This might be the typical formula for adulterated fishmeal
It might just be a typical adulterated "recipe" fishmeal
Quality testing situation of domestic fishmeal Amino acid name Authority 1 test Authority 2 test Aspartic acid 5.63 5.48 Threonine 2.53 2.80 Serine 2.46 2.36 Glutamic acid 8.58 7.76 Glycine 4.18 3.70 Alanine 4.13 3.94 Cystine 0.59 Valine 3.08 3.28 Methionine 1.68 1.77 Isoleucine 2.43 2.68 Leucine 4.78 4.64 Tyrosine 2.15 2.24 Phenylalanine 2.46 2.74 Lysine 4.79 4.76 Ammonia 0.90 Histidine 1.51 2.32 Arginine 3.38 3.81 Proline 2.16 2.30 Total amino acids 56.52 56.58 Crude protein 62.14 62.14 AA/CP 91.0 91.1 VBN 160 134 Microscopic examination No abnormalities found No abnormalities found
--------------------------------------
Let me explain: the above indicators are from the same sample sent to 2 domestic authoritative institutions for testing. Previously I always thought that testing amino acids could reveal the flaw, and the results from authoritative institutions could be fully trusted. But for the above domestic fishmeal adulterated with a large amount of hydrolyzed feather meal (already confirmed), through the above test indicators, I really cannot see anything wrong. The confidence in quality control that I built up over more than 10 years has been completely lost. Colleagues, can you give me some guidance? Thank you!
--------------------------------------
From the above amino acid analysis, the quality of the fishmeal looks good. If it is adulterated fishmeal, the technology can be called first-class; if it is mixed with hydrolyzed feather meal, why is the cystine not high! Looking forward to it....
--------------------------------------
I feel that the cost of making fake fishmeal is also high ha
--------------------------------------
Making fakes is easy, identifying fakes is hard. To make the amino acids the same as real fishmeal, this fake is made too impressively.
--------------------------------------
This post was last edited by glory143 on 2009-7-14 16:54
With a liquid chromatograph, you can formulate fishmeal according to these indicators of yours. What is so difficult about it?? If there is any difficulty, it is in finding suitable raw materials for adulteration. Now there are so many amino acid monomers and various cheap raw materials. As long as you can get the raw materials, you can adulterate freely.
To identify adulteration, just looking at amino acids is not very meaningful (for capable adulterators). It is still more reliable to test true protein and digestibility.
--------------------------------------
If that is really the case, I think it may not be called fake
After all, this cost also needs to be considered
--------------------------------------
Domestic fishmeal adulterated with a large amount of hydrolyzed feather meal
Since it is adulterated with a large amount of hydrolyzed feather meal, microscopic examination cannot detect it? If it could be detected, would amino acid determination still be needed?
--------------------------------------
Feather meal-adulterated products can generally be judged by burning them with fire and then smelling the odor!
--------------------------------------
You can simply wash the sample briefly with water and determine the liquid nitrogen content. If it is too high, there may be a large amount of soluble nitrogen and monomer amino acids.
--------------------------------------
Whether it is fake or not depends on the effect. If the effect is good, it is formula fishmeal. If there are no toxic or harmful substances, it can also be used, as long as it has advantages.
--------------------------------------
Is there a problem with the cystine test?
Was oxidative hydrolysis performed? The cystine result measured after conventional hydrolysis cannot be used.
gbsyyx added the following content on 2009-7-15 08:44
I heard that after feather meal is extruded and used for adulteration, microscopic examination cannot detect it, and only cystine content can be measured for identification.
--------------------------------------
Let me explain: the above indicators are from the same sample sent to 2 domestic authoritative institutions for testing. Previously I always thought that testing amino acids could reveal the flaw, and the results from authoritative institutions could be fully trusted. But for the above domestic fishmeal adulterated with a large amount of hydrolyzed feather meal (already confirmed), through the above test indicators, I really cannot see anything wrong. The confidence in quality control that I built up over more than 10 years has been completely lost. Colleagues, can you give me some guidance? Thank you!
--------------------------------------
From the above amino acid analysis, the quality of the fishmeal looks good. If it is adulterated fishmeal, the technology can be called first-class; if it is mixed with hydrolyzed feather meal, why is the cystine not high! Looking forward to it....
--------------------------------------
I feel that the cost of making fake fishmeal is also high ha
--------------------------------------
Making fakes is easy, identifying fakes is hard. To make the amino acids the same as real fishmeal, this fake is made too impressively.
--------------------------------------
This post was last edited by glory143 on 2009-7-14 16:54
With a liquid chromatograph, you can formulate fishmeal according to these indicators of yours. What is so difficult about it?? If there is any difficulty, it is in finding suitable raw materials for adulteration. Now there are so many amino acid monomers and various cheap raw materials. As long as you can get the raw materials, you can adulterate freely.
To identify adulteration, just looking at amino acids is not very meaningful (for capable adulterators). It is still more reliable to test true protein and digestibility.
--------------------------------------
If that is really the case, I think it may not be called fake
After all, this cost also needs to be considered
--------------------------------------
Domestic fishmeal adulterated with a large amount of hydrolyzed feather meal
Since it is adulterated with a large amount of hydrolyzed feather meal, microscopic examination cannot detect it? If it could be detected, would amino acid determination still be needed?
--------------------------------------
Feather meal-adulterated products can generally be judged by burning them with fire and then smelling the odor!
--------------------------------------
You can simply wash the sample briefly with water and determine the liquid nitrogen content. If it is too high, there may be a large amount of soluble nitrogen and monomer amino acids.
--------------------------------------
Whether it is fake or not depends on the effect. If the effect is good, it is formula fishmeal. If there are no toxic or harmful substances, it can also be used, as long as it has advantages.
--------------------------------------
Is there a problem with the cystine test?
Was oxidative hydrolysis performed? The cystine result measured after conventional hydrolysis cannot be used.
gbsyyx added the following content on 2009-7-15 08:44
I heard that after feather meal is extruded and used for adulteration, microscopic examination cannot detect it, and only cystine content can be measured for identification.