Effect of processing and microbial enzyme treatment on the nutritive value of canola meal for rainbow trout (Onchorynchus mykiss)[
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".