Livestock Research for Rural Development 19 (10) 2007 Guide for preparation of papers LRRD News

Citation of this paper

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

directorcasan@ivri.up.nic.in

 

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 Ámol/g) Brassica napus (genotype TERI-Uttam-Jawahar; RMLC)  and a mix of genotypes of high glucosinolate ((> 100 Ámol/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 Ámol/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 Ámol/g; TERI-Uttam-Jawahar (TUJ)) and a mix of genotypes of high glucosinolate Brassica juncea (>100 Ámol/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 Î 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 Ámol 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 (Ámol/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 Ámol/g concentrates, respectively


Soybean meal in control concentrate mixture (SBMC) was completely substituted with either canola quality Brassica napus genotype (<20 Ámol/g; TERI-Uttam-Jawahar (TUJ)) or a mix of genotypes of Brassica juncea (>100 Ámol/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 Î 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 Ámol/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 Ámol/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 Ámol/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 Ámol/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 Ámol/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 Ámol 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 Ámol/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

 

 

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