v - MSpace at the University of Manitoba

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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

1991). Increasing the dietary level of canola hulls was found to reduce digestibiiity of dry matter, crude protein, energy and ether extract in pigs (Bell and Shires, 1982). Moreover, fiber is known to depress the bioavaüability ofsome minerais. Both ceU wBU and hull fibers fiom canola lowered the apparent availability of Cu, Fe, Ca, P and protein when 12 % ceU wdl fiber or 12 % huU fiber- containing semi-puritied diets were fed to rats (Ward and Reichert, 1986). Therefore, high fiber and low energy content has been considered as the main factor limiting the use of canola meal in poultry and swine rations. Vanous approaches have been undertaken to reduce the fiber content and to improve the nutritive value of canola meal. These included dehulling, exogenous enzyme application or genetic selection. Dehulling is an effective means of removing fibet. It was found that the lysine availability in broiler chickens fed a diet containing dehulled canola meal was significantly higher than that of the hulled meal (78.3% and 72.8%, respectively; Zuprizal et al., 199 1). The dehulled rapeseed meal, relative to a regular rapeseed meal, increased the digestibilities of both energy and protein for pigs fiom 73 % and 81 % to 86% and 86%, respectively (Bourdon, 1989). However, it has been speculated that, due to lirnited levels at which canola meal is used in poultry rations, the economics of dehulling are questionable (Shires et ai., 1983). Enzyme supplementation ofa semi-punfied diet containing 40% commercial canola meal increased non-starch polysaccharides (NSP) digestibility by laying hens fiom 3% to 37% (Slominski and Campbell, 1990). Although some enzyme preparations were found to be effective in hydrolysis of the cell wall polysaccharides in vitro, the improvement in broiler chicken penonnance was not statistidy significant when the same enzyme preparations were added to the semi-purifieci canola meal diets at the low and more economically feasible inclusion rates (Sirnbaya, 1996; Slominski, 1997). Further remch is needed to effectively target dietary fiber wmponents of canola meai with exogenous enzymes. Since the first repon by Jonsson and Bengtsson in 1970, showing yellow-seeded forms ofBr~~~rica rqpu to have high oil, high protein and low fiber contents, 2
esearch on yellow-seeded canola has ban camied out extensively. In 1974 Stringam et al. fbrther reported yellow-seeded rapeseed to have thinner hulls and a lower percentage of seed coat (huii) than the brown-seeded type. Su bquent research has shown many potentially positive characteristics associateci with the yeiiow-seeded strains of wiolahapeseed (Bell and Shires, 1982; Mitaru et d, 1984; Daun and DeClercq, 1988; Slominski and Campbell, 1990; Slominski and Campbell, 1991; Slominski et al., 1994a; Slominski et al., 1994b; Simbaya et al.. 1995; Slominski, 1997). 1.1.2. Chemical Composition of Yellow-seeded CsnolalRapeseed Chemical composition of yellow-seeded canola/rapeseed in cornpanson to brown-seeded type is show in Table 1. Bad on examination of yellow and brown seeds from three cultures ofBrîzssica rtp, Stringam et aL(1974) reported that yellow seeds contained more oil and protein and less crude fiber than the brown seed with the differences in oil, protein and cmde fiber contents between yellow and brown seeds being statistically significant (Stnngam et al.. 1974 ). The study on yellow-seeded Brassica rqa and brown-seeded Brmica nps canola confirmed the lower fiber content in yeff ow seeds as compared to brown seeds, whether expressed as crude fiber (6.3% vs 8.1%), neutral detergent fiber (21 .Ph vs 23.6%) or as acid detergent fiber (13.4% vs 17.7%)(Bell and S Mes, 1982). Detailed studies on 26 yellow-seeded and 7 brown-seeded B&ca samples indicated that, when compared with brown-seeded forms, the yellow-seeded types had higher sucrose (8.7% vs 7.5%) and protein (44.5% vs 42.7%) contents, were lower in dietary fiber (27.7% vs 33.6%) but contained simiiar arnounts of other components including oligosaccharides, ash and fat (Simbaya et al.. 1995). It can be concluded fiom data accumulateci to date that yellow-seeded canoldraped has some advantage over the brown-seeded type with regard to nutritive content. 3
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 and 14: of Siqis dbu mucilage isolate (mg/g
Page 15: 1. LITERATURE REVIEW 1.1. Part A: Y
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?