Go to Top Go to Bottom
Anim Biosci > Volume 36(7); 2023 > Article
de Oliveira and Yu: Characterization of physiochemical and nutrient profiles in canola feedstocks and co-products from bio-oil processing: impacted by source origin

Abstract

Objective

The objective of this study was to characterize physiochemical and nutrient profiles of feedstock and co-products from canola bio-oil processing that were impacted by source origin. The feedstocks and co-products (mash, pellet) were randomly collected from five different bio-oil processing plants with five different batches of samples in each bio-processing plant in Canada (CA) and China (CH).

Methods

The detailed chemical composition, energy profile, total digestible nutrient (TDN), protein and carbohydrate subfractions, and their degradation and digestion (CNCPS6.5) were determined.

Results

The results showed that TDN1x was similar in meals between CA and CH. CH meals and feedstock had higher, truly digestible crude protein (tdCP) and neutral detergent fiber (tdNDF) than CA while CA had higher truly digestible non-fiber carbohydrate (tdNFC). The metabolizable energy (ME3x), net energy (NELp3x, NEm3x, and NEg3x) were similar in meals between CA and CH. No differences were observed in energy profile of seeds between CA and CH. The protein and carbohydrate subfractions of seeds within CH were similar. The results also showed that pelleting of meals affected protein sub-fractionation of CA meals, except rapidly degradable fractions (PB1), rumen degradable (RDPB1) and undegrdable PB1 (RUPB1), and intestinal digestible PB1 (DIGPB1). Canola meals were different in the soluble (PA2) and slowly degradable fractions (PB2) between CA and CH. The carbohydrate fractions of intermediately degradable fraction (CB2), slowly degradable fraction (CB3), and undegradable fraction (CC) were different among CH meals. CH presented higher soluble carbohydrate (CA4) and lower CB2, and CC than CA meals.

Conclusion

The results indicated that although the seeds were similar within and between CA and CH, either oil-extraction process or meal pelleting seemed to have generated significantly different aspects in physiochemical and nutrient profiles in the meals. Nutritionists and producers need to regularly check nutritional value of meal mash and pellets for precision feeding.

INTRODUCTION

Canola has been produced in Western Canada since 1974, when it was developed as a low erucic acid and low glucosinolate rapeseed, to supply for the high demand of cooking oil [1]. When canola oil is extracted, it generates a co-product low in fat and rich in protein. This co-product, canola meal, is mainly used in dairy rations because its amino acid profile is ideal for milk synthesis [2].
Due to the high production of canola and the high global demand, besides being ex tensively used in Canada, it is also exported to many countries. China is one of the main markets for Canadian canola seeds and its product and co-product [3].
Different crops and seed processing methods can alter the composition of the nutrients [4] and the protein profile of canola meals. Meaning that canola meals should not be assumed equal before prior to proper testing.
Canola meal is a co-product that contains outstanding rumen degradable (RDP) and undegradable protein (RUP) profiles that stimulates both microbial growth and milk synthesis [5]. White et al [6] defended the prediction of RUP because of its importance for dairy rations, as RUP content can impact both the microbial protein synthesis and the amino acid profile that will be available for absorption in the small intestine of the animal.
The aim of this study was to characterize the physiochemical composition and nutrient profiles of canola seeds and meals from five different large oil-seed crushing plants in Canada and five different large oil-seed crushing plants in China, using standard wet laboratory analyses, and the NRC [7,8] and CNCPS 6.5 models.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The University of Saskatchewan Animal Care Committee approved the animal trial under the Animal Use Protocol No. 19910012 and animals were cared for and handled in accordance with the Canadian Council of Animal Care (CCAC) regulations [9]. Authors confirm that EU and Canadian standards for the protection of animals and/or feed legislation have been met.

Sampling

The samples of feedstocks and co-products from bio-oil processing were arranged and collected from Canada and China by the Canola Council of Canada (CCC). The samples were provided by each company’s quality control laboratory and are to be considered representative of the reality of those crushers.
Samples were collected from five crusher companies op erating in four provinces in China. These companies only crushed seeds imported from Canada. Samples of seeds and meals were collected from different batches from each crusher, stored and transported to the University of Saskatchewan in Canada for further analyses.
Samples of seeds and meals were also collected from five crushers in Canada. However, three of the five Canadian crushers samples of meals were pelleted and two were mash, unlike China’s meals that were all mash. Samples were collected from different batches from each crusher, stored and transported to the University of Saskatchewan for future analyses.
All samples of seeds were ground using a blade coffee grinder, model BCG111OB manufactured by KitchenAid, USA. The samples of meals that were pelleted at a low temperature (ca 70°C) were ground using a 1mm screen on the grinding mill, Ultra Centrifugal Mill ZM200 manufactured by Retsch, Germany.

Chemical analysis

The chemical analysis of the samples followed the analytical procedures described on the Official Methods of Analysis 21st Edition [10] for dry matter (DM), ash, crude protein (CP), ether extract (EE), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF), lignin, hemicellulose, cellulose, non-fiber carbohydrate (NFC), non-structural carbohydrate. For neutral detergent insoluble CP (NDICP) and acid detergent insoluble CP (ADICP), the procedures by Licitra et al [11] were followed. To determine the soluble CP (SCP) content of the samples, the methodology by Roe et al [12] was applied.

Total digestible nutrient and energy profile

The digestible nutrient profiles (tdFA, tdCP, tdNDF, tdNFC, and TDN) and energy values (DE, ME, NEg, NEm, NEL) of the feedstocks and co-products from bio-oil processing were determined based on the chemical profile, according to the National Research Council (NRC): Nutrient Requirements for Dairy Cattle [7] and Nutrient Requirements for Beef Cattle [8].

Protein and carbohydrate fraction partitioning with CNCPS 6.5 System

The Cornell Net Carbohydrate and Protein System (CNCPS) partitions carbohydrates and proteins into fractions based on rates of passage and digestion. Carbohydrates were fractionated into volatile fatty acids (CA1), lactic acid (CA2), other organic acids (CA3), water soluble carbohydrate (CA4), soluble fiber (CB2), digestible fiber (CB3), and indigestible fiber (CC). The protein fractions correspond to ammonia (PA1), soluble true protein (PA2), insoluble or moderately digestible true protein (PB1), fiber-bound or slowly digestible protein (PB2), and unavailable or indigestible protein (PC) [1315]. Following the fractionation of proteins and carbohydrates, the ruminal degradation and intestinal digestion were also studied.

Statistical analysis

To better accommodate the variations and prevent statistical errors, the statistical design of this study was a randomized complete block design, where country and company were fixed effects and batch was a random effect. The procedure MIXED was used on SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA).
y=μ+τi+βj+ɛijk
Where, μ = overall mean; τi = fixed effect; βj = random effect; εij = error; βj ~ NIID (Normally, Identically, and Independently distributed); εijk ~ NIID (Normally, Identically, and Independently distributed). The samples from different batches from each processing plant were used as experiment units. Significance was declared at p<0.05. The Tukey method was used for the multiple comparison test.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Chemical profiles of feedstocks and co-products: comparison among bio-oil processing plants and between two countries

The chemical profile of canola meals is presented in Tables 1 and 2. In this study, canola meals DM averaged higher on the samples collected in Canada than on the samples from China (p<0.001). Crude protein was lower for the Canadian samples (p = 0.003). Ether extract was not different between Canadian and Chinese samples (p = 0.118). Acid detergent fiber was also similar between countries (p = 0.408).
According to the Canadian Oilseed Processors Associa tion (COPA) [16], a maximum of 12% moisture and 12% of crude fiber, and a minimum of 36% of protein and 2% of fat (solvent extracted, measured in % by mass) are the standard specifications for canola meal. The 2020 Canola Annual report (CCC, n.d.) [17] complied data from 7 years with samples from 13 different Canadian plants and found as average chemical composition that canola meals had 42% CP, 3.2% EE, 18.6% ADF (on a DM basis), and 12% moisture.
Paula et al [18] reported CP as 41.8%DM, NDF as 28.9% DM, and ADF as 18.6%. On a review, Paula et al [19] reported canola meal with 91.4% of DM, 39.8% DM of CP, 19.4% DM of ADF, 28.5% DM of NDF, and 4.56% DM of EE. Mustafa et al [20] reported the profile of canola meal as 42% DM of CP, 24% DM of NDF, and 19% DM of ADF. While Broderick et al [21] reported using canola meal with 89.6% of DM, 40.6% DM of CP, 3.0% DM of EE, 29.9% DM of NDF, 18.2% DM of ADF, 26.2% CP of NDICP, and 6.2% CP of ADICP.
Based on these results, the canola meal samples analyzed for this project were in accordance with these values previously reported, except for the EE which was lower than reported by Paula et al [18,19] and CCC [17] and expected by COPA [16]. Our EE values for canola meals averaged 0.79% DM for the samples from Canada and 0.47% DM for the ones from China; however, the samples from plants 3 and 4 from Canada that were pelleted presented EE of 1.46 and 1.06% DM respectively, which can be associated with the coating of the pellets with oil, but this higher EE was not observed on the pellets from plant 5 (0.63% DM).
Soluble crude protein and neutral detergent indigestible crude protein (NDICP or NDIP) were different between Canada and China. While China presented higher CP (p = 0.003) and SCP (p<0.001), Canada presented higher NDICP (p<0.001). Acid detergent insoluble crude protein (ADICP) was not significantly different (p = 0.075, Table 1).
Mustafa et al [20] stated that the NDICP of regular canola meal was 105 g/kg CP which is lower when compared to meals from Canada that averaged 19.34% CP, but close to the samples from plants A and C from China (11.07% and 10.83% CP), however, still lower than China’s average of 13.52% CP. They also reported ADICP as 45 g/kg CP was lower than this project’s meals (Canada [5.53% CP] and China [5.80% CP]).
According to Newkirk [4], different cultivars, canola growth environments and harvest, and the processes the seeds and meals go through can all affect the final nutrient profile of the meal. Since five different companies were sampled in the production of different batches of meals both in Canada and in China, it is safe to assume that these results are representative of the companies and their quality is steady through different batches, and small variations are expected due to the variability of crop conditions, cultivars, and harvest.
The chemical profile of the canola seeds studied on this project is displayed in Tables 3 and 4. The DM of seeds from Canadian plants was higher than those from Chinese plants (p = 0.008). Crude protein content was similar (p = 0.100, Canada vs China). Soluble CP was higher for China plants (p = 0.002). And NDICP was higher for Canada plants (p<0.001). Neutral detergent fiber, ADF and cellulose were higher for Canada plants (p = 0.004, p = 0.003, and p<0.001, respectively), while ADL was higher for the China plants (p = 0.017).
Park et al [22] studied samples of canola seeds, canola meals from solvent extraction and canola meals from expellers. For canola seeds, they reported DM of 94.9%, ash of 3.04% DM, CP of 24.8% DM, NDF of 19.4% DM, and ADF of 15.5% DM. Averaging Canada and China together and comparing to these results, our seeds had higher moisture content (92.7%), higher ash (3.8% DM), lower CP (22.3% DM), lower NDF (16.4% DM), and lower ADF (12.1% DM).
Canola seeds used by Tramontini [23] were composed of 23.51% DM of CP, 37.34% DM of EE, and 26.52% DM of NDF. Tramontini’s seeds were higher in CP and NDF contents (ours were 22.3% DM and 16.4% DM, respectively), and lower in EE (ours averaged 43.3% DM).
The Canadian Grain Commission (CGC) [24] summa rized the canola seed production of 2020 and observed an oil content of 44.1% DM and CP of 20.8%. On their report from the 2015 [25] production, they observed seeds with 44.2% DM EE and 20.7% DM of CP. These results give us a basis to safely assume that Canada produces canola with a high and stable along the years.
Burbulis and Kott [26] investigated the variation in color and oil content influenced by the environmental temperature on black-seeded spring rapeseed varieties Brassica napus L. ‘Bolero’ (owned by Raps GbR) and ‘Star’ (owned by Dansk Planteforaedling/DLF) and 11 lines originated from their crossing. They found that temperatures higher than 28°C during the day, resulted in offspring with lighter seeds (more yellow) and temperatures lower than 20°C resulted in darker seeds (more brown or black). They also observed differences in oil content on the seeds from different environments. The oil content of the darker seeds (colder climate) ranged from 31.2% to 51.6% DM, and lighter seeds (warmer climate) ranged from 31.4% to 49.4% DM. On average, lighter seeds presented lower oil content.
Tramontini [23] likely used canola seeds from a different climate, since her study was conducted in Brazil, a tropical country with higher temperatures, as Burbulis and Kott [26] study suggests, the higher temperatures in that country could have influenced the seeds she used, explaining the lower EE content. The seeds analyzed on our project, however, were in accordance with the standard quality of the Canadian canola seeds.
The higher cellulose content on the Canada plants (p < 0.001) could have been the cause for higher contents of NDF (p = 0.004), ADF (p = 0.003), and NDICP (p<0.001) on the samples from that country.

Total digestible nutrients and digestible (DE), metabolizable (ME), and net energy (NE) values of feedstocks and co-products: comparison among bio-oil processing plants and between two countries

The energetic profile of canola meals and pellets are represented in Tables 5 and 6. Total digestible NDF (tdNDF), total digestible CP (tdCP), and total digestible nutrients (TDN1x) were different among Canadian plants (p<0.001, p = 0.001, and p = 0.001, respectively). The contrast indicated that the meals pelleted (Plants 3, 4, and 5) resulted in higher tdNDF and TDN1x (p<0.001, and p = 0.002) than the mash. When pelleting, it is common practice to add back to the process fines collected during the screening step and that might have contributed to a lightly higher tdNDF in this study. Also, as a final step of pelleting, there is the spraying of oil to increase the durability of the pellet, which might have been the cause for a slightly higher TDN1x on Plant 3. tdNDF and tdCP were also variable among the meals from Chinese plants (p<0.001 and p = 0.002). When analyzing the overall meals from Canada and China, it was observed that tdNDF, tdNFC, and tdCP were different (p<0.001, p = 0.006, and p<0.001), of these, Canada had higher tdNFC, while China presented higher tdNDF and tdCP.
Metabolizable energy at three times maintenance (ME 3x), net energy for lactation (NELp3x), maintenance (NEM3x), and gain (NEg3x) were all observed to be different among the meals from the Canadian plants (p<0.001, for all of them). Differences between mash and pelleted meals were also observed of these parameters (p<0.05) with the Plant 3 showing the higher results. While these differences were present on the Canadian samples, no differences were observed on the Chinese samples. Moreover, the overall comparison of canola meals from Canada and China showed that they are similar.
Damiran et al [27] reported using canola meal with 42.6% of CP, 4.2% of fat, 71.5% of TDN, 2.0 Mcal/g of NEm, and 1.3 Mcal/g of NEg. While this study’s Canadian canola meal averaged 41.9% of CP, 0.79% of EE, 65.6% of TDN, 1.8 Mcal/g of NEm, and 1.2 Mcal/g of NEg. Theodoridou and Yu [28] analyzed canola meals from yellow and brown canola seeds and showed some differences in their energy profiles. Therefore, the higher TDN (71.5%) on Damiran et al [27] might be explained by that canola meal being from a yellow seeded cultivar or as a consequence of the higher fat and protein content of that meal, since the TDN value is based on the values of digestible carbohydrates, protein and fat of a feedstuff [29].
The energy profile of canola seeds is displayed in Tables 7 and 8. As expected, the seeds presented less variations. No differences were observed on the digestible nutrients profile from Canadian plants. Only the tdCP of canola seeds from the Chinese companies were different in this study (p = 0.006). This might be due to the varieties difference. The overall comparison of the energetic parameters of canola seeds from Canada and China only the tdNDF from Canadian plants were higher (p = 0.023), while all the other parameters were similar. Similar values were observed for ME3x, NELp3x, NEm3x, and NEg3x on all samples collected in Canada and in China.

Protein and carbohydrate subfractions and degradable and digestible content of each fraction in rumen phase and intestinal phase using newly updated CNCPS System 6.5 for feedstocks and co-products

Table 9 presents the protein fractions of canola meals and pellets based on the CNCPS 6.5 System. For the Canadian canola meals and pellets, it was observed that for the soluble fraction of protein (PA2) of the canola meals mash and pellets, the Plant 4 presented the highest amount while Plant 1 presented the lowest. For the moderately degradable fraction (PB1), Plant 3 had the highest value, and Plant 2 had the lowest among the companies. On the slowly degradable protein fraction (PB2), while Plant 2 resulted in the highest value for the fraction, Plant 4 had the lowest. Plant 3 presented the lowest amount of unavailable protein (PC), whereas Plant 2 the highest. The contrast analysis also showed differences between the mash and pelleted meals for soluble, slowly degradable, and unavailable fractions of protein (PA2, p = 0.008; PB2, p = 0.003; PC, p<0.001). Possibly, the conditioning step of the pelleting process, that uses high temperatures, influenced the protein structures of the meals, and consequently increased their availability for degradation. All fractions were different among the Chinese plants (PA2, p<0.001; PB1, p = 0.021; PB2, p<0.001; PC, p<0.001). However, the comparison between the Canadian and Chinese protein fractions of the meals showed that only PA2 (p<0.001) and PB2 (p<0.001) were different, with China having higher soluble and lower slowly degradable fractions than Canada.
The ruminal degradable and undegradable, and intestinal digestible fractions profile of the Canadian and Chinese canola meals and pellets are shown in Table 1016. In accordance with the results from Table 9, Table 15 shows that Plant 4 presented higher RDPA2 (p = 0.038) and RUPA2 (p = 0.036), and lower RDPB2 (p = 0.002), RUPB2 (p = 0.002), and DIGPB2 (p = 0.002); and Plant 2 had lower RDPB1 (p = 0.003), RUPB1 (p = 0.003), and DIGPB1 (p = 0.003). Because of the higher amounts of soluble true protein, Plant 4 presented lower amounts of intestinal digestible feed protein (p<0.001). There were no differences between the meals and pellets on the amounts of RDPB1, RUPB1, and DIGPB1 fractions.
The Chinese meals presented variations in the ruminal degradability of PA2, PB2, peptides, and total ruminal degradable protein fractions (p<0.001, for all); on the ruminal undegradable PA2, PB2, PC, and total rumen undegradable protein fractions (p<0.001, p<0.001, p<0.001, and p = 0.006, respectively); and on the intestinal digestible PB2 and feed protein (DIGFP) fractions (p<0.001 and p = 0.039).
While the rumen degradable fractions of PA2, PEP, and total RDP, and the rumen undegradable fraction of PA2 were higher in the Chinese meals (p<0.001), the rumen degradable PB2, rumen undegradable PB2, and intestinal digestible PB2 and FP fractions were higher for the Canadian meals. Higher availability of protein in the rumen (degradable fractions) guarantees enough amino acid supply for the rumen microbiota, however higher availability of protein for intestinal digestion and absorption (intestinal digestible fractions) means that a higher variability of amino acids will be available for the animal to use for muscle deposition and milk production.
The protein fractions of the canola seeds analyzed in this study are represented in Table 10. The Canadian seeds presented some variation on the contents of PB2, PC, and TP fractions (p<0.001, for all). The Canadian Plant 2 had the highest content of PB2, while Plant 5 presented the lowest. Plant 4 showed higher content of PC and lower content of TP. The opposite was observed on Plant 3 that showed the lowest PC and the highest TP. All the seeds from the five different Chinese companies were similar for all protein fractions presented. Only the slowly degradable fraction (PB2) was different between Canada and China (p<0.001), where Canadian seeds presented higher amounts of this fraction.
The rumen and intestinal fractions are presented in Table 16, where we see a similar ruminal degradation and intestinal digestion profile. The RDPB2, RUPB2, RUPC, and DIGPB2 are different among Canadian plants (all p<0.001). No difference is observed among the seeds from the various Chinese plants, and RDPB2, RUPB2, and DIGPB2 are higher in the seeds from Canada (p<0.001).
Li et al [30] analyzing co-products from canola bio-ener gy processing found PA2, 26.8% CP; PB1, 63.6% CP; PB2, 7.0% CP; and PC, 2.6% CP. And predicted RDPA2, 7.7% DM; RDPB1, 13.9% DM; RDPB2, 0.7% DM. Total RDP, 22.3% DM; RUPA2, 2.6% DM; RUPB1, 10.5% DM; RUPB2, 2.0% DM; RUPC, 1.0% DM; and total RUP, 16.1% DM. The values for PA2, RDPA2, RDPB1, and total RDP are higher than the ones found for canola meals on this study. And their contents of PB2, PC, RDPB2, RUPB1, RUPB2, RUPC, and total RUP are lower than ours. However, we had similar results for PB1 and RUPA2.
The carbohydrate fractions of canola meals and pellets are given in Table 11. Canadian canola meals different among the five plants for digestible (CB3) (p = 0.002) and indigestible fiber (CC) (p<0.001). Plant 4 showed the lowest amount of digestible fiber (CB3) and the highest of indigestible fiber (CC). Plant 5 displayed the highest content of CB3 and Plant 3 the lowest amount of CC. Only the CC fraction showed a difference between the mash and pelleted meals (p<0.001). The Chinese meals presented variability among companies on the CB2, CB3, and CC fractions (p = 0.012, p = 0.013, and p = 0.010, respectively). The Chinese plant B showed higher quantities of CB2 and CC than the other companies. And Plant D had higher amount of CB3. Besides these differences, Canadian and Chinese meals were only different on the content of CA4, CB2, and CC (p = 0.040, p = 0.010, and p<0.001).
The predicted rumen degradable and undegradable and intestinal digestible carbohydrate fractions are revealed in Table 13. The rumen degradable CB3 (RDCB3), rumen undegradable CB3 (RUCB3), and intestinal digestible CB3 (DIBCB3) fractions were found to be the highest on Plant 5, and the lowest on Plant 2 (p<0.001, for all three). Total rumen undegradable carbohydrate (total RUC) was the highest on Plant 2 and the lowest on Plant 3 (p<0.001). The intestinal digestible feed carbohydrate (DIGFC) was the highest on Plant 5 and the lowest on Plant 3. The contrast analysis showed that pelleting influenced the RUCC and total RUC fractions of the canola meals on this study (p<0.001, for both). The rumen degradable and undegradable CA4, CB2, and CB3 fractions were variable among the Chinese plants (p<0.05). Plant E presented the highest values for RDCA4 and RUCA4 (p = 0.018, p = 0.018, respectively). Plant B showed the highest amounts of RDCB2 (p = 0.014) and RUCB2 (p = 0.014). Plant D resulted in the highest contents of RDCB3, RUCB3, and DIGCB3 (p = 0.007, for all). The rumen degradable, undegradable, and intestinal digestible CB2, the RUCC, and total RUC fractions of canola meals were higher in the Canadian companies (p = 0.009, p = 0.008, p = 0.008, p<0.001, and p = 0.009, respectively).
Table 12 presents the carbohydrate fractions of canola seeds from Canadian and Chinese companies. Only the CB2 and CC fractions seemed to be different among companies (p = 0.002 and p<0.001, respectively), where Plant 3 showed the lowest values for both. All the samples analyzed from the five Chinese samples were similar. Only the amounts of water-soluble CHO (CA4) and digestible fiber (CB3) differed between countries (p = 0.022 and p = 0.006).
Table 14 shows the predicted amounts of rumen degradable and undegradable and intestinal digestible carbohydrate fractions of canola seeds. This table shows that while Plant 5 exhibited the highest values of rumen degradable, undegradable, and intestinal digestible CB2, and total RDC, the Plant 3 exhibited the lowest values for those variables (p = 0.003, p = 0.003, p = 0.003, and p = 0.020, respectively). Apart from DIGFC (p = 0.043), all other variables analyzed on the Chinese canola seeds were similar. And excluding the CB3 fractions (RDCB3, RUCB3, and DIGCB3; p = 0.006 for these three), all other fractions are similar between the canola seeds analyzed from Canadian and Chinese companies.
Huang [31] reported a study on different temperatures and conditioning time during the pelleting of canola meals and showed that neither the carbohydrate fractions nor the predicted rumen degradable and undegradable carbohydrate fractions were affected by the different treatments. This finding is in accordance with our results because only the indigestible fiber fractions (CC, RUCC, and total RUC) expressed a difference between mash and pellets (p<0.001, for the three fractions).

Summary and conclusion

Summary

The chemical profile of canola meals from Canada and China presented significant differences on DM, ash, CP, SCP, and NDICP. Whereas the chemical profile of canola seeds from Canada and China presented differences on DM, SCP, NDICP, NDF, AF, ADL, and cellulose. Because variations can be caused by crop environment, cultivar, and processing, these differences do not seem relevant.
The pelleting of canola meals by the Canadian companies seemed to have influenced tdNDF and TDN1x. On the other hand, the meals from China were not pelleted and differences were observed on tdNDF and tdCP. On the overall comparison of the mash meals, China presented higher tdNDF, and tdCP, and lower tdNFC than Canada.
The energy values of canola seeds were very similar among companies on Canada and China except for tdCP on the Chinese samples that showed some variations among plants. Between countries, only tdNDF was higher in Canada. No differences were observed on the energy values (NELp3x, NEm3x, and NEg3x) of canola seeds from China or Canada.
The protein fractions of the canola meals from Canada and China were similar, except for PA2 and PB2, where PA2 was higher in China and PB2 in Canada. The content of PB2 was also higher for the Canadian seeds. RDPA2, RUPA2, RDPEP, and total RDP were higher on the Chinese meals, whereas RDPB2, RUPB2, DIGPB2, and DIGPF were higher on the Canadian meals. While the Chinese seeds presented higher amounts of RDPB2, RUPB2, and DIGPB2.
The Chinese meals and seeds showed higher content of water-soluble carbohydrates (CA4). Canadian meals presented higher soluble (CB2) and indigestible (CC) fiber contents, and consequently higher RDCB2, RUCB2, RUCC, and DIGCB2 than the ones from China. The meals from Canada were also higher in RUCC and Total RUC. While the rumen degradable, undegradable and intestinal digestible fractions of CB3 were higher in Canada, all the other variables were similar between the two countries.

Conclusion

From this study, we can conclude that the canola seeds used by the companies from both countries are not different in chemical and nutrient profiles, and that the canola meals can present some variations depending on the processing (oil processing and meal pelleting) it went through in the crushing plants. The chemical composition, protein and carbohydrate fractions, TDN value, energy value and nutrient supply for lactation, growth and maintenance differed between the countries. This indicated that the oil processing and extract methods and meal processing either mash or pelleting significantly affected nutritional value. For practice purpose, nutritionists and producers need to regularly check nutritional value of meal and pellets for precision feeding.

Notes

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

We certify that there is no conflict of interest with any financial organization regarding the material discussed in the manuscript.

FUNDING

The SRP Chair (PY) research programs are financially supported by grants from the Ministry of Agriculture Strategic Research Chair Program, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, SaskPulse Growers, the Prairie Oat Grower Association, the Saskatchewan Agricultural Development Fund, SaskCanola, SaskMilk, Saskatchewan Forage Network (SNK), Western Grain Research Foundation (WGRF) etc.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank Brittany Dyck and Qin Guoqin (Canola Council of Canada) and Xuewei Zhang (Tianjing Agricultural University) for help sampling canola seed and canola meal in various crushers in Canada and China, Denise Beaulieu and Rex Newkirk for being in advisory committee, and Z. Niu (Department of Animal and Poultry Science, University of Saskatchewan) for technical assistance. The authors would like to acknowledge the University of Saskatchewan, the Rainer Dairy Research Facility, and Alexander Malcolm Shaw Memorial Graduate Scholarship (to AO). This article is part of student graduate thesis and made journal revisions.

Table 1
Chemical composition profile of co-products from different oil processing plants (canola meal and pellet): comparison among bio-oil processing plants and between Canada and China
Items Basic chemical profile Protein profile


DM (%) Ash (% DM) EE (% DM) FA (% DM) CP (% DM) SCP (% DM) SCP (% CP) NDICP (% DM) NDICP (% CP) ADICP (% DM) ADICP (% CP)
------------------------------------------------------------------------- CA processing plants -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plant 1 (M) 90.28 7.60b 0.68 0.47 42.62a 7.08b 16.63b 7.65ab 17.95ab 2.47a 5.80a
Plant 2 (M) 89.49 8.24a 0.79 0.44 40.94b 7.05ab 17.20ab 8.70a 21.30a 2.45ab 5.98a
Plant 3 (P) 83.13 8.25a 1.46 1.11 41.64b 7.92ab 19.01ab 6.03bc 14.51b 2.02c 4.87b
Plant 4 (P) 89.83 7.43b 1.06 0.74 41.70b 8.57a 20.55a 6.03c 14.48b 2.37ab 5.69a
Plant 5 (P) 89.25 7.28b 0.63 0.28 41.84ab 7.46ab 17.82ab 7.83a 18.73ab 2.30b 5.49a
SEM 0.497 0.094 0.718 0.552 0.222 0.468 1.070 0.443 1.123 0.091 0.225
p-value 0.281 <0.001 0.606 0.604 0.001 0.037 0.017 0.001 0.001 <0.001 <0.001
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meal vs Pellet -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contrast p-value 0.188 0.004 0.472 0.477 0.766 0.014 0.008 0.001 0.001 <0.001 <0.001
------------------------------------------------------------------------- CH processing plants -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plant A (M) 88.21 7.05 0.82 0.38 42.71bc 9.53b 22.33b 4.74b 11.07b 2.14bc 5.00bc
Plant B (M) 88.54 7.09 0.41 0.02 43.31abc 9.45b 21.77bc 7.05a 16.27a 2.85a 6.60a
Plant C (M) 88.52 7.42 0.74 0.35 43.25ab 11.01a 25.46a 4.69b 10.83b 2.05c 4.75c
Plant D (M) 88.89 6.72 0.50 0.10 43.87a 10.19ab 23.24ab 6.30a 14.35a 2.08c 4.74c
Plant E (M) 88.56 7.27 0.43 0.03 42.17c 8.16c 19.36c 6.60a 15.62a 2.42b 5.74b
SEM 0.311 0.202 0.415 0.236 0.321 0.341 0.862 0.473 1.046 0.090 0.209
p-value 0.615 0.112 0.554 0.599 0.003 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Overall -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA Plants 89.96 7.89 0.79 0.46 41.87 7.15 17.11 8.07 19.34 2.45 5.86
CH Plants 88.55 7.12 0.47 0.16 43.04 9.71 22.51 5.83 13.52 2.29 5.33
SEM 0.285 0.143 0.397 0.211 0.305 0.365 0.851 0.48 1.125 0.104 0.245
p-value <0.001 <0.001 0.118 0.125 0.003 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.192 0.075

For each plant, sample size n = 5.

DM, dry matter; EE, ether extract (crude fat); FA, fatty acid; CP, crude protein; SCP, soluble crude protein; NDICP, neutral detergent-insoluble crude protein; ADICP, acid detergent-insoluble crude protein; CA, Canada; CH, China; SEM, standard error of the mean.

a–c Means within a column without a common superscript letter differ (p<0.05).

Table 2
Chemical composition profile of co-products from different oil processing plants (canola meal and pellet): comparison among bio-oil processing plants and between Canada and China
Items Carbohydrate profile

CHO (% DM) Sugar (% DM) Sugar (% NFC) NDF (% DM) ADF (% DM) ADF (% NDF) ADL (% DM) ADL (% NDF) HEM (% DM) Cell (% DM) NFC (% DM) NFC (% CHO) NSC (% DM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CA processing plants ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plant 1 (M) 48.98 8.72 33.80 30.73bc 20.03c 65.10bc 9.65bc 31.62ab 10.75a 10.36b 25.95 53.17ab 14.20
Plant 2 (M) 50.14 7.97 31.06 33.26a 21.90a 66.31bc 10.59a 31.80a 11.24a 11.37a 25.64 51.06b 14.72
Plant 3 (P) 48.78 9.10 33.98 27.89d 19.36c 69.70ab 7.92d 28.28b 8.45b 11.48a 26.99 55.22a 14.87
Plant 4 (P) 49.81 9.58 36.70 29.92cd 21.71ab 72.70a 9.96ab 33.53a 8.26b 11.73a 25.98 52.38ab 14.42
Plant 5 (P) 50.38 8.06 31.50 32.66ab 20.92b 64.61c 9.12c 27.85b 11.63a 11.86a 25.61 50.79b 15.23
SEM 0.740 1.005 4.010 0.756 0.212 1.699 0.203 1.163 0.745 0.222 0.516 1.058 3.594
p-value 0.046 0.583 0.721 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.002 <0.001 <0.001 0.355 0.018 0.531
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Meal vs Pellet -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contrast p-value 0.788 0.442 0.573 <0.001 0.111 0.005 <0.001 0.011 0.002 <0.001 0.395 0.374 0.303
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CH processing plants ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plant A (M) 49.40 8.87ab 35.00ab 28.54b 20.73 72.53a 8.93ab 31.18a 7.83c 11.83 25.63 51.61 15.35
Plant B (M) 49.25 8.88ab 34.43b 30.63ab 21.46 70.34a 9.76a 31.86a 9.11bc 11.72 25.63 51.85 15.97
Plant C (M) 48.60 8.76b 36.27ab 29.06ab 20.05 69.15ab 8.17b 28.19b 9.01c 11.87 24.22 49.87 15.34
Plant D (M) 48.91 10.21ab 43.34ab 31.65a 20.51 64.85bc 8.62b 27.28b 11.14ab 11.87 23.57 48.17 14.99
Plant E (M) 50.02 10.91a 43.65a 31.62a 20.25 64.07c 8.77ab 27.74b 11.37a 11.48 25.08 50.12 16.53
SEM 0.615 0.722 2.990 0.738 0.373 1.133 0.276 0.751 0.530 0.285 0.659 1.305 3.723
p-value 0.143 0.019 0.009 0.012 0.062 <0.001 0.010 <0.001 <0.001 0.672 0.114 0.253 0.609
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Overall ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA Plants 49.48 8.44 33.09 31.74 20.86 65.83 10.07 31.80 10.88 10.80 25.81 52.24 14.34
CH Plants 49.41 9.56 38.74 30.62 20.56 67.91 8.81 29.07 9.80 11.75 24.76 50.20 14.69
SEM 0.562 0.688 2.540 0.633 0.302 1.226 0.228 0.758 0.542 0.190 0.441 0.819 3.212
p-value 0.840 0.098 0.017 0.075 0.408 0.162 <0.001 0.005 0.103 <0.001 0.051 0.044 0.562

For each plant, sample size n = 5.

CHO, total carbohydrate; DM, dry matter; NFC, non-fiber carbohydrate; NDF, neutral detergent fiber; ADF, acid detergent fiber; ADL, acid detergent lignin; HEM, Hemicellulose; NSC, non-structural carbohydrate; M, meal; P, pellet; CA, Canada; CH, China; SEM, standard error of the mean.

a–d Means within a column without a common superscript letter differ (p<0.05).

Table 3
Chemical composition profile of canola seeds from different oil processing plants: comparison among bio-oil processing plants and between Canada and China
Items Basic chemical profile Protein profile


DM (%) Ash (% DM) EE (% DM) FA (% DM) CP (% DM) SCP (% DM) SCP (% CP) NDICP (% DM) NDICP (% CP) ADICP (% DM) ADICP (% CP)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CA processing plants ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plant 1 93.67ab 3.92a 42.29 41.29 23.05 10.42bc 45.18b 2.67a 11.60a 1.18a 5.14a
Plant 2 94.83a 3.69b 40.66 39.66 22.09 9.43c 42.84b 2.60ab 11.75a 1.11a 5.03a
Plant 3 93.38bc 3.97a 44.79 43.79 22.81 10.28bc 45.21b 2.37b 10.34a 0.97b 4.25b
Plant 4 91.71d 3.80ab 43.42 42.42 22.14 11.70ab 52.88a 2.31b 10.44a 1.20a 5.42a
Plant 5 92.22cd 3.80ab 43.42 42.42 22.13 12.26a 55.57a 1.96c 8.84b 1.13a 5.12a
SEM 0.367 0.053 1.445 1.445 0.267 0.486 2.042 0.073 0.346 0.026 0.137
p-value <0.001 0.009 0.196 0.196 0.037 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CH processing plants --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plant A 92.31ab 3.77 43.09 42.09 22.48a 12.49 55.53 2.05 9.15 1.06 4.69
Plant B 92.21bc 3.72 46.06 45.06 21.70b 12.24 56.39 2.02 9.34 1.18 5.41
Plant C 92.46ab 3.87 43.07 42.07 22.40a 12.07 54.04 2.00 8.94 1.11 4.97
Plant D 92.79a 3.81 43.33 42.33 22.28a 11.35 50.89 1.99 8.92 1.08 4.88
Plant E 92.71c 3.83 44.37 43.37 22.18ab 12.06 54.44 2.06 9.28 1.07 4.82
SEM 0.236 0.043 1.636 1.636 0.168 0.851 3.943 0.084 0.404 0.070 0.314
p-value <0.001 0.128 0.348 0.348 0.008 0.762 0.676 0.954 0.897 0.607 0.382
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Overall -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA Plants 93.10 3.84 42.71 41.71 22.46 10.81 48.21 2.39 10.63 1.13 5.06
CH Plants 92.28 3.81 43.91 42.91 22.20 12.04 54.30 2.02 9.11 1.10 4.96
SEM 0.250 0.026 0.848 0.848 0.129 0.461 2.215 0.049 0.215 0.030 0.157
p-value 0.008 0.387 0.191 0.191 0.100 0.003 0.002 <0.001 <0.001 0.338 0.537

For each plant, sample size n = 5.

DM, dry matter; EE, ether extract (crude fat); FA, fatty acid; CP, crude protein; SCP, soluble crude protein; NDICP, neutral detergent-insoluble crude protein; ADICP, acid detergent-insoluble crude protein; CA, Canada; CH, China; SEM, standard error of the mean.

a–d Means within a column without a common superscript letter differ (p<0.05).

Table 4
Chemical composition profile of canola seeds from different oil processing plants: comparison among bio-oil processing plants and between Canada and China
Items Carbohydrate profile

CHO (% DM) Sugar (% DM) Sugar (% NFC) NDF (% DM) ADF (% DM) ADF (% NDF) ADL (% DM) ADL (% NDF) HEM (% DM) Cell (% DM) NFC (% DM) NFC (% CHO) NSC (% DM)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CA processing plants -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plant 1 30.74 4.95 30.51 17.04 12.18 71.55 5.32bc 31.25ab 4.85 6.86 16.37 53.06 9.24
Plant 2 33.61 4.85 26.54 17.44 12.45 71.30 5.53bc 31.12ab 5.05 6.97 18.63 54.91 10.80
Plant 3 28.48 5.74 39.20 16.27 12.03 73.69 4.94c 29.81b 4.29 7.15 14.44 51.02 9.04
Plant 4 30.65 5.29 35.99 17.52 14.41 76.68 6.44a 36.84a 4.11 6.96 15.44 50.05 10.07
Plant 5 30.71 5.74 34.42 15.94 12.31 77.24 5.89ab 36.60a 3.69 6.47 16.59 54.55 9.89
SEM 1.462 0.459 3.760 0.521 0.349 2.499 0.259 1.592 0.514 0.226 1.532 2.491 3.062
p-value 0.122 0.490 0.165 0.147 0.048 0.285 0.001 0.009 0.336 0.282 0.227 0.364 0.824
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CH processing plants -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plant A 30.68 6.90 39.02 15.27 12.05 78.74 5.27 34.45 3.31 6.71 17.51 56.58 11.42
Plant B 28.50 5.69 38.90 15.59 12.17 78.86 5.85 37.53 3.36 6.26 14.89 51.99 10.03
Plant C 30.66 6.77 42.58 15.58 11.54 74.79 5.91 37.90 4.04 5.63 17.08 55.05 13.02
Plant D 30.57 5.56 34.73 15.91 11.44 72.59 5.64 35.67 4.47 5.80 16.65 54.22 11.22
Plant E 29.62 5.15 35.41 16.52 11.81 71.63 5.61 34.03 4.71 6.20 15.16 50.80 9.66
SEM 1.613 0.790 5.884 0.814 0.345 3.470 0.262 1.326 0.705 0.412 1.763 3.299 3.217
p-value 0.585 0.368 0.721 0.477 0.468 0.062 0.246 0.111 0.064 0.328 0.387 0.300 0.140
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Overall ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA Plants 30.92 5.30 32.60 16.96 12.49 73.98 5.65 33.20 4.45 6.88 16.52 52.75 10.04
CH Plants 30.07 5.99 38.46 15.87 11.77 74.52 5.67 35.88 4.14 6.09 16.26 53.59 10.38
SEM 0.815 0.275 2.975 0.439 0.173 1.660 0.201 0.788 0.364 0.168 1.071 2.173 2.793
p-value 0.361 0.076 0.032 0.004 0.003 0.762 0.920 0.017 0.387 <0.001 0.769 0.554 0.681

For each plant, sample size n = 5.

CHO, total carbohydrate; DM, dry matter; NFC, non-fiber carbohydrate; NDF, neutral detergent fiber; ADF, acid detergent fiber; ADL, acid detergent lignin; HEM, Hemicellulose; Cell, cellulose, calculated as ADF-ADL; CA, Canada; CH, China; SEM, standard error of the mean.

a–c Means within a column without a common superscript letter differ (p<0.05).

Table 5
Energy profile of co-products from different oil processing plants (canola meals and pellets): comparison among bio-oil processing plants and between Canada and China
Items Digestible nutrients profile (% DM)

tdNDF tdNFC tdCP tdFA TDN1x
-------------------------- CA processing plants ---------------------------
Plant 1 (M) 4.34c 25.44 45.62a 0.56 65.67b
Plant 2 (M) 4.38c 25.13 39.98b 0.55 63.75b
Plant 3 (P) 5.04ab 26.45 40.84ab 1.21 68.07a
Plant 4 (P) 4.52bc 25.46 40.74b 0.83 65.59b
Plant 5 (P) 5.63a 25.09 40.94ab 0.38 65.54b
SEM 0.331 0.506 0.223 0.576 0.783
p-value <0.001 0.356 0.001 0.574 0.001
------------------------------- Meal vs Pellet -------------------------------
Contrast p-value <0.001 0.398 0.846 0.458 0.002
----------------------------- CH processing plants ------------------------
Plant A (M) 5.48ab 25.12 41.85bc 0.38 66.22
Plant B (M) 4.63b 25.11 42.16abc 0.02 65.00
Plant C (M) 6.29a 23.74 42.43ab 0.35 66.24
Plant D (M) 6.43a 23.10 43.03a 0.10 65.79
Plant E (M) 6.14a 24.60 41.20c 0.03 65.01
SEM 0.295 0.644 0.317 0.210 0.521
p-value <0.001 0.111 0.002 0.599 0.182
----------------------------- CH processing plants --------------------------
CA Plants 4.64 25.65 40.89 0.67 65.62
CH Plants 5.86 24.26 42.13 0.20 65.67
SEM 0.244 0.374 0.250 0.299 0.493
p-value <0.001 0.006 <0.001 0.055 0.926

For each plant, sample size n = 5.

DM, dry matter; tdNDF, total digestible neutral detergent fiber; tdNFC, total digestible non-fiber carbohydrate; tdCP, total digestible crude protein; tdFA, total digestible fatty acids; TDN1x, total digestible nutrients at one time maintenance level; M, meal; P, pellet; CA, Canada; CH, China; SEM, standard error of the mean.

a–c Means within a column without a common superscript letter differ (p<0.05).

Table 6
Energy profile of co-products from different oil processing plants (canola meals and pellets): comparison among bio-oil processing plants and between Canada and China
Items Energy values (Mcal/kg DM)

ME3x NELp3x NEm3x NEg3x
---------------------------- CA processing plants --------------------------
Plant 1 (M) 2.73b 1.75ab 1.81ab 1.18ab
Plant 2 (M) 2.65c 1.70c 1.73c 1.12c
Plant 3 (P) 2.81a 1.79a 1.87a 1.23a
Plant 4 (P) 2.72b 1.74bc 1.80b 1.17bc
Plant 5 (P) 2.72b 1.74bc 1.80bc 1.17bc
SEM 0.026 0.015 0.022 0.020
p-value <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
------------------------------- Meal vs Pellet ----------------------------------
Contrast p-value <0.001 0.003 0.001 0.002
------------------------- CH processing plants ----------------------------
Plant A (M) 2.76 1.76 1.83 1.20
Plant B (M) 2.72 1.75 1.80 1.17
Plant C (M) 2.77 1.77 1.83 1.20
Plant D (M) 2.75 1.77 1.83 1.20
Plant E (M) 2.71 1.74 1.78 1.16
SEM 0.020 0.011 0.017 0.015
p-value 0.086 0.066 0.071 0.106
------------------------------------- Overall --------------------------------------
CA Plants 2.73 1.75 1.80 1.17
CH Plants 2.74 1.76 1.82 1.19
SEM 0.019 0.010 0.016 0.014
p-value 0.382 0.320 0.397 0.347

For each plant, sample size n = 5.

DM, dry matter; ME3x, metabolizable energy for gain at three times the maintenance level; NELp3x, net energy for lactation at a productive level of intake three times the maintenance level; NEm3x, net energy for maintenance; NEg3x, net energy for gain; M, meal; P, pellet; CA, Canada; CH, China; SEM, standard error of the mean.

a–c Means within a column without a common superscript letter differ (p<0.05).

Table 7
Energy profile of canola seeds from different oil processing plants: comparison among bio-oil processing plants and between Canada (CA) and China (CH)
Items Digestible nutrients profile (%DM)

tdNDF tdNFC tdCP tdFA TDN1x
---------------------------------- CA processing plants ----------------------------------
Plant 1 3.29 16.05 22.58 41.29 127.82
Plant 2 3.47 18.26 21.66 39.66 125.55
Plant 3 3.44 14.15 22.43 43.79 131.49
Plant 4 2.89 15.12 21.66 42.42 128.11
Plant 5 2.75 16.25 21.69 42.42 129.06
SEM 0.246 1.502 0.268 1.445 1.743
p-value 0.157 0.226 0.038 0.196 0.136
---------------------------------- CH processing plants -------------------------------
Plant A 2.75 17.16 22.06a 42.09 129.61
Plant B 2.52 14.60 21.23b 45.06 132.76
Plant C 2.45 16.74 21.95a 42.07 128.81
Plant D 2.84 16.31 21.85a 42.33 129.24
Plant E 3.11 14.86 21.75ab 43.37 130.30
SEM 0.279 1.728 0.180 1.636 2.098
p-value 0.145 0.387 0.006 0.348 0.383
------------------------------------------ Overall ------------------------------------------
CA Plants 3.15 16.18 22.01 41.71 129.75
CH Plants 2.77 15.93 21.76 42.91 128.07
SEM 0.146 1.049 0.135 0.848 1.275
p-value 0.023 0.770 0.126 0.191 0.328

For each plant, sample size n = 5.

DM, dry matter; tdNDF, total digestible neutral detergent fiber; tdNFC, total digestible non-fiber carbohydrate; tdCP, total digestible crude protein; tdFA, total digestible fatty acids; TDN1x, total digestible nutrients at one time maintenance level; M, meal; P, pellet; CA, Canada; CH, China; SEM, standard error of the mean.

a,b Means within a column without a common superscript letter differ (p<0.05).

Table 8
Energy profile of canola seeds from different oil processing plants: comparison among bio-oil processing plants and between Canada and China
Items Energy values (Mcal/kg DM)

ME3x NELp3x NEm3x NEg3x
----------------------------- CA processing plants ---------------------------------
Plant 1 4.64 3.08 3.31 2.41
Plant 2 4.55 3.02 3.25 2.36
Plant 3 4.76 3.18 3.41 2.48
Plant 4 4.64 3.09 3.32 2.41
Plant 5 4.67 3.11 3.34 2.43
SEM 0.060 0.048 0.046 0.036
p-value 0.122 0.149 0.132 0.129
----------------------------- CH processing plants -----------------------------
Plant A 4.70 3.12 3.36 2.45
Plant B 4.79 3.21 3.44 2.50
Plant C 4.67 3.11 3.33 2.43
Plant D 4.68 3.12 3.34 2.44
Plant E 4.71 3.15 3.37 2.46
SEM 0.072 0.057 0.055 0.043
p-value 0.461 0.426 0.390 0.454
---------------------------------- Overall -----------------------------------------------
CA Plants 4.65 3.09 3.32 2.42
CH Plants 4.71 3.14 3.36 2.45
SEM 0.034 0.028 0.026 0.020
p-value 0.161 0.162 0.173 0.143

For each plant, sample size n = 5.

DM, dry matter; ME3x, metabolizable energy for gain at three times the maintenance level; NELp3x, net energy for lactation at a productive level of intake three times the maintenance level; NEm3x, net energy for maintenance; NEg3x, net energy for gain; CA, Canada; CH, China; SEM, standard error of the mean.

Table 9
Protein fractions profile of co-products from different oil processing plants (canola meals and pellets): comparison among bio-oil processing plants and between Canada and China
Items % CP % TP % DM



PA2 PB1 PB2 PC TP PA2 PB1 PB2 PA2 PB1 PB2 PC
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CA processing plants ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------
Plant 1 (M) 16.63b 65.08ab 12.17ab 5.80a 94.20b 17.65b 69.06ab 12.88ab 7.08b 27.74a 5.19abc 2.47a
Plant 2 (M) 17.19ab 61.45b 15.44a 5.98a 94.02b 18.29ab 65.43b 16.40a 7.05ab 25.11b 6.30a 2.45ab
Plant 3 (P) 19.00ab 66.44a 9.75b 4.87b 95.13a 19.98ab 69.90a 10.25b 7.92ab 27.60a 4.06bc 2.02c
Plant 4 (P) 20.55a 64.62ab 8.82b 5.69a 94.31b 21.78a 68.50ab 9.31b 8.57a 26.95a 3.67c 2.37ab
Plant 5 (P) 17.82ab 63.40ab 13.35ab 5.49a 94.51b 18.86ab 67.15ab 14.11ab 7.46ab 26.47ab 5.58ab 2.30b
SEM 1.070 1.155 1.216 0.225 0.225 1.100 1.327 1.290 0.468 0.517 0.487 0.090
p-value 0.017 0.012 0.003 <0.001 <0.001 0.018 0.029 0.003 0.037 0.003 0.002 <0.001
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Meal vs Pellet -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contrast p-value 0.008 0.053 0.003 <0.001 <0.001 0.010 0.124 0.003 0.014 0.110 0.002 <0.001
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CH processing plants ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plant A (M) 22.32b 66.99a 6.01b 5.00bc 95.00ab 23.52bc 70.49a 6.34b 9.53b 28.52 2.58b 2.14bc
Plant B (M) 21.77bc 62.16b 9.66a 6.60a 93.40c 23.31bc 66.55ab 10.34a 9.45b 26.86 4.18a 2.85a
Plant C (M) 25.46a 63.71ab 6.08b 4.75c 95.25a 26.73a 66.89ab 6.39b 11.01a 27.56 2.63b 2.05c
Plant D (M) 23.24ab 62.41b 9.61a 4.74c 95.26a 24.40ab 65.52b 10.08a 10.19ab 27.36 4.23a 2.08c
Plant E (M) 19.36c 65.01ab 9.88a 5.74b 94.26b 20.54c 68.97ab 10.49a 8.16c 27.41 4.17a 2.42b
SEM 0.862 1.052 0.978 0.209 0.209 0.915 1.049 1.035 0.341 0.486 0.438 0.091
p-value <0.001 0.021 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.016 <0.001 <0.001 0.183 <0.001 <0.001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Overall ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA Plants 17.11 63.48 13.48 5.86 94.14 18.18 67.44 14.32 7.15 26.22 5.62 2.45
CH Plants 22.51 64.01 8.18 5.33 94.67 23.77 67.61 8.65 9.71 27.54 3.53 2.29
SEM 0.851 0.939 1.023 0.245 0.245 0.875 0.988 1.089 0.365 0.443 0.435 0.104
p-value <0.001 0.636 <0.001 0.075 0.075 <0.001 0.887 <0.001 <0.001 0.082 <0.001 0.192

For each plant, sample size n = 5.

CP, crude protein; TP, true protein; DM, dry matter; PA2, soluble true protein; PB1, moderately degradable protein; PB2, slowly degradable protein; PC, unavailable crude protein; M, meal; P, pellet; CA, Canada; CH, China; SEM, standard error of the mean.

a–c Means within a column without a common superscript letter differ (p<0.05).

Table 10
Protein fractions profile of canola seeds from different oil processing plants: comparison among bio-oil processing plants and between Canada and China
Items % CP % TP % DM



PA2 PB1 PB2 PC TP PA2 PB1 PB2 PA2 PB1 PB2 PC
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CA processing plants -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plant 1 53.06 35.32 6.46a 5.14a 94.86b 55.93 37.22 6.81a 12.24 8.15 1.49a 1.18a
Plant 2 54.91 33.81 6.72a 5.03a 94.97b 57.84 35.66 7.08a 12.01 7.38 1.49a 1.11a
Plant 3 51.02 39.11 6.10ab 4.25b 95.75a 53.30 40.90 6.37ab 11.50 8.85 1.39ab 0.97b
Plant 4 50.05 39.49 5.02b 5.42a 94.58b 52.91 41.74 5.31b 11.09 8.74 1.11b 1.20a
Plant 5 54.55 37.09 3.72c 5.12a 94.89b 57.50 39.16 3.92c 11.94 8.12 0.83c 1.13a
SEM 2.410 2.870 0.308 0.137 0.137 2.619 2.997 0.325 0.741 0.779 0.068 0.026
p-value 0.364 0.187 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.341 0.194 <0.001 0.404 0.1994 <0.001 <0.001
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CH processing plants ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plant A 56.58 34.23 4.34 4.69 95.31 59.33 35.92 4.56 12.72 7.71 0.97 1.06
Plant B 51.99 38.75 3.87 5.41 94.59 54.95 40.96 4.09 11.30 8.40 0.83 1.18
Plant C 55.05 36.02 3.97 4.97 95.03 57.89 37.94 4.17 12.35 8.04 0.89 1.11
Plant D 54.22 36.86 4.04 4.88 95.12 56.95 38.8 4.25 12.09 8.21 0.90 1.08
Plant E 50.80 39.93 4.46 4.82 95.18 53.36 41.96 4.68 11.27 8.86 0.99 1.07
SEM 3.298 3.199 0.477 0.314 0.314 3.341 3.447 0.493 0.784 0.700 0.109 0.066
p-value 0.300 0.280 0.860 0.382 0.382 0.302 0.287 0.866 0.186 0.402 0.807 0.607
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Overall -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA Plants 52.75 36.54 5.62 5.05 94.95 55.59 38.52 5.91 11.87 1.26 8.21 1.13
CH Plants 53.59 37.29 4.14 4.96 95.04 56.37 39.27 4.35 11.92 0.92 8.27 1.10
SEM 2.173 2.138 0.229 0.157 0.157 2.224 2.291 0.239 0.543 0.052 0.445 0.030
p-value 0.554 0.588 <0.001 0.537 0.537 0.597 0.608 <0.001 0.874 <0.001 0.829 0.338

For each plant, sample size n = 5.

CP, crude protein; TP, true protein; DM, dry matter; PA2, soluble true protein; PB1, moderately degradable protein; PB2, slowly degradable protein; PC, unavailable crude protein; CA, Canada; CH, China; SEM, standard error of the mean.

a–c Means within a column without a common superscript letter differ (p<0.05).

Table 11
Carbohydrate fractions profile of co-products from different oil processing plants (canola meals and pellets): comparison among bio-oil processing plants and between Canada and China
Items CHO CA4 CB1 CB2 CB3 CC CA4 CB2 CB3 CC



% DM % CHO % DM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CA processing plants ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plant 1 (M) 48.98 17.95 2.04 33.17 23.92ab 23.18bc 8.72 16.27 11.76b 11.32b
Plant 2 (M) 50.14 15.69 1.99 32.94 24.50ab 25.43a 7.97 16.49 12.33b 12.75a
Plant 3 (P) 48.78 18.63 2.05 34.11 21.36b 19.00d 9.10 16.71 10.45b 9.25c
Plant 4 (P) 49.81 19.45 2.01 30.92 21.09b 23.89ab 9.58 15.43 10.55b 11.89ab
Plant 5 (P) 50.38 15.81 1.99 32.57 28.52a 21.88c 8.06 16.36 14.41a 11.02b
SEM 0.740 2.613 0.032 2.092 2.000 0.488 1.005 1.047 0.625 0.296
p-value 0.046 0.609 0.073 0.785 0.002 <0.001 0.583 0.909 <0.001 <0.001
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meal vs Pellet -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contrast p-value 0.788 0.476 0.913 0.757 0.529 <0.001 0.442 0.812 0.531 <0.001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CH processing plants -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plant A (M) 49.40 18.06 2.03 31.75ab 22.19b 21.44ab 8.87ab 15.67a 10.82b 10.59ab
Plant B (M) 49.25 18.11 2.03 32.43a 24.24ab 23.42a 8.88ab 15.93a 11.95ab 11.52a
Plant C (M) 48.60 18.07 2.06 29.75ab 24.91ab 19.62b 8.76b 14.46ab 12.10ab 9.54b
Plant D (M) 48.91 20.91 2.04 25.21b 30.32a 20.69b 10.21ab 12.36b 14.80a 10.12b
Plant E (M) 50.02 21.83 2.00 26.29ab 27.68ab 21.06ab 10.91a 13.17ab 13.82ab 10.52ab
SEM 0.615 1.551 0.025 1.692 1.714 0.662 0.722 0.894 0.764 0.382
p-value 0.143 0.019 0.153 0.012 0.013 0.010 0.019 0.014 0.007 0.008
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Overall ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA Plants 49.48 17.25 2.02 32.93 24.04 24.17 8.44 16.30 11.91 11.96
CH Plants 49.41 19.42 2.02 28.81 26.02 21.15 9.56 14.21 12.81 10.44
SEM 0.562 1.279 0.023 1.403 1.275 0.547 0.688 0.772 0.606 0.320
p-value 0.840 0.040 0.906 0.010 0.200 <0.001 0.098 0.009 0.214 <0.001

For each plant, sample size n = 5.

CHO, carbohydrates; CA4, water soluble carbohydrate; CB1, rapidly degradable CHO fraction; CB2, soluble fiber; CB3, digestible fiber; CC, indigestible fiber; DM, dry matter; M, meal; P, pellet; CA, Canada; CH, China; SEM, standard error of the mean.

a–d Means within a column without a common superscript letter differ (p<0.05).

Table 12
Carbohydrate fractions profile of canola seeds from different oil processing plants: comparison among bio-oil processing plants and between Canada and China
Items % DM % CHO % DM



CHO CA4 CB2 CB3 CC CA4 CB2 CB3 CC
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CA processing plants ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plant 1 30.74 16.14 28.83bc 30.04 12.76bc 4.95 8.80ab 9.21 3.91bc
Plant 2 33.61 14.36 29.29bc 28.58 13.26bc 4.85 9.73ab 9.42 4.35ab
Plant 3 28.48 20.02 25.99c 31.49 11.84c 5.74 7.30b 8.99 3.33c
Plant 4 30.65 17.63 35.04ab 29.55 15.46a 5.29 10.75a 8.98 4.75a
Plant 5 30.71 18.71 37.66a 25.40 14.14ab 5.74 11.51a 7.87 4.30ab
SEM 1.462 1.578 2.150 2.218 0.622 0.459 0.692 0.496 0.224
p-value 0.122 0.141 0.002 0.315 <0.001 0.500 0.003 0.248 0.003
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CH processing plants ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plant A 30.68 22.50 33.59 25.24 12.65 6.90 10.37 7.62 3.88
Plant B 28.50 19.68 36.88 27.96 14.05 5.70 10.45 7.88 3.99
Plant C 30.66 22.47 31.57 24.63 14.18 6.77 9.61 7.38 4.32
Plant D 30.57 18.35 32.54 26.2 13.53 5.56 9.96 7.95 4.15
Plant E 29.62 17.69 36.75 29.63 13.47 5.15 10.90 8.69 4.00
SEM 1.613 2.661 2.912 2.794 0.628 0.790 0.984 0.690 0.261
p-value 0.585 0.457 0.331 0.258 0.245 0.368 0.600 0.254 0.358
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Overall --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA Plants 30.92 17.07 31.44 28.93 13.56 5.30 9.66 8.90 4.18
CH Plants 30.07 20.17 34.21 26.82 13.60 5.99 10.28 7.98 4.09
SEM 0.815 1.164 1.849 1.78 0.483 0.275 0.531 0.392 0.185
p-value 0.361 0.022 0.077 0.107 0.920 0.076 0.250 0.006 0.595

For each plant, sample size n = 5.

DM, dry matter; CHO, carbohydrates; CA4, water soluble carbohydrate; CB2, soluble fiber; CB3, digestible fiber; CC, indigestible fiber; CA, Canada; CH, China; SEM, standard error of the mean.

a–c Means within a column without a common superscript letter differ (p<0.05).

Table 13
Ruminal degradation and intestinal digestion profile of carbohydrate in co-products from different oil processing plants (canola meal and pellet): comparison among bio-oil processing plants and between Canada and China
Items Rumen degradable profile (% DM) Rumen undegradable profile (% DM) Intestinal digestible profile (% DM)



RDCA4 RDCB2 RDCB3 Total RDC RUCA4 RUCB2 RUCB3 RUCC Total RUC DIGCA4 DIGCB2 DIGCB3 DIGFC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CA processing plants -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plant 1 (M) 6.71 12.51 5.88b 25.90 2.01 3.75 5.88b 11.32b 23.25b 2.01 3.75 5.88b 11.90b
Plant 2 (M) 6.13 12.69 6.16b 25.87 1.84 3.81 6.16b 12.75a 24.78a 1.84 3.81 6.16b 12.07b
Plant 3 (P) 7.00 12.86 5.22b 25.97 2.10 3.86 5.22b 9.25c 20.66c 2.10 3.86 5.22b 11.44b
Plant 4 (P) 7.37 11.87 5.28b 25.31 2.21 3.56 5.28b 11.89ab 23.22b 2.21 3.56 5.28b 12.30b
Plant 5 (P) 6.20 12.59 7.21a 26.89 1.86 3.78 7.21a 11.02b 24.10ab 1.86 3.78 7.21a 13.11a
SEM 0.773 0.904 0.312 0.492 0.232 0.270 0.312 0.260 0.449 0.232 0.270 0.312 0.314
p-value 0.584 0.909 <0.001 0.109 0.579 0.908 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.579 0.908 <0.001 <0.001
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meal vs Pellet ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contrast p-value 0.443 0.814 0.536 0.600 0.440 0.809 0.536 <0.001 <0.001 0.440 0.809 0.536 0.827
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CH processing plants --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plant A (M) 6.82ab 12.05a 5.41b 25.13 2.05ab 3.61a 5.41b 10.59ab 22.00ab 2.05ab 3.61a 5.41b 11.33b
Plant B (M) 6.83ab 12.25a 5.97ab 25.68 2.05ab 3.68a 5.97ab 11.52a 23.47a 2.05ab 3.68a 5.97ab 11.89ab
Plant C (M) 6.74b 11.13ab 6.05ab 24.68 2.02b 3.34ab 6.05ab 9.54b 21.18b 2.02b 3.34ab 6.05ab 11.64ab
Plant D (M) 7.86ab 9.51b 7.40a 25.53 2.36ab 2.85b 7.40a 10.12b 22.97a 2.36ab 2.85b 7.40a 12.84a
Plant E (M) 8.40a 10.13ab 6.91ab 26.20 2.52a 3.04ab 6.91ab 10.52ab 23.23a 2.52a 3.04ab 6.91ab 12.70a
SEM 0.555 0.688 0.381 0.387 0.166 0.206 0.381 0.382 0.435 0.166 0.206 0.381 0.317
p-value 0.018 0.014 0.007 0.074 0.018 0.014 0.007 0.008 0.004 0.018 0.014 0.007 0.008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Overall ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA Plants 6.50 12.54 5.95 25.81 1.95 3.76 5.95 11.96 23.86 1.95 3.76 5.95 11.91
CH Plants 7.36 10.94 6.40 25.45 2.21 3.28 6.40 10.44 22.55 2.21 3.28 6.40 12.12
SEM 0.527 0.594 0.303 0.319 0.161 0.178 0.303 0.321 0.394 0.161 0.178 0.303 0.266
p-value 0.097 0.009 0.215 0.344 0.101 0.008 0.215 <0.001 0.009 0.101 0.008 0.215 0.510

For each plant, sample size n = 5.

DM, dry matter; RDCA4, rumen degradable water-soluble carbohydrates; RDCB2, RD soluble fiber; RDCB3, RD digestible fiber; Total RDC, total RD carbohydrates; RUCA4, rumen undegradable water soluble CHO; RUCB2, rumen undegradable soluble fiber; RUCB3, rumen undegradable digestible fiber; Total RUC, total rumen undegradable CHO; RUCC, indigestible fiber; DIGCA4, digestible water-soluble CHO; DIGCB2, digestible soluble fiber; DIGCB3, digestible fiber; DIGFC, digestible feed CHO; M, meal; P, pellet; CA, Canada; CH, China; SEM, standard error of the mean.

a–c Means within a column without a common superscript letter differ (p<0.05).

Table 14
Ruminal degradation and intestinal digestion profile of carbohydrate in canola seeds from different oil processing plants: comparison among bio-oil processing plants and between Canada and China
Items Carbohydrate profile

Rumen degradable profile Rumen undegradable profile Intestinal digestible profile



RDCA4 (% DM) RDCB2 (% DM) RDCB3 (% DM) Total RDC (% DM) RUCA4 (% DM) RUCB2 (% DM) RUCB3 (% DM) RUCC (% DM) TotalRUC (% DM) DIGCA4 (% DM) DIGCB2 (% DM) DIGCB3 (% DM) DIGFC (% DM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CA processing plants ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plant 1 3.80 6.77ab 4.61 15.18ab 1.14 2.03ab 4.61 3.91bc 11.71ab 1.14 2.03ab 4.61 7.77
Plant 2 3.73 7.48ab 4.71 15.92ab 1.12 2.24ab 4.71 4.35ab 12.41ab 1.12 2.24ab 4.71 8.08
Plant 3 4.42 5.61b 4.50 14.52b 1.33 1.68b 4.50 3.53c 10.82b 1.33 1.68b 4.50 7.51
Plant 4 4.07 8.27a 4.49 16.83ab 1.22 2.48a 4.49 4.75a 12.96a 1.22 2.48a 4.49 8.19
Plant 5 4.42 8.86a 3.93 17.21a 1.33 2.66a 3.93 4.30ab 12.20ab 1.33 2.66a 3.93 7.92
SEM 0.354 0.532 0.248 0.586 0.106 0.160 0.248 0.224 0.389 0.106 0.160 0.248 0.307
p-value 0.487 0.003 0.244 0.020 0.481 0.003 0.244 0.003 0.010 0.481 0.003 0.244 0.523
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CH processing plants ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plant A 5.31 7.97 3.81 16.98 1.59 2.39 3.81 3.88 11.64 1.59 2.39 3.81 7.75ab
Plant B 4.38 8.04 3.94 16.17 1.32 2.41 3.94 3.99 11.57 1.32 2.41 3.94 7.60ab
Plant C 5.21 7.39 3.69 16.29 1.56 2.22 3.69 4.32 11.79 1.56 2.22 3.69 7.47b
Plant D 4.28 7.66 3.98 15.92 1.28 2.30 3.98 4.15 11.70 1.28 2.30 3.98 7.56ab
Plant E 3.96 8.38 4.35 16.69 1.19 2.52 4.35 4.00 12.04 1.19 2.52 4.35 8.05a
SEM 0.608 0.757 0.345 1.023 0.182 0.226 0.345 0.261 0.611 0.182 0.226 0.345 0.452
p-value 0.365 0.603 0.256 0.484 0.364 0.595 0.256 0.358 0.519 0.364 0.595 0.256 0.043
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Overall ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA Plants 4.07 7.43 4.45 15.94 1.22 2.23 4.45 4.18 12.15 1.22 2.23 4.45 7.90
CH Plants 4.61 7.91 3.99 16.52 1.38 2.37 3.99 4.09 11.82 1.38 2.37 3.99 7.75
SEM 0.211 0.409 0.196 0.524 0.063 0.122 0.196 0.185 0.379 0.063 0.122 0.196 0.265
p-value 0.076 0.252 0.006 0.218 0.077 0.249 0.006 0.595 0.235 0.077 0.249 0.006 0.419

For each plant, sample size n = 5.

RDCA4, rumen degradable water-soluble carbohydrates; RDCB2, rumen degradable soluble fiber; RDCB3, rumen degradable digestible fiber; Total RDC, total rumen degradable carbohydrates; RUCA4, rumen undegradable water soluble carbohydrates; RUCB2, rumen undegradable soluble fiber; RUCB3, rumen undegradable digestible fiber; TotalRUC, total rumen undegradable carbohydrates; RUCC, indigestible fiber; DIGCA4, digestible water-soluble carbohydrates; DIGCB2, digestible soluble fiber; DIGCB3, digestible fiber; DIGFC, digestible feed carbohydrate; DM, dry matter; CA, Canada; CH, China; SEM, standard error of the mean.

a–c Means within a column without a common superscript letter differ (p<0.05).

Table 15
Ruminal degradation and intestinal digestion profile of protein in co-products from different oil processing plants (canola meal and pellet): comparison among bio-oil processing plants and between Canada and China
Items Rumen degradable profile Rumen undegradable profile Intestinal digestible profile



(% DM) (% DM) (% DM) (% DM) (% DM) (% NDF) (% DM) (% DM) (% DM) (% DM) (% DM) (% DM) (% DM)



RDPA2 RDPB1 RDPB2 RDPEP Total RDP RUPA2 RUPB1 RUPB2 RUPC Total RUP DIGPB1 DIGPB2 DIGFP
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CA processing plants ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plant 1 (M) 5.06b 11.10a 1.73abc 17.92 17.92 2.03b 16.65a 3.46abc 2.47a 24.68a 16.65a 3.46abc 20.18a
Plant 2 (M) 5.04ab 10.04b 2.10a 17.27 17.27 2.01ab 15.07b 4.20a 2.45ab 23.72bc 15.07b 4.20a 19.27bc
Plant 3 (P) 5.66ab 11.04a 1.35bc 18.14 18.14 2.26ab 16.56a 2.70bc 2.02c 23.55c 16.56a 2.70bc 19.27bc
Plant 4 (P) 6.12a 10.78a 1.22c 18.17 18.17 2.45a 16.17a 2.45c 2.37ab 23.51c 16.17a 2.45c 18.69c
Plant 5 (P) 5.33ab 10.59ab 1.86ab 17.86 17.86 2.13ab 15.88ab 3.72ab 2.30b 24.02b 15.88ab 3.72ab 19.61ab
SEM 0.334 0.207 0.162 0.240 0.240 0.134 0.311 0.325 0.091 0.165 0.311 0.325 0.199
p-value 0.038 0.003 0.002 0.074 0.074 0.036 0.003 0.002 <0.001 <0.001 0.003 0.002 <0.001
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meal vs Pellet --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contrast p-value 0.014 0.109 0.002 0.034 0.034 0.014 0.112 0.003 <0.001 <0.001 0.112 0.003 0.001
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CH processing plants -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plant A (M) 6.81b 11.44 0.86b 19.08bc 19.08bc 2.72b 17.16 1.72b 2.14bc 23.68ab 17.16 1.72b 18.81ab
Plant B (M) 6.75b 10.75 1.39a 18.88c 18.88c 2.70b 16.12 2.79a 2.85a 24.47a 16.12 2.79a 18.91ab
Plant C (M) 7.86a 11.02 0.88b 19.76a 19.76a 3.14a 16.53 1.75b 2.05c 23.49b 16.53 1.75b 18.29b
Plant D (M) 7.28ab 10.95 1.41a 19.63ab 19.63ab 2.91ab 16.42 2.82a 2.08c 24.23a 16.42 2.82a 19.24a
Plant E (M) 5.83c 10.95 1.39a 18.19d 18.19d 2.33c 16.45 2.78a 2.42b 23.98ab 16.45 2.78a 19.23a
SEM 0.244 0.194 0.146 0.125 0.125 0.098 0.292 0.292 0.091 0.269 0.292 0.292 0.329
p-value <0.001 0.186 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.185 <0.001 <0.001 0.006 0.185 <0.001 0.039
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Overall ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA Plants 5.11 10.64 1.87 17.64 17.64 2.04 15.96 3.74 2.45 24.23 15.96 3.74 19.73
CH Plants 6.94 11.02 1.18 19.12 19.12 2.77 16.53 2.35 2.29 23.91 16.53 2.35 18.87
SEM 0.261 0.177 0.145 0.210 0.210 0.104 0.266 0.290 0.104 0.233 0.266 0.290 0.252
p-value <0.001 0.082 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.083 <0.001 0.192 0.139 0.083 <0.001 0.002

For each plant, sample size n = 5.

DM, dry matter; RDPA2, rumen degradable soluble true protein; RDPB1, RD moderately degradable protein; RDPB2, RD slowly degradable protein; RDPEP, RD peptides; TotalRDP, total RD protein; RUPA2, rumen undegradable soluble true protein; RUPB1, RU moderately degradable protein; RUPB2, rumen undegradable slowly degradable protein; RUPC, rumen undegradable unavailable crude protein; TotalRUP, total RU unavailable protein; DIGPA2, digestible soluble protein; DIGPB1, moderately degradable protein; DIGPB2, digestible slowly degradable protein; DIGFP, digestible feed protein; M, meal; P, pellet; CA, Canada; CH, China; SEM, standard error of the mean.

a–d Means within a column without a common superscript letter differ (p<0.05).

Table 16
Ruminal degradation and intestinal digestion profile of protein in canola seeds from different oil processing plants: comparison among bio-oil processing plants and between Canada and China
Items Rumen degradable profile Rumen undegradable profile Intestinal digestible profile



RDPA2 (% DM) RDPB1 (% DM) RDPB2 (% NFC) RDPEP (% DM) Total RDP (% DM) RUPA2 (% NDF) RUPB1 (% DM) RUPB2 (% NDF) RUPC (% DM) TotalRUP (% DM) DIGPB1 (% DM) DIGPB2 (% CHO) DIGFP (% DM)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CA processing plants -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plant 1 8.74 3.26 0.49a 12.50 12.50 3.50 4.89 0.99a 1.18a 10.56 4.89 0.99a 5.89
Plant 2 8.58 2.95 0.50a 12.03 12.03 3.44 4.43 0.99a 1.11a 9.97 4.43 0.99a 5.38
Plant 3 8.22 3.54 0.47ab 12.21 12.21 3.29 5.31 0.93a 0.97b 10.50 5.31 0.93a 6.20
Plant 4 7.92 3.50 0.37b 11.79 11.79 3.17 5.24 0.74b 1.20a 10.35 5.24 0.74b 5.99
Plant 5 8.53 3.25 0.27c 12.05 12.05 3.42 4.88 0.55c 1.13a 9.98 4.88 0.55c 5.38
SEM 8.739 0.293 0.023 0.267 0.267 0.215 0.429 0.046 0.027 0.187 0.429 0.046 0.330
p-value 0.408 0.197 <0.001 0.137 0.137 0.405 0.199 <0.001 <0.001 0.074 0.199 <0.001 0.193
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CH processing plants -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plant A 9.08 3.08 0.32 12.50 12.50 3.63 4.62 0.65 1.06 9.99 4.62 0.65 5.31
Plant B 8.07 3.36 0.28 11.71 11.71 3.23 5.04 0.56 1.18 10.00 5.04 0.56 5.60
Plant C 8.82 3.22 0.30 12.34 12.34 3.53 4.83 0.59 1.11 10.06 4.83 0.59 5.42
Plant D 8.64 3.28 0.30 12.22 12.22 3.46 4.93 0.60 1.08 10.06 4.93 0.60 5.52
Plant E 8.05 3.54 0.33 11.92 11.92 3.22 5.31 0.66 1.07 10.26 5.31 0.66 5.97
SEM 0.560 0.276 0.036 0.306 0.306 0.224 0.414 0.073 0.066 0.221 0.414 0.073 0.396
p-value 0.187 0.404 0.830 0.068 0.068 0.190 0.404 0.809 0.607 0.666 0.404 0.809 0.406
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Overall -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA Plants 8.48 3.28 0.42 12.18 12.18 3.39 4.92 0.84 1.13 10.31 4.92 0.84 5.77
CH Plants 8.51 3.31 0.31 12.13 12.13 3.41 4.97 0.61 1.10 10.09 4.97 0.61 5.58
SEM 0.389 0.178 0.017 0.196 0.196 0.155 0.267 0.035 0.030 0.128 0.267 0.035 0.254
p-value 0.880 0.832 <0.001 0.740 0.740 0.883 0.827 <0.001 0.338 0.072 0.827 <0.001 0.332

For each plant, sample size n = 5.

RDPA2, rumen degradable soluble true protein; RDPB1, rumen degradable moderately degradable protein; RDPB2, rumen degradable slowly degradable protein; RDPEP, rumen degradable peptides; TotalRDP, total rumen degradable protein; RUPA2, rumen undegradable soluble true protein; RUPB1, rumen undegradable moderately degradable protein; RUPB2, rumen undegradable slowly degradable protein; RUPC, rumen undegradable unavailable crude protein; TotalRUP, total rumen undegradable unavailable protein; DIGPA2, digestible soluble protein; DIGPB1, moderately degradable protein; DIGPB2, digestible slowly degradable protein; DIGFP, digestible feed protein; DM, dry matter; NFC, non-fiber carbohydrate; NDF, neutral detergent fiber; CHO, carbohydrates; CA, Canada; CH, China; SEM, standard error of the mean.

a–c Means within a column without a common superscript letter differ (p<0.05).

REFERENCES

1. Eskin NAM. Rapeseed oil/canola. Caballero B, Finglas PM, Toldrá F, editorsEncyclopedia of food and health. Academic Press; 2016. 581–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-384947-2.00585-7
crossref
2. Maesoomi SM, Ghorbani GR, Alikhani M, Nikkhah A. Short communication: canola meal as a substitute for cottonseed meal in diet of midlactation Holsteins. J Dairy Sci 2006; 89:1673–7. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72234-2
crossref pmid
3. Canola Council of Canada. Winnipeg, MB, Canada: Challenges persist for canola seed exports to China; 2019. Available from: https://www.canolacouncil.org/news/challenges-persist-for-canola-seed-exports-to-china/

4. Newkirk R. Meal nutrients composition. Daun JK, Eskin NAM, Hickling D, editorsCanola: chemistry, production, processing, and utilization. 2011. AOCS Press; 2011. 229–44. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-9818936-5-5.50012-7
crossref
5. Piepenbrink MS, Schingoethe DJ. Ruminal degradation, amino acid composition, and estimated intestinal digestibilities of four protein supplements. J Dairy Sci 1998; 81:454–61. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(98)75597-3
crossref pmid
6. White RR, Roman-Garcia Y, Firkins JL, et al. Evaluation of the National Research Council (2001) dairy model and derivation of new prediction equations. 2. Rumen degradable and undegradable protein. J Dairy Sci 2017; 100:3611–27. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-10801
crossref pmid
7. National Research Council (NRC). Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle: 7th Revised Edition. Washington, DC, USA: National Academy Press; 2001. Available from: http://nap.edu/9825

8. National Research Council (NRC). Nutrient requirement of beef cattle. 7th editionWashington, DC, USA: National Academy Press; 2000.

9. Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC). Guide to the care and use of experimental animals. 2nd Ed1993. Canadian Council on Animal Care; Ottawa, ON, Canada:

10. AOAC Association of Official Analytical Chemists (International). 2019. Official Methods of Analysis. 21st edWashington, DC, USA: AOAC International; 2019. http://www.eoma.aoac.org/

11. Licitra G, Hernandez TM, Van Soest PJ. Standardization of procedures for nitrogen fractionation of ruminant feeds. Anim Feed Sci Technol 1996; 57:347–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-8401(95)00837-3
crossref
12. Roe MB, Sniffen CJ, Chase LE. Techniques for measuring protein fractions in feedstuffs. In : Proceeding Cornell Nutrition Conference, 1990. Department of Animal Science; Cornell University; Ithaca, NY, USA: p. 81–8.

13. Higgs RJ, Chase LE, Ross DA, Van Amburgh ME. Updating the cornell net carbohydrate and protein system feed library and analyzing model sensitivity to feed inputs. J Dairy Sci 2015; 98:6340–60. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-9379
crossref pmid
14. Van Amburgh ME, Foskolos A, Collao-Saenz EA, Higgs RJ, Ross DA. Updating the CNCPS feed library with new feed amino acid profiles and efficiencies of use: evaluation of model predictions – Version 6.5 2013. In : 75th Cornell Nutrition Conference for Feed Manufacturers; 2013; Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310770468_Updating_the_CNCPS_feed_library_with_new_feed_amino_acid_profiles_and_efficiencies_of_use_Evaluation_of_model_predictions_version_65

15. Van Amburgh ME, Collao-Saenz EA, Higgs RJ, et al. The cornell net carbohydrate and protein system: updates to the model and evaluation of version 6.5. J Dairy Sci 2015; 98:6361–80. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-9378
crossref pmid
16. Canadian Oilseed Processors Association (COPA). Trading rules for the North American sale of Bulk/Pelletized canoa meal [Internet]. Winnipeg MB, Canada: Canadian Oilseed Processors Association; 2020. Available from: https://copacanada.com/trading-rules/

17. Canola Council of Canada (CCC). n.d. Annual report: resilient, responsive, ready. Winnipeg, MB, Canada: Canola Council of Canada; 2020. Available from: https://www.canolacouncil.org/download/146/annual-reports/17848/2020-resilient-responsive-ready_web

18. Paula EM, Broderick GA, Danes MAC, Lobos NE, Zanton GI, Faciola AP. Effects of replacing soybean meal with canola meal or treated canola meal on ruminal digestion, omasal nutrient flow, and performance in lactating dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 2018; 101:328–39. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13392
crossref pmid
19. Paula EM, Silva LG, Brandão VLN, Dai X, Faciola AP. Feeding canola, camelina, and carinata meals to ruminants. Animals 2019; 9:704https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9100704
crossref pmid pmc
20. Mustafa AF, Christensen DA, McKinnon JJ. The effects of feeding high fiber canola meal on total tract digestibility and milk production. Can J Anim Sci 1997; 77:133–40. https://doi.org/10.4141/A96-074
crossref
21. Broderick G, Faciola A, Armentano LE. Replacing dietary soybean meal with canola meal improves production and efficiency of lactating dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 2015; 98:5672–87. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-9563
crossref pmid
22. Park CS, Ragland D, Helmbrecht A, Htoo JK, Adeola O. Digestibility of amino acid in full-fat canola seeds, canola meal, and canola expellers fed to broiler chickens and pigs. J Anim Sci 2019; 97:803–12. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/sky470
crossref pmid
23. Tramontini RCM. Produção e congelação de embriões de cabras alimentadas com grãos de canola [Master’s Thesis] 2009 Universidade Estadual de Maringá. UEM Campus Repository. http://repositorio.uem.br:8080/jspui/handle/1/1806

24. Canadian Grain Commission (CGC). Quality of Western Canadian canola-2020. Winnipeg MB, Canada: Canadian Grain Commission; 2021. Available from: https://grainscanada.gc.ca/en/grain-research/export-quality/oilseeds/canola/2020/pdf/Quality-western-Canadian-canola-2020.pdf

25. Canadian Grain Commission (CGC). Quality of western Canadian canola-2015. Winnipeg MB, Canada: Canadian Grain Commission; 2016. Available from: https://grainscanada.gc.ca/en/grain-research/export-quality/oilseeds/canola/2015/canola-quality-report-15.pdf

26. Burbulis N, Kott LS. A new yellow-seeded canola genotype originating from double low black-seeded Brassica napus cultivars. Can J Plant Sci 2005; 85:109–14. https://doi.org/10.4141/P04-030
crossref
27. Damiran D, Lardner HA, Jefferson PG, Larson K, McKinnon JJ. Effects of supplementing spring-calving beef cows grazing barley crop residue with canola meal and wheat-based dry distillers grains with solubles on performance, reproductive efficiency, and system cost. Prof Anim Sci 2016; 32:400–10. https://doi.org/10.15232/pas.2015-01479
crossref
28. Theodoridou K, Yu P. Effect of processing conditions on the nutritive value of canola meal and presscake. Comparison of the yellow and brown-seeded canola meal with the brown-seeded canola presscake. J Sci Food Agric 2013; 93:1986–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.6004
crossref pmid
29. Tyrrell HF. Prediction of the energy value of feeds for lactation. In : Proceedings of Southwest Nutrition Conference; 2005; p. 225–8.

30. Li X, Zhang Y, Yu P. Association of bio-energy processing-induced protein molecular structure changes with CNCPS-based protein degradation and digestion of co-products in dairy cows. J Agric Food Chem 2016; 64:4086–94. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.6b00688
crossref pmid
31. Huang X. Improvements in nutritive value of canola meal with pelleting [Master’s Thesis]. Saskatoon SK, Canada: University of Saskatchewan; 2015. Available from: https://sundog.usask.ca/record=b3851688



Editorial Office
Asian-Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies(AAAP)
Room 708 Sammo Sporex, 23, Sillim-ro 59-gil, Gwanak-gu, Seoul 08776, Korea   
TEL : +82-2-888-6558    FAX : +82-2-888-6559   
E-mail : editor@animbiosci.org               

Copyright © 2024 by Asian-Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies.

Developed in M2PI

Close layer
prev next