Advertisement

Journal of the American Oil Chemists Society

, Volume 69, Issue 3, pp 213–220 | Cite as

Processing of canola meal for incorporation in trout and salmon diets

  • S. M. McCurdy
  • B. E. March
Oilseed Processing For Edible Food And Feed Products

Abstract

Canola meals (two commercial meals and one low-heat meal) were processed to reduce fiber content, then washed with selected solvents to reduce the content of antinutritional substances and further concentrate protein. The meals, fiber-reduced meals, and washed meals were used to provide 40% of total protein (26–38% of feed) in the diets of 6-g rainbow trout for 3 weeks or 25% of total protein (21–31% of feed) in the diets of 23-g chinook salmon for 11 weeks. Air-desolventized (low-heat) canola meal, as compared to commercial meal, provided no protein quality advantage in trout feeds. Fiber reduction processing of commercial meal increased meal protein content by 11–16% and reduced crude fiber by 23–50%, but did not have any effect on the quality of protein for trout or salmon. Solvent-washing of fiber-reduced meal improved fish response to canola meal, probably due to reduced glucosinolate content, but possibly also due to reduced sinapine content and alterations in protein availability. Protein concentration was increased by 25–40% by washing, and glucosinolate concentration was reduced by 40–90%.

Key words

Aquaculture canola meal feed fiber reduction meal processing solvent washing 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    NRC Subcommittee on Fish Nutrition,Nutrient Requirements of Trout, Salmon and Catfish (Nutrient Requirements of Domestic Animals, No. 11), National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 1973.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Higgs, D.A., J.R. McBride, J.R. Markert, B.S. Dosanjh, M.D. Plotnikoff and W.C. Clarke,Aquaculture 29:1 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hardy, R., and C.V. Sullivan,Can. J. Fish Aquat. Sci. 40:281 (1983).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Higgs, D.A., J.R. McBride, B.S. Dosanjh and U.H.M. Fagerlund,Fish Physiology, Fish Toxicology and Fish Management, edited by R.C. Ryans, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, GA, EPA 600-9-90-011, 1990.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    McCurdy, S.M.,J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 67:281 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rubin, L.J., L.L. Diosady and C.R. Phillips, U.S. Patent no. 4,460,504 (1984).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rubin, L.J., L.L. Diosday, M. Naczk and M. Halfani,Can. Inst. Food Sci. Technol. J. 19:57 (1986).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Official Method of Analysis, 14th edn., Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, D.C., 1984.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Official and Tentative Methods of the American Oil Chemists’ Society, 3rd edn., American Oil Chemists’ Society, Champaign, IL, 1983.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Knox, R.L., D.S. Engvall and B.E. Ginther,J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem. 65:1073 (1982).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Approved Methods of the American Association of Cereal Chemists, 8th edn., American Association of Cereal Chemists, St. Paul, MN, 1983.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Daun, J.K., and D.I. McGregor,Method of the Canadian Grain Commission Grain Research Laboratory, Agriculture Canada, Winnipeg, MB, 1981.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Latta, M., and M. Eskin,J. Agric. Food Chem. 28:1313 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Legueut, C., R. Hocquemiller and A. Cave,Ann. Pharmaceu. Francaises 39:557 (1981).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    March, B.E., and D.R. Hickling,Can. J. Animal Sci. 62:657 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Oil Chemists’ Society 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. M. McCurdy
    • 1
  • B. E. March
    • 2
  1. 1.POS Corp.SaskatoonCanada
  2. 2.Department of Animal ScienceUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations