Feedipedia
Animal feed resources information system
Feedipedia
Feedipedia

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).

Datasheet

Description
Click on the "Nutritional aspects" tab for recommendations for ruminants, pigs, poultry, rabbits, horses, fish and crustaceans
Common names 

Rapeseed meal, rapeseed cake, rapeseed oil meal, rapeseed oil cake, canola meal, canola seed meal, canola oil cake, canola cake

Related feed(s) 
Description 

The rape seed contains about 40% semi-drying oil, which is used as salad and cooking oil or in the manufacture of margarine. Rapeseed meal and canola meal are the by-product of rapeseed and canola oil production. Canola is the name give to rape cultivars with a low glucosinolate content.

Canola meal is produced from canola seed following oil extraction. It is traditionally produced by heating and crushing, followed by solvent (hexane) extraction of the remaining oil in the press-cake (Blair, 2011). However, the solvent extraction process is not acceptable to organic producers(Blair, 2011). Only the by-product from physically crushing the seed, called expeller rapeseed meal, is acceptable as an organic feedstuff(Blair, 2011). The main diff erence between expeller and solvent-extracted meal is a lower content of oil in the solventextracted product (Blair, 2011).
Distribution 

Produced extensively in Europe, North America, China, India and Australia.

Processes 

Steam processing of canola meal did not markedly improve nutrient utilization in poultry, swine or other monogastric animals (Anderson-Hafermann et al., 1993; Undi et al., 1996). In ruminants, 15 minutes maximized utilization (Undi et al., 1996), but 45 minutes reduced digestibility (Moshtaghi Nia et al., 1995). Protein digestibility decreased as the temperature at which the canola meal was processed increased (Anderson-Hafermann et al., 1993). Lysine availability was increased by steam processing (Goh et al., 1982). Dehulling reduced fiber content and increased amino acid and nutrient digestibility (de Lange et al., 1998).

Nutritional aspects
Nutritional attributes 

The canola protein fraction was found to have high biological value (10)(CAB 821432316)(Campbell, 1981). The crude protein content will range from 41 to 43 % (dry basis) and is considered to have a good amino acid profile when compared to other plant sources, but poultry and swine normally have depressed performance when only fed canola as their only source of supplemental protein. Canola contains less lysine than soybean, but has more methionine and its lysine content has been shown to limit performance in swine (68)(AGRICOLA IND 89025664)(Bell, 1988).

The minerals in canola meal seems to be utilization well, several studies have been conducted where supplemental minerals have not increased performance (8)(CAB 831446238)(Thomas, 1983); (16)(CAB N803608)(Summers, 1985). It has been shown that high sulfur levels may partially be causing the depress in performance, because it is changing the cationic and anionic balance (49)(CAB 941407825) (Summers, 1994), which can be partially overcome by increasing dietary Ca levels (62)(CAB 951411006)(Summers, 1995).

The choline level is approximately three times higher in canola than soybean meal, but was found to be in a less available form. (56)(CAB 971408820) (Emmert, 1997).

The fiber content (NDF or ADF) was found to limit nutrient utilization of canola meal, which can be reduced by dehulling (13)(CAB N850673)(Baidoo, 1985); (55)(CAB 971410865)(Mustafa, 1997); (57)(CAB 971405855)(Fan, 1996).

Be sure you know what is being fed, rapeseed or canola meal, animal responses will be dramatically different between these two sources.

Cheeke, 1991–Canola meal–CP 38 to 46 %, 10 to 13 % Crude Fiber

(12)(CAB N855470)(Hilton, 1986) – Energy digestibility 72.4 % and Protein digestibility 83.2 % (trout)

(38)(CAB 991406864)(Thomaz, 1998) – (Swine) – Digestibility - 66.42 % DM, 76.43 % CP, 76 % CF, 65.63 % GE

Values for digestibility – DM = 59.15 %, CP = 28.41 %, Fiber + 5.92%, Energy = 2866.84 kcal/kg, ME = 2753.67 kcal/kg

(60)(CAB N492807)(Bell, 1991) – Western Canadian Plants – Averages (DM Basis) – CP = 41.85 %, EE + 3.92%, CF = 13.13 %, NDF = 23.54%, ADF = 19.09 %, GE = 20.36 mj/kg, Ca = 0.7 %, P = 1.13 %, Mg = 0.57 %, K = 1.35 %, S = 0.94 %, Cu = 6.34 %, Fe = 157 ug/g, Mn = 54.7 ug/g, Mo = 1.5 ug/g, Se = 1.22 ug/g, Zn = 75.8 ug/g

 

Potential constraints 

The following anti-nutritional factors have been found to be associated with rapeseed and canola meals.

Glucosinolates

Rapeseed contain glucosinolates that inhibit thyroid gland metabolism, which causes the thyroid gland to enlarge, causing the affect animal to develop goiter (enlargement of the thyroid gland). Glucosinolates have been shown to dramatically depress animal performance. Addition of iodine to the diets of animals consuming glucosinolates from canola was not shown to influence thyroid function (Laarveld et al., 1981). These compounds are referred to as being goitrogenic. These compounds have a very strong stringent taste associated with them and cause the rapeseed to be quite unpalatable. When rapeseed meal was feed thyroid function was found to be depressed (11)(CAB 821434403)(Christison, 1981). Glucosinolates are very unpalatable, which cause animal to reduce their feed intake which results in a reduction in their performance. As the glucosinolate content of canola increased growth rate declined in rats (72)(AGRIS 93-029227)(Smith, 1992). Therefore, plant breeders have developed varieties of rapeseed that contained lower amounts of glucosinolates, which where initially referred to as 0-rapeseed or 00-rapeseed meals, or low glucosinolate rapeseed meal. The name for these low glucosinolate rapeseed meals was then changed to canola meal, which is commonly used when referring to the low glucosinolate meals today. These lower glucosinolate varies (0-rapessed, 00-rapeseed) improved gains and feed conversion in swine (C)(AGRIS 97-085177)(Dvoracek, 1994), (H)(AGRIS 92-005657)(Pasieka, 1989). Some rapeseed is still grown to produce erucic acid (toxic to animals) which has important industrial applications and is also high in glucosinolates, so rapeseed meal is still available in some regions. It is important to know if the meal being fed is rapeseed meal (high in glucosinolates) or canola meal (low in glucosinolates), because their feeding characteristics vary dramatically. Often rapeseed and canola can be identified visually, because the rapeseed meal is darker in color than the canola meal, which has more of a golden yellow color. Another simple method is to taste the meal, if it has a “hot”stringent taste that is an indication that the glucosinolage content is high. The “hot” taste associated with them is similar to the taste associated with mustard and horseradish, which makes the material quite unpalatable. Glucosinolates acts as an inhibitor of the thyroid gland and when present in high enough amounts will cause goiter to occur, hence they are often referred to as goitrogens.

Tannins

Tannins are phenolic compounds that bind with various compounds, including the CP making less available to the animal (47)(CAB 941402333)(Bell, 1993). As the tannin content increased in canola meal the digestibility of the energy and protein decreased in swine (44)(CAB N230098)(Bell, 1989);(67)(CAB N230098)(Bell, 1989).

Erucic acid

Erucic acid is a lipid that has a number of commercial applications, but that is toxic to the animal. Currently some rapeseed meal is growth for the production of erucic acid and the resultant meal is referred to as rapeseed meal, which has a much lower feeding value than canola meal.

Sinapine

Sinapine is a methylated substance that is converted into trimethylamine that is then absorbed by the animal. Most animals have the ability to convert the trimethylamine to trimethylamine oxide, which can then be easily excreted by the animal in the urine. The problem is that a few animals don’t have the enzyme to make this conversion, like Rhode Island Red Chicken, so it builds up in the blood and accumulates in the egg causing them to have a fishy taste (47)(CAB 941402333)(Bell, 1993). Palatability is also reduced by sinapine, so it has a depressing effect on feed consumption.

Ruminants 

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).

Pigs 

Canola meal was shown to give similar results when compared to soybean when fed to growing swine (3)(CAB 821438816)(Keith, 1982); (20(CAB N545269)(Baidoo, 1983)); (31)(CAB N011469)(Baidoo, 1987). Other research has shown that canola meal needs to be restricted in the diet (39)(CAB 991402648)(Gomes, 1998). Lysine content was found to be limiting (22)(CAB N200164)(Bell, 1988); (24)(CAB N189055)(Bell, 1988). Palatability of canola meal has been shown to be another limiting factor for applications in swine (22)(CAB N200164)(Bell, 1988). Feed consumption was found to increase and efficiency of feed conversion decrease when canola was fed to growing swine (27)(CAB N151767)(Juhl, 1987). As the oligosaccharides (raffinose and stachyose) content of canola increased the digestibility of the non-starch polysaccrides decreased (73)(AGRIS 95-038408)(Slominski, 1994). Mucilage level was not found to effect growth or feed intake (69)(AGRIS 90-054295)(Bell, 1989). Feed conversion and rate of gain was decreased when canola replaced more than 75 % of soybean meal in swine rations (28)(CAB N037140) (Baidoo, 1987); (29)(CAB N037174) (Baidoo, 1987); (30)(CAB N011418) (Baidoo, 1987);(34)(CAB N920795)(Baidoo, 1986).

Poultry 

Broilers

No off-flavors in the meats where observed when canola meal was fed to broilers (19)(CAB N680751)(Salmon, 1984).

Canola seemed to have no effect on performance in broiler when replacing soybean meal (9)(CAB 821431899)(Salmon, 1981); (32)(CAB N973325)(Leeson, 1987); (35)(CAB 991406040)(Franzoi, 1998), but other research found that lysine supplementation improved performance (26)(CAB N164907)(Campbell, 1988). Increasing the dietary level of canola meal was decrease gain, feed intake and increase size of thyroid gland (33)(CAB N952476)(Baidoo, 1986).

Laying hens

Canola meal was found to be a suitable replacement for soybean meal in diets for layer pullets (18)(CAB N750229)(Nassar, 1985);(23)(CAB N191890)(Salmon, 1988). Feed consumption and number of eggs production was reduced when Canola meal replace soybean meal (15)(CAB N803586)(Summers, 1985), egg shell quality (21)(CAB N199220)(Summers, 1988) and mortality (45)(CAB N240271)(Roth-Maier, 1988).

Turkeys

When canola meal was used to replace soybean and fish meals in turkey diets, the canola meal was found to perform similarly to soybean meal (gains and feed conversion), but fish meal showed higher performance (4)(CAB 821441681)(Salmon, 1982); (53)(CAB 981400260) (Borcea, 1996).

No off-flavors in the meats where observed when canola meal was fed to turkeys (6)(CAB 831445007)(Larmond, 1983).

Fish 

Good growth in trout and salmon was observed when canola meal was included at levels up to 30% of the diet (5)(CAB 831443289) (Higgs, 1983) and up to 31% in catfish diets.

Canola meal was found to be able to replace soybean meal and fish meal with out depressing performance (12)(CAB N855470) (Hilton, 1986); (36)(CAB 991406056) (Soares, 1998).

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.

References

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.

References

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.

References

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.

References

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.

References

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

References
References 
Datasheet citation 

DATASHEET UNDER CONSTRUCTION. DO NOT QUOTE. http://www.feedipedia.org/node/52 Last updated on November 20, 2014, 15:34

Share this