Korean Journal of Agricultural Science (농업과학연구)

Institute of Agricultural Science, CNU (충남대학교 농업과학연구소)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of authorized feed analysis laboratories in Korea: looking at feed chemical analysis

  • Jeon, Seoyoung (Division of Animal and Dairy Sciences, College of Agriculture and Life Science, Chungnam National University) ;
  • Lee, Jun-Sung (Division of Animal and Dairy Sciences, College of Agriculture and Life Science, Chungnam National University) ;
  • Park, Seong-Min (Dairy Science Division, Department of Animal Resources Development, National Institute of Animal Science, RDA) ;
  • Ki, Kwang-Seok (Dairy Science Division, Department of Animal Resources Development, National Institute of Animal Science, RDA) ;
  • Seo, Seongwon (Division of Animal and Dairy Sciences, College of Agriculture and Life Science, Chungnam National University)
  • Received : 2016.11.02
  • Accepted : 2017.02.16
  • Published : 2017.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In Korea, chemical analysis of animal feed is done through authorized feed analysis laboratories (AFALs). Analysis results among the AFALs need to be similar or within acceptable variations; however, there is no experimental evidence of their comparability. We aimed to determine the level of variation of feed chemical analysis results from different AFALs. For this, we requested analysis of four kinds of feed (corn, soybean meal, corn gluten feed, and ryegrass) to eight AFALs and the Cumberland Valley Analytical Services (CVAS) which is an internationally well-recognized feed analysis laboratory. The AFALs spent more time on analysis than did CVAS. Fiber analysis results varied significantly among laboratories. However, moisture, CP, and ash content values showed almost no variation. At least one AFAL obtained results with significant differences from CVAS for all tested values. These differences can be explained by the followings: 1) the standard methods for feed analysis (SMFA) established for AFALs are not detailed enough to control the analytical variations among different laboratories and 2) guidelines are insufficient for the quality control of analysis results in Korea. Failure to accurately identify the nutritional components of the feed could mean failure to provide adequate nutrients to the animals. Therefore, efforts to reduce the differences among AFALs, such as revising SMFA and publishing guidelines on quality control of feed analysis results, are important.

Keywords

References

  1. AOAC. 2002. Official methods of analysis. Association of Official Analytical Chemist, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.
  2. AOAC. 2005. Official methods of analysis. Association of Official Analytical Chemist, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.
  3. AOAC. 2006. Official methods of analysis. Association of Official Analytical Chemist, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.
  4. AOAC. 2016. Official methods of analysis. Association of Official Analytical Chemist, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.
  5. Crosby N. 1995. Encyclopedia of analytical science. In Animal feeds edited by Townshed A. pp 120-136. Academic Press, London, UK.
  6. De Jonge LH, Jackson F. 2013. The feed analysis laboratory: Establishment and quality control. FAO, Rome, Italy.
  7. ISO/IEC (International Organization for Standardization /International Electronical Committee). 2005. ISO/IEC 17025: General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories.
  8. Jang HJ, Choi CH, Choi TH, Kim JH, Kwon GH, Oh SI, Kim H, Kim YJ. 2016. The analysis of oat chemical properties using visiblenear infrared spectroscopy. Korean Journal of Agricultural Science 43:715-722. [in Korean]
  9. Kim HB, Lee SH, Jeong SH, Park JK, Shin TS, Cho BW, Cho SK, Kim BW, Seo JK. 2016. Nutrient analysis and in vitro rumen fermentation of commercial formulated concentrates for finishing Hanwoo steers . Korean Journal of Agricultural Science 43:802-809. [in Korean]
  10. Lakin AL. 1978. Determination of nitrogen and estimation of protein in foods. In Developments in food analysis techniques No. 1 edited by King RD. pp 43-74. Applied Science Publishers, London, UK.
  11. Mueller-Harvey I. 2004. Modern techniques for feed analysis. In Assesing quality and safety of animal feeds. FAO, Rome, Italy.
  12. NRC. 2001. Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle. National Academy Press, Washington DC, USA.
  13. Petterson DS, Choct M, Rayner CJ, Harris DJ, Blakeney A. 1999. Methods for the analysis of premium livestock grains. Crop and Pasture Sciences 50:775-788. https://doi.org/10.1071/AR98166
  14. SAS Institute. 2014. SAS user's guide: Statistics. Cary, NC, USA.
  15. Spiller GA. 2001. CRC handbook of dietary fiber in human nutrition. CRC press, FL, USA.
  16. Thompson M, Ellison SLR, Wood R. 2002b. Harmonized guidelines for single-laboratory validation of methods of analysis (IUPAC Technical Report). Pure and Applied Chemistrys 74:835-855. https://doi.org/10.1351/pac200274050835
  17. Thompson M, Owen L, Wilkinson K, Wood R, Damant A. 2002a. A comparison of the Kjeldahl and Dumas methods for the determination of protein in foods, using data from a proficiency testing scheme. Analysts 127:1666-1668. https://doi.org/10.1039/b208973b
  18. Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA. 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74:3583-3597. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2
  19. Van Soest PJ. 1994. Nutritional ecology of the ruminant. Cornell University Press, USA.