Hostname: page-component-6d856f89d9-mhpxw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T05:29:27.516Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

In vitro and in vivo procedures in quality control programmes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2007

N. Dale
Affiliation:
Poultry Science Department, Poultry Science Building, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA, e-mail: ndale@arches.uga.edu
Get access

Abstract

As is the case with any industrial process, the manufacture of poultry feeds is subject to considerable sources of variation. If requirements for key nutrients are not met, bird performance in the field will likely be negatively affected. As a result, most poultry companies and feed manufacturers establish quality control programmes as a means of reducing risk. Such programmes must be viewed as an integral part of the business structure of any organization. While they may not be considered ′profit centers′ per se, expenses incurred by a quality control programme must be considered investments, and investments are understood to produce economic returns. Procedures to be incorporated in quality control programmes must be selected based on the economic consequences of uncontrolled variation in given parameters, and the cost of monitoring each. Depending on the size and volume of a given feed manufacturing facility, many evaluations will be conducted on the premises, while others (including most in vivo procedures) will be sent to outside specialized testing facilities. Once a budget has been established for a quality control programme, resources should be shifted as needed to address those sources of variation of most immediate concern to the production of high quality feeds.

Type
Reviews
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Association of Feed Microscopists (1992) Manul of Microscopic Analyses (3rd edition), Manhattan KS, USA.Google Scholar
Araba, M. and Dale, N. (1990) Evaluation of protein solubility as an indicator of over processing of soybean meal. Poultry Science 69: 7683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists (1990) Official Methods of Analysis (15th edition). Arlington, VA, USA.Google Scholar
Batal, A.B., Douglas, A.E., Engram, A.E. and Parsons, C.M. (2000) Protein dispersibility index as an indicator of adequately processed soybean meal. Poultry Science 79: 15921596.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cabel, M., Waldroup, P.W., Shermer, W. and Calabotta, D. (1988) Effects of ethoxyquin feed preservative and peroxide level on broiler performance. Poultry Science 67: 17251730.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dale, N. (2001) Feedstuffs Reference Issue Feedstuffs. Miller Publishing Co., Minnetonka, MN, USA.Google Scholar
Leeson, S. and Summers, J. (2001) Scott's Nutrition of the Chicken. University Books, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
Mendez, A. and Dale, N. (1998) Rapid assay to estimate calcium and phosphorus in meat and bone meal. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 7: 309312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council (1994) Nutrient Requirements of Poultry (9th edition). National Academy of Science, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Parsons, C.M., Castonon, F. and Han, Y. (1997) Protein and amino acid quality of meat and bone meal. Poultry Science 67: 361368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Kempen, T.A. (2001) Infrared technology in animal production. World's Poultry Science Journal 57: 2948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar