IAG ring test animal proteins 2016

Abstract

MicroscopyAll participants were requested to determine the presence or absence of land animal and/or fish, to indicate the type of material found and the method used.Incorrect positive results (positive deviations) were expressed in a specificity score and incorrect negative results (negative deviations) were expressed in a sensitivity score. An optimal score is 1.0.The results are analysed in two ways: numbers below threshold (between 1 and 5 particles per determination cycle inclusive) have been considered positive and as alternative considered as negative. By comparing both ways of analysis it is possible on one hand to compare the results with those from previous ring trials (there these numbers were considered positive based on the legal principle of zero tolerance), and on the other hand to compare it to the official method (where numbers between 1 and 5 are considered negative).Most of the specificity and sensitivity scores for microscopy were at good or reasonable levels. In the combination of fish meal (0.1%) and ruminant MBM (0.1%) the detection of fish material was sub optimal. Considering numbers of particles below threshold as negative, the sensitivity scores show a considerable drop. The results indicate that the overall performance of the microscopic method is satisfactory, but applicants of the microscopic method could benefit from good and effective training and documentation in order to achieve a higher reliability in identifying particles. PCRThe specificity (samples A and B) and sensitivity (samples C and D) scores for PCR were between 0.87 and 0.91. Combined scenarios for microscopy and PCR.Several participants applied incorrect numbers of determination cycles, either too many or too less.The scenarios for correct combination of microscopy and/or PCR are published in an accompanying SOP. Several deviations from these scenarios were applied, such as examination by PCR of the terrestrial animal feeds, reporting the presence of fish in the fish feeds, and the absence of a final conclusion combining the results of both methods where appropriate. It is, however, a very good situation to have all (intermediate) results reported for each of the two methods in order to have a good documentation in the framework of a ring test.

IAG ring test feed composition 2016

“…These results are discussed further in the report by van Raamsdonk et al (2014). overestimated (Veys and Baeten, 2006;van Raamsdonk et al, 2012).…”

“…(van Raamsdonk et al, 2014). The chicken feed consisted of wheat meal (46%), soybean products, partly extracted (28%), corn meal (11%), rapeseed and rapeseed meal (7%), vegetable fat (5%), mix of minerals and vitamins (3%).…”

IAG ring test animal proteins 2017

“…Table 6), the application of a correct number of cycles is increasing over the years (van Raamsdonk et al, 2014(van Raamsdonk et al, , 2015(van Raamsdonk et al, , 2016. The report form of the IAG ring tests provides guidance when results have been entered by changing colour for the cycles still to perform (Annex 4).…”

“…Evaluation of some aspects of the application of the current microscopic methods would be beneficial. van Raamsdonk et al, 2016) and in an evaluation of the detection of fish material (van . These overviews revealed that erroneous identification of particles from non-animal origin occurs, resulting in specificity scores lower than one.…”

Microscopic recognition and identification of fish meal in compound feeds

“…The presence of other objects besides bone fragments such as muscle fibres, gills, scales, teeth and otholiths might add to the recognition of fish (van Raamsdonk et al 2012a). The difficulty in recognising teleost fish bones is acknowledged, most recently by van Raamsdonk et al (2016) at a spike level of 0.1%, but still not explicitly examined.…”