Open Access

Chemical composition, energy and amino acid digestibility in double-low rapeseed meal fed to growing pigs

  • Peili Li1,
  • Fengli Wang1,
  • Fei Wu1,
  • Jinrong Wang2,
  • Ling Liu1 and
  • Changhua Lai1Email author
Contributed equally
Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology20156:37

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40104-015-0033-0

Received: 2 April 2015

Accepted: 9 July 2015

Published: 21 August 2015

Abstract

Background

The nutritional value of rapeseed meal may be variable due to the variation of its chemical composition. And a precise understanding of the nutritional value of an ingredient is beneficial for the accurate diet formulation and reduction of feed costs. This study was conducted to determine the chemical composition, digestible energy (DE) and metabolizable energy (ME) content, and apparent ileal digestibility (AID) and standardized ileal digestibility (SID) of amino acids (AA) for growing pigs. Thirteen solvent-extracted double-low rapeseed meal (DLRSM) samples were obtained from the main double-low rapeseed producing areas in China.

Methods

The DE and ME contents of the 13 DLRSM samples were measured in growing pigs (six pigs per DLRSM sample, average initial body weight (BW) = 48.3 kg). The AID and SID of AA of 10 DLRSM samples were determined in 12 crossbred barrows (average initial BW = 35.3 kg) by using two 6 × 6 Latin square designs. Each Latin square comprised one N-free diet and 5 DLRSM test diets.

Results

The chemical composition of DLRSM varied among samples, and the coefficient of variation was greater than 10 % for ether extract (EE), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF), calcium (Ca), and total glucosinolates. The AA content of DLRSM varied among samples especially for lysine (Lys) and methionine (Met). On a dry matter (DM) basis, the apparent total tract digestibility (ATTD) of gross energy (GE), the DE and ME and the ME:DE ratio of DLRSM averaged 62.39 %, 2862 kcal/kg and 2723 kcal/kg, and 94.95 %, respectively. The mean value of SID of Lys was 70.52 % which varied from 66.54–76.54 %. The SID of crude protein (CP), Met, and threonine (Thr) averaged 72.81 %, 82.41 %, and 69.76 %, respectively.

Conclusions

There was great variability in chemical composition especially in the concentration of EE, NDF and ADF, but no significant differences in energy content of the DLRSM samples were observed. In addition, the AID and SID of all AA were relatively similar among DLRSM samples except for that of Lys.

Keywords

Digestible energy Double-low rapeseed meal Growing pigs Ileal digestibility of amino acids Metabolizable energy

Background

Double-low rapeseed meal (DLRSM), a by-product of solvent-extracted rapeseed oil production, is a potential source of vegetable protein for use in swine diets. Double-low rapeseed contains less than 2 % erucic acid in the oil and less than 30 μmol/g glucosinolates in the meal, whereas rapeseed contains 25–45 % erucic acid in the oil and 50–100 μmol/g glucosinolates in the meal [1]. The superiority of DLRSM over rapeseed meal as a protein supplement is well known [2].

The nutritional value of DLRSM has been discussed [2], determined in many countries [36] and also included in the NRC [7]. However, the nutritional value of DLRSM in China is expected to be different compared with that of other countries due to the variation in varieties, seed quality, soil conditions, and processing conditions [1].

Although the variety of DLRSM in China is almost always Brassica napus, the difference within the species may lead to the variation of the quality of DLRSM. On the other hand, the temperature and time control in processing especially during desolventizing and toasting vary among different DLRSM plants in China; the heat treatment during this stage is critical for the quality of protein in DLRSM [8, 9]. In China, several researches for the nutritional value of rapeseed meal have been done [1012], whereas little research has been done on DLRSM. So more information on the nutritional value of DLRSM produced in China is needed for diet formulation. Therefore, the objective of this study was to investigate the variation of the chemical composition, energy content and ileal amino acids (AA) digestibility of DLRSM.

Methods

General

All animal experimentation procedures were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee at China Agricultural University (Beijing, China). Two experiments were conducted in the Metabolism Laboratory of the Ministry of Agriculture Feed Industry Centre (China Agricultural University, Beijing, China). The DLRSM samples were obtained from the main double-low rapeseed producing areas in China. All samples were solvent-extracted DLRSM. Thirteen meals were selected from the collected 20 DLRSM to achieve the greatest variability (Table 1). However, only 10 of the collected 20 DLRSM were selected to determine their ileal AA digestibility. The chemical composition and AA content of these DLRSM are shown in Tables 2 and 3. The diets in both experiments were all fed as mash. The pigs were fed the diets equal to 4 % of their body weight (BW) and the daily feed allowance [13] was offered in two equal meals at 0800 and 1700 h. Water was freely available at all times throughout the experiment. The barrows were individually placed in stainless-steel metabolism crates (1.4 m × 0.45 m × 0.6 m) in a temperature-controlled room (22 ± 2 °C). The pigs used in both experiments were crossbred (Duroc × Landrace × Yorkshire) barrows obtained from Fengning Swine Research Unit, China Agricultural University (Beijing, China).
Table 1

Source of double-low rapeseed meals used in the two experiments

Number

City and Province in China

1

Quyuan, Hunan

2

Lixian, Hunan

3

Luliang, Hunan

4

Xidongting, Hunan

5

Yingcheng, Hunan

6

Yiyang, Hunan

7

Huaihua, Hunan

8

Xiaodukou, Hunan

9

Feixi, Anhui

10

Jingzhou, Hubei

11

Yichang, Hubei

12

Gong’an, Hubei

13

Huanggang, Hubei

Table 2

Analyzed proximate composition (% of dry matter, unless otherwise indicated) of double-low rapeseed meals

Item

Double-low rapeseed meal numbera

    

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

Mean

Maximum

Minimum

CVb

Dry matter

90.14

90.06

89.90

88.71

89.16

89.90

90.11

90.30

89.89

89.82

89.28

89.19

90.66

89.78

90.66

88.71

0.61

Crude protein

42.67

43.59

41.35

43.64

42.26

42.55

42.97

43.29

39.57

43.02

40.29

41.48

39.37

42.00

43.64

39.37

3.51

Ether extract

1.52

0.70

1.32

1.59

1.47

1.62

1.67

1.27

1.98

1.37

1.79

1.42

1.73

1.50

1.98

0.70

20.88

Crude fiber

15.15

15.14

14.48

12.73

13.50

15.35

17.26

13.16

12.60

13.41

14.81

14.15

15.08

14.37

17.26

12.6

9.03

Neutral detergent fibre

40.35

40.33

35.31

29.90

32.20

27.91

39.46

39.24

38.74

39.21

40.98

31.31

38.13

36.39

40.98

27.91

12.41

Acid detergent fibre

28.20

27.64

21.29

22.30

22.25

18.80

24.24

27.36

23.92

21.08

25.84

23.85

22.61

23.80

28.20

18.8

11.88

Ash

8.78

8.28

8.53

7.72

8.05

7.15

7.92

9.13

9.63

8.48

8.18

8.09

10.06

8.46

10.06

7.15

9.31

Calcium

0.94

0.90

0.98

0.83

0.88

0.81

0.74

0.92

0.69

1.08

0.79

0.95

0.90

0.88

1.08

0.69

12.05

Phosphorus

0.90

0.86

0.93

0.95

0.89

0.97

0.92

0.93

0.82

0.95

0.86

1.04

0.89

0.92

1.04

0.82

6.33

Gross energy, kcal/kg

4575

4568

4542

4636

4585

4707

4650

4557

4499

4587

4592

4645

4508

4589

4707

4499

1.28

Total glucosinolates, μmol/g

5.57

6.58

5.11

4.15

9.83

7.02

16.83

10.04

5.29

20.08

6.59

22.73

11.11

10.07

22.73

4.15

60.37

aSources of double-low rapeseed meal are described in Table 1

b CV coefficient of variation

Table 3

Analyzed AA composition of double-low rapeseed meals (% of dry matter)

Item

Double-low rapeseed meal numbera

    

1

2

3

4

5

8

10

11

12

Mean

Maximum

Minimum

CVb

Crude protein

42.67

43.59

41.35

43.64

42.26

43.29

43.02

40.29

41.48

42.40

43.64

40.29

2.72

Indispensable AA

 Arg

2.18

2.23

2.14

2.41

2.31

2.19

2.27

2.08

2.22

2.23

2.41

2.08

4.35

 His

1.05

1.06

1.04

1.20

1.14

1.13

1.13

1.06

1.09

1.10

1.20

1.04

4.83

 Ile

1.52

1.51

1.42

1.56

1.51

1.51

1.48

1.38

1.41

1.48

1.56

1.38

4.03

 Leu

2.67

2.67

2.55

2.76

2.65

2.65

2.68

2.47

2.54

2.63

2.76

2.47

3.38

 Lys

1.96

1.94

2.02

2.41

2.25

1.97

2.06

1.95

2.21

2.09

2.41

1.94

7.92

 Met

0.86

0.91

0.94

0.97

0.91

0.94

1.00

0.77

0.76

0.90

1.00

0.76

9.46

 Phe

1.34

1.36

1.28

1.36

1.31

1.31

1.31

1.22

1.27

1.31

1.36

1.22

3.59

 Thr

1.84

1.86

1.80

1.91

1.79

1.79

1.86

1.76

1.81

1.82

1.91

1.76

2.50

 Trp

0.51

0.54

0.50

0.53

0.52

0.51

0.52

0.46

0.50

0.51

0.54

0.46

4.49

 Val

2.34

2.35

2.17

2.38

2.28

2.28

2.24

2.15

2.19

2.26

2.38

2.15

3.66

Dispensable AA

 Ala

1.75

1.75

1.76

2.05

1.96

1.97

1.98

1.86

1.90

1.89

2.05

1.75

5.95

 Asp

2.77

2.82

2.74

2.93

2.80

2.82

2.87

2.60

2.72

2.79

2.93

2.60

3.42

 Cys

1.15

1.18

1.19

1.24

1.22

1.11

1.19

1.14

1.15

1.17

1.24

1.11

3.60

 Glu

6.98

7.01

6.68

7.41

7.12

7.16

7.30

6.67

6.82

7.02

7.41

6.67

3.73

 Gly

2.51

2.52

2.30

2.36

2.26

2.27

2.32

2.15

2.21

2.32

2.52

2.15

5.38

 Pro

2.25

2.10

2.05

2.46

2.35

2.33

2.36

2.24

2.30

2.27

2.46

2.05

5.76

 Ser

1.71

1.73

1.66

1.75

1.65

1.63

1.73

1.62

1.66

1.68

1.75

1.62

2.81

 Tyr

0.74

0.77

0.68

0.81

0.77

0.76

0.76

0.76

0.75

0.75

0.81

0.68

5.36

aSources of double-low rapeseed meal are described in Table 1

b CV coefficient of variation

Exp. 1: Energy digestibility

This experiment was conducted to determine the apparent total tract digestibility (ATTD) of gross energy (GE), the digestible energy (DE) and metabolizable energy (ME) and the ME:DE ratio of 13 DLRSM fed to growing pigs. Eighty-four crossbred barrows (initial BW: 48.3 ± 2.4 kg; Duroc × Landrace × Yorkshire) were allocated to one of 14 dietary treatments in a completely randomized design with 6 barrows in each dietary treatment. The 14 experimental diets included one corn-soybean meal basal diet and 13 DLRSM test diets. The DLRSM test diets were formulated to contain 19.2 % DLRSM which replaced 20 % of the energy supplied by corn, soybean meal, and Lys in the basal diet (Table 4). The chemical composition of the experimental diets is presented in Table 5.
Table 4

Ingredient composition of experimental diets (as-fed basis, %)

Item

Exp. 1

Exp. 2

Basal diet

Test diets

Double-low rapeseed meal diets

N-free diet

Corn

77.40

61.90

-

-

Soybean meal

18.60

14.90

-

-

Double-low rapeseed meal

-

19.20

40.00

-

Cornstarch

-

-

34.40

68.90

Sucrose

-

-

20.00

20.00

Cellulose acetatea

-

-

-

4.00

Soybean oil

-

-

3.00

3.00

L-lysine · HClb

0.10

0.08

-

-

Dicalcium phosphate

1.20

1.20

1.00

1.60

Potassium carbonate

-

-

-

0.30

Magnesium oxide

-

-

-

0.10

Limestone

1.10

1.10

0.50

1.00

Wheat rice stonec

0.80

0.80

-

-

Vitamin-mineral premixd

0.50

0.50

0.50

0.50

Salt

0.30

0.30

0.30

0.30

Chromic oxide

-

-

0.30

0.30

aMade by Chemical Reagents Company, Beijing, China

bMade by Dacheng Group, Jilin, China

cUsed as carrier for L-lysine · HCl and contained more than 70 % silicon oxide and aluminium oxide, made by YiXian BeiQiao Tou Ore Company (YiXian, China)

dProvided the following quantities of vitamins and minerals per kg of complete diet: Mn, 50 mg (MnO); Fe, 125 mg (FeSO4 · H2O); Zn, 125 mg (ZnO); Cu, 150 mg (CuSO4 · 5H2O); I, 50 mg (CaI2); Se, 0.30 mg (Na2SeO3), retinyl acetate, 4500 IU; cholecalciferol, 1350 IU; DL-α-tocopheryl acetate, 13.5 mg; menadione sodium bisulfite complex, 2.7 mg; niacin, 18 mg; vitamin B12, 27.6 μg; thiamine, 0.6 mg; pyridoxine, 0.9 mg; riboflavin, 1.8 mg; D-calcium-pantothenate, 10.8 mg; nicotinic acid, 30.3 mg; choline chloride, 210 mg

Table 5

Analyzed composition of the experimental diets used in Exp. 1 (% as-fed basis)

Diet

Basal diet

Test dietsa

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

Dry matter

89.15

89.66

89.64

89.64

89.41

89.65

89.74

89.87

89.79

90.05

89.53

89.50

89.46

89.60

Crude protein

15.19

19.13

19.06

18.78

19.59

19.29

18.91

19.52

19.61

18.90

19.40

18.51

18.70

18.77

Ether extract

1.98

2.34

2.20

2.12

1.84

1.86

1.93

2.02

1.94

1.88

2.10

2.05

2.01

1.94

Crude fiber

1.95

4.30

4.41

4.31

4.00

4.11

3.94

4.01

4.05

4.27

4.07

4.26

4.29

4.01

Neutral detergent fibre

10.14

18.99

15.31

15.41

14.90

15.51

15.21

16.75

16.28

16.76

16.17

16.31

15.35

16.48

Acid detergent fibre

3.12

8.36

6.11

6.90

6.73

6.87

6.57

6.85

7.13

7.39

6.92

7.25

7.07

7.07

Ash

5.46

6.51

6.28

6.33

6.09

6.34

6.26

6.13

6.49

6.48

6.41

6.30

6.31

6.97

Calcium

0.64

0.79

0.77

0.77

0.76

0.73

0.69

0.67

0.78

0.69

0.81

0.36

0.82

0.79

Phosphorus

0.58

0.65

0.68

0.69

0.68

0.69

0.68

0.67

0.68

0.68

0.69

0.33

0.69

0.69

Gross energy, kcal/kg

3786

3817

3841

3826

3830

3816

3836

3829

3820

3815

3818

3823

3821

3797

aSources of double-low rapeseed meal are described in Table 1

The experiment lasted 14 d which comprised 9-d for adaptation to the diets followed by a 5-d total collection of feces and urine. Feces were collected into bags (one pig per bag) immediately when it appeared in the metabolism crates and stored at −20 °C. Urine was collected in buckets located under the metabolism crates. The buckets contain 50 mL of 6 N HCl and the urine was measured by volume every morning. A sample (10 % of the total volume) was collected, and after filtering, the urine samples were stored at −20 °C. The collection procedures were conducted according to the methods described by Song et al. [14] and Ren et al. [15].

Exp. 2: Amino acid digestibility

This experiment was conducted to determine the apparent ileal digestibility (AID) and standardized ileal digestibility (SID) of crude protein (CP) and AA in 10 samples of DLRSM (numbers 1–5, 8, 10–12; Table 1) fed to growing pigs. Twelve crossbred barrows (initial BW: 35.3 ± 3.8 kg; Duroc × Landrace × Yorkshire) with a T-cannula near the distal ileum were assigned to one of two 6 × 6 Latin square designs. Each Latin square comprised one N-free diet and 5 DLRSM test diets. The test diets contained 40 % of one of the 10 DLRSM as the sole source of protein, and the N-free diet was formulated according to the methods described by Stein et al. [16] to estimate the basal endogenous losses of CP and AA for determining the SID of CP and AA (Table 4). The chemical composition of the Exp. 2 diets is presented in Table 6. The procedure of equipping the pig with a T-cannula near the distal ileum was according to the method described by Stein et al. [17]. (1998). Each of the six periods in the Latin square design lasted 7 d within which the first 5 d were for adaptation and the last 2 d for ileal digesta collection. Ileal digesta were collected continuously from 0800–1700 h. The collection procedures used followed the description provided by Stein et al. [17]. Briefly, on d 6 and 7, a 200 mL plastic bag was attached to the open cannula using a cable tie. The bags were removed whenever they were filled with digesta or at least every 30 min and stored at −20 °C until required for analysis.
Table 6

Analyzed composition of the experimental diets used in Exp. 2 (% as-fed basis)

Item

Double-low rapeseed meal dietsa

N-free diet

1

2

3

4

5

8

10

11

12

Dry matter

93.50

92.65

92.78

92.70

93.21

93.17

93.17

93.16

92.89

92.45

Crude protein

16.40

16.11

15.34

15.33

15.92

15.73

15.23

14.64

15.29

0.87

Indispensable AA

 Arg

0.84

0.97

0.82

0.85

0.75

0.75

0.76

0.62

0.73

-

 His

0.40

0.46

0.39

0.41

0.41

0.40

0.39

0.38

0.38

-

 Ile

0.69

0.75

0.66

0.64

0.64

0.65

0.63

0.59

0.63

-

 Leu

1.07

1.18

1.02

1.03

0.98

1.00

1.00

0.90

0.96

-

 Lys

0.72

0.83

0.75

0.83

0.82

0.71

0.75

0.71

0.80

-

 Met

0.26

0.27

0.25

0.25

0.27

0.24

0.26

0.23

0.25

-

 Phe

0.56

0.65

0.53

0.54

0.60

0.56

0.55

0.57

0.56

-

 Thr

0.63

0.73

0.63

0.65

0.65

0.64

0.62

0.61

0.63

-

 Trp

0.18

0.18

0.16

0.17

0.19

0.18

0.18

0.18

0.17

-

 Val

0.80

0.89

0.74

0.74

0.83

0.77

0.79

0.77

0.78

-

Dispensable AA

 Ala

0.66

0.75

0.62

0.64

0.69

0.66

0.67

0.62

0.66

-

 Asp

1.01

1.16

1.00

1.02

1.03

1.02

1.00

0.90

0.98

-

 Cys

0.36

0.36

0.35

0.32

0.37

0.30

0.33

0.30

0.33

-

 Glu

2.55

2.93

2.44

2.50

2.55

2.51

2.43

2.30

2.41

-

 Gly

0.74

0.84

0.71

0.72

0.75

0.73

0.72

0.68

0.71

-

 Pro

0.93

1.07

0.99

0.87

0.88

0.93

0.86

0.82

0.87

-

 Ser

0.59

0.70

0.60

0.63

0.61

0.62

0.61

0.56

0.60

-

 Tyr

0.76

0.81

0.77

0.75

0.69

0.68

0.71

0.67

0.68

-

aSources of double-low rapeseed meal are described in Table 1

Sample preparation and chemical analyses

Fecal samples were dried in an oven at 65 °C for three days, weighed, pooled for each pig and subsampled. Ileal digesta samples were thawed, mixed within pig and period, subsampled and lyophilized in a vacuum-freeze dryer (Tofflon Freezing Drying Systems, Shanghai, China). Samples of DLRSM, diets, feces, and ileal digesta were ground through a 1-mm screen and thoroughly mixed for analysis. Urine samples were thawed and thoroughly mixed within pig for analysis.

Samples of DLRSM, diets, feces, and digesta was analysed for dry matter (DM) (procedure 930.15) [18]. All DLRSM samples and diets in Exp. 1 were analyzed for CP (procedure 984.13), ash (procedure, 942.05), calcium (procedure 968.08), phosphorus (procedure 946.06), and crude fiber (CF) (procedure 978.10) [18]. Ether extract (EE) were determined according to the method of Thiex et al. [19] and Kjeldahl N was determined according to the method of Thiex et al. [20]. The concentrations of neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and acid detergent fiber (ADF) were determined according to the method of Van Soest et al. [21]. The concentration of NDF was analyzed using heat-stable α-amylase and sodium sulfite without correction for insoluble ash as adapted for an Ankom Fiber Analyzer (Ankom Technology, Macedon, NY). The ADF fraction was analyzed in a separate sample. The concentration of total glucosinolates was analyzed according to Daun et al. [22]. Samples of DLRSM, diets, feces, and urine were analyzed for gross energy via an adiabatic oxygen bomb calorimeter (Parr Instruments Co., Moline, IL).

Samples of DLRSM, diets, and ileal digesta from Exp. 2 were hydrolyzed with 6 N HCl for 24 h at 110 °C [18] and analyzed for 15 AA using an Amino Acid Analyzer (Hitachi L-8900, Tokyo, Japan). The sulfur-containing AA, methionine (Met) and cysteine (Cys), were subjected to performic acid oxidation and hydrolyzed with 7.5 N HCl for 24 h at 110 °C [18] before measurement using an Amino Acid Analyzer (Hitachi L-8800, Tokyo, Japan). Tryptophan (Trp) was determined after LiOH hydrolysis for 22 h at 110 °C [18] using High Performance Liquid Chromatography (Agilent 1200 Series, Santa Clara, CA). The chromium (Cr) concentration of diets and ileal digesta samples was determined after nitric acid-perchloric acid wet ash sample preparation using a Polarized Zeeman Atomic Absorption Spectrometer (Hitachi Z2000, Tokyo, Japan).

Calculations

In Exp. 1, the DE and ME of 13 DLRSM were determined. The ATTD of GE as well as DE and ME content of the DLRSM were calculated using the difference method [13].

In Exp. 2, the AA digestibility of DLRSM samples was calculated as described by Stein et al. [16]. Because DLRSM was the only feed ingredient contributing AA in the experimental diets, dietary values also represent the digestibility for each sample of DLRSM. The AID of AA in the diets containing DLRSM was calculated according to the following equation:
$$ \mathrm{AID} = \left[1 - \left(A{A}_{\mathrm{digesta}}/A{A}_{\mathrm{diet}}\right) \times \left(C{r}_{\mathrm{diet}}/C{r}_{\mathrm{digesta}}\right)\right] \times 100\%, $$
where AID is the apparent ileal digestibility of an AA (%), AAdigesta is the AA concentration in the ileal digesta (g/kg of DM), AAdiet is the AA concentration in the diets (g/kg of DM), Crdiet is the chromium concentration in the diet (g/kg of DM), and Crdigesta is the chromium concentration in the ileal digesta (g/kg of DM). The AID of CP was calculated using the equation above.
The IAAend of AA for each pig fed the N-free diet was determined according to following equation:
$$ IA{A}_{\mathrm{end}} = \left[A{A}_{\mathrm{digesta}} \times \left(C{r}_{\mathrm{diet}}/C{r}_{\mathrm{digesta}}\right)\right], $$
where IAAend is the basal ileal endogenous loss of an AA (g/kg of DM intake). The endogenous loss of CP was also determined using the same equation.
By correcting the AID of each AA, which was calculated for each sample for the IAAend of each AA, the SID of AA was corrected according to following equation:
$$ SID = \left[\mathrm{AID} + \left(IA{A}_{\mathrm{end}}/A{A}_{\mathrm{diet}}\right) \times 100\right], $$
where SID is the standardized ileal digestibility of an AA (%).

Statistical analyses

The data for the ATTD of GE, the DE and ME content, the ME:DE ratio were analyzed using the GLM procedure (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC), with the pig as the experimental unit. The data on AID and SID were analyzed using the ANOVA procedure with DLRSM source, pig, and period as the main effects. The total variation was analyzed by the model described by Ji et al. [23]. In all analyses, the differences were considered significant if P < 0.05.

Results

Chemical composition of DLRSM

The chemical composition of the 13 DLRSM is presented in Table 2, and the chemical composition of the experimental diets is presented in Table 5. The chemical composition of DLRSM varied among samples, whereas the coefficient of variation was greater than 10 % for ether extract, NDF, ADF, Ca, and total glucosinolates. The content of CF and ash were also quite variable. The DM content of 13 DLRSM averaged 89.78 %, ranged from 88.71–90.66 %. On a DM basis, the total glucosinolates content (μmol/g) ranged from 4.15–22.73 with an average of 10.07.

Exp. 1: Energy digestibility

The ATTD of GE, the DE and ME and ME:DE ratio of the 13 DLRSM are presented in Table 7. There were no differences in these values among the different DLRSM. On a DM basis, the DE content of the DLRSM varied by 483 kcal/kg and ranged from 2616–3099 kcal/kg; the ME content of the DLRSM varied by 450 kcal/kg and ranged from 2514–2964 kcal/kg. The ATTD of GE and the ME:DE ratio averaged 62.39 and 94.95 %, with a range of 57.41–68.75 %, and 91.70–97.41 %, respectively.
Table 7

Energy concentration and apparent total tract digestibility (ATTD) of GE of double-low rapeseed meals fed to growing pigs (Exp. 1, DM basis)

Item

ATTD of GE, %

DE, kcal/kg

ME, kcal/kg

ME/DE, %

Numbera

    

 1

65.81

3011

2921

97.41

 2

63.20

2887

2720

94.16

 3

64.65

2936

2814

95.88

 4

58.86

2729

2534

92.58

 5

58.35

2675

2522

93.84

 6

61.44

2892

2769

95.50

 7

61.99

2882

2689

92.97

 8

57.41

2616

2537

97.05

 9

58.24

2620

2514

95.59

 10

64.16

2943

2819

95.23

 11

61.58

2828

2733

96.64

 12

66.58

3093

2964

95.83

 13

68.75

3099

2868

91.70

SEM

3.32

151.51

173.75

2.42

Mean

62.39

2862

2723

94.95

Maximum

68.75

3099

2964

97.41

Minimum

57.41

2616

2514

91.70

CVb

5.69

5.69

5.74

1.87

P-value

0.31

0.30

0.63

0.88

aSources of double-low rapeseed meal are described in Table 1

b CV coefficient of variation

Exp. 2: Amino acid digestibility

The data on one of the 10 DLRSM (DLRSM number 13) was considered an outlier because the value was more than three standard deviations away from the mean [24]. Therefore, only 9 of the 10 DLRSM are discussed here. The chemical composition of the DLRSM (numbers 1–5, 8, 10–12) is shown in Table 2, and their AA content (%) is shown in Table 3. As expected, the AA content of DLRSM varied among samples especially for Lys and Met. The level (%) of CP ranged from 40.29–43.64 with an average of 42.40 on a DM basis. The concentrations of Lys and Met of DLRSM ranged from 1.94–2.41 % and 0.76–1.00 % with an average of 2.09 % and 0.90 %, respectively.

Tables 8 and 9 show the AID and SID values of CP and AA, respectively. There were no significant differences in the AID of CP and AA (except for Lys) among different DLRSM, but the largest variation among indispensable AA was Lys, and among dispensable AA was Pro. Also there were no significant differences in the SID of CP and AA (except for Lys) among different DLRSM, the largest variation among indispensable AA was for Lys, and among the dispensable AA, the greatest variation was observed for Pro. The AID values of Lys ranged from 60.41–68.53 % with an average of 63.85 %, and SID values ranged from 68.69–76.72 % with an average value of 72.81 %.
Table 8

Apparent ileal digestibility (%) of AA in double-low rapeseed meals fed to growing pigs (Exp. 2)

Item

Double-low rapeseed meal numbera

      

1

2

3

4

5

8

10

11

12

SEM

Mean

Maximum

Minimum

CVb

P-value

Crude protein

61.57

60.41

62.44

67.32

66.67

60.71

63.35

63.65

68.53

1.98

63.85

68.53

60.41

4.67

0.18

Indispensable AA

 Arg

79.95

82.57

79.73

82.58

80.44

77.16

78.15

77.55

80.80

1.82

79.88

82.58

77.16

2.49

0.61

 His

78.61

78.95

79.69

81.92

82.22

75.51

81.02

80.62

81.00

1.36

79.95

82.22

75.51

2.59

0.17

 Ile

73.13

76.16

74.67

74.72

74.90

71.56

76.18

73.89

75.80

2.31

74.56

76.18

71.56

2.03

0.97

 Leu

73.57

76.96

75.86

76.01

75.17

71.27

74.32

73.59

75.66

2.00

74.71

76.96

71.27

2.31

0.85

 Lys

62.48

65.10

65.61

71.63

69.04

62.63

67.91

63.25

73.08

1.90

66.75

73.08

62.48

5.85

0.01

 Met

77.76

80.26

79.43

79.71

83.22

76.41

80.90

79.49

81.58

1.50

79.86

83.22

76.41

2.51

0.32

 Phe

72.08

77.70

73.44

74.21

77.27

73.53

74.64

76.68

76.35

1.69

75.10

77.70

72.08

2.62

0.52

 Thr

57.68

64.47

62.72

65.75

64.77

60.33

62.70

62.67

66.81

2.50

63.10

66.81

57.68

4.45

0.57

 Trp

69.44

67.08

69.33

71.56

72.94

66.64

70.53

71.53

73.64

3.50

70.30

73.64

66.64

3.44

0.74

 Val

67.45

71.68

68.48

69.61

72.62

66.48

70.50

71.66

72.91

2.74

70.15

72.91

66.48

3.28

0.48

Dispensable AA

 Ala

65.55

69.75

66.14

71.26

72.15

65.28

69.26

69.40

73.48

2.04

69.14

73.48

65.28

4.27

0.23

 Asp

61.78

63.91

66.89

66.73

66.14

60.42

63.90

63.28

67.62

3.55

64.52

67.62

60.42

3.85

0.62

 Cys

66.78

60.72

65.15

65.76

69.31

57.82

63.98

60.76

70.15

4.55

64.49

70.15

57.82

6.38

0.26

 Glu

76.60

80.66

79.38

81.47

81.70

76.66

79.12

79.95

81.86

1.73

79.71

81.86

76.60

2.51

0.22

 Gly

55.26

57.12

54.06

64.67

64.26

53.30

58.27

58.20

64.78

5.12

58.88

64.78

53.30

7.80

0.17

 Pro

48.74

51.95

44.28

61.23

56.24

45.30

40.05

50.26

63.92

10.32

51.33

63.92

40.05

15.44

0.19

 Ser

59.98

66.46

64.59

68.15

66.61

63.13

65.63

63.72

69.24

3.64

65.28

69.24

59.98

4.29

0.50

 Tyr

82.21

82.68

82.41

81.32

80.47

77.93

82.53

80.38

82.00

4.55

81.33

82.68

77.93

1.89

0.99

aSources of double-low rapeseed meal are described in Table 1

b CV coefficient of variation

Table 9

Standardized ileal digestibility (%) of AA in double-low rapeseed meals fed to growing pigs (Exp. 2)a,b

Item

Double-low rapeseed meal numbera

      

1

2

3

4

5

8

10

11

12

SEM

Mean

Maximum

Minimum

CVc

P-value

Crude protein

71.19

70.12

72.65

75.46

74.55

68.69

73.68

72.22

76.72

1.94

72.81

76.72

68.69

3.55

0.33

Indispensable AA

 Arg

87.56

89.10

87.41

87.76

86.36

83.03

86.44

84.69

86.88

1.94

86.58

89.10

83.03

2.07

0.80

 His

82.74

82.56

83.99

85.07

85.34

78.69

85.32

83.98

84.36

1.51

83.56

85.34

78.69

2.50

0.28

 Ile

77.03

79.71

78.71

77.61

77.80

74.42

80.39

77.05

78.72

2.38

77.94

80.39

74.42

2.24

0.94

 Leu

78.38

81.28

80.83

80.08

79.47

75.48

79.44

78.27

80.04

1.64

79.25

81.28

75.48

2.18

0.65

 Lys

66.71

68.72

69.64

74.97

72.45

66.54

71.92

67.16

76.54

1.70

70.52

76.54

66.54

5.20

0.01

 Met

80.26

82.67

81.98

82.27

85.64

79.10

83.42

82.25

84.14

1.39

82.41

85.64

79.10

2.36

0.26

 Phe

76.44

81.43

78.01

78.54

81.18

77.72

79.06

80.83

80.56

1.62

79.31

81.43

76.44

2.23

0.61

 Thr

65.27

70.93

70.22

71.76

70.79

66.43

70.36

69.08

73.02

2.29

69.76

73.02

65.27

3.56

0.62

 Trp

75.14

72.56

75.46

76.97

77.90

71.91

76.10

76.81

78.98

2.32

75.76

78.98

71.91

3.07

0.71

 Val

72.27

75.98

73.62

73.84

76.43

70.58

75.39

75.71

76.93

1.73

74.53

76.93

70.58

2.83

0.45

Dispensable AA

 Ala

74.38

77.49

75.49

78.47

78.94

72.32

77.98

76.95

80.51

2.01

76.95

80.51

72.32

3.26

0.42

 Asp

66.57

70.50

70.50

71.97

71.34

65.71

70.07

69.22

73.08

2.17

69.88

73.08

65.71

3.44

0.59

 Cys

72.21

66.20

70.74

73.12

75.74

65.60

69.94

68.56

77.39

2.37

71.06

77.39

65.60

5.64

0.08

 Glu

79.50

83.16

82.39

84.03

84.22

79.22

82.14

82.75

84.53

1.31

82.44

84.53

79.22

2.34

0.21

 Gly

78.19

77.18

77.89

82.40

81.42

70.83

81.90

77.03

82.74

3.94

78.84

82.74

70.83

4.82

0.76

 Pro

102.94

98.73

94.78

101.78

96.57

83.59

98.57

93.55

104.84

14.57

97.26

104.84

83.59

6.52

0.99

 Ser

67.86

73.09

72.30

74.23

72.92

69.33

73.32

70.57

75.61

2.18

72.14

75.61

67.86

3.40

0.57

 Tyr

89.31

89.29

89.42

85.58

85.14

82.67

90.12

85.17

86.76

2.39

87.05

90.12

82.67

2.98

0.62

aSources of double-low rapeseed meal are described in Table 1

bValues for standardized ileal digestibility were calculated by correcting apparent ileal digestibility for the basal endogenous losses. Basal ieal endogenous were determined (g/kg dry matter intake) as crude protein, 15.2; Arg, 0.58; His, 0.16; Ile, 0.24; Leu, 0.50; Lys, 0.31; Met, 0.07; Phe, 0.26; Thr, 0.47; Trp, 0.10; Val, 0.37; Ala, 0.56; Asp, 0.62; Cys, 0.23; Glu, 0.74; Gly, 1.60; Pro, 4.61; Ser, 0.46; Tyr 0.46

c CV coefficient of variation

Discussion

The objectives of this study were to investigate the variation of the chemical composition, energy content and ileal AA digestibility of DLRSM. The pigs used in the two experiments remained healthy and had no feed refusals throughout the experiment.

The chemical composition and AA content of DLRSM varied among samples, which may be due to different double-low rapeseed sources and processing techniques [1]. All DLRSM samples used in this experiment were solvent-extracted Brassica napus, but there may be considerable variation in the temperatures used during double-low rapeseed processing. From Table 2, it appears that the total glucosinolates content varied among samples, which may be a result of differences among varieties of rapeseeds. It is also possible that other cruciferous crops caused cross pollination in the double low rapeseeds and thereby reduced the quality. Variation in the oil content among DLRSM (0.70–1.98 %) may result from the differences in processing conditions during the oil extraction among different crushing plants. The NDF content of 13 kinds of DLRSM was large and variable, this may be because of different degree of Maillard reactions during desolventization and toasting as reported by Woyengo et al. [5].

The concentration of CP in the 13 DLRSM sources was slightly greater than the values published by Fan et al. [25] and Landero et al. [26], but similar to the values reported by Bell and Keith [27], Xi et al. [11] and Woyengo et al. [5]. The AA composition (except Met and Cys) of the 13 DLRSM sources was slightly lower than the values published by Fan et al. [25], Woyengo et al. [5], and Landero et al. [26], and the NDF content of the 13 DLRSM sources was greater than the values published by these studies, but similar to the values reported by Xi et al. [11], using DLRSM also produced in China. The reason why the NDF content in this study were greater than previously published values may be due to differences in variety, the different analytical methods used [28] or a result of Maillard reactions during desolventization and toasting as reported by Woyengo et al. [5]. In addition, Maillard reactions may have reduced concentrations of AA in DLRSM. That is the reason why the AA composition (except Met and Cys) of the 13 DLRSM sources in the current study were slightly lower and the NDF content was greater than previous data. The greater content of S-containing AA in our DLRSM may due to that the samples in the current study underwent the desolventization and toasting with longer time or higher temperature, because Newkirk et al. [29] reported the desolventization and toasting increased the content of S-containing AA. The content of ether extract in the 13 DLRSM sources was lower than the values reported by Fan et al. [25], NRC [7], Woyengo et al. [5], and Landero et al. [26]. The lower content of ether extract may be due to the improved oil extraction methods for the DLRSM used in this study or due to no gums being added to the meals, which caused a lower GE content.

Though DLRSM is a protein supplement, its available energy content is critical for feed formulation [1]. Although the difference of energy content among DLRSM samples was not significant, the gap between the highest value and the lowest value was so large that it couldn’t be ignored during the feed formulation. The difference in energy content among the DLRSM samples may be caused by the different total glucosinolates content, fiber content, and protein content. The reduction of total glucosinolates improves the available energy content of DLRSM [30], and reduced fiber concentration and greater protein concentration increases the concentration of gross energy [1]. The average DE for the 13 DLRSM (2862 kcal/kg on a DM basis) was lower than the values (3584 kcal/kg on a DM basis) reported by NRC [7], but was similar to the DE published by Whittemore et al. [31], and within the range of DE values (2581–3346 kcal/kg on a DM basis) reported by de Lange et al. [32] The mean ME content for DLRSM in the present study (2723 kcal/kg on a DM basis) was lower than the value (3299 kcal/kg on a DM basis) published by NRC [7] but within the range of ME values (2701–3497 kcal/kg on a DM basis) reported by Bell [1]. The lower DE and ME values may be due to lower content of ether extract or greater fiber content of DLRSM used in the current study [1]. The average ME:DE ratio (94.95 %) for the 13 DLRSM agrees with the value reported by Sibbald [33], who concluded that the ME content of DLRSM was 86–96 % of DE content.

The AID of the essential AA in the present experiment was slightly lower than the values reported in NRC [7] and the SID of AA in the present experiment was slightly lower than the values reported by previous research [34, 35]. The decreased AA digestibility for DLRSM used in current study may be due to Maillard reaction that occurred during the desolventization and toasting process or the high fiber concentration in the DLRSM [1, 5]. During processing of DLRSM, a temperature of 80–90 °C is necessary to denature myrosinase [1, 9]. However, the temperature used in the stage of cooking, prepressing, desolventizing and toasting in actual production is usually higher than 100 °C. This level of heat may lead to Maillard reactions, which will result in reduced AA concentration [1, 36]. This may be also a factor for the difference of AID and SID values of Lys among the DLRSM samples in the present study.

In conclusion, there was variability in chemical composition especially the concentration of EE, NDF and ADF, but no significant differences in energy content of the DLRSM samples. In addition, the AID and SID of Lys vary among the DLRSM samples, but for most other AA, the AID and SID are relatively similar among different samples. Future work should be conducted to identify the relationship between the chemical composition and the nutritional value and determine the effects of the individual steps of process procedure on the energy content and AA digestibility in the DLRSM.

Notes

Abbreviations

AA: 

Amino acid

ADF: 

Acid detergent fiber

AID: 

Apparent ileal digestibility

ATTD: 

Apparent total tract digestibility

BW: 

Body weight

CP: 

crude protein

CF: 

Crude fiber

CV: 

Coefficient of variation

DE: 

Digestible energy

DLRSM: 

Double-low rapeseed meal

EE: 

Ether extract

GE: 

Gross energy

ME: 

Metabolizable energy

NDF: 

Neutral detergent fiber

SEM: 

Standard error of the mean

SID: 

Standard ileal digestibility

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This research was financially supported by the Modern Agricultural Industry Technology System (CARS-36) and Special Public Sector Fund in Agriculture (200903006).

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University
(2)
College of Bio-engineering, Henan University of Technology

References

  1. Bell JM. Factors affecting the nutritional value of canola meal: a review. Can J Anim Sci. 1993;73:689–97.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Bell JM, Keith MO, Hutcheson DS. Nutritional evaluation of very low glucosinolate canola meal. Can J Anim Sci. 1991;71:497–506.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Sauer WC, Cichon R, Misir R. Amino-acid availability and protein-quality of canola and rapeseed meal for pigs and rats. J Anim Sci. 1982;54:292–301.Google Scholar
  4. Han YK, Kim IH, Hong JW, Kwon OS, Lee SH, Kim JH, et al. Apparent ileal digestibility of nutrient in plant protein feedstuffs for finishing pigs. Asian Australas J Anim Sci. 2003;16:1020–4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Woyengo TA, Kiarie E, Nyachoti CM. Energy and amino acid utilization in expeller-extracted canola meal fed to growing pigs. J Anim Sci. 2010;88:1433–41.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Eklund M, Caine WR, Sauer WC, Huang GS, Diebold G, Schollenberger M, et al. True and standardized ileal digestibilities and specific ileal endogenous recoveries of crude protein and amino acid in soybean meal, rapeseed meal and peas fed to growing pigs. Livest Sci. 2012;145:174–82.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. NRC. Nutrient requirements of swine. 11th ed. Washington: National Academies Press; 2012.Google Scholar
  8. Almeida FN, Htoo JK, Thomson J, Stein HH. Effects of heat treatment on the apparent and standardized ileal digestibility of amino acids in canola meal fed to growing pigs. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2014;187:44–52.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Canola Council of Canada. Canola Meal Feed Industry Guide, 4th ed. http://www.canolacouncil.org/media/516716/canola_meal_feed_guide_english.pdf. Accessed 17 Oct 2013.
  10. Li DF, Xi PB, Gong LM, Fan SJ, Huang CH. Determination of apparent ileal amino acid digestibility in rapeseed meal and cake processed at different temperatures using the direct and difference method with growing pigs. Arch Anim Nutr. 2002;56:339–49.Google Scholar
  11. Xi PB, Li DF, Gong LM. Ileal amino acid digestibility in different cultivars of Chinese rapeseed meals for growing-finishing pigs. Asian Australas J Anim Sci. 2002;15:1326–33.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Zhang T, Liu L, Piao XS. Predicting the digestible energy of rapeseed meal from its chemical composition in growing-finishing pigs. Asian Australas J Anim Sci. 2012;25:375–81.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Adeola. Digestion and balance techniques in pigs. In: Lewis AJ, Southern LL, editors. Swine nutrition. New York: CRC Press; 2001. p. 903–16.Google Scholar
  14. Song GL, Li DF, Piao XS, Chi F, Yang WJ. Apparent ileal digestibility of amino acids and the digestible and metabolizable energy content of high-oil corn varieties and its effects on growth performance of pigs. Arch Anim Nutr. 2003;57:297–306.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Ren P, Zhu Z, Dong B, Zang J, Gong L. Determination of energy and amino acid digestibility in growing pigs fed corn distillers’ dried grains with solubles containing different lipid levels. Arch Anim Nutr. 2011;65:303–19.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Stein HH, Seve B, Fuller MF, Moughan PJ, de Lange CFM. Invited review: Amino acid bioavailability and digestibility in pig feed ingredients: Terminology and application. J Anim Sci. 2007;85:172–80.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Stein HH, Shipley CF, Easter RA. Technical note: A technique for inserting a T-cannula into the distal ileum of pregnant sows. J Anim Sci. 1998;76:1433–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. AOAC. Official methods of analysis. 18th ed. Arlington: Association of Official Analytical Chemists; 2006.Google Scholar
  19. Thiex NJ, Anderson S, Gildemeister B. Crude fat, diethyl ether extraction, in feed, cereal grain, and forage (Randall/Soxtec/submersion method): collaborative study. J Aoac Int. 2003;86:888–98.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Thiex NJ, Manson H, Anderson S, Persson J. Determination of crude protein in animal feed, forage, grain, and oilseeds by using block digestion with a copper catalyst and steam distillation into boric acid: collaborative study. J Aoac Int. 2002;85:309–17.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci. 1991;74:3583–97.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Daun JK, Mcgregor DI. Glucosinolate analysis of rapeseed (canola), Method of the Canadian grain commission grain research laboratory. Winnipeg: Canadian Grain Commission; 1983.Google Scholar
  23. Ji Y, Zuo L, Wang F, Li D, Lai C. Nutritional value of 15 corn gluten meals for growing pigs: chemical composition, energy content and amino acid digestibility. Arch Anim Nutr. 2012;66:283–302.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Urriola PE, Stein HH. Effects of distillers dried grains with solubles on amino acid, energy, and fiber digestibility and on hindgut fermentation of dietary fiber in a corn-soybean meal diet fed to growing pigs. J Anim Sci. 2010;88:1454–62.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Fan MZ, Sauer WC, Gabert VM. Variability of apparent ileal amino acid digestibility in canola meal for growing-finishing pigs. Can J Anim Sci. 1996;76:563–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Landero JL, Beltranena E, Cervantes M, Morales A, Zijlstra RT. The effect of feeding solvent-extracted canola meal on growth performance and diet nutrient digestibility in weaned pigs. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2011;170:136–40.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Bell JM, Keith MO. A survey of variation in the chemical-composition of commercial canola-meal produced in western canadian crushing plants. Can J Anim Sci. 1991;71:469–80.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Cozannet P, Primot Y, Gady C, Metayer JP, Lessire M, Skiba F, et al. Energy value of wheat distillers grains with solubles for growing pigs and adult sows. J Anim Sci. 2010;88:2382–92.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Newkirk RW, Classen HL, Scott TA, Edney MJ. The digestibility and content of amino acids in toasted and non-toasted canola meals. Can J Anim Sci. 2003;83:131–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Kawakishi S, Kaneko T. Interactions of proteins with allyl isothiocyanate. J Agr Food Chem. 1987;35:85–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Whittemore CT, Hazzledine MJ, Close WH. Nutrient Requirement Standards for Pigs. Penicuik: BSAS; 2003.Google Scholar
  32. de Lange C, Gabert VM, Gillis D, Patience JF. 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. 1998;78:641–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Sibbald IR. The TME system of feed evaluation: Methodology, feed composition data and bibliography, Research branch. Ottawa: Agriculture Canada; 1986.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Noblet J, Le Goff G. Effect of dietary fibre on the energy value of feeds for pigs. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2001;90:35–52.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Maison T, Stein HH. Digestibility by growing pigs of amino acids in canola meal from North America and 00-rapeseed meal and 00-rapeseed expellers from Europe. J Anim Sci. 2014;92:3502–14.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Classen HL, Newkirk RW, Maenz DD. Effects of conventional and novel processing on the feed value of canola meal for poultry. Proc Aust Poult Sci Symposium. 2004;16:1–8.Google Scholar

Copyright

© Li et al. 2015

Advertisement