Chemical composition and nutritive value of yellow-seeded Brassica napus canolaBogdan A. Slominski
14th International Rapeseed Congress, Saskatoon, July 2015
Canola fibre and efficiency of animal production Yellow-seeded canola, Dehulled canola meal, Effect of processing.
Conclusions
Dietary Fibre
The most widely accepted definition (Trowell et al., 1976): “ The remnants of plant cells resistant
to hydrolysis by the alimentary enzymes of man. It is composed of cellulose, hemicellulose, oligosaccharides, pectins, gums, waxes and lignin”
Components of Dietary Fibre
Structural non-carbohydrate Lignin, polyphenols
Protein/carbohydrate Glycoproteins, Maillard products
Non-starch polysaccharides (NSP)
Corn: 7% Wheat: 9% Barley: 17% SBM: 15% CM: 18% Flax: 27% Diet: 10%
A Model of Cell Wall Architecture
Fibre Analysis
Two sequential boiling digestions with 1.25% H2SO4 and 1.25% NaOH
Boilig digestion with 2%CTAB (cetyl trimethyl ammonium bromide) in 0.5M H2SO4
Boiling digestion with neutral detergent solution containing SDS (3%) and EDTA (1.9%) in pH 7 phosphate buffer in the presence of α-amylase
NSP Analysis Gas-Liquid Chromatography
Ethanol addition (80%)
Precipitate Ethanol solubles Glucose, di- & oligosaccharides
Acid hydrolysis 12M HCl (1h, 40ºC) → 1M HCL (2 h, 100 ºC)
Sugar derivatization (alditol acetates) GLC
Non-starch polysaccharide constituent sugars by GLC
CF ADF
CF-crude fiber; ADF-acid detergent fiber; NDF-neutral detergent fiber; NSP-non-starch polysaccharides; DF-dietary fiber (From Chesson, 1986; modified)
Total Dietary Fiber Methods
GLC
NSP X X X X Lignin X X X Cell wall protein X Resistant starch X X X Maillard products ? x X
Total Dietary Fiber U of Manitoba Method
Sample
NDF residue Optional analyses:
Dietary Fibre: Efficiency of Animal Production
Low nutrient density of high fiber feedstuffs Antinutritive effects of soluble NSP (i.e., β-glucan,
arabinoxylan) Nutrient encapsulating effect of cell walls Impaired amino acid availability (i.e., Maillard
products)
= +
R - NH2 +
H - HO - H- H-
O H C C - OH C - H C - OH C - OH CH2OH
R-N= H - HO - H- H-
H C C - OH C - H C - OH C - OH CH2OH
CH2 C = O C - H C - OH C - OH CH2OH
R-NH - H - HO - H- H-
Amadori rearrangement
Glucose
The effect of moist heat-treatment on protein damage in canola
Canola meal samples were subjected to heat-treatment at: 95ºC 102ºC 105ºC 110ºC 126ºC
Samples were analyzed for NDF, neutral detergent insoluble crude protein (NDICP), and digestible protein contents.
Effect of Heat Treatment on NDF and NDF Residual Protein (NDICP) Content of Canola Meal
15
25
35
45
% D
M
º
0
5
10
15
20
25
NDF
NDICP
Component Mean* Range* Min. – Max.
Total dietary fiber 38.0 30.1 – 45.2 NSP 21.9 19.4 – 23.7 Lignin and polyphenols 10.7 7.7 – 12.8 Glycoprotein (NDICP) 5.4 2.7 – 9.6
*Represents 11 crushing plants, each providing 3 samples a year for 4 consecutive years
Development of low-fibre, yellow- seeded B. napus canola
Efforts to breed for yellow- seed coat in canola were justified as a means to increase the oil content in the seed and to improve the meal quality.
Development of yellow-seeded B. napus canola
YN90-1016 Low oil
Development of yellow-seeded B. napus canola
43.3
27.5
16.0
44.9
26.4
15.0
46.4
26.3
14.4
10
20
30
40
50
% D
M
Development of canola-quality B. juncea mustard
A species known for its pure yellow seed coat. Under Western Canadian conditions, B.
juncea suffers less from heat and drought stress and matures earlier than B. napus.
Such characteristics are the basis for high yields of oil and low chlorophyll content in the seed.
Canola-quality: Glucosinolates < 30 µmol/g in the meal portion Erucic acid < 2% in the oil portion
Seed Processing 2012 crush
POS Plant, Saskatoon, Canada
Growth performance studies
Component B. napus “black”
B. napus “yellow”
B. juncea “yellow”
Crude protein 41.1c 43.4b 47.2a Ether extract 5.1a 3.5c 4.0b Ash 8.5a 7.3c 8.0b Carbohydrates Glucose + fructose 0.3a 0.2c 0.3b Sucrose 6.6c 10.1a 8.0b Oligosaccharides 3.1a 2.8b 3.1a Dietary fiber fractions ADF 20.1a 9.3c 9.9b NDF 25.2a 19.0b 18.5b Total Fiber 35.0a 29.8b 28.9c Glucosinolates (µmol/g) 7.9c 14.6a 12.6b
abc P<0.05
B. napus “yellow”
B. juncea “yellow”
Total dietary fiber 35.0a 29.8b 28.9c NSP 21.7b 22.8a 20.4c Glycoprotein (NDICP) 3.2b 3.9a 3.2b Lignin and polyphenols 10.1a 3.1c 5.3b
abc P<0.05
AMEn contents of B. napus and B. juncea meals (kcal/kg DM)
Item Broilers* Turkeys
B. napus “black”
B. napus “yellow”
B. juncea “yellow”
B. napus “black”
B. napus “yellow”
B. juncea “yellow”
AMEn with enzyme 1955 2252 2246 2196 2264 2267
*Represent mean values from 3 AMEn assays for B. napus “black” and B. juncea and mean values from 2 AMEn assays for B. napus “yellow”
Dietary AMEn and Enzyme* Supplementation in Poultry
1987 2076 2099
Without Enzyme With Enzyme
Amino acid
Broilers Turkeys
abc P<0.05
Diet BWG (kg/bird)
FCR1
Control (wheat/SBM) 2.32a 1.53 15% B. napus “black” 2.30a 1.51 15% B. napus “yellow” 2.19b 1.54 15% B. juncea “yellow” 2.31a 1.50
1 kg feed/kg weight gain
Growth performance of broilers (1-36 d)
Diet BWG (kg/bird)
FCR1
Control (wheat/SBM) 3.90 1.71 20% B. napus “black” 3.75 1.73 20% B. napus “yellow” 3.91 1.69 20% B. juncea “yellow” 3.82 1.70
1 kg feed/kg weight gain
Growth performance of turkeys (1-56 d)
It would appear that breeding for low-fiber canola would result in the quantitative changes as evidenced by increased oil, protein, and sucrose contents rather than qualitative changes due to decreased fiber content in the seed.
All types of canola meal could effectively replace SBM in poultry rations.
Tail-end dehulling of canola meal using sieving technology
One mean of improving the nutritive value of canola meal is dehulling.
The use of sieves of 250, 355 and 600 µm resulted in the production of distinct fractions containing high levels of protein and amino acids and less fiber than that of the parent meal.
Parent meal Dehulled meal Fraction Fine 1
Component Parent meal
Dehulled meal
Crude protein 36.9 42.0 Fat 3.8 5.2 Dietary fibre fractions Acid detergent fibre 17.0 9.6 Neutral detergent fibre 23.6 14.8 Total dietary fibre 30.0 21.4
Composition of dehulled canola meal produced through sieving (%, as-is basis)
Diet Diet fiber content, %
Body weight gain, g/bird
FCR g feed/g gain
Corn/SBM (control) 8.5 285.2 1.23 Canola meal 11.1 293.1 1.19 Dehulled canola meal 9.3 279.7 1.19
Growth performance of broiler chickens Pre-starter phase; 1-10 d of age
Diet ADG
g/day/pig Gain : Feed
Final BW kg Phase 1 Phase 2 Overall Phase 1 Phase 2 Overall
Corn/SBM (control) 371 348b 359 0.80 0.47b 0.58b 16.9
Canola meal 346 410ab 377 0.80 0.55ab 0.63ab 17.4
Dehulled canola meal 377 422a 417 0.89 0.58a 0.68a 17.8
Growth performance of young pigs Pre-starter phase: 21-35 d of age
Starter phase: 36-50 d of age
Conclusions
High nutrient density of dehulled canola meal would allow for a significant replacement of SBM in the pre-starter diets. It would appear that most of canola fiber is simply a diluent and would have minimal effect on nutrient utilization.
Maillard Reaction
Canadian Canola Crushing Plants Location
ADM: Lloydminster
TRT-ETGO: Becancour
Chemical characteristics of canola meals from crushing plants across Canada 4 surveys
2011: Survey 1 2012: Survey 2 2013: Survey 3 2014: Survey 4
11 canola crushing plants 3 samples from each crushing
plant per survey Analysed for DM, CP, total fiber
and its fractions, fat, AA, sugars, P, and glucosinolate contents.
Dietary Fiber and Glucosinolate Contents
30
35
40
45 %
D M
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
M
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
2011 2012
Dietary fiber
30
35
40
45 %
D M
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
M
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
2011 2012 2013 2014
30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
D ie
ta ry
F ib
Chart1
3.02
6.33
3.1
3.5
4.9
5.17
3.8
5.2
7.85
2.7
4
5.65
7.1
4.8
5.2
5.1
6.1
5.6
5.4
9.6
5
6.3
3.37
7.9
4
5.6
5.1
5.4
6.5
4.6
5.9
4.4
5
R2 = 0.49
30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 NDICP (% DM)
D ie
ta ry
F ib
Lysine Methionine Threonine
Canola Crushing Plant
Lysine Methionine Threonine
Canola Crushing Plant
R2 = 0.281
SI D
ly si
34.8
40.7
36.6
38.8
30
35
40
45 %
Excessive heating during pre-press solvent extraction would result in reduced digestibility of some amino acids, particularly lysine.
The fraction of fibre deriving from amino acids damage would be an indication of low meal quality.
Conclusions Canola meal fibre fractions and their effects: “The good, the bad, and the ugly”
“The good” : NSP Beneficial for gut health Benefits from VFAs production and enzyme addition “The bad” : Polyphenols and lignin Not necessarily antinutritional Could be replaced by oil and protein “The ugly” : Maillard products Protein and lysine damage
Acknowledgements
Outline
Fibre Analysis
Dietary Fibre:Efficiency of Animal Production
Contributions to the fibre content (%, fat-free basis)
Slide Number 15
Slide Number 16
Slide Number 17
The effect of moist heat-treatment on protein damage in canola
Effect of Heat Treatment on NDF and NDF Residual Protein (NDICP) Content of Canola Meal
Dietary Fibre Content of Canola Meal(% DM)
Development of low-fibre, yellow-seeded B. napus canola
Development of yellow-seeded B. napus canola
Development of yellow-seeded B. napus canola
Development of canola-quality B. juncea mustard
Seed Processing2012 crush
Meal Evaluation
Chemical Composition of Canola Meals (% DM)2010 and 2011 crush comparison
Dietary Fiber Components (% DM)
AMEn contents of B. napus and B. juncea meals (kcal/kg DM)
Dietary AMEn andEnzyme* Supplementation in Poultry
Standardized ileal digestible amino acid contents (%)
Growth performance of broilers(1-36 d)
Growth performance of turkeys(1-56 d)
Conclusions
Slide Number 37
Slide Number 38
Growth performance of broiler chickensPre-starter phase; 1-10 d of age
Growth performance of young pigsPre-starter phase: 21-35 d of ageStarter phase: 36-50 d of age
Conclusions
Chemical characteristics of canola meals from crushing plants across Canada
Dietary Fiber and Glucosinolate Contents
Dietary Fiber and Glucosinolate Contents
Dietary Fiber vs. Neutral Detergent Insoluble Crude Protein (NDICP)
Dietary Fiber vs. Neutral Detergent Insoluble Crude Protein (NDICP)
Standardized Ileal Digestible Amino Acid Contents
Standardized Ileal Digestible Amino Acid Contents
SID Lysine vs. NDFBroiler chickens & Swine
Dietary Fibre vs. SID Lysine
Summary
Conclusions
Acknowledgements