2 research outputs found

    Feeding Canola, Camelina, and Carinata Meals to Ruminants

    No full text
    Soybean meal (SBM) is a byproduct from the oil-industry widely used as protein supplement to ruminants worldwide due to its nutritional composition, high protein concentration, and availability. However, the dependency on monocultures such as SBM is problematic due to price fluctuation, availability and, in some countries, import dependency. In this context, oilseeds from the mustard family such as rapeseed/canola (Brassica napus and Brassica campestris), camelina (Camelina sativa), and carinata (Brassica carinata) have arisen as possible alternative protein supplements for ruminants. Therefore, the objective of this comprehensive review was to summarize results from studies in which canola meal (CM), camelina meal (CMM), and carinata meal (CRM) were fed to ruminants. This review was based on published peer-reviewed articles that were obtained based on key words that included the oilseed plant in question and words such as “ruminal fermentation and metabolism, animal performance, growth, and digestion”. Byproducts from oil and biofuel industries such as CM, CMM, and CRM have been evaluated as alternative protein supplements to ruminants in the past two decades. Among the three plants reviewed herein, CM has been the most studied and results have shown an overall improvement in nitrogen utilization when animals were fed CM. Camelina meal has a comparable amino acids (AA) profile and crude protein (CP) concentration to CM. It has been reported that by replacing other protein supplements with CMM in ruminant diets, similar milk and protein yields, and average daily gain have been observed. Carinata meal has protein digestibility similar to SBM and its CP is highly degraded in the rumen. Overall, we can conclude that CM is at least as good as SBM as a protein supplement; and although studies evaluating the use of CMN and CRM for ruminants are scarce, it has been demonstrated that both oilseeds may be valuable feedstuff for livestock animals. Despite the presence of erucic acid and glucosinolates in rapeseed, no negative effect on animal performance was observed when feeding CM up to 20% and feeding CMN and CRM up to 10% of the total diet

    Nutritional evaluation and ruminal fermentation patterns of kochia compared with alfalfa and orchardgrass hays and ephedra and cheatgrass compared with orchardgrass hay as alternative arid-land forages for beef cattle in two dual-flow continuous culture system experiments

    Get PDF
    The objective was to evaluate the ruminal fermentation patterns of forage kochia (FK) compared with alfalfa hay (AH) and orchardgrass hay (OH) (Exp. 1), and ephedra (EPH) and immature cheatgrass (CG) compared with OH (Exp. 2), using a dual-flow continuous culture system. Two in vitro experiments were conducted, and in each experiment, treatments were randomly assigned to six dual-flow fermenters (1,223 ± 21 mL) in a replicated 3 × 3 Latin square design, with three consecutive periods of 10 d each, consisting of 7 d for diet adaptation and 3 d for sample collection. Each fermenter was fed a total of 72 g/d (DM basis) and treatments were as follows: Exp. 1: 1) 100% OH, 2) 100% AH, and 3) 100% dried FK. Exp. 2: 1) 100% OH, 2) 100% dried CG, and 3) 100% dried EPH. On day 8, 9, and 10, samples of solid and liquid effluent from each fermenter were taken for digestibility anlysis, and subsamples were collected for NH 3 -N, VFA, and bacterial N determinations. Data were analyzed using the MIXED procedure of SAS. In Exp. 1, treatments did not affect DM, OM, and NDF digestibilities, total VFA and molar proportions of acetate, propionate, butyrate, and branched-chain VFA. True CP digestibility, ruminal NH 3 -N concentration, and total N, NH 3 - N, NAN, and dietary N flows (g/d) were greater (P < 0.05) for FK compared with the other for- ages. However, treatments did not affect bacterial efficiency. In Exp. 2, DM, OM, and CP digestibilities were greater (P = 0.01) for EPH, and NDF digestibility was greater (P < 0.05) for EPH and CG compared with OH. Ephedra had the highest (P < 0.05) pH and acetate:propionate ratio and the lowest (P < 0.05) total VFA concentration. Total VFA, ruminal NH 3 -N concentration, and NH 3 -N flow (g/d) were highest (P < 0.05) for CG. Total N flow and bacterial efficiency were highest (P < 0.05) for OH and CG, while the flows (g/d) of NAN, bacterial N, and dietary N were greater (P < 0.05) for OH compared with the other for- ages. Results indicate that when compared with AH and OH (Exp. 1), FK has similar ruminal fer- mentation patterns and may be an adequate alternative for beef cattle producers. Furthermore, when compared with OH (Exp. 2), immature CG vmay also be an adequate forage alternative. This is especially important for areas in which conventional forages may not grow well such as the U.S. arid-land. However, EPH should not be used as the sole forage due to its poor ruminal fermentation as evidenced by the lowest total VFA concentration and propionate molar proportion
    corecore