Abstract

Feeds, feed preparations and high-protein feed supplements are complex multicomponent compositions that, when stored, used, processed and transported, can change their physicochemical properties, microbiological indicators and toxicological properties. In this regard, it is very important to study the above properties and quality indicators. The paper describes a study of the peptide profile, physico-chemical and toxicological properties of the enzymatic hydrolysates of feather-down raw materials obtained during a multifactorial experiment to optimize the conditions for enzymatic hydrolysis of feather-down raw materials. The raw materials were previously subjected to a short-term hydrothermal treatment to improve the course of enzymatic hydrolysis. The enzymes obtained from bacterial organisms were used for the enzymatic hydrolysis of raw materials: Protolade B and Protease 2630#2256. The following results were obtained for the physicochemical properties of enzymatic hydrolysates: the content of protein and solids in the enzymatic hydrolysates of feather-down raw materials varied in the range of 1.80-3.00% and 2.6-4.4%, respectively. In this case, the mass fraction of protein was 67.7-70.6% in terms of the mass fraction of moisture. The mass fraction of ash, in terms of the mass fraction of moisture, did not exceed 0.43% in all the samples of enzymatic hydrolysates, the mass fraction of fat was 0.74%, the mass fraction of crude fiber was 1.28%, the mass fraction of sodium chloride was 1.92% the mass fraction of the impurities insoluble in hydrochloric acid was 0.77%. It has been shown that enzymatic hydrolysates corresponded to TU 9219-094-23476484-09 “Hydrolyzed feed flour. Feather protein concentrate” for their microbiological properties (QMAFAnM, coliforms, pathogenic microorganisms, toxin-forming anaerobic bacteria and bacteria of the genus Proteus) and chemical safety parameters

Keywords

Feather, enzymatic hydrolysis, biosafety, physical and chemical properties, feed supplement

REFERENCES

1. Grozina A.A. Gut microbiota of broiler chickens influenced by probiotics and antibiotics as revealed by T-RFLP AND RT-PCR. Agricultural Biology, 2014, no. 6, pp. 46-58. (In Russian).
2. Djavadov E.D. Diagnosis and prevention new nfectious diseases of birds. Farm Animals, 2013, no. 2(3), pp. 69-75. (In Russian).
3. Dolgov V.A. and Lavina S.A. Methodological aspects of veterinary-sanitary expertise of food raw materials and food products. Problems on Veterinary Sanitation, Hygiene and Ecology, 2016, no. 3(19), pp. 11-19. (In Russian).
4. Dorozhkin V.I., Butko M.P., Gerasimov A.S., Poskonnaya T.F., and Belousov V.I. Tasks for maintenance of veterinary-sanitary safety in the manufacture and sale of products of animal origin to the Russian Federation. Problems on Veterinary Sanitation, Hygiene and Ecology, 2016, no. 1, pp. 6-16. (In Russian).
5. Kononenko S.I. Actual problems in organization of feeding in modern conditions. Polythematic online scientific journal of Kuban State Agrarian University, 2016, no. 115, pp. 951-980. (In Russian).
6. Kononenko S.I. Highly efficient method for productivity increase. Journal of proceedings of the Gorsky SAU, 2016, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 67-70. (In Russian).
7. Okolelova T.M. and Korolev A.V. An alternative to antibiotic growth promoters. Ptitsevodstvo [Poultry], 2016, no. 8, pp. 24-26. (In Russian).
8. Oliva T.V. and Nikolaeva I.V. Opyt primeneniya netraditsionnykh kormovykh dobavok [Experience of application of non-traditional feed additives]. Advances in current natural sciences, 2007, no. 12, pp. 228. (In Russian).
9. Smirnova I.R., Satyukova L.P., and Shopinskaya M.I. Organoleptic evaluation of poultry meat when using protein hydrolyzate-based feedstuff''s. Problems on Veterinary Sanitation, Hygiene and Ecology, 2016, no. 4(20), pp. 6-10. (In Russian).
10. Kairov V.R., Gazzaeva M.S., Khugaeva S.V., and Levanov D.T. Economic and biological indicators of meat poultry and pigs when using biologically active preparations for feeding. Polythematic online scientific journal of Kuban State Agrarian University, 2014, no. 102, pp. 485-498. (In Russian).
11. Blake J.P., Cook M.E., and Miller C.C. Dry extrusion of roultry processing plant wastes and poultry farm mortatalities. Sixth international symposium on agricultural and food processing wastes. St. Josept, 1990, pp. 123-125.
12. Costa J.C., Barbosa S.G., and Sousa D.Z. Effects of pre-treatment and bioaugmentation strategies on the anaerobic digestion of chicken feathers. Bioresource technology, 2012, vol. 120, pp. 114-119. DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2012.06.047.
13. Keohane P.P., Grimble G.K., and Brown B. Influence of protein composition and hydrolysis method on intestinal absorption of protein in man. Gut, 1985, vol. 26, no. 9, pp. 907-913. DOI: 10.1136/gut.26.9.907.
14. Lasekan A., Abu Bakar F., and Hashim D. Potential of chicken by-products as sources of useful biological resources. Waste management, 2013, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 552-565. DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2012.08.001.
15. Milenteva I., Dyshlyuk L., Prosekov A., Babich O., and Shishin M. Deriving biologically active peptides and study of their qualities. Science Evolution, 2016, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 20-33. DOI: 10.21603/2500-1418-2016-1-2-20-33.
16. Mukherjee A.K., Rai S.K., and Bordoloi N.K. Biodegradation of waste chicken-feathers by an alkaline betakeratinase (Mukartinase) purified from a mutant Brevibacillus sp strain AS-S10-II. International biodeterioration & biodegradation, 2012, vol. 65, no. 8, pp. 1229-1237. DOI: 10.1016/j.ibiod.2011.09.007.
17. Pedersen M.B., Plumstead P. S.Yu, and Dalsgaard S. Comparison of four feed proteases for improvement of nutritive value of poultry feather meal. Journal of Animal Science, 2012, vol. 90, no. 4, pp. 350-352. DOI: 10.2527/jas.53795.
18. Piskaeva A.I., Sidorin Yu.Yu., Dyshlyuk L.S., Zhumaev Yu.V., and Prosekov A.Yu. Research and influence of silver clusters on decomposer microorganisms and E. Coli bacteria. Foods and Raw Materials, 2014, no. 1, pp. 62-66. DOI: 10.12737/4136.
19. Rad Z.P., Tavanai H., and Moradi A.R. Production of feather keratin nanopowder through electrospraying. Journal of Aerosol Science, 2012, vol. 51, pp. 49-56. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaerosci.2012.04.007.
20. Surkov I.V., Prosekov A.Yu., Ermolaeva E.O., et al. Evaluation and preventing measures of technological risks of food production. Modern Applied Science, 2015, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 45-52. DOI: 10.5539/mas.v9n4p45.