

2008 ◽  
Vol 91 (4) ◽  
pp. 802-810 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy P Leffler ◽  
Cindy R Moser ◽  
Bobbie J McManus ◽  
John J Urh ◽  
Jimmy T Keeton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Collaborative Study ◽  
Meat Products ◽  
Fat Content ◽  
Microwave Drying ◽  
Processed Meat ◽  
Nmr Spectrometry ◽  
Relative Standard ◽  
Aoac Method ◽  
Total Fat

Abstract Ten laboratories participated in a collaborative study to determine the total moisture and fat in raw and processed meat products by microwave drying and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy. Meat products were prepared following the AOAC Method and analyzed using CEM Corp.'s SMART Trac Moisture and Fat Analysis system. SMART Trac provides moisture results by measuring the weight loss on drying by microwave energy. The dried sample is then analyzed by NMR spectrometry for fat content. Moisture and fat results are displayed and reported by the SMART Trac as a percentage (g/100 g). Microwave drying is an AOAC-approved reference method (Method 985.14), Moisture in Meat and Poultry Products. NMR spectrometry is a secondary technique used to determine the concentration of various constituents in biological, organic, or chemical samples. The study design was based on Youden's matched pair principle for collaborative tests. For the purposes of this study, 10 laboratories each tested 10 Youden matched pairs, for a total of 20 samples. The study samples represented a range of products processed daily in plant operations. Included were raw meat samples (beef, pork, chicken, and turkey) as well as processed meats (beef hot dog, pork sausage, and ham). The total moisture content of the undiluted samples, as received for the purposes of this study, was determined by AOAC Method 950.46 and ranged from 54.03 to 74.99. The total fat content of the undiluted samples was determined by AOAC Method 960.39 and ranged from 1.00 to 29.79. Statistical analysis of study results for total moisture yielded a relative standard deviation for repeatability (RSDr) range of 0.14 to 0.95 and a relative standard deviation for reproducibility (RSDR) range of 0.26 to 0.95. Statistical analysis for total fat yielded similar RSDr and RSDR range of 0.74 to 4.08. Results for turkey had higher RSDr and RSDR values, both at 12.6, due to low fat content and possibly to the separation of the samples observed by some of the collaborators. Results demonstrate that microwave drying with NMR is a rapid, practical method providing results equivalent to AOAC Methods 950.46 (Forced Air Oven Drying) and 960.39 (Soxhlet Ether Extraction) in raw and processed meat products.

scholarly journals Method for the Rapid Determination of Protein in Meats Using the CEM Sprint™ Protein Analyzer: Collaborative Study

2011 ◽  
Vol 94 (5) ◽  
pp. 1555-1561
Author(s):  
Cindy Moser ◽  
Kathy Herman ◽  
K Barnhardt ◽  
M Ceizyk ◽  
T Chriscoe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Standard Deviation ◽  
Relative Standard Deviation ◽  
Rapid Determination ◽  
Collaborative Study ◽  
Meat Products ◽  
The United States ◽  
Processed Meat ◽  
Binding Agent ◽  
Relative Standard ◽  
Dye Binding

Abstract A collaborative study was conducted to determine the protein content of raw and processed meat products by a protein-tagging and colorimetric technique. Meat products were prepared following AOAC Official MethodSM 983.18 and analyzed using CEM Corporation's Sprint Rapid Protein Analyzer. Sprint provides protein results by combining an accurately weighed test portion with a known amount of dye-binding agent. The dye-binding agent binds with the lysine, histidine, and arginine, as well as the n-terminus of the proteins commonly found in raw meat and processed meat products. Results are displayed and reported by the Sprint as a percentage (g/100 g) of protein. Ten blind duplicate study samples were sent to 10 collaborating laboratories in the United States. The within-laboratory (repeatability) relative standard deviation (RSDr) ranged from 0.91 to 3.04%, and between-laboratories (reproducibility) relative standard deviation (RSDR) ranged from 1.50 to 3.41% for protein. The method is recommended for Official First Action.

Enzyme Immunoassay for Determination of Gluten in Foods: Collaborative Study

1991 ◽  
Vol 74 (2) ◽  
pp. 257-264 ◽  
Author(s):  
John H Skerritt ◽  
Amanda S Hill
Keyword(s):  
Enzyme Immunoassay ◽  
Collaborative Study ◽  
Wheat Gluten ◽  
Meat Products ◽  
Processed Meat ◽  
Cereal Products ◽  
Relative Standard ◽  
Cooked Meats ◽  
Wheat Flours

Abstract A collaborative study was performed In 15 laboratories to validate a monoclonal antibody-based enzyme Immunoassay (EIA) for determination of gluten in foods. The study Included 13 samples: maize starch, "gluten-free" baking mixes, wheat flours, cookies, cooked meats, and a soup. Gluten was present In these samples at either zero or 0.02 to 10% by weight, I.e., over almost 3 orders of magnitude. The mean assay values for the foods varied from 88 to 105% of the actual amounts. The assay was quantitative for cereal products and the soup with repeatability (RSDr, relative standard deviation) and reproducibility (RSDR) of 16-22% and 24-33%, respectively. The assay was semiquantitative for the processed meat products (RSDr 14 and 26% and RSDr 46 and 56%), probably because gluten was unevenly distributed In the small (1 g) samples that were analyzed. The ELISA method produced no false positive results, and false negatives obtained with tannin-containing foods could be avoided by use of a modified sample extractant. None of the collaborators reported problems In following the protocol. The method has been adopted official first action by AOAC for determination of wheat gluten in foods.

scholarly journals Determination of Fat in Raw and Processed Milks by the Gerber Method: Collaborative Study

2001 ◽  
Vol 84 (5) ◽  
pp. 1499-1508 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dick H Kleyn ◽  
Joanna M Lynch ◽  
David M Barbano ◽  
M Jeffrey Bloom ◽  
Martin W Mitchell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Collaborative Study ◽  
Reference Method ◽  
Fat Content ◽  
Interlaboratory Study ◽  
Test Portion ◽  
Ether Extraction ◽  
Whole Milk ◽  
Relative Standard ◽  
Extraction Test ◽  
Fat Level

Abstract The Gerber method is used worldwide as a simple and rapid method for determining fat in raw and processed milks. However, the volume of the test portion used in the method has not been internationally agreed upon. A collaborative study was conducted to evaluate performance of the Gerber method using either a weighed test portion (11.13 g) or by a 10.77 mL test portion delivered by pipet. For each method, laboratories received 10 test samples: 5 raw and 5 pasteurized homogenized milks, 2 of which were blind duplicate pairs. Eleven and 10 laboratories participated in the evaluation of aliquot addition by weight and pipet, respectively. Mojonnier ether extraction (Method 989.05) was used as the reference method. Interlaboratory study statistics were similar between methods of test portion addition and between raw and processed materials; therefore, summary interlaboratory study statistics were pooled. The fat content of milk samples ranged from 0.96 to 5.48%. Absolute reproducibility and repeatability were not affected by fat level, and pooled statistical performance (invalid and outlier data removed) was (g fat/100 g milk) sr = 0.026, sR = 0.047, r = 0.074, and R = 0.132. Relative standard deviations increased with decreasing fat content, and were summarized by fat level: 1–2% fat milk, mean = 1.437, RSDr = 1.809%, RSDR = 3.271%; 2–6% fat milk, mean = 4.156, RSDr = 0.626%, RSDR = 1.131%. Compared with ether extraction, test results by the Gerber method were slightly lower (0.02% fat) using a weighed test portion and significantly lower (0.06% fat) using a 10.77 mL volume addition by pipet. A trend toward underestimating fat content at lower fat concentrations (1–2% fat) was observed with the weighed test portion but not when a pipet was used. The Associate Referee recommends that the Gerber method using a weighed test portion be adopted as First Action with applicability limited to whole milk.

scholarly journals Crude Fat, Hexanes Extraction, in Feed, Cereal Grain, and Forage (Randall/Soxtec/Submersion Method): Collaborative Study

2003 ◽  
Vol 86 (5) ◽  
pp. 899-908 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nancy J Thiex ◽  
Shirley Anderson ◽  
Bryan Gildemeister ◽  
W Adcock ◽  
J Boedigheimer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Standard Deviation ◽  
Relative Standard Deviation ◽  
Animal Feed ◽  
Collaborative Study ◽  
Meat Products ◽  
The United States ◽  
Official Method ◽  
Cereal Grain ◽  
Relative Standard ◽  
Time Required

Abstract A method for determining crude fat in animal feed, cereal grain, and forage (plant tissue) was collaboratively studied. Crude fat was extracted from the animal feed, cereal grain, or forage material with hexanes by the Randall method, also called the Soxtec method or the submersion method. The use of hexanes provides for an alternative to diethyl ether for fat extractions. The proposed submersion method considerably decreases the extraction time required to complete a batch of samples compared to Soxhlet. The increase in throughput is very desirable in the quest for faster turnaround times and the greater efficiency in the use of labor. In addition, this method provides for reclamation of the solvent as a step of the method. The submersion method for fat extraction was previously studied for meat and meat products and was accepted as AOAC Official Method 991.36. Fourteen blind samples were sent to 14 collaborators in the United States, Sweden, Canada, and Germany. The within-laboratory relative standard deviation (repeatability) ranged from 1.23 to 5.80% for crude fat. Among-laboratory (including within) relative standard deviation (reproducibility) ranged from 1.88 to 14.1%. The method is recommended for Official First Action.

Comparison of Two Methods for Determination of Total Solids Content of Milk: Collaborative Study

1989 ◽  
Vol 72 (5) ◽  
pp. 712-718 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jenny L Clark ◽  
David M Barbano ◽  
Chapman E Dunham
Keyword(s):  
Collaborative Study ◽  
Raw Milk ◽  
Preliminary Evaluation ◽  
Oven Method ◽  
Total Solids ◽  
Relative Standard ◽  
Aoac Method ◽  
Standard Deviations ◽  
Forced Air ◽  
Solids Content

Abstract Ten laboratories analyzed 9 pairs of blind duplicate raw milk samples for total solids. A direct forced air oven method (4 h at 100°C) and a modification of the AOAC predry method (16.032) were used. Preliminary evaluation of the modified AOAC method indicated that blank determinations were necessary. Total solids content ranged from 12.0 to 14.6%. Average repeatability standard deviations (sr) of the direct forced air oven and modified AOAC methods were 0.019 and 0.017, respectively. Average reproducibility standard deviations (SR) of the direct forced air oven and the modified AOAC methods were 0.042 and 0.047, respectively. Average repeatability relative standard deviations (RSDr) for the direct forced air oven and the modified AOAC methods were 0.149 and 0.136%, respectively; average reproducibility relative standard deviations (RSDR) were 0.327 and 0.370%, respectively. Mean repeatability values (r) and reproducibility values (R) were 0,054 and 0.118 for the direct forced air oven method and 0.049 and 6.133 for the modified AOAC method, respectively. The mean test result of the direct forced air oven method (12.7293%) was comparable to that for the modified AOAC method (12.7273%). The modification of AOAC method 16.032 and the direct forced air oven method have been approved interim official first action.

Sulfuric Acid/Hydrogen Peroxide Digestion and Colorimetric Determination of Phosphorus in Meat and Meat Products: Collaborative Study

1991 ◽  
Vol 74 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
David K Christians ◽  
Thomas G Aspelund ◽  
Scott V Brayton ◽  
Larry L Roberts
Keyword(s):  
Hydrogen Peroxide ◽  
Sulfuric Acid ◽  
Collaborative Study ◽  
Meat Products ◽  
Colorimetric Determination ◽  
Pork Sausage ◽  
Relative Standard ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Standard Deviations

Abstract Seven laboratories participated In a collaborative study of a method for determination of phosphorus in meat and meat products. Samples are digested In sulfuric acid and hydrogen peroxide; digestion Is complete In approximately 10 mln. Phosphorus Is determined by colorimetric analysis of a dilute aliquot of the sample digest. The collaborators analyzed 3 sets of blind duplicate samples from each of 6 classes of meat (U.S. Department of Agriculture classifications): smoked ham, water-added ham, canned ham, pork sausage, cooked sausage, and hamburger. The calibration curve was linear over the range of standard solutions prepared (phosphorus levels from 0.05 to 1.00%); levels in the collaborative study samples ranged from 0.10 to 0.30%. Standard deviations for repeatability (sr) and reproducibility (sR) ranged from 0.004 to 0.012 and 0.007 to 0.014, respectively. Corresponding relative standard deviations (RSDr and RSDR, respectively) ranged from 1.70 to 7.28% and 3.50 to 9.87%. Six laboratories analyzed samples by both the proposed method and AOAC method 24.016 (14th Ed.). One laboratory reported results by the proposed method only. Statistical evaluations Indicated no significant difference between the 2 methods. The method has been adopted official first action by AOAC.

scholarly journals Crude Fat, Diethyl Ether Extraction, in Feed, Cereal Grain, and Forage (Randall/Soxtec/Submersion Method): Collaborative Study

2003 ◽  
Vol 86 (5) ◽  
pp. 888-898 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nancy J Thiex ◽  
Shirley Anderson ◽  
Bryan Gildemeister ◽  
W Adcock ◽  
J Boedigheimer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Standard Deviation ◽  
Relative Standard Deviation ◽  
Diethyl Ether ◽  
Animal Feed ◽  
Collaborative Study ◽  
Meat Products ◽  
The United States ◽  
Official Method ◽  
Cereal Grain ◽  
Relative Standard

Abstract A method for determining crude fat in animal feed, cereal grain, and forage (plant tissue) was collaboratively studied. Crude fat was extracted from the animal feed, cereal grain, or forage material with diethyl ether by the Randall method, also called the Soxtec method or the submersion method. The proposed submersion method considerably decreases the extraction time required to complete a batch of samples. The increase in throughput is very desirable in the quest for faster turnaround times and the greater efficiency in the use of labor. In addition, this method provides for reclamation of the solvent as a step of the method. The submersion method for fat extraction was previously studied for meat and meat products and was accepted as AOAC Official Method 991.36. Fourteen blind samples were sent to 12 collaborators in the United States, Sweden, Canada, and Germany. The within-laboratory relative standard deviation (repeatability) ranged from 1.09 to 9.26% for crude fat. Among-laboratory (including within) relative standard deviation (reproducibility) ranged from 1.0 to 21.0%. The method is recommended for Official First Action.

scholarly journals Can we improve the nutritional quality of meat?

2017 ◽  
Vol 76 (4) ◽  
pp. 603-618 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nigel D. Scollan ◽  
Eleri M. Price ◽  
Sarah A. Morgan ◽  
Sharon A. Huws ◽  
Kevin J. Shingfield
Keyword(s):  
Fatty Acid ◽  
Nutritional Value ◽  
Production Systems ◽  
Consumer Preferences ◽  
Meat Products ◽  
Fat Content ◽  
Dietary Lipid ◽  
Processed Meat ◽  
Rumen Microbiome ◽  
High Quality Protein

The nutritional value of meat is an increasingly important factor influencing consumer preferences for poultry, red meat and processed meat products. Intramuscular fat content and composition, in addition to high quality protein, trace minerals and vitamins are important determinants of nutritional value. Fat content of meat at retail has decreased substantially over the past 40 years through advances in animal genetics, nutrition and management and changes in processing techniques. Evidence of the association between diet and the incidence of human non-communicable diseases has driven an interest in developing production systems for lowering total SFA andtransfatty acid (TFA) content and enrichment ofn-3 PUFA concentrations in meat and meat products. Typically, poultry and pork has a lower fat content, containing higher PUFA and lower TFA concentrations than lamb or beef. Animal genetics, nutrition and maturity, coupled with their rumen microbiome, are the main factors influencing tissue lipid content and relative proportions of SFA, MUFA and PUFA. Altering the fatty acid (FA) profile of lamb and beef is determined to a large extent by extensive plant and microbial lipolysis and subsequent microbial biohydrogenation of dietary lipid in the rumen, and one of the major reasons explaining the differences in lipid composition of meat from monogastrics and ruminants. Nutritional strategies can be used to align the fat content and FA composition of poultry, pork, lamb and beef with Public Health Guidelines for lowering the social and economic burden of chronic disease.

Rapid Determination of Fat in Meat and Meat Products by Foss-let Solvent Extraction and Density Measurement

1975 ◽  
Vol 58 (6) ◽  
pp. 1182-1187
Author(s):  
Julio D Pettinati ◽  
Clifton E Swift
Keyword(s):  
Rapid Determination ◽  
Density Measurement ◽  
Meat Products ◽  
Fat Content ◽  
Digital Potentiometer ◽  
Sources Of Variation ◽  
Aoac Method ◽  
Meat Samples ◽  
Meat Type

Abstract The commercially available Foss-let fat analyzer was evaluated for the determination of fat in meat and meat products by comparison with AOAC method 24.005(a). With the Foss-let procedure, mechanical and instrumental equipment is used to determine fat in 7–10 min. A sample is extracted with tetrachloroethylene in a mechanical orbital shaker for 2 min and the specific gravity of the extract is measured in a magnetic float cell controlled by a digital potentiometer. During extraction, anhydrous calcium sulfate absorbs moisture droplets originating from the sample. The variations of comparative determinations on 67 meat samples containing 1.1–95.4% fat and 17 frankfurter samples containing 17.3–37.3% fat were analyzed statistically by grouping the data according to meat type (beef or pork) or frankfurters and into 6 ranges of fat content, and by treating the entire set of data. Error analysis of the differences and standard deviation of each grouping of paired determinations by the Fosslet and AOAC methods indicated that meat type and fat content >7.5% were not significant (P = 0.05) sources of variation as determined by t-tests on the statistics from the blocks of data. Determinations on samples containing ≤7.5% fat were consistently low and an additive correction of 0.25% was indicated. From the overall results, the accuracy and precision of the method were characterized as follows: the mean Foss-let method determination was high by 0.08% fat relative to that by the AOAC method; repeatability of ± 0.31% fat between duplicate determinations compared favorably with ±0.38% obtained with the AOAC method; and precision between paired determinations by the 2 methods was ±0.44%. Both a t-test for significance (P = 0.05) and the linear regression of the 84 comparative determinations indicated that the Foss-let method was equivalent to the AOAC method for determining fat.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document