Animal feed resources information system

Rapeseed meal and canola meal

IMPORTANT INFORMATION: This datasheet is pending revision and updating; its contents are currently derived from FAO's Animal Feed Resources Information System (1991-2002) and from Bo Göhl's Tropical Feeds (1976-1982).


Click on the "Nutritional aspects" tab for recommendations for ruminants, pigs, poultry, rabbits, horses, fish and crustaceans
Common names 
  • Rapeseed meal, rapeseed oil meal, canola meal, canola seed meal [English]; tourteau de colza déshuilé [French]; Rapsschrot, Rapskuchen [German]; pasta de canola, pasta de colza [Spanish]; farelo de canola [Portuguese]
  • Rapeseed cake, rapeseed oil cake,  canola oil cake, canola cake , expeller-pressed rapeseed meal, expeller-pressed canola meal [English], tourteau de colza gras, tourteau de colza expeller [French];
  • Cold-pressed rapeseed cake, cold-pressed canola meal [English] 
Related feed(s) 

Rapeseed meal and canola meal are protein-rich materials that can be used as feed for livestock and poultry. Canola and rapeseed meals are commonly used for animal feeding around the world. Together, they are the second most widely traded protein ingredients after soybean meal.

They result from the oil extraction of rapeseeds or canola seeds which contain 40-45% oil, and thus yield about 55-60% oil meal (Newkirk, 2009).

Rapeseeds are the 3rd source of both vegetable oil (after soybean and oil palm) and oil meal (after soybean and cotton). There is a very wide range of rapeseed varieties for all types of purposes (Snowdon, 2006). Modern rapeseed varieties with low concentrations in erucic acid and glucosinolates (see below) are mainly used for edible oil, biofuel, industrial oil and lubricants. 

Low-erucic and low-glucosinolates rapeseed oil meals

Former varieties of rapeseeds had poor reputation due to the presence of erucic acid, which had a bitter taste and was later found to cause health problems when ingested in large quantities. The use of rapeseeds and rapeseed oil meal for livestock was also limited due to the presence of glucosinolates, which are antinutritional factors detrimental to animal performance.

In the 1960-1970s, low-erucic varieties ("0") and low-erucic, low-glucosinolates varieties ("00" and canola) were developed, allowing rapeseed oil to become a major food oil whereas rapeseed meal and rapeseeds could now be fed to livestock. The name "canola" refers to "00" varieties developed in Canada in the 1970s and is a trademark licensed by the Canadian Canola Council (Casséus, 2009). In Canada, canola oil "must contain less than 2% erucic acid, and less than 30 µmoles of glucosinolates per gram of air-dried oil-free meal" (CCC, 2014). Canola results from natural cross-breeding of rapeseeds but not from genetic engineering (Casséus, 2009). Low-erucic, low-glucosinolates varieties are now the main types grown worldwide, though there are also high-erucic varieties grown for specific industrial purposes (Snowdon, 2006). In Europe, rapeseed oil is the main source of biofuel (FAO, 2014; Snowdon, 2006; Duke, 1983).

Rapeseed/canola meal results from the oil extraction of rapeseeds or canola seeds. There are 3 main classes of rapeseed/canola meal depending on the process of oil extraction:

  • Expeller rapeseed meal/expeller canola meal results from the mechanical extraction of seeds previously conditioned by a heat treatment. These meals can also be called rapeseed press-cake, canola press-cake, double-pressed canola (Newkirk, 2009). They contain about 10-12% oil. 
  • Cold-extracted press-cake: with the growing interest of consumers for cold-pressed rapeseed oil, another process consisting in pressing the seed at low temperature (60°C) yields cold-pressed rape/canola seed press-cake (Leming et al., 2005).
  • Solvent-extracted rapeseed/canola meal. The process of oil extraction is followed by solvent (hexane) extraction of the remaining oil in the press-cake (Blair, 2008). The solvent extracted oil meal is called solvent-extracted rapeseed/canola meal; it contains no more than 2-3% oil. 

The overall rapeseed/canola meal production in the world was 32.7 million tons in 2011 out of which 31.3 million tons were used as feeds (FAO, 2016). In 2011, rapeseed/canola meals were produced extensively in Europe (11.7 million tons), China (7.7 million tons), North America (4.3 million tons), India (4.3 million tons) and Japan (1.2 million tons). The major users of canola and rapeseed meals were China, the USA, the European Union, India and Canada (FAO, 2016; ERS-USDA, 2012).


Canola seeds are generally crushed and then solvent extracted in order to separate the oil from the meal. This process is described in the figure above and is called pre-press solvent extraction (Newkirk, 2009).

The main steps of this process are seed cleaning, seed pre-conditioning, rolling and flaking, seed cooking and pressing to mechanically remove a portion of the oil, solvent extraction of the press-cake to remove the remainder of the oil, desolventizing and toasting of the meal (Newkirk, 2009).

Temperature is one of the main factors affecting the quality of rapeseed/canola meal (see Nutritional attributes on the "Nutritional aspects" tab).

The two other processes that exist are cold extraction and expeller extraction. Expeller extraction is mostly done in small plants or when organic rapeseed meal is desired.

Environmental impact 

Meals from genetically-modified canola seeds

Many genetically-modified canola cultivars have been developed and are widely used in Canada (95% of the crops) and in the USA (82%) (GMO Compass, 2010). In the European Union, GM rapeseed crops are banned but rapeseeds, rapeseed oil and rapeseed oil meal resulting from the cultivation of certain cultivars (GT73 and T45) can be imported and used as feed and food (EFSA, 2009; European Commission, 2003).

The harmonisation of GM rapeseed labelling has been recommended so that livestock farmers can make an informed choice, but no compulsory labelling is required for animal products yielded from livestock fed GM oilseed rape products (European Commission, 2003).

Nutritional aspects
Nutritional attributes 

Typical rapeseed or canola seed meals have a high protein content (34-39% DM basis) and are valuable protein sources (Feedipedia, 2016). However they also contain higher amounts of crude fibre than other oilseed meals which limits their use in monogastric and fish diets (Royer et al., 2011; Newkirk, 2009). 

The protein fraction of rapeseed and canola seed meal was found to have a high biological value (Campbell et al., 1981). The crude protein content of all classes of rapeseed or canola meals ranges from 34 to 39 % (DM basis) and is considered to have a good amino acid profile when compared to other plant sources (Feedipedia, 2016; Newkirk, 2009). However, canola contains less lysine than soybean, but more methionine. Its lysine content has been shown to limit performance in pigs (Newkirk, 2009; Bell, 1993). 

Poultry and pigs normally have a depressed performance when fed rapeseed/canola meal as their only source of supplemental protein. This could be due to their high fibre content (12.1-14.1%, DM basis) (Fan et al., 1996). This problem may be alleviated by dehulling (Mustafa et al., 1997; Baidoo et al., 1985). Dehulling reduced fibre content and increased amino acid and nutrient digestibility (de Lange et al., 1998).

The amounts of Ca and P are rather high. However, the high level of sulfur in rapeseed meal may have deleterious effects on the cation-anion balance, thus decreasing animal performance (Summers et al., 1994). This problem may be alleviated by Ca supplementation (Summers, 1995). Levels of niacin (vitamin B3) and choline are rather high, however is was shown that choline was less available than in soybean meal (Emmert et al., 1997). Glucosinolate derivatives occurring in rapeseed meal are goitrogenic, causing considerable changes in thyroid from initial feeding.

Variable quality depending on processes

Solvent extracted meals vs. expeller, double-pressed or cold-pressed meals

The main differences betweeen solvent-extracted meals and mechanically extracted ones is the residual oil content and thus the overall energy value of the meal. Mechanically extracted rapeseed meal contains about 12% EE (DM basis) while solvent extracted rapeseed meal only contains 2.8% EE (Feedipedia, 2016).

Effects of temperature

Processing conditions determine the final quality of rapeseed/canola meal. For example, it is important to heat rapeseeds and canola seeds so that myrosinase (the enzyme that breaks glucosinolates into toxic aglycones) is deactivated. Heat-treatment may also degrade 30-70% glucosinolates in the meal (Daun et al., 1997). However, under too high temperatures the protein quality of the meal can be reduced: amino acid digestibility may be altered, particularly for lysine (Newkirk, 2009; Newkirk et al., 2003). This phenomenon can be deleterious in monogastrics but it may be beneficial to reduce the ruminal degradability of proteins in ruminants, and thus provide by-pass proteins (Cetiom, 2001)

Sometimes overheating may occur during desolventization, this stage thus requires great care, and temperatures should not be higher than 100°C. Steam treatments also reduced protein digestibility in poultry (Cetiom, 2001).

Effects of additives

Depending on traditions, rapeseed and canola meals may be supplemented with differents substances like gums  (mostly consisting in phospholipids) that have two main consequences: they enhance the energy value of the meal, and they reduce dustiness (Newkirk, 2009). 

Potential constraints 

The following antinutritional factors have been found to be associated with rapeseed and canola meals.

Glucosinolates and erucic acid

Rapeseeds used to contain glucosinolates that have goitrogenic effects on animal and reduce animal performance, and erucic acid, a very unpalatable toxic fatty acid. Glucosinolates reduced feed intake in ruminants and resulted in many physiological disorders in monogastrics (see Pigs and Poultry below).

However, most rapeseeds and canola have now very low levels of glucosinolates. The glucosinolate content of rapeseeds and canola seeds has been declining steadily, and is now only about one-twelfth that of the older high-glucosinolate rapeseed (glucosinolate content below 10 vs. 120 μmol/g) (Peyronnet et al., 2014; Khajali et al., 2012). The use of rapeseed and canola meal in monogastrics (pigs and poultry) diets can subsequently be relatively high without altering feed intake or physiological functions of liver, kidneys or thyroïd gland (Cetiom, 2001). In poultry the limitation is not due to glucosinolates but to the high fibre content (Cetiom, 2001).

Furthermore, some rapeseeds are still grown for erucic acid production and the meal resulting from their extraction should not be fed to animals.


Tannins are phenolic compounds that bind with various compounds, including the CP making it less available to the animal (Bell, 1993). Most tannins are contained in the seed coat (Lipsa et al., 2012). With pigs it was found that dark hulled seeds were nearly indigestible whereas yellow hulled seeds were reasonably well digested; this was attributed to a lower tannin and lignin content in the brighter seeds (Bell et al., 1982). Clearer varieties of rapeseeds were later reported to contain less tannins (Auger et al., 2010). Some breeding programmes aimed at reducing the thickness of the seed coat, and thus the level of tannins (Lipsa et al., 2012). Dehulled rapeseed meals and rapeseed meals from brighter varieties may thus have a lower tannin content.


Sinapine is converted into trimethylamine that is then absorbed and further excreted through urine by the animals. However, few of them do not have the required enzyme to make this conversion, some hens with brown-shelled eggs are amoung these animals, so it builds up in the blood and accumulates in the egg, causing them to have a fishy taste (Newkirk, 2009; Bell, 1993). Palatability is also reduced by sinapine, it thus has a depressing effect on feed consumption.


As a supplement protein source for lactating dairy cattle canola meal has been found to be comparable to cottonseed meal and soybean meal with no differences in performance observed when they replaced each other (2)(CAB 830482522)(Sanchez, 1983)); (46)(CAB D370414)(Harrison, 1989).

Performance of dairy cattle was similar when canola meal replaced cottonseed meal (14)(CAB D089367)(DePeters, 1986); (17)(CAB D017021)(DePeters, 1985). Canola meal performed similarly to other supplemental protein sources (corn gluten meal)(25)(CAB D297792)(Robinson, 1988), but other research indicated that levels need to be limited to less than 20 % in the diet (40)(CAB 991402650)(Santo, 1998). Rumen amino acid disappearance was found to be similar for Canola meal with varying fiber levels (52)(CAB 981406662)(Mustafa, 1997).

In calves, when soybean meal was replaced with canola meal protein digestibility decreased (42)(CAB N281180)(Khorasani, 1990).


Rapeseed/canola meal is a high-quality, high-protein feed ingredient. The amino acid profile of rapeseed/canola meal is comparable to soybean meal: its methionine content is higher than that of soybean, while its lysine content is lower and reported to be limiting for pigs (Bell, 1993). Moreover, amino acids would be less available in rapeseed/canola meal than in soybean meal (Aherne et al., 1985; Thacker, 1990). Because of its high fibre content (> 110 g/kg), rapeseed/canola meal contains less digestible energy (13.2 MJ/kg) than soybean meal (16.8 MJ/kg) (Feedipedia, 2012; Thacker, 1990). 

Rapeseed/canola seeds (and thus meal) are better sources of calcium, selenium and zinc than soybean meal, but are poorer sources of potassium and copper. However, high phytic acid and fibre contents reduce the availability of many mineral elements (Blair, 2007). Rapeseed/canola meal is a good source of vitamins (choline, niacin, riboflavin and biotin) (Blair, 2007).

Glucosinolates limited the use of canola meal in pig diets in the past as they had a goitrogene effect and deleterious effects on liver and reproduction (Blair, 2007). An estimate of the tolerable level of glucosinolates in the total diet of pigs is 2.4–2.5 μmol/g (Schöne et al., 1997a, Schöne et al., 1997bBell, 1990).

Modern varieties of canola and rapeseed contain much lower levels of glucosinolates, however, cold pressed canola/rapeseed meals and expeller rapeseed/canola meal may still contain small amounts of glucosinolates. These glucosinolates become deleterious after being hydrolysed by myrosinase, a heat sensitive enzyme. In solvent extracted rapeseed/canola meal, myrosinase is desactivated by heat but in expeller and cold pressed meals, myrosinase may remain active.

Palatability of rapeseed/canola meal was referred to as a limiting factor for applications in pigs (Frederick et al., 2014; Bell, 1993).

Technological treatments such as toasting, extrusion or dehulling have been assessed to enhance energy or protein digestibility of rapeseed/canola meal. Dehulling could be used to increase the digestible energy content. It is also possible to process rapeseed/canola meal in order to optimize the utilization of the protein.

It is important to notice that modern varieties of rapeseeds and canola with low glucosinolate, low erucic acid and low tannins have considerably enhanced and increased the use of rapeseed/canola meal in pig diets. Most recommendations which dealt with very low levels or rapeseed/canola meal  such as 5% in starter diets, 10% in sows and finishers, and 15% in growing pigs were provided in the 80-90's (Lewis et al., 2001); they are underestimated if modern varieties of rapeseed/canola are used.

Solvent-extracted rapeseed/canola meal

The response of pigs of all ages to rapeseed/canola meal inclusion in diets is generally favourable. Early recommendations were that rapeseed/canola meal could be included in grower diets to supply up to 50% of the supplementary protein required. Recent research proved that it was possible to use 100% rapeseed/canola meal as the protein source of growing pig diets (Roth-Maier et al., 2004).


In piglets, recent experiments showed that rapeseed/canola meal could be included in the diet at up to 15-20% of the diet (DM basis) without compromising growth performance, organ weights, bone ash or blood parameters (Peñuela Sierra et al., 2015; Parr et al., 2015; Royer et al., 2011).

Growing pigs

Using rapeseed meal (8.3 µmol/kg glucosinolates), as the sole protein source had no effect on feed intake, or growth performances of growing pigs (Roth-Maier et al., 2004).

When pig diets (either for growers or finishing pigs) were formulated in order to get the same amount of digestible lysine from rapeseed meal as from soybean meal, growth performance and carcass quality were similar (Raj et al., 2000; Siljander-Rasi et al., 1996). 

Fattening pigs and sows

In fattening pigs, rapeseed/canola meal could be used to completely replace soybean meal without considerable changes in growth performance, visceral mass, carcass characteristics, fresh meat quality, or carcass cutability, provided that diets were formulated to contain similar quantities of standardized ileal digestible amino acids (Little et al., 2015; Rojo-Gomez et al., 2001). In France it was shown that fattening pigs could be fed up to 18% rapeseed/canola meal and 40% peas as protein sources in order to totally replace soybean meal (Royer et al., 2005).

In sows, it is important to limit the level of glucosinolates in order to prevent reproduction diseases. Sow diets could contain up to 10% rapeseed/canola meal during lactation and gestation without having deleterious effect on animal health, reproductive performance of sows (including hyper prolific sows) or on piglet growth (Quiniou et al., 2014; King et al., 2001; Jost, 1996; Thacker, 1990; Aherne et al., 1985; Flipot et al., 1977). It was reported that rapeseed meal inclusion had positive effect on sows' feed intake during lactation (King et al., 2001). Heat treatment (103°C) of rapeseed meal improved palatability and increased feed intake compared with untreated rapeseed meal (Jost, 1996).

Other rapeseed/canola meals

Expeller and cold-pressed rapeseed/canola meals result from mechanical extraction of oil. Thus, they have higher residual oil and are considered valuable sources of energy in pig diets (Blair, 2007). However, as they are not submitted to heat, glucosinolates remain high (11.9 µmol/g) in expeller meal and in cold-pressed meal (5.96 µmol/g), above the level recommended for optimal pig growth (level for optimum growth performance of growing pigs: 2.0–2.4 µmol/g). Besides, the myrosinases involved in glucosinolate degradation are not deactivated and may result in health problems (Grageola et al., 2013).

However, the low temperature of the meal produced by expeller-pressing and cold-pressing limited heat damage during processing, and lysine availability in both expeller meal and cold-presed indicated limited lysine damage (Grageola et al., 2013).

Expeller rapeseed/canola meal

Expeller rapeseed/canola meal results from the mechanical extraction of oil. It has higher residual oil and may thus be a valuable source of energy in pig diets. It was referred to be 10 points higher in energy than solvent extracted rapeseed/canola meal (Skiba et al., 1999). However, it was reported to result in lower feed intake, lower average daily gain and a 3 days delay in reaching slaughter weight when offered during 90 days to growing/fattening pigs (Seneviratne et al., 2010). It was suggested to limit expeller rapeseed/canola meal to 22,5% during the first 50 days of the growing period and to 18% during the next 40-day period (Seneviratne et al., 2010). In 6-7 kg weaned piglets, including increasing levels of expeller rapeseed/canola meal linearly decreased the total tract digestibility of energy, DM and CP. It was suggested to limit expeller rapeseed/canola meal at 20% in their diet (Landero et al., 2012; Seneviratne et al., 2011).

Cold-pressed rapeseed/canola meal

Cold-pressed rapeseed/canola meal has higher content of oil and thus higher digestible energy than expeller (+10 points) and solvent-extracted rapeseed/canola meal (+20 points) (Skiba et al., 1999). The DE (MJ/kg, air-dry basis) was 16.57, compared with 14.23 in expeller rapeseed/canola meal and 12.41 in solvent-extracted meal. Total amino acid levels appeared to be relatively unaffected by the process or degree of heat treatment. However, in the absence of heat treatment glucosinolates or their degradation products remain high in the meal.  

A cold-pressed canola meal (96 g oil and 10.5 μmol total glucosinolates per kg (oil-free DM basis)) was increasingly included in diets for growing-finishing pigs at up to 200 g/kg to replace sweet lupin seed. Beyond 150 g/kg, rapeseed meal reduced the performance of growing-finishing pigs and thyroid hypertrophy was evident (Mullan et al., 2000). These results suggest that cold-pressing does not inactivate myrosinase sufficiently to allow the extracted meal to be incorporated into pig diets at maximum levels. It is thus recommended to do more frequent analysis of expeller canola meal for oil and protein contents and to set more conservative limits on the levels of expeller canola meal used in pig diets (Blair, 2007). 


Compared to soybean meal, the energy value and available nutrient content of rapeseed/canola meal are much more limited.

Protein and amino acid contents are by far lower in rapeseed meal than in soybean meal. But rapeseed meal compares favourably with soybean meal for sulfur-containing amino acids; those two meals tend to complement each other. However, rapeseed meal is known for its lower amino acid digestibility; this is frequently related to processing conditions. Overheating the meal during processing may reduce lysine digestibility, and values lower than 80% are mentioned (Newkirk et al., 2003; Anderson-Hafermann et al., 1993). Products resulting from a Maillard reaction during processing are responsible for these low values. Tannins might also reduce amino acid digestibility (Khajali et al., 2012).

Crude fibre content in rapeseed meal is by far higher than in soybean meal. ADF, NDF and lignin, which is associated with polyphenols (tannins), are also higher. These values are a consequence of the very small size of the seed and its very high lipid content. During oil extraction, fibrous hulls are concentrated in the meal, thus decreasing the nutrient content. Fibre content is inversely related to metabolizable energy value. As a consequence, metabolizable energy value of rapeseed meal is 10 to 15% lower than that of soybean meal.

In order to improve the nutrient content and metabolizable energy value of rapeseed meal, various approaches have been undertaken to reduce the fibre and polyphenol contents: selection or dehulling. Selection includes the production of yellow-seeds in which lignin and polyphenols contents are reduced ("000" varieties). Dehulling is done before oil extraction, but this process is associated to a loss of oil since some kernel particles are removed with the hulls. Selection or dehulling equally improve the nutritive value of the meals. Some other attempts have been tested for improving nutrient availability or reducing the encapsulating effect of cell wall in rapeseed meal, for example the addition of enzymes: proteases, xylanases and phytases (Kozlowski et al., 2014).

Rapeseed/canola meal also contains antinutritionals factors that limit its use in poultry diets though ANF of rapeseed/canola meal has considerably decreased since the 90's.

Main antinutritional factors


In poultry, adverse effects of glucosinolates are pungency, bitterness, anti-thyroid activity and, as a consequence, a reduction of birds’ growth and laying performances. Mortality can be increased, especially in laying hens, due to hemorrhagic liver syndrome (Fenwick, 1982). In modern rapeseed varieties, glucosinolate content has been much reduced (10-12 fold) and toxic effects are reduced. According to recent publications and glucosinolate levels observed in current rapeseed meals, dietary inclusion of rapeseed meal in poultry diets should not exceed 20% in broilers and 15% in layers, resulting in a glucosinolate dietary content lower than 1.5 µmol/g.    


Rapeseed meal encompasses 1% sinapine, a choline ester of sinapic acid. Sinapine is associated with a fishy taint of yolk from brown-shelled eggs. The fishy odor comes from trimethylamine which accumulates in the yolk since brown layers are genetically unable to convert trimethylamine in odourless components (because of a trimethylamine oxidase deficiency). All sources of choline can be transformed in trimethylamine by the micro-organisms in the gastrointestinal tract of the birds. This genetical deficiency has been recently proved, and acceptable levels of trimethylamine in the yolk have been quantified (Wang et al., 2013). But the tainting effect of rapeseed meal seemed to be more efficient than the choline one (Ward et al., 2009). Incorporation rates of rapeseed meal in diets fed to sensitive layers were reported to cause fishy taint above 12% which is above levels used for layers (see below, laying hens paragraph) (Hy-Line International, 2010). No off-flavours have been detected in the carcass. 


Generally, recommended levels of rapeseed/canola meal do not go beyond 20%. However, in Australia, rapeseed/canola meal from very low glucosinolate varieties could be included in starting chicks at dietary levels ranging from 20 to 30%. This meal could be fed to finishing chicks at 30%. The recommended inclusion of CM in diets also reduced bird abdominal fat portion and intestinal viscosity, without affecting liver and pancreas weight (Perez-Maldonado, 2003). 

Laying hens

Recommended levels of inclusion in laying hens are generally restricted to the range of 4-10% in the diet (Perez-Maldonado, 2003). Recent results reported that higher inclusion levels were possible without hampering hens' health and/or egg production. Commercial layers could be fed on 15% canola meal without any problem (Ciurescu, 2009). However, in local breed of laying hens from Iran, it was reported that including rapeseed meal up to 15-20% had no adverse effects on egg weight, yolk weight and yolk weight ratio (Gheisari et al., 2014). Moreover, it was reported that diets containing 24% rapeseed/canola meal could be fed to commercial line of brown-shell laying hens (Hy-Line) hatched after 2009 without impairing egg quality (no fishy taint) (Hy-Line International, 2010). These findings suggest that brown-shell laying hens could be fed at conventional rates applied to white-shell laying hens, i. e. 8-10% (Hy-Line International, 2010; Perez-Maldonado, 2003).


When rapeseed/canola meal was used to replace soybean and fish meals in turkey diets, the rapeseed/canola meal was found to perform similarly to soybean meal (gains and feed conversion), but fish meal showed higher performance (Salmon, 1982). A 5 or 10% inclusion of rapeseed/canola meal in fattening turkey diets did not cause any adverse impact on the animal performance. An increase of the amount of omega-3 fatty acids in the meat was positively related to the increase of rapeseed/canola meal in the diet and there was a positive trend of a decrease of the ratio of omega-6:omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids. Diets including rapeseed/canola meal were cheaper than diets based on soybean meal. It was then recommended to include rapeseed/canola meal in fattening of hybrid turkeys, at up to 10% in turkey diets (Bedeković et al., 2014). No off-flavours in the meat were observed when canola meal was fed to turkeys (Larmond et al., 1983).


Rapeseed meal has been used in rabbit feeding for a long time (Voris et al., 1940; Benoit et al., 1948) and is still used in experimental (Caro et al., 1993; Lebas et al., 2013) or commercial diets (de Blas et al., 2010). Until the 70s, rapeseed meal used to contain high levels of erucic acid and glucosinolates. The only recommendation then was to include this source of protein at a moderate level in rabbit diets (Benoit et al., 1948). After selection of new "0" rapeseed varieties with a low level of erucic acid and a high level of glucosinolates, different studies were made to determine the maximum level of incorporation for this type of rapeseed meal, in partial or complete substitution of soybean or sunflower meal. It was concluded that it was possible to safely include this type of low erucic rapeseed meal at up to 12-15% of growing rabbit diets without alteration of growth rate, slaughter yield, thyroid and liver development, and even without alteration of the meat flavour (Colin et al., 1976; Lebas et al., 1977; Lebas, 1978; Niedzwiadek et al., 1977; Jensen et al., 1983).

For reproducing does the main conclusion was the same: up to 12-15% of rapeseed meal can be included in the diet. Sometimes reproduction problems were described with higher levels such as 20% or more (Colin et al., 1976; Lebas et al., 1982). During the 80s, new "00" rapeseed varieties were selected for a lower level of erucic acid, and simultaneously a low level of glucosinolates. A comparison between "0" and "00" rapeseed meal failed to detect any advantage for a "00" variety regarding a "0" variety in rabbit feeding (Jensen et al., 1979). This result is explained by the great tolerance of rabbits for glucosinolates: this species tolerates, without any disorder, levels of glucosinolates 50% higher than poultry, 2-3 times higher than ruminants and 10 times higher than pigs (Tripathi et al., 2007). Thus when experiences were conducted with the new "00" varieties, the conclusion was the same than previously: "00" rapseed meal could completely replace soybean meal (Throckmorton et al., 1980). When in some experiments the replacement was limited to 60% of the dietary soybean meal, a cautious analysis of the experimental conditions indicates that the lower growth rate observed with 100% substitution, i.e. 19.78% rapeseed meal in the diet are explained by a lack of dietary digestible proteins with the highest level of rapeseed meal (Scapinello et al., 1996), because rapeseed meal proteins are on average digested 7.2 points less than those of soybean meal, as demonstrated in the following table.

Besides the comparison between rapeseed and soybean in the table, it also appears that proteins digestibility was similar in 2 varieties of rapeseed meal, one "0" and one "00" (Maertens et al., 1984). Another difference between rapeseed and soybean proteins is their respective essential amino acid profile: soybean proteins are well-known for their high content of lysine and low content of sulphur-containing amino acids; on the contrary rapeseed meal proteins contain just enough lysine to cover the requirements (taking into account a lower protein digestibility) but are richer in sulphur-containing amino acids, about +20%/requirements (Lebas, 2003). This difference could easily explain the reduction of growth in experiments with high levels of rapeseed meal where extra methionine was simultaneously added in the diet (Throckmorton et al., 1980), reaching, with the highest rapeseed incorporation, the toxicity level of sulphur-containing amino acids, associated with a relative lack of lysine due to the absence of soybean meal (Lebas, 1983).

Some commercial "00" rapeseeds are dehulled in order to increase their energetic content for use in poultry or pigs feeding. Growing or breeding rabbits are able to use this type of dehulled product with the same efficiency than with the non-dehulled product (Lebas et al., 1977; Lebas et al., 1982). However, because of the fibre need in rabbit diets, the absence of rapeseed hulls must be compensated by the introduction of another source of fibre in the diet. In practical conditions, a dietary inclusion level of 10-12% of rapeseed meal, whatever the type, could be recommended for growing rabbits as for breeding does (Mesini, 1997).


Rapeseed/canola meals have a digestible energy relatively lower than that of soybean meal in salmonid fish (2300-2750 kcal/kg vs. 3100 kcal/kg) (Sauvant et al., 2004; NRC, 2011). Fibre which is not digested by fish can reduce overall diet digestibility (Hertrampf et al., 2000). It was reported that diets containing more than 8% fibre could result in diarrhoea in carnivorous fish (NRC, 2011). The amino acid profile of rapeseed/canola meals was referred to have high availabitity (83-99%) in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) (Anderson et al., 1992; Friedman, 1996).

Among practical solutions for fish feeding, the combination of rapeseed meal and soybean meal appeared to be a good solution to replace fish meal. The use of vegetable protein to replace fish meal in fish diets reduces the price of the diet and do not bring PCDD/F and PCBs in fish diet. From a consumer point of view this may bring higher safety insurance (Newkirk, 2009).

Most limitations for the use of rapeseed/canola meal for fish feeding are its high fibre content and glucosinolates. Fibre content ranges from 12% to 14% and reduces rapeseed meal nutritional value (Shafaieipour et al., 2008Burel et al., 2000a; McCurdy et al., 1992). However at current rates of inclusion (less than 50%), the dietary fibre content was unlikely to exceed 8% and did not impair fish growth performance (Hilton et al., 1986). Glucosinolates even at low levels found in "00" rapeseed or canola rapeseed meal may impair fish performance (Hertrampf et al., 2000). 

For these reasons, it has been suggested that "00" rapeseed meal or canola meal dietary inclusion remains between 10 and 20% in fish diet, and rapeseed meal (with erucic acid) should not be over 5% (Hertrampf et al., 2000).


Rapeseed and canola meal have been routinely fed for over 20 years to salmonids (Higgs et al., 1996 cited by Newkirk, 2009). However, a meta-analysis including 45 feeding experiments where rapeseed meal was fed to salmonids reported that rapeseed meal inclusion linearly decreased specific growth rate (Collins et al., 2013).

It was thus suggested that rapeseed meal should be included at low levels, not exceeding 10% in salmonid diets (Collins et al., 2013). There are however feeding conditions in which salmonids could be fed relatively high levels of rapeseed meal. For example, it was possible to include it at 17,5% (diet DM basis) in combination with soybean meal (14.5% diet DM basis) to replace 40% of the protein provided by fish meal (Güroy et al., 2012).

Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)
Rapeseed/canola meal included in juvenile rainbow trout diets at 10, 20 and 30% during 9 weeks had deleterious effects at all levels, on hepatosomatic index, growth performance, feed conversion ratio and immunological status of fish (Hernandez et al., 2012).
Rapeseed/canola meal has been extensively assessed and was mostly found deleterious to rainbow trout performance (Alami-Durante et al., 2010; Burel et al., 2000a; Burel et al., 2001; De Francesco et al., 2004; Drew et al., 2005; Hilton et al., 1986; Leatherland et al., 1988; Satoh et al., 1998).
A few studies are exceptions to this trend (Burel et al., 2001; Shafaieipour et al., 2008). Inclusion of rapeseed meal containing 26 µmol/g glycosinolates in juvenile rainbow trout diet at up to 30% had no effect on growth performance, voluntary feed intake, or feed efficiency after 58 days of experimental feeding (Burel et al., 2001).
Chinook salmon 
In juvenile chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) diets where commercial rapeseed/canola meal was used to replace 15 or 30% herring meal, growth and feed intake were reduced (Satoh et al., 1998). The use of low-temperature and high-temperature extruded rapeseed meals could alleviate these deleterious effects. These products also alleviated thyroid alterations in salmons (Satoh et al., 1998).


Channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus)
In channel catfish, apparent digestibilities of DM, energy and protein of rapeseed/canola meal were 47-69.4%, 72% and 78.8% respectively, and those digestibilities were lower than those of soybean meal (Li et al., 2013; Kitagima et al., 2011). Rapeseed meal could be included in juvenile channel catfish diets at up to 31% with no negative effects on performance (Lim et al., 1997). 
Australian catfish (Tandanus tandanus)
Autralian catfish (Tandanus tandanus) fed 30 or 45% rapeseed meal to replace fishmeal had reduced growth. Supplementation with inorganic P improved animal performance but resulted in water pollution because of higher P losses during digestion (Huynh et al., 2011).


Canola and rapeseed meals are commonly included in carp diets, which are normally based on vegetable protein (Newkirk, 2009). However, recent studies held on juvenile grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idellus) and on juvenile crucian carp (Carassius auratus x Cyprinus carpio) reported that high levels of rapeseed meal (45% or 50% dietary inclusion) had deleterious effects on fish liver and subsequently impaired fish performance (growth, feed intake, feed conversion ratios) and health (blood parameters) (Yuan et al., 2014; Tan QingSong et al., 2013; Cai ChunFang et al., 2013). It was either suggested to limit rapeseed meal inclusion in grass carp diet at 16% or to supplement it with glutathione (400 mg/kg) as glutathione has protective effect on fish liver (Yuan et al., 2014). In fry, it was suggested that rapeseed meal dietary inclusion could be about 15% in grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idellus) and 22% in common carp (Cyprinus carpio) (Yigit et al., 2013; Soares et al., 1998). In 2-year-old common carp cold-pressed rapeseed meal dietary inclusion rate could be up 33% without affecting growth performance or feed utilization (Mazurkiewicz et al., 2011).


Apparent digestibilities of DM, energy and protein in Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) are higher than in catfish with 67.3%, 73.7% and 91.4% respectively (Li et al., 2013; Kitagima et al., 2011). 

In a recent experiment in China, it was possible to use up to 19% rapeseed meal in order to replace 30% soybean meal in diets for juvenile hybrid tilapia without compromising growth, feed conversion and protein utilization (Zhou QiCun et al., 2010). In Brazil, up to 24% rapeseed meal were fed to juvenile Nile tilapia, Chitralada strain with no health or performance issues (Gaiotto et al., 2004). Former inclusion levels were in the range of 10% to 25% (Abdul-Aziz et al., 1999; Higgs et al., 1989).

In China, Genetically Modified Nile tilapia were fed diets where 75% fish meal was replaced by rapeseed meal (thus representing 55% of the tilapia diet) without impairing growth performance (Luo et al., 2012).

Red seabream

Canola meal could be included at up to 60% of red seabream (Pagrus auratus) diets without detrimental effects on performance (Glencross et al., 2004).




It was shown in a series of experiments on kuruma shrimp (Marsupenaeus japonicus) that rapeseed meal could be fed to shrimps in order to replace fish meal. While it was not possible for rapeseed meal to replace more than 20% fish meal protein as a sole protein rich feed, it could be used in a blend with soybean meal (ratio 4:6) adequately supplemented with amino acids, phytase and fish soluble, and could replace 85% of the fish meal protein (Mahbuba Bulbul et al., 2016; Mahbuba Bulbul et al., 2015; Mahbuba Bulbul et al., 2012).

These results are in accordance with former results obtained on whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus vannamei) where high fibre rapeseed meal was recommended at no more than 15% in the diet to replace menhaden fish meal (Lim et al., 1997). A non-nutritional concern about using canola meal in shrimp feeds is the negative effect that the fibre has on feed pellet waterstability.

Nutritional tables

Avg: average or predicted value; SD: standard deviation; Min: minimum value; Max: maximum value; Nb: number of values (samples) used

IMPORTANT INFORMATION: This datasheet is pending revision and updating; its contents are currently derived from FAO's Animal Feed Resources Information System (1991-2002) and from Bo Göhl's Tropical Feeds (1976-1982).

Main analysis Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Dry matter % as fed 90.1 1.2 88.9 93.7 63
Crude protein % DM 39.0 2.0 36.1 43.8 97
Crude fibre % DM 12.8 0.7 11.5 14.1 57
NDF % DM 26.9 2.9 22.6 32.7 32
ADF % DM 18.8 1.8 13.7 22.0 37
Lignin % DM 7.9 1.8 5.9 13.7 16
Ether extract % DM 4.0 0.6 2.7 5.3 72
Ether extract, HCl hydrolysis % DM 4.2 1.0 3.1 5.7 6
Ash % DM 7.8 0.4 7.1 8.4 57
Total sugars % DM 10.5 1
Gross energy MJ/kg DM 19.6 0.6 18.7 20.5 21 *
Minerals Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Calcium g/kg DM 7.4 0.9 6.4 10.9 24
Phosphorus g/kg DM 11.6 0.4 11.0 12.5 24
Potassium g/kg DM 13.7 0.8 12.0 14.7 19
Sodium g/kg DM 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.6 12
Magnesium g/kg DM 5.7 0.1 5.5 6.0 18
Manganese mg/kg DM 57 4 49 67 18
Zinc mg/kg DM 68 8 57 80 18
Copper mg/kg DM 5 1 4 8 17
Iron mg/kg DM 198 39 133 258 18
Amino acids Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Alanine % protein 4.3 0.2 4.0 4.7 19
Arginine % protein 5.9 0.2 5.6 6.2 18
Aspartic acid % protein 7.2 0.7 5.5 8.1 19
Cystine % protein 2.5 0.3 1.9 2.9 19
Glutamic acid % protein 17.8 1.2 15.4 21.4 19
Glycine % protein 4.9 0.3 4.1 5.5 19
Histidine % protein 2.6 0.3 2.2 3.0 10
Isoleucine % protein 4.0 0.2 3.6 4.3 23
Leucine % protein 6.8 0.3 6.0 7.3 23
Lysine % protein 5.6 0.4 4.8 6.3 25
Methionine % protein 2.0 0.1 1.8 2.1 21
Phenylalanine % protein 3.9 0.1 3.6 4.1 18
Proline % protein 5.9 0.4 4.9 6.6 17
Serine % protein 4.5 0.2 4.1 4.9 17
Threonine % protein 4.2 0.3 3.8 4.7 25
Tryptophan % protein 1.2 0.1 1.1 1.3 11
Tyrosine % protein 2.9 0.1 2.5 3.1 18
Valine % protein 4.9 0.2 4.4 5.3 23
Ruminant nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
OM digestibility, Ruminant % 78.3 *
Energy digestibility, ruminants % 77.7 *
DE ruminants MJ/kg DM 15.3 *
ME ruminants MJ/kg DM 11.7 *
a (N) % 13.0 7.7 18.3 2
b (N) % 85.0 80.7 89.3 2
c (N) h-1 0.032 0.020 0.044 2
Nitrogen degradability (effective, k=4%) % 51 *
Nitrogen degradability (effective, k=6%) % 43 12 30 73 8 *
Pig nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Energy digestibility, growing pig % 70.0 *
DE growing pig MJ/kg DM 13.7 *
MEn growing pig MJ/kg DM 12.7 *
NE growing pig MJ/kg DM 7.9 *
Poultry nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
AMEn cockerel MJ/kg DM 9.2 1
AMEn broiler MJ/kg DM 9.6 1
Fish nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
DE salmonids MJ/kg DM 12.2 2.4 10.9 15.4 3 *
Energy digestibility, salmonids % 62.2 10.1 51.2 71.0 3
Nitrogen digestibility, salmonids % 83.7 4.7 78.6 87.9 3

The asterisk * indicates that the average value was obtained by an equation.


AFZ, 2011; Baidoo et al., 1987; Bell et al., 1991; Bell et al., 1993; Bell et al., 1993; Blair et al., 1986; Christen et al., 2010; DePeters et al., 2000; Fan et al., 1995; Getachew et al., 2004; Hajen et al., 1993; Imbeah et al., 1988; Kendall et al., 1991; Leeson et al., 1974; McKinnon et al., 1995; Mulrooney et al., 2009; Mustafa et al., 1997; Mustafa et al., 1999; Muztar et al., 1978; Petit, 1992; Salmon, 1984; Sharma et al., 1980; Slominski et al., 1999; Yin et al., 1993

Last updated on 28/11/2012 22:36:19

Main analysis Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Dry matter % as fed 94.4 1
Crude protein % DM 38.4 1
Ether extract % DM 9.7 1
Amino acids Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Alanine % protein 4.6 1
Arginine % protein 5.6 5.6 5.6 2
Aspartic acid % protein 7.9 1
Cystine % protein 2.7 1
Glutamic acid % protein 17.1 1
Glycine % protein 5.6 5.3 5.9 2
Histidine % protein 2.6 2.5 2.6 2
Isoleucine % protein 4.3 3.9 4.6 2
Leucine % protein 7.1 6.7 7.5 2
Lysine % protein 5.0 4.3 5.7 2
Methionine % protein 2.0 1.7 2.2 2
Phenylalanine % protein 3.9 3.9 3.9 2
Proline % protein 5.8 1
Serine % protein 4.2 1
Threonine % protein 4.4 4.4 4.4 2
Tryptophan % protein 1.3 1
Tyrosine % protein 2.8 2.6 3.0 2
Valine % protein 5.0 4.9 5.1 2

The asterisk * indicates that the average value was obtained by an equation.


Bell et al., 1967; Salmon, 1984

Last updated on 24/10/2012 00:44:52

Main analysis Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Dry matter % as fed 91.5 89.8 93.2 2
Crude protein % DM 39.7 39.4 40.1 2
Crude fibre % DM 12.1 1
NDF % DM 21.0 1
Ether extract % DM 4.9 4.7 5.1 2
Ash % DM 7.5 1
Gross energy MJ/kg DM 19.9 *
Amino acids Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Alanine % protein 5.0 1
Arginine % protein 6.0 6.0 6.0 2
Aspartic acid % protein 8.6 1
Cystine % protein 2.8 1
Glutamic acid % protein 18.4 1
Glycine % protein 5.6 1
Histidine % protein 3.2 2.6 3.7 2
Isoleucine % protein 4.1 4.1 4.1 2
Leucine % protein 7.1 6.1 8.1 2
Lysine % protein 7.0 6.1 7.9 2
Methionine % protein 1.9 1.5 2.2 2
Phenylalanine % protein 4.0 3.7 4.3 2
Proline % protein 6.0 1
Serine % protein 4.6 1
Threonine % protein 4.4 4.1 4.7 2
Tryptophan % protein 1.3 1
Tyrosine % protein 3.3 1
Valine % protein 6.6 5.3 7.9 2
Ruminant nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
OM digestibility, Ruminant % 79.5 *
Energy digestibility, ruminants % 79.0 *
DE ruminants MJ/kg DM 15.7 *
ME ruminants MJ/kg DM 12.1 *
Pig nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Energy digestibility, growing pig % 71.2 *
DE growing pig MJ/kg DM 14.2 *
Poultry nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
AMEn cockerel MJ/kg DM 9.7 1

The asterisk * indicates that the average value was obtained by an equation.


Bell et al., 1967; Muztar et al., 1978; Salmon, 1984

Last updated on 24/10/2012 00:44:52

Main analysis Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Dry matter % as fed 91.0 2.1 87.5 95.3 234
Crude protein % DM 34.1 2.3 28.5 37.9 240
Crude fibre % DM 12.7 1.3 10.1 15.5 210
NDF % DM 27.3 2.9 24.2 36.0 21
ADF % DM 19.4 2.1 17.4 25.2 19
Lignin % DM 8.9 1.3 6.8 11.8 22
Ether extract % DM 12.3 4.2 7.4 24.0 196
Ether extract, HCl hydrolysis % DM 17.1 5.1 9.8 26.3 48
Ash % DM 6.9 0.6 5.7 8.4 134
Total sugars % DM 9.0 2.2 3.7 12.2 11
Gross energy MJ/kg DM 21.3 1.0 18.5 22.6 11 *
Minerals Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Calcium g/kg DM 8.2 1.4 5.6 10.9 44
Phosphorus g/kg DM 11.5 1.0 8.9 13.1 45
Potassium g/kg DM 12.5 11.5 13.6 2
Sodium g/kg DM 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 5
Iron mg/kg DM 73 1
Amino acids Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Alanine % protein 4.5 0.1 4.3 4.7 6
Arginine % protein 6.2 0.3 5.9 6.7 7
Aspartic acid % protein 7.7 0.2 7.4 7.9 6
Cystine % protein 2.3 0.3 1.9 2.7 6
Glutamic acid % protein 16.4 1.0 15.1 18.2 6
Glycine % protein 5.3 0.3 5.1 5.9 7
Histidine % protein 2.7 0.2 2.6 3.1 7
Isoleucine % protein 4.3 0.2 4.1 4.6 7
Leucine % protein 7.0 0.2 6.7 7.2 7
Lysine % protein 5.5 0.8 3.8 6.6 14
Methionine % protein 2.0 0.2 1.7 2.3 7
Phenylalanine % protein 4.0 0.3 3.4 4.3 7
Proline % protein 6.2 0.4 5.7 6.7 4
Serine % protein 4.6 0.2 4.4 5.0 6
Threonine % protein 4.6 0.3 4.1 5.0 7
Tryptophan % protein 1.3 0.0 1.3 1.4 5
Tyrosine % protein 3.1 0.4 2.5 3.4 4
Valine % protein 5.4 0.3 5.0 5.9 7
Secondary metabolites Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Tannins (eq. tannic acid) g/kg DM 10.8 1
Ruminant nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
OM digestibility, Ruminant % 78.4 *
Energy digestibility, ruminants % 78.8 *
DE ruminants MJ/kg DM 16.8 *
ME ruminants MJ/kg DM 13.1 *
ME ruminants (gas production) MJ/kg DM 9.3 1
Nitrogen digestibility, ruminants % 84.0 1
Nitrogen degradability (effective, k=6%) % 72 1
Pig nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Energy digestibility, growing pig % 70.1 8.1 69.6 90.8 6 *
DE growing pig MJ/kg DM 15.0 1.6 14.6 19.0 6 *
MEn growing pig MJ/kg DM 14.0 *
NE growing pig MJ/kg DM 9.6 *
Nitrogen digestibility, growing pig % 83.2 3.1 79.1 87.6 6
Poultry nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
AMEn cockerel MJ/kg DM 9.6 0.6 8.5 10.4 6

The asterisk * indicates that the average value was obtained by an equation.


AFZ, 2011; Aufrère et al., 1991; Bach Knudsen, 1997; Bell et al., 1967; Bourdon et al., 1979; Bourdon, 1986; Carré et al., 1986; Chopra, 1970; CIRAD, 1991; Cirad, 2008; De Boever et al., 1994; Grala et al., 1999; Guillaume, 1978; Khanum et al., 2007; Liu et al., 1995; Masoero et al., 1994; Nadeem et al., 2005; Schöne et al., 1996; Sen, 1938; Thomas et al., 1984; Weisbjerg et al., 1996

Last updated on 24/10/2012 00:44:52

Main analysis Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Dry matter % as fed 88.8 1.2 84.8 93.4 11332
Crude protein % DM 38.3 1.2 34.4 43.2 11162
Crude fibre % DM 14.1 1.3 9.6 17.5 10332
NDF % DM 31.6 2.6 26.5 37.7 205
ADF % DM 20.5 1.1 18.5 23.0 201
Lignin % DM 9.8 1.0 7.9 12.3 254
Ether extract % DM 2.8 1.0 0.8 6.9 8687
Ether extract, HCl hydrolysis % DM 4.1 0.6 3.1 5.2 89
Ash % DM 7.8 0.4 6.6 9.8 2462
Total sugars % DM 10.3 0.5 9.3 11.6 60
Gross energy MJ/kg DM 19.4 0.2 18.7 19.7 21 *
Minerals Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Calcium g/kg DM 8.6 0.7 7.1 10.2 391
Phosphorus g/kg DM 12.7 0.8 11.2 14.5 466
Sodium g/kg DM 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.5 54
Magnesium g/kg DM 5.2 0.2 5.0 5.4 3
Manganese mg/kg DM 65 12 49 77 6
Zinc mg/kg DM 80 26 61 142 15
Copper mg/kg DM 10 9 2 25 12
Iron mg/kg DM 131 110 152 2
Amino acids Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Alanine % protein 4.4 0.1 4.2 4.5 21
Arginine % protein 6.1 0.2 5.7 6.5 21
Aspartic acid % protein 7.1 0.3 6.7 7.6 21
Cystine % protein 2.3 0.1 2.1 2.5 28
Glutamic acid % protein 16.4 0.5 15.4 17.6 21
Glycine % protein 5.0 0.1 4.7 5.2 21
Histidine % protein 2.6 0.1 2.4 2.7 21
Isoleucine % protein 4.0 0.1 3.7 4.3 22
Leucine % protein 6.7 0.2 6.3 7.1 22
Lysine % protein 5.5 0.3 5.0 6.0 35
Methionine % protein 2.1 0.1 1.9 2.2 30
Phenylalanine % protein 3.9 0.1 3.7 4.1 21
Proline % protein 6.1 0.5 5.6 7.0 15
Serine % protein 4.4 0.2 4.2 4.7 21
Threonine % protein 4.4 0.2 4.0 4.6 25
Tryptophan % protein 1.3 0.1 1.1 1.4 16
Tyrosine % protein 3.1 0.2 2.8 3.6 9
Valine % protein 5.1 0.2 4.7 5.5 22
Secondary metabolites Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Tannins (eq. tannic acid) g/kg DM 5.0 4.2 2.2 9.9 3
Ruminant nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
OM digestibility, Ruminant % 76.5 73.8 76.5 2 *
Energy digestibility, ruminants % 75.7 *
DE ruminants MJ/kg DM 14.7 *
ME ruminants MJ/kg DM 11.3 *
Nitrogen digestibility, ruminants % 74.7 1
a (N) % 22.2 7.2 14.0 27.2 3
b (N) % 59.8 5.3 53.6 63.0 3
c (N) h-1 0.100 0.046 0.050 0.140 3
Nitrogen degradability (effective, k=4%) % 65 *
Nitrogen degradability (effective, k=6%) % 60 6 52 66 4 *
Pig nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Energy digestibility, growing pig % 68.0 4.2 65.6 78.7 14 *
DE growing pig MJ/kg DM 13.2 1.0 12.6 16.0 14 *
MEn growing pig MJ/kg DM 12.1 *
NE growing pig MJ/kg DM 7.5 *
Nitrogen digestibility, growing pig % 80.3 3.8 72.6 88.8 14
Poultry nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
AMEn cockerel MJ/kg DM 5.5 1

The asterisk * indicates that the average value was obtained by an equation.


Aas et al., 1984; AFZ, 2011; Bach Knudsen, 1997; Bourdon et al., 1982; Bourdon, 1986; CIRAD, 1991; CIRAD, 1994; Cirad, 2008; Cowan et al., 1998; Kamalak et al., 2005; Liu et al., 1994; Lund et al., 2008; Mariscal Landin, 1992; Masoero et al., 1994; Maupetit et al., 1992; Nadeem et al., 2005; Noblet et al., 1989; Noblet, 2001; Onidol, 1985; Skiba et al., 2000; Weisbjerg et al., 1996; Woods et al., 2003; Zuprizal; Larbier et al., 1991

Last updated on 24/10/2012 00:44:52

Datasheet citation 

DATASHEET UNDER CONSTRUCTION. DO NOT QUOTE. http://www.feedipedia.org/node/52 Last updated on July 21, 2016, 14:17

Share this