Effect
of replacing soybean meal with Indian canola quality or high glucosinolate
rapeseed-mustard meal on performance of growing crossbred calves
K Sharma, N Dutta,
A K Patra, M Singh, A K
Pattanaik, S Ravichandiran, J S Chauhan*, A Agnihotri** and A Kumar*
Division
of Animal Nutrition,
IndianVeterinaryResearch Institute, Izatnagar 243122,India
*National Research Center on Rapeseed - Mustard,
Bharatpur 321303,India
**TERI,Habitat Place, Lodhi
Road, New Delhi 110003,India
Abstract
Eighteen
growing crossbred calves (5 months of age and initial body weight of 62.9±3.8 kg) were
randomly
allocated into three
dietary treatments
containing
soybean meal
(SBMC), low
glucosinolate canola quality (<20
µmol/g) Brassica
napus (genotype TERI-Uttam-Jawahar; RMLC) and a mix of genotypes of high glucosinolate ((> 100
µmol/g) Brassica juncea (genotype Pusa Bold, Rohini and RH-30; RMHC) meal
as
major protein source in a feeding trial that lasted for 180 d.
Daily intake of concentrate and wheat straw did not differ significantly (p>0.05)
among treatments,
but concentrate
intake was numerically
lower (23%) in
RMHC compared with SBMC and RMLC
during
the trial. Calves in RMHC treatment consumed relatively less (p<0.05) concentrate than their counterparts
either in SBMC or
RMLC treatment during first
two months of the experiment.
Although
daily
gains were not statistically significant
(p=0.14) among treatments
(352, 361 and
256 g/d in SBMC, RMLC and RMHC, respectively), considerable
differences between
RMHC and RMLC, and RMHC and SBMC
may
have
significant biological
implication. FCR (kg feed
DM/kg gain) in RMHC treatment was significantly (p<0.05) higher than that in
SBMC and RMLC treatment (7.28, 7.48 and 8.63 in SBMC, RMLC and RMHC,
respectively).
Digestibilities of
DM, OM, NDF and
ADF were significantly (p<0.05)
lower
in RMHC than in
RMLC and SBMC. No
difference
in digestibility was
noted
between SBMC
and RMLC. However, N
balance
was similar (p>0.05) among treatments. Hemoglobin,
PCV, glucose, total
protein, albumin and alkaline phosphatase remained
with in the normal
range and were
similar among dietary treatments.
Results indicate that presence of high glucosinolates in
Brassica juncea may reduce the intake and consequently growth rate while costlier cakes like soybean meal may be replaced completely by relatively cheaper canola
quality
rapeseed (Brassica napus, TERI-Uttam-Jawahar) without compromising
the growth rate and animal
health.
Key words: Calves, canola meal, digestibility, glucosinolates, growth, rapeseed-mustard
Introduction
High
levels of glucosinolates (150 - 240 µmol/g) and erucic acid (43-57%) in seed meal
of rapeseed-mustard (RM) cultivars prevalent in
India (TERI 2003) are nutritionally undesirable to both human and animals (Sauer
and Kramer 1983,
Hill 1991).
The inclusion
of this high glucosinolate rapeseed-mustard cake (RMC)
as
protein supplement in the diets of ruminants
demonstrated a range
of adverse effects including palatability, voluntary intake, nutrient utilization,
thyroid hormone
production, carcinogenicity
and overall performance of the
animals (Hill 1991; Das and Singhal 2005). Therefore, the farmers are usually reluctant to incorporate RMC as sole
protein source
in the diet of animals. However, in recent years constant plant breeding efforts are being to recombine the traits of low erucic acid (up to 2% in oil)
and low glucosinolates (<30 μmol/g
in defatted meal) of Brassica juncea and Brassica napus that have resulted in development of
canola quality
(commonly known as double low or ‘00’) RM genotypes at par with internationally
accepted
quality standards (Downey 1990,
Gupta et al 1998, Agnihotri
and Kaushik 1998). Low glucosinolate canola quality Brassica napus
genotype (<20 µmol/g; TERI-Uttam-Jawahar (TUJ)) and a mix of genotypes of
high glucosinolate Brassica juncea (>100 µmol/g; Pusa Bold, Rohini
and RH-30) were developed recently. Many experiments with canola quality rapeseed meals
have documented comparable
intake and animal performance similar to soybean meal (Vincent et al 1990).
Some reports indicate
lesser intake or differences in patterns of ruminal and post-ruminal amino
acids digestibility among canola meals obtained from different genotypes of RM meal (Fisher and
Walsh 1976; Chen and Campbell 2003).
Although there is an enormous prospect of feeding
of improved
Indian
varieties of RMC to
livestock, there is paucity of systematic studies investigating information
regarding
the effect
of Indian RM meal from various cultivars on animal health and performance. The present study was conducted
to study the effect of canola
quality
TUJ and relatively
high
glucosinolate RM Brassica juncea (mix genotype of Pusa Bold, Rohini and RH-30) on intake, growth, nutrient utilization and blood profile in crossbred calves.
Materials and methods
Animals,
management
and treatments
The experiment
that lasted for 180 d was conducted at the Animal Nutrition Research Sheds of Indian
Veterinary
Research Institute
(IVRI), Izatnagar in Uttar
Pradesh Province of India. Eighteen
crossbred (Bos taurus
× Bos indicus) male
calves (62.9 ± 3.80 kg
initial BW and approximately 5 months
of age) were randomly
allocated into
three dietary
treatments - SBMC, RMLC and RMHC containing SBMC, TUJ and Brassica juncea meal (0, 5.4 and 50.4 µmol
glucosinolates/g, respectively). All the calves were housed individually in
well-ventilated calf
pen under uniform management conditions. Prior to the beginning
of the experiment, calves were treated for endo- and ecto-parasites with
Albendazole suspension
(orally) and Butox (Deltamethrin,
Hoechst India Limited, Mumbai, India) liquid spray, respectively. Potable drinking
water was provided
ad libitum
twice daily.
Diets
Calves
were
offered
a basal diet of wheat straw ad libitum along with required amount of three concentrate
mixtures (Table 1) to meet their protein requirement for
maintenance and growth of 300 g/d in
Indian
condition
(Kearl 1982), and one kg of
green
oat or berseem was fed to
each
animal per day to supply vitamin
A. Iso-nitrogenous concentrate mixtures were formulated
with comparable
levels of OM, NDF, ADF and EE (Table 1).
Table
1. Ingredient and chemical composition of feeds
fed to growing crossbred calves |
Items |
Concentrate
on treatment |
Wheat straw |
SBMC |
RMLC |
RMHC |
Ingredient
composition, % as such |
|
|
|
|
Maize
crushed |
20 |
20 |
20 |
|
Soybean
meal |
34 |
- |
- |
|
Wheat
bran |
43 |
41 |
35 |
|
Rapeseed-mustard meal (RMLC)* |
- |
36 |
- |
|
Rapeseed-mustard meal (RMHC)** |
- |
|
42 |
|
Mineral
mixture |
2 |
2 |
2 |
|
Salt
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
Chemical
composition, % DM |
|
|
|
|
OM |
90.7 |
92.5 |
92.4 |
92.7 |
CP3 |
21.9 |
22.0 |
21.1 |
3.81 |
EE |
1.75 |
4.82 |
3.75 |
0.61 |
NDF |
27.8 |
32.3 |
28.3 |
79.9 |
ADF |
13.3 |
10.5 |
12.9 |
52.3 |
Gross energy (kcal/g) |
3.98 |
3.96 |
4.15 |
4.09 |
Glucosinolates (µmol/g) |
0.00 |
4.40 |
50.4 |
0.00 |
*RMLC:
<20 mmol glucosinolates/g cake; **RMHC: >100 mmol
glucosinolates/g cake
CP (%DM):
Soybean meal 43; rapeseed-mustard meal
(RMLC) 37.5; rapeseed-mustard meal (RMHC) 33.9
SBMC, RMLC and RMHC treatment contained glucosinolates
0, 4.4 and 50.4 µmol/g concentrates, respectively |
Soybean meal in control concentrate
mixture (SBMC) was completely substituted with either canola quality
Brassica napus genotype (<20 µmol/g; TERI-Uttam-Jawahar (TUJ)) or a
mix of genotypes of Brassica juncea (>100 µmol/g; Pusa Bold, Rohini and RH-30) in RMLC and
RMHC concentrate mixtures, respectively. Concentrates contained more
than 20% CP that
is usually
recommended
for supplementary
feeds for efficient feed utilization
and to sustain
optimum
growth rate by
calves on straw based
rations. Weighed quantities of
concentrate mixtures were offered once daily at approximately
09:00 h following
collection
and weighing of orts, and wheat straw was offered ad libitum after concentrate feeding. The ration schedule was changed every
fortnight
after recording
the body
weight (BW) of each animal to meet the
nutrient
requirements for growth (Kearl 1982).
Measurements
and
sampling
Amount
of feeds offered
and orts from all the calves were weighed daily and sampled at weekly intervals for subsequent analysis of DM to assess average DM intake during the experimental period. BW
of calves was recorded
before feeding and watering at fortnightly
intervals for two
consecutive
days to assess average daily
gain
(ADG).
Blood
from all experimental animals was
collected
at 0, 60, 120 and 180 d of feeding
in the early morning before
feeding by jugular veni-puncture. About 20 ml of blood was
collected from every
animal, and from that 10 ml was added
with EDTA for
haemoglobin
(Hb) and hematocrit
analyses. Remaining
10 ml of blood was taken in
dry
sterilized test
tubes, and was centrifuged at 3000 rpm for 20 min to harvest serum. Serum samples were
stored at – 20°C for blood biochemical analysis.
Metabolic trial
After
170 d of feeding,
a metabolism
trial
consisting of a 3-day
adaptation in the metabolism cages and a 7-day collection period was conducted by placing the animals in specially
designed
metabolic cages with
facility
for separate collection of faeces and urine. BW of the animals was recorded before and after the
metabolism trial. Well-mixed
representative
samples of
concentrate, wheat
straw and orts were taken daily in previously tarred trays
for estimation
of DM. The faeces voided in 24 h was collected quantitatively,
and 1% aliquot
of faeces from each animal was kept for DM estimation. Another aliquot of
0.1% fresh
faeces was mixed with 10 ml of 1:4 sulphuric acid and preserved for N estimation
in air-tight
bottle. The dried
samples of concentrate, wheat straw, orts and faeces obtained daily were pooled for laboratory analyses.
Pooled samples of faeces (5 g) for N estimation were taken for digestion
in Kjeldahl flask
after thorough mixing. Urine excreted by each animal was collected in
separate containers having
10 ml of 1: 4 diluted
sulphuric acid. An aliquot of 0.5% (v/v) of urine for N analyses was taken
for digestion in Kjeldahl flask
containing
50 ml of commercial
sulphuric acid.
Laboratory
analyses
The glucosinolate content of RMC was analyzed
by GC tetra-paladium complex
method
(Hassan et al 1988). Partial DM concentration in
concentrates, straw, orts, and
faeces was determined
by oven drying at 80°C.
Thereafter, samples were ground to pass a 1 mm screen before
analyses for DM by the oven drying method at 100°C (934.01), OM by muffle furnace
incineration
(967.05), EE (920.39), N by a Kjeldahl method (984.13) and ash (942.05) following the procedures of AOAC (1995).
Neutral
detergent fiber
(NDF) and acid
detergent fiber (ADF) were essentially estimated by the method of
Van Soest et al
(1991).
Haemoglobin and hematocrit were determined immediately after collection colorimetrically
by
cyanmethemoglobin method
(Benjamin 1985) and
Wintrobe’s method (Hawk 1965).
Glucose
in serum was determined after enzymatic
oxidation in the presence
of glucose oxidase (Hultmann 1959).
Total
protein and
albumin
in serum was estimated
by modified
Biuret end point method (Gornall et al
1949) and bromocresol green
dye binding method (Doumas et al
1971). Globulin was determined as the difference between total protein and albumin concentration in the plasma.
Cholesterol
in serum samples was determined by a
modified Libermann-Burchard
reaction
(Wybenaga and Pileggi 1970). Alkaline
phosphatase activity in serum was
determined by the method of
Kind
and King
(1954).
Statistical analyses
Data on metabolic trial and intake
were subjected to
one-way ANOVA in a completely randomized design as per Snedecor
and Cochran (1989). Blood
data were
analyzed in two-way ANOVA
procedure. When treatment × period
interaction
was significant, data were analyzed within a
period among treatments. If F-values were significant (p<0.05), treatment means were compared using
Duncan’s multiple range tests.
Results
and
discussion
Nutrient
utilization and
N balance
The overall
intake of DM, concentrate
and wheat straw
(kg/day) by
calves during
growth trial
(180 days) was
statistically
similar (p>0.05) among
different
dietary treatments;
however, concentrate intake was 22% lower
in RMHC compared with SBMC and RMLC treatment (Table 2).
Table
2. Effects of incorporation of canola quality or high glucosinolate
rapeseed-mustard
cake
in the diets of
growing
crossbred calves on BW changes,
intake,
daily gain and feed efficiency |
Items |
Treatment |
SEM |
SBMC |
RMLC |
RMHC |
Body
weight, kg |
|
|
|
|
Initial |
61.1 |
63.3 |
64.2 |
10.7 |
Final |
124.4 |
128.2 |
110.2 |
19.5 |
Net, gain |
63.3 |
64.9 |
46.0 |
10.7 |
Intake, kg/d |
|
|
|
|
Concentrate |
1.31 |
1.32 |
1.02 |
0.27 |
Wheat straw |
1.25 |
1.38 |
1.18 |
0.17 |
Total |
2.56 |
2.61 |
2.20 |
0.41 |
Daily
gain, g |
|
|
|
|
0 to 60 d |
158a |
116ab |
87b |
26.9 |
61 to 120 d |
406 |
426 |
278 |
79.9 |
121 to 180 d |
490 |
539 |
401 |
97.5 |
0 to 180 d |
352 |
361 |
256 |
56.7 |
Feed: gain
ratio |
7.28a |
7.48a |
8.63b |
0.29 |
Feed
cost/kg gain (INR) |
30.9 |
27.2 |
30.4 |
- |
SBMC, RMLC
and
RMHC
treatment
contained
glucosinolates 0, 4.4 and 50.4 µmol/g concentrates,
respectively.
a,b Treatment means followed by different letters in a row differ significantly (p<0.05) |
This resulted in lower total
DM intake by 14% in RMHC vs. RMLC and SBMC as straw intake was almost close to the values of RMLC and SBMC. Calves in
SBMC and RMLC consumed
significantly greater
amount of
concentrate during initial
first 2 months,
although
afterward
concentrate intake was statistically (p>0.05) similar among treatments
(Figure 1).
|
Figure
1.
Effects
of feeding
of canola
quality
or high glucosinolate
rapeseed-mustard
cake
on monthly concentrate intake (g/kg BW0.75)
by growing crossbred cattle |
Straw intake was, however, similar (p>0.05) among the treatments through
out
the experimental
period
(Figure 2).
|
Figure 2.
Effects
of feeding
of canola
quality
or high glucosinolate
rapeseed-mustard
cake
on monthly straw intake (g/kg BW0.75)
by growing crossbred cattle |
It has been observed from earlier reports that effect of supplementation of
RMC in the rations
of ruminants may be variable probably due to variations in the
glucosinolate contents
of various cultivars and their dietary levels. Glucosinolates develop pungent odour
due to the formation
of volatile and pungent
compounds after their hydrolysis and
bitter
taste that may
contribute
to lower feed
intake when high
glucosinolates
containing
RMC is included
in the ration of ruminants (Papas et al 1979, Hill 1991). RMHC concentrate contained 50.4 µmol/g DM equivalent to 2.5 parts
glucosinolates considered
fairly
high to cause depression in feed intake
(Hill 1991). Intake of RMLC calves was comparable with that of
SBMC
because there was absence of glucosinolates in
SBMC and presence
of negligible
amount of glucosinolates in RMLC
group
(4.40 µmol/g or 0.22 parts). None of the available sets of data showed depressed intake with the
low glucosinolate RM concentrate
except
for the work
of Fisher and Walsh (1976). It has been reported that compound concentrates containing up to
60% of well produced
low glucosinolate RM would be
accepted
by dairy
cows as readily
as feeds based on soybean
meal
(Vincent et al 1990). Some
reports do indicate
that soybean control
diets were eaten more readily
than low glucosinolate feeds (Stedman
and Hill 1987). However, the results of this trial indicate that canola quality
TUJ used in this experiment may
replace
SBMC as protein
source
without affecting the DM intake or palatability
of diet.
Digestibilities of DM, OM, NDF and ADF were significantly (p<0.05) lower in RMHC than in SBMC and RMLC with
no difference
between
SBMC and RMLC (Table
3).
Table 3.
Effects of
feeding
of canola
quality
or high glucosinolate
rapeseed-mustard
cake
on intake and nutrient utilization by growing crossbred calves during metabolic trial |
Items |
Treatment |
SEM |
SBMC |
RMLC |
RMHC |
Digestibility, % |
DM |
64.9b |
63.6ab |
60.1a |
0.82 |
OM |
67.9b |
66.4b |
62.7a |
0.83 |
CP |
71.3 |
69.9 |
73.8 |
2.31 |
NDF |
49.1b |
48.8b |
43.1a |
1.18 |
ADF |
46.8ab |
51.4b |
40.3a |
1.67 |
Nutrient
content, % |
|
|
DCP |
8.89 |
8.85 |
9.20 |
0.30 |
TDN |
65.6 |
64.2 |
61.0 |
0.77 |
Nutrient
intake, g/kg BW0.75 |
DCP |
8.53 |
8.92 |
8.31 |
0.32 |
DOM |
60.0ab |
64.0b |
52.6a |
1.87 |
TDN |
62.9ab |
67.2b |
55.2a |
1.96 |
SBMC, RMLC
and
RMHC
treatment
contained
glucosinolates 0, 4.4 and 50.4 µmol/g concentrates,
respectively.
a,b Treatment means followed by different letters in a row differ significantly (p<0.05) |
Bush et al
(1978) also noted
significantly lower
nutrient
digestibility of ration containing Tower
(high glucosinolates)
vs. Candle (low glucosinolates)
meal. Sharma
et al (1980) calculated
nutrient digestibility of
protein
supplements containing Tower and Candle meal by difference methods. He noted that ADF digestibility
tended to be more
digestible
in Candle meal than Tower meal.
Although
lower nutrient digestibility of concentrates containing rapeseed meal relative to supplements
containing soybean meal was
reported in
earlier studies (Schingoethe et al 1974; Sharma et al 1980; Fiems et al 1985), Fisher (1980)
established
that concentrate containing Candle rapeseed meal was at least as digestible as concentrate
containing soybean meal. DCP% of the diets and DCP intake (g/kgBW0.75)
was similar among diets
because
CP digestibility did not differ among treatments.
TDN% of diets were similar (p>0.05), but was numerically
lower in RMHC than SBMC and RMLC treatments. Greater digestible nutrients
intake in terms of TDN and DOM
(g/kgBW0.75) by SBMC or RMLC calves than by RMHC calves is associated with greater
digestibility and
relatively
higher DM intake by SBMC and RMLC vs. RMHC calves. N balance
pattern was
similar (p>0.05) among treatments (Table 4), which is presumably due to a good balance of essential amino
acids and analogous
apparent biological value
of proteins in soybean meal and rapeseed meal (Agnihotri and Kaushik 2000).
Table 4.
Effects of feeding of canola quality or high glucosinolate
rapeseed-mustard cakes on N balance by
growing crossbred cattle |
Items |
Treatment |
SEM |
SBMC |
RMLC |
RMHC |
N intake, g/d |
65.5 |
73.1 |
57.8 |
4.33 |
N excretion, g/d |
|
|
|
|
Faeces |
18.9 |
21.9 |
15.0 |
2.10 |
Urine |
21.7 |
21.4 |
17.9 |
1.17 |
Total |
40.6 |
42.3 |
32.9 |
2.78 |
N balance, g/d |
25.0 |
29.8 |
24.9 |
2.58 |
Retention, % |
|
|
|
|
Of intake |
38.3 |
39.6 |
42.5 |
2.46 |
Of absorbed |
53.7 |
55.9 |
56.9 |
2.17 |
SBMC, RMLC and RMHC treatment contained glucosinolates
0, 4.4 and 50.4 µmol/g concentrates, respectively |
Average
daily
gain and feed efficiency
There
was no significant difference (p>0.10) in growth rate
of calves fed on either SBMC or RMLC in any periods
(Table 2). Hill (1991) in his review indicated that calves given concentrates containing low glucosinolate rapeseed meal gained BW at the similar rate as
those given SBMC feeds in
each
of the 8 experiments
reported.
Overall, growth of
calves over a 6-month period was
not
statistically different (p=0.14) among
different treatments
probably due to lesser number
of calves per treatment, a
trend
toward better
growth was observed in calves given either SBMC or RMLC. This resulted in 28%
non-significantly (p=0.15) less
net
BW gain by
calves given RMHC during the
trial. Lowest
weight gain observed in RMHC treatment is in agreement with several earlier reports
(Papas et al 1979, Kumar
et al 2002, Hill 1991, Mawson et al 1994). Bush et al (1978) studied to compare the Canadian
low (Candle)
and
high (Tower) glucosinolate rapeseed
meal on growth rates of calves and lamb. A trend toward supporting better
growth rates by both
calves and lambs was noted;
however, these differences were not significant (Bush et al 1978).
The calves on RMHC treatment gained similar BW in different periods (61 to
120 d, p=0.15; 121 to 180 d, p=0.35) except in period from 0 to 60 d when ADG was significantly (p<0.05)
less as compared to SBMC or RMLC; however, ADG of calves was numerically lesser on
RMHC than on SBMC or RMLC treatments in all the periods. Olsson (1978) found significantly lower daily gain in calves fed on RSM,
but
subsequently the performance
was not adversely
affected. It
appears that
presence
of glucosinolates in Brassica juncea cake used for formulation of supplement RMHC in this
experiment might
have rendered
the concentrate unpalatable
thus causing depressed
concentrate intake
and consequently
ADG and net gain. The trend of
live
weight gain was, therefore,
found to be inversely
related to
glucosinolates intake (0, 5.36 and 56.5 mmol/d by calves in SBMC, RMLC and
RMHC concentrate, respectively) as reported earlier (Singh et al 2005, Kumar
et al 2002).
It
has been
observed from statistical
analyses that ADG
improved
with advancing time
in RMHC as compared to SBMC or RMLC. This perhaps explains the greater sensitivity to high
glucosinolate rapeseed meal in young than older calves (Olsson 1978) or
adaptation
to this type
of
diet as it was
observed that concentrate intake increased
in the later part
of the study. ADG increased with advancing period of time up to 4 months of experimental period and
beyond that period no difference
(p>0.05) was observed (Figure 3).
|
Figure 3.
Effects
of feeding
of canola
quality
or high glucosinolate
rapeseed-mustard
cake
on monthly average daily gain (g)
of growing
crossbred cattle |
It
could be noted that while RMLC concentrate
offered
better growth rate similar to SBMC, RMHC concentrate meet nutrient requirement for moderate growth rate.
Therefore, RMHC meal may
be
acceptable
to incorporate
in diets of relatively
slow growing stage
of animals,
if production cost is
compromised.
Feed conversion
ratio (FCR, kg
DM/kg gain)
was significantly
(p>0.05) greater
in growing
calves fed RMHC concentrate compared to calves given either SBMC or RMLC concentrate. The results obtained further validated
the observation
that improved
canola quality
TUJ can be
substituted for costly soybean meal without any apparent adverse effect on nutrient intake and FCR. The poor FCR for calves under RMHC group may be directly related to the relatively poor nutritive value
of concentrate or due
to the presence
of relatively higher level
of glucosinolates. The observed results are similar to the earlier findings reported by many workers (Papas et al 1979,
Fiems et al 1985,
Vincent
et al 1990, Fisher and Walsh 1976; Vashishtha et al 2000).
Blood
profiles
All
of the blood biochemical parameters did not differ among treatment
(Table 5)
and
were within the suggested physiological range for
bovines (Kaneko et al 1997).
Table 5. Effects of feeding
canola quality
or high glucosinolate
rapeseed-mustard
cake
on blood profile in crossbred calves |
Items |
Treatment |
SEM |
Day |
SEM |
SBMC |
RMLC |
RMHC |
0 |
60 |
120 |
180 |
Haemoglobin, g/dl |
9.49 |
9.42 |
9.62 |
0.27 |
9.85 |
9.03 |
10.1 |
9.06 |
0.31 |
Hematocrit, % |
35.6 |
34.2 |
34.6 |
0.76 |
38.5a |
32.3b |
34.0b |
34.6b |
0.79 |
Glucose, mg/dl |
51.1 |
49.3 |
52.0 |
1.36 |
53.1a |
53.1a |
59.0a |
38.1b |
1.57 |
Total
protein, g/dl |
5.9 |
5.8 |
5.8 |
0.06 |
6.5a |
5.7b |
5.4c |
5.6b |
0.07 |
Albumin, g/dl |
3.21 |
3.19 |
3.30 |
0.055 |
3.09b |
3.36a |
3.28ab |
3.20b |
0.063 |
Globulin, g/dl |
2.64 |
2.60 |
2.51 |
0.081 |
3.46a |
2.30bc |
2.14c |
2.41b |
0.094 |
Cholesterol, mg/dl |
93.9 |
96.1 |
101.5 |
3.26 |
87.5c |
98.8b |
101.4b |
112.8a |
3.48 |
0 day |
88.8 |
86.5 |
87.1 |
4.71 |
|
|
|
|
|
60 day |
98.8 |
104.7 |
92.8 |
5.23 |
|
|
|
|
|
120 day |
98.2 |
110.0 |
96.0 |
6.11 |
|
|
|
|
|
180 day |
89.8b |
115.0a |
133.7a |
7.69 |
|
|
|
|
|
Alkaline phosphatase (IU) |
123 |
117 |
114 |
7.72 |
82c |
134ab |
142a |
113b |
8.91 |
SBMC, RMLC
and
RMHC
treatment
contained
0, 4.4 and 50.4 µmol glucosinolates/g concentrates,
respectively.
a,b,c Treatment means followed by different letters in a row within day differ significantly (p<0.05) |
Levels of
glucose, total
protein, albumin
globulin and alkaline
phosphatase
differed (p<0.05) among treatments, which are in general likely due to changes in age of the animals (Mandiki et al 1999).
The higher glucose levels in the
first
three periods may
be a reflection of the fact
that new born
or young ruminants have
comparatively
higher blood sugar
values that decrease as the animal
matures (Kaneko et al 1997). However, serum glucose level of animals remained
within the
normal
limits (45 to 75 mg/dl)
reported
by Kaneko et al
(1997).
Cholesterol concentrations
showed a day
and treatment interaction (p<0.01) with greater levels in RMHC and
RMLC than in SBMC with advancing time. Increased
serum cholesterol levels were
also
noted because of continuous
feeding
of MOC in growing
bulls (Iwarsson et al 1973) and goats (Pattanaik et al 2004). This
apparently suggests no serious
effects
on health
of calves feed on either RMHC or RMLC concentrate.
Feed
cost
The
feed
cost of each concentrate
mixture was worked out by addition of proportional cost of
each ingredient
based on its market price.
The prevailing
costs (INR/kg;
1 US$ = 45 INR) of maize
crushed, soybean
meal, wheat bran, RM meal,
mineral
mixtures, salt and wheat straw were taken as 6,
9, 6, 6.25, 50, 10, 0.80 respectively. The feed cost for growth (INR/kg gain) was found to be 30.9, 27.2 and 30.4 for
calves given concentrates SBMC, RMLC and RMHC, respectively.
The relative feed cost worked out for each supplement
indicate
that improved
canola quality
Brassica napus (TUJ) can
be
a cheaper replacement of soybean meal in the ration
of growing
crossbred calves. Farmers
can make a saving
of INR 191 per animal
during 6
months of growth
on RMLC relative to
SBMC concentrate.
Although feeding of RM with high level of glucosinolates (>100
µmol/g) may
result in a
saving of INR 558 per animal,
there
will be a loss of 17.1 kg gain
per animal as
compared to control. On the
other
hand, farmers
can save INR 368
with the loss of 19 kg gain per animals fed on RMHC compared to RMLC
concentrate. Therefore, it appears that canola quality
TUJ can be an
economical
substitute
of soybean meal without compromising the productivity of growing
calves; whereas feeding of high glucosinolate RM meal can make saving, but with loss of productivity of
growing animals.
Conclusions
-
Feeding
of
high
glucosinolates
containing
RMC
may
reduce the
intake of
concentrate
and subsequently
growth rate of calves.
-
Digestibilities of DM, OM, NDF
and ADF were
lower
in RMHC than in RMLC and SBMC,
but were similar
between SBMC and RMLC. N
balance was, however, similar
among treatments.
-
Costlier
conventional cakes
like SBMC
can
be
replaced completely
by canola
quality
RMC such
as Brassica napus var. TUJ as a
protein
source in the
diet of young calves without
affecting their
growth
performance
and
apparent health, and
can
be
justified economically.
References
Agnihotri
A and Kaushik N 2000 Incorporation of superior nutritional quality
traits in
Indian
Brassica juncea. Indian
Journal
of Plant Genetic
Resources
12: 352-358.
Agnihotri A and Kaushik N 1998
Transgressive segregation
and selection
of erucic acid
strains from intergeneric crosses of
Brassica. Indian Journal of Plant
Genetic Resources 11:
251-255.
AOAC 1995
Official
Methods of Analysis. 16th Edition. Association of Official
Analytical Chemists. Arlington, VA.
Benjamin M M
1985 Outline of Veterinary Clinical Pathology, 3rd
Edition. Kalyani Publishers, New Delhi, pp. 233-254.
Bush R S,
Nicholson J W G, Macintyre
T M and
McQueen R E 1978 A
comparison
of candle and Tower rapeseed meals
in lambs, sheep and beef steer rations.
Canadian
Journal of Animal Science 58: 369-76.
Chen X and Campbell L D 2003
Assessment
of ruminal and post-ruminal amino acids digestibility
of Chinese and Canadian
rapeseed (canola) meal. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 16: 979-985.
Doumas V T, Watson
W A and Biggs
H G 1971
Albumin
standards and the measurement of serum albumin with bromocresol
green. Clinical Chemistry
Acta 31: 87-96.
Downey R K 1990
Brassica oilseed breeding
achievements and
opportunities. Plant
Breeding Abstract
60: 1165-1170
Das M M and Singhal K K 2005
Effect
of feeding
chemically
treated mustard cake
on growth, thyroid
and liver
functions and carcass
characteristics
in kids. Small
Ruminant Research 56: 31-38.
Fiems L O, Boucque C V, Cottyn B G and Buysse F X 1985
Evaluation of
rapeseed meal
with low and high glucosinolates as a protein source in calf
starters. Livestock
Production
Science 12: 131-143
Fisher L J and Walsh S D 1976 Substitution
of rapeseed meal for soybean meal as a source of protein for lactating cows. Canadian
Journal of Animal Science 56:
233-242.
Fisher L J 1980
A comparison of rapeseed meal and soybean meal as a source of protein and
protected lipid
as a source of supplemental energy for calf starter diets. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 60:
359-366.
Gornall A G,
Bardawill C J and David M M 1949
Biuret method
of protein
determination. Journal of Biological Chemistry
177: 751 -766.
Gupta M L, Banga
S K, Banga S S, Sandha
G S, Ahuja K L and Raheja R K 1998 A
new
genetic stock for low erucic acid in
Indian
Mustard.
Cruciferae Newsletter
16: 104-105
Hassan F,
Rothnie N E, Yeung S P and Palmer M V 1988
Enzyme linked immunosorbent assays
for
alkenyl glucosinolates.
Journal of
Agricultural and Food
Chemistry 36:
398-403
Hawk P B 1965
Hawk’s Physiological Chemistry (14th
Edition), McGraw Hill Book Company, London U.K
Hill R 1991 Rapeseed meal
in the diets of
ruminants - a review.
Nutrition
Abstract and Reviews (Series B) 61:
139-155
Hultmann E 1959 Rapid specific method for determination
of
aldosaccharides in body
fluid. Nature
103: 108-109
Iwarsson K, Ekman L, Everitt B
R, Figueiras H. and
Nilsson P O 1973 The effect of feeding
rapeseed meal
on thyroid function
and morphology
in
growing bulls. Acta Veterinaria Scandanavica 14: 610-629
Kaneko J J,
Harvey J W and Bruss M L 1997
Clinical Biochemistry of Domestic Animals. 5th
edition, Academic Press, San Diego,
USA
Kearl L C 1982
Nutrient Requirement of Ruminants
in Developing Countries.
Utah Agricultural
Experimental
Station, Utah State
University,
International
Feed Stuffs Institute,
Logan, USA
Kind P R M and King E J 1954
Estimation of serum alkaline phosphatase activity by colorimetric method. Journal of Clinical
Pathology
7: 322
Kumar G K A, Panwar V S, Yadav K R and Sihag S 2002
Mustard
cake as a source of dietary protein
for
growing
lambs. Small
Ruminant
Research
44: 47-51
Mandiki S N M, Mabon N, Derycke G, Bister J L,
Wathelet J P, Paquay R and
Marlier M 1999 Chemical
changes and influences of
rapeseed anti-nutritional factors on lamb
physiology
and performance
2. Plasma
substances and activity of the thyroid. Animal Feed Science and Technology 81: 93-103
Mawson R, Heany R K, Zelunczyk Z and Konzlowska H 1994
Rapeseed
meal
glucosinolates and their
antinutritional
effects. Part
III Animal growth
and performance. Die
Nahrung 38:
167-177
Olsson J 1978
Rapeseed meal
as protein supplement for growing bulls. Proceedings of Fifth International Rapeseed
Congress, Malmo 2: 230-234
Papas A, Ingalls
J R and Campbell L D 1979
Studies on the effects of rapeseed meal on thyroid status of cattle, glucosinolate and iodine content of milk and other parameters. Journal of Nutrition 109: 1129-1139
Pattanaik A K,
Khan S A, Varshney V P and Bedi S P S 2004 Effect
of iodine
level in mustard (Brassica juncea) cake based concentrate
supplement
on nutrient
utilization and serum
thyroid hormones of goats.
Small
Ruminant Research
41: 51-59
Sauer F D and Kramer J K G 1983
The problems associated with the feeding
of high
erucic acid rapeseed oil and some fish oils to experimental animals.
In: High and Low
Erucic Acid Rapeseed Oils (Eds. Kramer J K G, Sauer F D and Figden W J), Academic Press, Toronto, Canada,
pp254-292
Schingoethe D J, Beardsley G L and Muller L D 1974
Evaluation
of commercial
rapeseed meal
and Bronowski variety
rapeseed meal in calf
rations. Journal
of Nutrition
104: 358-362
Sharma H R, Ingalls J R and Devlin T J 1980 Apparent
digestibility of Tower and Candle
rapeseed meals in Holstein bull calves. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 60:
915-918
Singh P K, Bhat
A S, Ganai A
M, Sarkar T K, Khan H M and
Islam R 2005
Effect
of substitution of groundnut cake with mustard cake on the growth
performance
and nutrients utilization of Corriedale
lambs. Animal Nutrition and Feed Technology 5:
163-170
Snedecor G W and Cochran W G 1989
Statistical Methods, 6th edition. The Iowa
State
College
Press, Ames, Iowa
Stedman J A and Hill R 1987
Voluntary feed
intake in a limited time of lambs and calves given diets containing rapeseed meal from
different
types and varieties of rape and mustard seed meal treated to reduce glucosinolate concentration.
Animal Production 44: 75-82
TERI 2003
The Energy and Research Institute, NATP on sustainable management of plant biodiversity: chemical characterization of
rapeseed - mustard for
glucosinolate content. TERI.
Project
Report no.
993364, submitted to
the national bureau of plant genetic resources, ICAR,
New
Delhi, pp.58
Van Soest P J,
Robertson J B and Lewis B A 1991
Methods for
dietary fiber,
neutral detergent
fiber and non-starch polysaccharide in relation
to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy
Science 74: 3583-3597
http://jds.fass.org/cgi/reprint/74/10/3583
Vashishtha S N,
Chauhan T R and Sagar
V 2000 Effect of
replacing groundnut cake with expeller and solvent extracted mustard
cake on growth
and nutrient
utilization in buffalo calves. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 70: 1242-1245
Vincent I C,
Thompsone J and Hill
R 1990 The effects on feed
intake
in weaned calves of low
glucosinolate rapeseed
meal as the sole protein
supplement. Animal
Production 50: 586
Wybenaga D R
and
Pileggi 1970 A
new
method for the direct
determination of serum cholesterol. Clinical Chemistry 16: 980
Received 7 July 2007; Accepted 27 July; Published 3 October 2007
Go to top