aafco feed inspectors manual

Several states have shared their own manuals and resources for this project to reach completion. If one were able to beproduced, it would be so large, that back support would be needed to even lift it. This manual is designed to be used as a resource by field inspectors both in the field and when preparing for inspections and regulatory work. It still must be taken only as a guide. States may have varying laws, rules, and regulations that will not be addressed by this manual. This manual wasdesigned with the AAFCO Model Bill and rules, not one particular states program. Therefore, you must be surehow this manual and your states laws, rules, policies, and programs agree or disagree. OFFICIAL AAFCO POLICYThis manual is not intended to be or replace Official AAFCO Policy. Many of the items in this manual will beconsistent with wording in the AAFCO Official Publication and many will not. The only Official Policy adopted by AAFCO is contained in the Official Publication. If anything in this manual disagrees with policies outlined inthat publication, the Official Publication should take precedence. The Inspection and Sampling Committee of AAFCO gratefully acknowledges the hard work and contributions from many states and others inpreparing this manual. While it cannot be an end all to inspection, it is a valuable resource and should be referenced whenever possible. INTENTThis manual is designed to provide inspectors with a comprehensive explanation of the regulatory andenforcement functions of a feed inspection program. INSPECTORS MISSIONTo assure that feed manufacturing facilities produce unadulterated and properly labeled feedproducts; To provide effective and uniform administration of the laws and rules within the agencysjurisdiction; To promote compliance by the regulated industry through education. OBJECTIVES The objectives of a feed regulatory program are many. First and foremost is to protect the human foodsupply.

• aafco feed inspector s manual, aafco feed inspectors manual, aafco feed inspectors manual, aafco feed inspectors manual pdf, aafco feed inspectors manual download, aafco feed inspectors manual 2017, aafco feed inspectors manual free.

The online version is a secured read only document that cannot be downloaded or printed. The online OP is updated after each membership meeting and has easy to use search capabilities. If you wish to purchase both the paper copy and online copy you can do so by selecting the combo option above. You receive a discounted combo price if you order them together. Once you purchase the online OP you will receive a user name and password by email that you can use on all your devices, laptop, tablet, smart phone, etc. Please do not share usernames with others. Your username will allow access to the AAFCO Feed Basic Information Network (BIN) for 365 days from the date of purchase. The Feed BIN Library contains the AAFCO OP, other reference documents and the 2019 through 1929 AAFCO OP. The BIN also has news, calendar events, committee information, team communications and more! Watch the short video introduction to the online Official Publication below. Some features of WorldCat will not be available.By continuing to use the site, you are agreeing to OCLC’s placement of cookies on your device. Find out more here. Numerous and frequently-updated resource results are available from this WorldCat.org search. OCLC’s WebJunction has pulled together information and resources to assist library staff as they consider how to handle coronavirus issues in their communities.However, formatting rules can vary widely between applications and fields of interest or study. The specific requirements or preferences of your reviewing publisher, classroom teacher, institution or organization should be applied. Please enter recipient e-mail address(es). Please re-enter recipient e-mail address(es). Please enter your name. Please enter the subject. Please enter the message. Inspection and Sampling Committee. Inspection and Sampling Committee. Please select Ok if you would like to proceed with this request anyway. All rights reserved. You can easily create a free account.

Accidents may be caused by physical hazards, such as faulty e Recommended Building an Integrated Laboratory System to Advance the Safety of Food and Animal Feed APHL, AAFCO, AFDO Five-Year Cooperative Agreement Documents BUILDING CODE ADMINISTRATORS AND INSPECTORS BUILDING CODE ADMINISTRATORS AND INSPECTORS BOARD. Kansas State University. Manhattan. Kansas, Kansas State University. Kansas, Manhattan. Kansas. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases published by Blackwell Verlag GmbH. This is an open access article under the terms of the License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Abstract Animal feed can be contaminated with fomites carrying swine viruses and subsequently be a vehicle for viral transmission. This contamination may not be evenly distributed, and there is no validated sampling method for detection of viruses in animal feed or ingredients. The purpose of this experiment was to evaluate the sensitivity of ingredient sampling methods for detection of porcine epidemic diarrhoea virus (PEDV). No animals were used in this experiment, so approval from an animal ethics committee was not necessary. The interaction, dose and sample type were significant for both PEDV presence and quantity. No control samples had detectable PEDV. At the low dose, no PEDV RNA was detected in individual probes or composite samples, but was confirmed in 100% (32.4 C t ) of the inoculant samples. This is likely due to loss of sensitivity during the analysis process, which has been previously reported to cause a loss up to 10 C t when detecting PEDV in feed or ingredients. At the high dose, only 37% (37.7 C t ) of the probes had detectable PEDV RNA. Composite samples were more sensitive ( p t ). In summary, sampling bulk ingredients for PEDV should include compositing at least 10 individual samples.

Products must be manufactured properly, free of adulterants or contaminants, and labeled properlyso that they may be used effectively and safely. Labeling is critical so that the consumer can safely,effectively and efficiently use the feed. Inspections must be performed that are representative of the activities performed by the mill and samples must be collected properly to represent the feeds that were manufactured. Education is a vital part of allregulatory programs. An inspector must also be trained to respond to consumer complaints and toxic response situations. PROGRAM EMPHASISAn effective program must reflect current concerns with the safety of animal products entering the human diet, while continuing to protect the producer and their livestock. Recognition that quality ingredients make quality feed has focused more attention on feed components and less on complete feed. Current activities are designed to support the goal that the livestock producerreceives a quality product to prevent contaminant problems in milk, eggs and meat purchased by the consumer. Programs are designed to monitor compliance with established standards through planned inspections and sampling activities to minimize potential hazards. The administrative function, the laboratory, and the work you perform, all tie to together to assure compliance with the law. Assuch, you are the agencys front line representative. The way you prepare yourself and conduct yourself will either aid or hinder your mission. Inspectors are professionals. The sampling and inspectionof commercial feed involves working in many potential hazardous situations. Since an Inspector works alone much of the time, you must assure your personal safety. Safety equipment must be on hand and used to insuremaximum protection under any conditions. Be aware of the potential dangers and possible peculiarities of each establishment. A feed inspector should exercise care and use common sense at all times.

5 g being reserved for subsequent analysis and the remaining 0.5 g reserved for the composite sample. Loading and sample collection was initially completed for the control sample, followed by the replicates with a low dose of PEDV, and finally replicates with a high dose of PEDV. Data were analysed using the GLIMMIX procedure of SAS Institute, Inc, with the main effects of PEDV dose and sample type, as well as their interaction. As African swine fever virus, classical swine fever virus, and foot and mouth disease virus continue to spread among our global trade partners, it is vital their entry into the United States is prevented. Routine surveillance of imported ingredients is necessary to better understand risk of various ingredient types from other countries. However, this type of surveillance is currently neither performed nor allowed by our regulatory agencies because there is no validated sampling, extraction and detection method available at this time. Soybean meal was selected as the represented ingredient due to its likelihood of import from countries with circulating foreign animal disease, as well as the demonstrated ability for the same viruses to have a relatively high stability in soybean meal compared to other ingredients (Dee et al., 2018, 2016 ). Individual probes and the composite sample from the control were confirmed to not contain detectable PEDV RNA. PEDV Dose Contaminant Individual probes Composite sample This is potentially due to the challenges of recovery and stability of viral nucleic acids in ingredients. When a high dose of PEDV was used to contaminate soybean meal, only 37% of the individual probes contained PEDV (22 of 60 total samples), with an average C t of 37.7. Comparatively, the composite sample had greater ( p t of 35.7. These results are supported by previous research, which report sampling methods that are capable of detecting unevenly distributed contaminants in bulk ingredients.

Future research is needed to identify alternative methods that have a similar sensitivity, but require less time and effort to collect such a sample. Keywords: bulk, diarrhoea, epidemic, feed, ingredient, porcine, sampling, sensitivity, virus 1.?INTRODUCTION Controlled research has demonstrated the ability for many domestic and emerging transboundary swine viruses to survive in ingredients when exposed to conditions mimicking those of transboundary shipment (Dee et al., 2018, 2016 ). Furthermore, both porcine epidemic diarrhoea virus (PEDV; Schumacher et al., 2016 ) and African swine fever virus (ASFV; Niederwerder et al., 2019 ) contamination in feed has been demonstrated to cause animal illness in research settings. However, there is no validated method for sampling viral contamination in bulk animal feed or ingredients. The appropriate method for sample collection varies with the type and distribution of a substance. This is typically sufficient, because the purpose of the sample generally to analyse nutrient characteristics, which vary little throughout a single lot of ingredient. This is the case with aflatoxin, where conditions in a particular portion of a field may contribute to high concentrations of the contaminant in some grain kernels, with no contamination in others. However, it has never been validated for detection of viruses. Therefore, the objective of this experiment was to evaluate the sensitivity of ingredient sampling methods for detection of porcine epidemic diarrhoea virus (PEDV). Open in a separate window Figure 1 Bulk ingredient sampling locations. Example, bulk ingredient sampling locations for detection of contaminants that may not be evenly distributed. A new polyethylene tote bag capable of holding 1 metric ton (Uline, Pleasant Prairie, WI) was used to construct 13 individual tote bags capable of holding 1 kg. There were six replicates per PEDV dose plus a control. Each probe sample was divided, with approximately 0.

Individual ingredients can vary widely in nutrient composition because of the variation in variety, storage conditions, climate, soil moisture, agronomic differences and manufacturing practices.The following recommendations will help producers best allocate time and money for feed and ingredient analyses. The effort needed for analysis depends on how finished feed is obtained. Most feed manufacturers rigorously analyze ingredients and finished feed and state regulatory officials check complete feeds at random for label compliance. However, it is a good idea to take a sample of each load, label and freeze it until those animals are marketed just in case a problem arises. Also, it is prudent to run a proximate analysis on random loads of feed and ingredients throughout the year and share the results with suppliers to let them know you are monitoring quality. Many custom mixed feeds are not checked by regulatory officials and the custom mixer may not have an adequate feed quality assurance program. Producers have total responsibility for feed made on their farm. In general, by-products are more variable in nutrient content than grains. To ensure proper diet formulation, a nutrient analysis should be conducted on all by-products used in swine diets. The extent that by-products should be tested depends on where they are sourced. Buying from a reputable source with consistent product quality, strict quality assurance programs and their own nutrient specifications based on in-house testing results should warrant the least amount of testing. More details on procuring ingredients are found in the PIG Factsheet 07-06-08 (Purchasing High Quality Ingredients for Swine Diets). Those analyses are costly and less accurate than tests for other feed components.

Money is better spent monitoring major feed components like protein, lysine, calcium, and phosphorus; consider mycotoxin analyses when utilizing weather-stressed feedstuffs, storage problems are suspected or certain abnormalities are observed in animals. The final decision on which analyses to perform depends on the ingredient and how the results will be incorporated either in the purchasing or formulation process. If the results are intended for diet formulation, a more through analysis, for example for several essential amino acids rather than just lysine, is usually necessary. Table 1 lists suggested minimum analyses for feeds and ingredients. The amount of feed purchased or manufactured, supplier variability, and time available for sampling, sample preparation, and review of analytical procedures are important considerations in designing a schedule. Producers should develop a schedule and process that can be accomplished each week. Analytical results should be both timely and relevant in order to identify problems associated with feed quality. Consider analyzing feed and ingredients more often if quality problems are discovered. If feed is custom mixed, inquire about the manufacturer’s quality assurance program and adjust the schedule accordingly. Analyze diets less frequently if test results match expectations. Ingredient analysis schedules should be set up based on the amount of ingredient received rather than on a time basis. Major feed quality problems can occur easily when low inclusion products like premixes are used by people who are not experienced feed manufacturers. Contact laboratories before submitting feed samples to find out the types of analyses available, how much each analysis costs, what sample size the lab prefers, and how long it will be before results are available. If a base mix or premix is to be analyzed, alert the laboratory of the expected concentration of the nutrients being checked.

However, scale was reduced to be consistent in all manners. For example, the size of each individual probe and resultant composite sample was based on the collection of 0.05% of the total sample for analysis. This is the same percentage generated when FDA investigators sample large scale bulk feeds and ingredients (AAFCO, 2014 ). In conclusion, analysing a single sample of a bulk ingredient is not a reliable or sensitive method for detecting swine viruses. However, swine viruses can be accurately detected in bulk ingredients by collecting at least 10 evenly distributed samples representing 0.05% of the volume of the bulk ingredient and subsequently creating a single composite sample for analysis. Unfortunately, this requires substantial time and effort. Additional research is needed to identify alternative sampling methods that have a similar sensitivity, but with greater efficiency. A key component to this is to validate the sample preparation, extraction and detection of nucleic acids in feeds and ingredients. In the interim, it is crucial to expend the necessary effort to collect a representative product sample so accurate decisions can be determined about an ingredient's potential safety or risk. Notes Retrieved from. Aubry, P.Tataryn, J.Cochrane, R.Jones, C. K.Cochrane, R. A.Jones, C. K. Dee, S. A.Diel, D. G.PLoS ONE, 13 ( 3 ), e0194509. Dee, S.Dee, S.Nelson, E.BMC Veterinary Research, 12 ( 1 ), 51. Food and Drug Administration Center for Veterinary MedicineCompliance policy guide. Guidance for FDA Staff. Retrieved from. Gebhardt, J. T.Dritz, S. S. Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Reports, 2 ( 8 ), 5. Johansson, A. S.Young, J. H.Jones, F. T. Richardson, K. E.Niederwerder, M. C.Hefley, T. J.Emerging Infectious Diseases, 25 ( 5 ), 891. Pasick, J.Alexandersen, S. Schumacher, L. L.Dritz, S. S. United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Veterinary ServicesRetrieved from.

United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Veterinary Services. Includes both online and classroom course listings. FDA ORA On-line University (ORA U) It also contains guidelines for developing sampling plans. Real-time access to food sample and laboratory analysis data. It estimates the number of foodborne illnesses, monitors trends in incidence of specific foodborne illnesses over time, attributes illnesses to specific foods and settings, and disseminates this information. It also contains guidelines for developing sampling plans. Trends Anal Chem 57:93-106. Geneva, Switzerland. Sampling and sample processing in pesticide residue analysis. (2015) Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry. 13;63(18):4395-404. NELAC Requirements for Sampling - Field Sampling and Measurement Organization Sector Volume 1 and General Requirements for Field Sampling and Measurement Organizations, May 1. 2007 Lehotay SJ, Cook JM. Sampling and sample processing in pesticide residue analysis. 2015 May 13;63(18):4395-404. TOS Forum 5. TOS Forum 5. TOS Forum 5. Or simply put: connect, share, impact, and protect. Those components include ingredient procurement, diet formulation, feed manufacturing and delivery of the final diet. Careful attention must be given to the quality of the ingredients used to manufacture swine diets. The quality of the final diet also needs to be checked to ensure it is consistent with that of the original formula specifications or product description. Otherwise, optimal pig performance and economic outcomes may not be achieved. To ensure this consistency, a quality assurance program that involves product specification sheets, proper feed and ingredient sampling, analytical procedures and interpretation of laboratory results should be implemented.

One reason for the difference is that some laboratories perform analyses in duplicate; they analyze a portion of a sample twice and report the average. Producers can be more confident in test results when the tests are duplicated, so use a laboratory with that policy when accuracy is of utmost importance, such as settlement of claims. Sampling will be most accurate if the proper tools are used. Common tools used to sample dry materials include a bag trier (Figure 1), grain probe (Figure 2), and a Pelican sampler (Figure 3) or a clean, one-pound can. To sample from bags, use a 1 inch diameter double tube without compartments (a trier). The slot should be about. Use a Pelican sampler or can to sample materials from an unloading or transferring stream. Pelican samplers consist of a container about 18 inches long, 2 inches wide and 6 inches deep attached to a handle.In each case, collect the samples in a clean 5 gallon bucket or similar container in preparation for sample reduction. A grain probe works well to sample from feeders. Therefore when testing grain or feed for mycotoxins, collect a 3 (for a truck load) to 11-lb (for a barge load) sample for analysis.Even though testing a sample the producer collects identifies problems no one may have been aware of, it is not recognized as official under current soybean meal trading rules. Figure 3. A Pelican sampler. In many cases, the composite sample of a feed or ingredient will be larger than that needed for laboratory analysis and duplicate samples. Therefore, a systematic procedure for reducing the composite sample to a suitable size is important. Quartering is a classic manual method for dry sample reduction (Figure 4). Heavy plastic bags, plastic containers with lids, and wide mouth jars are excellent for storing samples for future nutrient analyses. Materials collected for mycotoxin analysis should be sent to the lab in either a paper or cloth sack.

There are errors associated with sampling and laboratory analyses that at best can only be minimized. Such errors can cause differences in nutrient levels between what the laboratory reports and expectations.For complete feeds the expected nutrient values represent the calculated nutrient content of the diet. Therefore, comparing analyzed values to the calculated nutrient content of the diet is an essential step in understanding laboratory results. The accuracy of the calculations will improve by using the analyzed nutrient content of the ingredients in the diet if those are available. It will be necessary to use “published values” for some nutrients to finish the calculations because actual test results may not be available.This means the low AV is 4% of 10 or 0.4. Therefore, a sample below 9.6% is not acceptable. Variations apply both above and below the guarantee and are equally correct. The expected amount of variation associated with laboratory analyses for various items is shown in Table 2. Using the calculated or expected nutrient content of a diet or other manufactured products, a normal range of values can be calculated. However, if the level of all or any one of the nutrients fall outside the normal range and proper sampling procedures were used, submit a portion of the retained sample to the same laboratory for a repeat analysis. If the results from the second analysis also fall outside the normal range, a feed quality problem may exist. It should also be noted that if the concentration of a nutrient is consistently below or above the expected value there is a problem within the feed manufacturing process. Problems could be the result of a poor formula, improper mixing and handling procedures, a forgotten ingredient, or nutrient variation in ingredients. Product specification sheets should be developed for both feed and ingredient purchases and included as part of the agreement.

Custom trading rules and law (for example, those for soybean from the National Oilseed Processors Association) afford producers remedies to problems associated with products that do not meet purchase specification. If product quality does not meet the agreed specification, contact the supplier. Details concerning these options are available in the NPPC Feed Purchasing Manual ( ). Errors in estimating the nutrient content of ingredients or mistakes during the feed manufacturing process can have profound effects on actual diet composition, pig performance and economic outcomes. Monitoring feed and ingredient quality using the guidelines outlined in this factsheet will help producers avoid potential problems with feed. Iowa State University of Science and Technology, Ames, Iowa. December 1985. AS-570-B. Feed Management. August 1995. Vol. 46, No.8. Variability Among Sources and Laboratories in Nutrient Analyses of Corn and Soybean Meal. J Anim Sci. 1999. 77:3262-3273. Official Publication Association of American Feed Control Official Incorporated. Second edition, May 1, 2000. Chapter 3, pages 1-27. University of Nebraska NebGuide. G1515. June 2003. Yes, because the nutrient content of ingredients will vary due to variation in species or variety, storage conditions, climate, soil moisture, agronomic differences and manufacturing practices. Therefore, “book” values of ingredient composition should be used as a guide in formulating diets. Yes, because the nutrient content of the final feed does not always match expectations. Errors in ingredient procurement to feed delivery are possible and can be detected only through the implementation of a quality control program. Yes, because poor sampling technique will result in inaccurate and misleading test results.

Common tools used to sample dry materials include a trier (for sampling bags), grain probe (for sampling bulk ingredients), and a Pelican sampler or a clean, one-pound can (for sampling materials from an unloading or transferring stream). Several commercial laboratories, and some feed suppliers, universities and state Departments of Agriculture analyze feed and ingredients. Contact laboratories before submitting feed samples to find out the types of analyses available, how much each analysis costs, what sample size the lab prefers, and how long it will be before results are available. Seal each sample in individual, clearly marked and dated containers. Heavy plastic bags, plastic containers with lids and wide mouth jars are excellent for storing samples for future nutrient analyses. Submit one sample to the laboratory and keep the other in the freezer or cool dry area until the analysis is complete. Materials collected for mycotoxin analysis should be sent to the lab in either a paper or cloth sack. Using plastic bags or metal cans may cause mold growth to occur in transit. If there is any doubt about the residue status of your animals, it better to test rather than guess at their residue status. There is less need to monitor feed for drugs or drug residues if guidelines for processing medicated feed, referred to as current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMPs) are followed. These guidelines are designed to prevent feed contamination of approved animal drugs and provide reasonable assurance that the medicated feed is manufactured accurately. Also, following the guidelines outlined in the National Pork Board’s PQA Plus program will ensure the incidence of carcass drug resides is minimized. Clive, IA 50235 Persons using such products assume responsibility for their use in accordance with current directions of the manufacturer. The information represented herein is believed to be accurate but is in no way guaranteed.

The authors, reviewers, and publishers assume no liability in connection with any use for the products discussed and make no warranty, expressed or implied, in that respect, nor can it be assumed that all safety measures are indicated herein or that additional measures may be required. The user therefore, must assume full responsibility, both as to persons and as to property, for the use of these materials including any which might be covered by patent. This material may be available in alternative formats. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.The protein content is 65% and the fat level is 12%. Regular chicken contains about 70% water with 18% protein and 5% fat.Its protein content is much higher than regular chicken because most of the water has been removed.The extruder cooks the mixture by adding steam and water. The result is the familiar kibble coming out of the extruder and it is subsequently dried. Fat is added after drying. (This is the same process for making many breakfast cereals.) The final pet product has a moisture level of around 10%.However, there are some characteristics of regular chicken meat that make it less flexible for use as an ingredient compared to chicken meal. The high moisture content of chicken limits the amount that can be formulated into a complete finished food. Chicken is generally stored frozen to minimize microbial growth. The frozen chicken is thawed and made into slurry before adding to the mix.Chicken meal in a finished food provides roughly 4 to 5 times the nutrients as the same weight of chicken meat because of the differences in moisture.By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.