The DM (method GB/T6435-2006) and gross energy (GE) were analyzed for all samples. The GE was measured using an adiabatic bomb calorimeter (model 6,400; Parr Instrument, Moline, IL, USA) according to the method of ISO 9831:1998. Urine energy was measured as follows: 5 mL of urine was transferred to a crucible with filter paper and dried for 14 h in a 65 °C drying oven. The GE was then measured using an automatic adiabatic bomb calorimeter. The CP (method GB/T6432-1994), ether extract (method 996.01; AOAC, 2007 ), ash (method 942.15; AOAC, 2007 ) and ADF (method 973.18; AOAC, 2007 ) were analyzed for unconventional plant protein meals. The definition of activities of pepsin, amylase, chymotrypsin, trypsin, cellulase were in accordance with the description of Wirnt and Wolf-Peter (1974) , Dahlqvist (1962) (link), Wirnt (1974a) , Wirnt (1974b) and NY/T912-2004.
Model 6400
Manufactured by Parr
Sourced in United States
The Model 6400 is a laboratory equipment designed for general purpose data acquisition and control. It features high-speed analog-to-digital conversion, multiple input channels, and digital input/output capabilities. The core function of the Model 6400 is to measure and record various types of signals and conditions within a controlled environment.
Automatically generated - may contain errors
Lab products found in correlation
Optima 5300 dv, by PerkinElmer (2 mentions)
Rapid n cube, by Elementar (2 mentions)
Ankom 2000 fiber analyzer, by ANKOM Technology (1 mentions)
Filter bag, by ANKOM Technology (1 mentions)
Fiber analyzer, by ANKOM Technology (1 mentions)
Fp 528, by Leco (1 mentions)
Hp 6890 series, by Agilent Technologies (1 mentions)
Fp628 analyzer, by Leco (1 mentions)
Hmf 3160s, by Hanil (1 mentions)
Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometer, by Agilent Technologies (1 mentions)
N analyser, by Leco (1 mentions)
Food scan lab 78810, by Foss (1 mentions)
Fp 2000 nitrogen analyzer, by Leco (1 mentions)
Total starch assay procedure, by Megazyme (1 mentions)
20 protocols using model 6400
1
Comprehensive Nutrient Analysis of Plant Proteins
2
Evaluating Energy Content of Soybean Hulls
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
At the conclusion of the experiment, urine and fecal samples were thawed and mixed within animal and diet, and a subsample of each urine sample was lyophilized before analysis (Kim et al., 2009 ). Fecal samples were dried at 50 °C in a forced-air drying oven, and dried samples were ground through a 1-mm screen using a Wiley mill (Model 4; Thomas Scientific, Swedesboro, NJ). Ingredients, diets, ground fecal samples, and lyophilized urine samples were analyzed for GE using bomb calorimetry (Model 6400; Parr Instruments, Moline, IL). Diets were analyzed for DM and ash as explained for Exp. 1. Diets were also analyzed for ADF and NDF using Ankom Technology method 12 and 13, respectively (Ankom 2000 Fiber Analyzer, Ankom Technology).
Following analysis, the ATTD of GE was calculated for each diet and the DE and ME in each diet was calculated as well (Adeola, 2001 ). The ATTD of GE and concentrations of DE and ME in soybean hulls was calculated by difference (Adeola, 2001 ). Net energy (NE) in nonextruded and extruded soybean hulls was predicted from ME and analyzed nutrient composition (Noblet et al., 1994 (link)). Data were analyzed as explained for Exp. 1.
Following analysis, the ATTD of GE was calculated for each diet and the DE and ME in each diet was calculated as well (Adeola, 2001 ). The ATTD of GE and concentrations of DE and ME in soybean hulls was calculated by difference (Adeola, 2001 ). Net energy (NE) in nonextruded and extruded soybean hulls was predicted from ME and analyzed nutrient composition (Noblet et al., 1994 (link)). Data were analyzed as explained for Exp. 1.
3
Analytical Methods for Excreta Analysis
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
The excreta were collected daily and immediately stored at −20°C. The excreta samples were dried in a force-air drying oven at 60°C for 48 h and finely ground for further analysis. The experimental diets and excreta samples were analyzed for acid-hydrolyzed ether extraction (AEE ; Method 996.01; AOAC, 2007 ), and N (Method 990.03; AOAC, 2007 ). The samples for diets and excreta were analyzed for gross energy (GE ) using bomb calorimetry (Model 6400; Parr Instruments Co., Moline, IL). Calcium (Ca ) and P concentrations in the diets and excreta were analyzed using inductively coupled plasma spectrometer (Optima 5300 DV, Perkin Elmer Inc., Shelton, CT) as demonstrated by AOAC (2007 ; Method 935.13) with minor modifications (Kim et al., 2016 (link)).
4
Proximate Composition Analysis of Diets
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
All experimental diets were ground to pass through a 0.43-mm screen before analyses. Dry matter (method 934.01) and crude protein (nitrogen × 6.25, method 990.03) contents of diets were determined according to the AOAC (2012) . Gross energy contents in the diet samples were analyzed using an adiabatic oxygen bomb calorimeter (model 6400, Parr Instruments, Moline, IL, United States).
5
Dietary Energy Levels for Pekin Ducks
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
A total of 500, 21-day-old Pekin Ducks (initial BW [body weight] = 1,089 ±
5.21 g) were evenly assigned to five dietary treatments (2,950, 3,000, 3,050,
3,100, or 3,100 kcal AME/kg). There were four replicates of each treatment, each
consisting of 25 ducks in a pen. All birds were fed a common starter diet from 0
to 20 d of age and an experimental diet during the experimental period from 21
to 42 d. A commercial type basal diet was formulated to meet or exceed the
nutrient recommendations of the National Research Council [15 ] for ducks (Table
1 ). Till the end of this experiment, the average ambient temperature
and relative humidity inside the house were recorded 8 ± 2.1°C and
62.35 ± 2.7%. A 24-h light schedule was used throughout the entire
experiment. Diet samples were analyzed for dry matter (DM, Method 930.15), ash
(Method 942.05), ether extract (EE, Method 2003.03), and crude protein (CP,
Method 990.03) [16 ]. Diet samples were
also analyzed for apparent metabolizable energy (AME) using bomb calorimetry
(Model 6400, Parr Instruments Co., Moline, IL, USA) with benzoic acid as the
standard for calibration.
5.21 g) were evenly assigned to five dietary treatments (2,950, 3,000, 3,050,
3,100, or 3,100 kcal AME/kg). There were four replicates of each treatment, each
consisting of 25 ducks in a pen. All birds were fed a common starter diet from 0
to 20 d of age and an experimental diet during the experimental period from 21
to 42 d. A commercial type basal diet was formulated to meet or exceed the
nutrient recommendations of the National Research Council [15 ] for ducks (
1
and relative humidity inside the house were recorded 8 ± 2.1°C and
62.35 ± 2.7%. A 24-h light schedule was used throughout the entire
experiment. Diet samples were analyzed for dry matter (DM, Method 930.15), ash
(Method 942.05), ether extract (EE, Method 2003.03), and crude protein (CP,
Method 990.03) [16 ]. Diet samples were
also analyzed for apparent metabolizable energy (AME) using bomb calorimetry
(Model 6400, Parr Instruments Co., Moline, IL, USA) with benzoic acid as the
standard for calibration.
6
Comprehensive Chemical Analysis of Animal Diets and Excreta
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
Following the sample collections, urine samples were thawed and mixed within animal and diet, and a subsample was lyophilized before gross energy (GE) analysis. Fecal samples were dried at 50°C in a forced-air oven and finely ground before chemical analysis. All samples were analyzed in triplicate. Diets and fecal samples were analyzed for dry matter (DM, Method 930.15) (AOAC, 2007 ), ash (Method 942.05) (AOAC, 2007 ), ether extract (EE, Method 2003.06) (AOAC, 2007 ), acid hydrolysis ether extraction (AEE, Method 996.01) (AOAC, 2007 ), acid detergent fiber (ADF, Method 973.18) (AOAC, 2007 ), and crude protein (CP, Method 990.03) (AOAC, 2007 ). The concentrations of starch in the diet were measured using both the Ewers polarimetric method (EEC, 1999 ) and the enzymatic method (ISO, 2004 ). The concentrations of total free sugars were measured by the Luff-Schoorl method (BIPEA, 1976 ). The samples for diets, feces, and urine were also analyzed for GE using bomb calorimetry (Model 6400, Parr Instruments Co., Moline, IL, USA) and benzoic acid was used as the standard for calibration.
7
Comprehensive Nutritional Analysis of Animal Diets
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
Diets and fecal samples were analyzed for dry matter (DM) (AOAC, 2006 ; method 930.15) and CP (AOAC, 2006 ; method 984.13). Ether extract and ash in the diets were analyzed according to method 920.39 and 942.05 (AOAC, 2006 ), respectively. Determinations of neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and acid detergent fiber (ADF) were performed using a filter bag and fiber analyzer (Ankom, NY, USA; Van Soest et al., 1991 (link)). An automatic oxygen bomb calorimeter (Model 6400, Parr, USA) was used to measure the gross energy (GE) of feed and feces. Samples of each diet were analyzed for the specific array and concentration of amino acids according to the method described previously (Yao et al., 2008 (link)).
8
Comprehensive Feed Analysis Protocol
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
Particle size distribution and mean particle size of the diets, expressed as geometric mean diameter (GMD ) ± geometric standard deviation (GSD ), were determined in 100 g samples using a shaker (Retsch, Stuttgart, Germany) provided with eight sieves ranging in mesh from 5,000 to 40 μm as outlined by ASAE (2003) . Representative samples of the diets were ground in a laboratory mill (Retsch Model Z-I, Stuttgart, Germany) equipped with a 0.75-mm screen and analyzed for moisture by oven-drying (method 930.15), total ash using a muffle furnace (method 942.05), and nitrogen by combustion (method 968.06) using a Leco analyzer (model FP-528, Leco Corp., St. Joseph, MI) as indicated by AOAC International (2005) . The gross energy of the diets was determined in an adiabatic bomb calorimeter (model 6400, Parr Instrument Company, Moline, IL) and the AA composition was analyzed by ion-exchange chromatography (Hewlett-Packard 1100, Waldbronn, Germany) as described by De Coca-Sinova et al. (2008) (link). For the determination of methionine and cysteine, separate feed samples were oxidized with performic acid before hydrolysis and measured as Met sulfone and cysteic acid, respectively. Tryptophan was determined after alkaline hydrolysis for 20 h at 110 ºC. All the analyses were conducted in duplicate except for the GMD ± GSD that was determined in triplicate.
9
Nutrient Composition Analysis of Housefly Bioconversion
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
The HBP samples, experimental diets, and excreta samples were measured for DM (method 930.15; AOAC, 2005 ), CP (method 990.03; AOAC, 2005 ), and GE using bomb calorimetry (Model 6400, Parr instruments Co., Moline, IL). Benzoic acid was used as the standard for calibration of GE analysis. Additionally, the HBP samples were analyzed for crude ash (method 942.05; AOAC, 2005 ) and acid-hydrolyzed ether extract (AEE , method 996.01; AOAC, 2005 ). The HBP samples were weighed and digested to measure Ca and phosphorus (P ) concentrations using an inductively coupled plasma spectrometer (Optima 5300 DV, Perkin Elmer Inc., Shelton, CT) as demonstrated by Kim et al. (2016) (link). The concentrations of AA in experimental diets, ileal digesta, and HBP samples were determined using a high performance liquid chromatography (Ultimate 3000, Thermo Dionex, Sunnyvale, CA) according to the method as described by AOAC (2005 ; method 982.30).
10
Nutrient Composition and Energy Analysis
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
The feeds, ingredients of diets and oven-dried feces were ground to pass through a 0.5-mm screen and analyzed in duplicate for dry matter (DM, method 934.01), crude protein (CP, method 990.03), extract ether (EE, method 954.02), ash (method 942.05), neutral (NDF) and acid detergent fiber (ADF; method 973.18), IDF (method 991.43) and total dietary fiber (TDF, method 991.43) according to AOAC (2012) . The content of SDF (%) was calculated as the difference between TDF (%) and IDF (%). The gross energy (GE) concentration in feeds, ingredients of diets, feces and urine samples was analyzed using an automatic adiabatic bomb calorimeter (model 6400, Parr Instruments, Moline, IL, USA). Fecal SCFA concentration was analyzed according to a previous study (Wu et al., 2016 (link)) with a gas chromatography (GC) system (Agilent HP 6890 Series, Santa Clara, CA, USA).
About PubCompare
Our mission is to provide scientists with the largest repository of trustworthy protocols and intelligent analytical tools, thereby offering them extensive information to design robust protocols aimed at minimizing the risk of failures.
We believe that the most crucial aspect is to grant scientists access to a wide range of reliable sources and new useful tools that surpass human capabilities.
However, we trust in allowing scientists to determine how to construct their own protocols based on this information, as they are the experts in their field.
Ready to get started?
Sign up for free.
Registration takes 20 seconds.
Available from any computer
No download required
Revolutionizing how scientists
search and build protocols!