v - MSpace at the University of Manitoba

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 1 would like to extend my sincere appreciation to my advisor Dr. B A Slominski for his guidance, support, encouragement and patience. 1 am also greatly gratefùl to the members of my examing cornmittee, Dn. L.D. Campbell, W. Guenter and M. Scanlon for their invaluable comments and constructive suggestions towards the completion of this work. A special thanks is due to Dr. Crow whose enthusiastic recomrnendation was valued greatly and gave me the opportunity to explore the realms of animal nutrition. 1 would like to express my thanks to my fellow graduate students as well as the sectetarial staff for the* help and consideration. Their friendship has made me very happy during my study at the University of Manitoba. Special thanks to Alan Tan, Harry Muc and Peter Mills for their kind technical assistance in the nutrition laboratocy throughout my program. Ail of these have made a lasting impression on me. Finally, 1 wish to thank my farnily and âiends in China for al1 the love, understanding, constant support and encouragement given to me during this endeavour.
ABSTRACT Part A: Chernical Composition and Nutritive Value of Yellow-Sccdcd Bmica Nqpiu Canola For Poultry Plant selection programs directeci towards the development of yellow-seeded canola are arnong approaches undertaken to reduce the fiber content, increase the protein content and to improve nutrient utilization. A relatively new initiative in breeding for yellow-seed copt color has been the development of yellow-seeded B. napts canola. The objective of this study was to compare a new yellow-seeded B. naps line with its black-seeded counterpart, both types originating fkom the m e genetic background and produced under identical growing conditions in two consecutive years. On average, in cornparison to black-seeded, yellow-seeded types contained more protein (46.2% vs 45.2%). more sucrose (9.0% vs 7.8%). less dietary fiber (26.6% vs 30.8%) but similar amounts of oligosaccharides (3.4% vs 3.1%), starch (0.46% vs 0.40%), non-phytate phosphorus (0.71% vs 0.67%) and ash (6.8% vs 6.7%). Although similar in content of non-starch polysaccharides (18.0% vs18.3%), ceii wall protein (2.m vs 3.0%) and minerals associated with the fiber hction (0.9?h vs 1 .W), the overall lower fiber content in yellow-seeded samples was reflected in a lower content of lignin with associated polyphenols (4.9% vs 8.6%). When expressed in g/16g N, no difference in amino acid level was observed. There was a significant difference in the content of glucosinolates which averaged 13.2 and 19.3 pmoVg for yellow- and black-seeded samples, respectively. In a two- week feeding trial, broiler chickens were fed wheat (56%)/canola meal (32%) diets containing 22% cde protein and 3050 kcaVkg metabolizable energy. On average, chickens fed diets containing mals deiveci fiom yellow-seeded canola showed significantly higher body weight gain (398 vs 342 g/bird/l4 days) and lower feed to gain ratio (1 -53 vs 1.60) than those fed the black-ded type.
Page 1 and 2: CHEMICAL COMPOSlTlON AND NUTRlTLVE
Page 3: THE UNIVERSI'IY OF MANITOBA FACULTY
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 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?