v - MSpace at the University of Manitoba

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$il\VOLVEMENT OF RETII\OIC ACID II{ - MSpace at the University of ...$

ADF AOAC ANOVA AMEn CF CP DF DM NDF NRC NSP SAS TDF TMEn LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Acid detergent fiber. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Analysis of Variance. Nitrogen comcted apparent metabotizable energy. Cnide fiber. Cnide protein. Dietary fiber. Dry matter. Neutra1 detergent fiber. National Research Council. Non-starch polysaccharides. Statistical analysis system. Total dietary fiber. Nitrogen corrected true metabolitable energy. b
1. LITERATURE REVIEW 1.1. Part A: Yellow-seeded CanolaIRa peseed 1.1.1. Introduction Canola meal is comonly accepted and usbd as a valuable ingredient in swine and poultry rations. It is a result of plant selection programs in which emcic acid content of canola oü and glucosinolate content of the meal have been largely reduced as compared to its parent rapeseed. The term "canola" describes the rapeseed of Brumica nqms and Brwica rap (formerly campesais) species yielding oil of less than 2 % of enicic acid and meal of less than 30 pmoledg of glucosinolates. As a protein supplement, canola meal is still less cornpetitive in the market place than soybean meal. When cornpared to conventional soybean meal, canola meal contains less metabolilable energy (2,640 kcal/kg vs 3,180 kcaVkg for swine and 2,000 kcaVkg vs 2,491 kcal /kg for poultry) (NRC, 1998 and Leeson and Surnmers, 1991), less cnide protein (38.3 vs 44.0%) but more fiber (21.5 vs 7.1% neutral detergent fiber; 17.5 vs 5.0% acid detergent fiber). However, it is a richer source of most of the B- vitamins and essential minerais (Bell, 1993). The fiber of canola meal conXsts of two fractions: the hull and the endosperm ceIl walls. In addition to being poorly digested by monogastric animals, fiber components affect the quality of canola meal by lowering nutrient density and diluting available energy , protein and arnino acid contents. A negative relationship (r = - 0.7 1) between dietq fiber and crude protein contents of canola meal bas been well documented (Simbaya et al., 1995, Slominski, 1997). Total dietary fiber has also bcm found to be negatively conelated with AMJ&, and ileal protein digestibility for poultry (Newkirk et al.. 1997). In addition, dietary fiber may hinder nutrient digestion through an encapsuiating effict of the cell walls which, in tuni, would prevent the animal's own digestive enzymes from accessing the nutrients contained within the cells. Fiber would also induce passage rate, more or les resulting in reduction in nutrient digestion (Imbeah and Sauer,
Page 1 and 2: CHEMICAL COMPOSlTlON AND NUTRlTLVE
Page 3 and 4: THE UNIVERSI'IY OF MANITOBA FACULTY
Page 5 and 6: ABSTRACT Part A: Chernical Composit
Page 7 and 8: 2882 kcavkg, respectively) and show
Page 9 and 10: ............................... 1 2
Page 11 and 12: TABLE 1. TABLE 2. TABLE 3. TABLE 4.
Page 13: of Siqis dbu mucilage isolate (mg/g
Page 17 and 18: esearch on yellow-seeded canola has
Page 19 and 20: 1.1.3. Quality Characteristies of Y
Page 21 and 22: Table 3. Composition of dietary fib
Page 23 and 24: detergent fiber, acid detergent fib
Page 25 and 26: 113.2 Carbohydrates The carbohydrat
Page 27 and 28: quality, the results of in vitro pr
Page 29 and 30: oiier chickens was obsened although
Page 31 and 32: Table 7. Chernical Composition of C
Page 33 and 34: apesedcanola, age of animals, proce
Page 35 and 36: 2. Manuscnpt One Chernical Composit
Page 37 and 38: evaluation has shown yellow-seeded
Page 39 and 40: y gas-liquid chromatography accordi
Page 41 and 42: Table 8. Composition and calculatec
Page 43 and 44: studies (Simbaya et al., 1995), alt
Page 45 and 46: polyphenols, cell wall protein and
Page 47 and 48: Table 12. Amino acid composition of
Page 49 and 50: Table 13. Phosphorus content of mea
Page 51 and 52: yellow-seeded samples. In general,
Page 53 and 54: 2-4, CONCLUSIONS 1. Detailed chemic
Page 55 and 56: 3.1. INTRODUCTION The Sincgis aibu
Page 57 and 58: were f?om Quest Internat ional Irel
Page 59 and 60: added and the mixture wu boiled for
Page 61 and 62: Table 16. Composition and Caiculate
Page 63 and 64: ground in a coffa grinder and poole
Page 65 and 66:
pre-treatment of the sample with &S
Page 67 and 68:
Table 19. Effect of H,SO, concentra
Page 69 and 70:
Table 20. Screening for Mucilage De
Page 71 and 72:
Table 22. The effect of enzyme conc
Page 73 and 74:
Table 23. The effect of micronizati
Page 75 and 76:
content. It is a weU known fact tha
Page 77 and 78:
Table 25. Effect of grinding on TME
Page 79 and 80:
4. REFERENCES Andrews RR. and N.A.
Page 81 and 82:
1585.75 Englyst H. and J.H. Cummin&
Page 83 and 84:
Marquardt, RR, 1997. Enzyme enhance
Page 85 and 86:
and in vivo studies. Anim. Feed Sci
Page 87:
canola and soybean on the bioavaiia
show all

v - MSpace at the University of Manitoba

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?