Effect of processing and microbial enzyme treatment on the nutritive value of canola meal for rainbow trout (Onchorynchus mykiss)[
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Salmonids (trout, salmon and charr) require high dietary concentrations of protein, and they utilize protein and lipids as their principle sources of dietary energy. In culture conditions the protein is mainly supplied by fish meal and other products from the capture fishery. However, the high cost, and variability in fish meal quality due to processing and storage conditions, dissimilar raw material quality, as well as fluctuations in the supply of fish meal are major concerns. Feed accounts for 40% to 60% of the operating costs of salmon fanning. Much of this cost is associated with the inclusion of fish meal as the predominant protein source. Replacement of at least some of this fish meal by cheaper plant protein products is one way of reducing these costs. This study was undertaken to assess the chemical composition and potential nutritive value (digestibility) of canola protein products developed by processing canola meal by substituting fish meal in salmonid diets, with rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in fresh water as the test animal. Sieving, methanol/ammonia treatment and the use of three types of enzyme (Phytase, SP- 249, Alpha-Gal) treatments, singly or in various combinations, were employed in this study. In addition, a commercially-produced canola protein isolate (CPI) was also evaluated for potential nutritive value. It was hoped that one of these products would be potentially suitable as a replacement for fish meal. The results indicated that sieving canola meal did not have any significant influence on its chemical composition. Treatment of canola meal with methanol/ammonia however, decreased the amount of total glucosinolates by over 80%, and lowered the levels of phenolic compounds but this protocol increased the concentration of phytate. Application of carbohydrases did not result in any appreciable improvement in the fibre composition of the meals, although it did lead to increases in the protein content and levels of amino acids, and to decreases in the levels of glucosinolates and phytate. Low levels of glucosinolates were detected in all the canola protein products that received the enzyme treatments either singly or in combination. The processing methods used in the production of canola protein isolate (CPI) significantly improved the nutrient composition of the resultant product. Levels of total glucosinolates, protein, gross energy and phytate of the canola protein isolate (CPI) were 1.95 umol/g, 90.8% , 24.4 MJ/kg and 4.3 umol/g, respectively compared to 8.95 umol/g, 36.3%, 19.6 MJ/kg and 45.5 umol/g, of commercial canola meal. In a three-week digestibility experiment, the effect of processing canola meal on the digestibility of dry matter, protein and energy by 74 g rainbow trout was assessed using a modified "Guelph system" of faecal collection. The canola products were included at 30% of the diets (70 % reference: 30% test canola protein product). Each of the test diet treatment was assigned to triplicate groups of fish using a completely randomized block design with chromic oxide (0.5%) as an indigestible marker. The fish were hand fed to satiation twice daily in special designed 150 L fibre glass tanks supplied with fresh running water (9.9 °C to 11.0 ° C) at a flow rate of 4-5 L/min. Processing methods had variable effects on the apparent nutrient (dry matter, protein and energy) digestibility coefficients. All the laboratory processing protocols employed with a view to enhance the nutritional value of canola meal had significant negative effects on dry matter digestibility coefficients and generally negligible effects on protein digestibility. There were however, significant reductions in protein digestibility coefficients in the meals treated with SP- 249 (77.4%) alone or in combination with Alpha-Gal (79.5%) relative to untreated canola meal (88.1%). Energy digestibility coefficients and the digestible energy contents of the test canola protein products were the least affected by the processing methods selected for this study. However, treatment of canola meal with either methanol/ammonia or combination of carbohydratedegrading enzymes had negative effects on the energy digestibility coefficients and digestible energy contents. For instance, these two parameters were lowered by about 14 percentage units and 3 Ml/kg in the ammoniated canola meal and by about 17 percentage units and 2.7 MJ/kg for the meal treated with the two carbohydrate-degrading enzymes. Digestibility coefficients for dry matter, protein and energy for the canola protein isolate (CPI) were 77.1%, 97.6%, and 84.7 %, respectively, and it is noteworthy that all these values were much higher than those values found for the untreated and treated canola meals.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».