Apparent nitrogen digestibility data: AACC-ASTM collaborative study.

Apparent nitrogen digestibility data were obtained from 4 laboratories for 6 protein sources and 2 diet levels, 6 and 10% protein, after a 2-day adaptation period during the AACC-ASTM protein efficiency ratio (PER) and net protein ratio (NPR) collaborative studies. For 5 protein sources fed as 10% of the diet, the interlaboratory variation as measured by coefficient of variation (CV) values was low (1.5-3.5%), indicating high precision of the method. Wheat flour (6% protein diet) had the highest variation and, therefore, the lowest precision (CV of 7.10%). The interlaboratory variation (CV value) for 3 of the 4 laboratories was considerably lower, less than half that for the 4 laboratories. An analysis of variance of apparent nitrogen digestibility data indicated significant (P less than 0.05) effects for the 4-laboratory group due to laboratories and protein diets at both 10 and 6% protein levels, and for the 3-laboratory group at the 10% protein level. The 3-laboratory ANOVA for the 6% diets indicated a significant effect (P less than 0.05) due to diet only.

Net protein ratio data: AACC-ASTM collaborative study.

Seven- and 14-day net protein ratio (NPR) data were obtained from 7 laboratories for 6 protein sources: ANRC casein, lean beef, lactalbumin, textured vegetable protein, and peanut flour were fed as 10% protein (N X 6.25) in the test diet. Wheat flour, casein, and textured vegetable protein were fed as 6% protein (N X 6.25) in the test diet. Weighed dry ingredients for each diet were sent to each collaborator , who mixed the dry ingredients, then added specified amounts of corn oil and water and mixed each complete diet thoroughly. Rats were adapted for 0, 2, or 4 days, and then were fed the test diets for 28 days for protein efficiency ratio (PER) diets. The animal weight gain and feed consumption data obtained after 7 or 14 days of feeding were used to calculate NPR values. Analyses of data were done before [net protein ratio (NPR)] and after (R-NPR [relative-NPR]) adjustment of the data from each laboratory by its results for the reference protein casein. From the analysis of variance for NPR, significant (P less than 0.05) interactions were observed among laboratories, protein sources, and adaptation times of the animals (0, 2, or 4 days). Inter- and intralaboratory variability were decreased by use of 14-day values compared with 7-day values. Adjustment of the NPR data to R-NPR did not lower the intralaboratory variability but did lower the interlaboratory variability of the data. Increasing adaptation time did not consistently decrease interlaboratory or intralaboratory variability or decrease coefficients of variation (CV) of R-NPR values.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Composition and protein efficiency ratio of meat samples partially defatted with petroleum ether, acetone, or ethyl ether.

Freeze-dried beef samples were partially defatted with either petroleum ether, acetone, or ethyl ether before determination of protein efficiency ratio (PER) to study the extraction effects on the composition and protein nutritional quality of the extracted beef. Defatting a protein source, such as meat or a meat product, may often be necessary to produce a test diet that contains 10% protein and 8% fat. Amino acid, carnosine, anserine, creatine, creatinine, inosine, and proximate compositions were determined on the extracted samples. Resulting data were compared to the composition and PER data of the beef that had no solvent treatment. Although the chemical analysis data from the study showed some variation between the proteins and other nitrogenous components of the unextracted and the extracted beef, these variations were too small to affect the protein nutritional quality of the beef as measured by PER.

Protein efficiency ratio: AACC/ASTM collaborative study.

Eight laboratories (7 of the laboratories conducted animal experiments) participated in a collaborative study to standardize some of the methodology associated with animal bioassays for determining protein efficiency ratios and to suggest improvements which would reduce the variation among laboratories. One-, 2-, 3-, and 4-week protein efficiency ratios (PER) with 0-, 2-, or 4-day adaptation periods were obtained from each laboratory, respectively, for 6 protein sources: casein, lean beef, lactalbumin, textured vegetable protein, peanut flour, and wheat flour. Analyses were computed for PER and adjusted PER (APER). From the analysis of variance for PER and APER, significant (P less than 0.05) effects were observed due to laboratories, adaptation length, protein sources, and/or interactions among these variables. In general, APER values show much less variation among laboratories than PER values. The reproducibility and repeatability variances were significantly (P less than 0.05) greater for an assay length of 2 weeks than they were for 3- or 4-week assays. Two protein sources, casein and textured vegetable protein, were fed at both high (10%) and low (6%) levels of protein. Analysis of variance of PER values shows a significant (P less than 0.05) laboratory by protein level by assay length interaction.

Comparative analysis of meat samples prepared with food chopper and bowl cutter.

Analyses of meat samples after preparation with either a bowl cutter or by the official procedure with a food chopper were compared for homogeneity of comminution and for differences in fat, moisture, and protein content. Cutting time in the bowl cutter was limited to minimize temperature rise in samples. Beef chuck, pork shoulder, and beef shank, cheek, and tongue were used in the study. Variances of replicate analysis data for the 5 meat types were pooled for either cutter or chopper treatment and for each analyzed component. Sample portions cut and mixed by using the bowl cutter were more homogeneous than those ground with a food chopper. Comparative accuracy was indicated by fat and moisture means: 5 were in good agreement and 5 differed significantly; 3 of 5 paired protein means differed significantly but were within 0.3% protein. Results on precision and accuracy as well as the simplicity and convenience of the bowl cutter procedure favor its use as an alternative to a food chopper for preparing meat samples for analysis.