IAG ring test animal proteins 2018

Abstract

Introduction 2 Methods 2.1 Materials 2.2 Procedure for production 2.3 Process control 2.4 Organization of the ring trial 2.5 Analysis of results 3 Results 3.1 Application of the method and reporting 3.2 Microscopic procedure 3.3 Microscopic detection 3.4 Detection by PCR 4 Discussion 4.1 Specificity and sensitivity 4.2 Application of the microscopic method 4.3 PCR 5 Conclusions and recommendations 5.1 Conclusions 5.2 Recommendations Introduction to the test Basic instructions for the test procedure Report form for procedure details Report form: results List of participants Details of procedures applied, microscopic method Results: presence of animal proteins, microscopic detection Results: reporting details and evaluation, microscopic detection Results: PCR ruminant PCR Ruminant material was correctly detected in both samples containing 0.1% (w/w) of terrestrial animal material in all 20 cases where PCR was applied. In the two samples without added terrestrial animal material, but still containing the bakery by-products, ruminant DNA was detected as far as analysed, except for one participant who reported negative. The list of recognised sources such as milk and milk products, and ruminant gelatine can be extended with bakery by-products, which is important for the recycling of food by-products.

IAG proficiency test animal proteins 2019

“…The current microscopic method was introduced in 2013 (EC, 2013a). The share of five participants (12.2%) applying an incorrect number of cycles fits in the range of shares as achieved in previous years (2014: 33% of the total participants applied incorrect number of cycles, 2015: 12%, 2016: 13%, 2017: 6%; 2018: 23%; Table 6; van Raamsdonk et al, 2014van Raamsdonk et al, , 2015van Raamsdonk et al, , 2016van Raamsdonk et al, , 20172018). These participants include both public as well as private laboratories.…”

“…The experimental design of the set of four samples in the current study is identical to that of the 2018 test ( van Raamsdonk et al, 2018). This made it possible to calculate the within-laboratory reproducibility over these 2 years.…”

“…Wageningen Food Safety Research (WFSR) 1 is managing this proficiency test on behalf of the IAG section Microscopy. Overviews of past results are presented in the annual reports of the ring tests for monitoring animal proteins in feed (latest version: van Raamsdonk et al, 2018).…”

“…Confusion among particles of these two categories (see van Raamsdonk et al, 2017b), or with plant material or minerals will contribute to specificity and sensitivity scores lower than one. The design of the current test is identical to that of last year's test ( van Raamsdonk et al, 2018). This allows to calculate the intralaboratory reproducibility over the combined dataset of 2018 and 2019, expressed as concordance (van der Voet and van Raamsdonk, 2004).…”

“…Although none of the feeds was indicated as feed for aquaculture, 17 participants reported results for the two samples (-A and D) which were found positive after microscopic analysis. Eleven of them also reported results for one or both of the The design of the current version of the IAG proficiency test was to mimic the design of that of last year (van Raamsdonk et al, 2018). The pig feed used for two samples (2019-A and 2019-D) was used in 2018 for all four samples.…”