v - MSpace at the University of Manitoba

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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

Table 5. Carbohydrate content of defatted meals derived fiom yellow- and brown-seeded cmla (% of dv matter) Species/Seed Coat Color B. rapm ' - yellow - brown B. r ap - yellow - brown B. napus - yellow - brown Slominski et al., 1994a; - -- -- Simbaya Sucrose
quality, the results of in vitro protein digestibility of 4 yellow-seeded and 2 brown-seeded samples demonstrated no major difference between the samples (Simbaya, 1996). It has been recognized that the protein in the huU fiaction would be highly resistant to degradation in the digestive tract (Finlayson, 1974). The study with pigs indicated that the digestibility values for cmde protein in yellow and brown hulls were 20 % and O % respectively (Bell and Shires, 1982). Since tannins are known to have an adverse effkct on the nutritive value and protein utiiization of rapesad meal (Durkee, 197 1; Mitaru et al., 1982), the lower level oftannins in yellow hulls, as compared to brown hulls, would explain the difference in protein digestibility between the two types of canola/rapeseed. The essential amino acids content of commercial meal derived fiom yellow-seeded B. rapxl canola and the conventional meal originating, for the most part, fkom brown-seeded B. naps canola is show in Table 6. Arnong the limiting amino acids for non-ruminants, lysine, methionine, arginine or threonine contents for both meals were similar, while the commercial meal "yellow" contained less cystine than the brown type. Studies with cockerels indicated that the true available amino acid content of the commercial med derived fiom yellow-seeded B. rapa canola was slightly higher than that of the conventional meal fiom brown-seeded canola (Simbaya, 1996). 1.1.4. Feeding Quality of Yellow-seeded CanolaîRnpeseed With regard to in vivo evaluation ofyellow-seeded canoldrapeseed with poultry, published reports now available are very limited. The study with laying hens showed yellow-seeded canola meal to have higher digestible matter and amino acid contents than the brown-seeded type (Slominski a al., 1994b). In an experiment with broiler chickens fed diets containing meals denved ftom yellow- seeded B. r q and B. mpus and brown-seeded B. qps canola, no dürerences in weight gain of 13
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 and 16: 1. LITERATURE REVIEW 1.1. Part A: Y
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: 113.2 Carbohydrates The carbohydrat
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?