Support Feedipedia

Automatic translation

Who is visiting Feedipedia?

 

Editor area

Rapeseed meal and canola meal

Description and recommendations

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).

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).

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.

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

 

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).

Citation

DATASHEET UNDER CONSTRUCTION. DO NOT QUOTE. http://www.feedipedia.org/node/52 Last updated on November 20, 2014, 14:34

Tables

Tables of chemical composition and nutritional value

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 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

TABLE UNDER CONSTRUCTION. DO NOT QUOTE.

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

TABLE UNDER CONSTRUCTION. DO NOT QUOTE.

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

TABLE UNDER CONSTRUCTION. DO NOT QUOTE.

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

TABLE UNDER CONSTRUCTION. DO NOT QUOTE.

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

TABLE UNDER CONSTRUCTION. DO NOT QUOTE.

References

References

Adedokun, S. A. ; Adeola, O. ; Parsons, C. M. ; Lilburn, M. S. ; Applegate, T. J., 2008. Standardized ileal amino acid digestibility of plant deedstuffs in broiler chickens and turkey poults using a nitrogen-free or casein diet. Poult. Sci., 87 (12): 2535-2548 web icon
Akande, K. E. ; Doma, U. D. ; Agu, H. O. ; Adamu, H. M., 2010. Major antinutrients found in plant protein sources: their effect on nutrition. Pakistan J. Nutr., 9 (8): 827-832 web icon
Alcalde, C. R. ; Grande, P. A. ; Lima, L. S. de ; Macedo, F. de A. F. de ; Zeoula, L. M. ; Paula, M. C. de, 2011. Oilseeds in feeding for growing and finishing 3/4 Boer +1/4 Saanen goat kids. Rev. Bras. Zootec., 40 (8): 1753-1757 web icon
Allan, G. L. ; Booth, M. A., 2004. Effects of extrusion processing on digestibility of peas, lupins, canola meal and soybean meal in silver perch Bidyanus bidyanus (Mitchell) diets. Aquacult. Res., 35 (10): 981-991 web icon
Anderson-Hafermann, J. C. ; Zhang, Y. ; Parsons, C.M., 1993. Effects of processing on the nutritional quality of canola meal. Poult. Sci., 72 (2): 326-333 web icon
Ashes, J. R. ; Peck, N. J., 1978. A simple device for dehulling seeds and grain. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 3 (2):109-116 web icon
Aufrère, J. ; Michalet-Doreau, B., 1988. Comparison of methods for predicting digestibility of feeds. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 20: 203-218 web icon
Aufrère, J. ; Graviou, D. ; Demarquilly, C. ; Vérité, R. ; Michalet-Doreau, B. ; Chapoutot, P., 1991. Predicting in situ degradability of feed proteins in the rumen by two laboratory methods (solubility and enzymatic degradation). Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 33: 97-116 web icon
Barbour, G. W. ; Sim, J. S., 1991. True metabolizable energy and true amino acid availability in canola and flax products for poultry. Poult. Sci., 70 (10): 2154–2160 web icon
Bell, J. M. ; Downey, R. K. ; Wetter, L. R., 1967. Oil and meal from Canadian rapeseed. Canada Department of Agriculture. Publication No. 1183 web icon
Bell, J. M. ; Keith, M. O., 1991. A survey of variation in the chemical composition of commercial canola meal produced in Western Canadian crushing plant. Can. J. Anim. Sci., 71 (2): 469-480 web icon
Burel, C. ; Boujard, T. ; Tulli, F. ; Kaushik, S. J., 2000. Digestibility of extruded peas, extruded lupin, and rapeseed meal in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and turbot (Psetta maxima). Aquaculture, 188 (3-4): 285-298 web icon
Carré, P, 2009. Review and evaluation major and most promising processing technologies for oil seed pretreatment and extraction.Sustoil. D2.1: Report about dehulling, the first step of oilseeds bioreffining. Sustoil: Developing advanced Biorefinery schemes for integration into existing oil production/transesterification plants. WP 2: Optimisation of primary processing (e.g. oil extraction and refinery). Creol web icon
Canola Council of Canada, 2014. Canola encyclopedia. Canola Council of Canada, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada web icon
Cetiom (Centre Technique Interprofessionnel des Oléagineux et du Chanvre), 2014. Récolte du colza. CETIOM web icon
Chandrasekharaiah, M. ; Sampath, K. T. ; Thulasi, A. ; Anandan, S., 2001. In situ protein degradability of certain feedstuffs in the rumen of cattle. Indian J. Anim. Sci., 71 (3): 261-264
Chandrasekharaiah, M. ; Sampath, K. T. ; Praveen, U. S. ; Umalatha, 2002. Evaluation of chemical composition and in vitro digestibility of certain commonly used concentrate ingredients and fodder/top feeds in ruminant rations. Indian J. Dairy Biosci., 13 (2): 28-35
Chapoutot, P. ; Ternois, F. ; Sauvant, D., 1990. Influence de l'azote des constituants pariétaux sur la dégradabilité in sacco de l'azote des aliments. Reprod. Nutr. Dévelop., suppl. 2, 149s-150s web icon
Chapoutot, P., 1998. Étude de la dégradation in situ des constituants pariétaux des aliments pour ruminants. Thèse Docteur en Sciences Agronomiques, Institut National Agronomique Paris-Grignon, Paris (FRA), 1998/11/17.
Chaudhry, A. S. ; Webster, A. J. F., 2001. Nutrient composition and the use of solubility to estimate degradability of food proteins in cattle. J. Sci. Food Agric., 81 (11): 1077-1086 web icon
Chopra, S. L., 1970. Personal communication. Punjab Agricultural Univ., Ludhiana (India). Dept. of Chemistry and Biochemistry
Cottrill, B.; Smith, C.; Berry, P.; Weightman, R.; Wiseman, J.; White, G.; Temple, M. L., 2007. Opportunities and implications of using the co-products from biofuel production as feeds for livestock. ADAS-University of Nottingham, UK web icon
Cruz-Suarez, L. E. ; Ricque-Marie, D. ; Tapia-Salazar, M. ; McCallum, I. M. ; Hickling, D., 2001. Assessment of differently processed feed pea (Pisum sativum) meals and canola meal (Brassica sp.) in diets for blue shrimp (Litopenaeus stylirostris). Aquaculture, 196 (1-2): 87-104 web icon
Danesh Mesgaran, M. D. ; Jahani-Azizabadi, H. ; Heravi Moussavi, A. R., 2008. Comparison of techniques to determine the ruminal and post ruminal protein disapperance of various oilseed meals. Res. J. Biol. Sci., 3 (9): 1028-1033 web icon
de Lange, C. F. M. ; Gabert, V. M. ; Gillis, D. J. ; Patience, F., 1998. Digestible energy contents and apparent ileal amino acid digestibilities in regular or partial mechanically dehulled canola meal samples fed to growing pigs. Can. J. Anim. Sci., 78 (4): 641-648 web icon
Drew, M. D. ; Borgeson, T. L. ; Thiessen, D. L., 2007. A review of processing of feed ingredients to enhance diet digestibility in finfish. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 138 (2): 118-136 web icon
EFSA , 2009. Scientific Opinion on applications (EFSA-GMO-RX-GT73[8.1.a] and EFSAGMO- RX-GT73[8.1.b/20.1.b]) for renewal of the authorisation for continued marketing of existing (1) food and food ingredients produced from oilseed rape GT73; and of (2) feed materials, feed additives and food additives produced from oilseed rape GT73, all under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Monsanto. EFSA Journal, 7(12):1417 web icon
European Commission, 2003. Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Coucil of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed. Official J. European Union, L 268/1, 18.10.2003, 1-23 web icon
European Community, 1976. Council Directive 76/621/EEC of 20 July 1976 relating to the fixing of the maximum level of erucic acid in oils and fats intended as such for human consumption and in foodstuffs containing added oils or fats.. Official Journal of the European Communities L202 : 35 web icon
FAO, 2014. FAOSTAT. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy web icon
Getachew, G. ; Robinson, P. H. ; DePeters, E. J. ; Taylor, S. J., 2004. Relationships between chemical composition, dry matter degradation and in vitro gas production of several ruminant feeds. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 111: 41-56 web icon
GMO Compass, 2010. Rapeseed. GMO Food Database web icon
Goh, Y. K. ; Shires, A. ; Robblee, A. R. ; Clandinin, D. R., 1982. The effects of hydrous and anhydrous ammonia treatments on the nutritive value of low glucosinolate-type rapeseed meal (canola meal) for chicks. Can. J. Anim. Sci., 62 (3): 915-918 web icon
Gomes, E. F. ; Corraze, G. ; Kaushik, S., 1993. Effects of dietary incorporation of a co-extruded plant protein (rapeseed and peas) on growth, nutrient utilization and muscle fatty acid composition of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Aquaculture, 113 (4): 339-353 web icon
Grala, W. ; Verstegen, M. W. A. ; Jansman, A. J. M. ; Huisman, J. ; Wasilewko, J., 1998. Nitrogen utilization in pigs fed diets with soybean and rapeseed products leading to different ileal endogenous nitrogen losses. J. Anim. Sci., 76 (2): 569-577 web icon
Hajen, W. E. ; Higgs, D. A. ; Beames, R. M. ; Dosanjh, B. S., 1993. Digestibility of various feedstuffs by post-juvenile chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in sea water. 2. Measurement of digestibility. Aquaculture, 112 (4): 333-348 web icon
Hiclking, D., 2008. Maximized utilization of canola co-products in the livestock industry. Proc. 29th Western Nutrition Conference, Sept. 23 – 24, 2008 Edmonton, 3-12 web icon
Kamalak, A. ; Canbolat, O. ; Gurbuz, Y. ; Ozay, O., 2005. In situ ruminal dry matter and crude protein degradability of plant- and animal-derived protein sources in Southern Turkey. Small Rumin. Res., 58 (2): 135-141 web icon
Kendall, E. M. ; Ingalls, J. R. ; Boila, R. J., 1991. Variability in the rumen degradability and postruminal digestion of the dry matter, nitrogen and amino acids of Canola meal. Can. J. Anim. Sci., 739-754 web icon
Kramer, J. K. ; Farnworth, E. R. ; Johnston, K. M. ; Wolynetz, M. S. ; Modler, H. W. ; Sauer, F. D., 1990. Myocardial changes in newborn piglets fed sow milk or milk replacer diets containing different levels of erucic acid. Lipids, 25 (11): 729-737 web icon
Laarveld, B. ; Christensen, D. A. ; Brockman, R. P., 1981. The effects of Tower and Midas rapeseed meals on milk production and concentrations of goitrogens and iodide in milk. Can. J. Anim. Sci., 61 (1): 131-139 web icon
Lebas, F. ; Colin, M., 1977. Rapeseed oilmeal in feeds for growing rabbits. Effect of husking. Ann. Zootech., 26 (1): 93-97 web icon
Micek, P.; Kowalski, Z. M.; Sloniewski, K.; Tosta, A., 2012. High fat rapeseed cake as a source of energy and by-pass protein for dairy cows. Renc. Rech. Ruminants, 19 web icon
Moshtaghi Nia, S. A. ; Ingall, J. R., 1995. Effect of heating on canola meal protein degradation in the rumen and digestion in the lower gastrointestinal tract of steers. Can. J. Anim. Sci., 72 (1): 83-88 web icon
Mustafa, A. F. ; Qiao, S. Y. ; Thacker, P. A. ; McKinnon, J. J. ; Christensen, D. A., 2000. Nutritional value of an extruded spent hen–soybean meal blend for pigs and ruminants. J. Sci. Food Agric., 80 (11): 1648-1654 web icon
Nićiforović, N. ; Abramovič, H., 2014. Sinapic acid and its derivatives: natural sources and bioactivity. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Safety, 13 (1): 34–51 web icon
Ørskov, E. R. ; Nakashima, Y. ; Abreu, J. M. F. ; Kibon, A. ; Tuah, A. K., 1992. Data on DM degradability of feedstuffs. Studies at and in association with the Rowett Research Organization, Bucksburn, Aberdeen, UK. Personal Communication
Poncet, C. Rémond, D. ; Lepage, E. ; Doreau, M., 2003. Comment mieux valoriser les protéagineux et oléagineux en alimentation des ruminants. Fourrages, 174: 205-229 web icon
Racz, V. J., 2001. Innovation and Commercialization of Saskatchewan Feedstuffs. Final Report to Canada-Saskatchewan Agri-Food Innovation Fund, October 1997 to March 31, 2001, Prairie Feed Resource Centre web icon
Sen, K. C., 1938. The nutritive values of Indian cattle feeds and the feeding of animals. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Dehli, Bulletin No. 25, 1-30
Sibbald, I. R., 1977. The true metabolizable energy values for poultry of rapeseed and of the meal and oil derived therefrom. Poult. Sci., 56 (5): 1652-1656 web icon
Snowdon, R. ; Lühs, W. ; Friedt, W., 2006. Oilseed Rape : Chapter 2. In: Chittaranjan, K. (Ed.), Genome Mapping and Molecular Breeding in Plants, Vol., 2
Tacon, A. G. J. ; Metian, M. ; Hasan, M. R., 2009. Feed ingredients and fertilizers for farmed aquatic animals. Sources and composition. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture technical paper, 540. FAO, Roma, Italy web icon
Thiessen, D. L. ; Campbell, G. L. ; Adelizi, P. D., 2003. Digestibility and growth performance of juvenile rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) fed with pea and canola products. Aquacult. Nutr., 9 (2): 67-75 web icon
Thomas, V. M. ; Katz, R. J. ; Auld, D. A. ; Petersen, C. F. ; Sauter, E. A. ; Steele, E. E., 1983. Nutritional value of expeller extracted rape and safflower oilseed meals for poultry. Poult. Sci., 62: 882-886 web icon
Undi, M. ; Moshtaghi-Nia, S. A. ; Wittenberg, K. M. ; Ingalls, J. R., 1996. A comparative study on amino acid availability of moist heated canola meal for poultry vs. ruminants. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 63 (1-4): 179-186 web icon
Vargas, M. ; Urbá, R. ; Enero, R. ; Báez, H. ; Pardo, P. ; Visconti, C., 1965. Composición de alimentos chilenos de uso en ganadería y avicultura. Santiago. Ministerio de Agricultura. Instituto de Investigación Veterinaria.
Vincent, I. C. ; Hilla, R. ; Campling, R. C., 1990. A note on the use of rapeseed, sunflower and soyabean meals as protein sources in compound foods for milking cattle. Anim. Prod., 50 (3): 541-543 web icon
Woods, V. B. ; O'Mara, F. P. ; Moloney, A. P, 2003. The nutritive value of concentrate feedstuffs for ruminant animals. Part I: In situ ruminal degradability of dry matter and organic matter. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 110 (1/4): 111-130 web icon

Image credits

Image credits

Picture title Credits License
Rapeseed meal Gilles Tran / AFZ CC BY 3.0
Rapeseed meal Florian Gerlach CC BY-SA 3.0