Effect of dried distillers' grain, soybean meal and grain or canola meal and grain-based supplements on forage intake and digestibility

Canola meal as a supplement for grass-fed beef cattle: Effects on growth rates, carcase and meat quality, and consumer sensory evaluations

The current study examined the growth rates, carcase characteristics, meat quality, and consumer sensory evaluation of the longissimus lumborum muscle (striploin) from steers that were supplemented with either canola meal or grain-based pellets. Forty Angus and Hereford × Angus steers received one of these two supplements with ad libitum lucerne hay for 60 d prior to slaughter. Average daily weight gain was not affected by dietary treatment; however, hot standard carcase weight was significantly lower for steers offered canola meal compared with steers on the grain-based pellets. Dietary treatment did not affect the carcase characteristics, meat quality traits, and consumer sensory evaluation, irrespective of ageing periods. Therefore, canola meal can be used as an approved Pasturefed Cattle Assurance System (PCAS) supplement on moderate dry quality forages without negatively affecting carcase and meat quality traits.

Feeding Canola, Camelina, and Carinata Meals to Ruminants

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

Ruminal pH predictions for beef cattle: Comparative evaluation of current models

This study evaluated 8 empirical models for their ability to accurately predict mean ruminal pH in beef cattle fed a wide range of diets. Models tested that use physically effective fiber (peNDF) as a dependent variable were Pitt et al. (1996, PIT), Mertens (1997, MER), Fox et al. (2004, FOX), Zebeli et al. (2006, ZB6), and Zebeli et al. (2008, ZB8), and those that use rumen VFA were Tamminga and Van Vuuren (1988, TAM), Lescoat and Sauvant (1995, LES), and Allen (1997, ALL). A data set of 65 published papers (231 treatment means) for beef cattle was assembled that included information on animal characteristics, diet composition, and ruminal fermentation and mean pH. Model evaluations were based on mean square prediction error (MSPE), concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), and regression analysis. The prediction potential of the models varied with low root MSPE (RMSPE) values of 4.94% and 5.37% for PIT and FOX, RMSPE values of 9.66% and 12.55% for ZB6 and MER, and intermediate RMSPE values of 5.66% to 6.26% for the other models. For PIT and FOX, with the lowest RMSPE, approximately 96% of MSPE was due to random error, whereas for ZB6 and MER, with the highest RMSPE, 15.85% and 23.42% of MSPE, respectively, was due to linear bias, and 37.19% and 60.12% of the error, respectively, was due to deviation of the regression slope from unity. The CCC was greatest for PIT (0.67) and FOX (0.62), followed by 0.60 for LES and TAM, 0.52 for ZB8, 0.39 for MER, 0.34 for ALL, and 0.22 for ZB6. Residuals plotted against model-predicted values showed linear bias (P < 0.001) for all models except PIT (P = 0.976) and FOX (P = 0.054) and mean bias (P < 0.001) except for FOX (P = 0.293), LES (P = 0.215), and TAM (P = 0.119). The study showed that the empirical models PIT and FOX, based on peNDF, and LES and TAM, based on VFA, are preferred over the others for prediction of mean ruminal pH in beef cattle fed a wide range of diets. Several animal (BW and intake), diet (forage and OM contents), and ruminal (ammonia and acetate concentrations) factors were (P < 0.001) related to the residuals for each model. We conclude that the accuracy of prediction of mean ruminal pH was relatively low for all extant models. Consideration of factors in addition to peNDF and total VFA, as well as the use of data from studies with continuous measurement of ruminal pH over 24 h or more, would be useful in the development of improved models for predicting ruminal pH in beef cattle.