![Show Menu](styles/mobile-menu.png)
![Page Background](./../common/page-substrates/page0221.png)
408
H
ALL
:
J
OURNAL OF
AOAC I
NTERNATIONAL
V
OL
. 98, N
O
. 2, 2015
had a starch content of 59.8% as received, and an average
HorRat of 2.1 with one value below 2. For the dietary starch
collaborative study, the HorRat was less than 2 for six of
10 materials, with an overall average of 2.0 on test materials
that averaged 20.7% dietary starch on an as-received basis.
Alfalfa pellets and soybean meal had HorRat values of greater
than 2.5. As previously discussed, the high RSD
R
for these test
materials may relate to the combination of their low starch
content and the small test portion amount used. Test samples
with very low concentrations of the analyte have been reported
to give elevated HorRat values (17). The high HorRat value for
WKH GU\ GRJ NLEEOH PD\ UHÀHFW DQ LVVXH ZLWK KRPRJHQHLW\ RI WKH
sample, as described previously.
Collaborators’ Comments
The collaborators all reported that the assay was not very
complicated and was easy to do. They particularly liked
additions of all reagents to a single vessel, performing reactions
in screw cap tubes, determining total liquid volume as the sum
of quantitative volume additions, and making sample solution
dilutions by accurate pipetting of volumes. They indicated
WKDW WKH\ KDG WR ZRUN ZLWKLQ WKHLU ODERUDWRULHV WR ¿QG WRROV RI
acceptable accuracy to make the volume additions, as some of
the tools they worked with for other purposes were not adequate.
They did report issues with screw cap tube adequacy to hold
the needed volume; this was apparently related to differing
amounts of glass used by the manufacturers while maintaining
the same exterior dimensions of the tubes. That was addressed
by describing the screw cap tubes by the volume they needed
to contain while allowing adequate room for mixing. With
the number of sodium phosphate chemicals available, it was
noted that it was crucial to verify and use the exact chemicals
VSHFL¿HG IRU WKH *232' UHDJHQW ,W ZDV DOVR UDLVHG WKDW WKH
only extended period to take a break from the assay was during
the amyloglucosidase incubation; taking a break after adding
water to the fully digested samples resulted in reduced recovery.
Development of an approved assay for glucose detection that
could be used on a plate reader or automated system was
recommended as a way to increase throughput of the assay,
which is currently limited by the 30 min period within which
samples must be read after incubation in the GOPOD glucose
detection assay. Some laboratories had issues with calculating
quadratic glucose standard curves; this was resolved by
graphing all individual glucose standard solution absorbances
data with absorbance on the X-axis and glucose concentration
RQ WKH < D[LV 7KHQ D TXDGUDWLF RU VHFRQG RUGHU SRO\QRPLDO
regression or “trend” line was graphed through the data. The
regression line equation was used for calculation of glucose in
test solutions. Collaborators gave extensive input on the method
SURWRFRO ZULWHXS DQG UHFRPPHQGHG GHYHORSPHQW RI D ÀRZ FKDUW
for the assay
Recommendations
Based on the results of the collaborative study, the Study
Director recommends that the enzymatic-colorimetric method
for measurement of dietary starch in animal feeds and pet foods
EH DGRSWHG DV 2I¿FLDO )LUVW $FWLRQ
$FNQRZOHGJPHQWV
I thank Jan Pitas (U.S. Dairy Forage Research Center) for
assistance in developing the dietary starch method and assistance
with preparing and distributing materials for the study. I thank the
Laboratory Methods & Services Committee of the Association
RI $PHULFDQ )HHG &RQWURO 2I¿FLDOV IRU WKHLU RUFKHVWUDWLRQ RI WKH
HIIRUW IRU GH¿QLQJ GLHWDU\ VWDUFK DQG WKHLU VXSSRUW DQG LQSXW LQ WKLV
SURMHFW , WKDQN 1DQF\ 7KLH[ /DUU\ 1RYRWQ\ DQG WKH VWDII RI WKH
Olsen Biochemistry Laboratory at South Dakota State University
for assistance in preparing the test samples. Special thanks go
WR 1DQF\ 7KLH[ IRU KHU LQYDOXDEOH JXLGDQFH DQG DVVLVWDQFH
throughout the study. The U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Agricultural Research Service provided funding for the materials
used in the study. I also thank the following collaborators for their
participation in this study:
Robin Johnson, Montana Department of Agriculture and
Analytical Laboratory, Bozeman, MT
Brian Steinlicht and David Taysom, Dairyland Laboratories,
Arcadia, WI
Courtney Heuer, Don Meyer, Zach Meyer, Lauren Meyer,
and John Goeser, Rock River Laboratories, Watertown, WI
Kristi McCallum, Dominika Kondratko, and Tyler Potts,
Colorado Dept. of Agriculture/I&CS Biochemistry Laboratory,
Denver, CO
/LVD 5XL] -RKQ -RUGDQ DQG 7X\HQ 7KL 'RDQ (XUR¿QV
6FLHQWL¿F±1XWULWLRQDO $QDO\VLV &HQWHU 'HV 0RLQHV ,$
.DWKU\Q 6 3KLOOLSV & $QGUH 2GLMN DQG .HQQHWK +RGHO 13
Analytical Laboratories, St. Louis, MO
/LVD 0HDQV 7HUHVD *UDQW DQG 6WHYHQ 3OHDVDQWV 1RUWK
Carolina Department of Agriculture/Food and Drug Protection
'LYLVLRQ 5DOHLJK 1&
&KULVWD :LOODUHGW DQG 6DEULQD 7UXSLD 1&(5& $QDO\WLFDO
Laboratory, Edwardsville, IL
Angela Carlson, SGS Brookings, Brookings, SD
Adela Parganlija-Ramic and Michele Swarbrick, Minnesota
'HSDUWPHQW RI $JULFXOWXUH 6W 3DXO 01
Kiley Schwartz, Berthier Jean-Louis, Eduardo Maciel, and
Kiley Mulholland, Idaho State Department of Agriculture, Twin
Falls, ID
Darren Welch and Audra Gile, Kansas Department of
Agriculture Laboratory, Topeka, KS
)LJXUH 5HODWLRQVKLS RI GLHWDU\ VWDUFK FRQFHQWUDWLRQ DQG 56'
YDOXHV IRU UHSHDWDELOLW\ ZLWKLQ ODERUDWRU\ 56'
r
DQG UHSURGXFLELOLW\
EHWZHHQ ODERUDWRULHV 56'
R
REWDLQHG LQ WKH FROODERUDWLYH VWXG\
(TXDWLRQV IRU WKH UHJUHVVLRQ OLQHV DUH 56'
r
,
[
±
5 GDVKHG OLQH DQG 56'
R
[
±
5
VROLG OLQH ZKHUH [ GLHWDU\ VWDUFK FRQFHQWUDWLRQ
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00
RSD%
Dietary starch, % as-received basis
RSDr%
RSDR%
D
r
%
SD
R
%