v - MSpace at the University of Manitoba

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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

Table 9. Chemicai composition of meals derived fiom yellow- and black-seeded Bmssiim mp>us canola frorn 1996 and 1997 crop years (% of dry matter) Component B. napus seed meal Yellow - 96 Black - 96 Yellow - 97 Black- 97 Cnide protein 44.9 0.09' c 43.6I0.11 47.4 0.3 La 46.8 i 0.23 ' Sucrose 9.3 0.03 ' 8.0 h O. 17 " 8.7 * 0.16 7.5 * 0.08 Oligosaccharide 3.4 0.07 a 3.0 k 0.1 la 3.4k0.23' 3.2i0.18' Starch 0.3 * 0.24 0.6 * 0.30 a 0.6 0.41 a 0.2 * 0.24 Dietary fiber 27.3 * 0.9 ' 32.0 * 0.3 ' 25.8 I: 0.4 29.5 0.3 Ash 7.3 0.0 la 7.2 0.04 6.2 * 0.03 c 6.1 * 0.04 Fat 3.2 0.16" 2.9 0.03 3.6 * 0.25 * 3.9 î0.32' l Mean *SD, *hSd Values within rows with no comrnon superscripts differ significantly (PsO.05). 28
studies (Simbaya et al., 1995), although sirnilar to that reported recently for yellow- and brown- seeded B. napus canola (Slominski et al., 1999). In the cumnt study, the Yellow-97 ample with the lowest dietary fiber level had the highest protein content (47.4 %), while the Black-96 sample with the highest dietary fiber level had the lowest protein content (43.6 %). This agrees with the findimg of protein being negatively correlated with the fibet content (Simbaya et al., 1995 ). Sucrose content was higher in yellow-seeded samples by 1.3 percentage points and was almost identical with that reported for yellow-seeded B. napus and B. juncea canola (Simbaya et al., 1995, Slominski i.r al., 1999) and differed significantly fiom our earlier data showing 3-4 percentage points higher sucrose content in yellow-seeded B. rap canola (Slominski et al., 1994a). Since sucrose is a highly digestible carbohydrate, relatively more sucrose in yellow-seeded canola would increase the digestible energy content of the meal. The oligosaccharide content of the meals from both yellow- and back-seeded sarnples were similar. Oligosacchandes, including raffinose, stachyose and verbascose, were found to be poorly digested in the small intestine of poultry and were reported to interfere with energy digestibility by increasing the rate of feed passage (Coon et al., 1990; Leske et ai., 1993). However, recent studies indicated a minimal effect of canola meal oligosaccharides on energy digestibility in poultry (Slorninski et al., 1994b). Dietary fiber content in yellow-seeded samples differed, on average, by 4.2 percentage points from that of the black-seeded type. The difference between the highest fiber level in the black sample fiom 1996 (32 %) and the lowest fiber level in the yeîiow sample fiom 1997 (25.8 %) was up to 6.2 percentage points and was identical with that reportecl for a numbet ofyeliow- and brown-ded samples of canola (Simbaya et al., 1995). Although the non- starch polysaccharide content in yellow-seeded sarnples was found to be similar to that of the black type, other fiber wmponents, which based on our earlier research constitute ügnin with associated 29
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 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: Table 8. Composition and calculatec
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

v - MSpace at the University of Manitoba

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

Delete template?

Save as template?