Comparison of chemical, electrophoretic and in vitro digestion methods for predicting fish meal nutritive quality

M. Bassompierre, K.L. Larsen, W. Zimmermann, E. McLean, Torger Børresen, P. Sandfeld

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Chemical, electrophoretic and in vitro digestion methods were compared with respect to predictions given regarding fish meal (FM) quality. FMs were manufactured by mixing a press-cake, with spray dried stickwater concentrate from the identical raw material, thereby providing samples containing different quantities of water-soluble protein (wsp). A low-temperature-dried FM was employed as a reference. Acquired chemical data for each of the FMs included amino acid analysis and proximal composition (protein, fat, ash, ammonia, titration, salt, moisture). Biological methods in rat (net protein utilization, NPU, biological value, BV, and true digestibility, TD), capillary electrophoresis (sodium dodecyl sulphate-capillary gel electrophoresis, SDS-CGE)) and an in vitro enzymatic assay (trinitrobenzene sulphonic acid-based closed system with rainbow trout enzyme extract) were used for further comparisons with FM wsp content. A high correlation (R = 0.97; P < 0.001) between FM wsp content and titration volume was observed. In contrast to BV and NPU (R = 0.98; P < 0.001), TD (R = 0.2; P = 0.63) did not correlate with FM wsp. The peak area of a 50 kDa signal derived from SDS-CGE showed significant correlation (R = 0.98; P < 0.001) with wsp content. The fish-based in vitro system provided correlations with wsp content with respect to predigestion (R = 0.97; P < 0.0001) and post digestion (R = 0.77; P < 0.03) and for enzymatic liberation of amino groups as post digestion minus predigestion (R = 0.97; P < 0.0001) from the FM examined.
Original languageEnglish
JournalAquaculture Nutrition
Volume4
Issue number4
Pages (from-to)233-240
ISSN1365-2095
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1998

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison of chemical, electrophoretic and in vitro digestion methods for predicting fish meal nutritive quality'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this