Digestibility energy and amino acids of canola meal from two species (Brassica juncea and Brassica napus) fed to distal ileum cannulated grower pigs1

Abstract

Yellow-seeded Brassica juncea is a novel canola species targeted to grow in the southern Canadian prairies where thermotolerance, disease resistance, and adaptation to dry agronomic conditions are required. The support of its cultivation needs nutritional evaluation of its coproduct. The B. juncea canola meal (CM) contains less fiber than conventional, dark-seeded Brassica napus CM but also slightly less Lys. In a 6 × 6 Latin square, 6 distal ileum cannulated pigs (47 kg BW) were fed 6 diets to determine the apparent ileal digestibility (AID) and standardized ileal digestibility (SID) of CP and AA, AID and apparent total tract digestibility (ATTD) of energy, and VFA content in digesta and feces. Pigs were fed 6 diets: basal [46% wheat (Triticum aestivum) and corn (Zea mays) starch], 4 diets with 46% wheat and either B. juncea or B. napus CM at 25 or 50%, and a N-free diet based on corn starch. The B. juncea CM had higher (P < 0.05) ATTD of energy than B. napus CM (68.6 vs. 60.3%) likely due to its lower fiber content. Ileal total VFA was lower (P < 0.001) in pigs fed B. juncea than B. napus CM diets. In pigs fed B. juncea CM, the molar ratio in digesta was lower (P < 0.001) for acetate and butyrate whereas the propionate ratio was lower (P < 0.001) in feces than in pigs fed B. napus CM diets. The CM species did not affect the AID of energy, SID of AA, and feces VFA content. The DE value was higher (P < 0.05) and content of SID Lys was lower (P < 0.05) for B. juncea than B. napus CM. In conclusion, availability of B. juncea CM, a coproduct of a canola species grown in Canadian prairie land, will increase flexibility in swine feed formulation.

Feeding Brassica juncea or Brassica napus canola meal at increasing dietary inclusions to growing-finishing gilts and barrows

“…Greater CP content in B. juncea CM compared with B. napus CM was also reported by Montoya and Leterme (2009). However, lysine content was similar in the B. napus and B. juncea CM fed in this trial, whereas it is usually lower in B. juncea CM than B. napus CM (Bell et al, 1998;Le et al, 2012;Trindade Neto et al, 2012). The lysine content of B. juncea CM fed was higher than that observed by others (Collins et al, 2011;Landero et al, 2013;Le et al, 2014;Zhou et al, 2013Zhou et al, , 2014a.…”

“…Apparent total tract digestibility of GE, CP, ADF, NDF and DM are generally greater in B. juncea CM than B. napus CM (Bell et al, 1998;Le et al, 2012;Zhou et al, 2014b) although Montoya and Leterme (2009) did not report such findings. Apparent (AID) and standardised ileal digestibility (SID) of most amino acids have been reported to be similar between B. juncea and B. napus CM, whereas SID of some AA are greater for B. juncea than B. napus CM (Trindade Neto et al, 2012;Le et al, 2012;Zhou et al, 2014b).…”

“…Brassica juncea CM thus requires evaluation as a novel feedstuff for pigs. To date, limited research has been conducted to evaluate the nutrient content and digestibility of B. juncea CM in grower pigs (Bell et al, 1998;Montoya and Leterme, 2009;Collins et al, 2011;Trindade Neto et al, 2012;Le et al, 2012). To our knowledge, no research has compared growth performance, dressing, and carcass traits of pigs fed B. juncea vs. B. napus CM at high dietary inclusions.…”

Evaluation of collection method and diet effects on apparent digestibility and energy values of swine diets1

“…The ATTD of GE in canola meal was 60.3 to 68.6% depending on different NDF contents of varieties (Le et al, 2012). Rapeseed meals (canola meal) were shown to have lower apparent digestibility and energy values than soybean meal (May and Bell, 1971;Saben et al, 1971).…”

“…Fan and Sauer (1995) suggested that using the difference method, increasing the inclusion level of the test ingredient in the total diet decreased the standard errors of the estimates. In addition, the DE and NE of canola meal were numerically lower estimated at inclusion level of 25% than at 50% (Le et al, 2012). In the current study, the average estimates using the Day method were numerically greater by basal 1 vs. basal 2; whereas, means using basal 1 were numerically lower than using basal 2 by the MM method.…”