15.

FEATHER MEAL (HYDROLYSED)

15.1

Rationale

Feathers are the very complex derivatives of the integuments to be found in any vertebrate. They can be divided into three categories: Contour feathers, inclusively the remiges of the wings and the rectrices of the tail; Down feathers; Filoplume. They can be further subdivided into the barbules and barbicels(3l). Feathers consist of several morphological different parts, the horny central shaft (quill), partly hollow, from which soft and narrow barbs extend. The composition depends on the type of feather (Figure 15-1). The remiges of the wings are composed of the(36): Quill 55.0% thereof: Rachis 19.0% Shaft 36.0% Barb 32.0% Down traces Quill marrow 13.0%
Quill

Barb down

Shaft

Figure 15-OJ. The parts of the poultry feather.

The chemical composition and the amino acid profile of the individual parts of the feather are different (Table 15-01). Feather meal is a by-product of poultry meat processing. Annually large quantities of feathers are available. World-wide more than 25,000 million broilers are slaughtered per year. A 2.0 kg live chicken produces 180 g of feathers(26) which gives a potential
J. W. Hertrampf et al., Handbook on Ingredients for Aquaculture Feeds Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

132

CHAPTER 15

of 4,500 million MT of fresh feathers. In the USA only more than one million MT of feather meal are produced a year<'26). Fresh feathers contain about 90% crude protein!3!). Due to the high level of keratin, which is a tough, fibrous, insoluble protein, and the strong disulphide bonding, the digestibility of fresh feathers is less than 5.0%. However, with proper processing, raw feathers can be converted into a valuable protein feedstuft1J1 26). This kind of recycling of feathers is environmental friendly.
Table 15-01: Chemical composition and the profile of essential amino acid of the individual parts of the feather (% or g/16 g N)(36) Rachis Nitrogen Ash Sulphur Arginine Histidine Isoleucine Leucine Lysine Methionine Phenylalanine Threonine Tryptophan Valine 16.62 0.87 2.47 6.45 0.36 4.04 10.52 0.91 0.12 4.96 4.78 1.48 8.86 Shaft 16.40 0.80 2.32 6.46 0.31 3.67 8.71 0.76 0.19 5.27 4.11 1.58 7.88 Barb 16.28 0.86 2.85 6.69 0.26 5.02 7.94 1.04 0.22 4.89 5.21 0.45 8.26 Feather marrow 16.36 0.77 2.40 6.78 0.27 4.11 9.44 0.95 0.27 5.45 3.36 1.53 9.01

-----------------------------------------------------------

15.2

Manufacture and Processing

Hydrolysing Process Hydrolysed feather meal is derived by pressure cooking the clean, undecomposed feathers from slaughtered poultry. This process actually is not a hydrolysis but a denaturation process whereby some compounds are split, while the properties of protein remain(36). The quality of the final product depends on the hydrolysing process. Processing methods are! II. 26): Low pressure 207 kPa) at 130C for 150 minutes; High pressure (> 207 kPa) at 145C for 30 minutes. Feather meal is produced in batch cookers and in high-volume continuous hydrolysers, respectively. Autoclaving of the feathers breaks down the keratin by destroying the linkage of the high level of cystine. As a result, the value of the product improves(ll. 2!). After cooking

FEATHER MEAL (HYDROLYSED)

133

the material is dried at 60C and ground. The physical appearance of feather meal varies according to the feathers used. Feathers of a light colour result in a light golden, brown meal while feathers of dark colour give a dark, brown-black meal(2l). Feather meal has a fresh odour. It can be stored without fear of rotting(ll). The quality of feather meal is affected by the degree of hydrolysation. Too high autoc1aving (pepsin digestibility = 90%) will produce overcooked meal with a lower protein quality. Also, undercooked meal (pepsin digestibility below 65%) results in a lower protein quality(2l). Steaming for a long time decreases the true availability of many amino acids(24).

Other Processes Feathers could be denaturated also into a feedstuff by treatment with sodium hydroxide (0.25% NaOH)(30). The process significantly increases dry matter and protein digestibility of feather meal in vitro. However, the difficulty in handling, disposal or neutralisation of NaOH may limit this type of treatment on a commercial scale. Another technology for making feather meal is bacterial fermentation, whereby the feathers are autoc1aved and inoculated with a bacterial culture of Bacillus licheniformis. Processing time is as much as five days and is uneconomical(35). Dry extrusion technology has been tried for converting feather meal into a feedstuff. The product from this process has similar feeding value as feather meal from the hydrolysing process(9), but the process is uneconomical(26).

15.3

Chemical, Physiological and other Properties

Chemical Properties The crude protein content of feather meal in the dry matter averages 86.9% with a variation of more than 20% (Table 15-02).
Table 15-02: Chemical composition of feather meal (in dry matterF 3. II. 13. 14. 18.20.23.36) Mean Dry matter Crude protein Crude fat Ash Crude fibre N-free extract
% % % % % %

Variation 90.0 - 92.5 71.7 - 92.7 1.8 1.9 0.4 0.5 5.0 4.6 2.0 0.9

93.3 86.9 3.6 3.1 0.8 0.6

The level of the essential amino acids histidine, lysine, methionine and tryptophan is deficient(36). In general, the amino acid content of feather meal is lower than of untreated feathers (Table 15-03). Pressure used in the processing may affect the amino acid content to a certain extent(l8). Cystine is particularly affected by pressure. It is partly

134

CHAPTER 15

destroyed and converted into the amino acid lanthionine and loses half the sulphur in the process(l8. 25. 36).
Table 15-03: Essential amino acid profile of hydrolysed feather meal and untreated feathers (g/16 g N)f II.
19.

23. 36) Untreated feathers

Hydrolysed feather meal Mean Arginine Histidine Isoleucine Leucine Lysine Methionine Phenylalanine Threonine Tryptophan Valine 6.11 0.80 4.29 6.96 2.28 0.65 4.01 0.58 3.75 5.73 Variation 4.99 - 7.58 0.99 - 1.06 3.92 - 4.63 6.37 1.72

5.61 0.42 4.28 8.65 1.03 0.30 5.22 4.68 1.25 8.37

7.73 2.98

0.59 - 0.72 3.28 - 4.57 0.51 - 0.67 3.16 - 4.27 4.27 - 7.62

The fat content varies significantly from 1.8 to 4.6% with a mean value of 3.6% (Table 15-02). A high level of fat indicates feather contamination with skin tissue. High quality feather meal should have a fat content not exceeding 5.0%(2l). The crude fibre content of feather meal is most probably an insoluble nitrogencontaining substance which is already included in the protein content(36). The ash content depends on the cleanliness of the feathers. The mineral and vitamin contents of feather meal are compiled in Table 15-04.
Table 15-04: Mineral and vitamin contents of hydrolysed feather meal Minerals(3. II. 2IJ. 22. 36) Calcium Phosphorus Sodium Potassium Magnesium Chlorine Sulphur Manganese Iron Zinc Copper Selenium % % % % % % % mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg 0.45 0.55 0.54 0.25 0.15 0.22 1.60 27.9 116.0 101.4 15.6 0.9 Vitamins (per 1,000 g)fll. 22.23. 36) Vitamin BI Vitamin B2 Vitamin B6 Vitamin BI2 Biotin Folic acid Nicotinic acid Pantothenic acid Choline mg mg mg mcg mcg mcg mg mg mg 0.1 2.2 3.,2 84.9 80.0 170.0 21.4 9.3 493.0

FEATHER MEAL (HYDROLYSED)

135

Physiological Properties Few data are available on the energy content of hydrolysed feather meal (Table 15-05). Feather meal has a high crude protein content but its digestibility, ranging between 52% and 74%, is unsatisfactory (Table 15-06). With increasing processing pressure, the pepsin digestibility increases (Figure 15-02). Recent studies have demonstrated that when the concentration of pepsin is 0.002% rather than the normal 0.2%, the pepsin digestibility value is more closely related to in vivo performances(2}). The amino acid digestibility of feather meal manufactured by using different processing pressures declines as the pressure increases(l8). The lipid digestibility of feather meal is better than that of protein but this is of less importance because it has low fat content (Table 15-06).
Table 15-05: Energy values of hydrolysed feather meal (in dry matter) Type of energy Digestible Digestible Digestible Metabolisable Metabolisable Metabolisable Metabolisable , species not specified Species Rainbow trout Fish' Poultry Carp Fish' Poultry Pigs kcallkg 3,753 3,689 2,730 2,904 3,096 3,220 2,360 MJlkg 15.7 15.5 Reference
(6)

(ZO.Z3)
(II)

11.4
12.2

(33)
(21)

13.0 13.5
9.9

(II)
(36)

Table 15-06: Digestibility of hydrolysed feather meal ('Yo) Species Dry matter Salmonids Rainbow trout Channel catfish 75.0 Digestibility Reference Crude protein 62.3 55.2 65.8 Fat 68.0 68.0 83.0 Gross energy 73.7 70.0 66.6
(16)

(5.6.29)
(10.16)

Other Properties Feather meal most probably contains unidentified growth factors (UGF) as observed in broilers and hatchability rate of chicks(36) (see chapter 44). Feather meal may be contaminated with salmonella, if improperly processed.

136

CHAPTER IS

,
90
80

70

65.8\
60

80.n 76.n

79.0\

:: SO
.~

~ ...

.~ .., i" 30

~ 40

20

16.0\

10

f207 kPa 310 kPa

414 kPa
Untreated

283 kPa

Continous processing

Batch treatment

Figure /5-02. The effect of increasing processing pressure on the pepsin digestibility of continuously and batch processed hydrolysed feather meal(dara/""", /8).

15.4

Feeding Value

Feather meal is used to partly replace the costly fish meal in aquaculture diets_ However, only few trials have been carried out where the effect of feather meal on the animal's performances could be objectively determined_ In most feeding trials, mixtures of animal protein, containing feather meal, blood meal, meat and bone meal and poultry by-product meal, replaced fish meal in the diets for aquatic animals. These mixtures of various animal proteins are also called "fish meal analog". Hence the effectiveness of pure feather meal could not be established_

Fishes A combination of feather meal and poultry by-product meal (low and high fat content) replaced partially herring meal in the diet for coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Replacing 35 % to 75% of herring meal protein by protein from a mixture of feather meal

FEATHER MEAL (HYDROLYSED)

137

and poultry by-product meal did not show any substantial difference in the performance to the herring meal control group. Supplemental methionine may be required at high level replacement of herring meal protein(J7). In diets for the rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) combinations of feather meal and poultry by-product meal (Table 15-07)115) or feather meal and blood meal (1:1)(27) or feather meal, poultry by-product meal and blood meal (113: 113: 113)(28) could fully meet the protein requirement of the fish provided the substitutes only may replace half of the available protein in the diet. In addition the diet has to be supplemented with amino acids(l5. 27. 28. 32).
Table 15-07: Replacement of fish meal by feather meal and pOUltry by-product meal in diets for rainbow trout
(Sa/rno gairtineri) (trial period: 88 days)(1jJ

Fish meal Feather meal Poultry meal Amino acid supplement Crude protein Fat Weight gain Feed conversion
1

% % % % % g

70.0

52.5 7.5 10.0

35.0 15.0 20.0 50.2 11.5 127 1.41 30.0 40.0 48.1 12.3 117 1.52 30.0 40.0

+1
46.1 12.2 47.2 13.3 142 1.24 48.9 12.8 126

133 1.33

1:

1.37

1.7% lysine, 0.48% methionine, 0.144% tryptophan

A "fish meal analog" made from equal parts of feather meal, poultry by-product meal, blood meal and meat and bone meal has been used to replace 25%, 50%, 75% or 100% of the fish meal in the diet for rainbow trout fingerlings. Up to 75% of the fish meal could be replaced by fish meal analog without any negative effect on performances. However, full replacement of fish meal resulted in a significant decrease in weight gain of the fish(7). Total replacement of fish meal by feather meal in diets for tilapia (Tilapia mossambicus) resulted in a reduction in performance (Table 15-08). In this trial with juvenile tilapia, feather meal proved unfeasible, alone or in combination with blood meal (50:50), and as either a partial or total substitute for fish meal(8). Channel catfish (Ictalarus punctatus) fingerlings were fed isonitrogenous diets containing either maize gluten meal (60% crude protein) alone or in combination with feather meal. While weight gain was not significantly reduced in fish fed feather meal, feed conversion was higher for the feather meal diet. Total sulphur amino acid (TSAA) content was the same for both diets but the TSAA availability tended to be lower for feather meal compared to maize gluten meal (Table 15-09)(1).

138

CHAPTER IS

Table 15-08: Feather meal and feather meallblood meal as a substitute for fish meal in diets for tilapia (Tilapia mossambicus) (trial period: 49 days )(8) Fish meal (Chile) Feather meal Blood meal Meat and bone meal Crude protein Fat
% % % % % %

47.2

10.8 8.8 10.0 20.6 10.0 39.2 13.0 8.3 8.3 10.0 37.1 13.1

38.8 13.5

37.3 13.0

-------------------------------------------------------Initial weight g 0.80 0.80 0.82 0.81 Specific growth rate Daily weight gain Feed conversion PER
%

3.71 84.0 2.16 1.20

3.46 72.4 2.32 1.16

2.83 50.1 2.93 0.87

2.90 52.0 2.91 0.93

mg 1:

Table 15-09: Feather meal replaces maize gluten meal in diets for catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) (trial period: 42 days)(/) Maize gluten (60%) Feather meal TSAAI Weight gain Feed conversion TSANlweight gain
1 Total

%
%

20.0 1.02 42.6 2.09 0.021

10.0 10.0 1.02 40.7 2.26 0.023

g/16g N

I:

sulphur amino acids

Crustaceans In a semi-purified diet for juvenile Penaeus vannamei (white shrimp) 2.5%, 5.0% and 10.0% of the diet's protein were replaced by feather meal. There was no difference in the survival rate between the control group and the protein replacement by feather meal. Shrimp growth for the fish meal control diet was better than for the partial fish meal replacement by feather meal. Feather meal at levels of 5.0 to 10.0% of the protein are suitable for shrimp diets as long as the shrimps' requirement for essential amino acids and minerals are met(19).

FEATHER MEAL (HYDROLYSED)

139

Molluscs Feather meal may be an alternative protein source for abalone of the genus Haiiotis(l2). However, it does not contain phagostimulatory components such as free glutamic acid and aspartic acidW Feather meal as a protein source may also negatively affect water quality and may cause bloat in the abalone (12).

15.5

Recommended Inclusion Rates

Feather meal has a high crude protein content but the digestibility of the nutrients is rather low (Table 15-06). It can partly replace fish meal in aquaculture diets but may not perform as well as diets with fish meal as the only protein source. The use of feather meal may require an extra fortification of the diet with amino acids. In commercial aquaculture diets, feather meal may be used at levels of 5.0 to 10.0%.

15.6

Legal Aspects

Feather meal is defined by the "American Feed Control Officials" (AFCO) as: "The product resulting from treatment under pressure of clean, undecomposed feathers from slaughtered poultry, free of additives and/or accelerators. Not less than 75% of the crude protein must be digestible as determined by the Association of Official Analytical Chemists' pepsin digestibility method 7.048"(26). ED-Directive 92/87 EEC of 26 October, 1992, has listed feather meal as No. 9.06 and is described as a "Product produced from hydrolysed, dried and ground poultry feathers". The same definition is given by the German feedstuff law (Table 15_10)134).

Table 15-10: Nutritional standards of feather meal required by German feedstuff law(34) and NRA(21) German feed stuff law Moisture Crude protein Pepsin digestibility Fat Crude fibre Ash Phosphorus max. 3.4 max. 11.0 min. 80.0 min. 70.0 NRA-Standard max. min. min.
max.

10.0 80.0 75.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 75.0

max.

max. min.

140

CHAPTER IS

15.7
I. 2. 3.

References

Andrews. J. W. (1991): A comparison of several by-products and plant proteins as sources of essential
amino acids for catfish. Director's Digest. No. 12 (Fats and Proteins Res. Found. Bloomington. IlI.IUSA.

Anonymous (1987): Byproduct meals may have place in turkey diets. Feedstuffs. 59. (51). 13-14. Bath, D. Dunbar, J. King. J. Berry. S. Leonhard. R.O. Olbrich. S. (w/o year): Composition of by-products
and unusual feedstuffs (Mimeograph).

4.
S.
6.
7.

Care/oot. T.H. (1982): Gastropod nutrition. Proc. 2nd Conf. on Aquaculture Nutrition: Biochem. and
Physiol. Approaches to Shellfish Nutrition. Rohoboth Beach. DelawarelU.S.A. October. 321-337.

Cho. e.Y.; Slinger, S.J. (1979): Apparent digestibility measurement in feedstuffs for rainbow trout. Proc.
World Symp. on Finfish Nutr. and Fishfeed Techn . Hamburg/Germany. Vol. II. 20-23 June. 1978.

Cho. e.Y.. Cowey. e.B.. Watanabe. T. (1985): Finfish nutrition in Asia: Methodological approaches to
research and development. IFRC. No. 233e. Ottawa/Canada.

Dabrowski. K. et af. (1995): Quoted from: Rowland. R.D. (1995). Davies. S.J.; Williamson. J.; Robinson. M.; Bateson. R.I. (1989): Practical inclusion levels of common
animal by-products in complete diets for tilapia (Oreochromis mossambicus. Peters). Proc. 3nl Int. Symp. on Feeding and Nutrition in Fish. Toba/Japan. 28.8-1.9. 325-332.

8.

9.
10.

Davis. J. (1989): Feed from poultry waste - a new process. Poultry International. 28. (3). 40-44. Dupree. H.K.; Huner, J. V. (1984): Third report to the fish farmers. Publ. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, D.C.

II. Evans. M. (1985): Nutrient composition of feedstuffs for pigs and poultry. Queensland Dept. Primary
Ind. Brisbane/Australia (Series Q 185001).
12.

Fallu. R. (1991): Abalone Farming. Fishing News Books, OxfordlEngland. Feltwell. R.; Fox. S. (1978): Practical pOUltry feeding. Faber and Faber, London and Boston. Friesecke. H. (1984): Handbuch der praktischen Ftitterung von Rind. Schaf, Pferd, Schwein, Gefltigel
und StiBwasserfischen. BLV Veriagsges., MtinchenlGermany.

13.
14. 15. 16.

Gropp. J.; Koops. H.; TIews. K.; Beck. H. (1976): Ersatz von Fischmehl irn Forellenfutter. Arb. Deutscher
Fischerei-Verb., No. 19, 85-102.

Hepher, B. (1988): Nutrition of pond fishes. Cambridge University Press, CambridgelU.K.

17. Higgs. D.A.; Markert. J.R.; Macquarrie. D. w.; McBride. J.R.; Dojanjh.

e.;

Hoskins. G. (1979):

Development of practical diets for coho salmon. Oncorhynchus kisutch. using pOUltry by-product meal. feather meal. soybean meal and rape seed meal as major protein sources. Proc. World Symp. on Finfish Nutr. and Fishfeed Techn . Hamburg/Germany. Vol. II. 20-23 June. 1978. 191-216.
18.
19.

Latchaw et al. (1994): Quoted from: Rowland. R.D. (1995). Lawrence. A.K; Castille. F. (1991): Nutritive response of a western hemisphere shrimp Penaeus vannamei. to meat and bone. feather and pOUltry by-product meal. Director's Digest. No. 215 (Fats and
Protein Res. Found. Bloomington. IllIUSA.

20. New, M.B. (1987): Feed and feeding of fish and shrimps - A manual on the preparation and presentation
of compound feeds for shrimps and fish in aquaculture. UNDPIFAO/ADCPIREP/87126. Rome/Italy. 21. NRA (1993): Pocket information manual- a buyers guide to rendered products. National Renderers Ass . Inc . Alexandria. Vir.IUSA.

22. NRC (1981); Nutrient requirements of coldwater fishes. National Academy Press. Washington. D.C. 23. NRC (1983): Nutrient requirements of warmwater fishes and shellfishes. National Academy Press.
Washington. D.C.

24. Papadopoulos. M.e. et al. (1985): Quoted from: Rowland. R.D. (1995).

FEATHER MEAL (HYDROLYSED)

141

25. Robbins. K.R .. Bauer, D.H. (1980): Studies on the utilization oflysine-alanine and lanthionine. J. Nutrition. 110. 907-915. 26. Rowland. R.D. (1995): Nutrition value of hydrolysed feathers for use in non-ruminant. ruminant and
aquaculture feeds. National Renderers Ass . Inc . Alexandria. Virg.IUSA (Mimeograph).

27. Schulz. D.; Hartfiel. W; Greuel. E. (1982): Verwendung von Nebenprodukten tierischer Herkunft in der
Emahrung von Regenbogenforellen (Salmo gairdneri).1. Einsatz von Blut- und Federmehl in einer gereinigten Diiil. Z. Tierphysiol., Tieremiihrung, Futtermittelkd., 47., 79-85.

28. Schulz, D.; Hartfiel, W; Greuel. E. (1982): Verwendung von Nebenprodukten tierischer Herkunft in der
Emahrung von Regenbogenforellen (Salmo gairdneri). II. Einsatz von Blut-, Feder- und GeflUgelschlachtabfallmehl sowie Gelatine in einer gereinigten Dial. Z. Tierphysiol., Tieremahrung, Futtermittelkd., 48., 267-275.

29. Shanks (164): Quoted from: NRC (1981): 30. Steiner, R.J.; Kellers, R.D.; Church, D.e. (1983): Feather and hair meals for ruminants. IV. Effects of
chemical treatments of feathers and processing times on digestibility. J. Anim. Sci., 57., 495.

31. Stevens, L. (1991): Genetics and evolution of the domestic fowl. Cambridge University Press, CambridgelUK. 32. TIews, K.; Koops. H.; Beck, H.; Schwalb-Buhling, A.; Gropp, J. (1981): Entwicklung von Ersatzfutterfur
die Regenbogenforelle. Bundesforschungsanstalt fUr Fischerei, Veroffentl. des Inst. fUr KUsten- und Binnenfischerei, Hamburg/Germany, Publ. No. 75.

33. Viola, S. (1977): Energy values of feedstuffs for carp. Bamidgeh, 29., 29-30. 34. Weinreich, 0.; Koch. v,; Knippel, J. (1994): Futtermittelrechtliche Vorschriften. Buchedition Agrimedia,
Hamburg/Germany. 35. Williams, e.M.; Lee, e.G.; Garlich, J.D.; Shih, J.e.H. (1991): Evaluation of a bacterial feather fermentation product, feather-lysate, as a feed protein. Poultry Sci., 70., 85-94.

36. Wohlbier, W (1977): Keratinhaltige Futtermittel. In: Kling. M.; Wohlbier, W: Handelsfuttermittel. Verlag Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart/Germany.